Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

While the Bill contains many positive measures, I regret the imposition of a guillotine on this debate. In the case of this Bill, the use of the guillotine will prevent a robust discussion with operators and others who have an interest in the Bill. Furthermore, insufficient time has been allowed between the debates on Second and Committee Stages for the tabling of amendments. That is regrettable. Some Deputies now on the Government benches complained bitterly about this practice when they were in opposition. This is not the way to do business, although I understand there is a time constraint on the Bill which contains good measures which it is necessary for us to enact within a timeframe.

Licensing arrangements have developed in a haphazard manner. In many cases, it is a mere box-ticking exercise, as opposed to achieving the genuine intent of licensing, which is to ensure the utmost safety. It is not enough to make provision for the issuing of licences. We must look at who the licensing authority is, how licensing arrangements will be enforced, whether the authority has the necessary resources and the licensing system can be properly complied with, as opposed to conforming to a paper exercise. Licensing requirements should not impact unfairly on the trade and should allow for a free operation of trade.

An industry servicing the safety and licensing requirements has sprung up and associated fees charged for annual renewals can be high. Licensing is haphazard. A driver needs a driving licence and several types of licence, depending on the vehicle being driven. A driver must have a driving licence, a driver card and a certificate of professional competence, CPC, which is an annual licence. There can also be specialised licences. A driver must carry all of these in the vehicle at all times. When the legislation is being looked at again, a more consolidated arrangement could be put in place, whereby one card would be sufficient.

This matter has been on the back burner. It was known since 2009 that primary legislation would be required to comply with EU regulations, but legislation is being introduced at the eleventh hour. We must examine why this happens.

I would like to have heard from the Road Safety Authority, the Irish Road Haulage Association, the Garda and other interested bodies on how the legislation will work for them in practice. Much of what we do in many areas does not work in practice, although it is very good in theory. It does not work because we do not match the academic with the practical and this leads to difficulty in delivery.

I do not wish to be too critical of the Bill because there are good things in it, but I am focusing on the areas in which I have concerns. We have an over-bureaucratic approach to documentation. Drivers of road haulage and passenger vehicles are required to obtain a certificate of professional competence and pass an annual evaluation in order to keep the certificate. The examination is not an actual driving test and can be taken over a period over one week. It must be taken on an annual basis. It is right that there is ongoing scrutiny of competence. There are further competency tests for more specialised haulage services, requiring additional certificates. It would be simpler to require that a driver carry a single document containing all the required information.

Some of the tests of competence are carried out by private sector companies. I do not have a particular problem with this, except that they give different types of certificates. A garda or someone involved in enforcement has to scrutinise various types of documents and a driver must carry several pieces of paper. We must examine the practical aspects of this.

The Bill places an onus on the operator to present drivers with the required documentation, but it provides no defence for the driver. The Bill assumes that every driver is a full-time and permanent employee and can challenge his or her employer. Many drivers work on a casual and seasonal basis. The Bill places the entire obligation on the driver to challenge the employer. An employer might decide such a driver is too much trouble and simply say, "You are not needed next week." When so many are unemployed, we must consider such difficulties. A driver might be glad to get two or three days work, particularly in a sector which is always under pressure. I understand road haulage is traditionally one of the riskiest sectors in which to survive. Will the Minister consider this matter?

Due diligence in the mandatory reporting of offences is important, particularly where a driver might have access to vulnerable persons. Nevertheless, the requirement placed on the driver to supply in writing his or her criminal record, if any, might not work in practice. Given the casual nature of the business, would it not be better to put emphasis on the operator seeking the information?

Will the Minister refer to an inconsistency in the Bill, namely, that the minimum age at which someone can drive a heavy goods vehicle, HGV, is 18 years, whereas the minimum age at which someone can drive a passenger vehicle is 21 years? A certain level of maturity might be required in the latter case, as the load is more vulnerable, but we must consider whether the same kevel of maturity is required to drive a HGV in the light of the need to be aware of pedestrians, cyclists and so on. I do not know why there is a three year difference. Will the Minister revert to the House on the matter?

I welcome the provision allowing the Road Safety Authority, RSA, to prosecute offences. Anecdotally, there are sizable problems with the enforcement - or lack thereof - of licensing. I would be the first to say the RSA does great work, as attested to by the decrease in the number of road deaths. However, the lack of resources means that, at best, only spot tests are possible. Once drivers become aware of the limitations, enforcement arrangements will be impacted on. People will take risks if they know there is a chance they will get away with it. While the traffic corps does good work, the reduction in Garda numbers will impact on the corps and reduce its effectiveness. We should keep in mind the practical versus academic test of whether a measure can be enforced properly.

I encourage the Minister to examine the websites of tour operators. They offer terrific tours with drivers who, in many cases, are also guides. Given the itineraries presented on these sites, their drivers could not possibly be taking the rest periods required under the law. It would take the Minister ten minutes to figure this out in examining their websites. People are, undoubtedly, being put at risk by this practice.

The Minister will retain the power to set the level of fees people must pay for the amendment, duplication, grant or replacement of licences. Is it intended that the administrative cost of the process will be the only amount charged or will more be charged? I would not want anything other than the cost of administering licences to be charged. Given the casual nature of the job, it should always be borne in mind that the cost of going to work is a significant issue.

See this speech in context