Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I think Deputy Munster used the phrase "if I was not opposed to it". I am not opposed to anything the Deputies have said here. I will accept an amendment later but there are very good reasons this amendment cannot be accepted, although that is regrettable. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Crowe and by others.

This is a pretty lawless activity and it is not acceptable. I and I am sure others have been subject to this and have seen unregulated vehicles of this sort. It is totally unfair. I regard it as a matter of great urgency. I will tell the Deputies why these amendments are inappropriate and they will probably understand the position.

I note that both proposals address this matter through amendments to the Taxi Regulation Act. That is the right place to deal with the matter and it is where I propose to deal with it as soon as possible, but it therefore falls outside the scope of the Road Traffic Bill as set out in the Long Title to the Bill. It is in the wrong place to deal with it. This does not mean that I am not accepting responsibility for it, I am, but it is not the right Bill in which to regulate rickshaws.

I am not citing this as a technical way to get out of the issue, because it is my responsibility, but I agree it has to be dealt with. However, I also believe it is important when we come to writing matters into law that we to proceed carefully and correctly.

The National Transport Authority, NTA, to which the Deputies have referred, is currently working on a proposed policy and potential framework for the future regulation of rickshaws which it has advised will be submitted to my Department by the end of January next, in just over a month's time. My Department and I will urgently consider the proposals when received with a view to obtaining Government approval to draft the heads of a Bill in the context of the Government's legislative programme.

While amendments Nos. 6 and 16 are to the Taxi Regulation Act, Deputy Troy's amendment No. 15 is not. Deputy Troy is proposing to amend the existing definition of a public service vehicle in the Road Traffic Acts and add a definition of "rickshaw". This is quite a sensible suggestion but changing the definition of a term set out in law can have, as we have already seen, many unforeseen consequences and I would be very concerned about the risk of changing such a well established definition as that of a public service vehicle. It would have many knock-on effects. The existing provisions relating to intoxicated driving, in particular with respect to public service vehicle drivers, would be impacted by such a change in the definition and there would be negative implications for these provisions. The definition of a rickshaw proposed around what a rickshaw is not is too wide to be of any meaningful effect.

I cannot give a definitive timeframe for the introduction of new legislation - it would be dishonest of me to say it will happen in March, May or June but I recognise it is a matter of urgency - until I receive and examine the proposals from the National Transport Authority, which should be within six weeks. I have stressed to the NTA the importance and urgency of submitting its proposals and it has given a timeframe in the early part of the first quarter.

I appeal to the Deputies to withdraw their proposals at this point to allow the NTA to develop a comprehensive response and to introduce legislation under the right Act to regulate rickshaws.

See this speech in context