Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I intend to share time with Deputy Curran and Deputy John Brassil by permission of the House.

I compliment Deputy Ellis on using Sinn Féin's Private Members' time to bring forward this Bill in his attempt to try to address the current lacuna in the law. Deputy Ellis referred to the urgency of the matter. He also noted that he introduced the Bill in the Dáil a year and a half ago, but it has taken Sinn Féin 18 months to use Private Members' business to bring the Bill to the floor of the Dáil.

My colleague, Deputy John Curran, raised the matter in a parliamentary question to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, in December 2016. In his reply, the Minister stated the Garda had sufficient powers to deal with this menace. We know that is not the case. The delay in the Minister coming to the realisation that there needs to be a change in this law has resulted in the ongoing illegal use of these quads by people who are terrorising others in public places, often causing serious injury. My colleague, Councillor Paul McAuliffe, has raised this issue on several occasions at meetings of the joint policing committee. He too is keen to see legislation to address this issue. However, our job is to ensure that we enact robust legislation that is not open to challenge and does not undermine other legislation.

I realise Sinn Féin is looking over to see what Fianna Fáil is doing on this. We know Sinn Féin is a latecomer to the law of the land, but the simple fact of the matter is that we must ensure any legislation passed in the House is robust and accurate. Not only will this legislation, if enacted, be open to challenge but it has the capacity to render all other traffic legislation vulnerable to legal challenge and impede enforcement of the law of the land. I cannot imagine anyone wants to see such an outcome.

Several legal challenges have been brought against prosecutions of road traffic offences on the basis of whether the alleged offences took place in a private place. Over the years, the definition of "public place" in the context of road traffic law has been strengthened as a result of these cases and the understanding of the courts has been deeply enriched. Amending the definition of "public place", as this Bill proposes, would potentially undo much of the work that has been done. The current definition of a "public place" in the road traffic legislation is "any public road" and "any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge".

This Private Members' Bill proposes to amend section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1994, which concerns the detention of vehicles, and expand the definition of "public place" by adding the following meaning: "any outdoor area including public parks to which members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or as a trespasser or otherwise and which is used for public recreational purposes".

It took the Minister months, if not years, to bring forward an amendment to the road traffic laws. As I indicated, 18 months ago he took the view there was no need to address this issue. There was, however, a clear need to address the issue. In December 2017, the Law Society of Ireland called on the Government to tear up the current road traffic laws and start again. Its chief executive, Ken Murphy, stated:

Road Traffic Acts in Ireland are needlessly complex and confusing and need urgent consolidation and simplification.

There is consensus within the legal profession that Road Traffic legislation is needlessly complex and confusing, as they were described by the late Supreme Court judge, Justice Adrian Hardiman. There are 22 different Acts on the books that deal with road traffic laws, with hundreds of other tangentially-related pieces of legislation that require consideration when judges are adjudicating on road law violations.

David Staunton, the barrister and author of the book “Drunken Driving”, has argued that we need to tear up the current system and start again. That is a conclusion that our profession would support.

Such needless complexity in legislation undermines public confidence in the justice system.

The Minister stated he supports the principle of the Bill. We on this side also want to see the principle realised. I have no doubt Deputy Ellis is sincere and genuine about the legislation and we want the matter addressed. Earlier, I asked Deputy Ellis whether he would be prepared to withdraw this Bill for two months to enable the Department of Justice and Equality to work with him and other Deputies to bring forward legislation that will not leave other road traffic legislation open to challenge. That might be a way to move this forward. Will the Minister give such a commitment?

The Minister said that road safety is of paramount concern to him in his role as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. To be fair, it is one of few areas on which he has been able to bring forward legislation in the Dáil in the two years since his appointment. When does he intend to follow the advice of the Law Society of Ireland and begin working as a matter of priority to address the complexities of the road traffic legislation?

Does he intend to consolidate it to ensure it is fit for purpose, not open to challenge and that it will reduce the number of serious injuries and fatalities on our roads?

The other recommendation the Law Society made to the Government in December last year was the need to increase the number of judges because of the backlog in getting cases addressed by the judicial system. We know that the only intervention from the Minister, Deputy Ross, regarding the appointment of judges is the prevention and holding up of the appointment of judges. If we want people convicted of road traffic offences put off the road, we need more judges in the District Court to hear those cases and ensure that offenders are suspended and put off the road.

Deputy Curran and Councillor Paul McAuliffe have raised this issue previously. My colleague and our deputy party leader, Deputy Dara Calleary, produced a Bill on it. There is cross-party support for ensuring that a solution can be achieved in regard to this menace on our roads and in public spaces, but we have to be conscious that we do it right, that it is fit for purpose and not open to legal challenge. I ask Sinn Féin to withdraw the Bill and work with us in Fianna Fáil and the Government to ensure we can bring forward robust legislation that will not be open to interpretation or legal challenge.

See this speech in context