Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party will also support the Bill, while reserving the right to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage. On the issue of scramblers, specifically, it is most welcome to see some overdue action on their use, and that of quad bikes and other vehicles, when they are associated with antisocial behaviour. We know there have a number of Private Members' Bills on this matter over the years and action to tackle it cannot come soon enough. In particular, we pay tribute to the former Lord Mayor of Dublin, Andrew Montague, who has been critical of the scourge of these vehicles for many years now.

Despite the Road Traffic Act and other relevant legislation available in this area, Garda authorities have indicated that the use of quad bikes and scramblers by minors and youths in public parks has proven difficult to deal with from an enforcement perspective. Members of An Garda Síochána are instructed not to pursue youths on quad bikes, scramblers and so on, owing to the inherent safety risk in pursuing these vehicles. If such pursuits were to take place, there would be a high risk of them ending in collisions at speed, resulting in serious injury or death. As a result, bringing these vehicles to a stop is challenging. We welcome any attempts to stamp out that scourge via legislation. That is to be welcomed in the Bill.

We hope the Minister of State will offer some clarity, however, in respect of the practicality of stopping young offenders on dangerous vehicles.

The problem surrounding the misuse of quad bikes and scramblers has become more and more prevalent in the past five years and in the past few years there have been some particularly tragic ends for individuals using these vehicles. A number of accidents, some fatal, have been caused by individuals on scrambler motorcycles colliding with or driving into parked cars. By restricting where such vehicles can lawfully drive, we would hold them accountable to safe driving practices, not just for the safety of the public but also their own, as we need to protect them as well. The sad fact is that many owners of such vehicles who engage in antisocial behaviour are young and inexperienced drivers who seek the thrill of driving recklessly and think it is above the odds that they will be involved in an accident. We welcome the provisions within the legislation. However, we will be seeking further clarity on how they will be policed thereafter.

There is another provision within the Bill on which I seek clarity. It relates to the powers of An Bord Pleanála. As I understand it, new powers will be vested in An Bord Pleanála to permit new roads, which could theoretically supersede any local development plans or county development plans. I seek clarity on this because my thinking on it may not be absolutely correct. As I understand it, a new power is to be vested in An Bord Pleanála to approve schemes or proposed road developments that could materially contravene any county development plan. Section 45 of the Bill states:

The Act of 1993 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 51A: “51AA.An Bord Pleanála shall approve a scheme, or a proposed road development, that contravenes materially any development plan or any local area plan (within the meaning of the Act of 2000) only if it considers that one of the following is the case:

(a) the scheme or proposed road development is of strategic, regional or national importance;

(b) there are conflicting objectives in the development plan or the objectives are not clearly stated, insofar as the scheme or proposed road development is concerned;

(c) the scheme or proposed road development should be approved having regard to the transport strategy made under section 12 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008, the regional spatial and economic strategy for the area, guidelines under section 28 of the Act of 2000, policy directives under section 29 of the Act of 2000, the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area, and any relevant policy of the Government, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage or any Minister of the Government.

There are other areas but I do not need to quote them. Where do local area plans and county development plans stand in light of this new provision? Is it the case that An Bord Pleanála will supersede by its actions any plan that has been made by the members via the reserved function they have on local authorities? If that is the case, my initial reaction is that that would be a worrying trend. It could be argued that there is regulatory overreach inherent in that provision. However, I remain open-minded and I await the Minister of State's response to that fear. I am sure she will allay my fears. I have no doubt about that. However, I feel it is important to raise this as an issue, particularly as local authority members guard preciously their right to make their plan in the best interests of the people they represent in the areas they represent. I seek further clarity on that issue.

There is another issue that is not pertinent to this Bill, but given that the Bill speaks to road safety and ensuring that there is a regime and a system in this country whereby road users have the benefits of robust legislation to ensure they can go about their business in the best way possible, I will raise it. As we know, driver testing is now controlled by the Road Safety Authority, RSA. I have been informed that 32 testers are about to have their contracts terminated between December of this year and April of next year, across three cohorts. I worry greatly about that because during the lockdown, each and every one of us was inundated with requests from our constituents about driver testing, whether that was the theory test, the practical test or people not getting timely dates for testing and being sent all over the country in order to pursue their tests as candidates. That was particularly true in respect of the theory test. If it is the case that driver testers employed through the RSA are to be let go, and I understand there are 32 in this cohort who are on temporary contracts at present, then I worry greatly about the throughput of applicants who might get caught in the cross hairs of those job losses if they are to occur. I seek some latitude from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on this as I know it is not germane to the Bill. I fully appreciate that but it does speak to the issue of road safety. If 32 driver testers are to be let go by the RSA, that would dent any confidence there is within the system. Some clarity on that would be very welcome.

There is also the issue of the role of Transport Infrastructure Ireland in planning applications. It goes back to the point I made specifically about the new role to be defined for An Bord Pleanála. We all know that on national secondary routes in particular, when planning applications come in from genuine applicants who are seeking to build houses, sometimes on family-owned land and very often on a site they would have acquired or are acquiring subject to planning permission, when they make the application to the local authority, correspondence is put on the file by Transport Infrastructure Ireland as regards its perceived opposition to any planning applications made to a local authority where they are contiguous to, adjacent to or in close proximity to a national secondary route. At face value, that would appear, theoretically, to be laudable as it would ensure there are not more vehicles coming out onto a national primary or secondary route. However, it seems to have become practice regardless of taking into account the particular mitigating circumstances of individual planning applications. Where there are genuine applications made for housing on the basis of a genuine need and fulfilling all the conditions as laid down in rural planning guidelines, there seems to be a root-and-branch rule by TII to write submissions on planning applications. It does not quite oppose them but it expresses reservations. This seems to be a uniform approach and it is having a detrimental impact on the ability of people to build houses in rural areas. Is this something that could be looked at in the context of either planning or road safety? We all accept TII's bona fides. However, from time to time there are mitigating circumstances and it is perceived to be overly strident in its attitude towards individual planning applications where there are mitigating circumstances. That is an issue that affects thousands of people right across the State who seek to make a planning application.

It would be remiss of me, as I have done so previously privately, not to mention the N73 Mallow to Mitchelstown Road. It is a national secondary route and arguably one of the worst such routes in the country.

See this speech in context