John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle very much.

That aspect needs to be examined to see if we can strengthen the court system in the context of legislation to ensure this does not happen again.

I wish to discuss another example of the poor implementation of legislation in the context of another accident where the vehicle was impounded. We need to examine what happens to a vehicle that is impounded, how gardaí carry out their assessment of such a vehicle and how available the report is to the other party who might have been involved in the accident. My experience has been that people who seek reports from the gardaí may as well be writing to Santa Claus because they are not going to get a direct written reply. It is extremely difficult to extract the reports on road accidents from gardaí, especially when an insurance case is involved.

Information on the length of time for which a vehicle was impounded, and on where the vehicle might have gone after that, should be available because there could be evidence in terms of a case being taken. This needs to be examined, as well as the availability of information to the interested parties, so that the information is forthcoming without any hassle when it is asked for. I do not think that puts pressure on anyone because the reports should be made available.

We need to look at the vehicles coming from Northern Ireland to southern Ireland and have the same standard of operation in Northern Ireland as we have here so that there is an expectation that tax, insurance, vehicle numbers, roadworthiness certificates and all of the rest are in place. In the case of one accident, a truck came from Northern Ireland where an accident had occurred. The truck was from the North and had no tax, insurance or NCT. Gardaí were to examine the truck after the accident, but lo and behold there was no report. The truck was brought back to Northern Ireland.

In company law, when people are working for a company as a subcontractor there is an obligation on the person offering the contract to ensure the subcontractor has all of the appropriate tax and insurance available, be it employers, public liability or vehicle insurance. When an accident happens, however, there is a reluctance to pursue the person offering the contract if the subcontractor has no tax or insurance, etc. There needs to be a direct connection between that part of company law and road traffic law.

Responsibility must be taken by someone where a company is involved in a contract and subcontractor arrangement. Not enough is being made of the responsibility of the main contractor. Some of the mission statements of contractors have grand language and phrases to describe their responsibility, how they respond, what they demand of their employees, the company, its health and safety record and what it does with subcontractors. However, the implementation of such mission statements falls far short of what the statement describes. There is a need in company law governing that area to point out and strengthen the responsibility of a contractor when engaging a subcontractor. That is essential.

In respect of premiums, in cases involving road traffic accidents insurance companies fight with each other all of the time. Solicitors, barristers and senior counsel are all brought into the equation. A big company often beats down the individual and pushes him or her off the pitch, and there is a large settlement or no settlement. If there is no settlement, that means justice could not have been done because the might, power and money of the corporate has defeated the individual. The legislation must reflect the rights of the individual and reflect or give a pathway to an individual who is trying to defend himself or herself against a large company that is prepared to put obstacles in the way and string a case out. In the end, the person is defeated not in court but by being bullied off the pitch.

That is an experience I have had with a constituent. I have discussed it with him. It is unusual to see the person who was not responsible for having insurance being the one that carries the cost in court arising from a court case when, in fact, it is the company that employed the person that should have carried the cost. The courts can overlook the detail of some of the cases before them in the rush to get sorted or can be impressed by a lawyered-out company that is taking a case against an individual.

I would like to see a greater connection between company law, companies' responsibility for insuring their vehicles and the listing of insurance. It has been suggested during this debate that there should be a motor insurance bureau in Ireland. I fully support that. I believe every effort should be made not just to commence it from today, but to examine how we could bring some historical perspective to that type of list and build it up properly over the years. Far too often, one sees that in accidents that those with money can spend it on their legal teams and get through the courts without any great fine at the end of it. That is not justice, and it involves ignoring, bypassing and using the law to one's benefit.

I examined some of the statistics around Shane O'Farrell's case. The person involved never served a six-month sentence. Relating to this, some 31,422 crimes were committed by those on bail. That equated to 604 per week, a figure which increased by 70% the following year. If legislation is being properly policed and managed through the courts, that type of statistic should not exist.

The M50 is mentioned in the Bill. I would like the motorway from Dublin to Kilkenny, the road I use, to benefit from similar signage mentioned in the Bill. I have seen it used and it is very effective. When one leaves Dublin city centre to get onto the motorway, the different speed limits are very confusing. One can pass very easily from a speed limit of 100 km/h to 80 km/h. One is watching the traffic and everything else. There needs to be a review of the speed limits along that route.

In some of the areas where one can pull in to rest, park or whatever, there should be some basic facilities. That is not part of the Bill.

The areas for pulling in and resting for trucks and cars are in place. I am not referring to any elaborate facilities, but there should be basic facilities.

See this speech in context