Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Seanad amendments Nos. 1. 2, 9 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 to 15, inclusive, 23, 35, 71, 72 and 75 are related and may be discussed together.

I must here point out that the Minister has indicated that he will request a Clerk's correction in respect of two additional cross-references which are in error in the current print of the Bill and are linked to Seanad amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. I direct the Clerk to make a correction in respect of two additional cross-references in the same section of the Bill which were inadvertently omitted. The requested corrections are that the reference to section 23D on page 12, line 33 should read "section 23E" and the reference to section 23B on page 13, line 5 should read "section 23C". Page and line references are to the Bill as administratively reprinted to incorporate changes by the committee amendments in the Seanad. I hereby direct the Clerk to incorporate the two changes the Minister has requested.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Seanad amendments Nos. 16 to 22, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Seanad amendments No. 24 to 30, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The efficiency of the House has meant things have moved quicker than I expected. I wanted to speak to some of the earlier amendments.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The earlier amendments have been dealt with.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. From a general perspective, I appreciate the enormous work the Seanad has put into this Bill. I also commend the Minister. This Bill deals with a wide range of topics to do with road traffic. At its initial publication, I was most interested in section 5, which deals with scrambler bikes. My only comment around this amendment and the others that are before us is that I wish to see speedy implementation of this Bill. I do not want to see any delay. I see Deputy Conway-Walsh in the Chamber. I know Deputies from all parties, including Sinn Féin, the Labour Party, the Social Democrats, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, have put forward Private Members' Bills, amendments and motions in this House to try to solve the issue of scrambler bikes. That issue is a scourge to the people of my community and many others. There are people who will be very grateful for this legislation and I hope the President will sign the Bill into law quickly to allow the Minister to introduce the regulations to put in place the key provision that allows gardaí the power to enter the curtilage of properties, to have a fixed penalty notice of €5,000, to give the Minister the ability to regulate certain vehicles and to introduce further restrictions. Most important is the ability to remove the obligation for such a vehicle to be in a public place, which was one of the issues with which gardaí on the ground were struggling.

There are safety forums, which are very important. Residents from right across the country are involved. This legislation came from those forums. The Garda, the Attorney General and Ministers were all saying we did not a change to legislation but we did. Why did we do it? We did it because people on the ground were telling us to do it. I particularly welcome to the Gallery members of the Fingal Safety Forum, representing Finglas Tidy Towns and the Finglas South Combined Residents Association. They also represent many more people in places such as Cabra, Darndale, Ballyfermot, Moyross and others throughout the country. It is they who forced this change. I thank the Government for listening and for putting in place the measures in this legislation.

I will not speak further to the Bill other than to thank the Minister for the amendments that have been made. It now must come to implementation. While the Garda has supported the residents to introduce this legislation, it now must be given the resources and have the ambition to ensure these new laws are enforced.

There is no point in us passing laws in here without them being implemented.

This is a scourge in our communities. It rocks the confidence people have in the Garda Síochána because if it is so blatantly happening in your community, you have no confidence the Garda can tackle far more serious crimes. We know that is not the case. We know the Garda wants to solve it. It has asked for these powers and we have given those powers to it. My only comment on the amendment before the House is that we should do nothing that delays the implementation of section 5.

I thank the Minister for the work he has done. I should acknowledge, to be fair, that the Tánaiste, Deputy Martin, did a lot of work pulling together different Departments - those of the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, who has provided community funding as well. There is a real cross-party but also cross-government element. It is a good sign when a problem arises that Government listens and delivers a result.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo Deputy McAuliffe's point. This is part of a long process. It has taken a long time because it is complex legislation. It has so many different aspects.

I absolutely accept what the Deputy said about the use of scramblers, which relates to an earlier section. This is a real issue for communities across this country and across Dublin city. I commend members of Deputy McAuliffe's community in Finglas who have been involved in trying to highlight and address the problem. I am glad we will be able, subject to it being agreed today, to get the President to sign it and then, as the Deputy says, to put it into action to protect our people. I agree with the Deputy.

The amendment relates to powered personal transporters. It creates a new category of vehicles, which includes e-scooters.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related and may be taken together.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a need to discuss these two amendments?

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are largely technical.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 33, 36 to 56, inclusive, 58 to 64, inclusive, and 66 to 70, inclusive, are related and may be taken together.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister need to address this grouping of amendments?

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might, if I can, because this and another amendment are a development from the Dáil debate and are not technical in nature. Section 45 will insert a new section 77A into the Roads Act 1993 which will provide the basis in future for the use of traffic cameras and other data-gathering devices by Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, and local authorities and for the use of data from those cameras as part of this process.

Section 41 inserts a number of definitions into section 2 of the Roads Act. The present group of amendments provides a number of enhancements to these provisions. Some of the devices concerned may not fit neatly into the definition of cameras or CCTV, for example, devices which clock speed. We are, therefore, allowing for a wider range of devices here using the term "other data-gathering devices".

We are proposing to introduce a power under which kinds of other data-gathering devices in question must be specified in regulations. This is to ensure proper control over the type of devices which may be used. This will add extra safeguards as to the type of data-gathering devices which can be used but will also avoid the risks of unintended situations. For example, if it were not clear that this section related to a specific type of devices identified in regulations, it might be possible to argue that a staff phone issued by TII which had a camera on it was a data-gathering device covered by this legislation.

The amendments will also allow both local authorities and TII to outsource the setting up and operating of cameras if they wish. In practice, it is envisaged these functions, like many other functions of public bodies, may be outsourced and it is important to allow this option to ensure the policy intent behind section 77A is carried out. I emphasise that outsourcing will not in any way diminish the legal protections in place surrounding the security and use of any data obtained via cameras or data-gathering devices. Any processing of personal data, whether by local authorities, TII or outside contractors, remains subject to the Data Protection Act as well as the further provisions for data protection included in section 77A.

Furthermore, we are allowing for local authorities to operate cameras on national managed roads with the consent of TII and for TII to operate cameras on public roads with the consent of the relevant local authority. This will offer an opportunity for TII and local authorities to co-operate in cases where it makes sense to do so.

The remaining amendments in the current grouping are essentially technical amendments to revise the numbering within section 77A or to clarify matters.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the issues that has come up continually around the country is the flagrant abuse of road traffic incidents. I saw a recent case where there was a scooter on the M50, which is terribly dangerous. It was a dashcam that picked it up. I am sure that if there are cameras there, they need to be used in that respect.

It brings to mind one of the aspects of this where often it is the public who will alert someone to situations of that nature. Often there is not sufficient technology in place to be able to make these detections or to be able to use the evidence of that detection in the way it should have been used in the past. It is to be hoped this amendment to the Bill will do that.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Kenny and am glad of his support.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 57 and 65 are related and may be taken together.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister want to elaborate in any way on these two?

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is substantial. The amendments made in the Seanad were not insignificant. During the passage of the Bill through the Seanad, the issue of data protection related to traffic cameras and other devices was raised. Any processing of personal data is, by definition, subject to the general data protection regulation, GDPR. In addition, the Bill contains a number of further provisions which offer an extra level of data protection. These provisions include the option of making regulations on data protection in two ways. In the new section 77A, which we are inserting into the Roads Act 1993, subsection (6) allows for the making of regulations for the sharing of these data. Subsection (7) then states that regulations under subsection (6) may provide that data only be provided to persons or access to data only be given to persons on specified conditions. Following consideration of points raised in the Seanad, I agreed that "may" in this case should be changed to "shall". The effect is that if regulations are being made on the sharing of data obtained from the devices covered by section 77A, the regulations must address these data protection issues.

Similarly, we are changing "may" to "shall" in subsection (10) of section 77A. This is another subsection allowing for regulations relating to data protection. Regulations under subsection (10) would apply to anyone handling data from the devices, including local authorities and the TII, whereas those under subsection (7) relate only to data being shared with other bodies. These subsection (10) regulations relate to a range of protections such as encryption and ensuring only appropriate personnel within an organisation have access to the data. As with subsection (7), I believe it is important we ensure this kind of protection is mandatory and not optional and this will be the effect of changing "may" to "shall" in subsection (10).

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

7 o’clock

Seanad amendment No. 58:

Section 45: In page 55, line 36, after “that” to insert “personal”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it that Dáil Éireann has agreed to amendments Nos. 1 to 76, inclusive, made by Seanad Éireann to the Road Traffic and Roads Bill 2021.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I might make a closing remark, I thank the Ceann Comhairle for facilitating the Bill in being reported back from the Seanad. This has been an example of the Houses working well, given there were some significant amendments from the Seanad. I very much welcome and appreciate Senators' contributions to the legislation. It is very wide ranging in its implications and will have significant benefits for local communities, road safety, insurance and so on. I could not list the full extent of the provisions in the Bill.

Finally, I commend our civil servants within the Department, who have done a very important job of public service. I thank them and those in both the Bills Office and the Office of the Attorney General for their eagle eyes. This is complex legislation, but I think we have delivered something substantial. It is important in the history of our transport legislation and, more than anything else, I thank the officials for delivering it.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and all concerned. I understand Deputy Lahart wishes to make a contribution.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister and his officials. I brought forward a Bill during the previous Dáil regarding the issue of the antisocial use of scramblers, and my party colleague, Deputy McAuliffe, and I introduced a stand-alone Bill on that issue way back when the Dáil was sitting in the convention centre. Sometimes I find it hard to believe that was during this Dáil term. The issue has been a source of great frustration to communities, so it is very welcome it is being dealt with here and that the provisions will come to pass quickly. I welcome also a number of the other measures and look forward, having pushed for them, to the implementation of those measures relating to the M50 and gantries, which are most welcome.

The Minister knows my view on e-scooters but I might reiterate it for the record. Although I support the Bill, I think we have made a mistake here and I hope we will not rue the day. We ought to have introduced e-scooters by way of the public scheme, as was done in the UK. The bulk of e-scooter accidents in the UK relate to private e-scooters, given the size, shape, speed and safety fit of them all simply cannot be monitored. As someone who has been very engaged in this space over the past three years, I have witnessed an enormous improvement in the build quality of the public offering of rental e-scooter equipment. The reservations people have had have been taken on board and there have been considerable improvements to the vehicles. In the meantime, illegal e-scooters have been on our roads and motorways.

People want e-scooters, but the public scheme would have been the best way to introduce them to bed them in, preferably during Covid, as was done in the UK as a filler-in for public transport because of the social distancing rules that applied. They are a small but key part of the jigsaw of public transport and they are exciting, but I do not how we are going to regulate or police the privately owned ones. In the case of public ones, we can govern the speed, geofence them and regulate where they can or cannot go and where they can or cannot be parked. I fear we are going to end up with a lot of e-scooter litter on our streets, that they are going to cause accidents and that people are going to become sick and tired of them before long.

That said, the rest of the Bill and all the measures constitute monumental work. It is a huge piece of spring-cleaning in traffic legislation and for that, the Minister needs to be strongly commended, as do the efforts of his officials, on bringing forward and getting agreement on such colossal legislation.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend the Minister and his staff. This is extensive legislation that covers myriad issues that have been around for a long time. Some of the more modern problems we have, such as those relating to scramblers, needed to be dealt with effectively. I still have some fear about the issues relating to public space and so on but it is nonetheless a great advance on where we are. The issues of e-scooters, electric bikes and so on, and how they will be governed in future, are something we will probably return to, given they will be developed more and more as time passes, but it is good work and I commend the Minister and all his staff on all the work that has gone into it. My predecessor dealt with most of its passage and, therefore, I commend him and everyone else who made a positive contribution to advance some good legislation, which is what we need to do in this House.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the benefit of anyone looking in who may be somewhat surprised at the rate at which we proceeded through the 76 amendments, the Bill has been in gestation for some time. It has been given very careful consideration, having been debated at length on its first run through this House before going to the Seanad, where the Minister took on board observations and proposals that were made, after which he came forward with his own amendments. Everything has been thoroughly ventilated and considered. I congratulate everyone involved.