Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

I thank Senators for their contributions and co-operation in getting this Bill passed. As is often the case, better points were raised in this House than perhaps in the other one. The advantage of fewer speakers always helps a little bit. Senator O'Sullivan said this was rushed legislation. It is not really rushed. It is sound and I have every confidence in the Dáil and the Seanad identifying any flaws which may be in it as part of the parliamentary and scrutiny process. If any flaws arise at a later stage, I will share responsibility for that with the good Members of this House and the other one.

Admittedly, it is urgent legislation and I apologise to this House for introducing the Bill in this way without giving it the notice and respect it deserves in that regard. I am also conscious that it is the second time in eight months that I have come to this House and the other one with legislation which had to be brought in before a particular deadline. I am not very happy about that. In less than ten months, I have asked for an earlier signature motion on two occasions. It is not always the fault of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Sometimes the Attorney General's advice comes at a late stage and sometimes the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is not able to get things done in time. However, I have expressed my concerns about that to my Secretary General and officials and it is my intention that when I come back to the House with road transport or road traffic legislation, it will be comprehensive, well thought out after wide consultation and not a piece of a Bill which must be brought in because it could not be done in time or for some other reason.

In response to Senator O'Sullivan, this relates to somebody who has a conviction for a serious crime. That person's requirement is only to inform the Minister. It does not automatically ban anyone who is guilty of these convictions from getting a passenger transport or road haulage licence. The Minister needs to take it into account in making the decision but there is not an automatic ban. The fine is €500,000, which is a maximum one. When levying fines, judges will perhaps levy fines much lower than that. The current maximum is just over €6,000 and I think we all agree that is too low. We set a very high bar here to give the Judiciary substantial discretion in what fines it may levy. I guess we are also providing for hyper-inflation. Should that occur in the next few years, we will not need to come back to amend this legislation.

I confirm to Senator O'Sullivan that the transport of agricultural produce, such as turf, milk and so on, is still exempt and it is stated in other legislation, so I do not need to restate it in this Bill. Again, it shows the advantage of having consolidated road transport legislation which would be easy for people to use and would cover all the exemptions in one place instead of in different places as is the case now.

In regard to transport operators acting on their own account, that is not regulated at the moment and, therefore, is not covered by this Bill. I refer, for example, to a company like Tesco which does its own distribution. In the North, that is now falling under regulation and we may consider a permit system in the future. The RSA is looking at that but for now, we do not propose to regulate operators that transport their own goods and do not charge for it. It is different when one is carrying one's own goods and one is not charging for it or looking for reward.

In regard to cabotage, quite frankly, the system is daft. I only learned about it in recent times and it is really a daft system. We have a single European market and I cannot understand why we do not have a single market in transport. If I want to fly an aeroplane, we have open skies but one cannot do that in haulage for some reason which I do not understand. The provision for cabotage issues is included in EU regulation No. 1072 which has direct application. I will make necessary national regulations this week to set out the offences and penalties and I will set a maximum penalty of €500,000 for conviction or indictment with regard to cabotage offences. The cabotage provisions themselves cannot be changed as they are set out in EU legislation. The application of those regulations in any member state is a matter for that state.

I am aware of the desire of the industry for clarity in regard to cabotage, in particular in the UK. My Department has been engaged in bilateral discussions with the UK authorities to see if guidelines on the application of cabotage can be put together for the information of operators.

The House might be interested to know that the opening up of the national and international markets is a European Commission policy under its transport White Paper for 2011 to 2020. I support this objective and, if I am still in office, I hope to be able to make progress on this issue as President of the transport Council in 2013.

Taxi regulation is a matter for the Minister of State, Deputy Kelly. It is being reviewed and I expect he will propose legislative changes in the Houses in due course.

Tax and excise are matters for the Minister for Finance. He is aware of my views on further taxes and excises on petrol and diesel. From a public transport point of view, the cloud has a silver lining. Although increased excises and taxes on fuel increase costs for CIE and private operators, they encourage more people to use public transport. This must be borne in mind, given that transport is the second largest contributor of CO2 emissions, contrary to many Opposition Senators' claims that it is the largest.

Senator O'Neill discussed toll evasion by hauliers. While it occurs, judging the level is difficult and I have seen no good research that has been able to assess the scale. Since most toll plazas are contracted public private partnerships, PPPs, neither I nor the National Roads Authority, NRA, have the discretion to vary the tolls. Rather, they are varied in line with inflation. In the long term, a vignette system would be the best, whereby a haulier would buy a pass and be able to use motorways freely for a year or however long. Such a system would be complicated, though, as we would need to renegotiate agreements with the PPP operators. Many of them are losing money and would love an opportunity to re-open negotiations, but these would be for their benefit and not necessarily the benefit of motorists or taxpayers.

It is important to point out to the sector that heavy goods vehicles, HGVs, do more damage to road surfaces than the average person in a small car. They pay the highest tolls to contribute their share to roads' upkeep.

Senator Barrett claimed that the sector was being picked on, but that is not the case. The vast majority of hauliers, road transport operators and passenger operators are of good repute. However, there is a problem with compliance among private and State operators in many parts of the sector. The industry is being licensed and regulated and is not being picked on. We are aiming for good repute, which is covered in the regulations.

The Senator made a valid point about butchers, bankers and other professionals who either do not need to be licensed or do not need to jump through hoops like these. Issues of proportionality must be taken into account during the full review of the legislation and in future legislation. However, many of the Bill's provisions were included for a reason. For example, there is an obvious reason one would not want to give a haulier a licence if he or she had a conviction for drug smuggling or human trafficking. If the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport or another body gave a convicted drug smuggler or human trafficker a licence, it would find itself in a difficult position if the person repeated those acts. A similar issue arises in respect of passenger transport operators. If someone was a convicted paedophile, rapist or murderer, questions would be asked if a Department or Government body gave him or her a licence to drive people at night, as the person would be exposed to vulnerable people on their own.

The situation is not the same as that of a butcher or candlestick maker. Particular issues relate to this industry. However, the Senator's general point was valid and we must ensure that the licensing requirements applied to the sector in future are proportionate and reasonable and that we are not merely devising a list of serious convictions for the sake of it, in that they must be relevant.

The licensing, good repute arrangements and enforcement provisions apply equally to CIE companies as they do to private operators. Under current regulations, the Department is required to reply within three months to an application for a licence.

Regarding Senator Cullinane's comments, I do not wish to repeat last week's debate in the Dáil. The requirement under the Bill is for the Minister to be informed of an applicant's convictions. It does not require the Minister to refuse a licence. Anyone can appeal a decision to the District Court. Anyone who has been released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement can inform the Minister of the former's conviction for money laundering or murder and release under the agreement. The Minister would be in a position to take that information into account. Irrespective of whether the Senator likes it, though, it is a fact that those released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement were released on licence. They are still convicted criminals. Their convictions are not spent and have not been expunged by the agreement. If a decision is made to expunge their convictions, it should not be done under this legislation. Rather, it would be a broader policy decision for a Government to make. Confession comes before absolution. When we still hear crimes such as murder, manslaughter, money laundering, fraud, arson and so on being described as politically motivated, there is still a little further to go in terms of confession before we can reach the point of absolution.

Regarding Senator Clune's remarks, I do not want to comment too much on tolls at this point. We are in the middle of a budgetary process and nothing is fully decided. I do not know what EU funds were spent on the Lee tunnel, but this matter is not necessarily relevant. Given that we toll other roads that received money from the Structural Funds, the Lee tunnel would not be precluded, but no decisions have been made. In making decisions, I will be conscious that there are ways other than tolls to raise revenue. Given the increase in VAT and the potential increases in carbon tax and excise rates in the forthcoming budget, slapping on toll increases as well might be too much.

The Bill addresses a number of urgent items for reasons connected with EU legislation. I intend to review road transport legislation from a broader perspective. I hope to be in a positive to introduce a comprehensive road transport Bill next year to replace the existing Acts and to set the direction for road transport policy in the coming years.