Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister back to the House and concur with all of the remarks made by Senator O'Neill in his respect.

Fianna Fáil supports the passage of this Bill, particularly the introduction of harsher sentences for hit and run offences. We introduced our road traffic Bill 2013 prior to the Minister taking over his brief but I am sure he is familiar with our legislation. We believe our legislation provided the impetus for the introduction of today's legislation because it sought to crack down on hit and run drivers by introducing a tougher penalties regime and extending the power of arrest by the Garda.

While we welcomed the Government's acceptance of our key recommendations on tougher sentences for persons convicted of hit and run offences, we were disappointed with its refusal to grant additional powers to the Garda to test individuals suspected of a hit and run offence for alcohol intoxication for up to 24 hours, citing legal investigation barriers. Perhaps the Minister has a view on this. Perhaps some of the legislation that we have talked about in recent times will address the matter. For example, we have recently introduced drug testing. If a lacuna exists then we urge the Government to reconsider as the law incentivises persons involved in a traffic accident to flee the scene of an accident to avoid being tested for alcohol intoxication. I thought that loophole was closed. I thought there was a time when one could refuse to be tested and leave the scene of the accident. I raise the issue because I would like to hear the Minister's view.

I agree with the Minister when he said: "This is a technical Bill but as is often the case with technical Bills, it is an important one." However, the devil is in the detail. I shall refer to the transfer or change of name for railways but must first get all of my ducks in a row. I welcome the changing of the name of the Railway Safety Commission to the commission for railway regulation because it reflects the broadening of its remit in terms of railway regulation.

I also welcome the Minister's commitment to provide Metro North. He has a particular interest in the project because it would pass through his constituency. I shall outline the only thing that disappointed me about the project of which I have been a great supporter and will talk about the economic argument in a minute. I could never quite understand why the last Government and this one never grasped the nettle when it came to this project. Dublin is the only major capital city in Europe that does not have a direct rail link to an airport so it is quite astonishing that we have done so well in terms of the number of visitors to the country. Dublin Airport has had a massive increase in passenger numbers in the past year. Unfortunately, it is still difficult to reach Dublin Airport despite the availability of alternative modes of transport such as taxis, private cars and buses run by various operators.

I am a huge supporter of railways and if I had been a Minister for transport I would have moved might and main to find some way to provide a railway link to the airport. I know it is not an easy job to do. There is a commitment to provide the link in 2017. That seems like a lifetime away and goodness knows what the economic conditions will be like in the intervening years. Perhaps the Minister will be re-elected. Maybe I should say that when he gets back in and is appointed to a powerful Cabinet position, I would urge him to seek an earlier completion date and for the project to be given greater priority. Not only will the rail link - and I particularly refer to the intervening stops along the route in north Dublin and areas such as Ballymun which has been economically downgraded - prove to be economically efficient and beneficial, it will also act as an economic stimulus. The Minister knows all of the arguments in favour of the project. I am sorry for going on about it but I had to avail of this opportunity to nail my own colours to the mast. I am a big supporter of Metro North and the sooner it happens, the better.

In the context of changes to disability access in taxis, I read an article on the subject that was published in one of the national newspapers last week. I am sorry that I did not cut out the article and take it with me to discuss here. On reading the article two things struck me. First, the individual who wrote the article is a wheelchair user. In her article she was highly critical of the lack of access on trains for wheelchair users. I use the train whenever I can and I thought that there was wheelchair provision given that we have a modern fleet. I thought further about the matter and realised that a wheelchair user would need help to get on and off a train due to the way that railway platforms and trains are configured. I sometimes use the DART to travel to and from Connolly Station. I have noticed that on arrival at the station one is immediately advised to mind the gap between the platform and the trains. I can confirm that it is a big gap even for an able-bodied person. Does the Minister have a view on the matter? Can something be done to improve wheelchair access? The author of the article also made the point that disabled people could not use their social security or protection card to get through the barriers. I found her assertion strange because I have seen people use their cards to get through the barriers. I am sorry that I do not have the newspaper article with me. I do not want to lead the House astray on the matter but the author did say something about travel cards not working for disabled people who want to use the rail network.

In the context of taxis, I welcome the section mentioned by the Minister. I have read his statement twice but please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation. I have deduced from reading his statement that if a taxi is not up to the standards required under the regulations and a person's licence is refused then there is no right of appeal. That provision is right. A taxi should be compliant and it is either roadworthy or it is not. This is a black and white issue. Like the Minister and many of my colleagues here, I regularly use taxis to get around this city. I have found that the overall standard of taxis is pretty good and I believe that they have improved a great deal over the past number of years.

Another hobby horse of mine is the introduction of a standardised taxi for Dublin. I remember that the late Séamus Brennan, who was the Minister for Transport when the first legislation on taxi regulation was introduced in the early 2000s, toyed with the idea of having a standardised taxi for Dublin city similar to the world renowned London taxi but his idea withered on the vine. It is a pity that we do not have a more distinguished and distinctive taxi for Dublin city, using either colour or a particular model of vehicle, like many European cities. Obviously a cost would be involved. I have often wondered if the current Minister has given any thought to the idea. A London style taxi is wonderful but expensive. There are a couple of London taxis located around this city but not many. In the context of the standardisation of vehicles, apart from the maintenance and condition of vehicles, the establishment of a Dublin taxi could be considered by the Department and rolled out at some stage. The initiative would add to the identity of this city. The same could be done for the cities of Cork and Limerick but a pilot project could be rolled out in Dublin. Since the taxi industry has been deregulated taxis now come in all shapes and sizes.

Another aspect of the Bill that I am interested in relates to the changes to the airport parking regulations. Section 6 of the Bill deals with fixed payment notices at airports.Section 7 sets out a declaration, which states:

Section 27A (inserted by section 51 of the State Airports (Shannon Group) Act 2014) of the State Airports Act 2004 is amended in subsection (1) by inserting "or an offence under section 47(4) of the State Airports (Shannon Group) Act 2014 for a contravention of subsection (1)(a) of that section where the person in apparent control of the vehicle concerned allegedly leaves the vehicle or the vicinity of the vehicle," after "relating to the parking of the vehicle at the airport".

In other words, the declaration states that up to now - please correct or clarify this for me - if a person drives to the airport to drop off or collect somebody and leaves the vehicle, it is not a statutory offence. It is now being introduced that if a person leaves the vehicle it is an offence and he or she can be fined. That is Big Brother government. Most people comply, and there are people on duty at Dublin Airport who move the traffic along. However, there are circumstances where people, particularly but not exclusively people coming from the country, may have travelled a long journey to collect somebody and they are the only driver and the person to be collected is not yet in the arrivals hall. There is plenty of space to drop off and collect people, which is great, but there needs to be some flexibility built into the system. That flexibility is currently provided for because I put my hands up and say that I have left my vehicle for about two minutes to dash into the arrivals hall to identify somebody and bring him or her out, but under this new proposal that will change. It will mean that drivers can now get a fixed penalty. They will now be fined. It is a petty. What has motivated it? Did it arise from experience of operational procedures at the airports? It applies to what is termed "State Airports" so it will apply to all of the State airports, namely, Dublin, Cork and Shannon.

Has there been any change with regard to the fixed payments, and this again applies to public service vehicles? It does not seem to be in the Bill or in the wider Road Transport Bill. The Minister knows that people who have been prosecuted for parking a car illegally have come before the courts and said that they never received notice of the fine. The issue seems to be proof of postage of the notice of the fine, but the Bill does not address that issue of those who say they never got notice of a fine. As the Minister knows, proposals have been made that notices of fines should be sent by registered post because the system is being flouted, and there is no question about that. I am a little irritated by the fact that when I get a fine I pay it, and then I find that somebody will go to the courts and say they never got it. Most judges will throw the case out because there is no proof that a person received notice of the fine. I refer to fixed payments only in the context of their application to taxis. I think I am right that the same principle would possibly apply here, so the Minister may have a view on that.