I move that Sections 1, 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - EXPIRING LAWS BILL, 1924.—THIRD STAGE.
Motion put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE—PART I.
ENACTMENTS MADE PERMANENT.
|
Session and Chapter |
Short Title. |
How far made permanent |
Amending Acts |
|
27 & 28 Vic. c. 20 |
The Promissory Notes (Ireland) Act, 1864. |
The whole Act |
|
|
28 & 29 Vic. c. 83 |
The Locomotives Act, 1865. |
The whole Act |
59 & 60 Vic. c. 36; 1 & 2 Geo. V. c. 45. |
|
3 Edw. VII. c. 36 |
The Motor Car Act, 1903. |
The whole Act |
10 & 11 Geo. V. c. 72. |
|
4 Edw. VII. c. 24 |
The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. |
The whole Act |
6 Edw. VII. c. 13. |
I move:
To delete in Part I. the following words—
|
3 Edw. VII. c. 36 |
The Motor Car Act, 1903. |
The whole Act |
10 & 11 Geo, V. c. 72. |
The purport of this is to omit from the list of Bills which are to be made permanent the Motor Car Act, 1903, and in a subsequent amendment I propose to add it to the Second Schedule as a Bill to be continued for one year, and one year only. We have been favoured by the Government with a very exhaustive summary of this Bill as a result of pressure applied on the Second Reading. I have gone further than reading the summary. I have read the Bill, and more than that, I have read the debate that occurred when it was passing through the House of Commons 21 years ago. As a result of that study, I have come to the conclusion that we would be ill-advised to make it permanent. This Bill, which is the fundamental Statute regulating all questions of motor transport, was passed through the House of Commons in August, 1903, and in August, the House of Commons reaches the state of exhaustion we reach in July. It was passed in August, 1903, as the result of a week's debate, and it was passed through a House of Commons that had not the knowledge of motor cars that we have at the present time. They knew neither of their potentialities nor of their disadvantages. For instance, one gentleman who opposed the Bill referred to a driver, when he wished to increase his speed, pulling out his sparking plug. I can hardly think that an effective manoeuvre to increase the speed of a car. He pulls out his sparking plug, or whatever it is, to make a noise like a gatling gun. I took special pains to see if any Irish pressure had been brought on the matter. I found two instances; one was where valuable horses were being frightened by motor cars in South Kildare. It was a shock to me to see the name Kilbride attached to that speech instead of Wolfe or Conlan. Another was the complaint of an Irish gentleman of reckless driving of motor cars in the Phoenix Park. The reckless driving is now a matter of more intimate concern to him, since he has his residence there and is our Governor-General. The discussion was a fairly lengthy and adequate one, though carried on to a late hour of the night. Is anyone going to contend that a Bill passed after a week's consideration 21 years ago should be made permanently binding now? We would make a grave mistake to make it part of our permanent legislation.
What are the provisions of the Act? One deals with the licensing of drivers. A great many people take exception to this section. They think there should be some test before a man is licensed to drive a motor car. It should not be possible for a blind man or an inebriate to get a licence. The only thing that prevents you under this Act is that you may have held a licence and forfeited it. Then, again, if you are convicted three times for exceeding the speed limit your licence may be suspended for a certain time. That requires some consideration. Some people think one conviction would be enough. Others think three convictions on technical grounds are not sufficient, but all this would bear discussion. Then again, there is a very controversial section, Section 9, by which a speed limit of 20 miles an hour is imposed. Some people consider that speed limit excessive. Other people think it is too low, in view of the improvements in road-making and especially in motor cars since 1903, and think that a higher speed limit might be allowed. Others, of whom I am one, think that a definite speed limit is not desirable, but that any conviction for driving to the danger of the public should carry with it, not the penalty of a fine, but imprisonment. Those are all questions which are worthy of discussion, and they will require to be discussed sooner or later. Section 13 is the most remarkable one. It extends the definition of a "male servant" to include a driver of a motor car, and is not in force in Saorstát Eireann. We are actually making permanent laws that cannot be enforced here. Could anything be more preposterous? Let us renew this law if necessary, but let us recognise that if this Act is not obsolete that it is obsolescent. Day by day, year after year, it is growing out of touch with things as they exist. Let us not place it on the Statute Book. Let the Government come here year by year and ask permission to do it. Those of us who believe that the introduction of a new Act dealing with new conditions is required shall then have an opportunity of urging our case on the Government and pressing them to meet us. If this measure is made part of the permanent law of the land, I prophesy that a reform which is now almost overdue will not be dealt with for many years.
I do not think Deputy Cooper has given any very good argument in favour of this amendment. This Bill was passed 23 years ago. It has been continued in force, practically without amendment, since. In the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, 1922, in Great Britain, it was made permanent. It seemed to have stood the test of time pretty well. The changes Deputy Cooper suggested are, most of them, changes about which there is a good deal of controversy. There is practically nothing suggested that would meet with unanimous approval. I do not think you are going to assist in getting amending laws passed by making this continue as a temporary Bill to be renewed from year to year. It is obviously a Bill which the Oireachtas could not afford to let, through this Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, go, if it came up for renewal next year or the year after, because the amount of motor traffic and the dangers involved to the public if your motor traffic is not regulated would make it impossible to do away with the only law that exists.
Secondly, in dealing with it, the Oireachtas would have no real option but to allow it to go through with the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act. The Oireachtas is not free to throw this out of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, and it is for all practical purposes a permanent Act. It is not proposed from the Government side to bring in any amending measure. The Local Government Department are satisfied that the law as it stands is good enough, and that there is no immediate need for any amendment of the law. The attitude of the Government would be, if they were to put it into the other schedule, simply to bring it up year after year and let it be adopted for twelve months each time. I do not think it is desirable to have what is really permanent legislation in the guise of temporary legislation. If you have gone on for a period of years, and an Act has been found to be as satisfactory as any law is, certain people objecting and certain approving, then it is much preferable to make that Act permanent. That is the custom which is being pursued to a considerable extent in Great Britain. I suggest to the House that this particular law ought to be made permanent now. Another amendment Deputy Cooper is putting forward is rather different because in that case the Department concerned does propose at a comparatively near date to bring in amending legislation. In this case the Department concerned is not anxious for any great change, and it thinks that this law, which is in effect permanent, should be made really permanent by definite enactment.
As this is the opportunity for expressing one's opinion with regard to this Act, I should like to say a word in support of Deputy Cooper's amendment, for the reason that I think the Act does want amending in several respects. I think it is a crying shame that a man convicted of drunkenness when driving should not have his licence taken from him. In the second place, everyone is breaking the law every day in technical matters. Some of the Ministers admitted to me that they drove 30 to 35 miles an hour on the open road. That is no harm where there is not heavy traffic, but I think it is necessary that we should make much more stringent rules in regard to the city traffic. I would make it much slower than is allowed at the present time, and I would allow more freedom than is allowed with regard to open traffic. I think the most important thing of all is that to which allusion has been made by Deputy Cooper, and that is, that a man may be blind or deaf, and if he applied for a driver's licence he is able to get it. I think it is not wise on the part of the Local Government Department not to make some attempt to remedy such a condition of things.
I wonder would the Deputy, when he thinks that a change is necessary and when the Department concerned is not of the same opinion and consider that there is no urgency, not consider the question of introducing a Private Members' Bill to deal with the matter. It is a sort of matter that can be discussed entirely on its merits with a free vote of the Dáil, and so far as any drafting difficulties are concerned, if the Dáil were in favour of the measure, assistance could be given. That would be a more satisfactory way of dealing with the question than by having a temporary Act brought up and a few words said upon it each year.
This amendment proposed by Deputy Cooper, proposes to leave this Act to come up from year to year. I think there is great merit in having a Bill of this sort brought up every year, if for no other reason than giving us an opportunity of criticising the Government. I understand that this question of an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill has its chief merit in the fact that it gives a very wide latitude, and provides a very interesting performance from year to year, by giving the general members of the Dáil great scope for criticism. Unfortunately, as regards supporting the amendment, I must say that the Minister for Finance gives rather weighty reasons why it should be made permanent, and I find that I have to agree with the Minister rather against my will. Obviously, the controller of motor traffic must have regulations. This, apparently, is the basic law that we proceed to break every hour of the day and which we do break with impunity if the police are not knocking about. By making it permanent we do not get any greater latitude than we have at present, nor, perhaps, will it give us any less latitude. The sort of criticism in which one would indulge in connection with this Bill, when it comes up from year to year, is not very fruitful. The Minister has said that any Deputy might bring in a Private Member's Bill. Much as we might criticise an Act and the administration of an Act, I think we would rather hesitate about tackling this problem in a Private Bill. So far as I am concerned, I would not like to take the responsibility. The whole question is bristling with controversy, and any one can see that any Bill one starts to formulate for submission to the Dáil, in the nature of a Private Bill, would not get very far. The only way in which I can see that this original Act, which we are all agreed is out of date, could be amended is by taking a particular section at a time and trying to improve it, but to start a new Bill in an endeavour to put everything right that is wrong would be a very difficult problem. I am afraid, if this question goes to a division, I will have to vote against the amendment, but on the other hand, of course one must agree with anything that has been said from these benches in support of the amendment.
I wish the Minister joy of his supporters. I would like to point out with regard to his suggestion of a Private Member's Bill, that I do not think it is a considered suggestion on the part of the Minister. How could any private Deputy bring in a Bill dealing with speed limits which would be defined much more closely than they are in this Act? You could not do it without close consultation with the police, and no private member would be entitled to go to the Commissioner of the D.M.P. or to the Superintendents of the Gárda Síochána throughout the country and find out exactly where a particular speed limit was necessary. That could only be done by the Government. I know that the Local Government Department could not do it this year, and that is why I am not proposing to remove the Act altogether, but only to have it prolonged for another year. This is an important question, which has to be dealt with sooner or later, and there is a considerable body of opinion in favour of my suggestion. This does not affect those who use motor cars alone; it also affects the users of the roads, and, in fact, every person in the State. The last Court of Appeal is not the Local Government Department, efficient Department though it is, but the Dáil itself. We are the people to whom those who are aggrieved have a right to turn, whether in respect of the speed of motor cars, or of the necessity of developing motor transport, or of the lack of its sufficient use to help the farmers. I regret that the Minister has given this reception to my amendment. On Second Reading he stated that if there was any considerable body of opinion in favour of the amendments he would be inclined to accept them.
I want to support the amendment on grounds which I think are similar to those put forward by Deputy Cooper, although I have only heard the debate from Deputy Sir James Craig's speech. I think there is no doubt in the mind of anybody that the law relating to motor cars, which was enacted as a temporary Act, is not in perfect form. I will put it in that way, and say that there are amendments required. I think that that is generally accepted, and that the reason for keeping this Act amongst those which will expire at the end of a certain time is that there is a certain stimulus to the Government to look over the situation and bring in amending legislation. If we are agreed that there should be some recasting of the law relating to motor cars, then the fact that this is on the Schedule in connection with expiring laws is a perpetual stimulus. For that reason alone I am prepared to accept the amendment.
I think from what the Minister said that he ought to accept the amendment. It would, I think, be quite impossible for a private member to go into the necessary details in a Private Bill. It might be quite true, as the Minister says, that in the first place responsibility lies with the private member to show that the measure is required, but I think that what the Minister suggests may be achieved by members bringing forward resolutions containing suggested amendments. In view of what the Minister says, I think that he ought to give time for private members to show their feelings on this question, and to allow this measure to be made temporary for another year.
I do not want to push this particular Act through as a permanent measure, if there is a strong feeling against it. I think, however, that that feeling is not very well reasoned. I believe that there is no stimulus to the Government in having it kept as a temporary measure. On the contrary, the Government says that it is not a very good Act but they will leave it so for the present, and I think you are rather postponing the question of reform than hastening it by making this a temporary measure. In Great Britain, where there are three times as many motor cars in proportion to population as there are here, this legislation which was enforced for twenty-three years was made permanent a couple of years ago. I do not think that there is any good reason behind the feeling manifested here, but, on the other hand, it is not a matter of sufficient consequence to push through against a body of expressed opposition. I am, therefore, prepared to accept Deputy Cooper's amendment.
I am very glad that the Minister has accepted this amendment, for several reasons, but particularly because there is a Committee sitting to hear evidence with regard to matters covered by the Act in question. If this Act were made permanent it would mean the introduction of a Bill to set it aside.
It will need that in any event.
Yes. I think it is more satisfactory to have this matter dealt with in a temporary rather than a permanent Act.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to propose the following amendment:—
To delete in Part I. the following words—
|
4 Edw. VII. c. 24 |
The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. |
The whole Act |
6 Edw. VII. c. 13. |
Here also I took some pains to follow the course of the debate in the British House of Commons when this Act became law. I did so with a good deal of curiosity. I do not know what other Deputies knew about wireless telegraphy in 1904, but I knew very little and it occurred to me that members of the British House of Commons might have been in the same position, and I found that they were. This Bill was read on the 10th August, a date when everybody is tired and wants to get home after a long session. An Irishman, but not an Irish member, Mr. Lough, of County Cavan, objected to the Bill being rushed through at such an hour. I could not find out what the exact hour was, but the House sat until a quarter to two in the morning, and as this was one of the last measures to be considered, the hour must have been sometime after midnight. It entered upon its Committee Stage on the 11th August, and eight amendments were accepted by the Government without any discussion, and that, again, was after midnight. The final stage was on Friday, 12th August, and the House of Commons is traditionally impatient as to sitting after the 12th August on account of the grouse-shooting. It sat until after 8 p.m. on Friday. That was the consideration which this Bill received from the House of Commons. Is that a well-considered and maturely-thought-out measure? When it reached the House of Lords, Lord Selborne said that it was a temporary Bill and would expire in two years. Now, twenty years after the introduction of wireless telegraphy we know far more about it than we did at that time, as it has now come home to the ordinary man and, in fact, you can hear people speaking in America and, according to a newspaper this morning I read, that you can actually hear the American accent of the announcer. Yet in spite of that development we are asked to make this a permanent measure.
What are the reasons that were put forward for giving this control of wireless? We have some of them more or less quoted here in the memo of the Minister. The first was that wireless is very important and must be controlled and regulated by the State. It was put forward that you should not have a monopoly in wireless; no one firm should be allowed to acquire a monopoly. As a matter of fact, under the aegis of the State, a firm in England has acquired a monopoly. If you are not in the Marconi Company, you have no real say in the wireless world. The second reason put forward was the naval reason. I hope the Minister, or the Minister of Fisheries, is not going to say that unless the State controls wireless, the operations of the Muirchu would be useless. The third reason was that wireless was a great public service which the State ought to control.
The powers given by this Act are the only powers that secure to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the regulation of wireless in the State, the only powers that enable him to charge £1 for a service which the British Government performs for 2/6. I am not sure that the occasion may not arise—and I say it without any feeling against the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—when the whole of the power of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will have to be reviewed from the point of view that he is an External Minister, and it is very doubtful whether it is in conformity with the Constitution that any External Minister should, of his own volition, be enabled to put heavy charges on the State. I can imagine another Minister raising the Postal rates and putting an enormous tax on the community of his own volition, without consulting the Dáil or even the Executive Council. I am not quite sure whether he has to have the permission of the Minister for Finance. In view of our very different Constitution we ought not to make permanent those powers of taxation which the Minister possesses under this Act. We ought to take an opportunity of reviewing them, and by making this Act temporary we shall be able to do so.
As the Post Office recognises, within one or two years amending legislation will be necessary in regard to wireless telegraphy, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Does the Minister say he is prepared to accept it in consequence of that reason?
Yes.
Amendment put and agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 3 is consequential upon the last two. It reads as follows:—
SECOND SCHEDULE.
In Part I. after the words:—
|
2 Edw. VII. c. 18 |
The Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902. |
The whole Act |
to insert the words—
|
3 Edw. VII. c. 36 |
The Motor Car Act, 1903. |
The whole Act |
10 & 11 Geo. V. c. 72. |
|
4 Edw. VII. c. 24 |
The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. |
The whole Act |
6 Edw. VII. c. 13. |
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Second Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Preamble and Title put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.