There is a very small point which I should like to raise on this: it is small in one sense and of some substance in another. It is small in relation to some of the principles we have been trying to deal with but important from the point of view of the personnel affected. It is that, under this section, there will be provision for panels to select people for appointment to offices. That is the purport of the section. It has been pointed out to me that a situation like this may arise—and I do not know what the practice has been heretofore. Supposing an office is vacant for some remote county and a number of people go up. The man who is selected may find that a more attractive berth becomes available in the meantime and that he would like to apply for that post. At the moment, as I understand it, there is nothing to stop him. I think that on an earlier section the Minister dealt with abuses that could arise on the taking-up of appointments. However, as I understand the situation, a man may be selected for appointment A and, if another appointment comes up within a reasonable period, he may reject that and go for the other one and there is no bar against it. There is the inherent danger here that if a man is selected from a panel and does not take the appointment given to him, he may go down to the bottom of the panel Would the Minister consider amending this section on the Report Stage in order to meet the point that a man on a panel would have the option, if it suited him, of refusing the appointment within a reasonable time —I am with the Minister in the other matter—and still be retained on the panel? I do not know if there are any other implications, but people who have some direct interest in the matter have suggested that that point should be inquired into.
Local Government Bill, 1954— Committee Stage (Resumed).
Major de Valera
I appreciate the point, but I do not think it will be necessary to amend the section. It can be governed by the rules made by the Local Appointments Commissioners. I have already considered the matter and I think we can meet the Deputy's point.
Major de Valera
In that case I think the Minister's statement here is sufficient.
In connection with this section, the explanatory memorandum issued by the Minister defines the word "road" to mean "any public road and to include any bridge, pipe, arch, gully, footway, pavement, fence, railing or wall" which was "erected by or was liable to be maintained by the county council or grand jury, forming part thereof." I wonder is there full clarity in regard to fences and roads? What are the liabilities of owners of land upon which these fences are erected? From time to time such owners are served with a notice to breast these hedges and keep fences under repair. Very often they are brought to court and fined.
Further on, the Minister takes power to make a declaration as to what is a main road and to take over certain roads. This power is already in existence. I would like the Minister to let us know if the law is sufficiently specific to include a provision, where he declares a main road, that the inhabitants along that declared road shall be liable for the breasting and fencing of hedges along that road. This is a very important point and I think at one time there was a case in the south of England where a particular farmer on a particular road beat the Ministry on the other side in relation to liability. If under this and other sections we were to take over certain roads and if we had not the power to compel the people living on those roads to do their duty in order to ensure that public money would be expended to the best advantage, then the Minister should in this particular Bill clarify the position.
I suggest he should examine it and, if necessary, put in certain amendments on the Report Stage to make the position quite clear.
The law is, of course, quite clear. There is an onus on all land owners to trim their hedges. We have amended the law in this Bill to facilitate prosecutions for breaches of that particular section in the particular statute. Unfortunately, as the law stands at the moment, only the county surveyor can prosecute for breaches of this provision whereby land owners are compelled to trim hedges. We have amended that in order to enable the prosecution to be brought in the name of the local authority instead of that of the county surveyor. That will facilitate matters because we all know quite well that in some counties we have not got a county surveyor and we cannot institute proceedings of that kind.
But that law would also apply where the Minister declares a public road.
No. The onus is on the land owner. That is the law. In specific cases where the local authority takes over lands and makes new fences, in certain cases the local authority itself will be responsible for such fences erected in specific circumstances. The Deputy has a number of such instances in his own county where corners have been cut off and roads straightened out; the local authority will be responsible in such cases. I think it is the Highways Act of 1870 which enables prosecutions to be brought by the county surveyor and the main reason for this particular section is to clarify the position. Under the Local Government Act, 1925, a public road is defined: "the word ‘road' means any public road and includes any bridge, pipe, arch, gully, footway, pavement, fence, railing or wall (where such fence, railing or wall was erected by or was liable to be maintained by the county council or grand jury) forming part thereof." That is a very good definition under the 1925 Act, but under the Barbed Wire Act, for instance, of 1893, the word "highway" is used. In the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898 "public highway" is used. In the Public Health Act of 1898 it is a "highway repairable by the inhabitants" on it. Now we are trying to get a common denominator for all these, and that is the only reason why this section is included in this Bill.
If a lane or boreen is taken over by a county council does it come under this provision?
For the purpose of defining it?
For the purpose of having fences cut and repaired.
It would.
On the section. While I agree that what it is proposed to do in this section is quite desirable and local authorities will welcome having this power, I wonder whether any provision is made for safeguarding the rights of users of a particular roadway which is closed. I think the Minister will appreciate that unless such provision is made users may be penalised very considerably.
The Deputy will appreciate that due notice will have to be given.
I know that. Even with due notice, assuming a concrete or cement road is being put down the users may be considerably penalised. I had the experience myself once of having to go through four farmers' lands to get to the public road. There should be some provision to safeguard the rights of users along that road or farmer normally using that road.
Would the Deputy look at sub-section (4)?
I have read sub-section (4). I suggest the Minister should consider between now and the Report Stage bringing in an amendment to ensure that the local authority shall have regard to the rights of people who live along such roads.
It is absolutely desirable that they should, but that would be taken into account in making the order. We propose advising local authorities to that effect.
It is the local authority now which can make the order itself.
Subject to the proviso that any person may have the right of appeal to the Minister and the Minister may annul.
I understand that, but it should not be necessary for any person to have to appeal.
The Deputy appreciates the difficulty and delay there has been in the past in procuring such orders.
I am in full agreement with the section but nevertheless I know there is no safeguard in law up to now to preserve the rights of users, and I think they are entitled to safeguards against the local authority, the Minister or anyone else.
Major de Valera
I agree with Deputy Allen. I think, however, it is more likely they will get consideration when it is a question of the local authority having the power rather than in the case of a central authority.
No, because the local authority may hand over the job to a contractor; the road is closed, and the contractor can be very disagreeable.
Major de Valera
I agree with Deputy Allen in that. There are two comments I would like to make. The first is that, "subject to such conditions as they may think fit" is an unlimited power. I suppose the Minister feels it is necessary to give power in a rather unlimited way. For once the structure of the section appeals to me rather more than that of others. Here we have power given to the local authority, with power of appeal so to speak to the Minister; if the Minister can keep that particular structure in all its provisions, then I would be fairly happy. Could the case made by Deputy Allen be met in that way?
Might I refer the Deputy to Section 29 of the Local Government Act of 1925 which was the section which dealt with the closing of roads prior to this. The section reads as follows:—
"On the application of the council, charged with the maintenance of the new road, the Minister may by Order made after giving such public notice as may be prescribed in that behalf by regulations made under this Act and after holding such (if any) local inquiry as he shall think necessary, authorise such council to close such road or any particular portion thereof to public traffic for such period and subject to such conditions as the Minister shall think proper and shall specify in the Order."
It is done after local inquiries are made and it is merely on whatever recommendation comes up from the local authority that the Minister makes the Order.
Major de Valera
I wonder would this meet the Minister or meet Deputy Allen? I like the structure of the section, I must say, and the principle involved in it, that the power should be with the local authority. On the other hand, Deputy Allen has expressed a different point of view. You have in sub-section (4) this provision:—
"The Minister may by Order annul or vary any decision or order made by a local authority under this section and the local authority shall give such public notice of the Order made by the Minister as may be prescribed."
Can the Minister meet Deputy Allen, first of all, by prescribing this as a point of practice—first, sufficient notoriety of the fact and, then, put in a provision enabling the individual in a minimum time, to appeal direct to the Minister if he is aggrieved?
Oh!
Major de Valera
The point is that this is a trivial matter and that the central machine will not move unless it is important. If there is something really serious the central machine will move.
The Deputy appreciates that I am trying to decentralise.
Major de Valera
As I have said, I rather like the structure the Minister has adopted in this section but if there was some method by which an aggrieved individual could get redress quickly, it would be better. If the appeal is made to the person who made the order, there is a very natural human tendency to say that the other person is unreasonable, but if there is an appeal to a third person who has authority to make the particular person concerned act reasonably, then there is a safeguard. If there were some provision by which an individual could appeal simply and quickly to the Minister, it would meet the point. Let us take a case that may arise. First of all, there may be such a thing as a road race, and a crank writes in and objects to blue motor cars coursing around the road. Some person will write to him a mollifying letter to the effect that "he regrets" etc. On the other hand, if a farmer finds that he has no exit from or entrance to his house or that he is going to be unnecessarily precluded from the use of his farm, if the Minister would write a letter to the farmer saying that the matter was under consideration, the fact that the letter would be written from the Custom House to the local authority concerned or the executive thereof—the local authority would be the county manager in this case—would probably mean that the matter would be attended to pretty quickly. I am merely suggesting this as a gesture to meet Deputy Allen.
Surely sub-section (3) by implication provides for special cases. It says: ‘If any person without due authority" etc. That assumes that there will be persons with due authority. Surely the local authority closing a road can give due authority to a farmer to use the road.
I must say that I cannot see there is much need for any modification of this proposal. I believe this is a very useful amendment of the law and, if it is a useful amendment of the law, there is hardly any purpose in trying to provide safeguards that would make the operation of this proposal here as unworkable as the existing law in practice was. I do not think I have ever seen myself a case where in circumstances such as these, the local authority treated people unfairly. We know that such instances could arise but the likelihood of their arising, in face of the public outcry and criticism that would result, is very remote indeed. If it does arise there is an appeal and I think that is sufficient. When you are looking for extended powers for a local body as a result of the experience of whatever practice has been in existence, there is scarcely any point in seeking such extended powers and at the same time trying to create, by an amendment, a situation that would leave you more or less where you were.
It is quite obvious that this section was put into the Bill not exactly to facilitate the local authority in the closing of roads unless races were going to be held. There are two sub-sections, sub-sections (2) and (3), which deal with races.
We have a lot of condemned bridges, you know.
I thoroughly agree with the whole section. I agree in giving this power to the local authority instead of having it in the hands of the Minister because that leaves it in the hands of the local engineer to remedy any difficulties that may arise. I, however, had experience and many of my neighbours had the same experience, a great number of years ago, where a concrete road had been constructed. It was handed over to a contractor who did not live in this country. He was given full right of the law to preserve his road and he unduly penalised all the residents along that particular road by keeping it closed for seven or eight weeks. The residents had to travel miles and miles through fields, to bring their farm produce through fields and to level ditches between themselves and their neighbours. I do not want a recurrence of such a situation. The law is the same now as it was except that it is now handed over to the local authority instead of the Minister. All I ask is that the Minister would consider bringing in an amendment on Report Stage providing for the reasonable rights of residents on a particular highway. That is all I want.
I do not think I can add very much to what Deputy Smith has said. He has covered everything that could be said for the section. I appreciate Deputy Allen's point, but a very dangerous practice has crept in recently in some local authorities whereby, instead of applying for a closing Order they stick up a diversion notice. I think Deputy Sheldon is not unaware of one of them on the Slane Road. When I did mention the matter to the county engineer the reply I got was: "We want to get a job done. By the time we would get a closing Order the time for doing the repairs would be passed and we adopted this method."
Major de Valera
Is this road legally closed at the moment?
It is illegally closed.
I purposely went through it myself to find if the road was blocked. I found it was not, but I had to get by a few very quarrelsome supervising gangers. The road was not blocked. I am in full agreement with the county engineer, because it would have taken too long to get a closing Order. We are going to simplify the law. Each and any individual will have the right to make representations to the Minister to annul the Order or amend the Order or vary it, as the case may be, in accordance with sub-section (4). I think the protection is given there to individuals. Individuals may make representations, first of all, to the local authority. If the local authority, despite these representations, proceed to make an order, the individual has the right of appeal to the Minister. That right is in sub-section (4) and I do not think we should amend the section.
Major de Valera
I think the section is a perfectly good and necessary section.
Will not sub-section (4) give any person aggrieved the right of appeal?
Major de Valera
It does, yes. The only trouble, and the reason I came in in ease of Deputy Allen, is that any person has the right of appeal, but the Minister knows very well, if some mere private individual appeals, how long it will take before the machine wakes up to the fact that he has appealed and I was thinking of some mandatory provision that would give some reasonable speed in the Custom House. That was all.
We will try to facilitate them in every way.
I was asked by a member of a local body to move an amendment to this section. I refused to do so, but there is something in the case that this person who was chairman of a local body made. He maintained that here a responsibility was being given to the local authorities to the relief of the State. His contention was that if this was necessary, it is the State that should meet that obligation and not have the burden thrown on the sometimes limited resources and finances of a local body. There seems to be something to it but, because of the few cases that I know where youngsters were injured or killed at these crossings——
I think the Deputy's remarks would be more applicable to Section 38.
I am referring to the right of a local body to appoint people to look after crossings.
That is Section 38.
I am in full agreement with this section, but there is one question I would like to ask the Minister. Will this section prevent a person erecting a particular kind of sign for advertising purposes on private ground on a main road, which could be confused with a traffic sign? I take it this section will enable the local authority to deal with a person who erects what might be considered to be an interference on a main road. That was not possible up to this.
It is the Gardaí who will enforce the law.
I agree that the law has to be enforced by the people who are in charge of law enforcement but the section will enable the local authority to set the law in motion and to prevent what they would regard as an obnoxious sign.
I think they would have sufficient power under town planning to object to it.
I do not understand how. There is no such thing as town planning powers at the moment.
Whom do you blame for that?
The Minister says that there is power under town planning to do this and the Minister should know that there is no such thing as a town planning authority to enforce it. This section is a good section but I am asking will this section now enable a local authority to prevent people erecting signs which are obstructions on, say, a main road, or which are confusing to people on a main road. I do not know how other local authorities are affected but in the vicinity of Dublin on very important main roads advertising signs have been put up, fluorescently lit, and so forth, which have been the cause of accidents and which, we maintain, are liable to cause accidents, but for the removal of which we have no power under the existing law. I am asking the Minister can the section now be construed as giving the necessary power to the local authority to invoke the law?
No. And invocation of the law under the section must be done by the Garda Síochána, not the local authority. The local authority will not prosecute for breaches of the regulations made.
Can they be a complainant to the Gardaí?
Of course they can, certainly.
Does this remove the anomaly that has existed where the Guard has no section of the law under which he could enforce?
We are giving him a section.
Is that in this?
Yes.
That is what I want. Otherwise, I agree with the section.
With regard to what Deputy Briscoe has said, there is this difficulty that because it is the Guards who take the case, they have no right of appeal—they do not appeal anyway, and I understand they have not the right to appeal. This all arises because of the confusion under the Road Traffic Act, 1933. I am sorry in a way to find that the peculiar position under that Act is being continued here. The difficulty about road signs is that it is the Minister for Local Government who decides what will be on them, and it is the Commissioner or the Minister for Justice—I think it is the Commissioner—who will decide where they will go. I think one of the reasons why this country is very badly provided with signs is this dual authority.
Apart from that—which is more or less a suggestion for the amendment of other legislation—I hope the Minister will take powers now or, at least, I hope he has them in this section, to prevent the sort of nonsense that at present goes on with regard to some road signs. I am not talking about permanent ones but temporary ones. Frequently, driving through the City of Dublin, one is confronted with a large sign which says "No Thoroughfare" or "No Road." In fact those signs are not true. They just get a red sign and stick it up whether the type of work described on the sign is going on or not. They also stick up signs saying "No Thoroughfare" on a roadway where in fact a thoroughfare exists, for instance where tramlines are being taken up in the centre, and where lines of traffic are moving on either side. Such things as these tend to bring our road signs into contempt and the Minister should see to it that the various local authorities have a prescribed type of sign for the type of work they are doing. Apart from the awful grammar you will see in "Drive Slow" and so on, I think the Minister should ensure that there is some sense in the signs that are put up.
Would the Deputy look at sub-section (16) and see if it covers the point? Look at lines 57 and 58.
I am glad the Minister has this power. I hope now that he will use it.
Sub-section (14) deals with nearly all the points in which I am interested, but I see one point in it which I should like to raise. I wonder if the Minister would add in that section for the Report Stage a few words such as "or which in the opinion of the local authority or the Garda, may be a cause of danger"? That is the only thing I think is not covered.
The Gardaí are in the matter already. It is on the advice of the Gardaí that the Minister will make the regulations. The Gardaí will actually enforce them. This provision is in accordance with the 1949 convention on road traffic. The Minister for Local Government will be the responsible Minister but the Gardaí will be responsible for enforcing the regulations—they will be the enforcing authority.
Major de Valera
I do not think I would rely too much on the local authority. I think we would get to the stage where the tyranny would change from one to the other. I think this provision is ample. We have talked in other debates about the powers of central government and in all fairness to the Ministers concerned these powers are necessary sometimes to prevent a different type of tyranny from the local representatives in certain cases. One has to be on guard against that type of tyranny too.
I am afraid Deputy de Valera does not realise fully the extent of the responsibilities which fall on the local authorities for the insurance of the safety of people on the streets and on the roads. They have to take upon themselves the responsibility for the erection of traffic lights and for ensuring that street crossings are rendered safe for the public in conjunction with the Gardaí. It is to the local authorities that the complaints come. I wonder if the Minister would agree that the last line of sub-section (14) would read "less visible or dangerous to road users" instead of its present form which says only: "less visible."
Major de Valera
I would agree with that all right.
I am trying to get that into the section so that the Gardaí will not be able to say that it is not in the Act.
I should like to support Deputy Briscoe that there should be the slight changes he says in that particular section. The point is that while the Guards may enforce the regulations there should also be some responsibility placed on the local authorities. Up to the present moment local authorities did not have any powers of enforcement. I would ask the Minister to consider that particular problem. Take the simple things of ordinary level crossings and road islands, etc. In all these instances the local authority is the body which initiates these safety measures.
Such as bus stops, bus shelters, and so on.
Many Deputies in this House have seen cases where particular crossings have become known to be dangerous only when two or three fatalities have occurred. Reading the reports of local authorities one will see that complaints regarding traffic safety always are directed to the local authorities. I think the Minister might examine the suggestion made by Deputy Briscoe with a view to making a slight change in the Bill in accordance with its terms.
The Deputies will appreciate the important point that it would be quite wrong to leave it to the local authorities and the Garda to say what is an offence. That is a matter entirely for the courts and in my opinion it would be unconstitutional and very wrong to leave it to the local authorities and the Garda to declare an offence.
Major de Valera
That is why Deputy Briscoe's suggestion that the section should read "less visible or dangerous" should be adopted.
As regards Deputy Sheldon's statement about signposts, I agree that some of them are extraordinary. On a main road between here and Cork, near the little village of New Inn, there is a signpost which says: "Dead Slow Cashel." I think it is extraordinary that some of these signposts are allowed to stand at all. Undoubtedly they look bad.
Would the Minister try to disentangle for me paragraph (b) of sub-section (2)? I cannot see the point it purports to make.
If we clear up the other points first we can come back to that later. Under the Local Government Act of 1946 the local authority is empowered to take any initiative it wishes in the erection of any road signs after consultation with the Commissioner of the Garda. To go back to Deputy Briscoe's point, I would ask him to go back again to the section and read it carefully. He suggests that after "less visible" we should insert "less dangerous".
No. I mean "dangerous"—"dangerous or less visible" if you like.
Surely the local authorities have power under the 1946 Act to put up any sign.
I am afraid the Minister and myself are at cross purposes.
Yes. I see now we have been at cross purposes. There is something in the Deputy's suggestion and I shall certainly look into it.
I should like now if the Minister would try to clarify what is intended by paragraph (b) of sub-section (2). I am wondering how the Minister can attach significance to it.
Sub-section (b) of sub-section (2) makes it clear that it will not be necessary to provide "words or symbols indicating precisely the significance of the traffic sign". Is that clear?
I want to know why.
We should appreciate that the less lettering we have in regard to international signs the better. We expect to have in this country a number of foreign visitors and we should have international signs without any writing whatsoever. We may have some Irish speakers coming up from the Gaeltacht and if the lettering is in English they might be unable to read it. We may have visitors from Germany, France or Italy. These signs will comply with international law and they should not have an overdose of writing on them.
At the present time there are signs up in this country to comply with international law which are not put in the correct order. It is quite usual to find a sign with "crossroads" and underneath it "dangerous bend", whereas five miles down the road you will find the order is reversed and the sign for the crossroads comes after the sign for the dangerous bend. There should be some uniformity about it because apart from making things look ridiculous it is the cause of accidents.
I appreciate what the Minister has said but it does not clear up the point I am trying to make. Sub-section (b) says: "Regulations under this sub-section may specify the significance to be attached to a traffic sign specified in the regulations, but this provision shall not be construed as requiring the regulations to provide that the traffic sign is to comprise any word, words or symbol indicating precisely the significance of the traffic sign." That sounds to me like arrant nonsense.
You might have a court which would decide that a sign would not be sufficient. There might have to be some writing on the sign. It is just to provide for cases such as that, that that particular matter is mentioned in the sub-section.
Is it really giving freedom for the court?
There might be a particular sign to indicate a bend but the court might hold that that was not sufficient, that in addition to the sign there would have to be the word "bend". It is merely to make provision for these international standards.
Major de Valera
It is purely a draftsman's arrangement.
As members of local authorities, we want more information on this because there are signs in various parts of the country for crossroads, S bends, and so on. Is it going to be an open question whether there will be signs or symbols and then leave it to an argument in court to decide whether in County Cork these signs, having cost money to be put up, are, according to the judiciary and the legal fraternity generally, in order?
Can anybody give me a suggestion?
I would say leave it as it is. I agree you will have difficulty if a person from the Munster Gaeltacht goes up to some other Gaeltacht. That person might have difficulty in reading the signs there. We all know left and right and we can put in a few hooks if any foreign visitors want to come here who cannot understand our hooks and pothooks.
Is that not what we are doing under the section?
The section is very complicated.
I do not want to repeat what I said already. I thought I was speaking on Section 38 when speaking on Section 37. The Minister heard my point and I have nothing more to say.
I would be interested in one particular point. This section, I understand, gives local authorities the power to employ traffic wardens to deal with cases of children crossing public thoroughfares. The point that strikes me immediately is that the question of control of traffic is in the hands of the Gardaí, and if it is proposed to supplement the Gardaí by traffic wardens in any local authority I think provision should be made for the same authority that pays the Gardaí to pay the traffic wardens and the burden should not be placed on the backs of the local authorities. We have a very serious problem here in this city. There are dangers outside schools and outside the various churches and we have, I think, been faced over quite a number of years with a very serious shortage of personnel to control traffic. To control traffic for the safety of our citizens and particularly for the children of our citizens might well entail the employment of a considerable number of traffic wardens. The idea is an excellent one if provision is made that where such are employed the local authority shall be recouped for the expenditure involved.
Major de Valera
I do not think any of us are opposed to the principle of this section but there are a couple of matters of detail worth probing. This experiment was tried in England and in the form in which it was tried there it was not 100 per cent. successful.
I can assure the Deputy it was very successful in the Six Counties. I have practical experience.
The B. Specials.
Major de Valera
They are rather police conscious.
We have a few who are not.
Major de Valera
We will have to look at this from the point of view of our own conditions here. The first thing we have to ask is, what is the purpose of bringing wardens in at all. To my mind, unless there was some other reason, apart from actual control of crossings, the obvious and simple thing to do is to increase the strength of the Garda Síochána correspondingly and leave the one unit there. Note my qualification. If it was merely a question of policing the crossings the only valid argument to be advanced against that is that it would hardly be economic to have the number of Guards we want. To my mind the best thing to do would be to increase the police force to meet this problem. It is going to be simpler and it is going to avoid bringing in a new complication in the form of a new animal called a warden. It is going to ensure that traffic control at such crossings will have the same force and effect as the accepted traffic control at another point. There is going to be opportunities for promotion in the Gardaí corresponding to the increase in the points of duty. There are a whole lot of arguments to run that way. Why then do we want to have wardens here? I conceive the idea to be that it is envisaged that at these crossings placed directly at schools teachers or some members of the staff of schools can do that duty. However, generally speaking, it would take a great deal to compensate for the rejection of the argument that the Gardaí should do this. If this policing is going to be a serious matter and is going to be a real control with the full force of the law behind it, then when it comes to matters of prosecution, and so on and so forth, the arguments for having it in the hands of the Gardaí are very, very strong. If, however, it is going to be approached on a short-term basis of cost, I suppose the costing would work out in favour of the wardens. Secondly, I think it can be argued and I think this is what is accepted in the section, teachers or some people like that might be made available. Frankly, if it means recruiting another type of warden, another type of special policeman for it, I cannot see the merit of going outside the Gardaí at all. I think it would be far better to have the Gardaí do the job and let them increase their size—that is, if it involves recruiting special whole-time wardens. If, however, it can be got, say, from the personnel of schools, they have to be vested with authority.
I think the whole question of the principle involved in sub-section (1) requires a certain amount of clarification on that point because the local authority may, with the consent of the Commissioner of the Gardaí, make arrangements. When you have that type of thing—where people may make arrangements—it is easy enough to get into the position that something will not be anybody's business. That is a danger to be guarded against, too. This particular warden's duty has to be somebody's business and the somebody must have the full weight of the authority of a policeman behind him in doing it. The somebody must be in a position to prosecute an offender in court with the same force and the same effect as a member of the Garda Síochána. That somebody must have the same force and effect and weight to control the crossings as a member of the Gardaí in uniform would have. I am not too clear that all these requirements would follow from the section as it is worded. I am not too clear as to what is intended. If it is merely a special force of wardens of the local authority, I cannot see why the local police cannot do it. If it is the using of the staff of the schools, perhaps an arrangement could be come to. In any event, and I come to the point of Deputy Larkin in a circuitous way, it is essentially a policing duty. It is essentially the protection of lawful users of the highway. I think the responsibility should be placed on the Gardaí authorities in this matter, and the consequential financial burden would go in the same quarter.
Surely it is not suggested—I think the Minister nodded when Deputy de Valera suggested it— that the teachers in the schools should be responsible?
That is not suggested at all.
I am glad to hear the Minister say that. I can see difficulties arising out of that suggestion, particularly in cases where religious communities are running schools. Is it suggested that members of these religious orders should put somebody out to do wardens' duty? That would be a ridiculous situation. Then it comes back to the question of whether wardens should be hired specially for the job or whether the police should do it. I would plump for the police in every case, even if it meant an increase in the strength of the police force. There is no other way of enforcing the law except through the police—and to give authority to people acting in the capacity of part-time policemen is, I submit, dangerous. We know that it happens in another part of this country but I do not think we should follow their lead.
It happens in Northern Ireland.
Major de Valera
Hear, hear! With regard to religious institutions, there are teachers in schools and even members of religious orders who have to do duty on the roads outside their schools to help the children when coming to and going from school. Of course, they are acting merely in the capacity of ordinary citizens.
Is it not a shame that they have to do it?
Major de Valera
That is what we are trying to avoid.
We cannot afford it.
Major de Valera
We can. It is much better to strengthen the police force.
I welcomed this section when I saw it and I think every member of the local authority to which I belong welcomed it. For years, we have been making representations to the Department of Justice to help us in the serious problem of providing some protection for school children using the roads when going to and coming from school. We have had a number of discussions. In fact, one of the members of our local authority himself unfortunately suffered a loss in that one of his children was fatally injured in an accident in this particular type of situation. We recognised that, in order effectively to carry out this protection of children against traffic, you could not possibly ask the Government to increase the strength of the Gardaí to the number that would be required.
Hear, hear!
We also felt, as Deputy Tully has just mentioned, that you could not expect the school authorities to take on this responsibility. Therefore, we suggested and agreed—and we agree with this section—that a special type of officer should be created, a traffic warden who could be recruited from, say, Gardaí pensioners, Army pensioners——
If necessary, Old I.R.A. pensioners.
Pensioners who could do with a smaller salary for the job because, in any event, it is part-time. We also felt that if this thing were brought about we might possibly re-organise and improve the present car-parking arrangements, which everybody knows are highly unsatisfactory.
As the Minister is aware, we have in Dublin City a large population of school-going children. We have a great number of schools. Even if we did appoint pensioners of the variety we have referred to, it would impose a very considerable added burden of cost on the local authority. I join with Deputy Larkin in asking the Minister, in putting this matter through now— which is long overdue—whether there will be some chance that the local authority will get, if not the full cost returned, at least some substantial contribution towards it. In the interests of the safety of our young people, we are bound to deal with this. There is another side to the matter which concerns, not school children but old people. At different times throughout the year certain big events take place which may mean a large influx of people into our city. During these big events, as a result of the large influx of people, traffic is increased in various ways and old people find themselves in great difficulty when trying to cross the streets. In such cases, the Gardaí could call on the services of these traffic wardens for this particular duty whenever it is expected to arise. I have no objection to the section.
I have read it carefully and tried to interpret it as best I could. It concerns a problem which has faced us for a considerable time and which we have discussed as members of the council— we have a special traffic committee of the corporation—with the Gardaí. We think this is a solution to the problem. The only thing which arises from it is what is the extent of the cost going to be.
We feel that the State should control these wardens. They should be directly under the control of the Garda authorities and they should not in any way be directed by the local authority which is not in a position to deal with these matters. In the first place, people would be selected who would be regarded as being an arm, if you life, of the Gardaí. They would be responsible and reliable people who would be able to act with the authority of the law behind them, irrespective of whatever band they wore, or signal or sign they carried, on their arms. We agree with all that. The only thing we say is that it would be most unfair to put the full burden of cost on the back of the local authority.
I would like to join with what Deputy Briscoe has said. I think some system of warden or protection for school children, particularly in urban areas, is very, very essential. Indeed, in Dublin it is vitally essential. On the whole I think it would be more satisfactory if that system were under the direct control of the Garda authorities. In certain parts of Dublin I notice the Gardaí at present doing that work and it occurs to me that the hours during which that protection is required for children would tie in fairly easily with normal police duty because, for one thing, it does not occur at the peak hours of traffic.
I may be completely out of order in mentioning this matter, though it is related somewhat to this whole question: I refer to the provision of speed limits in the built-up areas. I would appeal to the Minister to consider that and I would urge him to meet the views put forward by Deputy Briscoe by ensuring as far as he can the Commissioner will, in fact, control any system of traffic warden that may be instituted. Trained police officers are much better qualified to do that kind of work rather than retired employees of local authorities.
On the face of it, I quite realise that this has a particular connection with such a largely urbanised area as Dublin. I agree with what Deputy Larkin has said but, and I think this was brought out very clearly by Deputy Briscoe, it may lead to complications. Remember, we shall have to consider other centres as well as Dublin because this is a problem confronting many other areas. I have in mind seaside resorts where such control is vitally important at the present time. I do not want to go into the matter too deeply here, but it might easily happen that, if we start with wardens for school children, that practice may spread a little further later on. It is specifically stipulated "the local authority in consultation with the Commissioner": the local authority may in time find it necessary to consult with the Commissioner about some system of control in connection with traffic on Sunday mornings. Along the seaboard there is very heavy traffic, and in recent years it is noticeable that these areas have become very dangerous because no control is available. It might happen that this policy would in future be extended and the consultation between the local authorities and the Commissioner might crop up very frequently. Where do we go from there? We are still in the position that we do not know who will pay for these wardens or how they will be appointed. Will the local authorities appoint them under the present system of selection boards? I think this is a matter about which we shall have to be very careful. I am not in favour of members of local authorities suggesting the appointment of wardens in different parts of different counties, because we may have our eye on certain individuals to whom we may consider it very handy to give a couple of bob by getting them appointed as wardens. It is all right so long as the matter is confined to Dublin as a problem confronting school children. If it goes outside Dublin, I can tell the House we will have our eye on the wardens.
Major de Valera
There is a certain amount of unanimity in the House and at the same time a certain amount of confusion. I agree in principle with what Deputy Briscoe, Deputy Larkin and Deputy Desmond have said but the sub-section says in effect that the local authority may appoint and make arrangements for patrolling by persons employed or nominated by them. In effect, it is the local authority who will employ, nominate and direct because it is that body which will make arrangements.
With the consent of the Commissioner.
Major de Valera
Quite so. I do not want Deputy Desmond to take me as being against the remarks he made; I am not. In tortuous way I am probably following up the Deputy's point that a good deal requires clarification here.
The Deputy is quite right on the wording.
Major de Valera
I am not against the section. I do not think any Deputy is. We want to find out how it will work. Let us pass whatever we are passing with our eyes open. Here is the difficulty, and I think these are Deputy Desmond's fears: if a local authority is going to nominate, make the arrangements and in fact do everything subject only to getting the consent of the Commissioner, I cannot see the Commissioner objecting very much. I think that consent would be largely a matter of form. Therefore, the whole burden will be on the local authority. Let us take that as the intention of the section. What the section is doing indirectly is putting the Commissioner and the Gardaí in a position which is really not their job. Remember, what the section does is that, as soon as it is made law, and Deputy Desmond's authority or the Dublin Corporation approaches the Commissioner, certain arrangements will be made. I am, of course, talking now purely on a hypothetical basis.
That is understood.
Major de Valera
When I say "Commissioner" I am talking as it were of a hypothetical Commissioner. This is no aspersion on the Gardaí. Up to this it has been the duty of the police to protect children on the roads, and they do all they possibly can in that respect. During the peak hours Gardaí are on duty at every crossing, shepherding the children over the roads. As soon as this becomes law and the corporation make an overture to the Commissioner for more facilities the police will turn round and say: "You have the powers; you find the wardens; you make the arrangements." That is what this provision really means and I am questioning whether this is the best way of doing things. There is absolute need for control on the roads and for protecting children. There is not a parent who is not worried by that problem. I do not know what the statistics are here but in England it is estimated that someone is killed once in every 90 minutes on the roads and injured once in every 2. The toll of the roads is rising here and the problem is a very serious one. Something has to be done.
Clearly the Gardaí at their present strength, in the City of Dublin anyway —I do not know about the country position—cannot do anything more than they are doing; they are straining themselves to carry out their duties at the present time. Considering that they are being pressed in regard to crimes such as housebreaking, traffic control imposes a very heavy burden on them and the control of school children is almost beyond them. However, the problem must be faced and it has to be faced by providing personnel to deal with it.
We shall have to find the personnel, to pay the personnel and to invest them with the necessary powers. The question is whether the proposal contained in this section is the right way to approach the problem. Is the best way to put the onus on the local authorities, to absolve the police, so to speak, because that appears to be the proposal in this sub-section, and to leave aside the question of who is going to pay for it? Quite obviously there is no reference there to charging the burden on the Department of Justice or on anybody related to it. The reading of the section is that a council or a corporation may, with the consent of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, make arrangements for the appointment of these wardens but if it is a question of payment, the burden will fall on the local authority. The control is with the local authority. I am wondering if that is wise. My own solution would be—the Minister says it would cost a good amount—to increase the police force. In the long run it would be good for the morale of the force. There would be more opportunity for promotion and there would be uniformity. However, that is beyond the scope of this section.
If there are to be wardens, why not have them as assistants or auxiliaries to the police. Certain powers are given them here but, if they are to be effective, the wardens must be invested with all the powers of the police force. I am rather hazy on the question— perhaps Deputy M.J. O'Higgins would help me—of the particular protection a police officer has against an individual in the enforcement of the law. He has some privileges and rights. He can do certain things with an immunity that the ordinary person does not possess.
He can do a lot on reasonable suspicion.
If he is satisfied as to the intent.
Major de Valera
I have forgotten the precise law on that problem. The point I make is that these men who will be controlling traffic will need all the powers and the rights of a police officer including the power to prosecute. A traffic offence at a crossing is from one point of view, much more serious than a traffic offence at any other part of the road. At any other part of the road, you assume that people generally will take reasonable care, but here we are dealing with children who cannot have imposed on them the duty of taking care. I see defects in the drafting of the section but, above all, I see a defect in its implementation. If we had a straightforward simple clause providing that the Garda Síochána would appoint the necessary wardens it would be much better. If they are to be part-time personnel, then let them be part-time attached to the Garda and invested with the necessary powers. I think that Deputy Briscoe mentioned that car park attendants were actually under Garda control and it is much more satisfactory that they should be. I rather wonder whether it is wise to invest our local authorities with this power. I wonder is there any possibility that there has been some confusion of thought due to the fact that in England the police forces are local?
But not in the Six Counties.
Major de Valera
I do not know much about the actual position in the Six Counties but I did not think it was such a paradise of good administration that we should adopt it as a pattern.
We could take lessons from it in regard to the control of road traffic.
Major de Valera
As I said before, the police force there is very much in evidence.
There are fewer police actually engaged on road traffic duties than down here.
Major de Valera
This is a very nebulous provision. It is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. I think the drafting of the section is very weak. One objection which I know the Minister has to my suggestions is that he is only Minister for Local Government and not Minister for Justice, but if it is a matter of Government policy then it is a matter for the Government as a whole to consider. Surely the Government could agree among themselves on a matter which is non-contentious? I really think this is too nebulous to work effectively. If the local authorities are to have an efficient system of traffic control, if this is not going to be something which may be, as it will be unless there are prosecutions, a sham, unless the law is enforced and offenders are prosecuted, these matters must be attended to. It is all right to say that these wardens are to be part-time but if there are offences and prosecutions afterwards, an efficient warden will soon find himself a whole-time officer with serious responsibilities. If the local authority is to carry the cost it will mean that you are saddling them with a local police force. I see no purpose in this duplication. This is one of the things which at first blush looks to be very nice but if it is to be done effectively under these proposals, it will mean that the cost will fall on the local authority. In my opinion the thing could be done more effectively under the aegis of the normal police force.
While I think there is a lot in the arguments put up by Deputy de Valera, in my view he is using a battering ram to swat a fly. This section, in fact, deals only with particular places which may be nominated by the local authority where school children cross roads. Deputy Briscoe mentioned the advisability of extending that for other purposes, where there might be major functions, a horse show or something like that, in the city at which the services of these wardens might be useful. I do not think that we should overlook the fact that the section deals with only one particular problem, the problem which exists in the City of Dublin, of the danger involved in school children crossing roads. I think any of us who have to drive through the city a few times a week, would be able to nominate two or three points where we consider such wardens should be on duty. In most of these places there are members of the Garda Síochána on duty at the moment. There might be a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether the local authorities or the Department should have control of these wardens. I should like to point out that I think it would be a mistake in the discussion of this section to allow ourselves to go over the whole field of traffic control because that does not arise on this Bill. I am inclined to agree, having considered it very closely, with the viewpoint that this is an experiment which if started might in the course of time be extended beyond the very limited function which it has under sub-section (1) of Section 38. I believe the section as it stands certainly meets the point of view put forward by the Dublin Corporation in relation to this matter and that it would be well for this House to give it a trial and see how it works. I do not think it would be an end to our legislation dealing with road safety. I do not think it should be an end of it but, as the section stands at the moment, I do not believe there is any doubt but that the section does impose any financial burdens which may be involved on the local authority. I do not think there can be any two points of view about that.
I think Deputy de Valera is completely wrong when he regards this section as absolving the Garda Síochána from traffic duties in relation to these particular crossings. That is not so and it cannot be so. Even when wardens are appointed at particular speed crossings nominated, my view— I may be wrong in this—is that the people responsible are the Garda Síochána and that they will remain responsible. Certain authority is being given under the section to wardens when they are appointed and a particular penalty is imposed if people disregard the authority of the wardens but the officers to enforce the authority, if it is necessary to enforce it, are still the members of the Garda Síochána.
I have listened very carefully to the contributions made by Deputy de Valera and other Deputies. This section appears to me to be included in the Bill for a specific purpose and I would suggest that consideration of the section should be confined to that specific purpose, that is, the provision of some form of protection to school children crossing the public highways.
If I thought for one minute that there was the faintest possibility of this protection being afforded by the Garda Síochána, that is, that all the protection required by school children in the City of Dublin could be provided by the Garda Síochána, I would press on the Minister in the strongest way to delete the section completely. I do not think there is any possibility of this menace to the lives of the children of the city being dealt with by the Garda Síochána even if there were a substantial increase in the Garda Síochána in the City of Dublin. I do not know what number of Gardaí it would require to cover all the schools. I would hazard a guess that it would possibly require at least the doubling of the present force. If the Minister can suggest that there is any possibility of this work being carried out by the Garda Síochána, I would ask him to delete the section.
We are left then with the problem that children going to school in the morning, going home at lunch time, returning after lunch and going home in the evening have to cross the public streets. Some of the streets they cross, immediately adjacent to the school, are streets in which there is a member of the Garda Síochána already and the problem does not arise. I have myself observed in Ballyfermot, outside the schools run by the De La Salle Brothers, members of that order acting as traffic wardens, trying to hold up traffic so as to allow the children to pass. This problem is repeated 100 times in Dublin.
What the section provides for only is that somebody will be authorised to stop traffic to let children cross the road. I do not think there is any suggestion that the person so authorised will have the training, authority or powers of prosecution of the Garda Síochána and I hope it is not visualised that such wardens as are mentioned in the section would be used for any other purpose, such as controlling traffic at football matches or anywhere else.
They cannot be, under the section.
They cannot be.
They cannot be?
No.
I hope it would not be intended to extend the duties of the wardens. The Minister would have no defence if there were any idea of such a change.
It would require another Bill to give them other duties.
The problem here is only the question of authorising somebody to stop traffic for school children.
That is right.
The only objection I saw to it, frankly, was that there might be a considerable number of these wardens required in the City of Dublin and it would not be fair to ask the local authority to bear all the burden of the cost.
As to the question of control, their functions would be very limited, and I think the provisions in the Bill are satisfactory. Obviously, the Gardaí, being the highway authority, would have to satisfy themselves that anyone appointed would be physically capable of doing the work properly. I would, therefore, again suggest that when the Minister is dealing with the section, possibly on Report or even now, he would indicate whether he would be prepared to bring in some provision which would lighten at least portion of the burden which can be placed on the local authority.
Failing the adoption of a section such as this to deal with this particular problem, I am afraid it will be a very long time before we get any real form of protection for the children of this city. It is imperative and it is urgent that protection should be provided before we are compelled to introduce it as a result of fatal accidents to a number of children.
I shall not delay the House. There is much ado about nothing in regard to this section. There is a doubt being expressed about its implementation. I do not look to England; I look to our own country. I am reliably informed by those who know that in the City of Derry the warden system for schools works very effectively.
Excellently.
If there is anything in the arguments put up, can we not look into the position there and examine what is being done in Derry and perhaps in other parts of the Six Counties? It will not do us any harm.
I think every Deputy in the House agrees that the problem is a vital one as far as Dublin City is concerned. Everything that has been said about providing extra safety measures for school children is but an understatement of the position. The only point that troubles me—and some of the Deputies who have already spoken have stressed it—is how it is going to be achieved best Is it going to be left to the Gardaí or will it be the job of the local authorities entirely? If the sole responsibility is taken away from the Gardaí so that there is joint responsibility by the Gardaí and the local authorities, I feel that the Gardaí will probably be inclined to pass the buck and I do not see the local authorities, particularly in the City of Dublin, being able to provide an adequate number of wardens. I think the Minister considers it necessary, and I would ask him to ensure that proper protection is afforded whether by the local authority or the Gardaí.
We are all anxious that the system envisaged by this particular section should be brought about so that this thing would work perfectly. The more I listen to the discussion the more confused I become——
Is it any wonder?
——not with the discussion here, but with my own interpretation of the particular section. I feel—I disagree with Deputy Larkin—that the responsibility as to deciding on the methods and the numbers and the places of personnel is essentially the responsibility of the Gardaí, who would be much better able to decide matters of this kind, particularly in Dublin, than the local authority. I also feel that the fitness and equipping of the personnel should be a matter for the Gardaí since it is a matter dealing with an official duty on behalf of the public. I wonder if the Minister would consider redrafting Section 38—perhaps I do not know the troublesome implications of this suggestion. Local authorities are prepared to pay contributions so that this job will be properly done. Derry has been cited as an example of perfection and I am told that the police regulate the thing there.
Would the Deputy tell us who told him that?
Does the Minister dispute it?
Yes.
Will the Minister say that it is the local authority who administers it in Derry?
Yes.
We can easily find that out within the next 24 hours.
In Derry the police come into the matter in the same way as they do here—purely in an advisory capacity.
And I should like to see them giving their advice in a much stronger manner than this section envisages, because it only says "with the consent of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána". It says "consent" and I should like Deputy MacBride to correct me if I am misinterpreting the implication of the section on that point. All the section says is that when the local authority decides to employ wardens they can do so only with the consent of the Garda Commissioner. There is no further responsibility on the Gardaí—they do not decide hours of duty, numbers of personnel, etc.
That is so.
I want to see this thing working as effectively as possible and the only way I can see it working properly is when the people who are trained specially for it administer it.
Does the Deputy want me to withdraw the section altogether?
No.
Then you want me to amend the Road Traffic Act?
No. I am asking the Minister to ensure that the local authorities will be guided in the making of their arrangements by the Gardaí in a manner which would be considered satisfactory by the Gardaí. That is not asking the Minister to withdraw the section. It is merely asking that the Gardaí would be more careful in guiding the local authority.
The section says that the local authorities must get the consent of the Garda Commissioner.
Yes. It means that the Dublin Corporation, for instance, may request sanction from the Garda Commissioner for the setting up of a particular traffic warden system. But there is no responsibility attaching to the Gardaí to see that what the local authority will do is efficient. Deputy de Valera said that if the local authorities take on this job they will have to put on a police force. I remember when Dublin had a police force—the Dublin Metropolitan Police—until it was disbanded. I am not asking for a police force, but as a responsible member of a local authority I say that even with the assistance of the city manager and the councillors it will be very difficult to organise a proper staff of traffic wardens. I should like to see the section amended to provide that in addition to getting the sanction of the Gardaí the local authorities would also be subject to the Garda Commissioner's approval so that the efficiency of their system would be guaranteed. Surely to goodness there can be no objection to that. If we went any further there would be a conflict between the two bodies. The Gardaí have their own duties in connection with regulation of traffic and the local authorities will have their own section of traffic control. There could be a conflict with the Gardaí.
If the local authority conflicts with the Gardaí the Commissioner will not give his consent.
Then if the local authority is incompetent?
The local authorities can rely on the Commissioner to keep them competent.
We want the Commissioner's continuing interest.
The Deputy can be assured he will get it.
The section does not say that.
The Deputy must not have heard my speech on the Second Reading. I particularly said that.
Notwithstanding what is said here it is not law until it is specifically recorded in the Bill. The Minister's goodwill and promises here do not help us once the Bill leaves the House as an Act. I am asking a very reasonable and sensible thing. All I ask is that on Report Stage we would have permission for an amendment for the added control so as to ensure that the patrolling will be properly executed and so that the personnel will be suitable for the particular job. Is that unreasonable? We say this section makes provision for a problem the solution of which has been sought for years, but we do not think that the Minister is bringing it in in a way which will make the work easier.
We are seeking the protection of the lives of children going to school. We have some of the largest schools in Europe in the City of Dublin from the point of view of the number of children who attend these schools and we have not hundreds but thousands of children in some areas leaving a particular school at the one time. When it is said that certain of these managerial controllers of the schools are trying to do a certain amount of traffic work, we must admit they cannot possibly do it because it goes further than the mere entrances and exits from the schools themselves. I am asking the Minister to bear with me, not to misunderstand me or to be at cross-purposes. All the Bill will ask will be that the local authority notifies the Gardaí authorities: "We are going to have some wardens appointed. We want your consent." We can ask that and that is all we can get. I want the Minister to impose this and I am saying this as one who has opposed all through——
You object one day to my imposing something on you and the next day you want me to impose something on you.
For a very good purpose. I object to dictatorial control.
You are asking now to give me dictatorial control.
In police duties.
I cannot take over the Ministry of Justice.
Has the Minister consulted the Minister for Justice on this section?
The Deputy will appreciate I would not consult the Commissioner without putting it through the Minister for Justice.
Then I am sure the Minister for Justice would agree with what I am asking for. The Minister seems to think I am approaching this from a point of view of hostility. I am not. I want the Minister to be able to look back on this section as something well done and something of which he can be proud, bringing about the saving of accidents to our young children. I am asking the Minister this because I have been for years concerned, as have other members of the local authority, in trying to get something of this nature put through. The Department knows that and we have some knowledge of what we want. Unless the Minister meets the point I have suggested he is going to have an unsatisfactory situation certainly as far as the City of Dublin is concerned.
The point I would like to make has already been mentioned by several Deputies. One of the ways to see this working properly is to make sure that when there has been a real breach of the section prosecution under it is swift and easily done. It seems to me that where you have a section and where the constituents of the offence under the section are refusal to appoint a traffic warden, unless you add something to the section as it stands you are going to have considerable difficulty in proving who is or who is not a traffic warden. As I read the section every prosecution would require proof, presumably by some official of the local authority, of the making of an order appointing a person a traffic warden. If a number of prosecutions have been taken in different cases within the one local authority district, it might be a matter of considerable difficulty to have that and whilst I am against these prima facie proofs generally I would like to suggest that the Minister might consider inserting a further section stating that the issue of a certificate under the seal of the local authority saying the person is traffic warden would be prima facie evidence of that under the section. It does seem to me that the first time you go in to prosecute somebody is going to make the point that in order to prove the evidence you must prove that the person who put up his hand in the particular case was a traffic warden, and then an officer from the local authority must come to court.
I do not think it would be undue hardship on the motorist to have a sub-section to the effect that the seal of the local authority shall be prima facie evidence for the purpose of the prosecution and that the person named therein is traffic warden for the purpose of the section.
I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by all the Deputies during the last hour and a half in dealing with this section. I find they are unanimous that this section is necessary but there are three main objections to it. The last is put forward by Deputy Finlay that the section should be amended to enable a successful prosecution to be brought. I have been informed by my legal advisers that it is not necessary to amend the section further. After all, such prosecutions will be brought by the Gardaí; the traffic warden will be a witness and I think that will be prima facie evidence until contradicted by the defence. Other objections have been raised principally by Deputy de Valera. Deputy de Valera says that instead of having traffic wardens we should have extra police. Deputy Briscoe says we should have traffic wardens but they should be under the control of the police and not under the control of the local authority.
Their duties.
Yes, their duties. These are the principal arguments against the section, with one exception, that some Deputies have suggested that the cost of providing these traffic wardens should be borne by the National Exchequer and not by the local authority. Let me, at the outset, point out that there is no compulsion on any local authority to enforce this section. If they do not wish to incur the expenditure they need not enforce the section. No later than to-day I caused a letter to be written to the Secretary of the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland and I think it is right I should read it. It has to-day's date:
"A Chara,
I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to refer to your letter of the 27th ultimo forwarding a resolution by the executive committee of your association regarding Section 38 of the Local Government Bill, 1954, which deals with traffic wardens and to inform you that this provision was included in the Bill following representations from Dublin Corporation to the effect that they were anxious to have power to appoint such wardens. It will be noted that each local authority will be entirely free to decide whether or not to appoint traffic wardens. The section in no way derogates from the existing general responsibility of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána for the control of traffic, and in fact provides that any arrangements made by a local authority under the section must be made with the consent of the Commissioner. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister indicated that the Commissioner would assist in ensuring that wardens are properly instructed.
I am to add that the provisions of Section 38 have been welcomed by the Safety First Association of Ireland. In other countries traffic wardens are appointed by local authorities under a similar arrangement to that set out in Section 38."
Would you read again the paragraph in regard to wardens being instructed?
"On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister indicated that the Commissioner would assist in ensuring that wardens are properly instructed."
Is that enforceable under this section?
The Commissioner assured me they would assist in instructing wardens. As I mentioned, the traffic wardens in the Six Counties are established under Section 51, sub-section (5) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Act 1947.
What are the conditions and terms?
I am not going to read that out. The local education authority appoints the wardens in that case. With regard to this section Deputy Briscoe is correct in saying that Dublin Corporation initiated the proceedings whereby this section is incorporated in the Bill.
There is not the slightest doubt about it and the Bill, as it stands, is drafted on the basis of the request which we received from Dublin Corporation. We are very well aware that at certain hours of the day in Dublin City—particularly in Dublin City—there is this traffic danger to school children. We are also aware that the particular hours coincide with the peak periods of traffic in the city —mainly during lunch hour in the morning and again in the afternoon. What we propose doing is this: to give the local authorities power to appoint wardens who would attend for, say, half an hour in the morning—say, between 9 and 9.30—again for half or three-quarters of a hour at lunch time and for half an hour in the afternoon on five days of the week only. Deputy de Valera suggests that to procure the services for these school children on these five days of the week, we should recruit Gardaí. It takes approximately £10 per week to keep a uniformed Garda in this country. Not only do we pay him when he is in the force but we must also pay him a pension on retirement. Deputy de Valera suggests that we pay him a salary and give him a pension and let this gentleman, this Garda, be employed merely for two or less than two hours per day for five days of the week. He says that it should be the function of the State to provide such Gardaí for this traffic. Deputy de Valera knows very well that if a Garda is employed he is paid out of the National Exchequer—and Cork, Galway and every village and town in Ireland will demand the same services because it is costing nothing. Remember, we try to employ sufficient Gardaí to do the ordinary police work of the State. If we employ these additional Gardaí, what will they do during the other six or seven hours of the day when they are not occupied on this traffic work? The suggestion is ridiculous from a financial and an efficiency point of view so far as Gardaí are concerned.
We really intend to provide these wardens through the local authority and the local authority may decide that a dust coat, a cap, an arm-band or some insignia such as that will be sufficient for the purpose. What would the Deputies representing the rest of Ireland have to say about financing those traffic wardens of Dublin? Probably in at least 20 of the constituencies of this country where there will be no necessity for them at all we may hear the question: Why should we have to finance them? Again, if they are under the direct control of the Commissioner of the Gardaí—if he has the appointment of them, as Deputy Briscoe suggests—he could appoint one for every crossing and even sometimes where it is not considered necessary, just because the cost is coming out of the National Exchequer. On the other hand, if the local authority have to pay these men, should they not have some say in the appointment of the personnel of the posts which they are going to occupy in the city? I think it is reasonable that they should. I have dealt with the main objections to the section. The section was welcomed by all the Deputies who spoke. I have dealt with the objections to it and I wish now publicly to express my thanks to the Dublin Corporation for making the suggestion that such a section should be incorporated in the Bill.
Major de Valera
To a certain extent I am rather amused by the Minister's approach to this matter.
It was fair.
Major de Valera
The naïveté of the approach is perhaps the trouble. Here is a problem. The Minister is apparently now, in a case like this where there is a burden, only too anxious to pass the whole load on, say, to the Dublin Corporation and forget about it as quickly as possible. The Minister made a case which, superficially, sounded all right. He said it is ridiculous to suggest that it is economic or efficient to augment the Gardaí. These kinds of statements can be made off the cuff very easily. However, if you are going to have a separate organisation, remember that any organisation has overheads, be it in Dublin or elsewhere, so let us reckon the costs. One of the advantages of doing it within the Garda machine is that it is the same type of work as ordinary police work and the overheads are there already. Secondly, you may say a whole-time Garda is going to be expensive. How expensive are these wardens going to be if they are to be efficient? I take it we are sincere about this. There is a desperate and worrying problem here. The lives of children are at stake. Obviously, we are not enacting this merely as eye-wash or as a sop to some safety-first association. We mean it. We want to protect the children. We want an efficient service. Let all Deputies remember that, no matter what you say about the Gardaí and the deficiencies of the present moment, there is a pretty good protection going on in the city up to the limit of what the Gardaí can do. If the Minister wants me to do so, I will give him, straight away, examples of it. See what the Gardaí are doing at peak traffic at Townsend Street or at Donnybrook where there is a murderous crossing at, say, Belmont Avenue. Go out at the school time and you will find Gardaí on the job. There is a very efficient service being given at the moment. My fear is that we will lose the efficient service we are getting from the Gardaí at the moment under this section, without getting anything effective to replace it. The case I am making in reply to the Minister's references to whole-time expenses is that if you are going to have an efficient warden organisation—an organisation that will be more efficient than the service the Gardaí are giving at the moment; there is no point in doing it if they cannot do it well—you will have overheads. You will have to pay these men if they are going to be efficient.
It is not a fair representation of the situation for the Minister to say that the wardens will be occupied for half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the evening. If there is going to be effect there is going to be prosecution, and if there is going to be prosecution the wardens will have to be witnesses, anyway, whether prosecutors or not. Before you know it, there will be a substantial amount of time taken up in the work of these wardens. Let the Minister consider a few economic points here when he talks about its being cheap. You want the right type of personnel. If you are going to get the right type of personnel to be available just at the school hours, to be available for prosecutions, to be available at the times for the efficient carrying out of that duty, you will have to pay them a commensurate sum. It would be futile on our part to think we are getting away with it by paying a few shillings here and there. You will not be far short of full-time pay in the general sense—and God knows our Gardaí are not overpaid for the duties they render the community. The rate of pay of a Garda is not very much higher than the rate of pay of many relatively lowly-placed employees in this country. I would say that the disparity will by no means be in favour of the Minister's suggestion as against the suggestion that Gardaí should do the job here. Let the uniform provision cancel out. However, no matter what your uniform is, even if it is only an arm-band, it will cost something and even if it is provided by the State machinery it will cost something. There will be repercussions the whole way right up to the Custom House on the administrative side. Let us see the hidden costs. Straight away there is a new function for the local authority and the local authority has to pay for it. There will be adding, accounting and all the other machinery right up to the top involved in all this. Having regard to the services the Gardaí are at present providing I am not at all satisfied that the comparison can be dismissed as lightly as the Minister dismissed it with the word: "Ridiculous!" I think there is food for thought here, particularly for the local authorities who will have to foot the bill.
I will not enter into the merits of the situation of Dublin Corporation in regard to this section. That body has taken it upon themselves to make a very responsible and serious recommendation to the Minister and the citizens of Dublin will be very interested and will hold the councillors and members of the Dublin Corporation responsible, should any action be taken on this, if the Minister succeeds in saddling the whole cost for this provision on them.
What is involved? The first and most cardinal point is the protection of the children. Say what you like about the Gardaí, the children are getting protection in large measure at the moment from that body. They are getting all the protection the Gardaí can give them, and that is no mean contribution at the moment. That fact alone will make parents and others wonder whether anything that may have the effect of withdrawing that protection —in effect that is what will happen under this, though I know it is not the law but rather in the administrative nature of things—is worth while. One cannot blame the Gardaí if responsibility is thrown over on the local authority by this provision, especially when they are under strength, for not taking on extra duties and for asking local authorities to carry their proper burden, if it is their proper burden; and, remember, under this provision it will be their proper burden. Citizens will be anxious to ensure that they get at least the service they are getting at the moment. They will be worried about that end of it. I am sure the councillors will be just as worried and just as anxious.
I doubt if there will be an awful lot in the difference in the long run in so far as expense is concerned. If there is not much difference, then the principle of allowing the police to do their own job, and giving them the strength to do it, is one that I recommend very very strongly to the Minister. Apart from that, perhaps there is some merit in the Minister's argument that these may be legal problems and the problem on the country roads will be a less serious one than that in Dublin. But sometimes the country roads are more dangerous for children than some of the city streets. Be that as it may, it may be that there is a case for saddling local authorities with the expense. Again, I would prefer to see that in the nature of a levy towards the police and I would prefer to see the police force built up as it should be built up. I am wondering if the citizens of Dublin will be prepared for the expense that may be involved in the effective— note the word, because you can make a gesture, and it is very easy to make a gesture—implementation of what is envisaged under this section.
I suppose the Minister and I must agree to differ but I think if the economic content is examined in detail there will not be as much disparity between the proposal the Minister advances and our proposal that the Gardaí should do it. Remember, there are other duties upon which the Gardaí can be engaged. They would not be whole-time on this job of protection. They would be available for duty at the peak hours of traffic or in helping in a round-up, as occasionally happens. One of the difficulties they have to face at the moment is the fact that if there are burglaries in a particular locality it is not always easy to get enough Gardaí on the job at the particular time. That type of problem would seem to demand a pool in excess of what is available at the moment and the extra appointments could be absorbed in that way. I am not satisfied that this proposal is the cheapest or most efficient; neither do I believe that the local authorities will get an adequate return for their anxiety and their gesture in wanting to take over this vis-à-vis the expense that will be involved.
The Minister has informed us that Dublin Corporation took the initiative in asking for the setting up of a force such as that envisaged in this section; that was done only in the interests of the children in the City of Dublin. I was very, very disappointed with the Minister's approach to the point I raised as to the possibility of the State bearing some portion of the financial burden. The Minister put a query as to whether the children of citizens in about 20 different constituencies would not be enjoying the benefit of the protection and suggested they should be called upon to bear some of the burden. The population in this city is 550,000 and very few are Dublin born.
A certain percentage is.
Not only are these children living in this city, but they are Irish children. Surely the question of their protection is a matter of concern not only for the people of Dublin but for this House. I draw that point again to the Minister's attention. I do not think we can get away from the basic fact that in the absence of the force of wardens which it is proposed to permit local authorities to establish under this Bill the responsibility for protection will inevitably fall back on the Gardaí. That does not require any proof other than the simple statement of fact. The Garda Síochána are responsible for the traffic arrangements.
Major de Valera
That is right.
The Garda Síochána, under the authority of the Minister for Justice and this House, are responsible for the protection of children crossing dangerous traffic arteries. If it is possible to supplement the Garda Síochána by setting up this specific type of warden, I think that is a good thing. The duties of these wardens will be strictly limited to the protection of children crossing roads. Their only duty will be to stop traffic. Nevertheless, they will be performing a function that may well be part of the function of the Garda Síochána, and I appeal to the Minister in dealing with this matter to accept once more that this is not entirely and solely the responsibility of the local authority. It may be the responsibility of that authority to decide whether wardens are necessary in a particular area. If it is so decided, I submit it is also the responsibility of this House to see that the burden is shared equally, because in this case, in Dublin they are not children of this city and in Cork they are not children of Cork City. Basically they are Irish children.
Major de Valera
Deputy Larkin is right in stating that basically this is a police matter. I am sorry the Minister has left the House because I wanted to draw his attention to the Northern Ireland Act. I do not know that the Northern Ireland Act has worked as well as all that, but assuming it has, if you compare the sections, in Section 38 it is the local authority here that is concerned. In Section 51 of the Educational Act of Northern Ireland it is the local education authority that is tied up in the scheme.
That is the local authority.
Major de Valera
It is the local authority but it is the local authority in its functioning in regard to education. In that connection, there is a different approach here. You can tie this to the educational system or you can tie it to the police system, but to put it at large under the local authority to my mind makes the thing rather different, and I am not very happy about it. It is not that we want to quibble about the words to be used. I am afraid the debate has gone very wide in its ramifications, but to get down to the point I made earlier, I do not think that the section is going to be effective. The intention is all right but the actual wording, particularly of sub-section (1), will not I think make it effective. Deputy Finlay's amendment is one which will help to improve it, but the scheme outlined in sub-section (1) which empowers the local authority is merely permissive. As the Minister says, he intends it to be that way. I shall not dilate on the use of the words "may" or "shall" but it is permissive. The local authority may make arrangements, and it can only make arrangements on the wording of this section, by using persons "employed or nominated by them." That is the way the section is worded. Therefore, the local authority has to employ or nominate the persons who are to make these arrangements. They have only to get the consent of the Commissioner of the Garda. The Commissioner has no further interest in the matter or no further responsibility. I feel, however, that the section is likely to be quite ineffective in practice.
I have been here for an hour listening to this debate, and I understand from what the Minister has said that it is now close on two hours since it started. Is it not obvious that these wardens will not be police officers in any sense of the term? We all appreciate the work that is being done by the members of the Garda Síochána in this matter. As a matter of fact I imagine—it does not require much imagination—that retired members of that force would be amongst the most suitable people for carrying on this work. Deputy de Valera in his latest statement made some references to the use of the word "may". Is it not obvious that it is permissive here?
Major de Valera
I am not making any point about that.
Then there is the question of the consent of the Commissioner. When a man gives his consent it means at any rate, for administrative purposes, that he is satisfied with the arrangements made. I believe the section will work.
I should like to make a final appeal to the Minister. Many people have pointed out that we have been watching the clock on this particular section. First of all, I appreciate the fact that the Minister has indicated that this problem first came to the notice of the Department on a request from the Dublin Corporation. May I say to him that we did not just make that request without considering how it could be operated and under what terms and conditions? The Minister in Section 38 has used a certain phraseology which has been referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government. It sets out that if the local authority wishes to set up machinery, it can secure the consent of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. The Parliamentary Secretary states that that implies usually that it will have to be on the basis of a proposition put up and approved of by the Commissioner. The Minister was good enough to send over here the volume containing the 1947 Northern Education Act. Sub-section (5) of section 51 of that Act sets out that, with a view to assisting in the prevention of road accidents to children proceeding to and from school, the local authority may in accordance with a scheme framed by the authority and approved by the Commissioner carry into effect such measures as may be set out in the scheme. That is somewhat different from the words used in our Bill. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has adverted to that.
I do not see any great difference between them.
I have experience of the difference between them. If we approach the Garda Commissioner and ask him for permission to set up a traffic warden system, he may not say to us: "Yes, provided I am satisfied that it will work." He may say that, but he is not bound to say it. What I am asking is to make it incumbent, before we secure consent from the Garda Commissioner, that he shall satisfy himself that the arrangements we are making, both the physical arrangements and the arrangements in regard to personnel, will appear to have some hope of success. At the beginning of the discussion on this section, I said that we pointed out that this type of work will mainly, if not altogether, be done, although there may be some head warden, on some very small part-time basis. I think I said earlier, I do not know whether the Minister agrees or not, that the best type of officer for this particular class of work would be a pensioned member of the Garda or an ex-member of the I.R.A.
I accept that.
Such a person can be instructed much more easily than an ordinary person. I referred to Northern Ireland and the distinction between the method of selecting the personnel up there and that which the Government proposes down here. The time factor will arise there. We have schools in different areas which have different hours for commencing work and different hours for lunch. Some of them have a break at lunch time.
They will have only the same time going to school and coming from school and at lunch time.
No, because in the City of Dublin—I do not know if the Minister knows it—there are some schools that have a break at lunch time.
The Deputy misunderstands me. What I am referring to is that the wardens will merely have to spend the same time on duty, not the same hours.
I do not agree with the Minister's time factor. He will agree with me that if all schools operated exactly at the same time then the half-hour in the morning and the half-hour at lunch-time and the half-hour in the afternoon would suffice but there are some schools that close later than others; there are some schools that have a lunch-time break, when the children go home. So that you may have one warden doing two jobs.
That would be an exception.
If the Minister makes inquiries he will find that there is quite a number of differences in hours. We are not tying this to what the Northern Government has described as "grant-aided schools". We are tying it to "schools", which includes schools different from the ordinary national schools.
I regard this as primarily a responsibility, as Deputy Denis Larkin has pointed out, of the Garda Síochána because they are the responsible authority for traffic regulations and traffic generally in the City of Dublin and you cannot have two authorities. The wardens must operate under the Garda arrangements. I agree with Deputy Larkin that it is wrong for the Minister to say that because Dublin City local authority, in the interest of the safety of children, requested facilities for such an operation they should have to bear the full brunt of the cost. I go this far and say that Deputy de Valera has rightly said that if we were able to have out of our resources a sufficiently large Garda Force to meet all our needs this would be one of their jobs and we would not have this particular situation to-day. It is because we recognise that there is a limit to the taxable capacity of our people, a limit to the number of people that can be employed, even as Gardaí, that this idea was thought out as a contribution to a saving in the cost of providing protection.
I hope that Deputy Larkin will continue to press that the question of cost be discussed. We are quite willing to bear portion of it, but the full cost should not be put on the shoulders of the local authority on the ground given by the Minister that portion of the cost might then fall on areas outside the City of Dublin.
I do not want to see the Bill delayed. I do not like the Bill at all. I would like to see an amendment of the old Act, bringing in this particular section. I and other Deputies have tried to point out to the Minister that an arrangement must be made which will guarantee the efficient performance of the particular duty, that there are safeguards as to the type of person to be engaged as warden, the vetting of each individual one by the Garda authorities. Then we will have some chance of success. Otherwise, we will be back again probably amending the Bill as a result of experience.
I would ask the Minister to say, even if it is only for the sake of pacifying me, that he will consider this between now and Report Stage and, if there is a gleam of anything in the points we have put up, that he will be prepared to consider it.
The Deputy will appreciate that if I said that it would only open up another discussion on Report Stage.
The Minister, I think, is afraid of his own generosity and good nature. The Minister is afraid to say that because then he would keep his promise.
I do not want to make a promise unless I am going to keep it.
The Minister realises that if he makes a promise he will keep it. Therefore, he is going to keep this door shut for fear he will see there is some sense in what we have said and he will have to meet us.
That is a misinterpretation.
It is an interpretation of the Minister. I ask him, notwithstanding what I have said about him, to say that he will look into it and, if there is any sense at all in what we have said, to meet us to a certain extent on the matter.
I move amendment 29 (a):—
In page 17, line 10, to insert "Except where the bridge order relates to the River Shannon," before the word "The".
This amendment is introduced to preserve existing rights of navigation in the River Shannon. At the present time the Shannon is navigable from Killaloe upstream and, in view of the peculiar standing of that great waterway, it is intended to make special provision for it in this Bill.
May I ask the Minister what special provision is made? A discussion has been going on for a number of years at the Westmeath County Council about a swivel bridge in Athlone. Certainly, with the present constitution of the Westmeath Council and its constitution in the foreseeable future, we will not bear any expense of a swivel bridge. That policy has the support of anybody who has to pay a penny rate in Westmeath. That swivel bridge has not been used for 20 years. The day of the big millionaire's yacht is gone, thanks be to God, and the Lough Ree Yacht Club is gone too, and thanks be to God for that.
The Deputy evidently is no sailor.
I know something about it. We have plenty of lakes and all that kind of thing, but I have never got to the stage of being on a yacht. The Lough Ree Yacht Club has gone, thanks be to God.
I do not see how we can discuss yacht clubs on this amendment.
If we are going to be involved in maintaining a caretaker for a swivel bridge and paying him an income for raising a bridge that will never be raised except once in every 20 years then I, as a representative of the constituency, have a right to get details from the Minister as to what exactly he means. As I understand it, for the construction of bridges, the Department of Local Government, out of the Road Fund, can give a contribution up to 75 per cent. It is pertinent for me to ask, if they can give a contribution up to 75 per cent., have they powers under this Bill to dictate to us to put a swivel bridge there instead of a permanent bridge and, if they have that power, have they further power to dictate to us to pay a caretaker in Athlone to lift that swivel bridge and to pay his sucessor and his successors successor?
My predecessor, in 1946, gave them that power under the Local Government Act, 1946.
If he did, he acted wrongly.
You voted for it.
We are practical people down there.
I know you are.
I voted for many a thing I regretted afterwards.
The Deputy is an honest man.
I have always heard that consistency is the hallmark of a fool. If we discover that we in Westmeath are being let in for something we cannot bear when we have other more serious problems, it is up to me to make a stand against the insertion of this amendment which may involve the council in considerable expense.
As one of those who is very perturbed at the idea that there was even a remote possibility that the Shannon should be closed for navigation, I should like to point out to Deputy Kennedy that I think he is mistaken in thinking that the building of a fixed bridge in Athlone would in any way affect any yacht or yacht club in Athlone and in the neighbourhood or elsewhere. The position is that the Shannon is one of the most navigable highways in Europe. The history of industrial development has shown that in every country industrial development inevitably follows the course of the main waterways. Short as our own history is in respect of industrial development, I think Deputy Kennedy will realise, as every other Deputy must, that the development of Athlone in the last 25 years as an industrial centre is due practically entirely to the fact that it is on the River Shannon. The development of Limerick is also due to the fact that it is on one of the main water highways.
To build a fixed bridge in Athlone or anywhere else on the Shannon would be, in effect, to throttle one of the best commercial water highways we have and to prevent its use ever afterwards, particularly at a moment when, as I am sure the Deputy is aware, there are proposals being considered to run regular passenger services on the Shannon which would enable the tourist development of nine counties that at present are practically derelict from the tourist point of view. It would be the height of folly to build anything that would interfere with that proposal. Apart from that, Deputy Kennedy will remember that, during the war, the transport of fuel and of numerous other materials was largely dependent upon the availability of water transport—of the canals and of the Shannon itself, so that, even apart from the question of proposals for the development of the Shannon from the tourist point of view, the Shannon is certainly one of the main highways which we should keep open.
Water transport is still by far the cheapest form of transport available. It is the most economical form of transport, and I am afraid that very often we are inclined to overlook the fact that the maintenance of a water highway such as the Shannon, which is 150 miles long, does not cost anything. You do not have to steam-roll the Shannon, you do not have to lay a new surface on it. It keeps itself and not only does it pay for itself but it makes a slight profit because the lock fees and the dues payable at the moment and collected by the Board of Works more than pay for the maintenance costs. This means that we have 150 miles of a highway, one of the best water highways in Europe, which does not cost the State anything to maintain, which is a lifeline in the event of an emergency and which provides an artery for industrial development, as well as holding prospects for important tourist development in an area where there is little or none at the moment.
Deputy Kennedy should consider these points very carefully before he opposes the amendment which the Minister has put down. I think he is also mistaken in suggesting to the House that this amendment by the Minister is in any way altering the position as it now is. In very different circumstances over 100 years ago in the year of Our Lord 1839 in the reign of Queen Victoria, after very considerable agitation by the nationalists here, an Act was passed to safeguard the navigation of the River Shannon, and I think it would be well if I read the provisions of Section 36 of the Shannon Navigation Act of 1839:
"And be it enacted and declared, that the said River Shannon is and forever hereafter shall be, to all intents and purposes a public navigable river; and that all the Queen's liege subjects may have and lawfully enjoy their free passage in, along, through, and upon the said River Shannon with boats, barges, lighters, and other vessels, and also all necessary and convenient liberties for navigating the same, without let, hindrance, or obstruction whatever."
That is the charter of the River Shannon. That is a charter which was granted not by an Irish Government but by an English Government to the River Shannon. Are we now, 100 years later, to come along and destroy this amenity, this huge highway which does not cost anything to maintain, which has helped the industrial development of Limerick and Athlone, and which, I hope, will be the artery for the industrial development of Carrick-on-Shannon as well. I think, for these reasons, the Minister is to be congratulated for having altered the original bridge contained in the Bill as drafted and for excepting the River Shannon from the provisions of that Bill. I am not sure—I am subject to correction— but my impression is that, under the Shannon Navigation Acts the Westmeath County Council can recoup themselves to a large extent in the case of a swivel bridge being built by them. It is a matter to be looked up, but I think I am right in that, which means there will be no additional burden on the Westmeath County Council. Presumably the Westmeath County Council would withdraw some of their revenue from the people of Athlone.
The population of Athlone has grown considerably during the past number of years by reason of its situation on the Shannon and by reason of the fact that the Shannon has enabled the industrial development of Athlone. Therefore, it would be penny wise and pound foolish to build a fixed bridge on the Shannon. In addition to that, it would affect not only the people of Athlone but of the nine counties which border the Shannon—Limerick, Clare, Tipperary, Galway, Offaly, Westmeath, Roscommon, Longford, Leitrim. These are all counties that depend on the Shannon, and I feel that, inevitably, in the course of the next few years, particularly if a passenger service is started on the Shannon, that the river will provide an important source of revenue for the tourist development of these counties.
It would be the height of folly at this stage to throttle this development by building a fixed bridge. It is ludicrous to suggest that it has anything to do with yachts or yacht clubs. There is not one yacht on Lough Ree that would be hindered by a fixed bridge, but heavy cargo boats would be hindered. There is one boat which goes from Limerick to Carrick-on-Shannon carrying flour which would be held up. That body provides a large portion of the revenue that keeps the Shannon works going. If fixed bridges are built it may even prevent the existing services from being maintained. It would certainly prevent the initiation of any greater use of the Shannon; it would prevent the use of bigger boats on the Shannon both for transport of goods and for the transport of passengers. Obviously if these passenger boats are to be run they would have to be of fairly reasonable size to carry about 1,300 passengers. They would have to provide the usual amenities that river boats of that nature should provide. It might be possible to build a boat that would get adequate clearance at the Athlone bridge, but once the Charter of the Shannon is repealed, and that is the effect of Section 41 as it stood originally, it means that all the other bridges will also be closed; for instance, eight feet is the clearance of the Portumna bridge which would certainly prevent any form of commercial vessel using the Shannon. Therefore, I would ask Deputy Kennedy to realise that he would be really doing something which is unnatural and contrary to the interests of the people in Westmeath and in every county that borders along the Shannon by even urging there might be any obstruction built across the Shannon at Athlone or anywhere else. This is a matter of real importance, and the Minister is to be congratulated on having by his amendment protected the liberties of the Shannon.
Major de Valera
Personally, I agree that the Shannon should be kept open but there is a point I would like to ask the Minister on this. The Minister is making an express saver for the Shannon here. Am I right in law in this, that the position is that in regard to a navigable river or waterway the authority is in the Minister at the moment and will be in the Minister? In other words, the Minister has the power to say: "Yes, you can build that bridge even though it obstructs navigation", or, "No, that bridge must be built in a way so as not to hinder navigation"? That power is still there?
Yes.
Major de Valera
Is there any particular reason why the Minister should make specific exception of the Shannon from that point of view?
The speech Deputy MacBride made.
Major de Valera
I will come back to that in a moment. There are other waterways in the country—sections of them, not necessarily the whole of them—where a similar saver would be desirable. What I am asking is: Why only the Shannon? On the other hand, if you are going to take power from the Minister, going to put the saver in, why not for other sections? Might it not be better to put it this way: "Save where the Government think it expedient." Take the case of the Liffey east of Butt Bridge. Some years ago Butt Bridge was an opening bridge. The railway bridge was built at a higher level but even that stopped the larger boats. For the future it is going to be necessary to provide bridging facilities on the Liffey further east than Butt Bridge. Is it to be a fixed or swivel structure? If it is going to be a fixed structure it will mean the sacrifice of a certain amount of valuable berthing in the vicinity of the Custom House. I am putting that in by way of example to show that there are other rivers as well to be considered. I cannot see the logic of specifically excepting the Shannon as such, although I am all for what the Minister wants to do for the Shannon but not for quite the same reasons as Deputy MacBride.
The Minister is perfectly right in his intention in this but I can see there are other waterways in this country, estuaries or parts of waterways that might need a similar protection and that merely a restriction of this protection to the Shannon alone is either unnecessary or not wide enough. I cannot pursue that very much further with the Minister at the moment but perhaps he would note what I am saying on this. There is a very real danger of doing the economic thing at the moment to the detriment of the future. Some years ago we took up half the line from Dublin to Galway and that was in the opinion of many a disastrous action.
It was.
Major de Valera
And during the emergency we suffered for it. It was a thing that caused a certain amount of embarrassment. Generally speaking, it was not a good thing to have done and it was one of those things which when done is not easily undone. The building of fixed bridges over the Shannon or Liffey in certain portions or over a number of other navigable waterways would be precisely the same type of thing. Therefore, I am all with the Minister in putting in this amendment. I do not know whether he could get a broader formula. Deputy MacBride surprised me in the way he faced the case. I do not know whether there is any substantial passenger or commercial traffic—
It is not substantial but there is some.
Major de Valera
I did not think there was any substantial amount. However, we cannot be quite sure of the potentialities of the Shannon. It is a valuable waterway and should not be permanently blocked in its navigation, just as our canals should be kept open even though they may be carrying no traffic. If nothing more, they are a source of water for Dublin in an emergency. I do not think there is any need to prolong the discussion. I do not think Deputy MacBride can make a case for the moment very easily. In principle I cannot see this provision doing any harm. I can see it safeguarding the future. Then in regard to paying for the extra cost of a bridge perhaps in the case of a waterway like that some formula could be got whereby all the interested parties in the particular area served could be made to bear the cost.
I want to intervene for a moment to express my appreciation of the Minister's action in this particular matter in connection with the river Shannon. He is showing by his action a very admirable attitude that has been very lacking in public life for quite a while. It is an extraordinary thing that a measure of this nature could not come before the House some 12 months ago so that similar provisions could be made to enable bridges to be built on the Corrib. I do not propose to deal with that now except to say it rivals the Shannon. The tragic position we have today is that in the last three months' programme concrete bridges have been erected and all the huge Corrib basin is cut off from the sea for all time.
Taking the broad view, as Deputy de Valera said, we should consider that much criticism of a justifiable nature has been levied at the action of our old enemies, the British, for the way they treated this country. When we consider that they believed it was of importance to the State and to the benefit of the community to erect expensive swivel bridges across the Shannon and other rivers, why should we, for the sake of saving a few paltry pounds, now decide to replace these swivel bridges with permanent constructions. I wish to add my voice to that of Deputy MacBride and to thank the Minister for this particular action he has taken.
If the central authority considers it is necessary in an emergency to have swivel bridges over certain waterways, including the Shannon, let them make provision for that emergency and let it be a national charge. As far as I can recollect, the utilisation for a very short period, with a limited amount of transport, of our canals was borne by the central authority. In the same way, if the Shannon is needed in the case of an emergency—and I doubt if it will be needed or that it will serve any purpose—let the central authority bear the expense of these swivel bridges.
Deputy MacBride exaggerated, to say the least of it, when he attributed the success of the industrial development of Athlone to the fact that it is situated on a navigable waterway. There is not one bale of cotton material which is manufactured by the 600 well-paid workers in the Athlone Company that is transported on a waterway and very few of them, I am sorry to say, on the railways. The whole tendency is to use the roads. Last night, when coming to Dublin, I passed a vehicle on the Athlone road. I could not give you the dimensions of it but there were three lights on it. It could only travel by night because it took up three-quarters of the road. Every-thing is being pitched on to the roads. No matter what you do for tourists, or anything else, the people are roadminded.
Perhaps this might be an alternative.
I should like to think it would.
It is a cheaper form.
I cannot ever see tourists in this country using the Shannon, for instance, as they use Loch Lomond in Scotland. I cannot ever see them——
We do not want tourists to do that in this connection. We want to take some of the heavy traffic off the roads.
The swivel bridge as it is there at present is such that any barge that goes up or down the Shannon, any barge that is based on the Shannon, can pass under it. If you make a concrete and permanent bridge it can do the same. Any rowing boat, any boat with an engine in it, any form of river transport at present—and it is very limited—goes under these bridges. Deputy MacBride spoke of a recent tour by people interested in the development of the Shannon waterways and said that they could not get under the bridge. I submit that that was due to the abnormal weather we have been having and the flooding of the river. It is not a thing that happens every year. Practically everybody in this House has seen bridges such as London Bridge and also the types of permanent bridges over the Thames. We have all seen the smoke-stacks and the taller erections on the boats being lowered to enable them to go under the permanent bridges. That being so, it can be done in the case of the Shannon. This matter could be argued over until morning. I am concerned with the rate-paying public in my county. I am speaking for the ratepayers of Athlone.
Surely that does not arise under the amendment?
It does, in this way— that we shall have to foot the bill, for a swivel bridge and that we shall have to pay for the maintenance of that swivel bridge. I am certainly against the introduction of this amendment.
There is a different angle altogether from what has been discussed that concerns me in this particular Bill. According to the White Paper, the explanatory document—and I would like, again, to be guided by those who can interpret the White Paper and the Bill much better than I can—the second explanation to Section 41 is to give the Minister authority to take away from a road authority a bridge control, and so forth, and to hand it over to the executing authority or to any other road authority.
We are dealing with the amendment.
Coming to the point of view of the amendment, I should just like to say that I was out in the Middle East some years ago, and I came across an area where they were still doing their drawing of water in accordance with a method that existed in the days of the Pharaohs. This swivel bridge controversy does not arise in modern highly-populated areas because, there, they construct a bridge sufficiently high to allow large ships to get under it without any problem at all. We were confronted with that particular situation in consideration of new bridges in Dublin City. We made up our minds that, as far as possible, we will get away from the swivel or the opening bridge by building, if we can manage it, with a sufficient rise on both sides what we we regarded as an antiquated system. If you have a swivel or swing bridge you are bound to hold up the traffic on land while you are doing this other work. It all depends on the type of bridge, the machinery or the equipment you have, or the personnel. You may have a long delay, too, on the road.
It would be the same thing at a level crossing.
We should not have level crossings. They also should disappear and you should have a bridge or a tunnel.
If we had plenty of money to do these things. Unfortunately, we have not.
You have money to do this.
The point made by Deputy Kennedy is on that very argument—that it is to save money.
Did he tell you the figures?
They were at least half those for the permanent bridge.
I move amendment No. 30:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Section 53 of the Act of 1946 is hereby amended by the substitution in sub-section (3) of "amend the provisions of the bridge Order requiring a contribution under" for "vary a contribution required under sub-section (1) of".
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 must be read in conjunction. These amendments have been introduced at the request of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to safeguard the position of the harbour authorities and canal and railway companies. Under the Act of 1946, the Minister for Local Government cannot make a Bridge Order affecting one of these bodies without the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and there is a similar safeguard regarding amendments of bridge Orders. The Bill, as introduced, enables the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make ancillary Orders regarding the future maintenance of a bridge and regarding approach roads. This amendment is designed to ensure that the protection of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in favour of harbour authorities and railway authorities and canal companies will apply to these ancillary Orders in the same way as it extends to the Bridge Order itself.
I move amendment No. 31:—
To add to the section the following new sub-sections:—
(3) Section 56 of the Act of 1946 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraph (d) of sub-section (2):—
(d) amend under sub-section (3) of section 53 of this Act a provision of the Bridge Order requiring a contribution to be made to or by a harbour authority;
(e) make an Order under sub-section (1A) or sub-section (2) of Section 55 of this Act transferring to a harbour authority any powers or duties of a road authority.
(4) Section 57 of the Act of 1946 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following sub-section for sub-section (2):—
(2) where by virtue of this section the Bridge Order applies to a company controlling a railway or canal, the Minister shall not by virtue of this section do either of the following things save with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that is to say:—
(a) amend under sub-section (3) of Section 53 of this Act a provision of the Bridge Order requiring a contribution to be made to or by the company;
(b) make an Order under sub-section (1A) or sub-section (2) of Section 55 of this Act transferring to the company any powers or duties of a road authority.
This amendment is the same as the preceding amendment.
Before we pass this section, I would like the Minister to explain to me, or tell me if I am wrong in my assumptions or suspicions, the second paragraph of the explanation to Section 41. I am of the opinion that the Minister is now taking power under this section once more to take from one bridge authority the responsibility for a bridge, the building of it or the handing over of it after it has been built to another authority. I would like Deputies to bear in mind what I am about to say. For some years the Dublin Port and Docks Board, which is regarded as a bridge authority, had a right to build a bridge or bridges across the Liffey, and if they completed the job by a certain time, that was all right; if, however at the end of a certain period they had not completed or started the job then the responsibility devolved on the Dublin Local Authority in conjunction with the Dublin County Council. There are three authorities combined. First of all, I would like to point out that under the existing laws, if the Minister has the power to say to the Dublin Port and Docks Board that he is making them the bridge authority in order to build a bridge across the Liffey the City of Dublin has to pay 90 per cent of the cost and the county has to pay 10 per cent. The authority that designs the bridge and builds it and has no responsibility for the cost does not even have to consult the other authorities either as to design or cost. Now that particular right lapsed and I am now asking the Minister if he is restoring that right to the Dublin Port and Docks Board? If the Minister says I am wrong in my assumption, my argument is ended. If he says I am right, I shall have to argue at considerable length against this device to restore to the Dublin Port and Docks Board the right to build a bridge across the River Liffey, with no regard whatever to the ratepayers, the citizens or the authority in which that port authority is situated and without regard to the ordinary day-to-day traffic requirements of the people.
The Deputy will appreciate that in any Order which the Minister can make assigning the maintenance of a bridge or approach roads to any authority, such assignment must be to an authority contributing to the cost of the bridge.
I want to know is the Minister taking the right now by this section to decide as to who is to be the bridge building authority in the City of Dublin. That had lapsed under the 1946 Act, I think it was, because the Dublin Port and Docks Board had not decided to construct a bridge within a certain time limit and the right then fell back again on the City of Dublin. I want to know unequivocally from the Minister what is the position now?
It does not alter the position under the 1946 Act at all. The Dublin Corporation is in the same position as it was under the 1946 Act so far as that particular matter is concerned.
Their responsibility is not being disturbed.
They still retain whatever right they have. This does not affect them in the least
I may be quoting the wrong Act, and I would like to have a categorical answer to my question. Does this section take away from the City of Dublin the position it had reached under the particular Act; I will not quote the year because I am not citing authorities as lawyers do? Does it alter the position that obtains at the moment?
No. The 1946 Act amended the Bridges Act of 1929 and this leaves the position exactly as it is under the 1946 Act.
The Minister knows what I am talking about.
I am quite aware of it.
I want to be recorded as opposing this section as amended by amendment No. 29 (a). The Minister asked if we had looked into the cost of a swivel bridge as against a permanent bridge. We have. I cannot quote the figures now, but I would be correct in saying they are at least twice. As I said before, if the State contributes the full cost and the State maintains the swivel bridge, then, if I get an assurance from the Minister on that, I will not be recorded as opposing the section. If, however, I do not get that assurance, I want to be recorded on behalf of my constituents as opposing the section.
Unfortunately I cannot give the Deputy that assurance.
Then I want to be recorded as opposing.
Major de Valera
I quite agree that the old antiquated procedure should go. Does the Minister intend to make any statutory provision for that or will he simply let local arrangements rule?
This is merely to clear a legal doubt—nothing else. It refers to the notice on the church gates.
Major de Valera
In fact it is never done.
That is just the point.
Major de Valera
Is there any need to notify the rate in advance to every ratepayer?
Legal opinion differs on that matter.
Major de Valera
It is conceivable that many ratepayers might not know anything about it until they get the rate demand.
Notice can be published by Press advertisement.
Major de Valera
Is that sufficient? I do not see why it is not. I am merely raising it because we are on the point.
Every member of the public knows the day after the rate is struck what the rate is and whether it is up or down.
The amendment to Section 50 has been ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 33:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Section 78 of the Act of 1946 is hereby amended—
(a) by the deletion in sub-section (1) of "with the consent of not less than four-sevenths of the ratepayers in a street" and the substitution therefor of "by simple majority decision of members present and voting and with the consent of the Minister,"
(b) by the deletion of sub-sections (2) and (3) and
(c) by the addition of the following new sub-section:
(6) Where four-sevenths of the ratepayers in a street object to changing the name of the street they may appeal to the Minister.
I think the best course to adopt is formally to move this amendment, because I am afraid that, if I were to go into details it might lead to the introduction of more ideas than I had in mind in framing it, as happened in the case of other amendments. However, I shall throw in the ball and wait to see how the play goes.
Is it moved or withdrawn?
I moved it.
Is the Minister accepting it?
A Deputy
He will be like the mover, he will remain mute.
Major de Valera
Of malice.
I thought somebody else might wish to say something about it. I do not want to go into too much detail, but this amendment deals with a matter in regard to which we have had a considerable amount of difficulty in the past. We are simply asking in this amendment that Section 78 of the Act of 1946 be amended by the deletion of sub-sections (2) and (3). We have had, as I said, many difficulties in regard to the naming of streets. Perhaps the Minister would state simply his views on the matter.
Before the Minister intervenes, I should like to say that this question of the renaming of streets has been a very awkward problem here in Dublin. There is at present a very cumbersome method in operation which almost involves the carrying out of a miniature election to ascertain whether or not the residents of a street are in favour of the proposed change of name. When the Deputy speaks of a simple majority, is that related to a big business street where some firms spend a considerable amount of money on their business premises? It could easily happen that they might lose in a contest on the question of the changing of the name of the street, if it were to be decided by a simple majority of the residents, as a simple majority could be made up mainly of persons who were not so interested in the business of the street. We have had considerable discussions about this matter in our local authority. We have had a great deal of experience in regard to it and we have been hoping that some simpler method of taking a ballot would be devised because, as matters stand at present, you have to set up an election machine for the residents of the street, if it is desired to have the existing name changed or to change a new name which you may have put on a street in a new housing area. The mover, in the first part of his amendment, suggests that the change of name should be brought about as a result of a simple majority, ascertained by a vote amongst the residents of the street.
Not at all. I thought that the Minister would be generous enough, because he has been so generous in regard to many items in this debate, to consider the matter. If Deputy Briscoe would read the amendment, he would see quite clearly that we are asking that in future this matter should be decided by a simple majority of the council. Mark you, we are even giving consideration to the so-called gentlemen who object to certain ancient and glorious names, as they view them, being removed from certain streets. We are told that it is unfair that names associated with certain historical events such as the name of Lord Pembroke, should be removed from certain streets, and that it would be a shocking thing to do so. It must be recognised that, according to the principles of democracy, as we view it, the members of a local authority have much more right to have a say in these matters than those residents of the street who consider that it would be profaning some glorious and illustrious names to remove them from these streets in our cities, towns and even in some of our villages. We ask that a simple majority of the council, if they so decide, should have the right to name a street and forget about the Pembrokes and the others. However, as may be seen from the amendment, even though the name of the street is changed by a simple majority of the council, they must get the consent of the responsible Minister.
There is, therefore, a certain redress provided for those loyal and glorious people who may express horror or who may be worried about the names given to certain streets. I can recall a time when the Cork Corporation, of which I may say I am not a member, in their wisdom, considered that it was far more appropriate to have names such as those of Connolly, Pearse and MacDonagh associated with certain streets and some of the local gentry were very disturbed about it. If these people wish to object now we are making provision for them in this amendment by saying that they shall have the right of appeal to the Minister. I think that is a straightforward way of dealing with the matter.
I was not quite clear what the Deputy had in mind but I am now. He wants to get away from the present position where there has to be a plebiscite of the residents of the street and to give the right of changing the name to the members of the local council. There is then the safeguard that if four-sevenths of the residents on a plebiscite object to the change, they can appeal to the Minister. I do not think that is unreasonable. It is probably a better situation than we have at present. As I mentioned before, the present method is cumbersome, expensive and inefficient. Speaking from the experience which we have had on a number of occasions in the Dublin Corporation in dealing with this matter, I would be prepared to support the amendment.
I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment. In Dublin, the capital city of the country a proposal has been put forward for many years to change the name of one of the principal streets. I move to report progress.