Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Apr 1961

Vol. 188 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Road Traffic Bill, 1960—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Corish

Assuming the Bill takes what is regarded as the normal time through the Dáil and Seanad, has the Minister any idea when he might make this order? Would it be immediately after the passing of the Bill or would there be an interval within which he would have to make regulations?

The reason I ask the question is that so many people have been concerned for many years about the introduction of a new Road Traffic Act. They are also concerned to know when the Bill might be brought into operation. I know it will not be possible to introduce it in toto because, as the House knows, there are many dozens and dozens of regulations to be made before the Act can be made 100 per cent. effective. The Minister might be in a position to tell us when the main portions will become effective.

Mr. Blaney

I think I mentioned on an earlier Stage of the Bill in a broad sort of way what we envisaged as the sequence in regard to the coming into operation of the various Stages of the Bill. It is the intention that, immediately the Bill is passed, Part 1 will be brought into operation and then, Part 2, Section 20, which gives the Guards power to test vehicles. The next portion to be brought into operation will be Part 3, Sections 26 and 29, which concern consequential disqualifications and enable a person to apply to the courts for the removal of disqualification. I can and will, if the House so wishes, list these portions right down. There are a number of varying sections which I could enumerate. I do not think that at this stage I could answer the actual question the Deputy has asked—about the time. It is difficult to give the actual time.

Mr. Corish

What I should like the Minister to make clear is that all the regulations will not have to be made before any part or all of the Bill is brought into operation—that the regulations would be brought in as it becomes possible to bring them in.

Mr. Blaney

Exactly. That is the point. We have got to feel our way in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 1, in the name of Deputy John A. Costello, has been ruled out of order.

Mr. Dillon

Might we ask why?

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a Road Traffic Bill and the amendment says "for the purpose of any sale of such vehicle". That is irrelevant to the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

If you have given this your final consideration that is that, but the Bill does define what the owner of a vehicle is.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, for the purpose of road traffic, not for the purpose of the sale of a vehicle.

Mr. Dillon

And even though that involves certain inevitable consequences, can we not take measures——

An Ceann Comhairle

It may be relevant to some other Bill but not to this measure.

Mr. Dillon

We are to create a new situation from which certain consequences flow. We define a man as an owner of a vehicle and yet though we have defined him as the owner for the purpose of buying his property, could we not find that he is not the owner at all?

An Ceann Comhairle

This amendment proposes to define an owner of a vehicle for the purpose of the sale of such vehicle. That clearly is outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It seems to me that under the Bill as it stands, the Minister, for road traffic purposes, is defining the owner, where the vehicle is the subject of a hire purchase agreement, as being the person in possession of the vehicle. Could the Minister say what is the position then if a situation such as is envisaged in the proposed amendment arises where a vehicle, the subject of a hire purchase agreement, is in fact sold contrary to the hire purchase agreement?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is discussing the amendment in an oblique way.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Under the Bill as it now stands he would be regarded as the owner.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would prefer the Deputy to ask such a question on the section.

Mr. Ryan

The position at the moment might well be that the real owner of a vehicle might easily be the hire purchase company, but an action might lie against some person who has no property rights in the vehicle at all. I would suggest that the section would be much more welcome if the word "sale" were to be taken out of it entirely and the section then amended.

An Ceann Comhairle

But "sale" is in it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

This definition ties it to the person in possession under the hire purchase agreement.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not really for the purpose of the Road Traffic Bill.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

For the purpose of this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. I rule it out of order. We could argue this for a considerable time.

Mr. Dillon

We can argue it on the section.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (1), page 8, lines 35 to 39, to delete the definition of "registered owner" and substitute a new definition as follows:—

"registered owner" means:

(a) the holder of a trade licence issued under section 9 of the Roads Act, 1920, as amended,

(b) in the case of a vehicle in respect of which a declaration is made for the purpose of obtaining in respect of more than six vehicles of uniform type in the same ownership a licence under section 1 of the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act, 1952, the person shown on such declaration,

(c) in the case of a State owned vehicle the Department of State referred to in the declaration made to the licensing authority for the purpose of registering the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of any enactment or any regulations made thereunder,

(d) in any other case the person shown as the current owner in the registration book issued in respect of the vehicle by the licensing authority.

This amendment, like a number of other amendments, is simply for the purpose of making the action of the Minister readable without in any sense altering what the Minister wants the Act to provide. In the definition section of the Bill—Section 3—the registered owner is defined by reference to the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1958. That means the person who wants to find out who is a registered owner does not find the answer in this Bill but has to consult the 1958 regulations in order to get the answer. What I am suggesting in this amendment is that the provisions of the Road Vehicles Regulations of 1958, which defined the registered owner, should be incorporated into this Bill. It does not vary what the Minister wants to achieve in any way, but makes the Bill readable so that a person looking at the Bill will see at a glance who is the registered owner.

Mr. Blaney

I do not dispute the general implications of the Deputy's amendment, but I would point out to him that the definition as now suggested is in exactly the same terms as it was so defined in an Act of 1960 and about which no action whatsoever is being taken. The regulations in respect to this matter may change and that being so, the spelling out of it as the amendment suggests could mean legislation as well as regulations. It could mean an amendment of the actual law.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does the Minister not appreciate there is a certain virtue in that? Surely it is preferable that as far as possible we should, in legislation of this or any other type, try to put the full definition into the Bill rather than to leave it in a vague way which may be altered by regulations later on. The Minister might also appreciate that the wording of the definition of registered owner here could give rise to a very great deal of trouble if the regulations were in fact altered, because it provides that the words "registered owner" will have the meaning assigned to them by the 1958 regulations, but if these regulations should be revoked they will have the meaning assigned to them by any such corresponding regulations as may for the time being be enforced. Without being in any way fanciful, I think it would be open to argument that if other regulations were made which did not tally reasonably with the 1958 regulations, they could not be held to correspond to the 1958 regulations.

Mr. Blaney

The definition will depend entirely on the system in use. The implication of the Deputy's amendment now would be that we accept the use of the registration books as at present as being the absolute end in so far as this matter is concerned and that we write into this Bill something that in itself is based on a matter which is subject to change and that we would later have to amend the law any time we came to a change in the registration system. It is not really the system that is of importance.

Mr. Ryan

In support of what Deputy O'Higgins has said, I would point out that in order to understand the full meaning of "registered owner," the person has, in the first instance, to look to regulations printed in 1958 which, for all I know, are not obtainable at the moment because many of the regulations made under the existing road traffic regulations are out of print. Having succeeded in getting a copy of the regulations, he then has to race after a copy of the Roads Act, 1920, which even our own Stationery Office does not stock because it is a publication that was issued when the British rule operated here. He then has to chase further to find regulations under Section 1 of the Finance (excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act, 1952.

Our criticism of the section as it stands and of much of this Bill is really criticism of drafting. We believe that a Bill of this nature, which is a popular Bill, a Bill to which the public must look, day in and day out, which everybody will be presumed to know and understand—while in all cases we are presumed to know the law—a Bill which is to be operated by ordinary men and women, should be so comprehensive as to hold within the first and last sections everything a person may need to understand.

I appreciate that there may have to be further consideration of the amendment and of the section as it stands, but I respectfully urge the Minister to consider how far he may go in explaining the thing to the ordinary man in the street, who will have to understand this Bill. It is not a Bill which should be understood only by lawyers or the Department or the Garda Síochána. It should be understood by the ordinary man in the street. Certainly, it is not understandable by the ordinary man in the street as it stands at the moment.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy Ryan mentions the Act of 1920. It is clear from that Act and the registration regulations made under it that that Act clearly envisaged the registration system being set out in regulations and that the system would change from time to time. That is inherent in the sense and meaning of the particular sections in the 1920 Act, to which the Deputy referred.

The Deputy also said that it is doubtful if the regulations printed in 1958 are available. He asks where does one get them and talks of the public not having them available to them. These regulations are statutory instruments and are available and can be procured.

There is one other thing I should like to say as it is possibly a matter which may arise on many other sections. I do not really agree with Deputy Ryan that it should be possible to put within the framework of this Bill definitions and every matter of regulations, spelled out to the last degree. If that were to be done, this Bill would be enlarged four times and the ordinary owner and driver would have to go driving around the countryside studying each page and line of it.

I do not think laws of this nature are to be understood in absolute letter and line, in the legal sense which the Deputy seems to imply, by each and every member of the public. I do not think that the writing of everything into the Bill would make the law any more readily available to the public mind. If the Bill were to be enlarged very much further in consequence of such an approach, rather than clarifying the traffic laws in general, it would be much more likely to clutter up the minds of those reading the Bill to a degree that unless they were very well legally trained, they would probably know less about it when finished reading than they did when they started.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Would the Minister say that a person who is not legally trained and who is looking at the definition of "registered owner" is any wiser after reading that definition than he was before reading it?

Mr. Blaney

That depends on the person.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not think it does.

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If an Act tells me that "registered owner" has the meaning assigned to it by particular regulations, without saying what that meaning is, unless I hunt for and get those regulations, I still do not know what is the meaning of the words "registered owner". I do not intend to press this but I would ask the Minister to consider whether the amendment as tabled, if it contained an additional subparagraph enabling the Minister to add or vary the definition by regulations, might not meet the point. It would then give a reasonably comprehensive definition but it would put people on notice that it could be varied.

Mr. Blaney

That is a matter that would need some little consideration.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Would the Minister consider it?

Mr. Blaney

Yes, I shall consider it between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Corish

On what the Minister has said, I think he is on a dangerous line of country from the point of view of this and other legislation. He says it is not possible, and that he does not intend, to frame legislation which the ordinary man might be able to understand. These are not the Minister's exact words. It would seem to me, therefore, that before I start to drive a car, I should consult a solicitor so that he might interpret the law and so that I might know, for example, whether I am the "registered owner" and the meaning of "parking" and "lights". The Minister ought to get after that.

Mr. Blaney

According to what the Deputy has said, it is likely that he would need to take a solicitor with him. Perhaps I should elaborate, as the matter will arise on other sections. It is not the intention in determining matters to be prescribed by regulation to spell out the matters which any particular regulation is expected to cover. Something we did not foresee or envisage, which should be included in a regulation under a given section and which is not included, is by implication not allowed to be brought within that section.

Mr. Corish

I think the Minister's intention in respect of this legislation and other legislation is to make it as simple as possible.

Mr. Blaney

Provided I am allowed to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 3:

In subsection (2), page 9, lines 20 and 21, to delete "disabled (either through accident, by the removal of vital parts or otherwise)" and substitute "substantially disabled (either through accident, breakdown or the removal of the engine or other such vital part)".

This is a drafting amendment. To explain the reason for it I should say that "mechanically propelled vehicle" was not defined in the 1933 Act. Doubts were thrown on the meaning of the words. It was held in a court case that a vehicle, although capable of being mechanically propelled, was not a mechanically propelled vehicle when it was not actually propelled by the engine—that is the kernel of the situation—for instance, a vehicle coasting down a hill or otherwise or a stationary vehicle, even though it was obvious to the onlooker from its appearance that it was a mechanically propelled vehicle. There was that weakness in that there was no definition in the 1933 Act and the question arose in a court case. It is for that reason that we have the amendment in a form which will give more clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I should like to ask the Minister some questions. With regard to the definition of "omnibus", the section says that " `omnibus' means a large public service vehicle which is for the time being used on a definite route for the carriage of passengers..." What is the significance of the phrase "a definite route"? What is the position of an omnibus which is chartered by a party for a particular function and which may go by one route and return by another, having no particular route laid down? I assume this is a question that has been considered and I should like to know the answer.

With regard to the definition of "owner" as distinct from "registered owner", the owner is the person who, in subsequent sections of this Bill, can be made liable in respect of various offences in which the vehicle is involved. Two points arise in relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement. One of the aspects is that which was referred to in Deputy Costello's amendment which has been ruled out of order. That amendment was clearly designed to protect an innocent purchaser who, as the law stands at the moment, would not be afforded protection if he buys a vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement although there is no obligation on the registered owner, on the hire purchase firm or on the road authorities to indicate in any way on the registration book that the car is the subject of a hire purchase agreement.

As an extension of that, I should like to know what is the position of a person who buys a car which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement in breach, as far as the hirer is concerned, of that hire purchase agreement. Suppose I own a car which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement. I am not entitled to sell that because I am not the legal owner until that hire purchase company is paid off. If I do sell that car to the Minister and the Minister is involved in some offence with that car, does the Minister get off scot free because, under the definition of "owner" in the section, the owner is the person in possession of the vehicle under the hire purchase agreement?

Perhaps I could put the point more clearly to the Minister. If a person buys a car which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement in breach of the terms of that agreement and that person is involved in one of the statutory offences envisaged by this Bill, as owner is he exempt under this section for the reason that he is not the person in possession under the agreement?

Mr. Blaney

Deputy O'Higgins will admit that the cases he envisages here are rather unusual and likely to be unique. In regard to the liability of the owner or registered owner, I should think that the court, to which undoubtedly such a case would find its way, would, in the initial stages or at some stage in its proceedings, determine whether it was the owner through the hire purchase company, the registered owner or who should be proceeded against under the terms of the Bill. I do not think one could possibly answer the Deputy categorically in that connection. Possibly I have not grasped exactly what he intends but in regard to what I understood him to say, I believe the situation would be as I said, that the court would determine the owner and the liability of the owner in the case arising from the circumstances the Deputy outlined.

Mr. Ryan

Would the Minister deal with the omnibus question, the question of a bus hired for private purposes and not keeping to a particular route? Is that covered in the various definitions?

Mr. Booth

What about touring buses?

Mr. Blaney

It would no longer be an omnibus in such circumstances. Having been hired out it would no longer come within the term "omnibus."

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Would the Minister deal with Deputy Booth's query? Could one of these touring buses come within the definition of "omnibus?"

Mr. Blaney

No. An omnibus would be a vehicle that drops and picks up on given, stated routes, and the other would be a public service vehicle, large or small, as the case may be.

Mr. Ryan

On the question of hire purchase agreements, we have to face the fact, in relation to the Road Traffic Bill and in other respects, that a very large percentage of the cars on our roads are ones in which hire purchase and finance companies have a major interest, and I do not think we have considered that sufficiently in relation to this Bill. It works both ways. As things stand and notwithstanding what the Minister says regarding any civil court, some confusion might arise as between the person who had the agreement with the hire purchase company and an innocent purchaser who might have control of the car for the time being.

Few as these cases are, they would be even fewer and a great deal of trouble and complexity would be avoided if our tax books were to have a column or a page, something like a land registry document, where burdens, mortgages or loans would be registered. Then the position would be that no person would have a car without having noticed that some hire purchase company had an interest in it. That is very necessary from the point of view of the bona fide purchaser, from the point of view of the hire purchase companies and also from the point of view of prosecutions under this Bill. Therefore, I hope the Minister will take it up with the Department of Finance, and such other Departments as may be involved, in order to bring about a system whereby, if a car has been bought under a hire purchase agreement, the interest of the party lending the money will be noted in the tax book itself.

Mr. Blaney

This matter is certainly not new. I agree with Deputy Ryan that the vast majority of motor vehicles are subject to hire purchase, but why the owner, or owner for the time being, of such a vehicle should be obliged, for the information of the general public, to carry on his windscreen a notice that the car has been bought on borrowed money is something one has to examine. The person concerned surely must have some right in this matter. I have looked at this matter from the same angle as Deputy Ryan has stated here, of trying to protect the innocent purchaser of a secondhand car from non-recognised sources. It must be appreciated, however, that for the public to buy a car from a stranger on the street, and not through an authorised dealer or through somebody of whom he knows, is a risky business at the best of times. If people are prone to do that sort of thing and continue to do it, I am afraid they will learn their lesson the hard way. It is not a sufficient argument for compelling an ordinary car owner who has a liability to a hire purchase company for the fact that he owns a car to put a notice on his windscreen saying that he has borrowed money to buy the car, for the mere protection of the innocents abroad who part with their money easily and simply to a stranger who doctors old cars and sells them as new cars at big prices.

Mr. Ryan

I should like to get the record right on this point. I am not suggesting that such a notice should go on the windscreen; I said it should go on the tax book, which changes hands only when the ownership of the car changes. That is an entirely different thing. I do not think this applies only to what might be called secondhand cars. While the majority of motor car dealers are most reputable, there have been cases of dealers who sold cars as new, notwithstanding hire purchase agreements which existed in relation to those cars.

Mr. Blaney

I quite agree that it would not be quite as objectionable to have it stamped on the tax book as it would be to have it on the windscreen. Nevertheless, it is not quite right to say that no one except the vendor of the car or the purchaser knows anything about the tax book. Tax books are handled through various tax offices, in various years and in various quarters, and for those reasons a person's private business and his private arrangements would be made public—for the protection of those people who will insist on buying cars from doubtful sources. A register has been compiled to which people may have recourse before the completion of the deal and in that register they can check on whether there is anything outstanding on a particular car. This point in relation to hire purchase was considered under another heading altogether. I feel that in all the circumstances that type of safeguard is a reasonable one. It does not interfere with anyone and it is available to people who want to have recourse to it for their own protection. If they do not, it is their own look-out.

Mr. Ryan

I do not want to flog this matter. I know the register to which the Minister referred is available to registered motor dealers, but I do not think we should compel a person to go to a registered motor dealer if he wants to carry out a legitimate transaction with a neighbour. He should be free to do so without having to have recourse to information which, I understand, is a private arrangement between the hire purchase companies and the finance houses themselves. That does not cover the points Deputy Costello, Deputy O'Higgins and I have already stressed.

The Minister is unduly sensitive about people's desire for privacy in regard to their financial affairs. They would prefer a system under which they would be safeguarded against dishonesty. In any event, many new motor cars are as dear as house property, and you cannot buy house property without knowing whether or not there is a mortgage or a loan on it. You cannot buy house property without research in the Registry of Deeds and the Land Registry to find out whether or not there is a loan or a mortgage on the premises.

Therefore, while I appreciate a person's right not to have his financial arrangements disclosed to the world, I think the Minister is taking the wrong view in his desire to protect the private affairs of an innocent party. It is not possible for me to quote any figures but I know that not infrequently solicitors are consulted by people who innocently purchased cars and subsequently find the hire purchase companies chasing them for the balance due. Many such cases do not reach the courts—probably less than .05 of such cases do—for the reason that the solicitor will advise the purchaser that he has no legal remedy, that the hire purchase company are in the right, and usually an arrangement is made with regard to the balance. For that reason, I would ask the Minister to have the matter reconsidered.

Mr. Blaney

My information does not correspond with the Deputy's information in regard to this information service, known as Hire Purchase Information Limited. A Press notice concerning that company was published last year. I understand that a prospective purchaser of any given vehicle may, at a small fee, have information supplied to him prior to the completion of a deal, for his own safety, if he is dealing with a garage. If he is dealing with his neighbour, I take it his neighbour is not likely to be "doing him in the eye". If he is, no one should deal with him.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If such a register exists, it makes mincemeat of the Minister's argument that privacy is being preserved and that people are sensitive about it. If such a register exists, it would give a good measure of protection, but complete protection would be given by adopting the principle in the amendment which Deputy Costello had hoped to move. There is another system by which the purchaser can very often protect himself, as the Minister is probably aware. I think all hire purchase companies insist on their name being included on the insurance policy, so long as there is money outstanding, and any prospective purchaser looking at the insurance policy of the vendor could find out in that way whether or not the car was the subject of a hire purchase agreement.

Mr. Booth

I should like to confirm that the register of which the Minister has spoken is in existence, and is very frequently used. In fact, it is invariably used by anyone who is not prepared to take any risk. I think there is some restriction, however—although I am not quite certain —as to who may consult it, for the precise reason which Deputy O'Higgins has stated. I do not think that register is public property. It would not be right if the confidential relationship between the dealer and vendor were freely available to anyone. For that reason, so far as I know, it is open only to a motor trader who is genuinely engaged in the negotiation for sale, or in the sale of a vehicle, and the purchaser of the vehicle. It does give some protection to the borrower to know that the source of the money with which he originally bought the vehicle will not be disclosed to someone making idle inquiries.

As the Minister said, people who buy cars without knowing everything necessary about the owner are taking very considerable risks. We do not buy property without consulting solicitors and inquiring in the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, but we do not always rely on solicitors to carry out the necessary researches to make sure the vendor is the beneficial owner without any restriction on his right to dispose of it. The public should be warned of the peril which exists when they are buying used cars or other vehicles and advised to do their business through someone who has access to the register which is kept up to date. and can be relied upon.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

There is one point which I should like the Minister to clear up. Section 4 deals with the application of the Bill to various people, and subsection (2) (c) states:

a member of the Garda Síochána or an officer of any Minister using a vehicle for the purpose of a test, removal or disposition of the vehicle pursuant to this Act or any regulation thereunder.

I should like confirmation from the Minister that in the case of a Garda who is testing a vehicle, and who may possibly be involved in an accident, the Minister for Finance is the person responsible to the injured party. I think that is probably so but I would like to get confirmation that it is so.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy will find that, in Section 116, it is clearly set out as he suggests.

Mr. Ryan

I will look up the section but what will happen to the owner of a vehicle if the car is involved in a collision while a Garda is testing it?

Mr. Blaney

If it is due to the negligence of the Garda in question, obviously the owner of the car would have an action.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is quite clear from Section 116.

Mr. Ryan

I think the query raised by Deputy O'Higgins is also in my mind. It does not seem to be completely enacted in Section 116. I am sorry. It is quite clear there.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On Section 5 there is amendment 4 by Deputy Booth. There is also amendment 113 in the name of Deputy Corish and other members of the Labour Party. I think they might be discussed together as they appear to be related.

Mr. Booth

I move amendment No. 4:

Before subsection (2) to insert a new subsection as follows:

"( ) Before making any regulation under this Act, except in cases of urgency, the Minister shall give prior notice of his intention to do so in order to enable organisations representative of road users to make representations to him for his consideration."

The point I had in mind in putting down this amendment was to be as helpful as possible to the Minister, without casting any reflection on him or on any of his possible successors. We had a case not so long ago when there was some amendment of the provision for the taxation of commercial road vehicles. In that case the regulations were all set out but they required considerable amendment by virtue of the complexity of the matter involved. It seems to me that the Minister is now being empowered to make regulations in connection with a great number of difficult and complex matters and that it would be wise for this House to make some provision whereby the Minister would ensure that the interested parties, particularly the representative bodies formed by various types of road users, would have an opportunity of making their opinions known to him for attention.

I am not quite happy with amendment 113, because I believe that one can have too many advisory bodies and an additional advisory council such as is envisaged by amendment 113 does not seem to me to serve any useful purpose in this regard. There are at the moment two major bodies representing the users of private motor vehicles, the Automobile Association and the Royal Irish Automobile Club. There are also, at least, two organisations representing those who operate commercial vehicles. I feel that it is bodies such as these that would be very well able to help the Minister by letting him have the benefit of their expert and technical knowledge.

I do not believe that any Minister for Local Government or members of his staff can be expected to have the expert technical knowledge which is available to those whose whole livelihood depends on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles. I do not intend that as a reflection upon them, but there is always a danger that regulations may be made in perfectly good faith but in quite understandable ignorance of some detail or major principle which could make such a regulation a mistake in the form in which it might be drafted. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment because it does not make the legislation any more cumbersome and it does not set up any advisory body, but it simply asks that he give advance notice of any regulations proposed to be made. For that reason I have left it deliberately rather vague and I simply ask that prior notice be given to the various representative bodies of any regulations which it is proposed to make.

I agree in advance with the Minister that these various organisations would have certain vested interests, but I do not suggest that he should feel bound to accept any advice which he might be given by them. He should make himself open to receive advice and information in connection with the making of regulations. If the Minister is prepared to do this, it would give much more confidence to road users generally, and I ask him to accept it in the form in which it is drafted or, if it would be more acceptable in an amended form, I would be happy to withdraw it in its present form so that it could be reconsidered on the Report Stage.

Mr. Corish

On Deputy Booth's amendment and on amendment 113 I would like to say that, while the House as a whole welcomed the provisions of the Road Traffic Bill now before us, there was much justifiable criticism in respect of the number of regulations that the Minister will have power to make when the Bill finally becomes law. Many Deputies expressed their concern about the power being handed over to the Minister and that concern is being demonstrated by the number of amendments tabled here today.

Nobody wants to attempt to usurp the functions of the Minister. He and he alone can make the regulations and he and he alone has the power to put them into effect. I should like to subscribe to what Deputy Booth has said. While we appreciate the functions of the Minister's advisers, the officials of his Department, who could describe them as experts in all the various fields of motoring or of the various offences of which motorists can be guilty from time to time?

We on the Labour Benches have proposed that an advisory council be established. The amendment asks that a new section be inserted before Section 121. Subsection (1) reads as follows:

Before section 121 to insert the following new sections:

The Minister shall appoint a Road Traffic Advisory Council representative of local authorities, the Garda Síochána and of workers' and employers' organisations, to which regulations proposed to be made under this Act shall be referred for its observations.

As Deputy Booth says, a motorists' organisation is omitted. I would not attempt to nominate one in the amendment. However, if the Minister decided to include on the advisory council an organisation or body representative either of the motor trade or the various motorists' associations we have in the country my colleagues would not object.

The people mentioned in the subsection have a very great interest, not necessarily a vested interest, in this legislation. Certainly they will have a tremendous interest in the many dozens of regulations to be framed by the Minister. It is important that local authorities should be in a position to advise the Minister on regulations he may frame under the terms of this Bill. A serious burden will be placed on local authorities.

I have in mind the provision of different signs, "No Parking" signs and various signs mentioned in the Bill. I assume that in the ordinary course of events, the Garda Síochána would be consulted by the Minister and his officials in the framing of certain regulations.

The workers would be vitally concerned. I do not want to go into detail yet about their interests. The many amendments will demonstrate how vitally concerned the workers are with this legislation—the hours they may be required to drive, rest hours, and so on. An employers' organisation would be concerned, too, with the upkeep of their vehicles, the cost of repairs, the putting of lorries and different vehicles into such condition as may be prescribed by the Minister. It is not necessary to labour all these points now. The House will readily see how vitally concerned all these people will be not alone in the direct proposals of the legislation but in regulations of which we have no knowledge yet.

With regard to the proposal in amendment 113, the Minister is not bound to accept their advice. If such a council is established, a Minister would feel obliged to listen to them and their advice on various aspects of the road traffic code. Some might say this would create a precedent and point out that the Minister is responsible and is prepared to accept the responsibility.

The Minister for Health has responsibilities. The Minister for Social Welfare has responsibilities. So, too, have the Ministers for Industry and Commerce and Transport and Power. Recent legislation which provides for the safety of workers and the financial protection of employers provided for an advisory council. The National Health Council was established by the Minister for Health to advise him on health matters. It is representative of various organisations—doctors, nurses, the general trade union movement and different sections of the community. They meet frequently. They advise the Minister on regulations he may introduce under the Health Act, 1953.

A Factories Act was recently enacted for the protection of workers and to determine what safety measures are required. The Act carries with it the establishment of a Factories Advisory Council. So far as I am aware, that council plus the Health Council have worked well. An Offices Act was recently enacted. It also carries a proposal for the establishment of an Office Premises Advisory Council. The proposal to establish this council is not designed to usurp the functions of the Minister or to try to bully or browbeat him.

I know there will be people on that council who may have a vested interest. We all have vested interests in many things. Whether we be Deputies, civil servants or anything else, we have vested interests in practically everything. I do not believe the establishment of an advisory council will hinder the Minister in framing regulations. If he accepts this proposal, he will find that traffic legislation can, even by regulation, be improved to a substantial extent.

Mr. Blaney

In regard to amendment No. 4, I think it is accepted that the regulations proposed in the Bill are of a very widespread nature. Some of them will deal with matters that are not really the concern of road users, as such. The amendment suggests that all regulations should be discussed with people representative of road interests and road users. Some are not of interest to them. The disposal of fees, for instance, is not a matter that in the ordinary sense would be of interest to road users or interests concerned with roads and road traffic in the ordinary sense. It would be wrong and cause delay to compel the Minister in all cases to have recourse to the advice of bodies representing various sections of road users.

It cannot be disputed in regard to matters such as those referred to in the amendment, that interested parties have been consulted in the past. On the Second Stage of this Bill I indicated the willingness and indeed the wish to consult those interested in these matters who can be of assistance. But to oblige a Minister for Local Government to consult in all cases might cause a delay that might not be in the best interests of the community.

When there is no question of urgency, it is likely that the road user interests concerned will be aware of what is intended long before it comes to pass and that their views will be conveyed to the Minister, either by deputation or written submission. In that way, the difficulties envisaged by this amendment will not arise and there will be no real difference between what is proposed in the regulations and what is acceptable to the road-using public. To my knowledge, organisations representative of the motor trade and groups such as the A.A. and the R.I.A.C. have had no reason to complain in the past of not being informed of proposed changes in road traffic regulations affecting their interests. No such complaints were ever recorded and I do not think they ever existed.

The position at present then would be to leave the section as it stands, giving the Dáil and Seanad the power to annul regulations, if they think fit, after such regulations have been made. I think the basis of the argument is that safeguards are required. If that is so, surely that is the best possible safeguard without involving the adoption of a delaying procedure? The real safeguard is that the Dáil and Seanad may annul an Order after it has been made. Surely no one will deny that the views of all road users and interests are fully reflected on both sides in the Dáil and Seanad? In that way, the safeguarding of interests is adequately taken care of. While what is suggested in the amendment may, at first sight, appear admirable, I do not think it is really necessary. In view of that, and since it may create a danger of delay in cases where urgency is required, I do not think it serves a useful purpose.

Amendment 113 deals with the setting up of an advisory council. Such a council could undoubtedly contribute much wisdom, but we must ask ourselves if the wisdom they could contribute is not already available through other channels. Might not such a council absorb the energies that should be devoted to the implementation of the new Act and might it not tend to channel away energies from the main stream of endeavour? This idea of an advisory council was adopted in the Six Counties in 1956 and a council was set up. Very recently, that council has liquidated itself voluntarily. For what reasons it has done so, I do not know; but I am aware it has done so. That they themselves should have brought an end to their activities after four short years of existence would seem to indicate that the members themselves could not see any useful purpose for the council to serve. They have, therefore, taken the sensible step of disappearing of their own volition.

However, there is a last saver for those who feel this amendment should be carried. At present, power exists under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, for the setting up of an advisory committee. If it happens, when this new Act is under way and the new laws enforced, that we feel there is need for such a committee, we could, if we wished, have recourse to the 1919 Act and set up such a committee. However, it need not necesarily deal solely with matters relating to what is contained in the Bill but could deal with other matters concerning roads and road construction. In fact, I did consider setting up such a committee under the 1919 Act one and a half or two years ago, but after full consideration of the matter at the time, it was felt that energies which should be devoted to bringing this Bill before the House would be dissipated by the setting up of such a committee. For that reason, it was not set up at that time.

By and large, I feel that such a council as is proposed in this amendment would not really help the operation of the new Act. Having got the Bill through this House and the other House, our first and fundamental task is to put it into operation. Anything that would tend to take away from that endeavour should not be considered at this stage. However, the question of whether or not the setting up of such a council under the 1919 Act might be considered at a later stage is one on which I have an entirely open mind. The House would be well advised not to endeavour to bring in a statutory advisory council at this stage and thereby reduce the effort which should go into having the Bill put into operation at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Kyne

In general I might say that amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 113 have a common outlook. The idea is to get the Minister to submit proposed regulations to the interests most likely to be affected, prior to deciding on the particular regulation he is endeavouring to carry out. It is desirable that before the Minister commits himself to making a regulation all interests concerned should have given advice freely to him. It is quite true that the Minister can always avail of advice from anybody prior to making the regulation but the difference between amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 113 is that while it is open to all concerned to advise or to offer advice to the Minister, it is well known that what is everybody's business is nobody's business and all the organisations will each be expecting the other groups or bodies to be making recommendations.

We all know the advantage there is when people get together, as they do in a council, and have proposals submitted to them which they must discuss and about which they must come to a decision. It is a vastly different thing to expect different groups with different points of view to put forward a common policy. There is the need to get divergent views together, such as employers, workers, local authorities, Garda and motor traders, in a council to discuss this matter and produce a decided policy, if that is possible, and to put that to the Minister. That would be of much more use to the Minister in determining what is the best regulation to bring forward rather than to be presented with individual views, seen only from the purely sectional angle.

It is quite true as the Minister said that each Deputy and Senator can constitute himself an advisory council. But we all know the value of that. How many regulations are placed on the Table of the House and are actually law before a Deputy is aware of it? Again it is a case of what is everybody's business is nobody's business. If a special body were established as suggested by amendment 113, I believe it would serve a very useful function. I was surprised when the Minister was making his speech to find the case was so good. He said it could be useful and, if the House still thought so, later on they could bring it in in another section. Then he suggested it would take from the working of the Bill if we set up such a council. I could not follow how he was of opinion that energies would be dissipated by forming an advisory council.

He also pointed out how trivial regulations, such as one to decide what was to be done with certain fees, would have to go before the advisory council and would not be of any great interest to them. That would only be a line on a sheet of paper which they would look at and agree to without further discussion. Surely it would not involve any great hold-up for anyone to have a copy of the Minister's intended proposals listed and then let the advisory council single out those they felt were controversial, difficult or objectionable—and mainly the objectionable proposals. If they were not in favour of the Minister's regulations, I could see the advisory council disposing of all the objections in a very short time.

It is most desirable to curtail government by regulation as much as possible. It is the most dangerous type of government and is completely opposed to democracy and gives to a Minister powers which could not be foreseen by the legislators. We have a very clear knowledge of that under the Health Act which has now become so twisted by regulation as to mean a different thing altogether. The Road Traffic Act might well meet the same fate. It is not only advisable but essential that an advisory council should be set up for the protection of the general public and the other various interests who use the roads—employers, traders and motor users. I may say that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has a very strong view on this and they feel that such an advisory council is absolutely essential. The Minister should reconsider his views on this matter. As he said himself he sees the value of it and it could be established under another Act. I believe this is the time and the place for the Minister to indicate what he proposes to do.

Mr. Booth

I accept much of what the Minister has said and I should like to assure him that this was not introduced in any way as a complaint by motoring organisations that they had not been consulted in the past. It is much more that the organisations of road users were anxious to take this opportunity of trying to get a statutory guarantee that the same courtesy as had been extended to them in the past would continue to be extended to them in the future. I might say that the making of all regulations might be a matter which would be inappropriate to refer to a representative organisation but, so far as cases of urgency are concerned, I did make an exception in my amendment that the Minister, in the making of any regulations, "except in cases of urgency, shall give prior notice." I do not know whether the Minister can meet me in this regard at all, but we would all be happier if we felt that the Minister would at least consider some means whereby those primarily interested, and those most technically qualified, would be given an opportunity of giving some advice in advance.

I quite agree with the Minister that there is the final safeguard of the Order being laid on the Table of the House. What I wanted to avoid being brought in was delay in having to do that and then possibly having to pass a resolution which would oppose the making of the regulation in that form. I hoped he would get the advice in advance rather than in arrear. In view of what the Minister said, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, but in doing so I would ask the Minister whether he can give anything more than his own personal assurance that he will seek the advice of representative bodies in future because, while we would accept his personal assurance, we should like to have some assurance which would be binding on his successors. Accordingly, I withdraw my amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 is being withdrawn. Deputy Kyne can move his amendment when we come to it.

Mr. Corish

I am concerned about his amendment as well. I have a sneaking feeling——

Mr. Kyne

Is it not the property of the House?

Mr. Corish

Will amendment No. 113 be moved in its order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, in its order.

Mr. Blaney

Is it the position that it can be taken but not debated later?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It will be taken later. The question will be put when we come to it. It has been debated.

Mr. Booth

I do not want to embarrass the Labour Party if what I am doing now will prevent them from proceeding along the lines they wish to go.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Separate decisions can be taken on both amendments. Deputy Booth is withdrawing his amendment. We will deal with the amendment in the name of Deputy Corish when we come to it.

Mr. Booth

The Deputy still has the right to debate it.

Mr. Kyne

On a point of order, Deputy Booth said that the Deputy still has the right to debate his amendment, but the Minister said earlier that Deputy Corish's amendment is being discussed now. Who is right? Will we have the right to further debate amendment No. 113 or have we to say all we wish to say on it at this point and remain silent later?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Both amendments are being discussed together and the debate on both amendments will conclude now.

Mr. Kyne

The Minister made the case that the Advisory Council in the Six Counties concluded after four years and he implied that they must have found themselves either exhausted or useless. Is it not possible that, after four years of dealing with the regulations made, they found that all the regulations possible had been made and there was no further need for them to continue as an Advisory Council? Is it not likely that after four years, they had done all the good work they could possibly do? Is it not possible that that was the reason they dissolved and not that they had done no work at all? Four years is a long period in which to give advice after the passing of an Act. The Minister rather suggested the reverse. He may not have intended to do so, but he certainly implied that this body dissolved after four years because they were of very little use. I suggest it is more likely they dissolved because there was no further need for their services.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

You would not blame anyone being exhausted after four years of dealing with ministerial regulations.

Mr. Blaney

No Minister for Local Government will make regulations of a major character, and which are not urgent, without consulting all available sources of information and advice. To do otherwise would be utterly daft, in my estimation.

Mr. Corish

We have had some daft ones.

Mr. Blaney

In fact, there have not been any daft regulations, because, in all cases, except where urgency demanded a different course, they have consulted every available source of information in an informal and unofficial manner. That has been far more effective than would have been the position had they been compelled to seek such information in a formal manner, involving a great deal of paper work before council meetings and a great deal of paper work from such meetings. That type of machinery involves a great deal more time than does informal discussion. A traditional close harmony has always existed between Ministers for Local Government and the different organisations representing road users. To envisage a situation in which a Minister for Local Government would ignore such sources of information is beyond my capacity to either accept or appreciate.

The practice which has existed up to now will continue. So far as I am concerned, these matters will be given ample advance publication. The only exception will be where a matter of supreme urgency arises. In every other case, notice will be given in advance of the making of such regulations. After that, the regulations will be laid on the Table of both Houses. It must be admitted that we have in Dáil and Seanad Éireann the most representative group possible, a more representative group than any council would be irrespective of how one set it up or from where one garnered the material for its composition. The Dáil and Seanad are the best representatives of the interests of all sections of the community and of all sections of road users. The final say will rest here. If something detrimental emerges, the House will be in a position to annul the offending regulation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 5:

To delete subsection (2) and substitute a new subsection as follows:—

"( ) Where regulations are proposed to be made under any of the provisions of this Act a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been approved by each such House."

This amendment is rather more drastic than the amendment proposed by Deputy Booth or the Labour Party amendment which was discussed with it. It does not deal with quite the same problem. It deals generally with the question of ministerial regulations which will be made under this measure.

The amendment is designed to alter the procedure whereby regulations made under the Bill as it stands will have the force of law. It is required that such regulations will be placed on the Table of both Dáil and Seanad. After a certain period, any regulation so tabled automatically has the full force and effect of law. Even if it is upset within the prescribed time under subsection (2) of Section 5, any act done under such regulation will continue to have validity,

On the Second Reading of this Bill, I said, and I repeat it now, that it is better that an Act should be as comprehensive as possible and should stand on its own feet without the props of subsequent ministerial regulations. We recognise that in some types of legislation, and road traffic legislation of this type is one of them, it is necessary, because of changing conditions and even changes in the make of vehicles, that the Minister should be given power to legislate—that is what it amounts to—by regulation. We think, however, that the House should regard legislation by regulation as the exception rather than the rule. On every occasion on which I have taken part in a debate in which legislation by regulation was under discussion, I have made my views quite clear irrespective of which side of the House I happened to be sitting.

Every time we pass legislation in this House whereby we give power to a Minister to act by regulation and legislate by regulation, we are to a certain extent abdicating our position and our rights and, indeed, our duties as public representatives. It should be accepted by the Minister and the House that, as a general rule, a Bill, when it is introduced here, should contain the law which is proposed by the Minister or the Government and that that should not simply be an enabling Act to empower the Minister, his servants or agents not only to define but alter the law subsequently by regulation.

I can well understand that it must be attractive to any Minister to take powers to legislate by regulation. Amendments have been put down from all sides of the House. In the amendment moved by Deputy Booth, the amendment spoken to by Deputy Corish and the amendment which I am now moving from this side of the House, there is some significance in the fact that Deputies on all sides of the House have taken exception to some extent to the proposals in this Bill dealing with regulations.

We suggest that instead of the negative type of procedure which is laid down in the Bill—the Minister simply has to lay the regulations on the Table of the House—it should be necessary for the Minister to introduce a resolution and to have that resolution passed by the House before the regulation would have the force of law. The Minister may tell us in reply that that is going to slow down things and that one of the attractions of legislation by regulation is that you have speed and that very often in road traffic matters speed is essential.

I agree with the Minister that it is attractive from the point of view of speed to legislate by regulation but it is essential we should remember, and the Minister should remember, that in agreeing to legislation by regulation the members of this House are giving a concession to the Minister and the Government. It is a very definite concession because it is the right and duty of the members of this House and of the other House of the Oireachtas to legislate and discuss legislation. When we are making that concession to the Minister by allowing him to make regulations under the Act, I do not think the Minister or the Government should be allowed to push the House too far. I do not think it is something too much that we should say to the Minister: "Very well, we agree that this is a case where you are entitled to have power to make regulations. We agree it is the kind of Bill where it is important that the law should be defined or altered in a speedy manner. We are prepared to give you the power to make regulations provided you come into the House and ask the sanction of the House for what you are doing and pass a resolution agreeing to the regulation."

This is an occasion where I suggest that should be done. I believe it is important that on some occasion this House should make a very definite stand, first, from the point of view of the House itself, the members of it and the members of the other House of the Oireachtas and, secondly, from the point of view of the people we represent when we talk in this House. The rights of the House as such are involved and the rights of the people are involved. They are entitled to expect from us that in any legislation or regulation which is to have the force of legislation we should at least not dispossess ourselves of that right to give our views as representatives on the legislation which is proposed.

I would urge on the Minister to accept the amendment. It is somewhat more onerous than the proposal which he has in the Bill but not a lot. It still allows him to make his regulations. All we are asking is that he should come into the House and have the regulations passed by the House before they are allowed to have the force of law.

Mr. Ryan

In the White Paper that the Minister published last year in connection with the Road Traffic Bill, it is stated in paragraph 3 that the Government are alive to objections against legislation by regulation but are satisfied that special considerations apply in the case of road traffic law. That underlines what Deputy O'Higgins said in regard to legislation by regulation. There is never a case in which a Minister seeks to legislate by regulation that he does not assure us he is satisfied that the circumstances of a particular case justify it. While the Minister accepts—and must accept —responsibility for all legislation and while this House is the House which passes legislation, let it be said that the great lovers of legislation by regulation are not so much the Ministers but the civil servants who resent criticism.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for legislation. Civil servants may not be discussed.

Mr. Ryan

I am discussing the Executive in general. Civil servants are the servants of the Minister and ultimately of the people. The fact is that they are the lovers of legislation by regulation. This is a denial of Parliamentary democracy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister takes full responsibility——

Mr. Corish

This is only a general comment on the Civil Service in any country.

Mr. Ryan

I am not attacking individual civil servants. I am attacking the system under which civil servants propose to a Minister why he ought to go into the House and give them power to make the law because that is finally what is going to happen. The test of a Minister's ability is his ability to stand up against the civil servants. I am not relating that to this particular matter. I am talking in a general way. Very frequently, as a matter of practice, regulations are submitted for the signature of a Minister and are made without any more ado. The regulation is manufactured down in some Civil Service office.

The purpose of our amendment is to see to it that where laws are to be made controlling the behaviour of the people in the highways and byways of Ireland, where regulations are to be made in regard to speed and the manner in which people move a quarter ton of steel along the roadway, where regulations are to be made regarding vehicles and other things of that nature, these are matters upon which the ordinary members of this House are well informed. Most of the members are motorists or they have certainly travelled in motor cars from time to time. We all move along the highways and byways to get into this House. Perhaps that is one of the things that irritate the administration, the civil servants, who will be making the regulation but we are the spokesmen for the people who feel the effects of regulations.

Very frequently the person who eats a meal is as good a judge of it as the person who cooks it. We are the people who will be consuming the meal in this case. We are the people who speak for those people who are going to eat the regulations cooked for them in Government offices. Where you have that—and it touches upon and controls the daily deeds of millions of our people—this House ought to have an opportunity to consider the regulation put before us. I appreciate the argument that, in practice, out of 147 Members of the existing House or the 144 Members who will succeed the Dáil there may only be two or three who will give careful consideration to any regulation which reaches them in the course of post. The fact is that, by spreading the responsibility for reviewing draft regulations, we are preserving the liberties of our people and ensuring that no cockeyed regulation is put into force and left there indefinitely for want of prior consideration.

I do appreciate that in this and other legislation, we have a power whereby regulations will operate only until there is a motion in this House setting them aside, but I do not think that is quite sufficient. I believe in such cases, because they are smothered in data, Deputies do not really apply themselves to the application of such regulations. The attention of Deputies is arrested when they have to consider the regulations which are already in force. I know that Parties in this House have their own sub-committees and that such committees would consider regulations at length but by then the regulations are made. There is no regulation which is so urgent that it could not get prior consideration by the House.

After all, we have waited the better part of 30 years for an urgent Road Traffic Bill and, now that we get it, it is already ten years out of date. We have over 300,000 licence holders in this country involving 250,000 vehicles and here, some small group of civil servants, with the consent of the Minister, are going to control the behaviour of those 300,000 people. That is bad law and I do not think the Bill which provides for it should be permitted to go through in its present form. It is for those reasons that I support the amendment.

Mr. Blaney

I thought that in fact we had at an earlier stage come to appreciate the type of Bill this is and the matters which we are dealing with in it. Whether we like it or not, we must accept that this Bill is dealing with day-to-day operations in a changing pattern of road traffic which, of necessity, has to be dealt with by regulation. The suggestion of Deputy Ryan that Ministers are prone to seek this type of legislation and that behind them are the members of the executive of the Department seeking the easy way to do a job by getting legislation by regulation is not a fact. I do not think the Deputy is really serious in putting that view to the House as his considered opinion. I have a slightly higher regard for his opinion on matters such as this than to swallow the suggestion that he is serious in this matter but, if I am misled in this, I must say that I certainly entirely disagree with him.

In so far as this matter of regulation is concerned, it has been pointed out by the Chair that this is not a matter which one can throw at the executive of the Civil Service. It is only at the Minister of the Department concerned that any of these charges can be flung and made to stick, if stick they will, and in so far as the advisers to a Minister are concerned, regulations dealing with this or any other matter are not just lumped with the daily correspondence for signature and signed by the Minister without knowing something about them. If in fact Deputy Ryan's view and his experience have been that Ministers are expected to behave in that way, all I can say is that I do not agree.

The Minister is responsible to the House: his Government is responsible to the country. He is naturally concerned about any matter emanating from his Department. He is particularly concerned about any matter arising from legislation which has its origin in his Department. In making regulations under this proposed road traffic legislation, the Minister of the day will naturally be most concerned to ensure that, since these regulations will concern many hundreds of thousands of people, the regulations made will be of a proper nature and that, if they are not, they will be challenged in the Oireachtas when presented to it and that, if they are objectionable in any degree, the Minister's trouble and labour will have been in vain because they will be annulled.

No Minister or no adviser wishes to place himself in that position. No Minister responsible to the House will jeopardise his own future and his Government's future in the public mind by making regulations in a haphazard, inefficient and careless manner which would bring discredit on him, his Party and his Government. Surely that is quite evident to those making the case that this matter of legislation by regulation is something to be sought after by Ministers. To suggest such a thing is ludicrous. If the Minister can be induced, as suggested by the Opposition, to introduce something which is wrong because his advisers advise him that it is right, he should not be there and I doubt if he would be there for very long. That is a safeguard which I am afraid is sometimes forgotten in this House.

Possibly I have transgressed in the past in holding the same belief. We seem to set Ministers aside as if they were immovable, forgetting that the Ministers, like everybody else in the House, are Deputies first and last who are answerable to the people. We owe allegiance to the people and if we do not give it to them the people will deal with us in their own way.

They will liquidate anybody who is detrimental to the public good. Let us forget then the suggestion that the Minister, with just a prod in the back from his advisers, will bring in regulations detrimental to the public good.

To get down to the amendment, if accepted, it would have the effect of bringing all proposed regulations before the Oireachtas in advance of their being put into operation. That would immediately bring about a situation wherein an urgent matter could not be dealt with, because, despite Deputy Ryan's repeated comment that we have waited 30 years for this Bill and that in another few months it will be out of date in any case, the Act would be so young that introducing another could not even be thought of.

Leaving that aside, there are, there have been and I have no doubt there will be urgent cases where regulations are quickly required. I have in mind a situation where this House is in recess from midsummer until autumn and if the procedure proposed by the amendment were adopted, we would have to wait from July or August until October or November before we could have the matter even put before the House.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Or you could recall the House.

Mr. Blaney

And an awful lot of people would turn up if they knew it had to do with a single isolated urgent regulation which the Minister for Local Government was proposing to make in order to close some gap that had shown itself. Let us not be too woolly about this matter.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Surely you would be able to get a quorum from behind you. You got it on the External Relations Act.

Mr. Blaney

It is not the people who are behind me who are pressing for this; it is the Deputies opposite. If we were to put ourselves in the position of recalling the House for such a matter because of an acceptance of the views so forcefully expressed by the Opposition just now, we certainly would not like to meet here without having the Opposition well represented.

Mr. Kyne

You would have us here.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We give an undertaking to be here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. Blaney

Not for long. However, it comes rather strange that the one regulation which was made in an urgent manner, and necessarily so, by the sponsor of this amendment, was made in 1956. It referred to the lighting of vehicles. It was Amendment Regulation 1956, S.I./33/4 of 1956. It was made by Deputy O'Donnell as Minister, and it was made in a hurry. It was made urgently, and necessarily so, because it was discovered that there was a flaw in the regulations in that a trailer need not show a red light to the rear. I presume that the existence of that flaw emerged from perusal in court. After the announcement of the verdict, this gap in the existing regulations emerged and Deputy O'Donnell, rightly, immediately set-to to bring about the amendment that closed the gap and made it necessary to have a red light on the rear of a tractor trailer.

Would anybody say that in the month of August this year, if some such matter arose, the House should be recalled to deal with it in advance of the Minister making a regulation? Would it not be far more sensible, as would be the case under the proposals in the Bill and under the existing provisions, that the Minister should in fact make the regulation and that that regulation should come into force right away and be placed on the Table of the House and within 21 sitting days, that order, if found unsatisfactory by the Oireachtas, could be annulled and thrown out and replaced, possibly, by another? Is that not a far more sensible approach than to say that an emergency matter, a small matter, although no doubt a very important one, should be left over until the Dáil resumed three or four months after it had gone into recess or that the Dáil should be recalled in the middle of a recess to deal with that one matter?

It would look ludicrous if we were to find ourselves in the position that we had to recall the House for such a matter when the procedure which we have tried over the years and never found wanting is in fact the procedure we are proposing that the House should adopt. The House would be well advised to leave the matter as it is. Experience shows that no flaw exists. Indeed, while a resounding case can be made for the proposed change, the benefit is more apparent than real. If we do make the change, it will be a retrograde step, although much lauded by the Deputies who have spoken for it.

Mr. Ryan

For the record, will the Minister say how many regulations were made under the Road Traffic Act, 1933, or, if he cannot say that, how many regulations outside the Act are now in operation, or does anybody know?

Mr. Blaney

I am sure, if we do not know immediately, we can find out for the Deputy.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 29.

Tá.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Davern, Mick.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, James.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Teehan, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Níl.

• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Coburn, George.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McLoughlin, Joseph.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Nil: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Question declared carried.

Section 5 agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.