Vol. 188 No. 4
I move amendment No. 6:
Before subsection (1) to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"(1) For the purposes of this section `local bye-law' means a bye-law made by the Commissioner to which subsections (5) and (6) of this section apply; `general bye-law' means a bye-law made by the Commissioner which is not a local bye-law."
I think, Sir, that amendments Nos. 6 to 9 might be discussed together.
Yes. Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 could be discussed with amendment No. 6.
These amendments are to some extent related to amendment No. 5 which was defeated, but they are in no way dependent on the decision on No. 5.
These amendments are designed to bring bye-laws which may be made under this Bill by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána before the House. It seems to us that an anomalous position exists where regulations which the Minister may make under this Bill must come before the House, even in the negative sense provided for in the Bill, of being laid before each House of the Oireachtas and capable of being annulled by resolution of the House whereas bye-laws made under the Bill by the Commissioner do not require any authority, even in the negative sense, of this House.
There are later sections in this Bill which give the Commissioner power to make bye-laws in a whole variety of matters. Without claiming to be accurate, I counted up to 60 specific matters on which the Commissioner is empowered to make bye-laws. With regard to some of those bye-laws it is necessary for him to get the consent or approval of the Minister; with regard to others, it is necessary for him to consult with local authorities and with regard to others he can make the bye-laws, as I read the Bill, without either the consent of the Minister or consultation with the local authority. Just as in the case of Ministerial regulations, when these bye-laws are made they are going to have the force of law and the arguments which I made on amendment No. 5 apply with as much effect, and, in fact, even greater force and effect, to the question of bye-laws made by the Commissioner as they did to regulations being made by the Minister.
These bye-laws can be of either general application or local application and what this series of amendments is designed to do is to require that, in the case of bye-laws of general application which the Commissioner is empowered to make, those bye-laws should have the force of law only when they are passed by a resolution of the House but that in the case of local bye-laws—that is, bye-laws which are purely of local application—it will be sufficient to lay the bye-laws or the draft of the bye-laws before the Houses of the Oireachtas and that they should, so to speak, come into force by default, if none of the Deputies representing the constituency affected by those local bye-laws moves to have them annulled.
The Minister will agree that the Houses of the Oireachtas should have some measure of control over the bye-laws made by a person who is not ex officio amenable to account for these bye-laws to the House. The regulations made by the Minister—a question which was argued on the last amendment—are in a somewhat different position. At least, the Minister is a member of the Government and is a member of this House and to that extent he is accountable for every regulation he makes to this House; he is answerable to the House by way of Parliamentary Question, motion or anything else. The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána is in a different position and it seems to me there is little or no justification for the anomalous position being created where the Commissioner can make bye-laws without reference to the House and the Minister cannot make regulations without reference to the House.
I imagine that the reason which will be advanced for that position is that the bye-laws to the made by the Commissioner are on matters which are relatively speaking, as compared with the ministerial regulations, of minor importance. I do not know that everyone will accept that point of view. It seems to me the Commissioner has power to make bye-laws with regard to a very great variety of matters of greater or lesser importance. If these amendments, as designed by us, do not meet with the Minister's approval, I would urge on him to examine the whole question and, if necessary, bring in his own amendments to deal with it.
Deputies will agree with me when I say that while we talk in this Bill about bye-laws being made by the Commissioner, in actual practice, these bye-laws are often the product of the local sergeant or Guard, who makes his recommendation to the authorities and his recommendation subsequently becomes the Commissioner's bye-law. As far as I know, that is the way things are done. I do not see any other way in which it can be done because, certainly, as far as local bye-laws are concerned, the Commissioner cannot be expected to go down and make an on-the-spot examination and he must rely on the officers and men under his control. So that you have the position, I suggest, where the recommendation of a Guard or a sergeant somewhere in the country will, through the machinery of this Bill, without reference to this House, have the force and effect and authority of law unless something is done on the lines suggested in these amendments.
This section is really a re-enactment of Section 8 of the 1933 Act which prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána in making bye-laws. The section also provides that the making of representations by local authorities will be a reserve function. There are two kinds of bye-laws, the general bye-law and the local bye-law.
The general bye-laws, which the Commissioner proposes, are subject to the approval of the Minister for Local Government. The Minister may approve of them or modify them and then approve of them. In that role, the Minister for Local Government will be representing the Dáil in his perusal and approval or rejection of the proposed bye-laws of the Garda Commissioner. Bye-laws of this general character would not be the product of the local sergeant. These general bye-laws are made by the Garda Commissioner. in the implemention of his police policy and it is on that basis that we must have regard to them in our deliberations here.
The local bye-laws are bye-laws of local interest. While, as Deputy O'Higgins has said, they may emanate from the Commissioner from information brought to his notice by a sergeant or other member of the Garda down the country, the fact remains that those bye-laws, however they may arise, are presented to the Minister for Local Government only after consultation with the local authority concerned, whether it be a county council, urban council or other such body. The Minister then may approve or not approve, as the case may be, of the proposed local bye-law, but in his consideration of it, he will have regard to and have before him the representations of the local authority which will be the elected body's representations and not those of their manager or some of their executive officials.
The background to the making and operation of the bye-laws under the 1933 Act is relevant in that the procedure was practically similar to this and over the past 27 years, no real objection that I am aware of has been noted in my Department in regard to it. I am at a loss to know why we should anticipate that any such difficulties will arise in the future. The fact that this practice, which has continued for 27 years, has not given cause for complaint is a very strong recommendation as to why we should not readily change the procedure in regard to these matters.
As I have said, the general bye-laws made by the Commissioner and submitted to the Minister are made by the Commissioner in implementation of his general police functions so that he may maintain order. The local bye-laws will have been vetted and commented upon and suggestions will have come from the local elected body in whose area the local bye-law will apply. It then goes to the Minister who can have a further look at it. If he does not like it, he can amend or modify it in keeping with what he believes or with what the local authority suggests to him. It is only then the proposed local bye-law will have the force of law. In that way there is full cover against the risk of anything untoward being done against the best interests of the public as a whole.
Strong though the plea be that Deputy O'Higgins has made that this provision be considered between now and Report Stage, it does not seem to me we would be wise in changing a well-proven procedure. I do not feel that a sufficient case has been made or is capable of being made to justify altering the practice which has obtained over such a long number of years.
I am not pressing this, but I should like the Minister to have another look at it. The Minister has to a great extent based his case against these amendments on the belief that no very great exception has been taken to the procedure up to now. My information does not tally with that. I am not suggesting that representations have been made frequently or even at all to the Minister's Department regarding the matter, but I understand that local authorities very often find themselves in the position that they, as the authority controlling an area, town or village, take one view with regard to the bye-laws which are made by the Commissioner and the local garda takes another view. There is that conflict of opinion and, as the law stands, the view of the local garda must, of necessity, prevail over the views of the representative local authority. I should like the Minister to look at the provision again, particularly in regard to that aspect.
Yes; I shall have another look at it.
I move amendment No. 10:—
Before section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) The Minister shall not less frequently than once in every five years cause to be published in one or more volumes as he may think proper every regulation and bye-law made under this Act in the form in which such regulation or bye-law is then in force and shall put the same on sale at such price as the Minister shall determine.
(2) Copies of every such publication shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas."
I hope this amendment which stands in the name of Deputy O'Donnell will be accepted by the Minister, at least in principle. It is designed to provide that the public generally will have from the Minister some type of volume or publication containing the various regulations to be made under this Bill. I want to assure the Minister—and I am sure Deputy Booth, as a person qualified to speak on the subject by virtue of his legal training, will also assure him—that so far as legal circles are concerned, there is a very definite need for such a provision. When I say "so far as legal circles are concerned" I am not talking merely of the convenience of solicitors and barristers, but of the fact that, if they are to give proper service to the public, they should be able to put their hands on regulations, and on any changes, amendments or alterations made in regulations from time to time.
When we start legislating by reference, we are inclined to get into a jungle which it is exceedingly difficult to get out of. You start looking at one regulation and find it has been amended or replaced by another regulation, and it is, therefore, very hard to find out just where you stand, and where the regulations stand. We are suggesting that at least once in every five years—and that is not too much to ask—the Minister should be under a statutory obligation to publish in one volume the existing state of the regulations made under the Act. In other words, we are not saying the Minister should go to the trouble of putting into this volume all the regulations made and repealed, but that he should bring out a volume of the regulations which are then effective and current. We suggest that should be done once in every five years and we even agree that the Minister, if he feels the Government require it, might make a little profit by fixing a price for the volume and putting it on sale.
The responsibility for the publication of statutory instruments rests with the Stationery Office. In fact, I do not think the Department or the Minister would have power to publish them.
The Minister would have power, if this amendment were accepted.
Regardless of whether the power is there or not, I do not think it really alters the case very much because ministerial regulations, Garda bye-laws and rules under the Bill would be statutory instruments and published as such by the Stationery Office. The Bill also provides specifically in Section 90 that local authority rules in regard to parking meters or such matters, for example, will be deemed to be statutory instruments and published by the Stationery Office. The Attorney General's office arranges for the periodic publication of an index of statutory instruments. All that goes part of the way to meet the case that the proposers of the amendment feel would be helpful.
On Second Reading, I undertook that, if feasible, I would have the full list of current regulations published each year, with some helpful notes. That list could be published every year showing the bye-laws, regulations and rules in force and, very briefly, how and why they had been amended. We could do that but to put it in statutory form and oblige the Department to do this, that and the other, might not, indeed, be worth the candle. It would add considerably to the paper work and, at the same time, it might not give any better service than that which is feasible and possible at present, without making any great difficulty for anyone.
In addition, the Department's annual report should be mentioned. That report describes the regulations and bye-laws made under the road traffic legislation every year, and a summary of road traffic law is published in the Rules of the Road for the information of the ordinary road user in ordinary understandable non-legal language, if I might put it that way. The Rules of the Road booklet is revised from time to time to bring it up to date in relation to the changes which have taken place since the previous publication.
Having regard to the Rules of the Road booklet, subject to revision from time to time, setting out in ordinary language that is fully understandable by the vast majority of our citizens, the departmental annual report describing the regulations and bye-laws which emerge every year with regard to road traffic legislation, together with the Attorney General's index of statutory instruments published periodically, plus the publication by the Stationery Office of all statutory instruments, I feel that what is being sought here by way of a volume published at least once in every five years is, in fact, being more than met at the moment, or will be met under the existing regulations and laws.
In fact, if one were to wipe out all the other matters I have mentioned and substitute this amendment the effect would be that what is sought by the amendment would be less readily available than it now is. I put it to the Deputy that if he considers the various heads under which information bearing on road traffic regulations and rules is being provided, he will be satisfied that the intention of the amendment is, in fact, being better carried out, or will be more fully carried out, as things are than would be the case with this publication every five years. I genuinely feel that is so.
The Minister may have misunderstood me. We are not suggesting that the volume which this amendment recommends should in in any way replace either what is there already or what the Minister proposes should be there. We are suggesting that this volume should be in addition to the other facilities which already exist.
The Minister referred to the index published by the Attorney General's office and to the Statutory Rules and Instruments published by the Government Publications Office. In effect, what the Minister is saying is that every regulation and every bye-law which will be made under this Bill will be published, and will be available if you have either the knowledge or the patience, or both, to go and look for it. We are suggesting that notwithstanding the publication that must take place now according as regulations and bye-laws are made, and notwithstanding the index which is published at least once in every five years—and I should prefer to see it published once every year —the Minister should accept the responsibility of combining in one volume—or if that is not found practicable, possibly in two volumes—all the bye-laws and regulations made under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, in relation to road traffic. As a person with some experience in these matters, I assure the Minister it would be of very considerable help to the public generally if that were done.
I wonder has Deputy O'Higgins in mind the problem as I see it, that unless you are prepared to look through all the regulations and all the bye-laws, you would not know whether those from which you were quoting had been cancelled by others.
Partly that.
I think this is the point we must bear in mind. An index of all the bye-laws would not necessarily tell you at any stage whether your search was complete. You would really have to go all the way through all the bylaws and try to remember what you had read all along. I would support Deputy O'Higgins on this matter and urge the Minister to see if something along these lines could be done. It is difficult to get the authority and I see the Minister's difficulty but I feel that something along the lines of this amendment would give him the authority and the obligation. It would be easier to amend as you go along.
Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Booth are both coming to the same point. They wish a reference in the Bill to the effect that when they had a certain volume in their hands and had read it, they would know at the end that the position was as stated. I would be prepared to do something like that annually but I would ask the House not to make it a statutory obligation on me to do so. I would be prepared to publish a list of regulations each year showing how they had been changed or altered.
Something like that would go a long way to meet us.
We, in the Department of Local Government, will issue that each year but we would ask that we should not be obliged absolutely to do it by law. There is the position under the existing law that these matters would not be sent out in the manner suggested and the law in other sections would have to be amended.
I think the Minister's suggestion will go a long way to meet what I have in mind. We are very glad of any assurance that this will be done each year but there will always be a danger that, if the Minister does not do it each year, someone will feel aggrieved that he had been looking at the last list of regulations published and finds that they have been amended since and that he has been committing an offence.
I hope I am in order in dealing with this point but if I go too far, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you can rule me out of order. Personally I do not think it matters a great deal how these are published. What is important is how they come into operation. I think the Minister misunderstood what I said on the Second Reading when I suggested that a committee of the House should advise on these regulations. The Minister said that the Committee of the Seanad was doing that type of work. The Committee of the Seanad does examine regulations and statutory instruments to see that they conform with the statute but it would be possible to make regulations that would be statutory regulations but that, at the same time, would be revolting regulations.
In relation to road traffic some advice other than that of experts, let them be engineers or police, would be very desirable and could be very useful. Road traffic problems are not such that we know what they are at any particular time and can find the answer. They change. I cannot think of anybody more representative of the people generally than this parliament and I still think the Minister will come around to my point of view that a Parliamentary Committee on road traffic regulations would be very useful.
I move amendment No. 11:
To delete subsection (5) and substitute the following subsection:
"(5) Subsection (4) of section 3 of the Roads Act, 1920, shall be construed and have effect as if—
(i) the reference in paragraph (a) to expenses were a reference to the expenses which in the opinion of the Minister are reasonably and properly incurred by the relevant council of a county or corporation of a county borough in connection with the levying of the duties referred to in that paragraph, the registration of mechanically propelled vehicles, and the issuing of licences to drivers (including the issuing pursuant to this Act of test certificates, certificates of competency and certificates of fitness),
(ii) paragraphs (b) and (c) were omitted, and
(iii) the expenses required by this section to be defrayed out of the Road Fund were included in the expenses mentioned in paragraph (e) of the said subsection."
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any expenses incurred by the licensing authorities, which are the county councils and the county borough councils, in connection with test certificates and certificates of competence will be recouped from the Road Fund. A slight amendment is that expenses must be reasonably as well as properly incurred. That is the intent and purpose of this amendment.
I move amendment No. 12, on behalf of Deputy Lynch:
In subsection (2), paragraph (a), line 29, before "of" to insert ", seating capacity and dimensions."
The purpose of this amendment is really to take this opportunity to call the attention of the Minister to what is suggested in the amendment rather than that we feel it necessary to insert the words proposed. I think that Section 11 as it is drafted is sufficiently wide to cover the question of seating capacity and dimensions which is suggested in the amendment. Under subsection (2), paragraph (a) the Minister has power to make regulations regarding the construction of vehicles. I do not know if that general description "construction of vehicles" is sufficient to enable the Minister to make regulations regarding the seating capacity. If it is, the amendment is not necessary other than to urge on the Minister the necessity, in a number of cases, to control the make of vehicles in regard to seating capacity; that is where you have vehicles that appear to be designed to allow three passengers and a driver to sit in front and another three passengers in the back.
The Minister should—and I think the Garda should advise him as to the prudence of this—consider whether it is not necessary to make regulations to prohibit more than one passenger in any type of vehicle from sitting in front with the driver so long as there is any risk that there might be interference with the freedom of the driver to react to emergency conditions. Our roads, except some of the larger of the main roads, are not of infinite width and the Minister and most Deputies will have found that there are good vehicles or industrial vehicles of a size and design using the roads in a manner which makes it extremely difficult and dangerous for other road users. The Minister should consider whether it is necessary to do anything about that and whether the regulations which he is empowered to make under Section 11, subsection (2) (a) give him the necessary authority.
It depends on the passengers, very often. I was not quite clear as to the intention of the amendment. The Deputy has cleared my mind to a degree. I have no doubt whatever that in so far as seating capacity is concerned subsection (1) and, again, subsection (2) (d) will completely cover the point. With regard to dimensions, we can rely on subsection (1) of Section 11, together with subsection (2) (a) (b) (c) and (d), in that order. All of them together will fully and completely enable both these matters to be exclusively dealt with under any foreseeable circumstances.
I think the Minister is right.
I move amendment No. 13:
In subsection (2), paragraph (c), to add to the end of the paragraph "including the type of lights used as traffic indicators."
The purpose of the amendment is to call the attention of the Minister to the necessity for some standard colour and type of traffic indicator, particularly colour. Deputies will agree that the present position is quite unsatisfactory. There is the arm-type traffic indicator which is generally amber in colour. There is a multitude of colours with the flashing type indicator—red, white, amber, and so on.
The flashing indicator can be extremely confusing to a driver coming behind or against the car and to pedestrians, cyclists and other users of the road. One is not quite sure, for a minute, whether it is a brake-light or a traffic indicator. A white flashing indicator can be more confusing still. It might be a parking light going out of order, or it might be intended to indicate that one is turning. It should be possible under the various subheads on which the Minister may make regulations, to make a regulation governing this matter. I see some danger in it.
It does not seem reasonable to expect car manufacturers or car users to alter their design even to the extent of coloured glass or coloured bulbs overnight. A policy should be laid down by the Minister's Department in relation to this matter and be put into operation by means of regulations. The Minister should give notice that as and from a certain date electric lights used as indicators should be of a standard colour and as far as possible should be of a standard design.
I should like to support the spirit of what Deputy M. J. O'Higgins has said. I hope another point too can be covered. I refer to candlepower. Some indicators are designed to give warning and, in the normal way, with the city lights on—half dark and half light—suddenly, in front of you, a blaze of illumination goes on and off which is most blinding. There should be a strict regulation about candlepower and possibly a re-examination of the vexed question of the appropriate lighting of a vehicle in a lighted street. There are great arguments on this subject. Some people think you should drive with your headlights dimmed; other say that you should use your side lights.
I do not know if a satisfactory regulation can be made but a definite inquiry should be made as to the effective lighting of a vehicle in use in a lighted street. I do not mean a halflit street, which is only too frequent in a Dublin city. I hope the new membership strength of this House will produce better light in this city. However, even in a lit street, the difficulty appears to be that from the point of view of the driver there is no difficulty. Driving down O'Connell Street at night, which is brilliantly illuminated, one can see everything with only two tiny pin-points of light but the cyclist or the pedestrian may not see you. It is equally important that they should see you. How that may be achieved I do not know in a country of this size. We might very well make representations to the big manufacturing companies. It appears to me that a type of light which is large in area but not too bright would be desirable—something that would be obvious to pedestrians without causing dazzle. In particular, I hope the Minister will deal with the question of the amount of light that comes from flashing indicators.
I am in complete agreement with Deputy Sheldon with regard to the intensity of light in trafficators. Recently I asked the Minister a question and he told me the matter would be considered in connection with the new Bill. Within the past six months I heard from two district justices obiter dicta on this point. Two people charged with dangerous driving were I believe, quite rightly, not convicted because in both cases the district justice was quite satisfied that the intensity of the trafficators was such as to dazzle the motorists. We could have a prolonged debate if each Deputy were to give his experience as a motorist. I do not wish to contribute on that score.
Medically speaking, I have average eyesight. I am constantly blinded at the most dangerous points at which you can blind a motorist, namely, traffic junctions, by the intensity of trafficators blinking on and off a few feet from where I am sitting. That is particularly so on a wet night when each drop of water on the windscreen may catch and reflect the flashing light. It is a constant source of danger and needs to be remedied.
I do not think it is necessary to see trafficators a mile away. They need attention only 20 or 50 yards away. The intensity on many modern cars is much stronger than is necessary. When my garage man suggested recently that I should have blinking lights instead of arm trafficators he boasted that they were of a certain intensity. I told him that while that might leave me in a good position, if I were prosecuted for dangerous driving, I considered I was constituting myself a hazard to other road users by having trafficators of such great intensity.
What Deputy O'Higgins says is quite true. They are confusing, between amber, red and white ones. They are also confusing when you have some modern cars—these fin-tailed cars— with red lights of greater intensity and width than traffic lights themselves. I appreciate that all these things are difficult for us to control. In the motor industry, we are not a design country, but simply an assembly country. But were we to provide some firm regulations to be applied by a certain date, I believe we might help to restore some degree of discipline and safety, in so far as trafficators are concerned.
I suspect that discussions of this sort are likely to intrude themselves very frequently in this Bill. This is not merely a question of technical equipment in cars; it is a question of the psychology of the drivers and other human agents involved. In modern conditions, this is evolving into a science of its own. It is very easy to have opinions about it, but we are at the stage where a great deal of information has been accumulated. This is now a matter of very definite scientific study. As Deputy Ryan says, all of us will give our ideas. I grant you that the question of dazzling rere lights generally—and I would not restrict it to traffic indicators—is one that has struck most people at some stage or other, but the solution will not be found by our discussing it here like this.
In the first instance, I am sure our police and local government authorities will, when they come to these problems—and they probably have already done so—give them the serious consideration they demand. But in conjunction with this, I was going to suggest to the Minister that there is an agency, not very far away, where information might be had. It might be well worth while to consult the Road Traffic and Road Safety Research Department which has been developed across the water recently. Traffic laws and, to some extent, traffic conditions have a certain similarity in the two countries, particularly the rule of the road, which is an important determining factor. We have here at present vehicles designed for America, Europe and for Britain and Ireland.
I should like to suggest to the Minister that perhaps his Department could get some useful information from the Road Safety Research laboratories and from the directors there; but in any event, I suggest that the matter should be referred to some competent technical commission and not merely resolved on the opinions of most of us, who have not the assembled data to really come to a proper conclusion. It is amazing, when all the information is assembled and the experimental and observational data are assembled, how clearly certain answers emerge. Sometimes they may be quite contrary to what we may have felt at our first approach to the problem. It is important that these answers should be properly assessed and applied. Instead of harassing the Minister throughout this debate with our opinions on technical matters, I should like to make this suggestion at the outset. When we come up against these matters again, I will renew the suggestion to have, where necessary, technical groups or study committees put on such problems.
Tourists coming to this country have been encouraged in recent years to bring their cars with them. I think that aspect should be taken into account in any regulations we make. Perhaps the point raised by Deputy de Valera would cover the matter.
I should like to disagree with Deputy de Valera. One of my grave doubts about this whole setup for making regulations is the fact that it is going to be done by experts who, to my mind, have the oddest points of view. They seem to live in a world of their own. I should like the ordinary man's point of view. I think it would do the Minister's experts a world of good if there were some volume of debate here from the point of view of the practical motorist. Most Deputies drive cars. They do not drive them with their eyes shut; if they did, they would not be sitting here.
In regard to the point about tourists, anyone taking his car to France has to conform with the lighting system there and change to blue bulbs. If we make regulations here, I do not see why tourists should not be reasonably expected to conform with them. If the Deputy wished to take his car to France, he would have to change his headlight bulbs. I do not think the tourist is any great problem.
Deputy Sheldon misunderstood me. Opinions and reactions are all right, but we should not attempt to solve the problem. Whether we like it or not, the problems of road safety and road traffic are now developing into a quasi-science. Scientific research methods are being applied to these matters, both on the Continent and in England, with very remarkable results. They will have a statistical impact on the question of casualties on the road and safe driving. It is from that point of view I made the suggestion and not from the point of view on which Deputy Sheldon seems to have taken me up.
I did not hear any such suggestion.
On the question of the colour of traffic indicators, I think there is a very real problem here. It is not too difficult to solve, especially in view of the fact that it is becoming more general—certainly in Britain and, I think, almost certainly in America— that direction indicator lights should be amber rather than red. I think the more pressure we can bring on manufacturers to make this standard, the better. Every modern car is fitted with red brake lights at the rere, which means that every time you press the brake pedal, two red lights light up at the rere. Very often one of those brake lights fails, in which case every time you put down the brake pedal you get a very good simulation of a rere winking indicator, and this can lead to fatal results. I have several times very nearly got caught by noting a red winking light, which I thought indicated that the driver was going to turn right, when in actual fact he was touching his brake pedal and only one light was working.
The only way out of that is to insist that indicator lights must be amber. In view of the fact that these are now fairly simple, I see no difficulty in the provision of alternative lenses. Even if the manufacturer might supply a lens which is red, I do not think any of us in the trade here would find undue difficulty in providing an amber lens instead. I would ask the Minister, as a matter of urgency, to make a regulation to that effect.
On this matter of traffic lights, I would suggest to the Minister that he consider also regulations providing that, as well as rere traffic indicators, there should be indicators on each side of a vehicle. The problem, particularly in cities where there are large numbers of cyclists, is this. There is great danger when a cyclist wishing to turn has passed the rere of a car and has no indication whatever whether the vehicle is going to turn to the left or the right. Very frequently near accidents arise from the fact that the traffic indicators only show at the rere of a car.
That did not occur with the old semaphore type of indicator because it was mid-way up on the car. Indeed, many manufacturers have made provision for additional traffic lights. The matter is so serious that the Minister, when he is considering these regulations, might think not only in terms of the danger of confusion arising from red and amber traffic lights but also from the fact that a light at the rere of a car, even where both traffic lights are showing, may, in the absence of an indicator towards the front of the car, still constitute a danger.
Reference was made by one Deputy to the question of blinding headlights. In this connection may I submit a personal opinion and suggest that the Minister be very careful about the regulations he makes in regard to an area like the city of Dublin. You may make a regulation making it imperative for a driver to switch off his headlights in a particular area and then discover that while in one street the driver could drive quite safely and at a safe speed, 100 yards down the street there is a different type of lighting where the driver would require either dimmed headlights or his headlights full on.
This question of headlights affects not only the traffic; it affects the safety of the general public. With all our experts and with all our types of lighting we still see many comments to-day that accidents have arisen because an area was not properly lit. With all the experts on road traffic safety and lighting, the situation still arises in which it would be very difficult in the city areas to draft regulations which would protect the public because a driver would have to use his own judgment from the point of view of the amount of lighting available for him to see where he is going.
With regard to the amendment, I should like to say at the outset that it is not necessary and that the section as it stands is satisfactory and will in fact cover all that has been mentioned in relation to the amendment and many of the other matters also mentioned. Having said that, I should like to agree almost entirely with all that has been said even though some of it seems contradictory. I agree with the Deputies who have given their opinions and expressed their own experiences.
With regard to this matter of lights, the lack of uniformity of lights, and the lack of uniformity in traffic signals and signs, and the question of blinding traffic indicators and the idea of there being a doubt as to whether or not side-lights only should be used in a built-up area or whether dipped headlights or full-on headlamps must be used, I should like to say that the various councils and corporations can utilise, as I think they will, the recent grants, which have been announced from my Department, to help them pay for the cost of improving their public lighting. They may make these improvements and get the cost of them from the Road Fund grants. If they all set their minds in that direction and use that facility we could envisage the time when in our built-up areas we could safely say side-lights only need be used.
Until such time as we have that uniformity of light in our built-up areas it would be the height of folly to make it obligatory on any motorist to use only his dipped headlamps or to use only his side-lamps. The critic at the moment must be the driver who is in charge of the car and the obligation is on him, if the lighting is bad in one street and good in another, to decide whether or not he may safely use his dipped headlamps or whether he can safely see where he is going with his side-lights. His opinion on that will not be challenged of course until such time as he has an accident when it will be said that he had not got sufficient lighting and that will be a matter for the courts to decide.
In the meantime, regulations stating categorically what lights may or may not be used on the front of a vehicle in built-up areas wherein we have not got proper or full lighting, not to talk of uniform lighting, could not be made. Until that stage is reached, we cannot regulate or legislate for the type of headlights which will be required. However, I feel that in time the situation will develop wherein public lighting in built-up areas will have reached a standard of adequacy and uniformity where in the interests of all concerned it will be possible to say side-lamps will be sufficient and no danger or hazard will be created for the public in that decision.
With regard to the colours of blinking trafficators and the tail-light arrangements on cars, these are matters that have been and are being considered in my Department. The fullest possible use of all scientific knowledge available to my Department is and will be used in arriving at what we shall regard as the best possible solution to these problems, so far as they affect our traffic. That I think is the best approach, that we shall try to utilise the information garnered by others and adapt it to our needs as befits our own type of traffic. In so far as the problem of tourists is concerned that, as pointed out by Deputy Sheldon, is one where there is no great reason why they should not be asked to conform, for their own safety as well as ours, to our regulations just as we would conform to theirs if we went on the Continent.
They can be given a permit under the Act which would exempt them. I agree that they should conform.
I am not worried about exempting them from the rigours of the law. If they transgress the law——
I am saying that it is not really a problem because they could get a permit.
It is not question of transgressions of the law in regard to the tourists but, if they come here, we should like to see them going away safely again and we should like to know that, by their being here, nobody had lost his life after they had gone as a result of any particular concession or consideration given to them while they were here.
We shall have to consider this matter. We shall not naturally impede the influx of motoring holiday-makers. On the other hand, the anxiety on our part to accommodate holidaymakers with their cars will have to be tempered with judgment and wisdom in so far as the safety of themselves and our own people is concerned. The House may take it that we will be very careful to arrive at the best solution—if necessary, the best compromise solution—to meet the two points of view expressed here by Deputy MacCarthy and Deputy Sheldon. We will try to find a solution which will successfully resolve the difficulty. I am quite satisfied, and I hope the House is, that the amendment is not really necessary. There is power in the section already to do all the things enumerated in it.
I do not wish to prolong this but the Minister has made one comment which makes me feel nervous. He referred to the funds now available to provide adequate street lighting. I do not know whether it was a report of the Commissioner or merely a remark of the Commissioner with regard to vehicles using only side lights in a street such as O'Connell Street, but it is quite true that, on a dark wet night, a large powerful black car purring along O'Connell Street, almost noiselessly and with only two little dots of side lights, constitutes a far greater menace to other road users than a fire engine would. The driver may see perfectly but an innocent person crossing the street may not see this large black object. From the driver's point of view the street is illuminated but the car is not illuminated from the point of view of other road users. A few years back, as far as I remember, the Commissioner did comment on this and suggested that a different type of light is needed for driving in streets which are well lit: one needs something which is as large as a headlight but which has the candlepower of a sidelight to make a large dark moving object visible to other road users.
I think amendment No. 14 could be discussed with amendment No. 40 of the Labour Party.
Yes.
If the Labour Party are agreeable, I have no objection.
It strikes me we will be going over the same ground if we discuss them separately.
There will, of course, be a separate decision.
I move amendment No. 14:
In subsection (2), paragraph (d), to add to the end of the paragraph "and the conditions subject to which unroadworthy vehicles may be sold."
The intention of this amendment is to provide that no unsafe car will be sold except where the purchaser wants the car to get spare parts. In such a case we suggest a regulation could be made allowing for a sale where it is clearly understood that it is a condition of the sale that the car will not be used by the purchaser, certainly not until such time as it is made roadworthy. The vast majority of car buyers rely on the good faith of the vendor, particularly where the vendor is a garage owner. Frequently it is made a condition of the sale of second-hand cars that there is no warranty whatsoever regarding roadworthiness or otherwise. That is not good enough. To allow any person to buy a car which is to the knowledge of the vendor an unsafe car is to permit a public danger. A car may have faulty brakes, brakes which may fail within a short distance of the car leaving the garage. It may have faulty steering not apparent to the inexpert purchaser. It may have a faulty axle. It may have several other faults all of which may constitute a serious danger to the driver, the passengers and innocent third parties on the road.
A car may also be unroadworthy in that it may break down. We have to face the simple necessity of using all our available road space to the best advantage. We can no longer afford unroadworthy cars breaking down on the highway. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment which will give him power to make regulations imposing certain conditions governing the sale of cars and requiring the vendor to sell only cars which are roadworthy. If a car should subsequently prove unroadworthy—in the case of a secondhand car, within three months; in the case of a new car, within a longer period—for a reason which must have been within the knowledge of the vendor, then the blame should lie fairly and squarely on the vendor.
What this amendment seeks to achieve is not covered by the Bill as it stands. The Minister has not taken the necessary powers to impose conditions governing the sale of cars. It is because there is need to prevent people selling unroadworthy vehicles that this amendment has been tabled.
Amendment No. 40 is more or less on the same lines as Deputy Ryan's amendment. We are however more specific in our amendment. This amendment follows a recommendation made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to the Minister for Local Government. A number of road traffic regulations were submitted to him last year. A similar provision appears in Section 68 of the British Road Traffic Act of 1959. Under subsection (4) of Section 11 of this Bill, the Minister can make regulations prescribing different kinds of roadworthiness. As Deputy Ryan has said he has not, however, taken any power to control the sale of vehicles. The purchaser of an unroadworthy secondhand car or of a defective new car might find himself, through no fault of his own, liable to prosecution. I feel that the purchaser should be safeguarded. In doing so, however, a crux may arise. What will happen when the thing is in reverse, when you are trading in your old car? Usually because it is not roadworthy you decide to trade in. Will the same law apply? We have deliberately extended our amendment to cover such a case. We made the specific part of the amendment state that it does not apply in a trade in case. I think the amendment speaks for itself. I think it is an extension of the thought behind Deputy Ryan's amendment. I feel that the implementation of our amendment— amendment No. 40—when it comes up for discussion, will meet in full what Deputy Ryan is now advocating, if the Minister sees fit to accept it.
The matter raised here is rather more involved than Deputy Ryan may possibly appreciate. I am speaking possibly with a certain self-interest in the matter but I shall try to keep my remarks as objective as possible. When a motor trader trades in a used vehicle, he always has two courses open to him. He may either strip it down, check it over completely, recondition it, re-examine it and sell it or he may simply resell it as it stands.
I do not think any reputable motor trader would ever sell a vehicle which he knew to be unsafe but it is very difficult to draw the line between what is a reasonable inspection of the vehicle and what is unreasonable. Take the steering, for instance. One can take a car out on the road and it appears to have sound steering. One can never know whether one of the steering pins is badly warped or about to break unless the whole steering is stripped down. You have the trackrod, the whole steering and brakes, not to mention the steering column and the attachment of the steering wheel to the column.
I feel it is a very heavy responsibility to place on a motor trader to ask him to guarantee a used car unless he has actually taken it to pieces and reassembled it. The cost of stripping down a car completely, checking and reassembling it is enormous and it would almost certainly make the car completely unsaleable. There is a tremendous amount in what Deputy Ryan said but I want to warn the Minister that any such suggestion as Deputy Ryan has put forward is one which would need very careful consideration indeed. Unless the Minister is going to make general rules affecting the roadworthiness of all motor vehicles, it is scarcely fair that a person should be allowed to drive an old car without any restriction at all and only get into some sort of trouble if he attempted to sell it to anyone else. Such a car is as dangerous in the hands of the original owner as it would be in the hands of a purchaser.
I would ask the Minister to look into this matter carefully bearing in mind that, if a car is going to carry any guarantee whatever, it will have to be substantially increased in price by reason of the fact that it will have to be very largely stripped. I agree with Deputy Ryan that the steering and brakes in particular are the points which require attenion but you will get some of the older cars where the brakes are controlled by wire cables. It is almost impossible to say when one of those brake cables may break. I am sorry for the pun. It may have a defect which is not immediately obvious. Even with hydraulic brakes, there may be some flaw in the metal of the pipes, between the pedal and the brakes themselves, which is about to give. Nothing but an X-ray examination of the complete hydraulic system would show that up.
It would be very hard to blame a trader who accepted a car in good faith, who had tested the car and had found it behaving in a roadworthy manner if he were to be held liable for accidents when brakes suddenly fail through some cause which it was difficult, if not impossible, for him to have foreseen. I should like to give this caution to persuade the Minister that it is not quite as easy possibly as Deputy Ryan said. At the same time, motor traders would be only too glad of protection from themselves. We are sometimes asked to dispose of cars which we are very doubtful about.
I think Deputy Booth put his finger on the matter when he said that the car in question is as dangerous in the hands of the original owner as it would be in the hands of the purchaser. It gets back to the question of the roadworthiness of the car. There is, perhaps, one qualification to that if we want to be very precise. It is that many cars will be sold or changed. A new car will be bought in its place by people when they feel that their old car is getting to the limit of its roadworthiness. I do not think that affects the argument very much.
What we are up against is the practical ascertaining of the roadworthiness of any vehicle. I take it that the general policy would be—I can see no other way of dealing with this problem —to have certain general standards that can be checked by proper authority. Certain general standards of roadworthiness will be laid down. You can go a certain length in regulation but after that it will depend on the tester within the terms of the regulations. The testing will be done under some officially sanctioned arrangement. That being so, a vehicle can only be accepted or rejected on what can be found in a new test. The testers are not going to strip down the car to the detail Deputy Booth spoke about.
It seems to me, therefore, that if it is going to be a question of test it is immaterial in whose hands the car is. It would be better to approach this from the point of view that the liability is on the person who has the car and who is driving the car to see it is roadworthy. Roadworthiness does not mean that it is absolutely roadworthy. That we cannot ascertain and that we cannot prove even for the purposes of a court of law. Roadworthiness in this context will mean roadworthiness in the sense that it will conform to certain tests that are officially sanctioned and carried out by certain authorised persons. That can be done whether it is in the hands of a purchaser or in the hands of the original vendor. With regard to latent defects, I do not see why the purchaser should have any less obligation in regard to the testing of his car than the vendor had.
That is the problem from the public point of view. The private aspect governing the bona fides of the sale is a different matter altogether. If the vehicle is capable of being tested. I do not think it matters in whose hands it is. Deputy Booth mentioned the latent effect—a fault in the hydraulic braking system, for instance. That can happen to a new car and has happened in new cars. It can happen in an old car or in the best maintained second-hand car. On the other hand, the hydraulic system may be the last thing to go wrong in an old crock.
An examination will not reveal a certain type of flaw. The question arises: if a failure occurs, is that, in law, going to be prima facie evidence of non-compliance with the regulation? I think the situation would be that if that vehicle were in an accident and even if it were proved that the brakes failed, the question would arise as to whether or not the vehicle had complied with such tests as were available. The decision on the liability or otherwise of the owner or driver would be determined by that and not by the fact that the hydraulic system or other mechanical compliance had gone. It is premature for us to go into the testing system the Minister may think adequate.
I understand that in other countries which have highly concentrated populations and fast roads, there is a testing system in force. Remember, however, that when you put such a system into force, it will be sufficient to prove the evidence of the test, and if you have such a system of testing, you are back to the point that the onus is on the person who has the car at the moment. The situation would resemble the conditions of sale in the purchase of property. It would be sufficient for the vendor to produce evidence of the last sale.
On the other hand, if there is no specific test laid down, I do not think there can be any practical testing of road worthiness at all. So from whatever point of view you apply this. I think there is a misconception in the minds of Deputies and that they are not grasping the point about the question of onus on the vendor. The real solution will be found by coming back to such provisions as there will be for testing—the question of road worthiness which will be accepted in a court of law as determining the culpability of the owner or driver. That is the line of approach to this problem in providing for the curtailment of the transfer of vehicles.
Our amendment is concerned with whether it is possible to protect people who buy second-hand, or even third-hand cars. Reference is made in the amendment to the fact that in Section 11, subsection (4), it is an offence for a person to use in a public place a vehicle which does not comply with the regulation under the section. What the Labour Party have in mind is that unfortunately all those who engage in selling cars, particularly used cars, are not included under the section. It has not been unknown for people who trade in used cars to think only in terms of the possible profit obtainable on the sale of used cars and sometimes on cars which should not be on the road at all.
It has not been unknown that cars which have been involved in crashes have been done up and sold without letting the purchaser know anything at all about the crash in which the car had been involved. Deputy Booth will agree immediately that when a car has been in a crash, apart from the obvious damage that may occur to steering and brakes, very frequently the chassis may be affected, thus making the car dangerous to drive in any circumstances. This situation does not arise in the case of a person purchasing a car from the manufacturers or from reputable garages. That of course would involve new cars and even in new cars it has been known that brakes may fail or the steering may fail within as short a period as six months after the purchase.
In that case, however, it can be normally accepted that the car has had reasonable care in construction and assembly. Deputy Booth mentioned the fact that the braking system can fail in new cars. In the case of a second-hand car, the brakes could seem to work normally. The linings could be tightened up and the car could give satisfactory service for a month or so and then the braking system could fail without warning to the driver. Faults could also exist in the steering system of a second-hand car which, though well known to the salesman, would not become evident to the driver until it was too late. Certain faults in the steering of a car might not become evident without the car being taken apart.
What the Labour Party are endeavouring to do here is to get the Minister to afford protection, so far as is reasonably possible, to purchasers of that type of car against persons prepared to exploit them without any regard to the danger involved, not only to the person behind the wheel but to the public at large. I would ask the Minister to examine the matter very carefully because here we have no system for checking the road worthiness of cars. Possibly sometime in the near future it will be considered desirable to have such a checking system. In the meantime, we believe it is highly important to protect people against buying cars which are dangerous, not only to themselves but to other users of our roads as well. In no other field of purchase does the necessity for protection arise to such an extent. Purchasers of other consumer goods, while they might harm themselves, while they might suffer losses because of the unwitting purchase of an almost valueless article, would not be endangering the lives of others as would the purchasers of defective cars. We would ask the Minister to examine the matter again to see whether it would be possible to deal with that type of situation under the regulations.
These amendments are quite similar to Section 68 of the British Road Traffic Act, 1960, and the proposal was considered fairly thoroughly when the Bill was being drafted. It was decided, not that the intentions expressed by the movers of the amendment here tonight would not be good in themselves, but that the actual effect of the amendment, as is proved by what has taken place in Britain since the passage of their Act last year, would be that very little purpose would be served and that the laudable end sought by the movers of the amendment would not be achieved.
There is no doubt that people are "done" up to their eyes in the second-hand car business. People are also "done" in several other ways. If people wish to trade with those whom they do not know in a business which is suspect, if it is outside the normal, recognised channels, they are taking a calculated risk and, if they suffer, a great deal of the blame must rest on themselves. People cannot be protected against everything. We should like to afford the protection that it is suggested the amendment would afford but unfortunately the let-out that is necessary in a matter of this kind and, indeed, which is set out in subsection (4) (b) of the amendment, knocks the bottom out of the protection that the preceding subsections of the amendment would hope to confer on the general public. Protection is given in the earlier parts of the amendment but subsection (4) (b) nullifies the benefits so conferred. It is because of this and in view of the fact that, in Britain, where a similar provision was embodied in the British Road Traffic Act, 1960, the experience has been, admittedly in a short time, that the escape clause negatives the intent of Section 68 of the Act, that I believe subsection (4) (b) of the amendment would also largely negative the good that the preceding subsections would confer.
There is another point to which we seem not to have very clear regard in this discussion. It is that under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Bill, vehicle tests will be introduced which will go a long way to meet the difficulties as outlined by the various speakers in support of the amendment.
It may well be possible that as and when these vehicle testing facilities are in operation, there could be a very useful additional service—I mean a voluntary testing system. I envisage a sale of a car second-hand, third-hand, tenth-hand—it does not really matter —and the deal could be conditional on its being voluntarily tested and passing the particular road vehicle test or, alternatively, that the vehicle would be brought up to such condition by the vendor that it would pass the test. That type of utilisation of the testing facilities envisaged in Sections 18, 19 and 20 would be very useful. It may not entirely meet the views of the movers of the amendment but the amendment weakens itself by virtue of subsection (4) (b) to such a degree that it is scarcely of any value.
I will give further very definite consideration to the intentions behind the amendment but I have pointed out what we have discovered in earlier investigations in this direction. I should like the end that is sought in this amendment to be attained, but, candidly, I do not think it is as easy as has been suggested. If we cannot find a way to reach the end sought in the amendment, the ultimate would be, I think, that we would consider the question of voluntary testing when our vehicle testing facilities are in operation and they could be availed of and certainly would be an insurance to a prospective purchaser against buying an unroadworthy vehicle which could be not only a danger to himself but also a danger to the public.
In so far as Deputy Ryan's amendment is concerned, I should have said before I went on to deal with the other amendment that we have just been talking about that it seems to me that amendment No. 14 in the name of Deputy Ryan is outside the scope of the section because subsection (1) of the section refers and relates to the use of vehicles whereas amendment No. 14 refers and relates to the selling or sale of vehicles or their condition in the course of sale. I feel that that puts it outside the scope of the section. The object of the amendment would indeed be served if the intentions of amendment No. 40 were to be given effect to. I should have said that before I went on to talk about amendment No. 40. That is the position.
If we can do something on the lines of amendment No. 40, I certainly am not averse from doing so but I doubt if we can. In fact, from our previous consideration of this matter and of the similar type of proposal in the British Traffic Act, 1960, I doubt if we can find an effective method on the lines of this amendment.
If I may refer to amendment No. 40, the objection which the Minister has raised is one which I share myself, that it gives an escape clause. If only from the point of view of our export trade we should ensure that no second-hand cars are sold in this country which will be a menace to road users in other countries.
They would have to pass a test there.
It could be argued they would have to pass a test in Britain but they may be exported to countries other than Britain. Some of these tests, whether they be voluntary or compulsory, add to the necessity for prohibiting the sale of unroadworthy cars. As I said at the outset the majority of purchasers buy a vehicle upon the representations of the person selling it, be that person the previous owner or a garage man. I am not aware of the statistics but I imagine most cars are bought through motor dealers.
The ordinary person is not an expert in the mechanism of a car and he depends upon the good faith of the dealer. From my own professional experience I know there are many cases where an innocent person is assured that the car is roadworthy, and then this person, in many cases buying under a hire purchase contract, signs the contract in which is written in small print a very emphatic statement that no warranty whatever is given in regard to the roadworthiness of the car and that the purchaser admits as much. That puts the purchaser outside the possibility of taking any immediate action against the person who in the ordinary course of trade represents the car as being safe and roadworthy. I am glad the Minister has said he is prepared to take a second look at the intention of the two amendments because it is very necessary.
Deputy Booth in a very reasonable commentary upon the discussion did say, however, that the second owner of the car was not in any more dangerous position than the first. I would disagree with him there. The first owner very often becomes aware of the deficiency in the braking or steering system or in some other part of the car and instead of bearing the cost of putting the thing right he decides to trade it in with perhaps only temporary repairs effected. The innocent purchaser not being aware of this deficiency is in a much more dangerous position because the purchaser is likely to drive the car at a speed or in a manner which the equipment of the car is not capable of controlling in an emergency.
That is all the Fine Gael Party and, I believe, the Labour Party had in mind when they put down their amendments, that some steps should be taken to protect the public. I disagree with the Minister when he says it is the price of any person—perhaps I am paraphrasing what he said but in effect he did say—who buys from somebody other than a reputable dealer and that he is in no different position from that of anyone buying any other article. He is in a different position in that with a motor car he is likely to cause grave harm or perhaps death not only to himself but to other innocent people. If a person buys a dud suite of furniture the worst that can happen is that it will crumble. It is unlikely to do any serious injury to persons or property but when you buy a motor car you buy a lethal weapon which may cause serious injury or death to other people.
Therefore, while from a draftsman's point of view it may be argued that my amendment is not relevant under Section 11, I must submit it is entirely relevant because the purpose of it is to give power to the Minister to prevent unroadworthy vehicles being used on the roads. We believe that prevention is better than cure and that it is better to prevent unroadworthy vehicles going on to the roads in the first place. I am against regulations but since the House has already decided to confer regulation-making power on the Minister I would like to see him take power for this purpose.
I am glad the Minister has given the assurance that not only has Section 68 of the British Road Traffic Act been considered with a view to applying it here but that further consideration will be given to it with a view to improving it. We are seeking to prevent people being made answerable for an offence of which they are not really guilty. I cannot understand Deputy de Valera's view that responsibility should not be placed on the vendor to see that a vehicle he sells stands up to certain severe tests. Surely that is an everyday occurrence. If a person sells an oil stove that does not come within the regulations he is subject to prosecution. No one should be entitled to sell an article, particularly an article that can be dangerous to the general public, without complying with certain prescribed conditions. We are suggesting that the vendor of a motor vehicle should be responsible for seeing that it complies with whatever regulations the Minister makes in regard to roadworthiness.
It is very reasonable to suggest that garage proprietors and garage men who have both the knowledge and the method of testing cars should see that a vehicle which they have received and are going to resell, comes within the Minister's prescribed regulations. That is an everyday business with them.
If an ordinary owner sells a car to a person without going to a vendor, it should be compulsory on him to send his car to a garage in order to get a certificate of road worthiness under the regulation prescribed by the Minister before effecting a sale. As the person who is going to make the money on the deal, it is only right that he should have the responsibility of seeing that the car he sells is not dangerous to the public or to the person to whom he sells it. If he knows that it is dangerous and if he deliberately sells the vehicle he deserves to be punished and punished severely. I am quite happy that our amendment comes for disposal in the order of business. I am also happy about the Minister's assurance. I believe he sees the point and that he is as anxious as we are to implement the proposal if possible. On his assurance I would be prepared to withdraw it on behalf of my Party.
I move amendment No. 15:
In subsection (2), paragraph (e), to add to the end of the paragraph "including the signals (mechanical or by hand) to be given by the drivers of a combination of vehicles, and large motor lorries and other such heavy vehicles."
The purpose of this amendment which stands in the name of Deputy O'Higgins is to allow the Minister to make regulations compelling the drivers of a combination of vehicles to give suitable signals, either mechanical or by hand, which can be seen by persons coming from behind. This amendment was put down having in mind the fact that there is an increasing number of large vehicles used on the roadway and an increasing number of vehicles with trailers on the roadway. It has been the experience of many motorists that they have to remain behind such slow-moving vehicles for long stretches of roadway in some cases because the driver is unaware of their presence behind him or is indifferent as to whether or not they are behind him and in other cases because the width of the vehicle is such that the driver is unable to give a signal which can easily be seen from the rere of the vehicle.
In many cases, the length of these vehicles is such that it takes a not inconsiderable time to overtake them. The driver in the cabin of such vehicles frequently has a very good view of the road ahead, a view which is not available to the person coming behind, (1) because of the large obstruction of the large lorry or the combination of vehicles in front, and (2) because the driver of the large vehicle is high up in his cabin, in many cases, and can see well ahead, sometimes over ditches over which the driver of a private car cannot see.
I understand the proposer of this amendment had in mind that in such cases where trailers were attached to the vehicles, they would carry an electric sign, a green arrow or something of that nature, to indicate that it was safe to overtake. That indication could be seen by the people behind such vehicles. If such a scheme were operated and required by law, there would not be the considerable amount of frustration which leads to dangerous driving at the moment, when there is a long string of private cars behind a heavy vehicle and, in desperation, some person decides to take a chance and overtakes at the worst possible time.
It was felt that the working of paragraph (e), subsection (2) of Section 11 is not wide enough to allow the Minister to make such regulations and it was, therefore, felt necessary that the paragraph should be extended in order to provide regulations to require signals, either mechanical or by hand, to be given by the drivers of a combination of vehicles, large motor lorries and other such heavy vehicles. If the Minister is satisfied that the section as it stands would permit him to require these signals to be put on trailers, as well as the vehicles, then I think the proposer of the amendment would be content. He feels the matter is so serious in view of the increasing number of trailers being used on heavy vehicles that it should be seriously considered.
In so far as the fixing of any lights or fixtures on vehicles arises, there is no question whatsoever that we have sufficient power as matters now stand, but in so far as the giving of signals is concerned, whether mechanical or manual, the position is that that aspect of the matter would be dealt with by the Garda Commissioner under Section 88 rather than by way of ministerial regulation under Section 11. I do not doubt that there may be some overlap between Section 11 and Section 88, but, on the other hand, if we were to fine down the overlap until it was invisible, the position might arise in which we might actually create a gap between the two, which would not be in the best interests of the general road user.
For the benefit of the House, I may say that regulations under Section 11 will specify how the vehicle is to be built and equipped, how the vehicle and its equipment will be maintained, in certain respects how the vehicle will be used, in certain respects, also, how the equipment will be used, how the driver and passengers are to be equipped and so on. Under Section 88, the bye-laws deal with the control and management of the vehicle, how it is to be driven, what signals are to be given, etc. Summarised briefly, Section 11 will deal with static control and Section 88 with dynamic control. What the amendment envisages will be covered by Garda bye-laws under Section 88 rather than by regulation by the Minister under Section 11.
I do not want to open a discussion on Section 88 at this stage, but I do not think that covers the point the proposer of the amendment had in mind. Section 88 allows the Commissioner to require a driver to indicate his intention, but what the proposer of the amendment had in mind was that the driver of the trailer or the large vehicle would give a sign indicating to following traffic that it was safe to overtake. I appreciate that an amendment of Section 88 could cover that.
I think a combination of the two sections would cover it, unless I misunderstand the Deputy. I am not quite clear as to what the tail-end of the trailer is to carry. Let us put it that way. Is that where the difficulty seems to be?
What the proposer of the amendment had in mind was that the trailer would carry a sign which would indicate to traffic behind that it was safe to overtake, that the road ahead was clear.
In other words, a mechanical signal?
Yes, that is what he had in mind.
While I fully appreciate the difficulties envisaged by the Deputy in regard to these very large vehicles, and especially those with trailers, regulations compelling the drivers of such vehicles to have a green arrow or some indication that the road ahead is clear would be very dangerous in the case of an electrical fault. We discussed earlier what could happen if one tail light went out and it does not take very much imagination to realise what would happen if this green light went on accidentally at the wrong time. An electrical fault could easily develop between the vehicle and the trailer.
Is there not at the moment considerable doubt as to the wisdom of admitting signals indicating that you may pass because of the impossibility of pinning responsibility for anything that happens on the person giving the signal? In the case of electrical apparatus, it might be even more dangerous. There would also be great difficulty in the framing of the regulation. Like all regulations dealing with what signal shall be, may be and may not be given, it really depends on having someone there to see that they are given at the appropriate time. That is really where we fall down.
There is a second difficulty which arises from that suggestion. If a green arrow is attached to the rere of a lorry or trailer, it might indicate to a number of cars behind that the driver of the lorry considered that the road was clear, but there is the difficulty mentioned by Deputy Sheldon. Suppose you are driving along the road and are overtaking a car or a lorry and trailer and you get some form of signal to go ahead. You go ahead on the basis of that signal, whether it is a sign from the driver's hand or a signal by way of a light. If you are involved in an accident and subsequently a legal action is taken, I doubt if you will get much support on the basis that someone else said you could pass. The responsibility is yours as a reasonably safe driver. There is the possibility of a mechanical failure and there is the possibility of the green arrow on the back of the large lorry and trailer indicating, not to just one car but to a number of cars in convoy, that the road is apparently safe. There is another aspect of this matter which does not arise at the moment so I shall not raise it.
This gives force to Deputy de Valera's earlier remarks about dealing with technical progress.
Section 88 will deal with the matter when we come to it.
I move amendment No. 16 on behalf of Deputy O'Donnell:
In subsection (2), paragraph (f), to add to the end of the paragraph "including the use of protective helmets of approved standard to be worn by the driver and passengers on motor-cycles."
The amendment is self-explanatory. It is to direct attention to the necessity, in the interests of motor cyclists themselves, of wearing protective helmets of approved standard. These should be worn by all motor cyclists and their passengers. The section provides that the Minister can make regulations regarding the equipment of such drivers and passengers but we feel it is necessary to emphasise in statutory form the application of these regulations to motor cyclists and their passengers to ensure that they will wear protective headgear. It is necessary to protect the lives of motor cyclists themselves and their passengers. They are not in any greater position to cause harm to other people by not wearing the headgear but there is an urgent necessity that they should wear it for the protection of themselves and their passengers.
One of the problems which arises in relation to crash helmets, as I believe they are properly called, is that the standard has not yet been fixed in this country and there is great likelihood of serious injury being caused through the sale of such helmets which are not safe and of an approved standard. I have no doubt that the Minister has looked into the matter carefully and one of the things which would certainly cause us to hasten the passage of the Bill is that higher standards for these helmets should be made as quickly as possible. I hope the Minister will make the necessary regulations as soon as possible for the sake of motor cyclists and their passengers.
There are other dangers in relation to mechanically propelled vehicles and in relation to pedal cycles and tricycles. I know it is thought to be unwise for politicians to impose regulations in such matters because it may cause loss of votes but I think this is a matter of life and death. Many lives of motor cyclists and their passengers would have been saved if they had been wearing crash helmets of a reliable standard. I believe that this is a matter which is worthy of most serious consideration.
I am in full agreement with the amendment but I take it that a consequential amendment to define motor cycles would also be necessary. There is no definition in the Bill, which deals simply with mechanically propelled vehicles. Motor scooters are equally as dangerous as motor cycles so that if the Minister is accepting the amendment, all he can do is to accept the spirit of the amendment.
I accept the spirit of the amendment but I do not have to accept the amendment itself in order to attain the end desired by it. Under paragraph (f), subsection (2) of Section 11 and paragraph (d) of the same subsection there is, without any question whatever, ample power and scope whereby regulations as to protective equipment can be made. This question of crash helmets is one that has been considered by my Department and in respect of which I feel that ultimately we will come to adopt the point of view of the amendment and even go so far as to deal with the matter of body belts. By and large there is no doubt in my mind that we have the means in those paragraphs of subsection (2) of Section 11 to do all and any of the things sought by those who have spoken.
I have no doubt that the Minister will look at the point made in the amendment but he should also look at the point raised by Deputy Sheldon. There are some mechanically propelled vehicles which would not require the use of a crash helmet. No doubt if it is necessary the Minister will bring in an amendment to cover the matter.
That difficulty would only arise if the amendment were necessary. The difficulty would be created by the wording of the proposed amendment. The Section to which I have referred obviously relates to all mechanically propelled vehicles and that includes motor cycles, scooters and so on.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In subsection (2), page 12, line 36, to insert "or on" before "vehicles".
This is purely a drafting amendment and it makes it clear that the regulations will control the loudspeakers fixed on any part of a vehicle.
Will that cover under a vehicle?
"Under" would still be "on".
I am glad that the Minister put down the amendment but I think Deputy Sheldon is right in what he says. Here in this city we have become so pestered by commercial individuals that they have become daymares as well as nightmares. We have mechanically propelled vehicles moving through the city with loudspeakers on, under and attached to them. I think the Minister ought to go further and bear in mind what Deputy Sheldon has said and add some further words to this section such as "attached to or in any way connected with".
I do not want to criticise any judicial decision in any great detail but the Minister is not unaware of a decision in one of our courts not long ago where a prosecution was taken against the proprietor of a vehicle which had a loudspeaker attached to it. The prosecution was taken under the Dublin Police Act which deals with the making of noise and the defence was put up and accepted in that case that it was not the making of the noise but the amplification of the noise. That defence was accepted and as a result the Garda and the corporation gave up any effort to control broadcasting from moving vehicles. It is bad enough when they are moving but within the last two weeks I was appalled to discover in O'Connell Street at half past seven a parked van with loudspeaker equipment attached. Nobody was in the van but a record was playing ad infinitum to the effect that if people went to Mr. X's shop, they could acquire a T.V. set at reasonable terms. No doubt, the person in charge of the van was off enjoying himself or about his lawful occupation for some hours because at 10.30 p.m. the same wretched record was still playing from the same vehicle in the same street. We do not mind the use of loudspeakers for some unusual entertainment or function.
Like an election.
I have my own views on elections. If they were banned for all politicians at election time, it would be the best thing because none of us could use them.
I hope they are not banned for elections.
The words "or on" are not sufficient. We should add the words "attached to or in any way connected with". That means that if a flex is running out from a vehicle to a loudspeaker on a trailer, it will be prohibited.
I support the amendment. The Minister should look at the wording again. The amendment improves it. In addition to what has been mentioned, it would be possible for a passenger to hold the loudspeaker when it would be neither in the vehicle or on the vehicle but attached to the passenger.
I shall consider, before Report Stage, whether any additional word or words may be necessary.
I move amendment No. 18:
In subsection (2), paragraph (h), to add to the end of the paragraph "including the form and type of sign to be carried on a motor vehicle by a person learning to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle."
I do not know whether there is already any provision prescribing "L" plates on vehicles driven by learners. This amendment suggests the addition of the words to subsection (2), sub-paragraph (h) "including the form and type of sign to be carried on a motor vehicle by a person learning to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle."
If there are already no regulations or authority which make it necessary to affix "L" plates prominently to a vehicle when a person is learning to drive, it will be necessary to do so. Apart from anything else, authority is being taken for driving tests. We had in mind that, quite apart from the ordinary type of "L" plate one frequently sees, some type of illuminated or reflectorised "L" plate should be prescribed for new drivers.
Under Section 42 (2) (h), the Minister will have power to prescribe by regulation the conditions attaching to a provisional licence which would be tied up in the same way as the amendment.
What has the Minister in mind in respect of sub-paragraph (h) "particulars to be affixed to or painted on vehicles", apart from what has been raised on the amendment?
It might be the unladen weight or the speed limit applied to the particular type of vehicle.
On behalf of Deputy O'Donnell, I move amendment No. 19:
To add to subsection (2) a new paragraph as follows:—
"(i) prohibiting the driving of heavy vehicles or combinations of vehicles in close proximity to one another and fixing minimum distances to be observed in the driving of such vehicles."
This is a matter which I do not think is covered in the subheads already in Section 11 as matters in respect of which the Minister may make regulations. This amendment is to add a new sub-paragraph to subsection (2) prohibiting the driving of heavy vehicles or combinations of vehicles in close proximity to one another and fixing the maximum distances to be observed by such vehicles. Every Deputy will be conscious of the nuisance and the danger caused by large vehicles driving pretty well in convoy, each one very close to the next. On a country road, these vehicles are in all probability driving at a fair speed but not at a speed considered reasonable for the driver of a modern private car. They are probably travelling at between 35 and 40 m.p.h. There may be two, three or four of them in convoy. It is a hazard to endeavour to pass that long line of vehicles if they are travelling too close together. The driver must pass all or none.
We suggest the Minister should have power to make regulations fixing the distances these vehicles must keep from one another, if they are driving in convoy. I do not believe that point is covered by the various sub-paragraphs of subsection (2) of Section 11. If I am right in that, I urge that the Minister should take power to deal with the matter.
The danger to which Deputy M.J. O'Higgins refers is just as great, very often, with private cars. You very often find, on main roads, a number of cars which, though not, technically speaking, travelling in convoy, are very close together and maintain their position so that a driver from the rere cannot overtake one without overtaking all. If the Minister accepts this in principle or entirely, I hope the regulations will apply with equal force to private cars. The danger of the heavy vehicle is greater but this nuisance, which can also be a danger, is very much experienced with private cars.
It is becoming an increasing practice on the roads to find large articulated trucks and large vehicles with trailers travelling in convoy so that, to pass them out, you must travel quite a considerable distance. By and large, drivers of these heavy trucks are very courteous and normally are prepared to give way to traffic from behind. In many cases, however, the construction of the trucks makes it almost impossible for the drivers to have a clear view of what is occurring on the road.
Motorists wishing to overtake often find an appreciable time elapses from the time they pull out until they can pass the heavy vehicle. When that situation is worsened, because that heavy vehicle is travelling close to another in front, the danger becomes immediately apparent. There is a serious necessity for some regulation providing for a minimum distance between cars as they travel. I agree with Deputy Booth that the same situation obtains in regard to private cars, particularly on roads with heavy traffic. Drivers are sometimes concerned only with keeping as close as possible to the car in front. Sometimes it is impossible to overtake them; and if there is a car coming in the opposite direction, there is a danger of a very serious accident. Regulations to deal with this situation are most desirable.
I should like to see a solution of this problem, but we must consider the causes of it. We may have a queue of private cars or lorries. Take the private cars first. They could be in a funeral cortège. Such a cortège cannot be overtaken if the road on which it is travelling has bends, because it would be dangerous for an overtaking driver to pass. In such cases, it is obvious that road conditions do not permit of passing out. You also have long lines of cars on a fine sunny afternoon near the popular seaside resorts, particularly in the north and south county Dublin. At times the cars may stretch for one and a half miles. There may be a driver who, because of time commitments, feels it almost essential to pass out. There seems to be no remedy for his problem on a road on which there are bends. Again, road conditions do not permit of passing out.
You also have the situation in which a driver, through selfishness holds the road and travels at a speed much less than that of those following him. It might be possible in that case for some kind of signal to be given to the slower moving car in front to compel him at certain places on the road to give way to overtaking traffic. There might be a "bay" or "inlet" on the road where a slow moving car would be obliged by law to pull in and allow overtaking traffic to pass, if he had been given a warning to do so. Very often, the long line of cars is caused by one driver in front holding the road or travelling slowly in circumstances in which, by ordinary standards of courtesy, he would be expected to give way. We can deal only with the problem by the provision of proper road accommodation or by some kind of warning which will compel the foremost motor vehicle to give way to following vehicles.
I should like to support this amendment and urge its acceptance on the Minister. I would urge, as Deputy Booth and Deputy Larkin have, that the Minister make regulations in respect not only of heavy vehicles but in respect of all mechanically propelled vehicles. Since the Minister intimates he has power to do all these things, I do not propose to say any more.
If I may make a digression, before he concludes the Committee Stage, I think the Minister will appreciate the force of my argument about a committee to consider road problems. He might save himself a lot of trouble on Committee Stage.
I agree with what has been said. With regard to Deputy Rooney, I have the horrible suspicion that a great many Dublin motorists share his rather curious views about the rights of what you do on the road. There already is power in law to correct what is amiss in regard to the fellow sitting in the middle of the road at a slow speed. Anybody using the road is supposed to keep as far to the left as is convenient. On one occasion, I had to draw the attention of the House to a police car breaking this law on the Stillorgan Road. I assume the Minister has power in paragraph (c) to deal with it.
I think it is useful that the question of convoys has been ventilated here in regard to cars and lorries. It is worse in relation to lorries, but private cars are subject to the type of difficulty Deputy Rooney mentioned. I do not see why there should not be regulations in force in relation to private cars as well as lorries that so many lengths of a vehicle or so many feet should be imposed, even in the case of a funeral cortège. I would suggest that some indication should be given by the Minister that he is taking a sympathetic view of the representations made.
This regulation is like the others: unless another Department provide the Minister with an effective arm on the road to see all these regulations are obeyed, I do not think they are worth the paper on which they are printed. Already it is true a motorist is not allowed to go down the middle of a road at 20 miles an hour, holding up the traffic behind him when he has plenty of room: but it is happening every day and there does not seem to be a police force suitably equipped to deal with it. The same thing will apply to any other regulations made.
Under subsection (1). paragraph (a) and subsection (2) of Section 88, the intention of this amendment can be carried out.
That is, the by-laws for the control of traffic?
Yes, In fact, as I outlined on amendment No. 15, the dynamic control of vehicles is a matter for regulations and by-laws under Section 88 by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána.
What subsection did the Minister say?
Subsection (1), paragraph (a) and subsection (2) of Section 88.
The Minister ought to keep in mind, in making regulations to provide for the situation which has been described, that if tomorrow, he prescribed that there should be three lengths of a normal car between cars travelling on the road, it would cause a great deal of confusion if put into force in Dublin, or on the Dublin-Bray road, during peak hours.
I do not think we could envisage such being put into operation in Dublin at all.
It is desirable on the open road.
We have the power and the matter will be considered.
I move amendment No. 20:—
To add to subsection (2) a new paragraph as follows:—
"(i) the lighting to be used on and in connection with parked vehicles during lighting-up hours."
This amendment is principally for the purpose of directing the Minister's attention to the necessity, first of all, of making and, secondly, enforcing regulations regarding the lighting of parked vehicles at night. As I understand the position at the moment, it is necessary, if you park at night on a public highway, to show a light. I am not certain of that but I think it is required under existing regulations or bye-laws. To what extent that is enforced is another matter and I think the Minister and the House generally will agree that some of the shocking road tragedies which have occurred in comparatively recent times might very well have been avoided if vehicles parked on the roadside had been lighted at night. While drawing attention to this by way of amendment, I think the Minister has the necessary power under the provisions contained in the Bill, but it is necessary that Deputies should emphasise the importance which they attach to this matter as a road safety measure.
I might point out that subsection (1)——
I think it is covered.
——does cover it in a general way and again subsection (2), paragraphs (c) and (b) can be relied on together to cover all these matters with regard to lights and reflectors and all sorts of equipment and attachments. There is no doubt that it can be and will be covered under the section as it stands.
I accept that, but I should like to get an assurance from the Minister that he will see to it that regulations, if it is necessary to make them, will be made and so far as he can ensure it that they will be enforced. It may not be strictly relevant on this amendment but there is another matter allied to it to which I think we might direct the Minister's attention at this stage. That is the question of rere lights or reflectors on bicycles, either mechanically propelled or pedal cycles, both for the safety of the cyclist and for the protection of others. The Minister should ensure that they have either a proper reflector or an actual light at the rere.
I can say to the Deputy and the House that the matter outlined by him will be covered. Naturally at this stage I would not be prepared to indicate precisely and in detail the manner in which it is proposed to do that, but the intention is to get to the root of the trouble.
On the question of reflectors, some people feel that once they put on reflectors, their obligation is discharged, but very often these reflectors at the rere of a vehicle become completely covered with mud and are no use. If the Minister is to make some regulation, as he probably will, it should refer not only to fitting but to maintenance. I support Deputy O'Higgins on this question of rere lights for pedal cyclists because on a left hand bend especially, it is almost impossible to see a cyclist, either on a dark road or a fairly well lighted road, if there is another car approaching with headlights on. Apart from the danger to the cyclist himself, the motorist may be forced on finding a cyclist in his path at the last minute to take drastic avoiding action which may precipitate a much more serious accident. I would strongly support the compulsory fitting of red lights to all cycles.
That has been envisaged and we hope to deal with it in regard to cyclists as well as motorists.
As amendment No. 21 and amendment No. 22 are related, perhaps both could be discussed together. If No. 21 is agreed to, No. 22 cannot be moved.
I move amendment No. 21:
To delete subsection (5) and substitute the following subsection:
"(5) A person who contravenes subsection (4) of this section or a regulation under this section shall be guilty of an offence and, where the contravention is of the said subsection (4) and such person is not the owner of the vehicle, such owner shall also, in such cases as may be prescribed, be guilty of an offence."
Subsection (5) of Section 11 as it stands provides that a person who uses a vehicle which does not comply with the regulations, for instance, by exceeding the prescribed width, or otherwise contravenes the regulations under the section, shall be guilty of an offence. In regard to the use of a vehicle contravening the regulation, the owner of the vehicle is liable also, unless he shows that the use of it was unauthorised by him. On reconsideration, I am of the opinion that this is inequitable and that offences of this type in respect of which the owner is liable should be limited to cases specified by regulations and this amendment proposes to do just that, on the same lines as subsection (6) of Section 82.
I am not entirely clear as to the difference between the subsection and the amendment. Could the Minister clarify it? It seems to me that, with slightly different wording, they are the same.
Does this mean—it occurs in a few places in the Bill— that if I give my car to Deputy Sheldon and he rigs up loudspeaker equipment on it, which is not in accordance with the regulations, I am as guilty as he is, as I am the owner of the car?
The Minister's amendment differs from the section by reason of the inclusion of the words "In such cases as may be prescribed".
In fact, it is a relaxation to some degree.
To the extent that the owner will not be liable now, except it is a case prescribed by regulations. Is that correct? Unless the offence falls within——
That is true.
I think that does improve the position.
What is true now? We just do not get this.
It is that the objection which you mentioned is being met now.
Confined to "certain"——
As distinct from "all."
I agree with the Minister that that is an improvement in one respect, but it is not altogether satisfactory. Bad as the subsection was, at least people knew where they stood; they knew that the owner as well as the user would be liable in respect of every offence, whereas now the owner does not know in respect of what offences he will be liable because the offences have to be prescribed by ministerial regulation. If the Minister accepts our amendment No. 22, that difficulty will be overcome. If he adds to paragraph (b) of subsection (5) "or that the breach of the regulation was committed without the knowledge or consent of the owner," the difficulty Deputy Corish mentions will be overcome.
Irrespective of whether or not it is prescribed by regulation, where the owner of the vehicle does not know that a breach of a regulation has been committed, and certainly does not consent to it, it is going too far to suggest that the owner should be made equally liable with the person who commits the offence. I feel I should press the Minister to accept this amendment. Offhand, I cannot think of any reason for his refusing to accept it. Possibly there are valid grounds for his doing so, but, at the moment, I honestly cannot think of even one.
The Minister seems to have answered most of the objections and queries raised in respect of the regulations he contemplates. I am not a legal man and I can interpret this amendment only as I read it. I should like to read it for the House:
"A person who contravenes subsection (4) of this section or a regulation under this section shall be guilty of an offence and, where the contravention is of the said subsection (4) and such person is not the owner of the vehicle, such owner shall also, in such cases as may be prescribed, be guilty of an offence."
Before I would be prepared to accept that amendment or subsection (5) of Section 11, I should like to have a little more detail from the Minister in relation to the regulations he contemplates. I do not think any of us would expect him to give us the absolute details, but, until I see the regulations, I interpret the position as follows: if I lend my car as a member to my family or to a friend, I can be held guilty of any offence that may be committed by the driver of my car, according to subsection (2) here. If the equipment is changed in any respect by the person to whom I lend the car, and I lend it in good faith, I can be held responsible for the breach of the regulations. There is provision here also in subsection (2) for regulations to be made governing the use and misuse of vehicles and vehicle equipment. Surely we will not reach the position in which we cannot lend our cars to other members of our family or to friends without getting some sort of warranty or security from the person to whom we lend the car as insurance against what he may do and which might constitute an offence.
The Minister may make regulations under subsection (2) with regard to the duties of drivers of vehicles and passengers therein. The Minister will have to be more specific. To be quite honest, I do not believe the Minister contemplates making regulations which will render me liable for an offence committed by another, but, in the absence of information from him as to the regulations he may make, I can only conclude that if a friend who borrows my car contravenes regulations made under subsection (2), I will be equally guilty. That would be grossly unfair and unless I have some assurances, or greater detail as to the type of regulation, I will not be prepared to vote for either the amendment or the section.
The Bill originally did bear on the side to which Deputy Corish takes exception. Since then, it has been decided that it would be unfair to join the owner with the driver for any or all of the offences committed in the handling of that car. For that reason, this amendment was brought in, to limit the circumstances in which the owner of a car driven by another authorised person might get into difficulties with the law. It is impossible to detail every case in which an offence prescribed will apply and in which the owner will be liable with the driver. If the car is in a dangerously defective condition and a friend takes it from the owner's door and something happens at the end of the road, obviously the owner would be even more guilty than the friend to whom he lent the car in that case. On the other hand, supposing a friend drove down Kildare Street, pulled round the corner into Molesworth Street and parked the car without lights six feet from the kerb, the owner could not obviously be held liable for such an offence.
The Deputy mentioned a rather neat point with regard to a friend getting a loan of the car and making some change in the car, a change which rendered it unroadworthy or defective in some degree. The Deputy wants to know if the owner in that case would be held liable. Frankly, I cannot envisage the owner being held liable in such a case, since the alteration would not have the authority of the owner behind it.
Would amendment No. 22 cover these cases?
I think amendment No. 21 covers them all.
Amendment No. 22 says "or that the breach of the regulation was committed without the knowledge or consent of the owner."
I shall come to that later. I am dealing with No. 21 at the moment.
The making of regulations by the Minister is too short a short cut.
Until the actual regulations come to be framed setting out what is or is not prescribed——
We do not want to buy a pig in a poke. The Minister will appreciate that.
Judging from the clamour here tonight, there must be a great many people buying pigs in pokes from all kinds of dealers. That is not a practice we should follow, but I cannot at this stage detail the actual offences which will be prescribed and in which the owner will be equally guilty with the drivers. I am giving what I regard as extreme examples of what may or may not come within these regulations. Beyond that, I cannot clarify the matter to the satisfaction of those who have in mind pigs in pokes which they do not want to buy. I can give only the general outlines; I cannot give the details. The amendment covers the objections that were raised. I think the House should find it quite satisfactory.
