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.