Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 May 1961

Vol. 189 No. 1

Road Traffic Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
34a. Before subsection (5) to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"(5) Where a member of the Garda Síochána proposes to exercise any of the powers contained in any of the foregoing subsections the person in charge of the vehicle or the owner may require that any inspections, tests, or examinations shall be carried out by a member of the Garda Síochána who is a public service vehicle inspector and in the presence of a mechanic, engineer or other qualified persons nominated by such person or owner who shall be afforded an opportunity of observing such inspection, tests and examinations."—(Deputy J.A. Costello).

I do not know if the Minister had concluded his argument on the last occasion.

I understood the Minister to say that the suggestion incorporated in the amendment that these tests should be carried out by public service vehicle inspectors would not be a practical proposition because there are not enough of them. I accepted that as a valid reason for turning down the first part of the amendment, but I urged the Minister to accept the second part of the amendment, that is, that the right should be given to a person whose vehicle is affected or subject to a test to nominate a qualified person to attend on his or her behalf.

Unless my memory is incorrect, the Minister indicated he felt that the lack of public service vehicle inspectors was not the only argument against the desirability of having tests conducted by them as there were other arguments as well. I feel that if there are not sufficient fully qualified public service vehicle inspectors available for the job, obviously the Minister could not implement this. I should be interested to hear what arguments he has to advance against the second suggestion in the amendment.

I quite realise that if the Minister indicates he will accept the principle enshrined in the second part of the amendment, as against the request contained in the first part, it will be necessary to introduce some further amendment later because the amendment in its present form would not meet the case. I should be glad to hear what reasons the Minister has to offer against its acceptance.

I shall read what I said on the last occasion on this subject, lest I should not be able to put it as well again. As reported at Column 1815 of Volume 188 of the Official Report, I said on May 4th:

I think I have been somewhat misunderstood. While I used the two very obvious arguments of the small number of P.S.V. inspectors throughout the country and the manner of their dispersal throughout the country—six in Dublin, three in Cork and the rest scattered throughout the land—I am sorry if the House took that to be the only argument that could be thought of against this amendment. I gave these as the obvious ones, at the outset. I indicated that by writing into this Bill mention of P.S.V. inspectors, we would, in fact, be tying ourselves to something which is not static, and need not necessarily remain. In other words, there may not be P.S.V. inspectors as such in future. To regard them as being in existence for all time or for the next 25 or 30 years would be rather straining the situation.

Over and above that, let us consider the situation for a moment. If, for instance, a Garda, no matter how unqualified from a mechanical point of view, observes a mechanically propelled vehicle—a car, truck, motorcycle or what you will—careering madly through any town, street or village, wobbling about, perhaps almost knocking down somebody, apparently incapable of being pulled up, surely it would be unreasonable at that stage to say that only a person who was qualified mechanically——

Deputy M.J. O'Higgins then interjected that you would want a qualified medical man in such circumstances and I continued:

That is a very interesting point. The Garda then pulls up the driver. He is not medically qualified, as one might expect he would be required to be if this line of argument were used, to determine on the spot and, if necessary, arrest the driver in the belief that he was under the influence of drink or drugs. Apparently, objection is taken to his asking the driver to let him have a look over the machine, to find out by depressing the brake pedal and by twisting the steering wheel, whether or not it has any defect. At that stage, even though it was in the middle of the night, on a country road, miles away from mechanics, garages or P.S.V. inspector centres, what would be the position if this amendment were carried?

Would the Garda be expected to stand by the machine until the following morning until somebody came along to find where he was lost? Would it be expected that he should hare off through the country, leaving the motorist on the side of the road, expecting him to be there when he returned having rooted out of bed a qualified mechanic and a P.S.V. inspector from some place miles away, and all that in order to allow the defendant—as he would later turn out to be—an opportunity, as the Deputies have put it to the House, of getting fair treatment and justice? Is that to be the position, despite the fact that by depressing the brake pedal, it would be quite obvious there was not a screed of brake on the machine and, by twisting the steering wheel, that it did not work until you had turned it twice around and that then it began to take up? There is no Garda on the beat today who is so lacking in knowledge and intelligence that he would not know at this stage, in relation to those two points, that the machine should not be further used in the interest of public safety.

I think that sets out very much more widely the arguments as to why this amendment should not be carried or should not be accepted by the House than merely the interpretation that we have not enough P.S.V. inspectors.

Furthermore, if there is anything I might add to that, it would be that the powers here are powers to deal with this unusual type of dangerous case that can arise occasionally and that that power is necessary to deal with such unusual and dangerous circumstances as might arise from any very dangerous defects and that it is quite obvious to anybody who cares to study the matter that in giving the power necessary to deal with these unusual and dangerous circumstances, we are not giving that power to be used day in and day out by every member of the Garda Síochána at every crossroads throughout the entire country to the annoyance of the general public.

That is the feature of the background against which we must look at this provision and looking at it in that way will convince us that putting this amendment into the Bill would in fact not attain the ends which we are endeavouring to attain by this measure generally.

I supported the amendment last week. I say now that while I agree with the Minister that this amendment may not provide all the safeguards he wants, we believe that the section could not be described as being the ideal section, either. Accordingly, after the discussion we had last Thursday and to-day's debate, the Minister may be able to provide against what we believe to be dangers inherent in this section. The Minister says these powers will not be widely used. How does he know? He speaks as if he were the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána speaking on behalf of the entire Garda force. His view as to when these powers will be used may be a reasonable one, but there is no guarantee that the Garda generally in the country will not operate this section to the very letter.

The point about it is that Section 20 is one which gives wide powers to every member of the Garda to stop any motor car or lorry, to carry out a test and to tell the driver that certain things must be done or that he may not do certain things, unless he corrects any defects as ordered by the member of the Garda. The Minister said there were not many Gardaí who do not know the ordinary things a driver would know about a mechanically propelled vehicle and instanced the case of a Garda who entered the cab of a lorry, put his foot on the brake pedal and said there was a defect of the braking system.

If he does that in a lorry, he will get the shock of his life.

The Minister said that a Garda might say the steering was defective. Both the Minister and myself know the Garda very well. The vast majority of them do not know much about either motorcars or lorries and most of them do not pretend to know very much about them. I do not agree that the majority of the Garda are car owners. The most they would know about a car in the majority of cases is to drive in them. The Minister also gave the example of the car that careered down the street—the vehicle that was obviously defective in some respect. We do not need any Road Traffic Bill to deal with a situation like that.

I accept that, as we have only 29 P.S.V. inspectors in the Garda Síochána, this amendment may not be suitable, but there surely is some other method whereby we could provide an adequate number of Gardaí who would be charged with this special task. I think it was Deputy O'Donnell or the Minister who said last Thursday that he believed that every new member of the Garda Síochána now undergoes a period of training in garage work during his ordinary training period. If the Minister could assure me on that point, or has any information on it, I should be a little happier about this section. As it is, I have a decided objection to it because I believe that the Garda do not want this power and I believe that many of them are not competent to do what the Minister says they may do in Section 20.

I invited the Minister to give his reasons for rejecting the suggestion in the second part of the amendment. I do not think he has done so. As I said earlier, if there is a shortage of inspectors of public service vehicles and if the Minister tells us that the shortage is so great that he could not implement this amendment if it were carried, I would consider that a reasonable argument as to why we should not seek to have the Minister pin these inspections on public service vehicle inspectors. But there are two things concerned in the amendment and in the subsection we are discussing. The subsection provides for two kinds of cases. First, there is the spot test or check on the road. It was to that the Minister was referring when he pictured a car careering down a road, obviously out of control. In such circumstances I agree that the Garda there and then should be entitled to have a look at the car. That is only one of the matters in the subsection.

The second matter is that the Garda may require the vehicle to be submitted for further examination and test at a later date. I see no difficulty, so far as the second requirement is concerned, in the Minister conceding that the owner of the car, who is required to submit it for further test or examination, should have the right to have present at that examination, a mechanic, engineer or other qualified person nominated by him. I strongly urge the Minister to give at least that concession. It seems all wrong that any member of the Garda should have authority to require a car owner to submit a car for test and that the owner of the car—as would be the position under the section as it stands, as I see it—could be completely excluded from seeing what type of test is being done, what kind of examination or operation is taking place, if inadvertently the Garda or whoever is supposed to test it on behalf of the Garda Síochána, does some damage to the car. Surely the owner is entitled if, for instance, the brake linings are to be inspected, to ensure that the job is done properly and that the parts are properly replaced after the inspection.

Deputy Costello, in his amendment, suggests that someone on behalf of the owner should be allowed to be present at the test or examination and I suggest to the Minister that at least the person who is required to submit a car for an additional or further test, apart from the spot check on the road, should be granted these facilities.

I wish to support what Deputy O'Higgins has just said. It is a valid point that no inspection should be carried out where such is provided for unless the owner at least has the right to have some person present on his behalf. Many things can happen in diagnosing what is wrong with a motor vehicle. A friend of mine noticed oil leaking from his car and called into a garage. There he was told that he had a crack in the sump and that it would cost about £20 to put right. He was in a hurry and he said that he had a further 14 miles to go and he asked if he had the sump filled up would it be all right? They told him it would. He had it examined by his own garage next day and it was found that the outlet for draining the sump was loose and that was what caused the leakage. It did not need £20 to fix. Anybody's opinion as to what is wrong with a motor vehicle is fallible and, in the same way as the man charged with being drunk is entitled to have his own doctor as well as being examined by the police doctor, the car owner should have the right to a second opinion. It would be a safeguard for the police apart from the owner to have the owner's representative present.

Suppose a dispute arises and the owner swears that the defect did not exist until somebody "got at" the car during what purported to be a further examination, there could be hard swearing on both sides and I should imagine that there would be very great difficulty in ascertaining what happened. If there is a second opinion the examination is bound to be accepted as fair. I think the Minister should give way on that point and agree to bring in an amendment on Report which will cover this point, giving the owner the right to have his own expert present when the examination is being carried out.

On the second point, there is no doubt that an owner has the right to take with him anybody he wishes in connection with this examination. Furthermore, it is likely in many cases that where a defect is alleged to exist and an instruction to have it repaired or remedied has been given and a date appointed for the examination subsequently, it will, in fact, be necessary to have that examination carried out in a garage so that the defect may be properly examined and the garage facilities may, in fact, be at the garage in which the owner of the vehicle has the defect examined and possibly discovers it does not need any repair.

Does the Minister mean that the specification of time and place for the examination is made by the owner and not by the Garda?

No; what I mean is that, as Deputies will appreciate, every Garda barracks yard will not have facilities for examining a car that has been brought in by instruction, subsequent to a defect having been pointed out by a Garda at some previous date.

Does the Minister not agree that it does not matter what he or I may think about what would be a reasonable place; that it will be the time and place specified by the Garda in future?

I know, but I cannot see a Garda getting down on his back in a puddle when there is a local garage where there will be a ramp—I mean a ramp on which to put cars.

We would not have to legislate at all if everybody was reasonable.

Seriously, what we seem to be doing here is trying to legislate on the basis that everybody, Gardaí and motorists, are going to be absolutely unreasonable in their approach on every possible occasion. I maintain, and I am dealing with the matter on this basis, that we can assume reasonableness in the vast majority of cases on both sides and I think that is a better and more honest approach than to assume unreasonableness on all sides before we start.

So far as the real point is concerned, that a person who is required to submit his vehicle for inspection after being warned that a defect must be remedied should have the right to have a qualified mechanic or other qualified person present when the inspection takes place, there is no difficulty. I hold that there is no doubt that he has that right. To write into the Bill that such a right is there is, I think, uncalled for. However, if the House insists, I have no objection. I do not think we really need it, but, if the House thinks otherwise, I shall try to have such a provision drafted and bring it here on Report Stage.

I shall be quite happy if the Minister examines the matter on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 35:

In subsection (5), page 22, lines 10 to 12, to delete "inspects and examines under this section a vehicle drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle and finds" and substitute "is, consequent upon having inspected and examined under this section a vehicle drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle, of opinion."

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 36.

In subsection (8), page 22, lines 32 and 33, to delete "has tested under this section a pedal cycle and finds" and substitute "is, consequent upon having tested under this section a pedal cycle, of opinion."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No.38 (a) is similar to amendment No. 37. The suggestion was to add these words in a particular place. They should be added to the end of the section and I, therefore, do not propose to move amendment No. 37.

Amendment No. 37 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 38 and 38 (a) may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 38.

To delete subsection (9) and-substitute the following subsections:

"(9) A person who, in a case in which a requirement under subsection (1), (2), (6) or (7) of this section has been made on him, contravenes the requirement shall be guilty of an offence.

(10) (a) A person who, in a case in which an instruction under subsection (3) of this section that a vehicle is not to be driven in a public place until a defect is remedied has been given to him or in which he is aware that such an instruction has been given, so drives it or causes or permits it to be so driven before the defect is remedied shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

(b) Where a person is charged with an offence under this subsection, it shall be a good defence for him to show that, at the time the instruction was given, there was not a defect affecting the vehicle was, when in use, a danger to the public.

(11) (a) A person who, in a case in which a requirement under subsection (3) of this section has been made on him, contravenes the requirement shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) Where a person is charged with an offence under this subsection, it shall be a good defence for him to show that, at the time the requirement was made, there was not a defect affecting the vehicle which was such that the vehicle was, when in use, a danger to the public.

(12) (a) A person who, in a case in which an instruction under subsection (4) of this section that a vehicle is not to be used for the carriage of passengers until a defect is remedied has been given to him or in which he is aware that such an instruction has been given, so uses it or causes or permits it to be so used before the defect is remedied shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) Where a person is charged with an offence under this subsection, it shall be a good defence for him to show that, at the time the instruction was given, there was not a defect affecting the vehicle which was such that the vehicle was rendered unfit for the carriage of passengers.

(13) (a) A person who, in a case in which a requirement under subsection (4) of this section has been made on him, contravenes the requirement shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) Where a person is charged with an offence under this subsection, it shall be a good defence for him to show that, at the time the requirement was made, there was not a defect affecting the vehicle which was such that the vehicle was rendered unfit for the carriage of passengers.

(14) (a) A person who, in a case in which an instruction under subsection (5) of this section that a vehicle drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle is not to be so drawn in a public place until a defect is remedied has been given to him or in which he is aware that such an instruction has been given, so draws it or causes or permits it to be so drawn before the defect is remedied shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) Where a person is charged with an offence under this subsection, it shall be a good defence for him to show that, at the time the instruction was given, there was not a defect affecting the vehicle which was such that the vehicle was, when in use, a danger to the public.

(15) (a) A person who, in a case in which a requirement under subsection (5) of this section has been made on him, contravenes the requirement shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) Where a person is charged with an offence under this subsection, it shall be a good defence for him to show that, at the time the requirement was made, there was not a defect affecting the vehicle which was such that the vehicle was, when in use, a danger to the public.

(16) (a) A person who, in a case in which an instruction under subsection (8) of this section that a cycle is not to be driven in a public place until a defect is remedied has been given or in which he is aware that such an instruction has been given, so drives it or causes or permits it to be so driven before the defect is remedied shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) Where a person is charged with an offence under this subsection, it shall be a good defence for him to show that, at the time the instruction was given, the cycle had not a dangerous defect.

(17) (a) A person who, in a case in which a requirement under subsection (8) of this section has been made on him, contravenes the requirement shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) Where a person is charged with an offence under this subsection, it shall be a good defence for him to show that, at the time the requirement was made, the cycle had not a dangerous defect."

This amendment is in substitution for subsection (9). The net effect will be to indicate clearly that where a defect is alleged to exist and an instruction is given by a member of the Garda Síochána on the basis that a defect exists, the disobeying of that instruction will not constitute a crime, if it is subsequently proved that no such defect existed.

The Minister's amendment meets to a very large extent the point we intended to make on amendment No. 38a. There is, however, one small point the Minister might consider to see if it is necessary to do anything further on the lines of his own amendment. The amendment now before the House makes it quite clear that if no defect exists, a person cannot be convicted for disobeying the requirement of the Garda to remedy such non-existent defect. The owner is also covered if he continues to drive in defiance of an instruction.

Under subsection (2) and subsection (1) of Section 20, which we have already discussed, very large powers are given to the Garda, quite apart from the finding of specific defects in a vehicle. A Garda may, under subsection (2), require a person to drive a vehicle a certain distance and to carry out tests, and so forth. If it is subsequently proved to the satisfaction of the court that the particular requirement in the circumstances was unreasonable, that also should be regarded as an adequate defence. The Minister's amendment certainly covers the greater danger we foresaw. I should like him between now and Report Stage to look at the other point in order to see whether or not it is necessary to extend it even further.

The amendment now suggested is the direct result of our discussions on Second Stage. We are satisfied that it does not require any further amendment. Unless the requirements are reasonably necessary, any subsequent action will fall to the ground.

I am not pressing this.

Mr. Ryan

I appreciate that the Minister's interpretation may be fair enough, but neither his interpretation nor his understanding here will be quotable in a court of law, as the Minister knows only too well.

A Cheann Comhairle, I do not wish to dampen the discussion in any way but this aspect was very fully debated here the last day.

Mr. Ryan

With respect, this amendment goes to the root of the discussion. Amendment No. 38a is an all-embracing amendment which will be of use only where a member of the Garda is unreasonable. The Minister says it is not necessary to legislate as though everyone is an unreasonable being. That is quite right, but there is no reason why we should not put in a clause to protect humanity against an unreasonable member of the Garda as is suggested in amendment No. 38a. This defence is available where a member of the Garda uses the powers conferred upon him either aggressively or in a hostile manner. To prevent the odd case, I think the Minister ought to accept amendment No. 38a.

Under the section as it stands, a member of the Garda can direct a car to be driven five miles. That might not cause any great inconvenience in the country where time is not of such great moment. In the city, people are restricted to certain hours of work. They are also restricted in appointments. One lives under the dreadful fear of being late. To be ordered by a Garda to drive a car five miles across busy streets might be a very serious inconvenience and might involve the person concerned in considerable expense from the point of view of his employment, the circumstances of his vocation, or even in his ordinary family circumstances.

If such a person can indicate to a court that the order was unreasonable, that ought to be a fair defence in relation to the charge of obstructing a Garda in the execution of his duty. It would not absolve the individual concerned from the duty of making his vehicle available for inspection at some reasonable time and place subsequently. We ought to allow a person who is asked to do an unreasonable thing to have a good defence. What the Minister says, while it may be his mature consideration and the mature consideration of his Departmental officials and the Attorney General, is not necessarily something that would be accepted by any member of the district court bench. On that account I believe this escape clause should be put in, to be available only to persons who are asked to do an unreasonable thing.

There is only one subsection about which I would be a bit nervous, that is, in regard to the limitations in subsection (4), where it appears that the opinion is necessarily a little vague to deal with a defect in a public service vehicle other than a major defect, which is already covered in subsection (3). Precisely the same type of cover is given in the new subsection (12), that a good defence is only that there was not such a defect. But where the matter of subsection (4) is so vague, that is where a Guard suspects some defect other than one which would cause it to be dangerous to be driven in a public place, it is possible that an unreasonable charge might be made. I think it might be worth looking at again to see if it would be a good defence that there was an unreasonable charge as well as that there was no defect. Just consider the vagueness of subsection (4). I do not know what exactly is envisaged, or what type of defect there would be in a public service vehicle which, while it would not render it unfit to be driven in a public place, would still render it unfit for the carriage of passengers. There might be a question of opinion in that. It should be provided that it would be a good defence that the complaint was unreasonable.

While I have a good deal of sympathy with the aspect raised by both Deputy Sheldon and Deputy Ryan, I should like again to point out that we are not trying to legislate for the individual circumstances of any particular person at any given time. It might be regarded as unduly difficult to ask a man to drive five miles across town in a rush hour but that is not the point at issue. The point is whether or not what has been required of the person concerned is reasonably necessary, not so much whether in his own private capacity it might be a little more unreasonable for him than somebody else that he should be asked to go five miles or to do this, that or the other thing. The real matter of importance is that the requirement as detected by the Garda under subsection (3) of Section 20 is reasonably necessary.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 38a not moved.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 39:

Before section 21, but in Part II, to insert the following new section:

"The wages paid to and the conditions of employment of persons employed in the operation of mechanically-propelled vehicles used for the transport of persons, goods or livestock shall not be less favourable to them than the wages which would be payable and the conditions which would have to be observed under a contract which complied with the fair wages clause for the time being in force applicable to contracts with Government departments."

It is clear from the amendment that the intention is to apply the fair wages clause to all persons employed in the operation of mechanically propelled vehicles used to transport people, goods or livestock. The fair wages clause at present operates in respect of Government contractors and the main point is to see that both contractors or sub-contractors working for the Government or local authorities will pay the equivalent of union wages or the customary wages in the trade. I would like, if I may, to read the fair wages clause in respect of Government contracts and sub-contracts. It is as follows:

The contractor shall pay rates of wages and observe hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and trade societies (or in the absence of such recognised wages and hours, those which in practice prevail amongst good employers) in the trade in the district where the work is carried out. Where there are no such wages and hours recognised or prevailing in the district those recognised or prevailing in the nearest district in which the general industrial circumstances are similar shall be adopted. Further, the conditions of employment generally accepted in the district in the trade concerned shall be taken into account in considering how far the terms of the Fair Wages Clauses are being observed, and for this purpose also regard shall be had to the conditions of employment generally in the contracting firm. The contractor shall be prohibited from transferring or assigning directly or indirectly to any person or persons whatever any portion of his contract without the written permission of the Department. Sub-letting other than that which may be customary in the trade concerned shall be prohibited. The contractor shall be responsible for the observance of the Fair Wages Clauses by the sub-contractor.

This amendment is designed to ensure that the fair wages clause will be extended to all those drivers employed in the transport of people, goods or livestock. On a somewhat similar measure to this—it was not a Road Traffic Bill but the Road Transport Bill—the question of the fair wages clause was raised in respect of drivers of lorries and the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, indicated that it would be a question more appropriately raised on a Road Traffic Bill. That is the reason it appears on the Order Paper today. In this Bill we are legislating for the proper control of traffic and we are trying to ensure that we will have the minimum number of accidents and we are going to do that by regulation.

The Bill, when enacted, will insist that a mechanically propelled vehicle shall be in a certain condition. It seems to me, therefore, that whilst we are going to make many regulations to ensure that lorries or cars will be in perfect condition, while some portions of the Bill do mention them, we do not seem to be so much concerned with the safety and welfare of the people who will be driving these mechanically propelled vehicles.

There are many good reasons why the fair wages clause should be extended to all drivers. There is the question of competition with the semi-State companies, C.I.E. for example, but it is also necessary that we should have drivers who are content in their work. They cannot be content unless they are well paid. It is a well-known fact that throughout the country some drivers are greatly exploited by their employers in the scandalously low wages they are paid and in the very long hours they are required to work.

There is another section of the Bill, which we can welcome, with amendments that we trust the Minister will accept. It is in respect of the working hours of drivers. The Minister may argue that the question of wages is not a matter for which we could legislate. Probably, he will suggest that it is a matter that the trade unions could very well negotiate. As against that, there is a provision in the Bill, and one which we welcome, prescribing the maximum number of hours of continuous driving and also the rest period with an 11 hour period of driving. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to apply this fair wages clause. It does not mean that the owner of a lorry down the country will be required to pay his driver the same wages as are paid in top class firms in the city of Dublin or Cork. It merely asks that all drivers in their own districts will get what is recognised as the trade union wage or what is generally accepted by the trade and by the workers as a fair wage for the locality. That is one reason why I say it is appropriate to this Bill.

There is another reason. I think it is a pretty good reason. It is no secret that to a very large extent we copy British legislation. We have done that in many respects and in connection with many Departments. We have done it in some respects in this Bill. The British Road Traffic Bill, 1959, Section 152, has a provision similar to that which is embodied in the amendment.

I should like the Minister to consider the amendment as a worthwhile provision to ensure that not only will we have the best conditioned mechanically propelled vehicles on the road but will have drivers who are happy in their job in that they are paid reasonable wages.

Despite the very excellent case that Deputy Corish has made and the manner in which he has put the amendment to the House, it strikes me as completely inappropriate to a measure such as this. The Deputy referred to following the pattern of British legislation and to the fact that in the most recent British Act dealing with this subject there is a provision similar to that contained in the amendment. It is not a true analogy. The Bill passed in Britain deals not only with traffic; it is also a Transport Bill. There is a distinction between what a Bill dealing with one of these heads might contain and what a Bill which would deal with both heads might contain.

Again, it is true that in 1931, in the early discussions on the 1933 Act, this matter was debated and discussed in the House. Nobody would agree more with me than the Labour members of this House, who are representative of trade unions, that there is a vast difference between the lot of the truck or vehicle driver and of his organised union today and that of the driver in the unorganised situation that probably obtained to a very large degree 30 years ago.

I do not say this other than in strict honesty but I do feel that this provision is not appropriate to this measure, that, in fact, conditions, pay and such matters are matters which, traditionally, are handled by the organised unions, that they are best able to continue to handle these matters and will in fact continue to handle them. As I said when expressing my early beliefs and sustaining myself in those beliefs, such a provision would be inappropriate to this measure.

I must agree with the Minister that the case put by Deputy Corish for the amendment was put in an excellent manner. Knowing beforehand the case that he was about to put, I was amazed how convinced I became by the arguments. I did not realise how excellent they were until I heard them put forward by Deputy Corish.

I was interested to hear the Minister's reply. He is correct in saying that the section in the British legislation was contained in a slightly different Bill. Nevertheless, it was a Road Traffic and Transport Bill. I fail to see the point the Minister was making unless it is that the provision in regard to wages relates to transport and that the cost of wages is included as a transport charge.

While it is the function of trade unions to secure the correct wage for a job, surely the Minister is aware that in the rural areas there are a vast number of drivers and workers who are not organised trade unionists. Normally, in that case, where they impact on industry, the matter is dealt with by a joint industrial council which sets out minimum rates, so that these unorganised workers cannot be used to jeopardise the standard in the industry concerned. That is quite common in creameries, in agriculture and in various other cases. Joint industrial councils can prescribe through the Labour Court minimum rates of pay.

Surely it is not too much to ask the Minister, when dealing with human lives, to set up a standard minimum rate that must be paid so as to attract the right type of driver and to ensure that the man who is responsible for life on the public road in driving heavy vehicles or commercial vehicles will be a contented and satisfied driver? As Deputy Corish has pointed out, the question of periods of work and rest is dealt with in the Bill. If that matter, which is normally, again, a trade union business, is covered in the Bill, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a minimum rate of wages should also be provided for. As Deputy Corish also pointed out, it would not be a standard that would apply equally in Dublin and in some country village. It is essential that the people who take charge of vehicles that can endanger human life should be of a type who are paid at least as good a wage as a fair employer in the locality would pay.

I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider the position, to examine the matter again and to see if something could be done. I am sure he understands the spirit of the amendment. If the Minister does not accept the actual wording of the amendment, I am sure the trade union movement would be content with a provision that would secure that the best type of employees would be engaged as commercial vehicle drivers.

I suppose the easy way out would be for me to accede to Deputy Kyne's request that I should consider this further, with a view to seeing whether something could be done. I would be less than honest if I said I proposed to consider it in the hope that something further could be done because I have considered the matter pretty severely, if you like to put it that way. I cannot see, nor am I convinced, that you can, in fact, bring this matter in on legislation such as we are now discussing.

I would say to the two Deputies who spoke in favour of the amendment that the reference to hours at a later stage of this Bill, the proposal to legislate as to the hours of driving which a driver may do is not to be confused with the matter proposed in this amendment. The question of the number of hours is purely a safety precaution which we hope to legislate for in that we want a man not to become over-fatigued and, therefore, a danger to himself and to others, whereas I draw the distinction quite clearly here.

What is proposed in this amendment is the question of contenting the driver rather than the question of avoiding fatigue. If we were to push that right along, we might say that anything which was liable to irritate the driver, even in his hours off, would be something in respect of which we would have to legislate. That might be a very good thing, but I do not think it is feasible, and neither do I think that legislating for his contentment and well-being in a matter such as his wages is necessary or appropriate. It is unnecessary because I believe fully that this aspect of his well-being is, in fact, well taken care of and will continue even more widely to be taken care of as time goes on. That is the particular trend.

While it may be said that people driving large vehicles should be properly paid, I think that, generally speaking, the people in these large vehicles, who are hired labour, belong, in fact, to some of our transport concerns or bigger industrial concerns, and I do not think there are any such as those in the country who have not got wage agreements with their respective unions. I still feel this is a matter which the unions look after and will look after even better than could be done by trying to legislate for it here in the manner proposed. I could take the easy way out and say I would look into the matter, but I should be less than honest if I said that.

I do not want to prolong this discussion because I think the Minister believes what he said but let me put a few points to him. He said that the British Road Traffic Bill was also a Road Transport Bill. I do not think that makes any difference. I do not say to him that, because the British put it in, we should put it in. It is an example worth considering. I suppose it is a bad thing for any of us connected with the trade union movement to admit that, contrary to what the Minister says, there are many thousands of isolated drivers in isolated places who are not in trade unions. There may be reason for that, both on the side of the trade unions and the people concerned, but there are many such people who are certainly being exploited.

The Minister said that there is no use considering this because he has considered it thoroughly and that he would be less than honest if he told us now, for the purpose of finishing the discussion, that he would consider it. Let me put this point to him. It is not an ideal analogy. I have not a great lot of respect for the Agricultural Wages Board which I think was set up to ensure that agricultural workers would get a minimum wage. That was done because of the dangers of the exploitation of the rural workers. The Government at the time—I think it was 1955 or 1956—produced the Agricultural Wages Board Act which determined that there would be a minimum wage. Would the Minister not consider it from that point of view or would it need a separate Bill?

I accept it if the Minister has considered all these aspects of the matter. I believe there is a case for safeguarding wages in respect of the employment of many of these people in isolated places in the country, but if the Minister insists that he does not see any use in considering the matter any further, I do not propose to furnish any other argument, beyond saying that we believe there should be something in this Road Traffic Bill to ensure that decent rates of wages will be paid to lorry drivers in isolated areas and that they will not be exploited.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Does amendment No. 40 not come in before that?

Amendment No. 40 was discussed with amendment No. 14.

Amendment 40 not moved.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 41:

To insert after the word "months" in line 8, page 24, "twenty-four months, or thirty-six months at the option of the applicant".

This amendment is designed to enable driving licences to be issued for a longer period than 12 months. The present position is that a driving licence is issued for a period of 12 months and must be renewed every 12 months. There is a strong feeling amongst a number of people—I think the Minister is probably aware of it—that it would be better and would help administratively if driving licences could be issued for a longer period.

This is a matter upon which there will obviously be different points of view. It seems to me that from the administrative point of view, this proposal would have a very definite advantage. At the moment every person who takes out a driving licence and who proposes to renew it the following year must send in his application or call to the licensing authority and get his licence within 12 months. If that is extended to enable licences to be issued over a period of 24 months or 36 months, as the case might be, it seems to me that it will reduce the pressure on the licensing authority, which as all of us know, certainly in Dublin, is frequently very great, both in connection with the issuing of licences and the taxation of vehicles.

We suggest for consideration by the House that in Section 23, subsection (2), instead of carrying on the present position as obligatory, we should amend it so that, at the option of the applicant, the licence could be issued for two or three years, as the case might be. If our amendment is accepted, the applicant who wants to get a licence for a two-year period would pay double the fee that is paid at present and if he got it for a three-year-period he would pay three times the fee for the one-year period.

I would like to support that suggestion because I believe there is a lot of money lost by the present method of issuing driving licences. I do not say the extension of the period to 24 months or 36 months would correct it entirely. I would like to ask a fair question. I am not aware whether the Minister drives a car but suppose he or any other Deputy takes out a licence on the first of May. That is due for renewal on the 1st May next year. How many members of this House religiously renew their licence within the exact period of twelve months? Sometimes it goes on not for days or weeks but months and unless one is challenged by a Garda the period extends to 12 months or even 18 months. If a Garda does stop a motorist whose driving licence has expired up to date he is given a few days within which to renew it. If the Minister adopts the suggestion that the renewal date be 24 months or 36 months, there would be added revenue for the Road Fund. I do not know whether it would be substantial, whether it would be hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of pounds, probably tens of thousands of pounds.

If there is one reason why the Minister would not accept this amendment it is perhaps that the Exchequer or the Road Fund could lose money if a licence were taken out for a period of three years and the Minister for Local Government, at the behest of the Government or the Minister for Finance decided to increase the cost of the licence in that period. I do not think a person could be required to pay the increase for the period for which the licence was still valid. However, if this system were adopted I believe the Road Fund would benefit as a result.

I do not think I need pass very much comment on the habits of Deputy Corish in regard to driving licences.

I would not like to inquire into yours too closely.

I would be quite happy if the Deputy did. I have rarely forgotten it because I usually take out my tax and driving licence at the same time.

The Deputy is a very methodical person.

In regard to the two-year or three-year period for a licence, I can see the attraction from the administrative point of view, but I doubt if people are going to gamble, at the rate of £1 a year, on their still being driving at the end of a period of three years. It is all right in the North where the licence is only 5/- a year. I doubt if very many will avail of that facility. A person can safeguard himself for 24 months ahead. On the day after he has taken out his driving licence he can take out another one for the succeeding twelve months. It is possible to do this because subsection (2) says:

Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act and any regulations thereunder, a driving licence shall be granted for a period of twelve months beginning on—

(a) in case the licence is granted during a period during which a driving licence previously granted to the applicant remains unexpired—the day following the expiration of the driving licence previously granted...

Therefore I can take a driving licence out to-day for twelve months and go in to-morrow and take out another one for the succeeding twelve months and keep myself covered for two years. I doubt if anyone would avail himself of the facilities suggested in the amendment at the present licence rate. Most people find it difficult enough——

The amendment suggests they be given the option, not that they be forced to do it.

Unless a great many were likely to use the option I doubt if it would be worth while. Different coloured forms, and so forth, would have to be used. Deputy Corish says it is very easy to forget to renew a driving licence. If you cannot remember at the end of twelve months, your chance of remembering at the end of thirty-six months would be even less.

The county council could issue reminders.

I do not think it would make very much difference. In regard to issuing a warning, something should be done to ensure that the county council would issue a notice before the expiry of a licence. A warning I got on one occasion involved a licence which had expired three weeks previously. I do not see why, when the poor motorist is being legislated for in detail, the local authorities should not be legislated for to compel them to issue a notice some weeks in advance of the expiry of a driving licence. I doubt if the option suggested in this amendment will be used.

I referred to this matter on the Second Stage of the debate. My main complaint was the inadequacy of the facilities available in Kildare Street for the issuing of licences and I pointed out that if the Minister puts the onus on the local authority to issue these licences he should make sure adequate facilities are available. I made it quite clear there was no criticism of the staff employed there but that the layout of the building was completely unsuitable. It is a very valuable property and I am sure the local authority could get a more suitable property and make a profit by selling the building in Kildare Street.

I also asked the Minister to consider back-dating licences to the date of the expiry of the previous licence. I pointed out that the date of issue is stamped on the licence. Therefore if a person were charged with not having a licence in force at a particular time and if he went along the next morning and bought a licence back-dated to the expiry of the old licence, the charge would still stand because the date of issue is stamped on the licence itself.

I can see the point in Deputy O'Higgins's amendment. There may be a saving in administrative costs but I am inclined to agree with Deputy Sheldon that very few people would avail of this opportunity if it were there. Once most people pay out their £1, it is very seldom they will pay another £2 or £3. To my mind, the type of person who might pay for a driving licence two or three years in advance is the type who would use the post to get his licence in any event. In the Kildare Street tax office, the working hours are bad and the layout is bad. If you lose your tax book you have to go to the ground floor for a note, then up to the top floor to have it checked, and then to the central office to pay your 5/-.

That does not arise on the amendment before the House.

I cannot see that any substantial saving on administrative costs will be achieved by issuing licences to cover two or three years. unless the local authority is compelled to get a new tax office. I suggest to the Minister that it would be better if he would agree to backdate the licence to the date of the expiry of the old licence.

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Lemass with regard to backdating, but there is one catch. Suppose a man allows his licence to expire because he has not got a car, and six months later he gets a car. His licence would then be backdated for the six months in which he was not driving. I am sure a way out could be found, but I think it would be very complex. If some backdating arrangement were made, it would meet the suggestion made by Deputy Corish. Where a man lets his own licence run, he will not gain financially, because it will be back-dated and he will be no further on than he was before. It could happen that a man might be ill, perhaps, or might not drive his car for a few months, and the renewal of his licence might happen to coincide with that time when he would not be driving. I do not see why he should be compelled to pay for a period when he was not driving.

I am sure there is a way out, but I cannot think of it quickly. It would probably be cumbersome and open to abuse. Some method of catching people who allow their licence to run would be worthy of consideration if the Minister has any evidence to show that Deputy Corish's fears in regard to the general public and members of the House are really accurate.

Deputy Russell said —I am sorry; Deputy Sheldon——

The Deputy does not know his best supporters.

What I had in mind was a simple declaration signed by a peace commissioner or a Garda sergeant.

I may be taking Deputy Lemass and Deputy Sheldon up quite wrongly, but I cannot for the life of me see the argument. As I understand Deputy Lemass, he said that if a person has not taken out his driving licence and is charged with that offence, he might be entitled to go in and pay his £1 and have his licence backdated and defeat the charge.

Mr. Lemass

I said the licence was stamped with the date of issue.

I took it the Deputy was taking exception to that.

I may be wrong.

Revenue is what I am interested in.

I should like to hear the Minister's view on that point. I appreciate what Deputy Sheldon has said, that people might be unable to take advantage of the facility if it were allowed to them, but I do not think that is an argument against allowing the facility to those who want it. It seems to me that the number who would take advantage of it could not be ascertained if the concession were not made available.

The other argument, and I think a sounder argument, made by Deputy Sheldon is one which I think could be surmounted by Ministerial regulation, and heaven knows there will be enough regulations under this Bill when it becomes an Act. That question might arise if the fee payable for a licence were altered. At present I do not see why he should not get advantage of it and why, from the point of view of reducing pressure administratively, it would not be a good idea and worth trying as an inducement, for what it is worth. A person who pays £2 or £3 as the case may be, and takes out a licence for two or three years, will be allowed to do so in the confidence that he will have his licence at that rate for that period.

Supposing the fee comes down?

Let him take that risk. I would be prepared to take that risk.

The terms of the amendment and the sense of it appeal to me quite a bit. However, on examination—perhaps the examination has been rather cursory so far—it appears that if a provision were made in this Bill for extending the period of the licence for two or three years, or whatever other period, there would also have to be amendment of the Finance Act. I would have to have some further discussions before I could say, on the next stage of the Bill, just what my intentions really are. I am not opposed to the idea of having at least within the framework of the Bill the power whereby that could be done, but in order to do it, or even consider it here, we would have to have agreement on the necessary amendment of the Finance Act. Until we have had discussions on that aspect, and possibly a further look at the amendment, I would ask the House to leave it until Report Stage when I can report back.

Mr. Ryan

I appreciate the Minister's remarks but I should like to tell the House an experience I had today. I made a payment of 1/- in a Government Department. I made it to a person who filled in a form and summoned another official to take the form and the 1/- to another part of the building. When that official returned with a receipt a quarter of an hour later, it had to be handed to the person to whom I had handed the shilling. More writing had to be done and I was given the receipt. Surely the time of those officials is worth more than 1/- for that quarter of an hour. Anything that can be done to cut down book-keeping and the number of receipts handled by local authority offices or any Central Government office, should be done. I am glad to hear that the Minister is prepared to look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."

I have not been able to come across any specific reference to the taxation of motor cars in the Bill. I may have missed it in my reading of the Bill. I wonder could the Chair help me and tell me on what section I can talk about that matter?

Surely that would be covered by the Finance Acts.

So far as I see, there is no specific reference to it in the Bill.

It has nothing to do with the Bill.

I think it comes under the finance code rather than the road traffic code.

I have been asked to raise this point in the House: it is established practice in England that if a family wish to retain the registration number of their car, they can do so on payment of a fee of £25, I think. If it is more relevant on the Estimate for the Department of Finance, I can raise the matter there.

It does not seem to arise on this section, which deals with the granting of driving licences.

I wanted your guidance, Sir, as to when I might raise this point.

I would suggest that the Finance Acts would be relevant.

Surely it is some Bill that would be introduced by the Minister for Local Government? The last time the motor tax was readjusted, the matter was introduced by the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Smith.

Some time ago a certain motor car company had three registration numbers transferred in Kildare Street without payment of any fee. It was eventually found that this was contrary to regulation and this type of transfer cannot be undertaken now unless the old car is completely destroyed.

These are the people able to get the fancy telephone numbers.

They paid good money to get registration numbers transferred.

Is the Minister satisfied that the signature on the driving licence is sufficient to deter people from switching driving licences? Would he not consider the introduction of a photograph, such as is, I think, the practice in Britain and elsewhere?

The Deputy is pushing an open door. I have considered this matter and I am thinking along those lines.

Would the Minister consider making the paper on which the licence is printed less perishable?

I am considering that also. I hope that in the future it will not be on paper at all.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.

I move amendment No. 42:—

To delete subsections (1) and (2) and substitute therefor the following:

"(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act and the court makes an order (in this Act referred to as a consequential disqualification order) declaring him to be disqualified for holding a driving licence, such disqualification shall disqualify the convicted person for holding any driving licence whatsoever during a specified period or during a specified period and thereafter until he has produced to the appropriate licensing authority a certificate of competency or a certificate of fitness or both."

Amendment No. 42 together with amendment No. 43 forms a composite proposition. In addition, there are many amendments consequential on amendments No. 42 and No. 43.

A number of amendments might be taken together, and it would shorten the discussion for the Minister. Unfortunately, I have not got the numbers.

Might I suggest that Nos. 45, 46, 58, 59, 61, 63, 66, 71, 72, 73, 75, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 93——

Might I interrupt the Leas-Cheann Comhairle? Would he repeat what he said before he mentioned all these numbers?

I said that amendment No. 42 could be taken with amendment No. 43 since both form a composite proposition. With these two amendments, the following were consequential and could be discussed together. If the House agrees to give one decision, it would cover all those amendments.

There will not be any discussion involved in the later amendments. It is simply replacing in a different place portions of the Second Schedule. There are 24 amendments.

Could we have a list of them?

The position at the moment is that the Act is so framed that there are a number of offences for which disqualification from holding a driving licence is automatic——

Might I interrupt the Deputy for a moment? Have you come to the end of the list you were reading, Sir?

I was just about to add a few more, namely, 93, 101, 104 and 106. All of these are consequential on amendments Nos. 42 and 43.

Would it be possible to have them circulated?

If the Deputy looks at the Second Schedule he will find them all there.

Would it be possible to have such a list circulated immediately? This is the difficulty. Some of us would like to know what amendments have fallen in consequence of these two.

We can supply the numbers to the Deputy or any other Deputies interested.

I was going to explain that this Bill contains provision for automatic disqualification from driving in the case of 24 scheduled offences. These offences are set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill. Any Deputy who has endeavoured to follow these will agree with me that, as the Bill is framed at present, while I have no doubt it is technically perfect, it is virtually unreadable. It is extremely difficult to find out in relation to any of these particular offences affected by automatic disqualification, first, whether they do carry automatic disqualification and, secondly, what the disqualification is.

The present position is that if you read a particular section and if an offence under that section carries automatic disqualification, you do not know that from the section. When you read the section you do not know if a person convicted under it may be the subject of a disqualification order by the Court. But when you read right through the Bill and come to the Second Schedule you find by virtue of the Second Schedule that if a person has been convicted under various sections of the Bill—24 in all—the Court then has to make a disqualification order. Then you have to go back to the section to find out for what period he is disqualified, but you find it is not mentioned in the section at all. You have to go back to Section 26 and by a process of elimination try to work out what the period of disqualification is in relation to the particular section under which the person was convicted.

In this amendment, and the other amendments which are consequential on it, we are suggesting a procedure which, we submit, would simplify the reading of the Bill and make it possible for everyone, lawyer and layman alike, to know exactly what is going on. In effect, what we are suggesting is that you cut out all this rigmarole in Section 26 and cut entirely the Second Schedule to the Bill, but that in every section where it is provided in the Second Schedule that a disqualification shall be automatic you put in at the end of that section a short subsection saying that where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, a disqualification order shall be made and shall be for a period of whatever the length may be.

In making this suggestion we are not trying to alter in any way the periods which the Minister has fixed under the Act for disqualification. In other words, I am not trying to interfere one way or the other with the disqualification periods the Minister is recommending. I ask him to make it possible for people to understand the Bill by accepting the alteration we propose in these amendments. All it means is that to each of these 24 sections that carry automatic disqualification, the Minister will add a short subsection saying that conviction for an offence under this section shall carry disqualification from driving for x months or x years, as the case may be. While all of these amendments seem to be very formidable, that, in fact, is all there is to them.

Mr. Ryan

If illustrations were needed to show the necessity for these amendments, it was clearly shown by the amount of fright, concern and consternation displayed here when the effect of the amendment was indicated, where Deputies realised that the Second Schedule would affect so many different sections and where it was found that this simple amendment to Section 26 would have consequential amendments to 24 sections of the Bill. That is a clear indication of the necessity to redraft this Bill. It is not, as Deputy M.J. O'Higgins pointed out, affecting in any way what the Minister suggested should be the periods of disqualification. It is simply trying to make the Bill readable and workable.

As the Bill stands, it will undoubtedly mislead the courts and advocates in court. You may have cases of people being convicted of offences under this Bill, when enacted, and the consequential disqualification order will not follow. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the suggestion on the Second Stage that if the Second Schedule, appalling and all as it is, had to remain in the Act there should be the side notes which would indicate what the different sections referred to. To some extent, he has improved the Second Schedule by putting in these small side notes so that at a fairly quick glance you can see in the Second Schedule what the appropriate section is. Even still, it is quite unworkable.

This section, it was said to me, is a lawyer's delight because the layman could not understand it. It certainly is not a lawyer's delight. It is a lawyer's hell. He will have to spend a considerable amount of time trying to work out the punishment his client may face.

If this Bill goes through unamended and a client presents a solicitor with, say, three or four summonses under the Road Traffic Act the solicitor will have to look at at least three different sections of the Act before he can say to his client: "You may face a penalty of this, that or the other period." He will have to do that in relation to four different summonses. It will take at least 12 looks at the Act before he can give a person a clue as to the likely punishment.

I can see the virtue of having in a table or in a schedule a list of all disqualification orders. I should prefer to see that done by some proper arrangement after the passing of the Bill. I believe that what we are trying to achieve, to put the contents of the Second Schedule into the Bill, would be better and would make the Bill more understandable. If, for the purpose of demonstration, it was felt it would not be desirable to have a list of consequential disqualification orders, that could be put into some semi-official list. However, to have a list in the Second Schedule and not to put the disqualification orders into the Act itself will create appalling chaos.

Look at Section 54 which deals with driving a dangerously defective vehicle. Subsection (4) provides:

A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

It is reasonable to assume that that is the beginning and end of the penalty against any person who commits an offence under that section. I do not think it unreasonable to say that that is the beginning and end of the punishment. However, unless you are cute and alert and quick enough to remember the Second Schedule you may not look there where, in paragraph 7, an offence under Section 54, being a second or any subsequent offence, is an offence involving a consequential disqualification order. If you happen to be a justice dealing with, say, 50 cases in a day and you are handing out your judgments you would need not one but six clerks to advise you and keep you aware of the different sections and the Second Schedule.

I did not refer to Section 26 which is the section we are now seeking to amend. Were it not for the fact that I am a member of this Legislature and have been considering this Bill in a sub-committee of Fine Gael for several months, I would not even be aware of Section 26 which does not necessarily refer to Section 54: it does to some extent. There is a footnote on the left hand side of the page to the effect that the Second Schedule refers to Section 26.

It might well be that Deputy M.J. O'Higgins, the Minister and myself, in explaining the amendments, may appear to be confusing rather than clearing the issue. I make no apology for that. It is a greater reason why our amendments ought to be accepted to bring the Second Schedule within the appropriate sections of the Bill so that if you find you are charged with an offence under, let us call it, section A, then, on reading that section, you will find in it all the punishments and all the penalties that may be imposed upon you, be they fines, imprisonment or disqualification orders.

I find it difficult to understand why it has been thought necessary and desirable to put the disqualification orders in the Second Schedule. That being so surely it is equally necessary to have a Third Schedule to set out the offences in relation to which fines will be imposed and what fines may be imposed. We should continue with the sequence and have a Fourth Schedule setting out what sections, if breached, will entail imprisonment. Perhaps we could go further and explain what sections affect certificates or the withdrawal of certificates of fitness, and so on.

If there is a need for Schedules, it applies to every penalty, be it a fine or imprisonment or disqualification. We have endeavoured to be constructive in this matter. Our submissions are not just carping and while we feel that several amendments might be made in relation to disqualification orders we deliberately refrained from putting down any such amendment at this stage because we felt so strongly about the necessity to redraft the Bill to make it readable and understandable at a quick glance.

I understand from Deputies Ryan and M.J. O'Higgins that these 25 amendments which we are now discussing propose no change in the Bill except to incorporate in it what is at present in the Second Schedule—that there are no suggested variations of the penalties. During the earlier discussions on the Bill I said that because of the necessity to go backwards and forwards so often in the Bill to find out its implications, a layman would throw the Bill away and go to his solicitor to see what his rights were under it. If these amendments now being debated are acceptable to the Minister, will it mean that when the Bill is issued again all these consequential disqualification orders will be listed in the Second Schedule instead of as additional subsections to each section? If that is so, could we later come along and put down amendments and discuss what we thought about the particular penalties involved?

The type of situation that worries me about the consequential disqualification orders is the case where a lady going shopping in the city might park her car at a busy part of the street, perhaps within 30 feet of the corner, near traffic lights and that she would leave it there over the stipulated time. I know of such a case recently where the lady concerned had tickets for three minor offences which, under this Bill, would mean consequential disqualification. Under the twenty-five amendments, it is proposed that the penalties prescribed in the Second Schedule should be incorporated under the different sections? I think the Minister should seriously consider that.

From Amendment No. 45 onwards, will we be permitted to discuss the actual offences committed, apart from the penalties and the manner in which the offences were committed? Deputy M.J. O'Higgins says that at the end of the various sections such things as the period of disqualification should be set out.

I do not wonder that Deputies feel confused because, candidly, I have been, and still am, confused, but I have tried to grasp what is intended in all the amendments from 42 and 43 onwards. I can say that I am quite clear that the official amendment proposed to the Second Schedule as a result of discussion on an earlier stage of the Bill has brought about the improvement which was sought by the House. I feel that such improvement now leaves the Bill with much more clarity than would be the case if amendments Nos. 42 and 43 and consequential amendments from there on were carried. I would say that the answer to the proposals in amendments 42 and 43 is to be found in amendments 44 and 114 and, because of that, amendments 44 and 114 bring about an amended Second Schedule on the margin of which is found the information relating to offences enumerated in previous sections as carrying consequential disqualification.

Accordingly, I believe the Second Schedule will be very useful to any person who must have recourse to the terms of this measure when enacted. I do not think that the difficulties visualised by Deputy Ryan will arise thereafter. There are consequential disqualifications for driving offences resulting in death or for drunken driving. All other cases of consequential disqualification can be lumped together under the six month period. What is proposed in amendments 42 and 43 is that, after each section under which an offence carrying consequential disqualification could arise, we would write in that so and so was the period of disqualification.

I would point out that we do not write in after sections that the defendant may appeal to the courts against penalties and disqualifications. There are a whole lot of factors which we do not write in because they might be contained in the earlier governing sections and in this connection there can be no case that I can understand made for the amendments now proposed. If all these things were written in under the different sections, I do not think it would make the Bill any clearer to the legal fraternity than what is now proposed in the Bill.

I do not anticipate that lawyers will have any difficulty when confronted with a client who is in trouble under this measure. I do not foresee any of the desperate confusion outlined by Deputy Ryan. On the contrary, I feel that after we have dealt with the matter here and when it has become law, as I hope it will, if lawyers will read up the measure, possibly after one or two training gallops, as it were, through the courts in the early cases, I should imagine they would know it backwards.

The trouble is that it is backwards.

I do not think I am attributing any undue intelligence to the legal fraternity in saying that. I believe they will not be confused and if there was to be confusion in the matter, there would be greater confusion if amendments 42, 43 and the others we are discussing were accepted.

May I ask the Minister a question? I am not very clear on this. What is the penalty for an offence under Section 47?

Did the Deputy look at the Second Schedule first?

I am looking at the Second Schedule now and I have looked at Section 47.

Mr. Ryan

Go back to Section 47. Then go to the Second Schedule. Then consult a solicitor.

The Common penalties as set out in Section 102 apply to offences under Section 47.

Deputy Corish's question illustrates the difficulty we are in. The Minister is making a mistake if he approaches this from the point of view of legislating for lawyers. It is nearly impossible for lawyers to follow but it is all the more difficult for the layman and not everybody who goes to court in answer to a road traffic summons employs a solicitor. The ordinary person should be able to read this Bill and understand it. My complaint is that that will not be so under the Bill as drafted or even as amended by the amendments which the Minister proposes later in amendment No. 114 and, I think, No. 44.

For example, if you read Section 92 of the Bill at the moment, it deals with the prevention of obstruction of traffic by fairs and markets. In Section 92 you see that a person who contravenes a bye-law under this section shall be guilty of an offence. There is nothing anywhere in the section to lead a person to believe that in any circumstances he will find himself, if he goes to court, faced with the district justice saying to him: "I am sorry. I do not want to suspend your licence but, under the Road Traffic Act, I am bound to disqualify you from driving for a period." If you look at the Second Schedule you will see in paragraph 18 that "an offence under Section 92 where the contravention involved the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle, being a third or any subsequent offence within any period of twelve months." That means, in those circumstances, there is automatic disqualification, but it does not tell you what it is.

Surely acceptance of the Minister's amendment will delete the Second Schedule and there is not much point in discussing it?

It will, but it will put in another Second Schedule.

It does not mention Section 92.

No, we did not come to No. 114 yet. I am talking of the position at the moment. If you go back to Section 92, I challenge anyone—and I take it Deputies are reasonably intelligent—and I challenge the Minister himself if he is not reading his brief, to work out under five minutes what is disqualification for an offence under Section 92.

I spent a considerable time on this Schedule and these amendments endeavouring to work out what the periods were and, under the Bill, as drafted, I came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that under the section to which I am referring the disqualification will be three months. I think the Minister is now introducing an amendment which will make it six rather than three months. I may be wrong there.

Actually the amendment will have the effect of wiping out the consequential disqualifications relating to offences committed under Section 92.

That will certainly help. In the other cases which were three months I think the Minister proposes making them six months?

It is proposed to knock out the threes, minor offences. They are going out.

That is certainly an improvement. The Minister says that to do what we are suggesting would make it more difficult. I do not think it would. All it means is an extra subsection added to each of the sections where disqualifications are to be automatic. The Minister says he proposes to knock out a number of disqualifications. I wonder how many? Can the Minister say offhand?

The minor offences, the three consecutive offences.

Can the Minister say how many sections will be left in the Bill—assuming acceptance of his amendment—where disqualification is automatic?

The number of offences where consequential disqualification will take place have been reduced from 24 to 11.

All we are asking then is to add a subsection to 11 sections instead of to 24. I do not see that will make the Bill in any way cumbersome. It will certainly make it readable and make it possible for anybody to understand, when he reads a section, that if there is a conviction under that section there will be disqualification for a particular period.

The Minister said—I do not think he meant this as a serious argument —that you do not set out everything covered by every other section. That is quite true but this is a matter of vital importance and one which, if left unamended, will be misleading. In a number of these sections penalties are referred to. We are told that for an offence under the particular section you may be fined £50 or jailed for three months or six months. Anyone reading that is entitled to assume that all the penalties are set out in the section but that will not be the case if the Minister insists on keeping the Bill in its present framework or even as modified by his own amendments. There are penalties in the Second Schedule about which neither the person concerned nor possibly his advisers will know anything.

The Minister is right in saying that if a person, whether a lawyer or a layman, is caught out once or twice he will begin to know what is in the Bill. He will know better next time. That is fine when you come to the next time; it is not so easy for the first time. The Minister's attitude is quite unnecessary. The Bill would be just as effective and just as formidable were the Minister to deal with the matter in the way suggested. There would be no danger of the Bill being unreadable. There would be no danger of people being left in ignorance as to what the penalties are and under what sections automatic disqualification will apply. I press this very strongly on the Minister.

I have more than once said that we cannot legislate to eliminate road accidents completely. We cannot even assist in that direction unless the legislation gets the co-operation necessary from the people concerned. There is an old saying “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.” It is equally true that knowledge of the law is the best and most effective way of getting the law observed. A person who knows the law is culpable if he breaks it. Ignorance of the law may not be an excuse but it is much easier to offend if one is ignorant of the law. I see no necessity for this elaborate set-up of Schedules when the whole matter could be done quite openly by the addition of a simple section.

Section 48 deals with the driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle when unfit. The first time I offend I may be fined £20; if I offend the second time, I may be fined £50 or imprisoned for three months. The Minister proposes to amend the Second Schedule. Under Section 48 a second, or third, offence within a period of three years involves disqualification. What does disqualification mean there? Is it a week, a month or a year?

It is six months. The Deputy will find it in Section 26.

I find it difficult to understand why this long list of amendments is being discussed together, to the exclusion of amendments Nos. 44 and 114. How we can discuss this matter without discussing amendments Nos. 44 and 114 at the same time is something I should like to have explained to me. All the amendments relate to the Second Schedule. If amendment No. 114 is accepted, the Second Schedule will disappear and be replaced by a new Second Schedule.

I cannot understand Deputy O'Higgins's argument. It might be easier to understand if, instead of reading the Schedule, one went poking about through the other provisions. Surely some regulation should be made instructing the Garda to warn an offender that, if he offends again within a certain period, disqualification may follow? I agree that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Innocence can lead a great many people into trouble. Administratively, there should be no difficulty in warning people.

It will be in order for Deputies to discuss amendments Nos. 44 and 114 now if the House so wishes.

I cannot see how we can do the one without the other. If the amendment is accepted there will be a new Second Schedule and it could look as if we have been talking about something which will not arise at all. Under Section 18 the Minister may by regulation stipulate the classes of mechanically propelled vehicles to which the section will apply. According to amendment No. 114, Section 18 is one of the sections which may carry disqualification.

It will be new. It is not in the existing Second Schedule.

It will come in in the amendment. Section 18 covers almost two pages. A whole mass of regulation is provided for. I shudder to think what the position will be because of the number of possible offences people may commit with regard to the testing or non-testing of vehicles. Now it looks as if they will find themselves liable to disqualification for a period of not less than six months. No upper limit is fixed and an ill-tempered district justice might disqualify an offender for five years.

It is only in relation to subsection (2) of Section 18 that that applies. It does not apply to the long list.

Subsection (2) opens with the phrase "Where a person contravenes subsection (1) of this section," and subsection (1) says "A person shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle to which this section applies..."

That is not the whole section.

The Deputy would want to read the whole section.

We do not know the vehicles to which these certificates will apply at this stage. That will be governed by regulation at some future date. It could be very serious if we legislated in such a manner here as to disqualify a man for some fiddle-de-dee in relation to a test on a mechanically propelled vehicle. He could, of course, appeal but that would involve him in a great deal of trouble and considerable expense. To bring in Section 18 under disqualification seems to be going very far.

Now that the Minister has drawn attention to the amendment that will be moved later, I agree entirely with Deputy Sheldon. If we discuss amendment No. 114 first we can eliminate a great many of the other 25 amendments. I am not sure whether or not Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Ryan are prepared to prune the amendments so that we can discuss 11 instead of 24, but it will simplify the position considerably, assuming the Minister's amendment is carried.

Deputy Lemass is quite right. All we are asking for at the moment is acceptance of the principle of putting in a new subsection in whatever sections will be affected by Ministerial amendment No. 114. If you have regard to Section 48, about which Deputy Corish inquired, there would be no doubt at all about the position if you added a third subsection. At the moment, it consists of two subsections, but if you added a third to read "Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, being a second or subsequent offence, the court shall make an order disqualifying such person from holding a driving licence for a period of not less than six months," there would be no doubt about it and no question of anybody having to search around to find out the period of disqualification.

Would it be right to say that in respect of all the "offence sections," the monetary and imprisonment penalties are provided but not the disqualification periods?

There is nothing said about disqualification in them.

The Deputy's amendments are designed to ensure that the penalties shall be mentioned in each?

That they will be shown in respect of all sections in which disqualification is automatic.

I assume that all disqualifications which apply under this Bill will be for not less than six months.

Some may be much more.

The judge, if he so desires, may impose greater penalties. In some cases it is mandatory to impose more.

There will be a minimum penalty of more than six months, is that not so? For drunken driving——

For drunken driving.

——the minimum disqualification will be greater than six months, considerably greater.

A lot of the consequential disqualification orders are listed quite clearly in the Second Schedule which it is proposed to amend. I agree we are not on amendment No. 114 now, but it is very relevant.

The House agreed that it could be discussed with the amendments already read out.

That is better, because I think it is listed very clearly for all to see what the consequential disqualifications will be.

In relation to Section 49 or Section 50, could the Deputy say what the periods of disqualification will be under the Minister's amendment.

I would have to look up Section 49.

That is just the point.

I know that the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle under the influence of drink or drugs is consequentially disqualified.

I challenge the Deputy to find the answer in Section 49.

There is just one point I should like to get quite clear. The case was made by Deputy Ryan and, I thought, by Deputy O'Higgins, that we were going to have the legal people at sixes and sevens, not knowing what they were about and not being able to advise their clients because, they said, the Bill will be difficult to understand and difficult to read. Now, in regard to consequential disqualification in the Second Schedule, Deputy O'Higgins gets up and says that it is not the legal people or the solicitors who will be in difficulties but the ordinary man in the street.

What I should have said if I did not say it, was "not only the legal people."

All right. I am going to ask this, and I am not asking it in any carping sense, but from my experience of trying to get a draft in language I can understand: is there any law drafted by these legal people which is readily understandable by the layman? I challenge the legal people to draft any law of any significance which will be readily understandable by laymen. It is just not possible and it is not their fault. That is the actual fact of the matter.

The Minister can make it easier by doing what we are asking him to do.

In the amendment to the Second Schedule which is coming before the House, there are outlined, with marginal notes, the 11 types of offences for which consequential disqualification follows. Could there be anything simpler for myself or any other layman than to be handed that Schedule and to be told to read the marginal notes? I can understand them and so can any other layman. They indicate the 11 situations contravention of which can land me in consequential disqualification of my licence.

For how long? It would help if the Minister added the period of disqualification. The periods are not found in the Schedule or in the section.

The Deputy and those behind him who spoke know that this idea that everything is not contained in the one section or page—every hypothetical case that can be thought up—is surely not to be taken as a real argument against the value or the wisdom of what is proposed here. The Second Schedule as now proposed to be amended by amendments Nos. 44 and 114 will clearly and without any difficulty be understood by any layman who can read.

I am a bit stupid and I am asking this for my own information——

The Deputy should not assume that modesty because I do not agree with him.

Paragraph 4 in the Second Schedule relating to Section 49, describes what may happen to me, apart from disqualification. When I scan the Second Schedule, I discover I may be disqualified for offences under Section 49. Now, where would I look for the maximum or minimum period?

Having read Section 49?

I beg the Minister's pardon—I have it now. It is somewhat involved.

I am not suggesting for a moment it is not involved. I am suggesting to the House that for the layman this or any other legal matter such as this is involved. Scarcely any of our laws or statutes are not involved when it comes to their examination by the layman. I do say that what we are proposing is as good as, or better than, what is proposed in the amendments and I do not give a lot for either of the two methods. They are both involved and I cannot see how they can be made less involved nor can those whose duty it is to draft them. If they could have made them less involved, they would have done so because it was my wish that they should have done so.

What we are suggesting is that amendments Nos. 44 and 114 will make for clarity as nearly as it is possible to get it in the framework of this Bill, so that the ordinary layman will have a fair idea of what it is all about. I certainly do not suggest that he will know everything about it—it will certainly take him some time to find out— but the most serious aspects are set out and these most serious aspects will come to be known to him because they are vital to his interests, and he will be all the more careful and watchful when he knows of them.

I do not know what the Minister thinks about my suggestion that some warning could be given to offenders coming within the Second Schedule but, from the drafting point of view, I know the way it is in the Schedule is the customary way to do it. I am now looking at amendment No. 114. The phrase "Section 26" is rather coyly tucked away in the margin and yet it governs all that is in the Second Schedule. I wonder would it look very bad or would it be creating a bad precedent if after every one of the paragraphs in the Schedule, instead of putting merely "Section 26" in the margin, you put "Section 26 (3)" or "Section 26 (4)" as the case might be, so that after item No. 1 in the Second Schedule, you would have "Section 26 (4)" and so on, down to Items Nos. 2 and 3, and then after Item No. 4 in the Second Schedule, you would have "Section 26 (3)," so that the reference back to the penalty and the period of disqualification would be quite clear?

A difficulty arises here for an ordinary layman. He buys this Bill and says: "I have been charged with driving a mechanically propelled vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs." He then goes to Section 49 to look up what the offence may be and finds that on summary conviction he will be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or, at the discretion of the court, to both such imprisonment and a fine.

There is no reference in the section to consequential disqualification. If he is not legally advised but happens to discover the Second Schedule at the back of the Bill, he finds he is subject to consequential disqualification for an offence under Section 49. He looks back to Section 26 and discovers that the period of disqualification can be for a year, whereas in other instances the period of disqualification may be for six months, if the offence comes under the heading of "minor offences".

I think what Deputy O'Higgins wants is that a man who commits an offence should be able to look up the Bill and find what he is in for. It would simplify matters.

The position is much improved by the proposed amendment No. 114 but there is a certain argument for having these things included, as Deputy Sheldon says, as additional subsections. Perhaps the Minister might consider it and then each item could be discussed on its merits on Report Stage.

As a rule, Ministers, when they bring in a provision like this, are able to point to precedent as being on their side and Deputy Sheldon assumed that the precedent in this case was in favour of the Minister. In fact, the precedent is in favour of the argument I am making.

Under Section 30 of the 1933 Road Traffic Act, which corresponds with Section 49 of the Bill, the section to which Deputy Lemass referred, there is there provided an automatic disqualification and it is set out plainly in Section 30 of the 1933 Act that if a person is convicted under that section, a disqualification order shall be made and there is set out in the last subsection of Section 30 what the period of disqualification shall be.

All I am asking is that that precedent should be followed in this Bill and that in each of the eleven cases dealt with in the Minister's amendment No. 114, there should be a simple subsection at the end setting out what the period of disqualification will be and in relation to Section 49, all Deputy Lemass would have to do, if my amendment is accepted, would be to read an additional subsection—it would be subsection (6)—which would provide that if a person was convicted, a disqualification order would be made and that that would be for not less than one year for the first offence or three years for the second or subsequent offences, and everyone would know where he was.

The Deputy misunderstood me. I was talking of the form of the Schedule.

We still seem to be discussing this matter as if every layman, who finds himself running counter to the law in this matter, will have a copy of the Act or if he has not got one will rush off to the Arcade and buy one and sit down there right away and try to find out what he has done and the penalty to which he is liable. I am amazed that anybody should hold that view as expressed by the Deputy.

Of course, the Deputy did not express that view.

If he did not, he certainly suggested it.

I suggested that we should legislate so that the layman as well as the lawyer can read the Bill.

What I am getting at is: will the layman, in fact, purchase one of these Bills?

He should be entitled to do so.

Will he take it with him and read it or will he wait until he has had an accident and then go scurrying to get one and sit down on the pavement and find out what he did wrong? The Deputy knows quite well that what is contained in this Bill is hedged around by phraseology, which is not my responsibility, although I take responsibility for it. That phraseology is heading around quite a few simple straightforward offences which it is our wish in this House to legislate out of being, if we can. When it is broken down to the actual offences, leaving out all the verbiage that grows around these things, of necessity when they are going into statutory instruments, we find that standing out fairly plain and stark are the offences and the relative importance of those offences very soon becomes quite evident to the public who are very much concerned with this matter of road safety. We are trying to lay the framework within which we hope to have greater safety on our roads in future.

Allowing all that and allowing also that when he gets into trouble in regard to this road traffic law, it is not to gallop off to seek a copy of the Act that will be the first thought of an ordinary layman but rather will it be a visit to his local solicitor to whom he will, no doubt, contribute in the course of the following few weeks, for which he will get good service and the advice of that solicitor, who is a specialist in matters of the law, and who will appear for him in court and fight his corner for him.

I hope the Minister is not serious in that argument. It is a most astonishing outlook if he is. In effect, what the Minister is saying is: "I am bringing in a law which lawyers will be able to read and if anyone gets into trouble. he can blooming well go to a lawyer if he wants to understand the Bill."

The Deputy is in the fraternity and knows that what I am saying is so. There is no use in his throwing up his hands in horror——

Did the Minister ever sit in the district court?

——trying to make difficulties that are not there and then trying to make it appear that this is all for the glory, the honour and the knowledge of the ordinary man-in-the-street, that we are doing something to the ordinary man in the street by not producing a Bill that he can fully understand in every possible way.

Why not produce one, if you can?

I defy the Deputy and any of the legal fraternity inside or outside this House to produce a measure, covering all the aspects that are covered in the Bill, in such a manner that the layman can understand it. That is not my fault. I do not blame the legal fraternity for it but that is the actual position. Is there any comprehensive measure going through this House which the ordinary layman can understand at first glance or even at tenth glance? We are not doing it deliberately. If it is difficult to understand, it is not because we want it so but because we cannot avoid it. In this case where the Deputy is so concerned about whether or not the ordinary people will understand, the official amendment sets out in a way, which is not too difficult, in my estimation, the manner in which consequential disqualifications arise, the sections to which they apply and the sections which apply to them.

I think it is more clear as now set out in the Second Schedule than it would be if we were to go the way the Deputy suggested. I do not suggest that the Deputy put it down in such a manner as to make it more confused. I accept that he has put down the amendment to make it more simple but he has not succeeded. What I propose to the House is more readily understandable by the general public who I am as anxious should understand it as the Deputy.

If the Minister looks at his amendment, understands his own amendment and compares it with the Second Schedule as it was, he must know that the case he is making is nonsense. All the Minister does in amendment No. 114 is to reduce in number the sections under which there will be automatic disqualification. He says he is making the whole position quite plain, simple and easy to understand by doing that and that there is no other way of making it more easily understood.

Surely to heavens, the only way to make it absolutely clearly understood is to say in the section: "If you are convicted under this section, you will be disqualified for x months or x years, as the case may be." Could there be anything more simple than that? I am talking now as a layman and not as a lawyer. I am talking for the ordinary person who has no legal training. Would it not be a simple matter to put in a subsection saying: "If you are convicted under this section, you will be disqualified from driving for a given period." Nothing could be more simple than that.

The Minister's argument that this Bill is not one which is going to be understood by the layman and his attitude that that does not matter very much because the layman will go to a lawyer for advice is most amazing. If the Minister sits in the back of any of the district courts in Dublin dealing with road traffic offences, he will find that a great number of people charged with offences do not go near a solicitor and many of them do not even go to court. In relation to some of these offences, there is to be hidden in a Schedule to this Bill a period of automatic disqualification.

Section 48 tells me that if I drive a mechanically propelled vehicle while unfit, I shall be guilty of an offence. That is subsection (1). Subsection (2) tells me what the penalty is for the first offence. I cannot understand what difficulty the Minister has in having a third subsection which says that if I do it a third time, I may be subject to a fine imprisonment or disqualification. Is it not as simple as that?

It is not as simple as that in another way. This is a very interesting debate and I hope it has clarified the Minister's mind as it has mine to a certain extent. It the Minister had drafted a Bill on the lines suggested by Deputy O'Higgins, I could well imagine Deputy O'Higgins insisting that in order that a man should find out whether he committed an offence or not, he would have to read the whole Bill, whereas if it were all collected in one Schedule, he would have no difficulty.

I would not mind if the period were set out in the Schedule.

I made a suggestion about that. There are only two ways under subsection (3) and the new subsection (4). Under paragraph 3, which is for drunken driving, it is a year in respect of the first offence and in respect of the other nine offences it is six months. We must have regard to what this is about. This is not the case of an innocent soul who gets into a car and finds himself subject to disqualification. It is for a man who previously had been driving while drunk or a man who had driven dangerously a mechanically propelled vehicle. They are not just innocent little souls. There are two possible exceptions about which I am not very happy, under Section 18 and Section 20, where there might be some reasonable excuse and where a man might think that this would not lead to disqualification. In respect of most of the others, the ordinary layman would have a shrewd suspicion that if he went on driving a mechanically propelled vehicle without authority at some stage, he would get into trouble.

What about the unfortunate who parks— dangerous parking?

That is dangerous parking. It is not an ordinary offence.

It is a new offence, an offence which has never been there before.

The Deputy's Party were bringing in a Bill particularly about this. I consider it most serious.

Agreed—all I am saying is that it is new. It was not there before.

It is not as if some innocent souls find themselves charged. By the time anyone reaches this type of penalty, he has at least experience in committing offences. It is not fair to make the suggestion in regard to some layman finding himself sitting in a court or, indeed, not turning up at all. If he has that kind of casual approach to the type of offence in the Schedule, he deserves what is coming to him. It does not matter whether he reads the Act or not, he is automatically disqualified and will have time to find out why it happened. His knowing why it happened does not affect his disqualification.

If a person who is convicted of dangerous parking once, knows that, if he is convicted again, he is disqualified, that will be a deterrent. He is entitled to know it. If he does not know it, it will not be a deterrent.

From time to time and certainly after this matter has been disposed of in this House, there will issue a booklet, which, I think, will be phrased in such a way that an ordinary layman can understand it. That will be the Rules of the Road.

You will not have any Schedule in that.

We will not have it composed in the manner in which we are obliged to have this composed. The Rules of the Road will be set out in ordinary understandable phraseology. In it will be outlined clearly the various offences and in the case of consequential disqualification, where this is going to take place and what offences are concerned. The question of dangerous parking will be dealt with and the second and subsequent offences of this nature will carry this consequential disqualification, in addition to the ordinary penalties outlined in the other Parts of the Bill. It will also deal with the various other offences and with the help of the Press throughout the country, people will come to know what is contained in this measure even before it becomes law. They will read what is proposed, what has been agreed, and the various interested parties such as the Safety First Association, the A.A., the R.I.A.C. and their members will be given this type of information because it is of interest to them.

In addition to the general publicity which is normal in matters such as this—and perhaps this measure is entitled to more than its normal share of publicity because it is a vital matter —the issue of the Rules of the Road dealing with the various offences and what may happen if a person commits any of these offences and what should be done in the various circumstances, will help to put across the necessary information. They will soon come to know the penalties they are likely to incur if they are caught out. As has been said by Deputy Sheldon, whether it is a second or subsequent offence which is regarded as of a fairly serious type carrying the penalty of disqualification, the offender is likely to be able to teach some of the lawyers what he knows about the law in that connection rather than have to find out all about it. However, lest there should be any misunderstanding, Deputy O'Higgins is off the beam when he says I suggested that everybody who is up for a driving offence will go to the local solicitor and have himself properly represented.

Who suggested that?

The Deputy alleges I suggested it. I was talking about the offences carrying consequential disqualification. The majority of people who are unfortunate enough to fall into that offence are very likely to be represented by some legal people. If it is a minor infringement to which the Deputy has referred, in which case sometimes people do not bother going to court or, on the other hand, if it is something serious and the person concerned is unable to afford representation, the practice in our courts is such that the district justice or the person on the bench feels it incumbent on him to look after the interests of the unrepresented person who is being prosecuted by the State. That is a well-known and well-understood thing in the courts. If some unfortunate person is not represented, it does not follow he is going to be lambasted because of his lack of legal representation through no fault of his own.

I would not like it to be understood, as Deputy O'Higgins has represented here, that I believe everybody should go to a solicitor, where he sprains his thumb or stubs his toe, in order to have himself represented in court. The vast majority of the people who will be before the court on these charges will, because of the seriousness of the charges, be represented by solicitor or counsel. Therefore, the ordinary person does not have to sit down on the pavement and thumb through the Bill to find out what offence he has committed and the likely penalty. Serious offences are involved here and in most of these cases legal opinion and advice will be sought for the protection of the person in question.

I do not want to be unduly difficult about this. The Minister's amendments have clarified the Bill to some extent. I will go as far as this with him: the amendments make the Bill far more readable and understandable than it was before they were introduced. I cannot understand why the Minister, who professes that he cannot think of a way of simplifying it further, should so vigorously resist a method of simplifying it when it is handed to him on a plate. There is no argument about it: If the Minister accepts these amendments designed to put in an additional subsection in each of these cases, it will simplify the Bill.

I do not follow the Minister's argument about people being represented in court by solicitors or otherwise. He seems to be saying it does not matter a hoot whether the public can understand what is in the Bill or not, because, if they can afford it or if the offence is sufficiently serious, they will go to a solicitor, that the solicitor is qualified to read and understand the Bill and, secondly, if they are not sufficiently wealthy or if the offence is not of a grave nature, it is hardly worth their while reading the Bill anyway, because the odds are they will not be disqualified. In any event, if they do not go to a solicitor, the Minister tells us the district justice will look after them very well and see that their case is properly made. That may be true, but it does not enhance the value of the legislation the Minister is asking us to pass and I do not appreciate it as an argument for enacting legislation in a cumbersome way when it can be done in a simple way.

The simple way to do this is to say in relation to each section that if a person is convicted under this section, he will be declared disqualified for driving for a particular period, setting out the period. That is simple, direct and easily understood. It leaves no room for doubt in anybody's mind. It cannot lead to any confusion. The only objection to it I can see is that it makes this Bill larger by 11 subsections.

How does he find the sections by the Deputy's proposed method of doing this?

Quite easily Let us take Section 48. He goes along to Section 48 which deals with driving a mechanically propelled vehicle when unfit.

How does the person who commits the offence find the section that is appropriate to his offence?

There are two ways in which he can do that.

There are—this way and that way.

He can either look at the arrangement of sections which is by way of an index in every Bill published by this House. He can see that the question of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle when unfit is dealt with by Section 48 and then he can go to Section 48. However, there is a much quicker way of doing it. He will be going into court on foot of a summons issued by the Garda and that summons will say to him that he is charged with an offence under Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. His mind is directed immediately to Section 48. Again that is a simple and direct way of doing things. He goes to Section 48 as phrased by the Minister and he will then read it, as Deputy Lemass has pointed out very effectively, to find out what he is being charged with and what will happen to him if he is convicted of the offence with which he is charged?

He reads Section 48 and sees that he can be charged with "driving mechanically propelled vehicle when unfit." He sees from subsection (2) of Section 48 that if it is his first offence, he is liable to a fine not exceeding £20 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month or to both such fine and such imprisonment, and if it is his second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding £50 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment. The one thing he will not find in Section 48 is that he is also liable to be disqualified from driving for a period.

To carry the Minister's argument further: how will he find that out? He will have to thumb through this Bill until he comes to the Minister's amendment No. 114, which will form the Second Schedule to the Bill. He will not find it even on the summons issued by the Garda, but he will find, when he looks at the Second Schedule, that, under paragraph 3, an offence under Section 48, being a second or subsequent offence within any period of three years, carries disqualification.

He then goes back to Section 48 to find out for how long he will be disqualified. He searches Section 48, and if he is methodical about it, he will search the sections around it as well. He might go back to Section 40, and then on as far as Section 50, but he still will not find anything about it. It might then strike him to go to a solicitor, or ask a district justice, or he might write a line to the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Local Government, and he will get a postcard back from the Minister which will tell him: "Do not bother to look at the Second Schedule; do not bother to look at Section 48; have a look at Section 26." Then when he looks at Section 26, after going to all that trouble, he will find for how long he may be disqualified—and the Minister says that is simple procedure.

Not when explained by a lawyer.

I cannot quite follow Deputy O'Higgins and I hope I have not missed the point stupidly. It seems to me that if a person is in any doubt as to whether or not he is about to commit an offence, he is in a very difficult position. We should make perfectly clear in our legislation what is and what is not an offence. The argument now appears to be that you should know, before you commit an act, what risk you are taking: if I park my car dangerously, let me consult the Act, look up the section referring to parking of cars in a dangerous position, and see is it worth while. I do not think that is the intelligent way and I do not think Deputy O'Higgins means that. Suppose one has done that not once but a second time. What difference does getting advance warning of how long one will be disqualified for make at that stage?

It would, after you had committed the offence once. You would know you could not chance it again.

It seems to me the best way——

Is to catch the person unawares.

Whether or not you catch him unawares, it is the same offence. He might not have known it was an offence in the first case, but he must know it is an offence in the second case because he will already have been convicted. If he has already been convicted of dangerous parking, he knows he must not do it again. I do not see why we should waste our time, if he does it again, in giving him advance notice of what is coming to him.

I hope the Minister does not adopt that argument.

Let him get what is coming to him and he will be the best possible agent for the courts anyone could ask for. He will go around roaring his head off and announcing to everyone how unjustly he has been treated. He will get very little sympathy, I hope, and the news will get around. I do not feel that we should go to any further trouble to explain to people beforehand what the penalty for a second offence is. I imagine the district justice, when convicting a person for the first time would also, as a matter of routine, explain: "You have been convicted and I must warn you that a second conviction will result in consequential disqualification." Even if he does not, and the person repeats the offence, I have no sympathy for him. I do not think we should waste the time of the House any further worrying about how ignorant he may be as to what is the penalty about to be pronounced upon him. It will be time enough for the district justice to tell him for how long the disqualification will be, and then he will know.

I think we are all in agreement that the Minister's amendments are acceptable to everyone in the House. I can go along with Deputy O'Higgins so far as saying that many a time a person has come to see me in the House and asked me what his rights are under a certain Bill. I am familiar with this Bill, but there are other Bills with which I am not so familiar and I might advise that person wrongly. For that reason, I think we should give some consideration to the amendments.

Surely Deputy Lemass is not suggesting that, when this Bill becomes an Act, he would advise a person against dangerous parking because it might result in disqualification. I cannot imagine that Deputy Lemass would do such a thing. He would say: "I must advise you against dangerous parking." That is the beginning and the end of it. The various offences are very clearly set out. You cannot advise a person about the penalty only, and tell him what is coming to him. If you do advise him wrongly, the judge will correct the mistake remarkably quickly.

Surely Deputy Booth would not suggest that if a person came to me for advice, I should say: "If you park dangerously, that is your business and you can take what is coming." If a person asks what will happen, surely, in common courtesy, you must tell him.

You must try.

Deputy O'Higgins talked about the innocent soul who commits an offence and then looks up the Act to see—I am not quite sure whether it is if he can safely commit it again without disqualification. I do not say that is the only interpretation of the Deputy's argument——

It is a question of simplicity or confusion, and the Minister chooses confusion.

I do not agree with the Deputy. If the disqualifications were in different sections of the Bill, I would agree with what I am sure would be the Deputy's argument, that they should be gathered into one place and set out as clearly as possible.

The Deputy need not be sure that would be my argument because it would not.

It should be. Everything should be argued here. The Deputy visualised a person looking for Section 48 and making very sensible use of this arrangement of the sections, the index. I cannot see anything to stop him from going on down through the index and seeing: "Second Schedule: Offences under this Act involving consequential disqualification orders."

I can understand the Minister's attitude, to some extent, because his hands are tied to a very great extent, by the official draftsman. Were it not for the description applied to him earlier by Deputy Corish when introducing him to Deputy Lemass, I could not understand the attitude of Deputy Sheldon.

In drafting this legislation, surely it is more easily readable and understood to point out, on every subsection which provides for automatic disqualification, that that subsection means there will be automatic disqualification and to state the period? No one is likely to go astray or be confused if that is done. I am not fencing with either Deputy Sheldon or Deputy Booth. It may be all very amusing to have a dialectical discussion as to whether or not we should point out to a person who has committed an offence that he will be disqualified or whether we should simply sit back and let a person take what is coming to him and adopt the attitude: "It does not matter whether he knows it; he will find out very quickly when he goes to court." That may be very amusing and highly entertaining when spoken of in the manner in which Deputy Booth can entertain the House with such talk, but there are many circumstances when it just will not be very amusing, when people are honestly ignorant of the position being created by this Bill, whether we have sympathy with them or not.

As I already pointed out to Deputy Sheldon who spoke on Deputy Booth's point, if we are legislating seriously with the idea of deterring road offences, surely the best and the most effective deterrent is to let a person know what is going to happen to him if he puts a foot wrong? Take the example of dangerous parking. Under this Bill dangerous parking is an offence, but the question of disqualification does not arise until there is a second subsequent offence. If a person offends once, he will pay the penalties provided in the Act and imposed by the court, but he will not necessarily be disqualified from driving. If that person knows that if he commits that offence a second time he will be disqualified from driving for a minimum period without any discretion left to the court, I think that will be an effective deterrent.

For the sake of adhering to this form of draftsmanship, which is without precedent as far as road traffic legislation in this country is concerned, why should we throw overboard a valuable deterrent, if we are serious about trying to legislate in such a way as to avoid or minimise road accidents, bad road manners and all the rest of it?

I never intended to treat this in a light-hearted way. We have got to get it into our heads, first, whether we are trying to deal with the deterrent effect or, second, whether we are trying to deal with the confusion in which a person may find himself when charged with a second offence. I have no sympathy with a person who has been charged and is about to be convicted. The offence has been committed. If he is proved guilty, there is nothing we can do about it. Therefore, the deterrent effect has quite clearly failed. If anyone wishes seriously, as I hope many people will, to study this Bill, when it is enacted, to find out what he or she is up against as a driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, one of the things which must hit him or her is that there is a Second Schedule setting out the offences involving consequential disqualification. I admit that he or she may have lost heart before coming to the Second Schedule. But, if they confine themselves to a study of the index or the arrangement of sections, they can see, fairly clearly in the Bill as originally drafted, but absolutely clearly under the proposed amendment, all the offences for which disqualification is the penalty.

I cannot feel it is anything other than confusing to have a number of subsections through the Bill. I think it is very much clearer from the deterrent point of view that it should be set out all in the one page that any one of these second offences must entail disqualification. That should have a far greater deterrent effect. Once the second offence has been committed, I do not see why we should go to any great trouble to explain to the person charged with the offence what is coming to him. That is the point I had in mind. As far as the deterrent is concerned, I think the Minister's proposed amendment would be a help. I cannot see why we should worry about helping a person to understand in advance what the penalty will be. By that time it is too late; you cannot help him or advise him any more. You can only advise him on the defence; you cannot advise him about the penalty.

I still believe it is a very good thing that all the offences for which one can be disqualified should be gathered into one place. However, I also think there is something in Deputy O'Higgins's argument from the point of view of deterring a person who has committed the offence once and is charged. I was not aware that in a summons for a second offence you would not be warned that the Schedule came into it. I would suggest a way out of it. I agree with the Minister's method of drafting, but Deputy O'Higgins's case might be met by means of a note on the margin of the Bill. The margin contains before each section a brief note as to the subject matter of the section. It should be possible to put in the margin before the relevant section a note perhaps saying: "See Second Schedule." That would be a clear warning to anyone reading the section to find out about the offence that they should also look at the Second Schedule. That would not interfere with the drafting but it would bring in that further element of warning to which Deputy O'Higgins referred, and it probably would be useful. If we can do anything in the Bill to prevent a person repeating an offence by warning him, we should do so. I assume the courts will warn persons committing a first offence that the penalties for a second will be more severe but it might be no harm if before each of these sections there was a note on the margin referring to the Schedule.

Would the Minister consider that suggestion? It would be of some assistance if, on each of these sections affected by the Schedule, there appeared in the margin the word "Schedule" or words to that effect. Even if the Minister wanted to keep up his sleeve—or up Deputy Booth's sleeve—what the length of the disqualification would be, it would help, as Deputy Sheldon says, to draw attention to it in some such manner as that.

I shall undertake to do that and examine the matter between now and the next Stage.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I understood that amendments Nos. 114 and 44 would be taken at this stage. Is that correct?

They may be discussed together but amendment No. 43 comes before that.

Amendment No. 43 not moved.

I move amendment No 44:

To delete subsections (4) and (5) and substitute the following subsection:

"(4) The period of disqualification specified in a consequential disqualification order shall, in a case not coming within subsection (3) of this section, be not less than six months."

In the Second Schedule, as it appears in the Bill before it is altered by amendment No. 114, there are a number of scheduled offences for which a three months' automatic disqualification is provided. Am I right in assuming that the effect of the Minister's amendment No. 44, taken in conjunction with amendment No. 114, will cut them out of the Schedule and that the six month period which is being provided under amendment No. 44 is not an extension of a period of disqualification in relation to any that were there? Does the Minister understand my point?

Yes. The Deputy wants to know if the three month ones are gone and if the six month ones——

No case that was three months will be made six months under this?

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 go together.

I move amendment No. 47:

In subsection (1) (a), line 48, to delete "or of a crime".

The amendment asks the Minister to provide for an automatic disqualification for a period of at least 12 months in the case of a person who uses a mechanically propelled vehicle for the commission of a crime. It requires two amendments to bring that about. I shall not press them but I would ask the Minister to give the matter consideration. If he accepts the amendment it will vary the Minister's proposed amendment No. 114.

To my mind, the effect of the application of what is intended in Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 together would give rise to the situation wherein it could conceivably happen that a person who travelled by bus to the scene of a crime, if the holder of a driving licence, would be disqualified from driving for 12 months. That is some of what would arise from this amendment. I do not see the sense in it, although there may be an underlying sense that I do not grasp.

The reading the Minister takes out of it may be a possibility but obviously it was not intended. The amendment is intended to refer to the person who uses, in the sense of driving, a car or vehicle—it may be a lorry—either on his own or in conspiracy with someone else for the commission of a crime. However I am not pressing that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.
Section 28 agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.

I move amendment No. 48a:

To delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:—

"(3) The operation of a consequential, ancillary or special disqualification order shall be suspended or postponed by reason of an appeal being brought against the order or where the order is related to a conviction against the conviction, unless the Court making the order is satisfied and declares that by continuing to drive the person in respect of whom the order was made would or might be a cause of danger to himself or to others."

There is a point of principle involved in this amendment which is of some importance. The amendment seems to reverse the position which the Minister provides under Section 30 (3). That subsection provides that where a consequential disqualification order is made, the order shall remain, in so far as the disqualification goes, even when it is under appeal from one court to another.

My amendment suggests that that should not be so unless the court is of opinion that by continuing to drive the person against whom the order was made will be a danger to himself or to others. If a person is convicted and disqualified from driving and then appeals to the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court finds that he never should have been convicted and that no disqualification order should have been imposed, it seems to me to be all wrong that that person should in the meanwhile have suffered the consequences of having had the disqualification order imposed on him.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share