Amendments 55a, 55b and 77a and 77b could, I take it, be taken together. I think the Minister was dealing with the matter when progress was reported.
Road Traffic Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 55a:
In subsection (1), to add to the end of paragraph (a):
"or unless the person produces in Court the licence signed and stamped by a member of the Garda Síochána at the Garda Síochána station so named by the person, stating the date and place at which such licence was produced to such member of the Garda Síochána and such licence so signed by a member of the Garda Síochána shall beprima facie evidence of the facts stated thereon without proof of the signature of the Garda Síochána or that the person purporting to be a member of the Garda Síochána is in fact a member of the Garda Síochána”.—(Deputy Ryan.)
The Chair mentioned that the Minister was speaking on the last occasion and I do not know whether he wants to continue.
Actually I had finished.
Unfortunately I was not present to hear the Minister and I do not know whether he is accepting these amendments or not. I presume he is.
No.
I was afraid that might be a rash assumption on my part. These amendments are designed to meet a situation which, as the Minister probably knows, is of quite common occurrence, that is where a person is required to produce his driving licence. My recollection is that the section is so worded that if a request is made to a driver to produce his driving licence, and subsequently he is summoned for failure to produce the driving licence, the Bill is at present so framed as to presume that the defendant in such circumstances is guilty unless he himself can show that he is innocent. It is one of the sections under this legislation where the onus of proof is entirely on the defendant.
As I say, I was not here to listen to the Minister's case on the last day on which this was under discussion. I assume the Minister has some reason for asking the Dáil to legislate in that manner, but it is quite contrary to the legislation either in connection with road traffic matters or any other matter. Deputy Ryan's amendments are designed to provide a kind of halfway house for the Minister so that he can achieve what presumably he wants to achieve and that is, less waste of time by Gardaí and others in giving evidence. At the same time I take it he does not want to cause an injustice to an innocent defendant.
What is suggested in these amendments is that if a person produces his driving licence after a request to do so, the Garda officer to whom it is produced, in the particular station at which it is produced, will stamp the fact on the licence that it has been produced, giving the time and the name of the station, and that when that is done, it should be accepted as prima facie evidence that production has been made. In other words, at that stage the onus of proof would shift again from the defendant back to the State, if the State were suggesting that the licence had not in fact been produced. I urge the Minister to consider the spirit of this amendment even if he is not prepared to accept it fully as it is framed at the moment. In principle, it is right that some procedure should be adopted and that we should not legislate with our eyes open to throw the onus of proof entirely on the defendant, contrary to all precedents in our legislation.
The matter dealt with in these four amendments, the driving licence and the certificate of insurance, was raised on the Second Stage and at that time I undertook to look into it to ensure that its administration by the Garda authorities would be such that no undue difficulty would be caused to any person asked to present these documents at a later stage if he did not have them on his person at the time. I have since ascertained that if a driver is stopped by a Garda and asked for his licence or his insurance certificate, neither of which he may have with him at the particular time, he may nominate a convenient Garda station and undertake to produce these documents there within a period of five days. That is the situation at the moment. Under the Bill, we propose to extend the period to ten days.
The Garda who pulls the driver will then fill in the relevant particulars on form C.T. 34 and the completed form will be forwarded to the station named by the driver concerned. Only when that form is returned can any further action take place. If it is not returned, no action takes place. If the form is returned, it will be clearly indicated on the face of it that the documents sought were produced. If they are defective in some way, that will be stated. Only then will the Garda who pulled the driver be in a position to take further steps.
I am quite satisfied that the fears expressed by Deputy Ryan are without foundation. The system operating at the moment will continue to operate in the future and, from what I have ascertained, there is just no possibility of a member of the public being either inconvenienced or put at a disadvantage. From that point of view, I do not see any need for those amendments. The fears expressed have no foundation. Experience of the operation of this system in the past is the best guarantee for the future.
I agree with the Minister that if the present procedure is followed, there is nothing in the fears expressed by either Deputy Ryan or myself. If, however, there is any breakdown in the procedure, there are real grounds for fear. I agree that it is only if the licence, or whatever it may be, is not produced that a summons will issue. A case could arise in which a Garda might be in a hurry or be so exceptionally busy that he might fail to complete the form. These are the sort of human lapses that can occur and it is in the event of such a lapse that danger might arise.
Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section 40 lays down that if a prosecution is brought for an offence under the section, it will be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that he did not produce his licence. So far as I know, that provision does not appear in the 1933 Road Traffic Act. Under this provision, it will be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that he did not produce his licence and that he did, in fact, commit an offence. That is something new and it is in the light of that provision that I think it is necessary to provide safeguards, irrespective of the safeguards the Minister has mentioned if the present procedure continues to operate properly, because if a Garda overlooks filling up form C.T. 34 for some reason or other, a summons will issue against the driver, even though he has in fact already produced his licence.
If the Bill goes through in its present form, a defendant will find himself going into court, with the court presuming that he has committed an offence until he satisfies the court to the contrary. In order to satisfy the court, he will have to issue a witness summons and get the superintendent in the area concerned to send to court, in answer to that subpoena, the Garda who dealt with the matter in the first instance. That may involve the defendant in a considerable amount of trouble and a certain amount of expense in circumstances in which it should be sufficient for him to produce his licence showing a receipt or signature testifying to its production, and that should end the matter.
A lapse to the extent of not filling in the form to which I referred would be in favour of the driver, or defendant, as the case may be. If the form is not completed and returned, no action of any kind can be taken. Unless the form is completed and returned to the originating Garda Station, no action will follow from the original pulling of the driver.
If a person simply does not produce his licence, what happens?
Whether he produces it or not, if this form is not completed and returned to the originating station, no action is taken. That is the safeguard which I say is there. This form originates from the Guard who pulls up the driver in the first instance. He sends on the particulars to the station named by the driver.
I am not pressing this. I just want to be clear in my own mind about it. Suppose I am stopped somewhere in the Minister's constituency in Donegal and I say to the Guard that I will produce my licence in Rathmines; if I fail to produce it there, what is the machinery at the moment?
Assuming that the Guards at the Rathmines station do their job, they will fill in that form after a lapse of 10 days, as we propose now, saying that the licence has not been produced. In the case the Deputy quotes a form would be issued by the Guard who pulled him up in Donegal and sent on to the station of his choice here in Dublin. Until that form is filled in and sent back to Donegal, no action is taken in Donegal against the Deputy.
The person who is stopped by the Guard must nominate a station at which he will produce the licence?
Unless he is taking it to the station of the Guard in question. I suppose that could be nominated also. He nominates a station for his own convenience.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 55b not moved.
Section 40 agreed to.
SECTION 41.
I move amendment No. 56:
In subsection (1), page 36, to insert "pen or" before "pencil" in line 8, line 11 and line 12.
This is purely a drafting amendment.
I take it a Biro qualifies?
I have not had that defined but I imagine it must.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 56a:
In subsection (3), paragraph (a), page 37, to add to the paragraph the following:—
"provided however that a person who holds or previously held a driving licence (other than a provisional driving licence) under this or any other Act within five years of the coming into operation of this section and who has not been disqualified from holding a driving licence, shall not be required to produce a certificate of competency when applying for a driving licence nor shall such certificate be required in the case of a person holding a driving licence issued in Great Britain or Northern Ireland."
This amendment is in the spirit of the Minister's remarks on the Second Reading of the Bill. This section provides for various regulations which the Minister may make, including regulations governing the class of persons who are required to produce a certificate of competency or fitness when applying for a driving licence. This has to do with driving tests which the Minister forecast would be provided for in regulations for certain categories of persons. It was suggested in the Second Reading discussion—and, as I recollect it, I was one of those who suggested it and I certainly favour the idea—that all new drivers, people who have not previously held driving licences, should have both a road test and a test of their knowledge of the rules of the road applied to them. However, quite a lot of unnecessary anxiety has been created in the minds of the public by this idea of a driving test.
If the Minister accepts the amendment, it will remove a great deal of that anxiety and make the idea of a driving test more easily acceptable to a number of people. The amendment suggests that a certificate of competency or fitness to drive will not be required: "provided however that a person who holds or previously held a driving licence (other than a provisional driving licence) under this or any other Act within five years..." Perhaps the wording is a bit loose but it means within five years before the coming into operation of the section. The amendment goes on: "...and who has not been disqualified from holding a driving licence, shall not be required to produce a certificate of competency...nor shall such a certificate be required in the case of a person holding a driving licence issued in Great Britain or Northern Ireland."
It is of some importance that the Minister, if he is not accepting this amendment, at least should make it clear that the amendment is in accordance with his views and the regulations he proposes to make. The amendment would give recognition to the stringency of the British and Northern Ireland regulations in cases where a British or Northern Ireland person desires to take up residence here. It is well known to the Minister and to the House that quite a stringent driving test is in force already in England and in Northern Ireland. If a person has passed his driving test there, we should not require him to undergo another driving test here, provided he has been issued with a British or Northern Ireland licence. It is also of some importance in connection with tourism. A great number of people bring their cars over here and there should be no danger of a hitch in regard to their driving licences.
In the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill very good reasons were given why an amendment such as this should not be passed into law. Those reasons are that by regulation various classes or categories of drivers may from time to time be brought within the test regulations and will be subject to those tests and it is necessary that we do not apply those tests to all and sundry from the outset or from a given date. A very good reason would be that we could not possibly hope to have the organisation trained and available to cope with every driver on the road today if they all had to have a test of competence and fitness.
Undoubtedly testing will be applied by stages, and while I would say to Deputy O'Higgins that though the majority of those who within the last five years have been licence holders or new licence holders, may be well down on the priority list of the groups as they will be brought under these regulations for testing, nevertheless there can be, and undoubtedly are, people within that group who may under special circumstances be brought in under some other head for testing. Those types would be for instance people who had grown into an older age group and we would say that we would have to test this group in the next year, and add public service vehicle drivers, and so on.
In addition there may be types of offences or offenders whom by regulation the Minister may bring in as a category that the courts will not have dealt with or do not propose to deal with, and he may apply the tests to them so that again, within that group of those holding licences within the past five years, you could also have another number of that type which if amendment 56a were carried would in fact be excluded. By and large, the overall situation is that people will be brought into the testing and under regulations in relation to testing as and when we find we have the organisation to deal with those numbers.
We will naturally bring in the categories that are of the greatest public importance, or that we regard in that light, and gradually add to them, so that to exclude specifically under statute any particular group would defeat the general idea in the Bill and certainly in the specific types of cases I have mentioned would preclude certain types from being brought in whom I believe it may be very necessary to bring in, and to bring in early on, in the application of these regulations.
In so far as the British and Northern Ireland driving licence holders are concerned, there is no doubt whatsoever that at the moment we deal in quite a reasonable manner with those who have come in here as visitors, holiday makers and tourists. I do not think anybody can say that anything we are doing or have been doing has in any way made difficult the driving of a car by any of our visitors from those areas. But to write into the law that we must give a licence without any reference to tests to any holder of a licence in the Six Counties or Great Britain is something which I do not think we should do. The reason I say that is that we will be enabled to do this if we so wish, but matters like this have been dealt with in the past not only under traffic laws and regulations but under various other regulations in the country here on the basis of reciprocity. If and when the time comes that we can get down to this matter we will be enabled to do it, but to write into the law specifically that we must do it is in the circumstances something which I feel the Deputy and the House will not press to have done.
I am not pressing the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 57:—
In subsection (3), to add to the subsection the following paragraphs:
"(m) the delegation by issuing authorities to specified persons of the functions of such authorities under subsection (4) of section 33 of this Act.
(n) the delegation by issuing authorities to specified persons of the functions of such authorities under subsection (4) of section 34 of this Act.”
That has been already discussed.
It was discussed with amendment No. 27.
Amendment agreed to.
I think amendment No. 57a might have been taken with the earlier one. I am not moving it because it is merely consequential.
Amendment No. 57a not moved.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
Section 43 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 57b:—
Before section 44, but in Part IV, to insert a new section as follows:
"Speed limits made by the Minister under this part of this Act may prescribe maximum and minimum speeds."
Amendments Nos. 57b together with 57f and 57g form a composite proposition and could be discussed together if the House agrees.
It may be that the Minister has the power which it is suggested he should have in these amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to enable the Minister when he is considering speed limits to prescribe both maximum and minimum speed limits. It may be that under the general wording of the section that power is there, but I do not think it is.
That power is not there, and it is not being sought, for the reason that in our conditions here in Ireland the idea of a minimum speed limit is, to say the least of it, at this stage very inappropriate. If we look at the maximum speed limits which we are taking power to impose, we find that we have a general maximum limit which applies to types of vehicles such as a bus and so on, no matter where it travels. Then we have built up areas and maximum speed limits. In the context to apply a minimum speed limit in the same areas would just not be feasible or possible or get us anywhere. In a built up area where you have a maximum speed limit a minimum speed limit just would not really apply and could not possibly apply. Neither in the case of a general speed limit applying to particular types of vehicles can I see the application of a minimum speed limit being wise or sensible.
The idea of a minimum speed limit is one which we naturally considered in our discussions and thoughts about this matter. Without the type of roadway that we might have seen elsewhere which we do not possess, of the autobahn type, the idea of a minimum speed limit, no matter how acceptable it might appear to be at first, does not really serve any useful purpose in this country. I do not think we are emerging into an era or that we can foresee a time when this power to fix minimum speed limits would, in fact, he appropriate or possible to apply. It is particularly inappropriate to our conditions here to take this power or to apply such a power because of our road network, and our general road conditions. I cannot see road conditions in the foreseeable future in which the power to apply minimum speed limits would be of use. If the time comes when such power would be of use, we can reconsider the matter. Probably another measure of this nature will then be due. In the meantime I do not think there is any point in taking such powers.
I shall not press the Minister. It is unusual to have a Minister say: "You are offering me too much power and I do not want it." This is the first occasion I have had that experience. We find the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice taking to the air to have a look at where the hold-up in Dublin traffic is being caused. It is undoubtedly true that very often slow-moving traffic is a greater traffic hazard than fast-moving traffic. Very often accidents are caused by people who travel too cautiously or slowly in circumstances where a reasonable speed should be maintained having regard to the conditions, the size of the road and so on.
It was with that general idea in mind we felt that within the next few years the Minister might find it necessary in relation to some roads or routes, in particular dual-carriageways, to say it is undesirable that traffic should be slowed down on these roads by a person insisting on driving over-cautiously at 10 or 15 m.p.h. and that he might think of putting on a minimum speed limit of 20 or 30 m.p.h. If the Minister does not want this power at the moment and feels that the occasion for its use is not going to come into existence in the foreseeable future, I shall not press him on it.
There is one point which I think may be overlooked. On some of the main roads—the one that comes most readily to the mind is the road to Belfast—there are stretches where four lanes are marked. That means that there is a danger such as Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, of people driving too slowly in the lane nearest the centre of the road. That does provide a very big traffic hazard. I would feel happier if the Minister would at least consider whether he should reserve this right to himself of controlling the minimum speed also, not on the road as a whole but to consider making regulations that where four lanes are marked on a road, traffic using the lane nearest the centre may not do so unless proceeding at 30, 40 or 45 m.p.h. It would mean the slower traffic would be driven in to the side of the road, which would be very helpful and would reduce the danger of accidents.
Like Deputy O'Higgins, I should not press the Minister at this stage, but I should like to point out there is, possibly, more of a danger of this situation arising than appears to the Minister at present. I would hope he would at least give it further consideration.
I am afraid we are at cross purposes. I agree entirely with both Deputies so far as the danger of slow-moving traffic is concerned. But there is a method whereby that can be dealt with, and this is not the method. In future we will have on such roads as this—the road to Belfast, with which I am also familiar—much more than at present traffic control by the Gardaí as well as traffic laws dealing with traffic lanes. Even at present, on roads where there is ample width for more than one lane of traffic in each direction, slow-moving traffic is compelled by law to keep as near as possible to the left. If it did so, this problem of holding the centre of the road would not arise and many accidents would be avoided. The frustration which causes drivers in faster moving vehicles to do foolish things would not arise.
We are considering this problem of traffic lanes in the context of motorways such as have been built elsewhere. In order to have minimum speeds we must have special motorways and special legislation. On these motorways abroad there is a special law which prohibits certain types of vehicles from using them. No roads come on to them—they are straight through—and you can, therefore, apply sensible minimum speeds. On our roads, however, which are open to every type of vehicle, you can see how impossible it would be to apply minimum speed limits. We have only to think of all the vehicles that have a right to be on our roads—tractors, horse-drawn vehicles, scooters, motor cycles, bicycles, "bubble" cars, large buses, trucks, big cars, little cars, sport cars, fast cars and slow cars, not to mention all the various kinds of drivers. Even a dual carriageway does not get over the problem. These vehicles can go in one direction on either of two traffic lanes; and if we were to prescribe minimum speed limits it would create only more trouble and danger than exist at present.
Let us not confuse ourselves by comparing what we know is being done on specially-built motorways abroad with what we know exists here and which will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. I think the House will readily see that greater safety on the roads is not to be obtained by the application of minimum speed limits which may work admirably in proper circumstances elsewhere but which are not appropriate to our situation at present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 57c and 57e are cognate and perhaps may be discussed together. Separate decisions may be given if required.
We were discussing amendments 57b, 57c, 57f and 57g; I am not moving the others.
Amendment No. 57c not moved.
Section 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45.
I move amendment No. 57d.
To add to the section two new subsections as follows:
"(5) Speed limits fixed under this section shall be reviewed by the Minister at least once in every three years.
(6) Prior to making any regulation under this section the Minister shall cause to be published in Iris Oifigiúil a notice of his intention to make such regulation not less than thirty days prior to the laying of such regulation before either House of the Oireachtas.”
Section 45 deals with the general speed limit which is to be fixed and the right of the Minister to increase or reduce it or to restrict it to particular periods of day or night. The general speed limit suggested by the Bill is 30 m.p.h. In these amendments I suggest that the new speed limits fixed by the Minister should be reviewed by him once every three years and, secondly, that prior to making any regulation under Section 45 the Minister "shall cause to be published in Iris Oifigiúil a notice of his intention to make such regulation not less than 30 days prior to the laying of such regulation before either House of the Oireachtas.”
As I understand the position, a general speed limit of 30 m.p.h., or, indeed, whatever might ultimately be agreed in relation to a speed limit-because I should imagine there will be as many different suggestions for a general speed limit as there are Deputies in the House—will clearly be in the nature of an experiment. The Minister himself envisages that speed limits, either general or particular, will be variable from time to time. There is no doubt that, with the progress made regarding mechanically-propelled vehicles, their performance, speed and manoeuvrability from one year to another, it is necessary that the Minister should keep the question of speed limits constantly under review and in the first part of this amendment I seek to ensure that the Minister will have imposed on him a statutory obligation to review at least once in every three years any speed limits fixed by him under this section. My personal view is that the Minister must keep these speed limits under constant review and that once in every three years will not be sufficient, but I think that the House and road-users should at least be fortified by the assurance being written into this Bill that there will be a statutory obligation on the Minister to conduct that review once every three years.
The second part of the amendment, to add a sixth subsection to Section 45, is designed, as I have explained, merely to ensure that, when the Minister proposes to make these regulations regarding speed limits under this section, he will give adequate notice of his intention. The notice I suggest is 30 days; if the Minister regards that as too long or too short I shall not quarrel with him, but I think it reasonable that he should be required to give notice particularly where it is possible that the imposition of a speed limit may affect the flow of traffic through a particular business section or area in Dublin or in towns or country villages outside Dublin.
Dealing with the first part of this amendment, which is the review sought every three years, the whole idea underlying the powers sought in the Bill generally in regard to fixing speed limits by regulation is to ensure that these speed limits may be varied from time to time as changing conditions and traffic patterns demand. The idea is that all factors tending to bring about a change in any area in relation to a speed limit will be under constant review. Making it an obligation to review these speed limits every three years would be completely contrary to the spirit of the Bill. Suppose also we were obliged to have a review not less than once every three years; suppose there was a case for it, I wonder how one would expect to have that fulfilled? Would it be necessary to have made some change once every three years to denote that a review had taken place——
——to satisfy the law? On the other hand, if no notice or indication that a review has taken place is given, how would the Deputy or the House be satisfied that the review had in fact taken place, assuming, as the amendment seems to imply, that the Minister in this context is not going to have regard to the powers given in this Bill to change the speed limits as circumstances dictate? The House may agree that it would be a question of having these speed limits under constant review——
I agree that it should be.
If that is not so I think the intention and the value of the power already being taken in the Bill would be lost, if, in fact, there is not a constant review and if regard is not paid to all changing factors as they arise. I do not see what the obligation to review once in three years adds to it nor do I see how, by writing that obligation into the law, it can be shown that such review has in fact taken place.
They will be prepared to accept the Minister's word, whoever the Minister may be.
I do not see anything in this, really. I am putting it to the Deputy that the other side of the coin is that, for this whole business to work and to make sense, constant review is necessary and if that constant review is not taking place, the obligation to review once in three years will not be the answer. I do not think the Deputy or the House would suggest that we should write into the Bill that the Minister for Local Government should keep all these matters under constant review but, in fact, that is what will be involved if this law is to have any sense; it will have to be kept under constant review. It is not suggested that it should be written into the law that the Minister should keep it under constant review and if that suggestion is not made, why should it be written in that a review should be carried out at least once every three years?
I feel that the amendment is not really necessary and that, indeed, if it were put into the law and it did mean that a review would take place once every three years, that reluctant reviewing is not the answer to the problem nor is it the intention of the Bill as a whole.
In so far as the second part of the amendment is concerned, again I find it difficult to understand why regulations in regard to speed limits should be the one and only type of regulation picked out for special mention, treatment and publication in Iris Oifigiúil. On the other hand, in regard to changes that may take place by regulation which would add to controlled areas in the matter of speed limits or, possibly, remove speed limits, it will be of no great value to the community as a whole if there is an obligation to give 30 days' notice by publication in Iris Oifigiúil because, by and large, such changes would affect particular localities and in many cases, would be of local rather than general interest. Publication in this organ would not add very much to local knowledge of such changes.
Over and above that, as I have already asked, why should this particular type of regulation be picked out for the special treatment outlined in the amendment? Another difficulty could arise. It is rather inconceivable at the moment, but it is possible that a matter requiring very urgent attention could arise, a special case, a special place, special circumstances, and the obligation to give 30 days' notice by publication in Iris Oifigiúil could defeat the application of some part of the speed limit regulations which in the public interest might be demanded but which would have to be denied because of the time factor outlined here.
I am not quite clear as to what the real argument would be in favour of this part of the amendment. Not seeing the weight of the argument, I am inclined to say to the House that I do not see its value or the purpose it would serve in all the circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."
The House should be clear as to what we are doing in this Section. We are now declaring a general speed limit in what the section declares to be built-up areas and we are going to make it an offence to infringe that speed limit. I should like to say at the outset that it is very desirable that in built-up areas there should be speed limits but I do not think that the Bill as drafted goes about the task of setting up speed limits in a proper or fair way to motorists or to users of the roadway. It will be noticed that the section declares that there is to be a speed limit of 30 miles per hour on all public roads in built-up areas and the section then goes on to define that a public roads in a built-up area for the purposes of the section is to be a public road which is in a county or other borough, an urban district or a town. It does seem to me that the unfortunate motorist driving through the country in Ireland may find himself committing an offence completely unwittingly and completely innocently in that he may be going through what he takes to be a village and may find that, in fact, it is a town.
What is a town? The Bill does not define what a town is. I do not know whether there is incorporated in this Bill the definition of town in the Local Government code. It may well be, but I have not been able to find it. If it is a town, does that mean that it is a town with town commissioners? If a person is taking a trip up to Dundalk, he will not know when travelling through Swords that he is passing through a town or, when he is passing through Balbriggan, that he is passing through an urban district.
To my mind whilst it is most desirable that there should be speed limits, perhaps both in Swords and Balbriggan, and in similar towns throughout the country, the section as drafted is in effect a way of avoiding for local authorities a task which they should have, namely, the erection of signs indicating that a speed limit exists. There is nothing in this section as I see it which requires a local authority to put up a sign indicating that a speed limit exists. As I understand it—I am not absolutely certain on this—Balbriggan is an urban district and, accordingly, a driver going through Balbriggan may be guilty of an offence whereas when he was going through Swords he was guilty of no offence.
I would suggest that the Minister should reconsider the manner in which this whole section has been drafted and whilst we should put speed limits into this Bill we should make an offence apply where the motorist had notice that such an offence will occur if he breaks a speed limit. He will have notice when signs are erected. It does seem to me that this is a method by which we are taking away what should be the task of the local authorities, namely, the erection of signs indicating that a speed limit exists.
At the present time, as I see it, there is no obligation on a local authority to indicate that a motorist is coming to an urban district or to a town. A person travelling in the west of Ireland may come to Swinford. He may not know whether it is an urban district or a town. He may come to Westport and may know it is an urban district and that he should drive at 30 miles an hour. I think the Bill, as drafted, is unfair to the motorist who is using the roads in a perfectly lawful and proper manner. A person may completely unwittingly commit an offence under this section.
There is also the extraordinary situation that the Minister may by regulation have taken some of the roads out of the section. A person may be going through what is, in fact, an urban district council area and may not be committing any offence because the Minister may have made a regulation. The only way in which we can see that there is some sanity in what is a desirable amendment of our road traffic code and ensure that this is properly done is to say that speed limits should exist where they are properly indicated by signs put up by the local authority.
I should like also to make another suggestion. I do not know whether there is any substance in it or not but there is considerable difficulty in the way this is drafted in ascertaining what exactly is or is not a town. I know that under the local government code there are definitions of a town. I do not know whether this is incorporated in this Bill. If it is incorporated in it, I think it is a rather cumbersome method of drafting.
There is also a general matter that I should like to mention in respect of this part of the Bill. We are all presumed to know the law. That is sometimes a pretty stiff task for the ordinary member of the public. We are certainly not making it easier in this Bill in the way it is drafted for the ordinary person to know what the law is. I have already indicated the motorist's difficulty in knowing whether he is travelling through an area to which a speed limit applies. Some conscientious person who wants to read this Bill and find out what the offences are is not going to have a simple task.
In Part IV of the Bill, which contains Sections 44, 45, 46 and 47, there are no penalties provided and a person unacquainted with this Bill has to go through a very considerable number of sections—127—before he finds out that there is a general section, Section 102, which provides for general penalties. When he finds that out, he will find out that in respect of an offence under Part IV there is a maximum penalty of £20 in respect of a first offence, with increasing penalties for subsequent offences. But this conscientious person would not yet have done his task adequately because he would then have to ascertain whether there might be any disqualification of his licence in respect of an offence under Part IV of the Bill. He would then go through the Bill again and would find in Section 27 that there is, in fact, a disqualification if he turns back to the Second Schedule.
It is all there for somebody who is perhaps trained in the reading of statutes. It is all there for somebody who goes to a considerable amount of trouble to find out exactly what the penalties are under this section. The Minister should reconsider the manner in which this Part of the Bill is drafted and on Report Stage, should bring in a new section to indicate what the penalties are for an infringement of this Part of the Bill and also indicate in this Part that there is, in fact, a disqualification order to be made in certain circumstances. I feel that then the Bill would be much more intelligible.
While I agree with the views expressed by Deputy Costello with regard to the general provisions of the section, I do not want to repeat his arguments. I want to ask the Minister in relation to the particular speed limit suggested in the Bill what consultations he had and with what bodies before the suggested speed limit of 30 miles an hour was arrived at. I heard various opinions expressed. Some agree that 30 miles an hour is reasonable; others want a speed limit as high as 40 miles an hour; while still others would like to split the difference and have it about 35 miles an hour.
It seems to me that the Minister has a difficult task in deciding what is the appropriate speed limit to be imposed as a general speed limit. I am inclined to think that a speed limit of 30 miles an hour, having regard to cars nowadays, is rather too low. I think I am correct in saying that 30 miles an hour was the general speed limit operated in England under the Road Traffic Act of 1934. Since 1934 not only the speed of cars and the general road holding and steering of cars but also the effectiveness of car brakes have, I think, been vastly improved. It would seem to me that a general speed limit of 30 miles an hour, which was regarded as appropriate in England in 1934, would not really have very much relevancy to the position, both as regards roads and vehicles today. My personal view is that the Minister is plumping for too low a general speed limit. I think it might be more desirable if he made it a general speed limit of 40 miles an hour, liable to be reduced to 30 miles an hour, or even lower as circumstances required it, either in terms of time or areas. In other words, at particular hours or in particular areas, a lower speed limit might be necessary.
I would urge the Minister to consider very carefully the arguments which Deputy Costello made in regard to the desirability of letting members of the motoring public know where they stand in relation to the speed limit, whatever speed limit the Minister ultimately decides on, if he is prepared to depart from the suggested limit of 30 miles an hour. The only place I know where a speed limit is clearly marked and operated is in the Bray district, going out from Dublin to Wicklow and Wexford. I do not think that anyone is in any doubt. Everyone can see that a speed limit—I think it is 25 miles an hour—is clearly indicated. I see no reason why the same system should not be operated in relation to the speed limit generally throughout the country and even in city areas. I do not think it would cause any great hardship. From the point of view of the motoring public, it would be very much better than the imposition of a general speed limit in relation to urban districts or towns, as suggested in the Bill, because then, as Deputy Costello pointed out, we are putting the onus on the motorist to make up his mind as he drives along whether or not a particular area, which appears to him to be a built-up area, qualifies as a town or an urban district.
I believe that what Deputy O'Higgins advocates should be done and may be done under the section.
It is going to be done.
Under subsection (1) as drafted, the Minister may reduce or increase the speed limit. I certainly would be against the idea of an overall speed limit. Thirty m.p.h. can be very fast in certain circumstances and in certain areas. The Minister may not be very familiar with the town of Wexford —I think, he was there on one occasion at least——
A few times.
I do not think he would like to travel through the main street of Wexford at 30 m.p.h., 20 m.p.h. or even 15 m.p.h.
This is not a licence to travel at that speed.
I know that. I support the Minister's proposal, because I think it is a good thing that he should have power to very the speed limit. I should also like to ask, him if "town" is sufficiently defined. Many people in big villages like to regard their villages as towns. Would "village" be covered or described by "town"? The Minister may not know the town of Ferns —there are many towns in Donegal which I do not know—but I think there should be a speed limit in that town because motorists career through it as quickly as they can. I cannot think of a comparable place in Donegal, but I am sure the Minister can think of a place that could be described as a village but which is as large as some towns.
I am glad, too, that the Minister has power to restrict the speed limit to particular periods of the day and night. It would be daft to have motorists crawling through certain towns at 15 or 20 m.p.h. at midnight or during the early hours of the morning. Such delays could be very upsetting. The very fact that a speed limit is to be imposed does not necessarily mean that the number of accidents will be reduced to any appreciable extent. There is another alternative: the power which the Garda have at the present time. A member of the Garda is entitled to pull me up, challenge me and prosecute me, if I travel at 10 m.p.h. through very narrow places, such as the main street of Wexford, if he considers that speed a danger to the public. The Garda have always had that power. It is a deterrent, a brake and a curb on people when they know there is a speed limit in built-up areas, and I think the sooner it is imposed the better.
Everyone has had experience of the fast driver who, not deliberately, still continues to drive fast when approaching some of these moderate-sized towns. I know in my own home town of Wexford, even tourists travel pretty fast. Coming from Rosslare Harbour, the main road into the town is pretty wide, and it takes a few seconds or a few minutes for them to realise they are in a town. Sometimes grave damage can be done and has been done. As I say, a speed limit will be a curb or a brake on them. I assume —I do not know whether it is quite clear—that there will be signs to the effect that there is a speed limit, and that there will be warning signs, such as they have in Great Britain and in the Six Counties, informing people that they are approaching a built-up area and giving warning, so to speak, that there is a speed limit, so that they will be ready to obey it.
As I have already mentioned, the Minister has taken power to increase or reduce the speed limit by regulation. On Second Reading, I applauded him for taking this power unto himself because, in the matter of road traffic and parking, agreement is now being sought between the Department, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and the local authority. If it is not reached—and, as a matter of fact, not much has been done up to the present —it is a good thing that the Minister himself is taking this power which is a necessary curb on motorists who drive too fast. I assume—again I do not want it written into legislation— that the Minister will consult, not so much the local interests as the local Garda, if he decides to make regulations to increase or reduce the speed limit. I am sure he will do so, but I should like to be assured of it.
I know this legislation can be put into operation, so to speak, only in stages, and it may take quite a long time to enforce many of the provisions. I should like again, in the matter of the speed limit, especially in the built-up areas, to urge on the Minister that he should have the necessary regulations made as quickly as possible.
I should like to support Deputy O'Higgins on the question of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. Personally, I feel it is a pity this limit was specified so clearly in subsection (1) (a) of Section 45. I would have been happier if the subsection simply read: "There shall be a speed limit in respect of all public roads in built-up areas."
Like Deputy O'Higgins, I feel that the suggested speed limit, which has been the speed limit in Great Britain since 1934, is completely unrealistic in these days. Not only has there been a very significant improvement in the braking capacity of cars in the meantime, but there has also been a tremendous improvement in road surfacing, and in the sign-posting of roads giving warning of road junctions, narrowing of road widths, and so on. Consequently I feel that a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. in built-up areas would be much more reasonable.
I have made certain experiments in this regard very recently. I was in Belfast only a few weeks ago and, going into the city in the comparatively early hours of the morning between 7.30 and 8 o'clock, there was not any great amount of traffic on the main road. There was, however, a mixture of traffic-private cars and heavy commercial vehicles. At one stage, I found myself behind a heavy lorry and trailer, the speed limit for which in Northern Ireland is, I think, 20 m.p.h. I found considerable difficulty in passing that vehicle with safety and had to stay behind it for some time at 20 m.p.h. Eventually, I came to a straight stretch of road and, everything being clear, I was able to pass it, but in order to do so safely I had to go up to the limit of 30 m.p.h. This means that, certainly so far as passing large vehicles is concerned, there must be a margin of 10 m.p.h between the speed of the vehicle being overtaken and the overtaking vehicle. With regard to the passing of a private car, similar experiments have shown me that about 7 to 8 m.p.h. is necessary to pass safely on any normal road.
This leads me to the conviction that the strict observance of a 30 m.p.h. speed limit over all roads in built-up areas will mean that the stream of traffic will be moving at something slightly over 30 m.p.h. because anything trying to pass a vehicle at 30 m.p.h. will have to exceed the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. This will give rise to congestion on the roads and to that very dangerous feature of modern traffic, frustration and irritation amongst drivers. Once drivers become irritated their standards of driving deteriorate very rapidly and they begin to take chances.
In my constituency of Dún Laoghaire I carried out further experiments, driving through Dún Laoghaire itself at various times of the day. In the morning, coming in to work, there is fairly heavy traffic. It is a physical impossibility to drive at anything approaching 30 m.p.h. through Dún Laoghaire at that time. If you can get through anywhere near like 20 m.p.h. it is the absolute maximum. If this speed limit were enforced it would be enforced, as far as I can see, right from the city centre to some place past Dalkey without any break. I feel this is entirely unrealistic at times when 30 m.p.h. through Booterstown, Blackrock, Dún Laoghaire, and so on, is too fast. It is also a physical impossibility.
There are times during the day when 30 m.p.h. on that Dún Laoghaire road and Merrion Road generally is absolutely safe. At the moment, you would see, as I have seen, double-decker buses travelling at 40 m.p.h. and, I am afraid, even 45 to 50 m.p.h. on that road. I know they are exceeding the speed limit for that type of vehicle but they are doing it with absolute safety. Visability is good and, so long as the surface is not slippery, no danger is caused to anyone.
I would hope therefore that instead of having varying speed limits in varying types of built-up areas we would stick to a standard 40 m.p.h. which I believe is already being advocated by numerous authorities in some at least of the motoring organisations in Great Britain. Where a speed of say 30 m.p.h. is dangerous in itself, it could be made the subject of a prosecution. I think it is far safer to have a speed limit which everyone accepts as a reasonable maximum rather than one which becomes a source of irritation to very many people.
I would not for a moment suggest that the speed limit should be relaxed during the hours of darkness. On the contrary, I feel a speed limit during the hours of darkness is far more important. One of the most dangerous things to do is to drive through the city in the early hours of the morning. It is at that time that everyone believes he is the only person on the road. I feel that a speed limit in the hours of darkness, especially when there is very little traffic on the road, is absolutely essential.
One has only to read the papers each morning to see how many accidents of a very serious nature take place in the very early hours. I do not believe this is primarily a matter of people driving under the influence of drink, coming away from dances and parties, half so much as that everybody believes he is the only person around. He takes a chance and goes ahead across a crossroads without taking any precautions at all and meets another car doing precisely the same thing, coming at right angles.
While I approve of the provision that the Minister may increase or reduce speed limits from time to time, I would hope that this would be confined as much as possible. I feel that any tendency to vary these speed limits too much will only lead to confusion. On a recent trip in Germany with other members of this House I was appalled by the number of road signs on German roads. I think that is something that reflects the German temperament. I think it is something they probably appreciate but I do not think it is a thing we would appreciate here. I think they like to get precise instructions as to what they should and should not do. This leads to a mass of road signs giving varying speed limits, information about the sharpness of the curves ahead, the gradients up and down, and so on, until a situation is caused where a driver of a vehicle almost would need a navigator as well as himself to keep up with the number of instructions on road signs.
It would be far better that it should generally be realised all over the country that whenever the sign on the road indicates it, the speed limit shall be 40 m.p.h. day or night.
I hope the Minister will not misunderstand what I am saying because I am not habitually a madly fast driver. I am very much in favour of speed limits of some kind. I would feel very much happier if he would consider deleting 30 m.p.h. from this subsection, reserving the right to have a speed limit, and make up his mind as he goes along what it shall be. In asking him to delete 30 m.p.h. altogether, I would strongly support Deputy O'Higgins in his advocacy of a general speed limit of 40 m.p.h. If we do not do that, I think we will restrict the flow of traffic and will cause more accidents by causing a pile-up of traffic and a number of frustrated drivers who will eventually break loose and pass where they should not.
This is a matter which I think we have already discussed and, the more discussion there is of it, the more obvious and clear it becomes that there never can be a uniform opinion in this House or in any other body of people as to what exactly is the right speed limit. I think also that specific problems may possibly be operating in the minds of the Deputies who have spoken for a limit of other than 30 m.p.h. No matter what speed limit is chosen I think each Deputy and each person concerned about these things in any way, on thinking the matter over, could find in his own experience a road, a village or town or part of a town the application to which of this 30 m.p.h. speed limit would seem to him to be unreasonable or likely to be of little use, to be ignored, or possibly much too slow or much too fast. I agree that that is so and that these specific exceptions can be thrown up no matter what speed limit would be mentioned here.
We did not come to the House with this proposal for a 30 m.p.h. speed limit until we had considered all the submissions made to my Department by those interested, as a result of the publicity and the White-Paper. All these have been considered, all the views expressed both in regard to a 30 m.p.h. limit, a limit over 30 m.p.h. or under it, or no speed limit at all. In addition to that we took into account experience gained elsewhere in the operating of speed limits. Taking all these matters into consideration and applying them in a general way to the background of our road system, we brought in this suggestion of a 30 m.p.h. speed limit. While there may be an error there, and I am not prepared to admit that there is at this stage, I think, if an error does exist and that the error is that the 30 m.p.h. limit is too slow, it is a much better approach to come with a proposal for a speed that is too slow rather than that we should go to 40 m.p.h. and find after a time that we must reduce it. This is a better approach and I am not prepared to admit without experience of its application that the speed limit of 30 m.p.h. is too slow.
While we have difficulties in regard to getting in and out of Dublin and across Dublin, if we could travel at 30 m.p.h. we would have nothing to grouse about in regard to the time taken to cross the length of Dublin. The trouble is not that 30 m.p.h. is too slow; it is that with the traffic at its present volume one cannot attempt to drive at 30 m.p.h. and one spends more time waiting than driving. That is not a matter that can be remedied by saying that we should move the limit up to 40 m.p.h. That would not change it. It is not the remedy and it is not proposed to be the remedy. Certainly it cannot be used as an argument that you would get through built-up areas more quickly by increasing the speed limit. Even if it were true, the number of built-up areas in this city and other cities is such, in its length and breadth, that the time it takes us to get across it—at 25, 30, 35 or 40 m.p.h., if we were free to travel at those speeds —is really of no importance.
Deputy Costello mentioned a number of things which were noticeable by their absence in regard to speed limits. He said that the penalties for infringement of these speed limits were not mentioned. They are in fact mentioned. They are in the common penalty clause in Section 102 and I do not think that the Deputy or the House would suggest that they should be written in in every instance. He also mentioned the difficulty of interpreting what is intended by the term "town" or "built-up area". The definition of a town is given in the Interpretation Acts and again it is not proposed that the definitions contained in those Acts should be written into this Bill. In general practice it is not normally done.
Could the Minister tell us what the Act says in regard to "town"?
A town where there are town commissioners. However that is not the answer. It is merely confusing the issue.
If the issue is confused——
The confusion has been created by the Deputy and if the Deputy would allow me to finish as I allowed him he may agree with me or——
I thought the Minister was going on to a separate matter.
It has been said there would be confusion in regard to the matter of defining the roads on which speed limits will apply and that people will not know when they are in a speed limit zone or out of one, and that all sorts of confusion would be created. The fact is that Part IV of this Bill, as I already indicated in my Second Reading speech, will be brought into operation when the survey of roads proposed for speed limits has been completed, the regulations made and the road signs erected. I do not see how anybody could arrive at the conclusion that we were merely going to pass this and say that all built-up areas and towns, and so on, were to have a 30 m.p.h. speed limit and say nothing more about it and that people from experience would have to learn that such-and-such a town boundary ended at such a fence or ditch. That is not the intention.
It is clear that the laws in question will come into operation only on the conditions I have stated. Therefore, we do not need to interpret what a town is in order that a driver may know where a speed limit zone starts and finishes. Regulations prescribing the type of road signs required to be erected will be made by the Minister for Local Government. As will emerge in a later section, it will be for the Garda Commissioner to require that these signs, as prescribed by Ministerial regulation, be erected by the local authorities.
Does the Minister mean that so far as say Section 45 is concerned, it will not come into operation until the Minister makes an order bringing it into operation?
That is so. As I already said it will not be brought into operation until the entire scheme of regulations, road signs, and so on, are completed and readily available so that there will be no confusion at all.
It is not very clear from the Bill. Section 2 sets out that it will come into operation at such time as may be fixed but Section 45 lays down a general speed limit. Normally speaking, one would suppose that when the Bill is passed, the speed limit will come into operation.
That is not so. There need be no fear whatever that any confusion will be created. It would not serve the purpose of the Bill if we were to do anything which would cause any confusion at any stage and which would bring the law and the regulations into disrepute. These things will be done in an orderly commonsense manner. The speed limit will not be brought into operation until we are ready and until we have the proper signs clearly indicating the zones.
I asked the Minister, if he were contemplating regulations governing speed limits, would he consult local people, preferably the Garda?
In all matters relating to speed limits, the Garda and the local authority will be consulted before any changes are made.
It will be consultation only?
That is all one can have.
As it is, the three practically have to agree before anything can be done about parking, or anything like that.
I am aware of that.
I understand from the Minister that Part IV will not come into operation until regulations have been made and signs have been erected. That would be an excellent idea if it could be carried out. I have a doubt as to whether the Bill as drafted covers the intention to which the Minister referred. When the Bill is passed, Part IV will be in operation. Section 44 provides that the Minister may make regulations prescribing a speed limit. He is under no obligation to make these regulations. He is merely given power under Section 44. If a matter arose involving court proceedings, the court then would look at Section 45. Under Section 45, a speed limit is provided. The Bill as passed will state that there shall be a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. It says that speed limit will apply in every built-up area. It defines a built-up area as a public road in a county or other borough, urban district, or town. It seems to me there is a doubt in relation to these two sections. The order would appear to be wrong. I think the doubt should be cleared up now, or certainly before Report Stage.
If, after the passing of this Bill, a person were to go through Balbriggan driving at over 30 m.p.h. he could be summoned for an offence under Section 45. There clearly is a doubt in relation to the manner in which this Part of the Bill has been drafted. If it is intended that this Part of the Bill will not come into operation until regulations have been made, we should say that. As it is drafted, it appears to provide under Section 44 that regulations may be made but under Section 45 a speed limit is to come into force when the Bill is passed.
Does Section 2 not govern the entire Bill?
If it is quite clear that Part IV will not come into operation, yes.
Section 2 provides that nothing will come into operation until the Minister by order directs that it shall.
Possibly this section gives the Minister power to exclude Part IV. I should like that to be made clear. It would be of considerable assistance in case doubt arises and someone is prosecuted for a motoring offence. He should not be involved in the trouble of having to defend an action because of ambiguity in the Act. There might be an application to the High Court. It would be infinitely preferable to have the position made clear now.
Section 2 makes it quite clear to me, and I think to anybody who reads the Bill, that parts of the Bill will come into operation only when the Minister makes a commencing order. The fears expressed by Deputy Costello are without foundation. Section 45 cannot come into operation until a commencing order is made. Section 2 is quite clear. I cannot understand the confusion that seems to exist in Deputy Costello's mind.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 46
Amendment No. 57e not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 46 stand part of the Bill."
Might I ask the Minister whether he has given any consideration to the possibility of an over-all speed limit at week-ends on the pattern of the experiment which has been tried out with some success in some Scandinavian and other European countries? Week-ends are particularly dangerous where road users are concerned. It might be well to keep in mind the possibility of an over-all speed limit from Saturday morning to Monday morning.
While theoretically it might be possible to do as the Deputy suggests, many orders would be needed in order to apply a speed limit to all the roads of the country. What might serve the Deputy's purpose and what is the intention under this Bill is to specify certain routes on which a speed limit will be applied for special occasions. For instance, at Whit weekend we could make an order that a speed limit would be applied in built-up areas on the road, say, from Dublin to Cork or Dublin to Waterford, naming the main artery. What the Deputy suggests would involve mentioning all the roads by their number or other identification and making a multitude of orders for a special occasion in order to cover the total road mileage of the country. However, by applying a speed limit to special routes we can meet the Deputy's suggestion and introduce a safety factor at some of these peak week-ends such as August Bank Holiday, Whit weekend or on other such special occasions.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 47
Amendments Nos. 57f, 57g and 58 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 47 stand part of the Bill".
Is this deliberately confined to mechanically propelled vehicles? It is possible nowadays for pedal cycles to exceed 30 miles an hour.
The Deputy and I should try it sometime.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 48.
Question proposed: "That Section 48 stand part of the Bill".
The same query arises here on the question of mechanically propelled vehicles. Maybe there is another provision in this Bill covering what I have in mind, that is, a person unfit to ride a bicycle or drive a horsedrawn vehicle.
It could be dealt with by regulation under Section 11.
In relation to a pedal cycle or an animal, Section 51 corresponds to Section 49, that is, in relation to driving while under the influence of drink or a drug. Section 49 deals with mechanically propelled vehicles and Section 51 with pedal cycles or animals. Section 48 (1) says: "A person shall not drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place when he is to his knowledge suffering from any disease or physical or mental disability..." I am wondering if there is any similar provision to that in Section 48 for pedal cycles and horse-drawn vehicles.
Unfitness to use a pedal cycle or to be in charge of a horse-drawn vehicle has never arisen as a problem. I do not think there is much likelihood of its becoming a problem in the future but if it were to become such and we wished to deal with it specifically we have power to do so by way of regulation under Section 11.
I wish to deal with an offence that is being created by Section 48, that is, attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place when a person knows he is suffering from a disability. I understand that in this Section it is proposed to insert the words "attempting to drive" thus creating a new offence. Heretofore under Section 29 of the 1939 Act which corresponds to Section 48. these words "attempting to drive" were not included. The remarks I want to make in regard to these words apply perhaps with greater force in respect of the next section which deals with the more common offence of attempting to drive while drunk.
There is no definition of "attempting to drive." In fact this matter has been the subject of considerable judicial review and it is a matter which in practice gives a great deal of difficulty. It is a matter in which there is very frequently a severe conflict of testimony and one on which district justices may take different views on what constitutes attempting to drive.
I know there have been a number of interpretations of this, but I would like to suggest to the Minister that it would be desirable to insert in this Bill what the Legislature considers should amount to an attempt to drive. This applies, I suggest, with greater force when we come to deal with the offence of attempting to drive a car while drunk because in that case a prison penalty applies. There have been a number of cases where evidence is given by a member of the Garda or a person who is a member of the public who witnessed an alleged offence of a person entering a motor car, and very frequently conflict arises as to whether the ignition key was inserted in the car. The conflict may arise as to whether the ignition was turned on, and different views may be held as to whether the offence is committed when the ignition key is put in the ignition switch without the ignition being turned on.
In view of the seriousness of offences, particularly in the next section to the one with which we are dealing, we should try to define what is meant by attempting to drive. I would suggest that it should be indicated in this section that no person should be convicted of the offence of attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle unless the court is satisfied that the mechanism of the engine had been turned on or that the motor car had been moved for a certain distance, perhaps more than its own length. I know of cases in which evidence has been given that a car moved three feet and there was quite clearly evidence that the person in charge of the car had not even the keys at that time. Conflicts of that sort might arise and are going to continue until some clear-cut definition of attempting to drive is inserted in the Bill. I do not think it would be a difficult matter to lay down what is meant by attempting to drive, and an attempt should be made to reach such a definition.
Subsection 1 of Section 48 says that "a person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place when he is to his knowledge suffering from any disease or physical or mental disability which would be likely to cause the driving of the vehicle by him in a public place to be a source of danger to the public." The words "to his knowledge" appear to me as likely to result in quite a lot of subsequent litigation, because if an offence is alleged against a citizen under this section it appears that the prosecution will, first of all, have to determine in some way that the individual was quite well aware of his own physical or mental disability. This appears to me to throw a great burden on the courts, because it is the type of thing which would give the legal profession a Roman holiday for many months. How does one know to one own's knowledge whether one is fit or unfit to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle? One may suspect, but unless one obtains a certificate from one's own or some other medical practitioner it is an assumption.
Is there a danger in this section that in order to deal with the confusion that it appears to me may be created by the wording, the Minister may at a later stage bring out regulations requiring everyone who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle to produce a certificate of fitness, because the offence is not driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place which is likely to be a source of danger to the public, but driving or attempting to drive when he is to his knowledge suffering from any disease or physical or mental disability? It appears that the problem arising from any prosecution under this will not be a prosecution for driving the vehicle, but the immediate responsibility will be to show beyond doubt that the person concerned was actually and definitely aware that he had this disability. I am making the comment at this stage because I would like to have the Minister's views as to whether or not the form of words in this section would in fact create a situation which would be very confusing and would almost ensure never-ending litigation in an endeavour to prosecute anyone under this subsection.
So far as Deputy Costello's remarks are concerned in regard to defining what attempting to drive really means, he seems to think it would be a simple matter. I must say that I do not at all regard it as a simple matter, nor do I think it would be possible without creating a very difficult, confusing situation to define this "attempting to drive" which would be applied to all cases that may arise, when he himself has said to the House that the courts in their determination of matters such as this at present and in the past have had various views and not always the same view. If the courts themselves found it so difficult in specific cases heard before them with witnesses giving evidence on oath, to find a common definition or what would appear to be a common approach to this matter of attempting to drive, that is fairly good proof, if any were needed, that it is indeed an almost impossible task to define what attempting to drive means and to have it applied in a general way to every person and in all circumstances that may arise in any law cases in the years that lie ahead. It is better left to the courts in the individual cases to interpret and to find for themselves in each case that may arise just what is the definition that applies in that particular set of circumstances rather than to try to generalise in a matter which is very difficult.
I would say in all sincerity to Deputy Costello that if he feels he has a way in which this could be done simply or in a manner that will be an improvement on what we propose to leave at the moment I would be very glad to have it, and we could consider inserting it at a later stage in the Bill. As I say, if he has, in thinking it over further, some form under which this could be done I would certainly give it every consideration at a later stage.
In so far as Deputy Larkin's point is concerned on this matter of a person driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle when he is to his knowledge unfit or suffering from any disease or physical or mental disability which would be likely to cause the driving of the vehicle by him in a public place to be a source of danger to the public, if I understand the Deputy rightly he takes the view that the whole decision of a court must be really to find out whether the person was of the knowledge that he suffered from such physical or mental incapacity as would render him a danger to the public when driving. That is not so. What we are saying is if a person is incapacitated and if it transpires later that he attempted to drive knowing he was in that physical or mental condition, that in itself would be an offence. If it were a question of a mental condition, naturally that would not be a matter to be determined by the courts. Such a person would not, I take it, be held responsible for his actions. A court penalty would not be the answer there. The treatment would be somewhat different.
As far as the matter raised by Deputy Larkin is concerned, I cannot see that arising at all. Take, for example, a person who knew he was suffering severely from epilepsy. If that person proceeded to drive or attempted to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place, he would without doubt be committing an offence under Section 48. Knowingly, he took the risk of possibly doing injury to himself and to others. It is in that context that this section is framed rather than the context of having to prove in court whether a person was fit to drive or not.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 59a:
Before section 49 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug to such an extent as to impair his control of the vehicle.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and the Court shall make an order disqualifying such person from holding a driving licence for a period of not less than three months."
I put down this amendment as a result of a court case. I am not pressing the Minister to accept it word for word. As the Bill stands, two things must be proved. First, that the man was drunk; and, second, that he was incapable. I have seen the case of a man who was proved to be under the influence of drink but who could not be proved incapable of driving. What I should like to get into this section is that the degree of drunkenness should determine whether a person had proper control. I hold that you should bring out the point that the influence of drink was such that the man was incapable. I merely put that to the Minister in the hope of stopping any loopholes in the Bill.
I should like to support this amendment. As Deputy Coogan pointed out, Section 49 of the Bill, which is very much the same as the provision in the 1933 Act, requires that before a person can be convicted, the court should be satisfied he was incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. It may very well be that there is a distinction, such as Deputy Coogan has pointed out in moving his amendment, and that a person can be culpable in that he has allowed his control of the vehicle to be impaired, while, at the same time, it is not possible for the court to find he is incapable of proper control. In other words, you may have a situation where a court is bound to say that a person has been influenced by drink or drug taking but is capable of exercising proper control, whether or not he did in fact exercise proper control on the occasion in question.
If Deputy Coogan's amendment is accepted, or some Government amendment to cover it, it would be open to the court to decide that a person has taken drink or drugs to such an extent that it has impaired his capacity to exercise ordinary normal reasonable control. It would be well worth the Minister's while to consider the points involved in this. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment as drafted. I would ask him to consider it between now and Report Stage.
This proposal would, I think, bring about a situation in which its application by the courts would mean, in effect, that if you drink anything, you drive nothing; in other words, we would need to have prohibition, and I do not think we are going to have that. The phraseology in the latter part of subsection (1) is "...under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug to such an extent as to impair his control of the vehicle." I believe it is commonly held that very little liquor is required to bring about a slowing of the reflexes. If that is so—that a small amount of liquor slows the reflexes to some degree—then, if we were to implement this amendment, the consumption of any alcohol at all or any evidence of its having been consumed could be used as proof that a person's driving ability had been impaired. You could have a driver second to none in his handling of a car and you could have the very opposite—the driver who will never make a good driver, who is awkward and cannot do anything about it. I certainly would much prefer to be in the vehicle with the really good driver who had a small quantity of alcohol taken rather than in the vehicle with the bad driver who had taken no alcohol. I think that would be the choice of most people. The very good driver could still be infinitely better than the poor driver, even though the control of the very good driver was somewhat impaired. Would it be right then that this driver, who was a better driver than the fellow who had not taken a few bottles, should be prosecuted?
If the Minister follows that out it is quite possible that a drunk in charge of a car would be a better driver than some people we know.
I am giving this merely as an extreme case. I do not think this would be acceptable to the House in its extreme form. It is somewhat similar to what is in the British law at the moment but even they do not use the same words. In fact, they say: "impair the proper control of the vehicle", whereas here we say "so as to impair his control of the vehicle", so that no matter how good his control might be at a given time, after he had any alcohol, it could be said his control was impaired, below his best, no matter how good that best was, but he could still be more than capable in comparison with the majority of drivers.
Let us look at the section as it is. I feel it is sufficiently sound to cover the matters Deputy Coogan has in mind when he suggests this amendment. I take it the idea is that the amendment would be written in, in addition to the provisions already in the section. These provisions are pretty solid provisions that will——
Still leave the loophole.
They will deal effectively, I think, with the question of drink or drugs taken to the point where the driver is incapable of proper control.
Two things must be proved: that a man is drunk and that he is incapable. I have seen a case where a man was proved to be drunk but could not be proved to be incapable. Take the man who has just had his first drink. I suppose if I took "a half one"—I never touched it in my life—I would be no addition to the roads. Still I should only have had "a half one" while the hardened drinker might have had half a dozen. You must have a question of the degree of drunkenness on which you stand or fall.
The Minister suggested that there were two types of bad driver, the one bad because he was mechanically inept or incompetent for one reason or another, but sober and the bad driver who is a first-class driver but who has drink taken. He proposes to get rid of the first type of bad driver, the one who is mechanically inept, by means of driving tests. Would it not be logical to accept an amendment of the type suggested by Deputy Coogan to get rid of the other type of bad driver ?
I am afraid Deputy Dr. Browne has misunderstood what I meant. It may be he thought that I was visualising these two types of drivers and that by tests we were going to put the sober, bad driver off the road, while the other fellow could continue to drive and have a jorum at the same time. What I am trying to ensure is that, even with the tests, the sober but poor driver who will handle the vehicle with care will still be there. I am not saying that he will be put off the road. He will be entitled to be there. The other is a very good, natural driver. There are such people who are well able to handle a machine just as there are those who, try as they may, will never become really good drivers.
Those are the two types I was using for the purposes of comparison and I said that the really good driver who had possibly a bottle of stout taken— which would still be intoxicating liquor in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of this amendment; the bottle of stout could in fact be held to impair that person's control of the vehicle—would be my choice for my own safety if I were going a journey rather than the poor driver who will have passed the test but is still a poor driver. I should prefer to have the naturally good driver with the bottle of stout taken than the bad driver who is sober. I do not want it to be understood that I would prefer to have the good driver drunk than the bad driver sober. That is not the comparison but Deputy Dr. Browne seems to think I implied that.
Deputy Coogan has made the point that a driver can be said to be drunk and, at the same time, other than incapable. The question of being drunk does not really arise; if he can be proved to be incapable, we need not worry about the other part. This section deals with the question of his incapability, his being incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. That is the operative part of the section and that is the one which is of significance.
If the Minister is prepared to re-word the section to get in what I want and leave no loophole through which the drunken driver can get away with it—and they have got away with it, and will get away with it——
I am quite willing to have another look at it. Whether we take a drink or not, I am sure everybody in the House is just as concerned as I am to try to cure that situation and anything that will help to cure it by way of amendment will be welcomed by all of us. I shall have this matter further examined to see if, in fact, the fears expressed by Deputy Coogan and which he hopes to overcome by this amendment, are really justified or not.
His last remark was that there will be a loophole and that drunken drivers will still be able to get off on occasions. I think it can be said of any law no matter by whom it may be designed at some stage or other somebody who should not get off does get off. Even if we were to write in Deputy Coogan's amendment, together with what is in the Bill, and everything that could be put in I feel the Deputy would be able to come back in five or ten years and say: "There is one fellow who should have been caught and who got off." That will still arise occasionally but we should not worry unduly about something that happens on occasion. However, I shall undertake to examine the section and try to improve it.
I support the point of view of Deputy Coogan and I should like the Minister to look into this question of capability. There may be thousands of people in this country today who would be too drunk to walk but who would be capable of handling the controls of a motor car. There is nothing in handling these controls at present. Many years ago when it was difficult to handle even the gears, it might have been another story, but they are so simple now that anybody can sit there and go through the motion of operating the controls. It is not the control of the car that in fact may create the danger to the public or put the lives of innocent citizens in danger; it is a person who is quite capable of using his hands for the purpose of steering the car, changing the gears, and going through the other necessary movements, who is so completely befuddled and so careless because of drink he has taken that the car is not just a car in the same sense as it is when being driven by a bad driver, who may be all the more careful because of that and is also sober.
It can be a weapon of absolute destruction in the hands of somebody who can be described as being intoxicated, as being drunk, and yet you would find it very difficult to say such a person was incapable of exercising control of the car. The mechanical operation of the controls of the ordinary motor car can be done almost in one's sleep and certainly the experienced driver can operate the controls up to a very serious stage of drink. That does not mean that he would be any less dangerous to the ordinary public.
What the Deputy has in mind is to try to strengthen the section so as to protect the ordinary people on the road from a driver who has taken sufficient drink to impair his judgment to such an extent that he may drive up on the pavement. He still has control of the car if he can drive up on the pavement. He can drive into another car and can still control his own car and possibly drive away afterwards. We read now and again of hit and run cases.
What the Deputy is concerned about is to strengthen the section so as to ensure that there will be better control of these people. In supporting the Deputy in this matter I would ask the Minister to re-examine the question of being incapable of driving a car and the exact meaning of those words for the purposes of the section.
A person who has never driven a car is incapable of driving. He does not know the gears. He does not know how to start the car. He learns after a while. Like swimming, it becomes almost second nature. That does not mean that he is fit, from the point of view of the general public, to drive a car. There are many thousands of people who take a bottle of stout and because they are good drivers can adjust themselves to their own condition.
Is the Deputy on the line that anybody who takes any drink should not drive even after a specified number of hours?
I am not on that.
It seems as if that is what the Deputy is leading to. If that is the point we will deal with it.
No, I am not on that point. I am on the point that there is some difference between the question of being intoxicated and the question of being incapable. The exact meaning of "incapable" for this purpose is very important from the point of view of the general public. In Deputy Coogan's mind—and I follow him in this—the term "incapable" appears to be too loose and to give almost no protection to the public whereas the term which he uses—and he is not adamant that that exact term should be used—would suggest that the question as to whether the ability of the driver is seriously impaired should be taken into account. The Minister has undertaken to look into it and I would urge him to have regard to this aspect of the matter.
It is the degree of drunkenness, not the degree of incapability, that is the deciding factor.
Which things are we trying to sort out? Is it to make the road more safe by not having improperly driven vehicles on it? Is not that really what we are trying to do? We are not really dealing with the liquor laws at the moment. Let us remember that.
It seems to me to be very much the same if you look at it from the point of view of the degree of incapability. It is from that point of view that the Minister wants to look at it.
That is right, yes. If we are to take a side on it, let us take it that way.
It seems to me that the basic weakness of this section and even of Deputy Coogan's amendment is that it eventually comes down to a matter of opinion as to whether there is a sufficient degree of incapability. This matter was raised on Second Reading. I did not intervene at that stage. I wanted to see, first, what the Minister's view was. I gathered from his Second Reading speech that he felt that the scientific methods so far discovered for ascertaining degrees of incapability were not sufficiently accurate to command his support. I am afraid that if we continue to wait for the perfect solution of this problem we shall not get anywhere.
There are a number of methods used on the Continent, for instance. There is analysis of the breath. I think that is known as the breathaliser. There is also a blood test. I quite appreciate that, if we fix an arbitrary percentage of alcohol either in the breath or in the blood, we may be doing a certain amount of injustice to the hard drinker who is able to absorb a fairly heavy amount of alcohol without showing undue adverse results. In the interests of the general public we should try to get some degree of certainty into this whole matter. The courts generally are slow to convict of drunken driving unless the driver has been proved to be not only intoxicated but virtually footless because they feel that the offence is such a serious one that they must be absolutely convinced that it has been committed before recording a conviction, which must be regarded as very serious.
Will the Deputy agree that, if that is so, it is likely to be more so now when imprisonment is mandatory?
I certainly would agree with Deputy O'Higgins there and I am afraid that that will have precisely the wrong effect. I quite agree there. The only way is to decide on one of the scientific tests which have already been tried out with at least some measure of success in other countries.
There is also the danger of an unfair and unjust conviction for being drunk in charge of a car where a small amount of alcohol has been consumed and where as a result of shock the symptoms of intoxication may be displayed. I quite appreciate that the Minister may not be absolutely satisfied with an analysis of the breath or a blood test for the percentage of alcohol. I do not know sufficient of science to know which of these is the better or whether either of them is an accurate test but certainly in the Scandinavian countries where they have progressed very far in the effort to stamp out drunken driving they have erred in the right way, if they have erred at all.
I understand that in premises which sell intoxicating liquor customers may be shown a chart indicating precisely how much alcohol one may take before driving and the time lag that there should be after drinking, say, a pint of beer before entering your car. That, I think, is all to the good even if it means that some people, who may be able to carry their drinking, will, in fact, be restrained from doing so. I think that will be a very small injustice.
It is far better to err on that side rather than on the side of allowing a person who is intoxicated to carry on driving simply because it is almost impossible to prove his degree of incapability. I hope the Minister will consider as a matter of urgency the adoption of some scientific tests whereby incapability can be ascertained even though the determination of the percentage of alcohol in the blood may be arbitrary to a certain degree. I hope he will do that. If he does, it will strengthen the hand of the courts because they will know that it is simply a matter of recording the analysis. If the analysis shows that the alcohol content was over the arbitrarily selected percentage, a conviction must result. That will completely wipe out any chance that a person suffering from shock would be convicted for drunken driving. It would also mean that the court will have no difficulty in deciding whether the law has been broken or not.
Perhaps the Minister might meet the matter if he used the formula used in lines 29 and 30 of Section 48 to replace the lines to which Deputy Coogan has objected, that is, "driving a mechanically propelled vehicle while under the influence of drink which would be likely to cause the driving of the vehicle by him in a public place to be a source of danger to the public." Why should there be a difference?
I agree that one of the difficulties in applying the section as drafted and the proposed amendment put down by Deputy Coogan is the difficulty of the district justice, or the jury, as the case may be, in arriving at a conclusion as to the degree of intoxication to which the accused had come at the time he was driving the vehicle.
In this regard, I should like to refer to a practice that has developed in the courts and which recently was the subject of judicial pronouncement by the Supreme Court, namely, the practice by which members of the Garda give it as their opinion that the accused was unfit to drive by reason of the consumption of intoxicating liquor. In nearly all cases where a person is accused of an offence under Section 30 of the existing code there will be one, two or more Gardaí who will give evidence that in their opinion the accused person was unfit to drive.
Recently, the Supreme Court stated that this was a proper thing under the existing legislation for members of the Garda to do. I should like to see that position changed or at any rate modified because I am quite satisfied it can possibly lead to injustice. I am not suggesting for a moment that Gardaí are deliberately perjuring themselves in these prosecutions but it does not infrequently happen that Gardaí may, in fact, reach a perfectly bona fide conclusion that a person is unfit to drive— a conclusion which is, in fact, not warranted by the facts of the situation.
It is by no means unusual for a number of members of the Garda to give their opinion that a man is unfit to drive and for a doctor who has examined the accused person immediately afterwards or some short time afterwards to give his opinion that the man is fit to drive. The Garda doctor has carried out tests and has arrived at what is in many cases a fair estimation of the accused person's capability. The Gardaí who have bona fide given their views and their opinion have, in fact, arrived at a wrong conclusion and very frequently they arrive at a conclusion from a very short observation of the accused person.
I think the Minister should consider whether the law should be amended so as to provide at any rate certain modifications of the right of members of the Garda to give their opinion as to the man's capabilities. It is a matter for the justice or the jury to decide. It is not a matter upon which the ordinary unqualified person is to give an opinion. Doctors, of course, are specially qualified. When they have examined the person they are specially qualified to give an opinion but, unless in special circumstances it can be shown that a Garda is particularly qualified either because of a long observation or because of very special training, I do not think a member of the Garda should be entitled to give his opinion. I would ask the Minister to consider this. It is an important branch of the law. It is an important matter in these prosecutions which would arise either under the proposed section or in the sections which we shall be dealing with later on.
Deputy Costello raised a point in regard to the Garda being allowed to express their opinion for the prosecution in a court case related to a charge of drunken driving or attempting to drive. He seemed to think that there is something wrong about that. I wonder is there anything really wrong with anybody, whether a Garda or a member of the public who was actually on the spot, met the driver or saw him five or ten minutes afterwards, expressing his opinion in court? To the judge or the jury, as the case may be, the worth or weight of that opinion will, I have no doubt, be properly evaluated whether or not the Garda or ordinary member of the public was particularly qualified to give the opinion. The more highly qualified he is, the more weight will that opinion carry to the judge or jury. On the other hand, even though there may be no particular qualification, the ract is that the Garda or member of the public in expressing his opinion will help the courts to determine whether or not the person is guilty of a particular offence. That cannot be wiped out merely on the basis that in a court case which was decided not so long ago a doctor said one thing which did not seem to balance out what was given in evidence by the Garda. That might be a case in which it was a considerable time before the doctor was found——
No.
——and, in fact, it was not really the same person whom he examined in so far as consumption of alcohol was concerned, because it was a couple of hours later.
No, that was not the case I had in mind.
May I ask the Minister to consider the amendment again?
I shall consider it before the next Stage.
It would be more realistic to have the fine.
We will have a look at it.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.