On behalf of Deputy M.J. O'Higgins, I move amendment No. 71 (a):
In subsection (1), line 48, to delete "mechanically propelled".
Road Traffic Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 54.
The intention of the Deputy who put down this amendment would seem to be to include, for instance, pedal cycles, by excluding the words "mechanically propelled" as they appear at line 48 of subsection (1) of this section. While there is no intention that the vehicles which would come under the definition of pedal cycles should be ignored in the general law that we would enact here, at the same time to take these words out would complicate matters to this degree. At the outset, it would put the defective cycle in the same category as a dangerously defective mechanically propelled vehicle or motor vehicle. The situation then is that, while these nonmechanically propelled vehicles are not included in this section, they can and will be included under Section 11 and the common penalties of up to £20 maximum fine will apply to them. I do not recommend to the House their being brought in under Section 54. I think they cannot be regarded as being in the same category as a dangerously defective mechanically propelled vehicle.
While I can see the Minister's point on part of this, surely there should be some provision somewhere to ensure that a person cannot, for example, ride a bicycle without a screed of a brake on it? He is certainly just as liable as anybody else to cause a serious accident. If it is not in Section 54, where exactly is it?
The regulations as to construction, equipment and use under Section 11, subject to the common penalty applying to offences so prescribed.
"Construction", yes but what about use?
Equipment and use.
Under Section 11, paragraph (a) refers to the construction of vehicles; paragraph (b) refers to vehicle equipment and paragraph (c) refers to the use and misuse of vehicles. Surely that does not enable the Minister to cope with a defective bicycle in the same way as Section 54 enables him to cope with a defective motor car? Surely the bicycle in relation to Section 11 is in a different position? If the Minister's analogy were complete, why should there be any necessity for Section 54 at all?
The penalties are heavier.
It is purely a matter of the penalty?
A number of matters are brought in under Section 11 which are somewhat of a kind in their seriousness. In regard to the Deputy's mention of bicycles in connection with subsection (2) of Section 11, paragraph (d) is the more appropriate one by which we will be guided.
Is the Minister quite clear that under paragraph (d) he can make it an offence to drive or ride—I do not know which you do— a bicycle that is mechanically defective?
My advice is quite satisfactory on that.
If the words mechanically propelled" are taken out, would vehicle then include a horse-drawn vehicle?
Practically everything.
Where does the horse-drawn vehicle come in under Section 11?
Perhaps the Minister would approach the matter from this point of view? Does it weaken his Bill in any way to take the words "mechanically propelled" out of Section 54? This seems to me to be the position. If you leave in the words "mechanically propelled" in Section 54, you are definitely imposing a quite definite limitation on the operation of the section, whereas if you take them out they still cover mechanically propelled vehicles but they will also cover other vehicles which may from time to time require to be dealt with under the provisions of Section 54. I would suggest to the Minister that the amendment is certainly designed to strengthen the provisions of the Bill. It certainly does not weaken them. If the Minister would approach it from that point of view, he might find it very desirable to accept this amendment.
As far as my mind is concerned on this, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other whether it is in or not in this amendment, as the Deputy describes it. I do not think it is necessary. We can cover it fully and adequately under Section 11. On the other hand, if the Deputies feel they want it, I do not object. I have a completely open mind on the matter. If we can have power in Section 11 and exercise it, to put it in is unnecessary. In addition, it will also create the situation—although this is not an argument—where we will have to amend the Second Schedule and subsection (2) of the Section. Certain other consequential changes will have to be made as to penalties. Since we can deal with the matter under Section 11, I am inclined to leave it as it stands. If the House wishes to bring it in, I am not terribly strong-minded about it.
There is one point about the matter. If the words "mechanically propelled" are taken out of the subsection, then the driver, the user of any vehicle will be guilty of an offence under subsection (2) but only the owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle can be guilty of an offence under Section 11. Why should the owner of a defective horse-drawn vehicle be put in a better position than the owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle if the drivers are equally guilty? I think this matter would need some further examination.
I do not think that a lot of danger can arise. Deputy Sheldon can put down an amendment.
The Minister tells us that under Section 11 he can deal with the position of a cyclist who rides machines which are dangerous. I would represent to the Minister that there ought not to be any analogy between the position of a person riding a bicycle and a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle for this reason. Generally speaking, the cyclist is the greater danger to himself or herself, whereas the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle is a danger to the public at large. Cyclists may be and frequently are held up to be a source of danger and sometimes a source of inconvenience but their danger is dangerous to themselves.
There is no comparison whatever between a bicycle with defective brakes and a motor vehicle with defective brakes. A strong case can be made, where an offence is committed and the question of punishment arises, for a wide distinction between the owner of a bicycle, who may have it on the hire purchase merely to get to and from work, and the owner of a motor vehicle.
Under this section, in respect of a second or any subsequent offence, a consequential disqualification order may be imposed. To enforce such an order in respect of a cyclist or horse-drawn vehicle would be rather difficult. For that reason, the powers the Minister has in the earlier section might be the better way of dealing with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 72 not moved.
Section 54 agreed to.
SECTION 55.
Amendment No. 73 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 55 stand part of the Bill."
I think it is worth the Minister's while to emphasise that a new offence is being created by virtue of this section. It is the offence of dangerous parking. Everyone will agree it is wise that this section should appear in the Bill, and the Minister should endeavour to give the greatest possible publicity to the fact that when this Bill has been passed, it will be an offence, carrying fairly heavy penalties and, in certain circumstances, disqualification, to park a vehicle dangerously.
I have only one point. This is a very long Bill, and if I have missed it, I am very sorry, but I should like to know what is dangerous parking. Is it described anywhere in the Bill? Take parking in relation to a white line in the middle of a road. That is done by members of the community in the city of Dublin, including members of the Garda Síochána, especially in Donnybrook. I understand a white line runs outside the barracks in Donnybrook and it is impossible for the Garda to park their cars outside without breaking it. If there is to be an offence for dangerous driving, there should be some description of it.
We have not been accustomed to prosecutions for dangerous parking. I do not think any offence arises at all, unless obstruction can be proved. Deputy Sheldon talked about the white line. In itself, the white line at the moment has no legal force whatever. He asked a very pertinent question. What is dangerous parking and what is parking at all? Is it merely stopping, or is there any definition of parking as distinct from stopping to let down a load?
Yes, it means "keep or leave stationary, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly."
That is not very clear. The mere fact that you bring a vehicle to a stop and hold it there for even 15 seconds means you are keeping it stationary. Under this Bill, the onus of proving who parked the vehicle is thrown on the owner. As a result of a High Court decision some time ago, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove who actually parked the vehicle. It was not sufficient to prove who came out and drove it off. We should have a more definite definition of parking. It should be related to causing obstruction.
The Minister has issued a directive to local authorities informing them that on our roadways, we should provide for lay-bys for parking purposes. I do not agree with that. These lay-bys may be very useful where there are long stretches of roads, as in Great Britain and America, but here, there is ample room in our towns and villages for the parking of vehicles. It will take away from the business of towns and villages if we create expensive lay-bys to hold five or six vehicles. If the Minister is referring to parking such as that, I would prefer to see some unused space in our towns and villages being availed of for parking purposes in preference to lay-bys on country roads such as they have on the long distance routes from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow. It would be a very bad principle if that is the type of parking the Minister visualises in the section, and I think it is one we should reconsider.
What I should like to see in this section is a provision similar to that in Section 53. What must be cut out as far as possible, whether by means of lay-bys or traffic legislation, is the leaving of vehicles parked unlighted on main roads. There have been very many fatal accidents as a result of people parking vehicles in that manner. If we had provisions such as those in Section 53, we could lay down regulations and laws which would provide punishments in accordance with the seriousness of the offence. In many housing schemes in Dublin, particularly the old ones, no garages were provided at all. If the Minister and any of his officials care to drive around the suburbs of Dublin at night, they will find many unlighted cars parked on the public road and quite often right beside corners in what could be called dangerous positions; but there is nowhere else for these people to park their cars. The two types of offence are quite different: the large unlighted vehicle on what might be called fast highways and the other unlighted vehicles in suburban areas. I should like the Minister to look at it from that point of view.
I should like to add a word to what has been said. I appreciate the difficulty of being adequately explicit in a Bill of this kind. On the other hand, I think uncertainty as to the meaning of the law is a deplorable thing. The Minister has sought to define dangerous parking in subsection (1) of Section 55:
A person shall not park in a public place a vehicle in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the place.
I should be prepared to accept that definition, if the Minister saw fit to go on with it, and add to the section specified circumstances which would be declared by statute to come within the meaning of subsection (1).
I introduced a Bill here earlier in the year and it was rejected on the ground that this Bill was coming forward. That Bill was designed to make it a statutory offence to park a large lorry on a public highway without adequate illumination. Since the Dáil decided not to consider the Bill I submitted, I think another man has been killed by driving smack into the back of one of these lorries. If we had passed that Bill dealing with that specific problem at the time I suggested it, that man might have been alive today, because anybody owning a fleet of these lorries would have known he could not put them on the road again without providing adequate illumination as prescribed by the Minister by regulation or by this House by specific legislative provisions.
The great evil of parking when you are driving in the country is the large lorry parked during the night without adequate rear illumination. I think it should be referred to specifically, but there are other perils with which those of us who drive are only too familiar. These include the man who parks his car on a country road just around the corner. It is very hard to define that and I think probably the Minister is right in saying he cannot define that more explicitly than he has attempted to do in subsection (1). I understand there is a regulation in the city of Dublin—whether it is Dublin Metropolitan Police regulation or a corporation regulation I do not know —which prohibits parking within so many yards of a corner of the street, and I think the Garda are at present enforcing that regulation. That is a reasonable regulation, but, mark you, in that case steps have been taken by bye-laws to define a parking offence. If you park within a certain number of yards of the corner of a street, that is an offence and there is no arguing as to whether it was safe or unsafe to do so.
I think it is eminently desirable, in connection with this legislation, so far as it is possible, for us to define offences with certainty. We are only too conscious in respect of many matters to which this Bill will apply that a degree of certainty is inaccessible to us but there will be certainties. For instance, I greatly shocked Deputy Murphy by saying I would be in favour of legislation that would say: "If you drive, you must not drink and if you drink, you must not drive."
The Deputy did not vote for that. He was absent when the division was taken.
I did not agree entirely with the specific amendment that was put down and I did not want to vote for that but I want to reaffirm, in case Deputy Murphy thinks I wish to mend my hand on that, that I should like to arrive at certainty in regard to the matter I have just mentioned, parking dangerously.
I recognise the hardship Deputy Murphy mentions that when you come to a rigid definition, it means that you possibly exclude certain things over and above the minimum necessary for absolute safety. I think there is many a street corner where there is no serious danger in parking within so many yards of the corner and yet there are so many street corners where it is dangerous to do so that I think it is right and fair to say: "You may not park within so many yards of any corner because now you know if you do that anywhere, there will be no argument as to whether it was safe or unsafe to do it because it is an offence—so, do it nowhere."
I think you ought to say that if you park a lorry without illumination on a road, there is no use in arguing that it is an unfrequented road or that there is any other kind of justification. The answer is that it is an offence—nobody must do it—and even if, in very special circumstances, you could argue that it was safe to do it, we have made it a statutory offence so that nobody will do it anywhere and anybody who does it anywhere will be under no illusion that he is breaking the law.
To sum up, I think the Minister is in the difficulty that it is very hard to define every instance of dangerous parking and that he has to rely on some case of definition such as is contained in subsection (1) but I do not think he should stop there, because subsection (1) is going to leave a wide area of uncertainty in regard to certain matters which I believe we are all agreed should be stopped. I suggest that between now and Report Stage a limited number of specific cases of dangerous parking should be defined and added to that general section.
The situation then would be that there would be certain statutory parking offences clearly defined and, in addition, it would be open to the Garda to charge a man with having parked a vehicle in a way which did not come within any of the statutory definitions of dangerous parking but which was likely to cause danger to other persons using the place. In these border-line cases, the defendant would be free to appear before the district justice and to argue that it was not dangerous. I believe that if the Minister did consider that, he would come as near to defining dangerous parking as it is practicable to do in a Bill of this kind.
This subsection (1) is vaguely worded and I should like to know the Minister's definition of "a public place," as set out in this section. The section, as it stands, states:
(1) A person shall not park in a public place a vehicle in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the place.
That, to my mind, is very vague. We have nothing to help us as to what the Minister means by public place——
Section 3 of the Bill.
We all agree that vehicles parked on the side of a public road should be well lighted, but what I have in mind are towns and villages where it is the usual custom to park unlighted vehicles overnight. As Deputy Lemass pointed out, some of these people have no alternative, no accommodation, and cannot be expected to leave lights on their vehicles overnight. Does a small village come within the definition of "a public place?" The Minister should answer that and we must bear in mind that so far as parking vehicles unlighted at night in public streets is concerned, few, if any, accidents have been caused by such custom because everyone travelling through built-up areas at night is aware of this likelihood and consequently drives carefully. I should like to have the Minister's view on what is the definition of "a public place" in so far as it relates to subsection (1) of Section 55. Will it be in order, if this section is passed, to continue this old-established custom of parking vehicles on the side of the streets in towns and villages as heretofore?
I should like to agree wholeheartedly with Deputy Dillon. It is too much a matter of opinion in subsection (1) and it does require that certain specific offences should be named in the section. The Minister should have a look at it between now and the Report Stage. Deputy Murphy has a point in regard to built-up areas, particularly areas where there is street lighting. It is obvious that it is not as dangerous to have an unlighted vehicle parked at night in such places as it is on the country roads. There is no doubt that there is this appalling danger of unlighted lorries parked on highways causing accidents. It is not only on fast highways accidents occur either and I should not like it to be inferred that this arises only where traffic is assumed to be travelling at high speed. It can occur on any road and it can occur from more than a parked lorry. It can occur from a parked car, if the road is a narrow one. Admittedly on a wide road a parked car is probably not a serious danger.
As Deputy Dillon said, I do not think we can just leave it on the assumption that the fellow who parked the car thought it was all right. We should make it an offence except in a built-up area. No matter what "public place" may be, I should make an exception where there is street lighting in built-up areas because there is the difficulty that there are areas where there are no other places to park in villages and towns which were built before cars became a problem. In the built-up area, the danger obviously is not so great. I should not like to see it made an offence equally with the offence of parking on an unlighted road, be it highway or by-way.
With regard to prohibiting parking on all corners, the obvious difficulty arises as to what is a corner. That is reasonably simple in a city or town where streets intersect at reasonably sharp angles but it raises a nice point as to what is a corner and what is a bend along a road. The solution is to give white lines legal force and to see that any corner where danger may arise has a white line and prohibit parking where there is a white line.
Hear, hear.
If that were enforced a great deal of danger could be obviated. We have got white lines but the odd thing is that they have not got legal force. They have got legal force in Northern Ireland and the people seem to respect them or not respect them in both places. The number of motorists who ignore white lines, which are there for their own safety, is terrifying and shows a degree of carelessness which in some cases is bound to lead to disastrous results. I do not see much point in having white lines unless they are given legal force. In this regard it would be a very useful way of marking roads not only on bends but on roads that are too narrow to cater for parking. Put a white line there and prevent parking.
I agree with what has been said about the definition or lack of definition of parking. The definition section does define parking but that in itself is inadequate. A "public place" as has been stated, has also been defined. What some of us have missed in this debate is the penalty people may incur if they park incorrectly. That is a very good reason why there should be a better definition of parking. There are about six or seven types of parking. The first might not be dangerous but the sixth might be very very dangerous and might lead to a loss of life. If I park my car some five feet from a corner in the City of Dublin, there is not much chance that anybody will be hurt.
Again, under the definition of parking if I park my car, or if a lorry is parked on a fast public highway on a slight bend it certainly could be dangerous. But according to this section if I double-park for the purpose of delivering a parcel or to make an enquiry in the City of Dublin I may find myself liable to a fine of £20 and I may be put in jail. If I do it a second time, I am liable to a fine not exceeding £50 and I may be, as the section puts it, at the discretion of the courts, liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months. Therefore we do not distinguish between what is regarded as very dangerous parking and what is regarded as careless parking.
I do not see why we cannot subdivide parking into two sections. Parking can come under five, six or perhaps seven different types of heading and we should lay down in this section, or in another section, what the different types of parking are and the different fines and terms of imprisonment that may be imposed. With some of the district justices whom we have we may, for a simple parking offence, receive a £50 fine and be thrown into jail for a couple of months. Some of our justices would do that.
The Deputies who have spoken have without exception referred, in some way or other, to the fact that this is dealing with a specific offence. That is just the whole point. This section is a special new section to deal with a specific problem. The lack of definition has been criticised and seems to stick out in the discussion but we should realise that Section 55 and the creation of this special offence is superimposed on the bye-laws which may be made under Part VIII of this Bill. These bye-laws will deal with the normal parking problems such as were instanced by Deputy Corish, the normal parking problems in towns or cities.
In addition to that, the stopping of vehicles on rural roads outside towns and cities will also be dealt with by regulation under Part VIII. Over and above that, Section 55 deals with this rather special problem which is difficult to define of the dangerous parking about which we have heard so much, which we all deplore and which we realise in several ways has caused many deaths and which will, if it goes on as it has in the past, cause a considerable number more. Dangerous parking or parking in circumstances likely to cause danger, is a matter which because of the difficulty of its definition, and because of the fact that the normal parking problem will be dealt with by regulation under another part of the Bill, and dealt with separately so far as penalties are concerned should be dealt with in the courts. We felt that the proper place for this matter to be defined in each individual case is in the courts when the circumstances and all the facts have been put in evidence.
Any attempt to legislate in a definitive way would, I think, defeat entirely the whole purpose of the section, which is all-embracing, so that no escape clause can be invoked and if there is parking in dangerous places which is liable to cause loss of life, it just cannot be got away with. That is the real significance of the section. It is a special section superimposed on the normal parking regulations made under the other parts of the Bill, and superimposed on the requirements of the regulations as to the lighting and stopping of vehicles on rural roads and in special circumstances which, as I say, will come to be decided by the courts. The penalties are to be heavy and are intended to wipe out this very dangerous parking practice which has grown up throughout the country. Because of those heavy penalties and the consequences that may follow successful prosecutions and convictions under Section 55, I feel the circumstances of the individual cases should be brought before the court when a conviction is being sought.
The lack of definition—definition is difficult and, in fact, impossible without weakening the section or leaving loopholes—does not weaken the section or what follows from it. I want the House to be quite clear on that. If I felt for a moment that anything that is said in or omitted from the section would weaken what is the intention of the House or my intention, I would take steps to remedy that position. I am most definitely and very strongly of the opinion that this dangerous parking must cease. The penalties must be such that people will have consideration for other road users. It is for that reason that this special section is in the Bill superimposed, as it is, on the general ordinary parking and lighting regulations which will be made under Part VIII of the Bill. There is no question whatsoever that there is any weakening of the section.
Despite what Deputy Corish has said, that in some odd cases the district justice may give what may appear to be an unusual decision, nevertheless, if it is against the defendant and if he and his legal advisers are strongly of the opinion that he has had a raw deal, the case will not rest on the verdict of that district justice. I would not even go so far as to agree that such a case will arise and be dealt with in such a manner by a district justice in any part of the country. If it should happen, it is open to the defendant to appeal to another judge in another court. That may be a hardship, but, on the other hand, the parking of vehicles in such a manner as is likely to constitute danger to other road users is a very serious matter and it is one with which we must deal strenuously. Possibly, in trying to deal with it strenuously and trying to make an impression on the public about this matter, it may well be that some of us in using the roads and improperly parking may have to bear the brunt of the law. If we do, it is a necessary part of the cleaning up of this dangerous situation which has developed and one which must stop if we are to regard ourselves as civilised.
Deputy O'Donnell took exception to a circular issued recently by my Department dealing with lay-bys. I want to make the position quite clear to the House. Deputy O'Donnell seemed to imply that the encouragement of parking by the provision of lay-bys is a retrograde step and one which will do a disservice to our towns and villages, the implication being that, if there were no lay-bys and we enforced no parking, everyone would be shushed into the town to park. What would be the purpose of shushing them into the towns if they did not want to go there? Secondly, not all of the parking which causes danger and obstruction on the rural roads is the type of parking that would be done in cities, towns, or villages. This House is not so innocent as to think that.
We realise that, if we are to impose these laws on the road using public, if we are to insist that vehicles, whether large or small, shall not be left parked on the public highway in circumstances likely to constitute a danger, we must in fairness try to provide some form of parking facilities in so far as that is within our power. Lay-bys are one of the answers to that problem. The second is that the shoulders of the roads, that is, the off roads or the ditches, should be rolled into hard spaces or, alternatively, as has been suggested, actual lay-bys should be provided in specific places.
The circular merely notifies local authorities that this Bill, when passed, will enable Road Fund moneys to be used for rolling hard shoulders on the roadsides and providing lay-bys. The cost of such works can be brought in as a charge on the Road Fund. That is what the circular conveys to local authorities. I do not think Deputy O'Donnell's view on the matter is at all sound. I believe members of the House generally will appreciate that this circular and the provision in it is only what we should give to local authorities if we ask them to provide facilities for parking vehicles off the actual roadway. Otherwise, we would have penalties inflicted in cases in which there were no facilities available to park a vehicle off the road and the vehicle would have to remain parked in a dangerous place. If it was through no fault of the driver—possibly there might be a breakdown or he might have a flat—and there was no hard shoulder, how could we expect him to drive the broken down vehicle or the vehicle with a flat tyre. It would be far better to provide hard shoulders or lay-bys in as many places as possible to facilitate people who must stop and park for whatever cause.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the fact that a private Bill was introduced by his Party some time ago and that that Bill was not gone ahead with because the measure we are now discussing was on the stocks. He said that it was a pity. I wonder did he really consider what he said in full measure. He said if it had been accepted at that time, at least one death would not have occurred. That is an unfair implication. It would be just as sensible for me to say that, had this Road Traffic Bill been brought in five years ago, one hundred and one deaths would not have occurred.
Or even four years ago.
Exactly. I should like to say to Deputy Dillon and the House that the provisions in the Bill, even if it had been accepted, did not include trailers of any kind and did not include any type of vehicle that was not mechanically-propelled. Therefore, you would have had truck trailers being left for days, as they very often are, detached from the mechanical end of the machine. I have seen them on occasions.
The Bill could have been amended.
The Bill could have been amended. That is exactly what we are doing at the moment. We are amending it. I am making the point that it was ill-conceived to suggest that the Private Members' Bill introduced in the last days before the emergence of the general Bill we are now discussing would have sayed one life and it was ill-advised to make the statement that it would. Further, I hold that that Bill would not have covered what this Bill will cover, namely, the various types of vehicles that can constitute a danger if parked in dangerous circumstances.
Some Deputies questioned the definition of "public place." Deputy M.P. Murphy sought a definition of "public place." The definition appears in Section 3.
But there is no differentiation as between an almost unfrequented country road to which the public have access and a public street in Dublin.
That is so.
Dublin is a city. Surely there should be some difference. The Minister cannot hold that O'Connell Street is equivalent to a small county road to which the public have access, and the definition in the Bill is the only definition given.
If danger is created, whether it be in a relatively unimportant county road or in the middle of the City of Dublin, by parking a vehicle in certain circumstances an offence will be committed. If a danger is created likely to constitute a menace, it does not matter two hoots whether the offence occurs in the heart of the country or in the middle of the city, it is still a danger and must be dealt with as such; the full rigours of the law must apply. I do not suggest that O'Connell Street and a small country road are the same in every respect but, as far as the commission of this type of offence is concerned, carrying with it certain consequences, the, offence must be dealt with in a similar manner irrespective of whether it occurs in Dublin city or in the middle of the country.
If the Deputy accepts that he will see that, while we define all public places in the same definition, it does not follow that the use of these places must be similar in all respects. All I am saying is that if an offence in regard to a danger is created under this section, whether it be on a comparatively unfrequented country road or in the middle of Dublin city, an offence is committed by the settingup of that danger and, in that regard, the offences are identical.
Generally speaking, I agree with the Minister in relation to this section, but there is some validity in the point made by Deputy Corish and the validity is borne out, I think, by some of the Minister's remarks. As I understand the Minister, and as I understand the Bill, Section 55 is a new section specifically creating a new offence of dangerous parking. An ordinary parking offence which may be regarded as a minor offence will still continue to be dealt with as such offences have been dealt with up to the present under by-laws or regulations made by the Commissioner of the Garda. That is an adequate answer, but some of the fears expressed here by Deputy Corish raise an important point. The fact is that different district justices approach the same offence in different ways. There are some district justices who will impose the maximum penalties while others will take a more lenient view. Deputy Corish was exercised in regard to the case in which a prosecution may be brought under Section 55 and, notwithstanding the fact that it appears to be a minor breach only, the defendant will get a jail sentence.
The danger I see is that we are now creating a situation in which the Garda must, first of all, make up their minds whether they are to bring a prosecution for dangerous parking under Section 55 or a prosecution for breach of traffic by-laws under Section 90. Assume they decide to bring a prosecution under Section 55 rather than under Section 90 for a breach of by-laws, the defendant is then in the position that, if he is convicted, he will face the penalties laid down in Section 55. The district justice is in the position that, if he convicts, he must convict the defendant under Section 55, and under no other section. I suggest to the Minister that it might be worthwhile examining this section again with a view to allowing a district justice a certain discreation in the case of a prosecution brought under Section 55. I think he should have a discretion.
If he feels a prosecution should not have been brought under Section 55 because the parking offence was not of a sufficiently serious and dangerous nature as to warrant the penalties which can be imposed under that section, but there was nevertheless a degree of bad parking almost amounting to dangerous parking, he should have a discretion in such circumstances to convict for the lesser offence—for, as Deputy Corish suggested, the offence of careless parking. I realise the Minister cannot be expected to make up his mind on that at the moment but I join with Deputy Corish in urging that the point is worthy of further consideration between now and the Report Stage, and I ask the Minister to give it that further consideration.
I was expecting the Minister to throw some light on what he has in mind so far as parking in public streets is concerned. As I interpret this section, it spells the death knell to street parking at night all over the country. That is a big step for this House to take. I think it is an unwarranted step. The Minister dealt with the undesirability of parking on rural roads. Everyone agrees with him in that. There is no difference of opinion inside this House so far as the parking at night of unlighted vehicles in rural areas is concerned. The point I have in mind—it is one on which I hoped the Minister would throw some light—is in a different category. Is it to become an offence now in every town and village in the country to park a car without lights at night time? We all know that the general custom is to park cars at night and there is no offence committed.
The Garda and others have made no complaints. Will we have the position now, if this section is passed as it stands, that a Garda in one village may implement the section, as it stands, and prosecute any man for parking his car overnight without a light while in the next village a different position may obtain? The Garda in the next village may overlook the offence completely, on the basis that it is a longstanding custom.
We must look at the adverse effect that this will have on business in rural towns and villages. If a person were to come to a rural town or village in the winter months to transact business which may take him a few hours, does it mean that he must have his car lighted in a village where public lighting is available, if he wants to avoid conflict with Section 55? Must he leave his lights on while he is transacting business? If a resident in the area who has no alternative parking for his car, parks it in the street, must he keep the lights on?
How is it that the Minister avoided that question? His remarks centred around what happens on rural roads. As I mentioned earlier—the Minister dealt with this matter to some extent— all the roads are grouped as public places in the definition in Section 3. The section makes no distinction between O'Connell Street, Dublin, and the smallest country road, where circumstances are entirely different. Neither does the section make any distinction between O'Connell Street, Dublin and Schull. At the present time in villages in West Cork and other parts of the country, there are cars parked on either side of the street. They are not a public nuisance. Fortunately, we have not heard of accidents arising out of the parking of unlighted vehicles on public streets in towns and villages because, as I have already mentioned, people are careful. They expect, when driving through a built-up area, to meet cars parked on either side of the street.
Will this section wipe out that longstanding tradition? I want a clear-cut answer from the Minister. He is the person responsible in this house to give such an answer. Is it his intention and the intention of the Department to make that an offence, irrespective of the circumstances, irrespective of the width of the street? If I return to Schull to-night and park my car on the side of the street, if this Bill were law would I be guilty of an offence and would the Minister instruct the Garda Commissioner to send Gardaí to all these car owners and bring them before the courts, a thing that has never happened before? I should like the Minister to address himself to that question.
I must apologise to Deputy Murphy but he will realise that when six Deputies intervene in the debate and cover all aspects of the Bill, it is rather difficult to remember all of them.
I accept that.
That was not in any way avoiding answering the Deputy's question. The Deputy is unduly perturbed about this matter in the sense that he is taking too narrow a view of what seems to be the intention of the sections in the Bill. He has put the question, will this Bill if it becomes law bring about a situation wherein no car can be parked on any street in any village, town or city henceforth without an offence being committed? The answer to that overall concept is that that is not so but let me add that if danger is being created, whether it is by tradition or otherwise, that tradition will be removed if this law can do it and if we get it enforced. If a car is being parked at the moment and is a danger to other road users——
Who would be the judge?
The courts.
The courts come in only after an accident.
I am not talking about accidents. It is not necessary to have an accident. We are not going to wait until somebody is killed, to decide this matter.
Who will be the judge of prosecution—the Garda?
The Garda will take the prosecutions.
And they are to be the judges?
How could the Garda be the judges if the cases are going to court?
I mean, the judges of prosecution.
Somebody has to start somewhere. Is that not so?
All right.
Let me put it this way. The Deputy may, in fact, not disagree with me then. I am merely saying that while I make the general answer to the general question on an extreme situation as seen by Deputy Murphy, at the same time, I do not want it to be understood that all traditional types of parking, dangerous and otherwise, will be allowed to continue. I am saying here and now that, whether they are traditional parking methods or otherwise, if they are a danger and if a parking method is brought about, even traditionally, in circumstances which will be a danger, that parking and that type of parking must stop.
It does not follow that every car in every street in every town, village and city must be taken off the street. If the street is wide, if no danger is being created, if all these things are satisfied, it is quite obvious that Section 55 in particular would not apply at all. It may well be that in between you may have the less dangerous case where it may be required that the car should have some light on it, not in all cases either, if the street is adequately lighted, if the car is clearly visible, if there is adequate width, if it is not an obstruction, if it is not causing danger. In that event I can see that commonsense will prevail and there is no question of that type of parking being prohibited or of any person being taken to court as a result of it.
Any Garda can take you to court under the section. The section clearly gives him power to do so.
As the Deputy knows, when taking cases to court, Gardaí like to bring only cases in which they are likely to succeed. Gardaí are not the half wits that some people seem to think they are, that they will run people into court knowing that they have not a hope of getting a conviction. They do not do that. In fact, some Gardaí go in the opposite direction and do not bring enough cases to court, only watertight cases that will get a conviction. If there is any error on that part of the Gardaí, it is that they do not take cases to court unless they are fairly sure of a conviction rather than the danger the Deputy seems to envisage that a Garda can take anybody to court.
I suppose a man who was mad enough could take any one of us going out of the gate to-night, trump up a charge and take us to Court but it would be as much as his job would be worth when he got to court and found he had no case. The same applies here. We have to take it in the concept that commonsense will prevail in 99.9 per cent. of cases arising under this measure just as commonsense must prevail in all the other laws that we have enacted.
If we cannot approach the matter in that way, if we are looking for the unique district justice who is going to do the queer thing and the wrong thing and ally him to the Garda who would prosecute where no case exists, if we are then to work back and base the laws that we pass in this House on that type of concept, where everything must be defined to the last letter of the law, with the last "i" dotted and the last "t" crossed we could not pass any laws that would make sense. If we cannot trust the courts or the Garda or enforcement force, there is no point in making laws at all because they would not be administered.
We have good reason by experience to expect by and large, in the vast majority of cases, between the courts and the Guards, a commonsense and down to earth approach to these matters. It is in that way that we must approach this matter.
In so far as public street parking is concerned, the passing of this enactment will not be the death knell of public streets. I hope that it will remove the danger of the death knell for a number of street users whose lives in the present chaotic situation are liable to be cut short by the unthinking, the inconsiderate, the stupid and the ignorant road user who has no consideration for himself or anybody else. These people have to be brought to realise that there are other people on this earth who have as much right to be on it and to remain on it. It is towards that type of mind that we must direct these measures and these penalties. We do not want to see a man going to jail because he has parked his car but we do want to prevent people from parking in a manner that is likely to cause danger or death. We have to prevent that if we can by whatever means at our disposal. Here, we are trying to provide the means. Those are the results to which we want to attain and those results are worth trying to attain. In attaining them, the House may be well satisfied that indiscriminate, nonsensical application of any of the enactments or any of the sections or subsections of this Bill will not be allowed and that, in fact, the Bill will do what it is intended it should do.
How can the Minister prevent their being brought in if they are set out in the Act?
I give up.
In dealing with this argument, the Minister forgot another one. Deputy O'Higgins suggested that where a prosecution was brought under Section 55 and it appeared to the courts that the offence was not serious enough to justify conviction under Section 55 prosecution under, say, Section 90 would lie. Can that be done under the Bill as it stands?
The person would be brought in on both charges and if a doubt arose in regard to the Section 55 charge as to whether he was guilty at all the other charge would stand or would not stand, depending on the court's view. Assuming a case did arise where only Section 55 was invoked and there was a doubt, the defendant would get the benefit of the doubt.
I am glad the Minister mentioned that. While I fully agree that, because of the dangers of bad parking, which is getting worse and worse, we must put a stop to it, I am not terribly clear in regard to contributory negligence. Suppose I park my car on a reasonably straight road and it is dry; after I have left my car there heavy rain occurs and the road surface becomes greasy. A vehicle coming from the same direction in which I came finds difficulty in passing my car and I have created a danger. Have I am defence? I parked the car and it caused danger. I know it should be open to me to argue that the other road user if he had used reasonable care, would not have got into trouble and there was contributory negligence. However, I am not terribly sure whether or not contributory negligence is allowed for.
Is the Deputy thinking of Providence or the other driver?
I am thinking of the other driver. There is also a danger to the driver on the road from the person who overtakes. The overtaker is guilty of anything that happens because he created the emergency. I know this to my cost. I had it all read to me and that is why I am very sure of it. In spite of the fact that an oncoming driver behaves in an unreasonable way the person who overtakes is still guilty. I am wondering if the same type of argument could be applied here, that the person who parks is the guilty person because he created the emergency and any contributory negligence created afterwards would not have arisen were it not for his original fault.
As regards contributory negligence and the question of the change in road conditions, that might have arisen from the time a car was parked, such as rain, ice or snow, those undoubtedly would be matters that would be taken into consideration by the courts. As regards contributory negligence, if the vehicle which was stationary was improperly parked to the degree that a Section 55 prosecution would succeed, the fact that another driver struck the obstruction could not of itself be regarded as creating an offence. On the other hand, if there was an offence arising out of the behaviour of the driver or out of the ineffectiveness of his brakes, even though the vehicle struck was an obstruction which should not have been there, that does not put the person who struck the obstruction in the clear. He would get a knock as well. You can only sympathise with him.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 74:
Before Section 56, but in Part V to insert the following new section:
"All mechanically propelled vehicles of two tons unladen weight and over, used for the carriage of goods, shall be manned by a crew of not less than two persons."
The intention behind the amendment is to compel employers who are engaged in the transport of goods in certain types of vehicles to act in a similar manner to good employers throughout the country in the interests of pedestrians and other road users. That is the first reason the amendment is put forward. Secondly, it is to ensure that the maximum safety will be secured by the additional manning of certain types of vehicles most likely to be travelling long distances, particularly at night time.
By having an additional man engaged on a lorry, there is another pair of eyes at all times available to the driver to detect stationary lorries that may be ahead on either side of the road or any other obstacle. It also helps in manoeuvring from side roads on to main roads. The backing out of the heavy lorry often causes sudden danger to other traffic on a main road. It also obviates the greatest of all dangers, a lorry broken down immediately behind a sharp bend. With a second man helping the driver it is possible to give warnings before and behind the lorry of the existing danger due to some mechanical failure which might prevent a heavy lorry being moved off the road out of the way of oncoming traffic from either side.
There is also the human factor involved. The company of the helper would be welcome to the driver on long journeys. He would be available to talk to the driver, to keep him from dozing off which it is quite easy to do in a heavy lorry jogging along at a normal speed with a heavy load. The practice which we are suggesting should be compulsory is carried out by all good employers. If adopted generally it would tend to greater road safety throughout the country. One disadvantage which the good employers such as C.I.E. and other such companies must suffer in taking these precautions in order to keep down accidents is that unscrupulous employers will endeavour to man their lorries as cheaply as possible so as to compete at cut rates with the good employers I have mentioned.
Without any comment on Deputy Kyne's reasons for proposing this amendment, I would like to say that its introduction would be importing into the road traffic legislation a provision regarding working conditions which is not a necessary part of that legislation at all. Any aspect of working conditions which are not, in themselves, clearly related to the safety factor from a road safety point of view is not really relevant to this measure. I do not intend to argue or dispute, to agree or disagree with the Deputy's views in so far as he has spoken. By a provision such as that proposed, I feel we are embarking on a matter affecting working conditions which is not relevant to the general intention of this Road Traffic Bill.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the Minister. When framing this amendment I realised the Minister could put forward that type of reply. I confined the advantages of a second man on a lorry to the safety factor rather than to the working conditions. I might very well say that if a driver has no helper on a lorry he has to do excessive labour in loading and discharging that lorry at the terminal points. The fact that he has to do that makes him more tired and less cautious.
I did not dwell on that aspect but purely on the safety factor. Consider a large lorry, which is the normal type of lorry, travelling the roads for any distance. If it has a mechanical defect then, as happens in Germany the driver may have to place 30 yards ahead of the lorry and 30 yards behind it some kind of signal such as a red flag or disc indicating a breakdown or a puncture. You would need two people there. I understood that at one period, in the case of a lorry with a trailer, the law required that a separate person be on the trailer to apply the braking system in road traffic. This is not a means devised by the trade unions to secure additional employment. I wonder why reputable firms such as C.I.E. consider it necessary to carry out this action if it is not in the interests of the safety of the general public?
As a motorist, the Minister must have personal experience of the danger of lorries manoeuvring or attempting to manoeuvre on main roads without the aid of a helper. It is a grave and serious danger where a driver of a large lorry has to take upon himself all the responsibility of seeing the oncoming traffic when backing out or manoeuvring his lorry on to a main road or even deciding to cross a main road into a byroad. I feel there is a case to be made and that the Minister should have the matter examined.
What the Deputy has said about the two-ton truck almost equally applies in so far as safety measures are concerned to trucks not two-tons in weight. There is no reason why it might not be said you should not drive an ordinary car without a helper. We could get to that situation. It is possible that there is something in the argument that two heads or two pairs of eyes are better than one. On the other hand, I am afraid that that would be going just a little too far.
The Deputy instanced the typical case, and made a very good point, of the difficulties of a single operative reversing on to a road from another road or byway or laneway, and so on. First, he should not have to back on to a road. If, through some unusual circumstances, he has got to do so, I do not see why that in itself should be regarded as a sufficient reason to oblige every truck in the country to carry two operatives rather than one, where one suffices.
Where a second operative or helper on a truck is required in the interests of road safety, we have power in Section 11 so to determine by regulation. The safety factor is of importance. Where a second person is required in order that safety be assured then we have power under the regulations in Section 11 so to dictate by regulation.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
NEW SECTION
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 74a:
74a. Before section 56, but in Part V, to insert the following new section:
"A person who while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle fails to keep such vehicle as near as practicable to the left hand side of the roadway shall be guilty of an offence."
The purpose of the amendment is to bring into this Bill an offence which exists at the moment and which is being committed by the thousand, day in and day out, throughout the length and breadth of this country. Most people ignore the necessity to keep to the left-hand side of the road. One of the results is that we are wasting literally millions of pounds in this country, year in and year out, building broad highways. We may as well leave them all with a maximum width of 20 feet so as to allow our motorists, as they do at the moment, to keep to the middle of the road.
I seldom drive at more than 30 or, at the most, 35 m.p.h. in Dublin City. I venture to say I reach my destination sooner than 99 per cent. of the people who move along the same road. I can say this in the privilege of this House and not be prosecuted for it as might be the case if I were to say so elsewhere. I do so by moving on the inside lane, by passing the stationary and moving vehicles on the right hand side. It may be said that that is an admission of dangerous driving on my part. I do not believe it is. I believe it is a statement of sensible driving. If there is any element of dangerous driving involved, it is on the part of those who are so far out on the roadway as to permit a motorist to pass them on the left-hand side. That is possible in this city. It is possible on the crowded highways of the city because we are not enforcing the law which requires people to keep to the left. The only time it is invoked is when an accident happens and the question is asked in courts whether the car was keeping to its left-hand side.
The notion is abroad that so long as you are as much as one inch on your own side of the channel of the road you are driving safely. You are not doing any such thing. You are driving without consideration for other road users. You are driving dangerously to yourself. You are driving reasonably safe drivers into a dangerous position if they want to move even a slight bit faster than you want to drive yourself.
The Minister may say the amendment is not necessary. The same may be said about it as about his provision on dangerous parking. There is only one way of bringing the importance of left-hand side driving home to all users of the road and that is to put it into an Act of the Oireachtas and not leave it to a regulation which may be almost impossible to locate.
Some time ago, I asked I think the Minister for Justice if any calculations had been made of the cost of traffic delays in Dublin City. He told me it had not been done. I was told it was felt that energies would be better directed towards making the traffic move than calculating the cost of the delays. It is necessary to enlighten public opinion on the necessity for putting an end to the atrocious waste of time in our larger cities and towns because of the fact that people will not use the highways properly. I believe that the daily cost of traffic delays in Dublin is not less than £5,000 per day. That means an annual cost of about £1,500,000 because of stupid, unnecessary traffic delays and hold-ups in Dublin as people will not keep to the left hand side of the road.
I am regarded abroad as a most severe critic of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice. My criticism of him is not in regard to his labours but his appointment. I have every sympathy for him. I believe he is driving himself to an early grave in an effort to keep the people of this country to the left hand side of the road and traffic in traffic lanes. I do not think it is necessary to go up in a helicopter to discover the waste of road space in Dublin. On any of our major roads it is possible to carry at least four moving lanes of traffic at one time—two moving in each direction. That is quite possible. That is hardly ever done. The result is delays in regard to people going to and from work and delays by people about their work. I would say —and I am putting it at a conservative estimate—that 40,000 people in Dublin waste at least a quarter of an hour on the roads. They are delayed so much between going to and from their work and going about their work. That is a very conservative figure. I have kept it deliberately conservative. The daily cost of that in wages alone and in pricing manhours is £2,500. On top of that, there is the waste in petrol and oil. There is the wear and tear of vehicles, the capital replacement which is necessitated by that wear and tear and all the inefficiency and over-staffing and over-capitalisation which take place because we are not sensibly using the road space available to us.
As things stand at present, there is a presumption that you do not have to look to your left-hand side of the road at all to see what is going on or whether or not another car is going to come up. The Parliamentary Secretary has been advocating that people should travel in traffic lanes. He is, in fact, advocating under the law as it is at present that people should commit an illegality. It is an atrocious state of affairs that we have allowed the law to get into such a condition because we cannot sensibly use the roads upon which we are spending money to make them wider. There is no use putting down a roadway of 30 to 40 feet unless it will carry two lanes of traffic. I think it is necessary to write this section into the Bill. The people need to be taught that they must keep to the left-hand side of the road.
The Minister on previous occasions mentioned his familiarity with the Belfast road, particularly as it leaves Dublin city and approaches Dublin Airport. Day in, day out, there is atrociously dangerous driving committed by people with pre-war cars of 8 h.p. travelling in the centre of the road. At the beginning of the four-lane carriageway there is a notice which, were it in Irish, might mean more to many people. I think the notice is a request that traffic should keep to the vergeside lane. Most people do not know what the verge is. That is an actual fact but certainly the conduct of people is such as to suggest that they are not aware of their obligation to keep to the left hand side of the road.
I was disappointed to notice that in recent months even the local authority have given up the ghost at this particular point, a most important artery. At one time the four lanes of traffic were clearly marked but the thing has been so ignored that it is no longer so marked. I think that is an atrocious state of affairs. It is because of the necessity to bring home the vital importance of making room for others on the road that I think it is necessary to write this section into the Bill. This section should be enforced not only when accidents happen—I believe that is the only time it is enforced at the present time—but whenever cars are so far away from the lefthand side of the road that it is possible for a car to move between them and the kerb.
Apart from the width of the road, we are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds year after year upon improving the surface of our roads not only the centre but right to the kerb. What is the point of doing that if we are only reserving that for parking and pedal cyclists? We ought to encourage people to use all sections of the surface of the road. Last year, Deputy Sweetman on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government, pointed out that it was a waste of money not to use every square inch of the road surface. If traffic keeps to the centre of the road, there will be extra wear and tear there. The side of the road is not used at all and consequently it does not suffer the same wear and tear. The cost of all this is difficult to estimate. I believe that the matter has become so serious already that we must create this offence in the Bill so that people will become aware of their obligations. There are no clear cut statutory obligations.
It is no use saying that you already have it in regulations or that the Minister or the Commissioner can make the necessary regulations. Regulations are made to be applied by civil servants. They are not made to be read or understood by the general public because they seldom see them and even more seldom would they take the trouble of buying them. If the matter is put into this Act, the idea will be enforced and we shall ensure that the confusion and delays we have at the moment will be removed to some extent. If the rate of increase in motor vehicles continues over the next five or ten years, as it has expanded over the last five or ten years, then we shall leave our houses and get to work at the time when we should be returning home in the evening. It is necessary from the economic point of view, if for no other reason, to bring about a situation in which everybody uses every available inch of the road space. That can only be done by creating an awareness of the obligation to keep to the left-hand side of the road.
I do not see why this item should be singled out for a separate section. Section 88 gives adequate powers to the Minister in relation to what Deputy Ryan is seeking. We are agreed on all sides, I think, that better use of the road space available is most desirable. The difficulty in Dublin city in particular is that we have a tremendous population of cyclists. According to present regulations, cyclists must not travel more than two abreast, but if that were rigidly enforced, many of them would be unable to get home for their midday meal.
I travel the same route as Deputy Ryan. At many of the traffic lights and other stopping places, there is room only for a single line of traffic. This is brought about by the parking of vehicles on the main arteries into the city which causes the cyclists to move out on the left-hand side. I pointed out on an earlier section that deliveries should be made during specified hours. Similar regulations should be made in the suburbs to prevent cars from parking in such a way as to prevent a double line of traffic from forming. More is involved than the question of keeping to the left. It is a question of other regulations arising. I believe it could be dealt with much better under Section 88, which gives the Minister full power to make regulations in all these matters.
Because of cyclists and motorists turning left coming out on to a main road, over the years a certain nervousness has been created amongst many drivers. The result is that when they are approaching any junction or bend, they think it better to keep out in the middle of the road in case someone pops out. This is a perfectly natural reaction. Along with regulations, there is also the question of road marking. I understand there is a contribution towards road marking from the Road Fund. At the City Hall, for instance, the traffic lanes are very clearly marked for those who wish to turn left, go straight or turn right. Roads should be marked to show a lane for bicycles and two lanes in each direction for other traffic. If it is possible to have only three lanes, along with a lane for cyclists, a system I have seen used in Belgium and Holland could be applied. At certain hours, the traffic travelling in a particular direction has the right over traffic going the other way to use the centre lane. All these things have to be taken into consideration, and, as I say, it would be much better to have them dealt with under Section 88 rather than incorporate this in a separate section.
It is true this matter can be dealt with under Section 88. It is envisaged that under Section 88 it will be dealt with by general bye-law. The existing bye-laws, as Deputy Ryan mentioned, cover the matter. In the various Rules of the Road booklets issued over the years, quite explicit instructions were given; but for all the good they have been, they might as well never have been printed. I agree entirely with Deputy Ryan's condemnation of the present abuse of our road space. I do not condemn it on the same grounds as the Deputy, mainly, the loss to the national economy and individual road users. What I am concerned about is the frustration caused to following drivers by these people who think there is no one but themselves on the road. Following drivers become so frustrated that they themselves drive dangerously in order to get around the “crawler.” That is the biggest objection I have, though I do admit the cumulative loss over the years must be of significant proportions.
Looking at this matter from the point of view of road safety, I am more concerned about the frustration of the following driver, who cannot get by on a road where there is adequate space if only the "crawler" in front would pull in to the left. I only wish this situation could be remedied by the writing in of an amendment of the section. It would be an extremely long and involved section, much longer than the amendment proposed by Deputy Ryan. I do not think that long section would justify its drafting, even if it were possible to cover every eventuality one can visualise arising. You just cannot say "Keep to the left" and leave it at that. You must legislate for all sorts of contingencies. You must legislate for turning to the right, or for traffic lanes where they are indicated. That is why I believe it is inadvisable to insert as an amendment a general directive that traffic must keep as near as is practicable to the left-hand side.
This matter cannot be covered by the general regulations, unless there is full co-operation of road users and an absolute insistence on the regulations by the Garda. Road users must realise that it is in the interests of the safety of all that these regulations are being laid down. In regard to those who waver, we must rely on strict supervision by the Garda. Main roads such as the North Road, the Naas Road and the Navan Road are surely places made for the motor cycle police, of whom, we are told, there will be many more in the future. I hope there will be many more, that we shall see them operating on these roads and insisting that the bye-laws concerning the utilisation of road space are complied with and that infringements of them will be dealt with by the full rigour of the law.
In conclusion, I think the intention of the amendment would be more adequately covered by regulation rather than writing it into the Bill. The suggestion made by the Deputy—that by putting it into the Bill, we give it special significance and will be much more likely to succeed in having it observed—I am afraid would not in itself justify the difficulty in drafting a section so long and so unwieldy that it would be difficult for the general road-user to understand and, indeed even then, no matter with what care it might have been drafted, there would very likely still remain matters that had been overlooked or had newly-arisen and were not visible when the drafting was being done. All in all, I feel it would be better taken in under Section 88 by these general bye-laws and, above all, that we should seek from the Garda absolutely scrupulous attention in the carrying-out of the law in this matter. I have already received such assurances.
Mr. Ryan
In view of the Minister's assurance that the matter will be dealt with seriously by the Garda, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. I only hope that I shall have no occasion for regretting it because the law is not enforced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 75 may not be moved, in view of the fact that amendments Nos. 42 and 43 were not accepted.
Amendment No. 75 not moved.
Section 56 agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Question proposed: "That Section 57 stand part of the Bill."
I think this is the section which corresponds to Section 57 of the existing Act. It is a section which provides that in the case of an uninsured vehicle, a district court may impose a fine on the convicted person and that the fine shall be paid to any person who has suffered injury as a result of the negligent driving of the uninsured driver. I am not asking the Minister to alter this section in any way, but there are certain aspects of it which I think it might be well to look at again. Similar provisions to the provisions in this section are contained in the 1933 Act and I should like to hear from the Minister the approximate number of occasions on which use was made of Section 57 of the existing Act by imposing a fine for the benefit of a party injured by careless driving?
Secondly, I ask the Minister to look again at the question of the payment of a fine in these circumstances being regarded as a good defence. I read that as meaning an absolute defence to a subsequent civil action for damages. It occurs to me that you may very easily have a situation where, at the time of the district court prosecution, it appears to the court and to the party who has been injured and who is either present or represented in court, that damages by means of a fine imposed on the defendant would be adequate, but perhaps after the passage of time, there may be a sequel, some consequences which make the amount paid in damages by means of this fine quite inadequate. Under the section as it stands, such a person, no matter what damages he suffers, is completely precluded from bringing a further action for damages, once the fine is paid.
I do not know if the Minister would regard it as necessary to examine that section a little further. I think there are dangers of the sort I am referring to. I know that the Minister may say there is no obligation at all on the injured party to be represented in court and to consent to his damages being met by a fine of this description. That is quite true: the injured party may ignore the district court prosecution and bring his own action for damages; but we are talking of the case of an uninsured driver and it may well be that the penalties laid down in the section will be much more of an inducement to the defendant to pay the fine and avoid the consequences of not paying it. From that point of view, it may be that the injured party would feel it worthwhile to proceed under this section.
What I am concerned about is the case where a person, for one reason or other, has decided to exercise his rights under Section 57, subsection (1) (b), I think, and ultimately finds that the amount of the damages he gets by means of a fine imposed on the defendant comes nowhere near compensating him for the damage he has suffered, possibly because of some injury or its gravity only becoming apparent at a later date. I feel it is leaving things a little too loose to say that even in those circumstances that person will have no further remedy or right to take an action for damages. I know that the section has been there in effect for a great number of years and possibly it has worked sufficiently well, but I should like the Minister to have another look at it.
As the Deputy has said, the section, which is practically the same as the section in the 1933 Act, has been in operation for a considerable time. As regards the cases coming under that particular provision, I am afraid I cannot give the number and I am not too sure that I should be able to find out, but what I do understand is that the type of case that is taken, and has been taken, under this section is of a relatively minor nature and more likely to relate to damage to vehicles or property rather than to personal injury which might give rise to complications, as Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, where the injury sustained was not so obvious at the time as might later emerge and where deterioration of physical condition might arise unexpectedly but directly attributable to the original injury for which settlement had been made.
So far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, I shall do as Deputy O'Higgins has asked and have a further look at it in the light of the queries raised and on Report Stage, or earlier, if so required by the Deputy, I can give the results of that examination which may help the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 58 to 62, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 63
Amendment No. 76 is in the name of the Minister and perhaps amendment No. 77, also in the name of the Minister could be discussed with it.
I move amendment No. 76:
To add to the section the following subsection:
"(4) An approved guarantee issued by a vehicle insurer shall, for the purposes of sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act, 1936, be regarded as if it were a policy issued by the insurer in the course of carrying on mechanically propelled vehicle insurance business within the meaning of section 3 of that Act."
These amendments are really to remedy a minor omission in the draft Bill. The 1933 Act required vehicle insurers, vehicle guarantors and exempted persons to make deposits of £15,000 with the High Court to cover their liability in respect of vehicles owned by them or under policies or guarantees issued by them. The Act provided for the meeting of claims by injured persons ultimately from these deposits. The provisions regarding insurers' deposits were subsequently incorporated in the Insurance Act, 1936, and the Bill now deals only with deposits by guarantors and exempted persons.
The 1936 Act made insurers' deposits available to meet claims by injured persons but only in respect of policies. These policies issued by vehicle insurers are covered under the 1936 Act, and approved guarantees issued by vehicle guarantors and certificates of exemption issued by exempted persons and the guarantors are covered by the Bill but no provision was made for guarantees or certificates of exemption issued by insurers. Amendment No. 76 rectifies this omission in so far as guarantees are concerned by providing, in effect, that deposits under the 1936 Act would be available to meet claims in respect of guarantees issued by insurers. Amendment No. 77 deals with issues by insurers.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 63, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 64 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 68.
I move amendment No. 77:
To add to the section the following subsection:
"(2) A certificate of exemption issued by a vehicle insurer shall, for the purposes of sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act, 1936, be regarded as if it were a policy issued by the insurer in the course of carrying on mechanically propelled vehicle insurance business within the meaning of section 3 of that Act."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 68, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 77a and 77b not moved.
Sections 69 and 70 agreed to.
SECTION 71
Question proposed: "That Section 71 stand part of the Bill."
I think this section corresponds closely with the section that is there already?
Yes, in relation to notification.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 72 and 73 agreed to.
SECTION 74.
If the House agrees, amendments Nos. 78, 78a, 78b and 79 could be discussed together and if necessary separate decisions can be taken.
I move amendment No. 78:
In subsection (2), page 53, before paragraph (c) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(c) where varying rates of premiums are charged by insurers according to the classification of the use of vehicles, the statement mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall contain the total amount of claims paid by the insurer in respect of each specific class of motor vehicle insurance and such further information as the Minister may require.”
I am agreeable to the three amendments in my name being taken together as they are all aimed at achieving the same end which I think can also be achieved by the amendment in Deputy Ryan's name. Under present circumstances there is for insurance companies what could be described as an escape clause. I referred to this on the Second Stage in a different way to that which I am now going to refer to it, but I think I shall be able to illustrate the point a little better. I shall take the example of a textile mill with which I am familiar in which they have a designer employed. This mill is situated near Dublin or alternatively the designer lives in Dublin and has occasion to travel back and forward from time to time. The commercial representative of this company may be informed by a friend of his, say in Cork, that a certain buyer in Dublin is interested in a certain product of the mill which he represents and he telephones to try and make sure that the business is secured for the mill he represents. The managing director comes to the designer and says: "Jack, you are going to town. Take a sample and call in and see so-and-so." The designer would normally be insured under Class I but because of the fact that he took the sample into his car for the purpose of soliciting business for the mill by which he is employed he will then be required to get a special insurance under Class III for that journey.
Likewise a similar situation arises for the agent, who, let us say for the sake of argument, has an office in Wicklow Street. If he goes into his office in the morning in an empty car, collects his samples and does his commercial travelling on foot and then deposits his samples in his office before he drives his car home, he can insure under Class I. If, however, for any reason he is detained and carries those samples home with him and back into town in the morning the insurance company will insist that he is not insured unless he pays the 50 per cent levy for that journey.
I have raised this matter on Estimates for the Department of Industry and Commerce and I have also inquired from the Fair Trade Commission. They informed me that they were set up to deal with the supply and distribution of goods and I asked them how can there be any supply or distribution of goods if somebody does not sell them in the first instance. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has taken the line that this is a matter for the internal workings of an insurance company. When pressed further by way of Parliamentary Question regarding an inquiry that was held some years ago, he pointed out that anything said to him in regard to this matter was merely by way of formal comment and that the Prices Advisory Body at that time had not got as one of their terms of reference the question of dealing with this type of problem. We have here, four amendments which ask the Minister for Local Government to put the onus on the insurance company of, first of all, justifying that this 50 per cent. levy is warranted. Secondly, they are aimed at ensuring that people who take out insurance will not find themselves caught out through these different classifications of insurance.
For my part, working for myself, I insure under Class II. On occasion, I go down the country to seek business. I ring the insurance company and say I want my insurance extended to Class III for one week. For the few trips I make, it is cheaper to do it that way. If, for any reason, I have left some samples in my car, if I forget to take them out before driving into the office on the Monday morning following a week's commercial travelling, and if I have an accident, the insurance company can contend that those samples are evidence that I was, in fact, a commercial traveller at the time.
Around Easter the Irish Commercial Travellers' Association, representing all the various commercial travellers' associations, sent a memorandum to Deputies. As some time has elapsed since that circular was sent out, there are some facts which could perhaps bear repetition. When this 50 per cent. levy was imposed some 30 years ago or so, it was done in a very haphazard manner. As this circular pointed out, it applied to commercial travellers, actors, actresses and Jews. Probably it was felt at the time that these people travel a greater mileage than others.
At that time, cars were certainly not as mechanically perfect as they are now. They were not fitted with hydraulic breaking systems and so forth, nor were the roads surfaced with tarmacadam. I am sure many front bench members of the House remember travelling to meetings over bumpy roads 30 or 40 years ago. Since then, for some reason, actors, actresses and Jews have been found not to be liable for this excess tariff. I contend that if a person had a bad driving record, and if he is continuously making claims, the insurance companies would be perfectly justified in putting an extra levy on him, rather than spreading the levy over all insured persons.
What we are asking is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be left in a position to judge for himself whether or not an unfair and unconstitutional advantage is being taken of one section of the people. One body of commercial travellers compiled statistics covering a period of five years. The net result showed that a group of 671 members paid £83,875 in premiums, and the insurance companies paid £13,268 in claims, showing a profit of £70,000 odd for the insurance companies. That is the only official survey which has been carried out by any group of Irish commercial travellers. If another organisation representing the commercial travellers were to do the same, I am quite convinced they would get similar results.
It has been mentioned that from time to time one sees that so-and-so, "a commercial traveller," is involved in an accident. I think that 90 out of 100 times that happens at a weekend and not while he is engaged in his job as a commercial traveller. A commercial traveller must have a car, and he must make sure it is in good mechanical condition to get him from place to place. He knows quite well that if, through no fault of his own, he meets with an accident that puts his car out of commission, he will lose much of his earnings and commission because he will be unable to do his week's work without a mechanically-propelled vehicle. A commercial traveller travels over roads with which he is extremely familiar and he knows all the dangerous points. Many Deputies travel a greater mileage than the majority of commercial travellers, on their way up and down to attend to their duties in Dublin, and there is no special levy imposed on, shall we say, far distant Deputies.
I take it we are discussing the four amendments together. They are all aimed at achieving the one end, which is that when the Minister for Industry and Commerce asks for returns from the insurance companies, he should get the returns of the premiums paid, and the claims paid, under each of the separate classes.
It is very hard to define exactly a "commercial traveller." What function does a man perform to be a "commercial traveller"? The insurance companies have decided that if he uses a mechanically-propelled vehicle to carry samples for the purpose of soliciting business, he is a commercial traveller. I do not know whether this levy applies also to what are known as van salesmen. I know there is a distinction. In the case of Dublin Corporation, a van salesman is a member of the working classes and a commercial traveller is not.
All these problems arise, in spite of the fact that attached to the associations are some 4,000 commercial travellers. We are quite satisfied that the total number of commercial travellers is 6,000. If a group of 6,000 people who help to keep our hotels open during the winter months and contribute to the national economy in one way or another are being penalised by insurance premiums they must pay as a result of an Act of the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas should protect their interests and ensure that they get a square deal.
I should like very briefly to support Deputy Lemass's view on this matter, with particular reference to amendment No. 78a, in the name of Deputy Ryan. I recommend to the Minister that that amendment should be accepted. It proposes in Section 74 to add the following new paragraph:
(c) A company or syndicate shall not charge persons engaged in particular occupations a premium in excess of the basic premium rate charged by them unless it be proven to the satisfaction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that persons engaged in such occupations have a claims rate in excess of the average claims rate.
As Deputy Lemass has pointed out, this whole problem is particularly concerned with the treatment of commercial travellers by insurance companies, and the splitting up of insurance cover into various categories. The figures which Deputy Lemass has given—I have not got the memorandum with me unfortunately, but I remember I was impressed by it when I read it—show that on a survey made by one of the bodies representing commercial travellers, there seemed to be no justification whatever for any excess premium rate in the case of that particular group. It is right, I think, that the Minister should have an opportunity, as he would if the amendment in the name of Deputy Lemass and also that in the name of Deputy Ryan were accepted, of having certain information which would enable him to decide whether or not these groups were being properly treated in the matter of insurance.
We should remember that to a great extent insurance companies play a very big part where motorists are concerned because, if they refuse insurance and insurance is compulsory, as we shall make it compulsory under this Bill and as it has been compulsory under the 1933 Act, the motorist cannot drive. If cover is refused by the insurance company the motorist is off the road. That may not be of vital importance to people who do not require their cars to earn a livelihood, but it is of vital importance to certain sections, notably commercial travellers, who depend largely for their livelihood on the use of cars. If they can be priced out of insurance because of the high rates demanded, without adequate justification, then a problem exists and it is one into which the Minister should examine. So long as insurance is compulsory the companies control the situation to a great extent where motorists are concerned.
I wonder if it might not be worth the Minister's while in relation to the sections dealing with insurance to consider having some kind of official arbitrator appointed under this Bill empowered to adjudicate in cases where motorists have not been able to obtain cover except at what they regard as a prohibitive rate of premium. If there were some official attached to the Minister's Department, or to the Department of Industry and Commerce, before whom cases could be made, that might improve the position. It would, too, allow the respective Minister to have some kind of check on insurance companies.
We are giving insurance companies very definite authority where motoring is concerned when we make insurance compulsory for the motorist before he can bring a car on to a public place or drive a car in a public place. So long as insurance companies are put in a special and peculiar position by the Legislature, I think Deputy Lemass is right in his argument for a certain degree of control, at least to the extent of getting the type of information he wants through his amendment brought before the Minister, and there is a foundation for the obtaining of that information.
While I might agree with a number of the observations made by both speakers because of my own personal experience, at the same time this is not a matter which comes within the province of the Minister for Local Government. I do not think it should be brought within his province since the relationship is one really between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the insurance companies. I believe that position should continue in the future rather than that we should introduce any ties as between the Department of Local Government and insurance companies.
Commercial travellers, in particular, seem to think they are being salted as against other sections. If it is true that some 4,000 paid insurance to the tune of over £80,000 last year and claims amounted to only £13,000, surely as a group it ought to be possible for them to organise and create their own fund, carrying their own insurance instead of going through the recognised tariff companies. It may be that, knowing each other so well, there are reasons why they would not like to take that on. If the overall profit is anything in the region of the sum outlined by Deputy Lemass here it would appear to me to be a very good business proposition. Within the 4,000 members I am sure there are many astute businessmen. I am surprised that some kind of scheme has not emanated from them, a scheme designed to reduce their tariff very considerably.
There is another aspect of the matter. It is an aspect which, in fairness, one must take into consideration. It is one which may well justify the additional burden. Commercial travellers because of the nature of their calling would, if related to road mileage, show probably one of the highest average road mileage rates per driver per year as compared with any other group of road users. On that basis alone it might be argued that a certain justification may exist for the premium imposed. I am not aware of the basis on which insurance companies arrive at the various tariffs. If all the things asked for in these amendments were conceded, then it is the Minister for Local Government who would be running the insurance business, striking the rates, prescribing the conditions, and one would not really need the insurance companies at all. Their business would be done for them.
I think it would be wrong to put the Minister for Local Government vis-a-vis insurance companies in the position in which it is sought to put him in these amendments. Those who tabled the amendments probably are convinced that there is a good deal of merit in them. It is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who has the association with these companies and knowledge of the insurance structure as a whole. Irrespective of how I may feel, that is the only answer I can give. It is a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce and it should not be made any part of the functions of the Department of Local Government. It would be both undesirable and impossible to have that Department associated in any way with the insurance companies.
Unfortunately, as in every other profession, many commercial travellers are not in any association. In fact, the association to which I referred, which has 671 members, is the largest. I belong to an association that is set up entirely as a benevolent association. I have not come here looking for benevolence. It is prescribed in the Bill, page 53, lines 11 and 12, that the returns to the insurance companies "shall be in such form as shall from time to time be directed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce". I agree entirely with what the Minister for Local Government says, that this is primarily a function for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I understand that the combined Irish commercial travellers' associations are hoping to have a deputation to see him.
The difficulty is this: the Minister will have the power to seek these returns in whatever form he sees fit. The purpose of the amendment was to draw that up a little bit tighter. It may be possible that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will agree with the arguments that have been put forward in this House but in the meantime, perhaps, the best way to deal with this situation would be if the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce would agree to set up a special committee to go into the entire facts of this case and then the Bill as it stands would be quite satisfactory and we could withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On behalf of Deputy Ryan, I formally move amendment No. 78a:
In subsection (2), before paragraph (c) to insert a new paragraph as follows:
"(c) A company or syndicate shall not charge persons engaged in particular occupations a premium in excess of the basic premium rate charged by them unless it be proven to the satisfaction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that persons engaged in such occupations have a claims rate in excess of the average claims rate."
We are not pressing the amendment. We have discussed it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 78b not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 74 stand part of the Bill."
I have not moved Amendment No. 78b but if the Minister for Industry and Commerce does feel that he is justified in instructing these insurance companies to vary their rates, I would just like to be sure that he has the power, or how would he go about doing it?
Yes, I think Section 107 of the Insurance Act of 1936 would be the appropriate power which the Minister for Industry and Commerce might exercise.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 79 not moved.
Sections 75 to 77 agreed to.
SECTION 78.
Question proposed: "That Section 78 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask the Minister to tell us something about this Motor Insurers' Bureau mentioned in Section 78. I understand that membership of that Bureau carries with it certain obligations, the chief of which is that if a dispute arises between an insured person and the particular company that is a member of that Bureau the other companies will not on any account intervene. In other words, if a motorist has an accident or for some reason or other finds himself in difficulties, such as having his licence suspended, he must deal with his own insurance company and it is not open to him to get coverage from any other company because of the obligation imposed by the Bureau on its members not to interfere with the business of other companies. I think that is very wrong.
I wonder does it arise on this section?
It does. The section says:
"A person shall not carry on mechanically propelled vehicle insurance business within the meaning of section 3 of the Insurance Act, 1936, unless—
(a) he is a member of the Bureau, or
measures up to certain other requirements. I want to impress on the Minister the undesirability of this obligation imposed by the Bureau and by the governing body of the insurance companies in this country.
There is some confusion here. This has nothing to do with disputes.
I appreciate that it would be more a matter for Industry and Commerce.
No. May I intervene for a moment because I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension? This Motor Insurers' Bureau is there, not to control or to lay down conditions for insurance companies who must be members, or any such thing. All the insurance tariff companies or the motor insurance people form this Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland. It is there as a safeguard where there arises a personal injury claim for which no cover is available and nobody is there to meet the compensation. They are there merely as an extraordinary insurance for the unique case of personal injury where no insurance exists and where the person who is to blame for the personal injury is not of substance —a man of straw—and where some compensation may be got for the injured party out of this Bureau. The Deputy has something else in mind, which is not this particular body.
I agree with the Minister. I undersood this Motor Insurers' Bureau to be the union of insurance companies. This union does exist.
This is not the one.
I agree that it is not known as the Motor Insurers' Bureau, but as this is the last section of the Bill dealing with insurance, I want to say that it is very wrong that this union of insurance companies covering road traffic requirements should impose on its members an obligation not to interfere in a dispute between one of its members and an outside party. In other words, any one of us who may have an accident returning from this House during the week-end——
It does not seem to arise.
There are a number of sections dealing with insurance generally embodied in the Bill. This matter has been brought to my notice by a number of people who found themselves in difficulties with their own insurance companies and when they endeavoured to do business with another company they were refused.
That certainly does not arise on this section. I cannot see how the Deputy could discuss this point.
Deputy O'Higgins mentioned it on Section 74 and it would be no harm for the Minister to comment on this matter.
May I once again put it this way? The Bureau which is mentioned in this section is not the body which the Deputy has in mind. In fact, the body which he has in mind, which I think I can recognise from what he says, is not mentioned in any section of this Bill and, therefore, is not a matter for discussion or about which I can answer a question in this debate. This section does not deal with that body.
This Bureau——
Is a sort of safeguard.
——in the case of people injured by drivers who are not covered.
Who have nothing.
Or who have some defect in their insurance cover?
Yes. It is a sort of last resource.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 79 to 81, inclusive, agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.