Amendment No. 80 was discussed with amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
Committee On Finance. - Road Traffic Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Sections 82 and 83 agreed to.
SECTION 84.
Amendment No. 80 not moved.
Section 84 agreed to.
SECTION 85.
Question proposed: "That Section 85 stand part of the Bill".
This section deals with stopping places and stands for omnibuses and reads:
(1) The Commissioner may, by notice in writing, direct, in respect of a route upon which omnibuses are operated, that specified points shall be stopping places or that specified places shall be used as stands for the omnibuses.
Does that mean a notice simply to the company or concern operating the omnibuses, or does it imply that there will be some kind of publication of the Commissioner's notice?
Subsection (5) of the section would probably clarify it.
It is the custom, certainly in the city, if there is a change of route, for example, if a roadway is closed, to give public notice of a change. If there is a change in the bus routes or stopping points, they normally do give notice and possibly under the C.I.E. Acts, it is obligatory on them to do so. I would like the Minister to ensure that where the public are affected by any change in a bus route or stopping place, due notice will be given of the change. It may very well be that that is already covered under the C.I.E. Acts. If it is not, I should like the Minister to ensure under this Bill that such notice will be given.
I still do not get the point the Deputy is making. This provision deals with stopping places for omnibuses and the Commissioner of the Garda may notify the operators concerned as to where the stops may be.
The point is he may amend or revoke the notice he has given; in other words, he may direct that point A which has been a stopping place up to now shall no longer be a stopping place.
That is so.
I am suggesting that if that is done, notice should be given to the public.
The normal procedure is that the operators of the service are notified by the Commissioner as to the removal of a stopping place, the placing of a stop or a suggestion in regard to it. They, in turn, inform the public, their customers, as to where the stops will be, and that is the way it should be.
I am not disputing that that is the way it is done; in fact, due publicity always is given. However, I would like to see a legal onus on either the Commissioner or the operating concern to give that notice.
There is just one little difficulty about that, regardless of whether the notices should be given by the Commissioner or the bus company. Changes of stopping places could be an emergency measure. Some emergency may occur in which it is necessary to re-route buses and steps may have to be taken immediately. To outline and specify that adequate and suitable notice shall be given in a particular way could raise complications. In normal circumstances, bus operators, in the interests of serving their customers, inform them of changes. If the customers do not know the route the bus is taking or where it is going to stop, it could not be said they were fufilling the purpose of giving a service to the public at all. Commonsense dictates that they will take every possible step to inform the public of the changes required by the Commissioner.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 86.
Amendment No. 81, in the name of Deputy Ryan, was discussed with amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
Amendment No. 81 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 86 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to direct the Minister's attention to subsection (5) of Section 86 which reads:
Where a person uses a mechanically propelled vehicle other than an omnibus in contravention of a bye-law under this section, he and, if he is not the registered owner of the vehicle, such owner shall each be guilty of an offence.
It is imposing too much of a liability to make the registered owner of the vehicle guilty of an offence of which he may be entirely innocent and of which he may have no knowledge whatever. I would ask the Minister to have another look at subsection (5). I suggest he should delete the words referring to the registered owner and leave the position that the only person who would be guilty of an offence is the person who used the vehicle in contravention of a bye-law.
The type of contravention that comes to mind immediately in this matter and with which we wish to deal specifically is the parking or leaving of a vehicle in a particular place. The difficulty encountered up to the present and over the years has been to nail who used the vehicle last, who put it there, who left it there. That has been a weakness which, in other respects, we are trying to remedy in Section 90 by bringing in the registered owner as liable for the offence whether or not he was the person who actually used the vehicle and had control of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence. I suggest we might possibly discuss that item on Section 90, if the House so wishes, or together with that section.
How would that apply in the case of a person who hires a self-drive car?
The hiring firm would be equally guilty.
Even though the person who hired the car loaned the car to a third party?
That is the whole point.
I think Section 3 deals with it.
An event such as the Deputy indicates would, on the registered owner's part, be a good defence in court.
It would, when it goes to a third person, but it would not be a good defence if they hired it out.
That is to the hirer.
Yes, not as I read subsections (7) and (8) "that such use was unauthorised."
I am inclined to agree that it would not be a good defence for the two parties but if the in-between person loaned it to somebody else it would be a good defence for the registered owner.
Would the Minister be prepared to come back to this section on Section 90? Could we leave it in abeyance for the moment?
Would the better thing be to discuss Section 90 now?
No— when we reach it.
I should like to stress this point a little more. I feel that from the prosecution point of view it is obviously nicer to be able to name somebody for an offence that has been committed. It is fundamentally unjust that a person who cannot be held liable in equity will be held liable in law.
I can sympathise with the police in trying to make quite sure that an offence is punished but I cannot get any satisfaction out of knowing that somebody is being wrongly punished with our full knowledge and consent; that is what is comes to. It is far better that the offence should go unpunished rather than that the wrong person should get a punishment he did not deserve.
Hear, hear. I am quite agreeable to discuss it later, if the Minister thinks it more convenient. I would agree to Section 86 but only with the reservation that we can come back on it in some form, if necessary by recommitting the Bill on Report.
If we continue to discuss it now there would not be much point in the suggestion to discuss it later.
I gathered the Minister wanted it done in that way.
I do not mind. I merely made a suggestion.
I think that what Deputy Booth said is quite right. As often as not, you will have the case where the registered owner of the car is an entirely innocent party. If I give the Minister a loan of my car when he asks me for it, because he is stuck or something like that, and he then parks dangerously, or does something like that with my car, it would be grossly unjust that I should be guilty of an offence which is committed by the Minister and which was not committed by me. The only offence I could be said to have committed is possibly an error of judgment in being too kindhearted.
I do not think it is fair to deal with car owners in that way. I agree fully with Deputy Booth that it is better on occasion that the guilty person should get away with it scot free rather than that we should punish innocent people merely for the sake of punishing somebody.
I take it that the Deputy is aware that our parking laws are completely and absolutely unenforceable as the law now stands. As Deputy M.J. O'Higgins has said, if, for some reason or another, I seek and get his car and park it dangerously or wrongly, it certainly would be a gross error of judgment on his part if I turned out to be the type of person who would let him take the rap when I was responsible for using his car which he gave me to help me in my difficulty.
I might not know the Minister.
The Deputy would be much more careful again.
That does not quite cover the case of people who hire self-drive cars. A person hires out a self-drive car. The owners might not even know the position until after the hirer had left the city or the country as the case may be.
The only defence the Minister is allowing to the hire purchase company in the case mentioned by Deputy Russell is to show that the use of the car was unauthorised. Clearly, the use of the car will not be unauthorised, if a person goes into a hire-purchase or self-drive company to get a car for a day, a week, a month or whatever the period may be. Quite clearly, the use of the car will be authorised but the misuse of the car will not be authorised. The expression here is to show that the use was unauthorised. I think it is putting the self-drive companies in an impossible position. They will be amenable for any offence committed under this section by the driver of the car. It will be a great hardship on ordinary individuals, quite apart from hire-purchase companies, if they are caught in this way when they themselves are quite innocent.
Could I ask the Deputy and any member of the House to suggest from his own knowledge of this matter any method other than this method whereby parking regulations can be applied to self-drive cars?
Yes—if the Minister would put at the end of subsections (7) and (8) the words "or that the offence was committed without the knowledge or consent of the registered owner". I think that would cover my point and I think it would cover what Deputy Russell has in mind.
It will not cover the other point.
What the Minister is arguing is clearly bad in principle. It is the duty of owners of cars—I am dealing with the question of self-drive companies, companies that deal in self-drive cars—to make the cars available to the client or customer who comes looking for these vehicles. That is their business. It is their means of livelihood to make the cars available. It seems to me to be bad in principle that the Legislature here should adopt the position of saying: "Very well; we are going to legislate in such a way that if there is any parking offence committed by any of your cars, you will be responsible for it." Is that not tantamount to saying that they have to go out of business, unless they are prepared to accept responsibility for every offence with one of their cars, whether they know anything about it or not?
That is definitely a very bad principle to establish. I do not think it is just or fair. What the Minister is seeking to achieve is that the users of cars will obey the road traffic code and will park their cars—he has used the example of parking—properly. That is what he is seeking to achieve. In fact, he is to some extent giving them an indemnity because he is saying to them, through this Bill: "Quite apart from what you do or do not do in the parking of the cars, an innocent person, an owner of a car, will be guilty before the courts because of this legislation."
Does this difficulty arise from the fact that a person who is caught by a Guard, where a vehicle is wrongly parked, has only to say that he did not park? Is that the question? Is the question one where the Guards cannot prove that the person driving the car away is the person who parked it? A better approach would be to regard the person who drives the car away as the person who parked it.
What about the people who do not turn up at all?
You still have the car which is a very valuable consideration.
You would need to have a Garda sitting on the bonnet of every car. Who has not done it?
I do not know.
You do not say you left it there but you say nothing.
I understood that under this Bill the Guards have power to seize a car, if a person does not turn up. I think the Guards will have their answer. We should not go through this complicated process of getting at the matter by prosecuting somebody. It is very bad law that in order to get rid of a parking offence, you secure that someone will be prosecuted whether he is guilty or not. Under this section, the owner of a registered vehicle is to be guilty of an offence.
It carries responsibility and everybody will admit that.
It is all very well to talk now about responsibility. If this goes on, the car hire firms will be put in the position of safeguarding themselves by imposing larger fees as an insurance against anything that happens. Then all these innocent drivers of hire purchase cars will have to pay. I think it is a very bad principle.
One would think we were imposing things merely because we like to tidy things up. We are trying to seek a law which will bring about the enforcement of the parking regulations which heretofore, on the law as it now stands——
How does the Minister suggest this will do it?
Can the House suggest a way by which it can be done?
How does the Minister suggest this will do it?
I am suggesting it will have some good effect with regard to enforcement. I am asking the House whether it can suggest a better way and a way with fewer objections from the point of view of self-drive cars, apart from any others. I should be glad to hear it.
Deputy Sheldon made one suggestion which was an improvement.
Deputy O'Higgins mentioned that certain results of that might be that people in the self-drive business were liable to be put out of business. Deputy Sheldon suggests that if this liability is to be left at the door of the self-driver operators or owners, it will mean they will have to charge a higher rate to the drivers and that the innocent driver will suffer with the guilty. If we want to enforce our parking laws, we want to enforce them for the common good. If there is a way whereby the driver of a hired car or the owner can indemnify himself and, at the same time, enable us by law to get rid of unauthorised and dangerous parking, it would be much preferable to show it to us rather than to say that the charges to hirers of cars will go up or that somebody will go out of business. That will not happen.
It would seem to be the height of folly to legislate here for parking offences and make the law such that the driver of a hired car was, in fact, excluded from it, which is the reverse of what I am trying to do. If I were to drop this provision in regard to these self-drive cars, then we would be giving these people who have no sense of responsibility in the sense that they do not own the car a licence to park as and when they liked. I do not think anybody intends that should be so.
Is the Minister not doing that?
I am not, but Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Sheldon have, by their own statements, indicated that the drive-hire car owner would have to take certain action. Apparently, there is action open to them to take which will safeguard this situation but if we leave it out, there will be no action which we can take. I should be glad if somebody could suggest a solution to the problem. It is a serious problem, if this loophole is to be left in it.
Leaving out the question of cost, is there not a question of justice involved? What the Minister is saying is that if he cannot prosecute the guilty party, he will prosecute somebody else, who in this case happens to be the owner who is completely innocent of the offence. I do not think it is a defence for the Minister to say: "If you do not like it that way, why do you not think out something else?" In those circumstances, I should prefer to see it struck out altogether.
I am not prepared to do that and that is why I am asking the House to do it.
That does not debar me getting up and saying it is an unjust section. I think the Minister recognises that fact. One of his defences is that you have got to prosecute somebody and there is an onus on the people who hire out cars to be responsible. But even allowing for that suggestion, I do not think it is going to get over the fundamental issue which is that this subsection, as it stands, constitutes a grave injustice. It is up to the Minister to find some way of circumventing that.
I agree fully with Deputy Russell, but I think this is equally important, on the question of principle and justice, for the ordinary private car owner as it is from the point of view of the operators of a self-drive company. The principle is wrong and bad. The Minister's reply to Deputy Sheldon and myself was that he could do nothing about it— that the authorities can do nothing about stopping bad or dangerous parking—but that the self-drive companies can do something about it. What could they do about it? What they could do, according to the Minister, following the suggestions made, was either close down and not operate services or else increase their charges to their customers.
If they increase their charges to their customers, the people who are going to suffer as the result of this legislation are not merely the reckless fly-by-nights who come over, get a car for a night or a couple of days, go away and are not amenable to the jurisdiction of our courts, but every person from now onwards who gets a car on a self-drive contract. The Minister seems to think that is an improvement of the law and that that is doing something worthwhile towards enforcing the parking regulations. I disagree with him entirely. What he is doing, if he follows that line, is that he is, to some extent at any rate, indemnifying the reckless driver who parks his car badly or dangerously.
If this legislation goes through in its present form quite clearly—and no one is going to blame him for it—a Garda will not be interested in finding out who parked the car badly. He does not need to find that out. Under this legislation all he has to do is to go to the motor registration office and find out who is the registered owner. Then he has his defendant, and that defendant must be convicted. The only defence open to him is that the use of the car was unauthorised, and in 99 out of 100 cases of the kind I have in mind—and I think the Minister has in mind also—the use of the car is not going to be unauthorised.
The Minister would be doing simple justice if he agreed that if the registered owner were not in a position to show that the misuse of the car, in the case of dangerous or bad parking or other offence, was without the consent or knowledge of the registered owner, then the registered owner should not be guilty of an offence. That would be a different situation. While it might not help the Minister in enforcing parking regulations, it would be simple justice.
The Minister says, in effect, "This is the best suggestion I can make." He says that if any Deputy can make any better suggestion he is prepared to consider it and, possibly, to adopt it. Deputy Sheldon has suggested that it would be an improvement—I do not think he claimed it would be perfect— if instead of having this liability attached willy-nilly to the registered owner, the Minister were to attach it to the person who drove the car away after it was parked, and if the Minister had it deemed that the person who took the car away was the person who had parked it. That might be an improvement. I do not think by any means it would be perfect.
The real answer is this. The Minister has no responsibility for the Garda and it is the job of the Garda to carry out the regulations or the law regarding parking as laid down. I do not think the Minister should interfere with that. I do not think it is his concern to make their job any harder, but equally I do not think he should cause injustice merely for the sake of making their job easier. It is their job to detect the parking offence, ascertain the offender and bring him to justice. The Minister is now relieving them of that duty and it is a duty anyone who joins the Garda should be prepared to undertake. Instead of allowing the Garda to do that job and encouraging them to get on with it, the Minister is saying to them: "You need not bother who committed the offence. Once the offence is committed, go for the registered owner, prosecute him and you are all right under this section." I think that is bad law, unjust and wrong in principle.
I should like to express agreement with Deputy O'Higgins as far as this section goes. This section deals only with the offence committed when somebody parks at a bus stop. Whatever may arise when we discuss Section 90 and the general question of parking, surely here it ought to be reasonably easy for the Garda in a good number of cases to spot who parked the car at a bus stop? It is not like finding a car parked at some unauthorised place. It should not be very difficult for the Garda to detect that and get the proper person. Parking at a bus stop is not like parking at some unauthorised place and being found there later. The minute you stop at a bus stop, you have committed the offence. There is no question of the length of time. It is purely a question of stopping at a place reserved for another purpose. This is not a question of coming along and finding a car parked at an unauthorised place, having to wait for someone to turn up, and not being able to prove that the one who turned up was the one who parked. If this section were amended by deleting "registered owner," the Garda, in Dublin at any rate, could very quickly prosecute sufficient people who stopped their cars at bus stops to put an end to that kind of thing and clear that part of the road without bringing in the registered owners at all.
I would go further than that. I feel there is a chance here of really helping the Minister to some extent. If the use of the car is unauthorised by the owner, obviously the owner knows who is the authorised user of it. If the Garda are unable to find out who actually parked the car, the registered owner could well be put under the obligation to disclose to the Garda who the user was at a specific time. I do not think that should cause any undue difficulty. If the owner of a car authorises somebody to drive it away, he usually has a pretty fair idea of what time he had it and what time he got the car back. We might be able to help the Minister to that extent by suggesting to him that if the registered owner were obliged to give full information to the Garda as to who was authorised to use the car between certain hours, that should give them all the information they want.
There might be a certain danger of the baby being passed from hand to hand and everybody saying: "It was not I who parked it there; I left it to someone else," and the registered owner would get out in view of the fact that the driver at that stage was altogether unauthorised. I do not know if there is any statutory obligation on the owner at the moment to disclose to the Garda who was using a car on a certain date if the driver himself or herself was not driving it. I think the problem might be met, as I have suggested, and that, certainly, would be as far as I would be prepared to go. Any other way of implicating the registered owner who is not the driver and is not even in the car at the time would be grossly unfair.
This latest suggestion by Deputy Booth is one that might give us some elbow-room to meet the varying points of view. It would be too much to think that we could get entirely out of this dilemma that apparently has now arisen or that anybody should be able to say that such-and-such a formula or amended formula would be the answer. Deputy Booth's suggestion, certainly on the surface, gives some hope of doing a little both ways. In so far as owners of vehicles are concerned, they can also be considered and, since Deputies have such strong views about the matter, I should be glad of their assistance and their further consideration of the matter and I should like them to convey to me the result of that further consideration between now and the next Stage of the Bill with a view to having it thoroughly examined.
It has been said that we should not appear to be making the job of the Garda easy, that we should not go out of our way to do so and at the same time create injustice. The advice tendered to my Department by the Garda, who have been and are responsible for the operation of the parking laws, is that under the present law we might as well have none. Anyone who looks around the city or elsewhere realises that is only too true: it like a jungle as regards parking. It is not a question of going out of our way to make the job of the Garda easy but of trying to find a solution to the present situation. If we leave the law as it is and has been up to the present, it will mean that there will not be any parking laws as such. This is not an attempt to help the Garda to convict more people or make their job easier but an attempt to solve a difficulty without causing injustice to anybody.
We all agree with those sentiments but I suggest that by giving the person who is not the owner of the car virtually carte blanche to park wherever he likes you are practically absolving him from all responsibility. The first person you want to get is the person who has parked a car at a bus stop. I think that is the primary desire, to get the offender first, and failing that, to get some means by which he will be tracked down if he has left the car there and gone away.
That is the kernel of the problem, to get the culprit in some way or other. If there is any suggestion, further than those already made, I should be very glad to have it.
If it could be shown that the owner of the car, whether a private owner or somebody in the self-drive business, is guilty of any contributory negligence by hiring the car or loaning it to somebody who obviously should not get a car, then I would agree that he should be got if you can get him.
The Minister will consider the point?
I shall consider it and anything else that Deputies wish to have considered now or later.
I notice that in some of the sections there is provision for consultation with the local authorities. In other sections, including Section 86, this is omitted. Is there a special reason for that?
In regard to bus stop procedure?
Yes.
The Deputy is quite right. It has been knowingly omitted for the reason that it is felt that the bus stop problem is such a detailed one that each one is, in itself, a problem, and that consultation and procedure of that kind with the local authority would not appear to be a fitting method of approach nor would it appear likely to improve the siting of these bus stops ultimately.
As the Minister probably knows, it is the practice for local authorities to make representations to the Garda regarding the siting of bus stops. Will that procedure be interfered with?
That would be the voluntary approach to the Commissioner and the submission of views?
Yes.
Not at all. I am sure the Commissioner would be more than glad to have those views.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 87 agreed to.
SECTION 88.
Question proposed: "That Section 88 stand part of the Bill."
Amendment No. 82 was discussed with amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
Is consultation with the local authority again omitted on the same grounds? The question of the regulation of traffic is one in which one would imagine that the local authority should have some say.
This is the section giving power to make general bye-laws for the entire country and for general application. To consult each local authority in that case naturally would not be feasible or desirable.
This section also deals generally with bye-laws which the Commissioner may make including bye-laws to regulate and control the leading of animals. Does the Minister feel it necessary to be more specific regarding that? Most of us have had experience of animals being allowed more or less without control on the roads and causing damage. I am not at all clear as to the position regarding the legal liability for damage caused by animals allowed to stray or wander on the roads. I should like to feel that under this section there is some way of bringing home the responsibility to the person responsible for allowing the animals on the road without proper care or control if the animals cause damage to person or property.
I think this has been mentioned before. The question of animals on the roadway and the damage they may cause is a matter for civil action. If I am not mistaken, there is a committee dealing with this matter of civil liability at the moment and possibly this will be dealt with there in a broader sense. To attempt to bring it in here would have far reaching effects, effects which we would not be capable of dealing with adequately in a measure which is mainly directed towards road traffic law. For that reason, I would say to the House that it is a matter to be dealt with more appropriately by the committee, and probably better so, if the changes are made.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 89.
I move amendment No. 83:
In subsection (2), page 65, line 24, to delete "of any specified class".
The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that bye-laws may, if necessary, prohibit the loading or unloading in certain streets of all goods and not merely goods of a specified class as in the section as it stands. It is to make that clear that this amendment is before the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 84 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 89, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Under the 1933 Act, the local authority or, in default, the Minister, was required to make bye-laws for the regulation of traffic at fairs and markets. Is that not correct?
I think a later section covers that.
Does it?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 90.
Amendment No. 85 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 90 stand part of the Bill."
It has been put to me that there is something rather unjustifiable about giving power to charge a parking fee on a public road. It is obviously justifiable to have a parking fee payable where a public car park is provided off the public road, but for the motorist who is already paying heavily for his share of the road through his road tax, it does seem less than fair that he should be charged extra for stopping. I hope therefore that the Minister will divest himself of the power to charge a fee for parking on the public road and restrict himself to the right to make a charge where public car parks are provided off the public road.
Another matter arises in reference to subsection (9) where we have again the same trouble in regard to the registered owner being liable. I presume the Minister will reconsider that matter also, as in the previous case.
I was going to refer to subsection (9) but I take it that the Minister's remarks on the previous section cover this because he himself related Section 86 to Section 90——
Yes.
——in dealing with it.
That is so.
Under subsection (2) (h), the bye-laws may provide for prohibiting wholly the parking, otherwise than in parking places, of vehicles on any specified public road. Each and every one of us knows of cases of cars breaking down on a public road and there is no place to put the car. What is the alternative?
This is not a general application of the power that is mentioned; it is to deal with specified streets or stretches of road. It does not apply to all roads.
What happens if a car breaks down on a specified road?
It is too bad if your car breaks down on any road.
It can happen anywhere.
If your car is in the street and it is in the middle of the night, you can always get it off the street. That is all I can say.
Subsection (5) says that the Commissioner may, by bye-laws under subsection (1), specify the fees to be charged by licensed parking attendants in respect of attended parking places. Would it also be desirable to specify the actual fees chargeable on a sign or notice?
This, I may say, is a power which is carried on from the Act of 1933. So far as an indication of what the fees might be, as laid down by the Commissioner, there is no reason why those may not be published and displayed in such a way that the public will be aware of them. So far as Deputy Booth's comment is concerned, regarding the charge for parking on a public roadway, that again is a power which, in principle, has been in existence since 1933. The power now sought has particular relation to possible experiments in the use of parking meters.
While the point may be made that if a car going along the road is not charged a specific fee, it should not be charged a specific fee if it stops on a particular part of that road, I do not think it is a very useful argument in this case, because we have had the power in the past to charge and to allow charges to be made and we are not imposing some new charge on the motoring public to which they were not liable in the past. Therefore, we could not be said to be worsening their position.
On the other hand, if parking meters are to contribute towards ease of parking and possibly in some cases the relief of congestion by properly controlled parking, surely then the benefits in both of those directions will be to the motorist because to a very large degree it is the motorists who suffer to a great extent if there is indiscriminate parking for unduly lengthy periods. If it works, all this will be of greater assistance to the motorist than to any other member of the community. Therefore, even if you can make the argument: why charge a motorist when his car is stationary on a particular street, if you do not charge him as he goes along a whole stretch of roadway, I feel that while it is a nice argument, the other one is better, that we are doing it by way of experimenting to help the motorist to park more readily and under some control.
In support of the Minister's argument, I understand that anyone's right to use a road is to use it as a thoroughfare, not to sit down or remain in one place. The ordinary common law right is to use it as a thoroughfare and charging people for that right does not seem to be quite in accord with that principle.
I hope I am not the only one who does not understand the reference in subsection (4) to ‘disc'. Does the Minister visualise flying saucers or who would want to park discs anyway?
That refers to the use of discs as an indicator of parking places.
I should like to return to the point about what licensed parking attendants may charge. I should like the Minister to consider including in subsection (c) a provision whereby the Commissioner may require these charges to be displayed. The Minister has said there is nothing to stop them being displayed, but if we had adopted that attitude with regard to the other provisions of the Bill, we would have been at sixes and sevens long before now. Would the Minister consider putting in such a provision?
That power would lie under Section 94. I think the Deputy would like an undertaking that that power will be used to ensure the display of these charges if they are authorised?
Users could be mulcted if they did not know about the charges.
The Deputy would prefer that they should know them rather than be done in the eye without having that knowledge. If the charges are to be made and authorised, I am inclined to think a notice to that effect should be displayed. I think what the Deputy has in mind is to stem the manner in which charges which are not really authorised seem to be the order of the day in parking places in the city of Dublin at the moment. As I said, my sympathy is with the Deputy, that we should, if possible, have these charges displayed. The power to do that is in Section 95. While I would not say offhand that these signs and charges will be displayed, I am certainly thinking in that direction and my sympathies lie in that direction.
Will the Minister translate his sympathies into practice in the Bill by inserting such a provision?
We do not need to do it. We have the power and it can be done.
If necessary?
I am merely saying that without doubt it can be done and my sympathies are in the direction that it should be done.
In subsection (6), reference is made to the powers of the Commissioner to license car parking attendants. I want to mention the fact that car parking attendants in the city at the moment are very alarmed that some attempt might be made to take away their livelihood. I hope that in licensing car parking attendants, the Minister will see that those who have been on the job, and have done a good job, will not be interfered with, and will be given priority when it comes to the issue of licences. Attempts may be made by certain groups to collar these jobs. It would be most unfair if the present attendants who have done a good job could not continue in that capacity. I mention the matter because I was asked to raise it, and I hope the Minister will make some comment on it. Has the Minister any comment to make on the point?
The Deputy would be surprised at the comments I could make in both directions—both for and against, and for good reason.
I qualified my statement by referring to attendants who have done a good job and are satisfactory to the Garda. I hope they will not be interfered with. That is the corroboration of the "fors" and "againsts". Is that not so?
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 91.
Amendment No. 86 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 91 stand part of the Bill."
Has the Minister any power in this section or is it left to the Garda?
This section deals in a very specific way with emergency conditions and, in fact, it mentions "Garda Síochána in uniform" being on the spot if any emergency conditions arise. It gives power to do certain things by way of controlling traffic. The knowledge of the local authority or consultation even with his immediate superior does not arise.
In my area, we hold races on the public roads.
Without permission?
With the permission of the local authority. I should like to know will the local authority still have the power to grant that permission?
That will not be interfered with. I take it that the Deputy's fears are that someone will interfere with the local authority cooperating with the race committee—he did not say what the races were; trotters, I suppose—or that some power they have will be taken away. That is not so. That will not happen.
There is no provision in the Bill that the local authority can give permission to the race committee to hold the races on the public road.
The power is available. It derives from the local government laws. It will not be dealt with under this road traffic law, but under the existing local government code.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 92.
Amendment No. 87 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 92 stand part of the Bill."
This section refers to fairs. Is there any change from the 1933 Act under which the Minister may make regulations in connection with fairs and markets? It is permissive now? Is that not right?
I can say in answer to the Deputy's first query that this is practically a re-enactment of the provision in the 1933 Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 93 agreed to.
SECTION 94.
Question proposed: "That Section 94 stand part of the Bill."
In subsection (3) of this section, it is provided.
Where an order has been made under subsection (1) of this section, the Minister may at any time, after giving notice to the road authority charged with the maintenance of the road to which the order relates and considering any representations made to him by such road authority, by order revoke or amend the first-mentioned order and thereupon it shall be the duty of such road authority to remove or alter the notices erected and maintained by them under subsection (2) of this section in relation to the first-mentioned order.
Would it not be better to provide that the Minister should consult with the local authority before the inquiry is held?
With regard to subsection (6), may I take it that the Minister will have another look at this when he is considering Sections 89 and 90? This again is a question of the owner, as well as the driver or user, being held guilty.
Yes. It seems to be the same pattern.
It is the same category.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 95
I move amendment No. 88:
In subsection (11), to add at the end of the subsection "and, in any prosecution for an offence under this section and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the traffic sign shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, to have been provided by a person other than a road authority without the consent of the Commissioner."
This is a drafting amendment. The provisions of subsection (18) could, in effect, be used to defeat a prosecution under subsection (11), if the proposed amendment were not inserted. The amendment is designed to close a gap which would unwittingly have been left open.
May I point out that a number of people erect signs, such as cattle crossing signs, concealed entrances, and so on? Would it be possible to have some provision to enable these signs to be maintained or will those concerned have to apply for permission to keep the signs in existence?
I shall have to check on that. Strictly speaking, the signs should not be there, unless permission has been granted for them. I shall have to look into the matter to see what the general attitude is and what action may be taken.
I am not sure that I like the Minister's amendment. It raises a question similar to one we were discussing earlier. Subsection (10) of Section 95 provides:
A person other than a road authority shall not provide a traffic sign visible from a public road without the consent of the Commissioner.
Subsection (11) provides:
The occupier or (in the case of unoccupied land) the owner of land on which a traffic sign is provided in contravention of subsection (10) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
That is a blunt statement that the occupier, or the owner if the land is unoccupied, shall be guilty of an offence if a sign appears without the consent of the Commissioner. There is no provision to meet the case where, without the authority of the occupier or owner, some other person erects a sign in contravention of subsection (10). According to subsection (11), the owner or occupier will be guilty. The Minister in his amendment carries that a step further. He says:
In subsection (11), to add at the end of the subsection "and in any prosecution for an offence under this section and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the traffic sign shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, to have been provided by a person other than a road authority without the consent of the Commissioner.
From the defendant's point of view, it will be presumed that the sign is erected without the consent of the Commissioner. The prosecution will not even be required to prove that and we are not leaving it open to the defendant to provide as a defence that the sign was erected without his knowledge or consent.
The position is that any person can produce whatever authorisation he has, and that will be an end to it. If the authorisation is not produced in the first instance, it can be produced in court. That will be the proof that the consent exists.
I am talking about the case where someone comes in on my land and erects an unauthorised sign without my consent. Should it not be open to me to prove that in my defence?
It would be open to the Deputy to follow the person who trespassed on his land.
Leave out the question of trespass. If I go in on the Minister's land and erect an unauthorised sign, under the section, will the Minister not be guilty, even though he knows nothing about it?
Theoretically, that would be so.
It is not a question of theory, it is a question of fact.
The Deputy thinks people run around the country putting up signs on other people's lands.
The mere fact that the sign is erected on the Minister's land makes the Minister guilty of an offence and it will be no defence for him to say that he did not erect the sign and that he knows nothing about it; he was living in Dublin, looking after his Ministerial duties. That is no defence for the Minister, and I think it should be.
Do not worry about the Minister. If such signs are erected on my land, I will see to it that they are removed, and whoever put them there as well.
But that would not be a defence in itself.
The argument is very hypothetical. While, hypothetically, the points may be good, I do not see any real sense in them. We have to presume, first of all, that somebody for some reason or another—for the first time, or as a habit—is moving around the country, erecting signs on other people's lands at some cost and trouble and before the owner becomes aware of the position, the Garda are hot on his heels, and so lacking in commonsense that they immediately take a prosecution. In the unlikely sequence of events adumbrated by the Deputy, the owner would find himself in court without a defence. I do not believe that the sequence could possibly continue and that the district justice would give him the hammer regardless. We have to have a most extraordinary sequence of extraordinary events to bring about this extraordinary situation. Candidly, I do not believe in this extraordinary trend of events.
I do not think the Minister need feel they are so extraordinary at all. We are dealing with the Minister's amendment. Later in this section, the same provision is made in relation to signs other than road signs. If there is erected on a person's land a sign which makes a road sign less visible or which may cause confusion to a motorist or other user of the road, the same provision is made. If it is erected on a person's land, the owner or the occupier of the land is guilty of an offence, whether he did it or not, and we are declaring by law that he is guilty of an offence, even though he might be entirely innocent.
I do not think it will cause any breach in the Minister's Bill if, at the end of his amendment No. 88 and if again in subsection (15), he adds the words: "unless such owner or occupier shows that the sign was erected without his consent or authority." I would ask the Minister to consider adding those words or words to that effect, both in his amendment and in subsection (15).
Would the House be satisfied—this would not weaken or worsen the position from the point of view of the Bill as I see it—if, first of all, having been approached about the sign—no matter whether it is this sign or the one dealt with later—by the authorities, the owner pleads he knows nothing about it and proceeds to have it removed forthwith, that, then, would constitute a good defence?
I would be quite satisfied with that.
I will consider having that introduced on the next Stage.
Does this section mean that signs such as "Filling station 400 yards ahead" are now prohibited? Subsection (1) (a) says:
gives information in regard to a public road, including the places to which it leads and the distance to or from such places.
It is possible that they could be so described.
I hope it does mean that.
I would say that anybody contemplating erecting such a sign or having erected such a sign would be well advised to contact the Garda authorities, if this Bill becomes law. Otherwise, he may find himself being contacted by the Garda authorities.
Will the same apply to advertising by business concerns?
It depends. If it could be construed in any way to be a direction for traffic—distance or that type of thing—possibly it could, but it does not come under it in the ordinary sense. Ordinary business signs or advertisements would not be dealt with under this Bill.
It could go very far. It was quite a common thing for garages who were the agents for a particular make of car to put up, several miles outside a town, a sign indicating that such and such a town was so many miles away and then the name of the main dealer.
That is very common.
I know it is quite common. I am not worrying about its being common. I wonder would it be an offence. In fact, it would be a good idea if the erection of all these signs were made an offence, whether they gave directions or not.
You could go a little too far in that way. If I were looking for a Ford agent or a Wolsely agent, it might be very helpful.
Hotels also erect signs to indicate that such a hotel is so many yards ahead.
The Minister does not contemplate in this Bill cutting out that type of advertisement?
It depends.
Deputy Russell referred to signs indicating a filling station so many yards ahead. Does the Minister contemplate cutting out that sort of advertisement?
I merely said that it would be judicious on the part of any person contemplating doing such a thing to contact the Garda authorities, if this measure becomes law. It would be very difficult to decide.
I do not think the Minister should take any positive step to prevent that sort of thing.
Is it not the Minister's job to define what is contained in the Bill and what he means to prevent?
No. What we are trying to do is to get a general framework within which we can improve the general appreciation of traffic law in the country. It is impossible to get down to definitions of specific cases and special circumstances. That is why I am being chary, rather than being negative, on the question now being discussed.
Deputy Russell is right in so far as "traffic sign" as defined in this section can include the type of sign he has described. Is that not correct? Therefore, it follows that any sign which indicates a filling station 400 yards ahead or that such and such a hotel is a half a mile away may be erected only with the permission of the Garda Commissioner and of the local authority, and that sort of thing.
Of course, regardless of what is on it, the sign will also be subject to strict control regarding its erection. A sign, regardless of what direction is on it, near the road and visible from the road is being controlled, not under this Bill but under the Town Planning Act.
Not necessarily in every county—very few counties.
I hope the Minister will control the erection of signs. There are too many of them.
The Minister is not saying whether or not the erection of these signs is an offence against the section. He says he would advise any person who contemplates erecting such a sign to consult the local Garda. That is a most peculiar statement by the Minister. It is for the Minister to make quite clear in this House, when the question has been posed, whether or not these signs advertising hotels or filling stations, so many hundred yards away, are prohibited under the section. We should have the Minister's viewpoint on it.
My only complaint so far as the regulation of signs under this section is concerned is that I should like to see the Minister going a little further in subsection (14). The Minister provides in subsection (14):
A person shall not provide any such sign, device, notice or light as is not a traffic sign if, on provision thereof, it is visible from a public road and—
(a) it is capable of being confused with a traffic sign,
I agree with that.
(b) it makes a traffic sign provided in accordance with this section less visible to road users,
I agree with that.
or
(c) it obstructs the view of public road users so as to render the road dangerous to them.
I agree with that. I should like to see the Minister putting in a subclause (d) to govern the kind of eye-catching signs one frequently sees and which are a source of distraction to drivers. Certainly, I would have no complaint at all if the Minister also took power in subsection (14) to prevent the erection of signs such as are likely, or reasonably likely, to distract the attention of the driver from his driving while on the road. My only concern, and the Minister has met me on it, is to ensure that innocent people will not find themselves caught, through our inadvertence in the legislature, when it is not intended that they should be caught and I am quite satisfied with the assurance the Minister has given on that.
I think we have disposed of amendment No. 88.
Could I point out one matter? I am surprised that Deputy O'Higgins has not already mentioned it because it would be a matter for a practising lawyer. In this amendment of the Minister's, again, I presume from the point of view of efficiency and tidiness, the accused is presumed guilty until he can prove himself innocent, which is a principle I always greatly resent. That will go into subsection (11) but then, if we go on to subsection (18), we find the complete reverse is the case. If you are prosecuted for failing to comply with a traffic sign, the traffic sign is presumed to have been authorised and it is up to you to prove that it was not. That is very much a case of "Heads, I win; tails, you lose". It means that if you are prosecuted for having a sign erected, you are guilty until you can prove the contrary, whereas if you are prosecuted for failure to comply with a notice, the presumption is that the notice was legal.
That does not seem to be a consistent way of legislating. I can see much more reason in supporting subsection (18) than that clause in subsection (11). I do not believe it is ever justifiable to say a defendant shall be deemed to be guilty unless he proves the contrary.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 89:—
To add to the section the following subsection:
"(19) A request by or consent of the Commissioner under this section may be signed by an officer of the Garda Síochána authorised in that behalf by the Commissioner."
This amendment permits the Commissioner of the Garda to delegate the power of giving consent in relation to the erection of traffic signs.
What does "officer" include there? Does it mean a commissioned officer?
Superintendent or higher.
Inspectors are cut out?
Obviously.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 95, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I would like to ask the Minister if this is the section which includes the provision of white lines?
Yes.
Does this section give power to the Commissioner to make regulations in relation to white lines? The present position is that the white lines have no legal effect because they disappear.
Section 88 will deal with enforcement about which I think is what the Deputy is more concerned and which I fully agreed is the worthwhile part of this matter. This section here deals with the design, the width——
The definition.
Yes, the definition of the line or the type of line. Section 88 is one which deals with enforcement.
On subsection (16), would the Minister say whether this subsection gives him power to control the use of the type of traffic sign or other sign to which Deputy Russell referred? The Minister said that the erection of these signs might be controlled under town planning but I think he has power here to control the type of sign so that commercial signs erected will not confuse people in regard to direction, distance and so on?
I do not think what the Deputy assumes is so under this subsection.
Maybe I misunderstood him but I thought the Minister told Deputy Russell in reply to his query that this sort of sign: "60 yards to the next filling station" would be deemed to be a traffic sign.
I did not say it actually would. I said it might be. Whether I said it in that way or not, that was the intention.
In a case like that, surely the Minister ought to be able to provide by regulation some sort of control over the type of sign displayed. For instance, around the country there are signs which want you to stop at a particular shop or a particular filling station and the "stop" is about 20 times bigger than the small print. Some motorists have been known to pull up abruptly when they saw such signs. I assume that in some part of this legislation the Minister has power to control that kind of advertising.
Deputy Murphy and other Deputies have been asking specific questions about specific and hypothetical cases they can see arising or indeed may exist at the moment. If I were to give a categorical answer on any one of them it would immediately be taken as of general application and it might not work out that way later on.
Does subsection (14) (a) cover the general position?
We do not want to confuse the Minister or make him say something he does not want to say. Deputy Russell put his finger on it.
It was not hypothetical.
I do not agree we should go as far as Deputy Russell suggests we should go. He seems to think we should abolish all those signs. I say "no," but we should control them. My question and Deputy Murphy's question is: has the Minister power in this section or any other section in the Bill to control that sort of pseudo-road signing?
Subsections (10) and (14) cover it.
That is all right. I am satisfied.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 96.
Amendment No. 90 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 96 stand part of the Bill."
Under this section a traffic warden may charge a person who refuses to stop. May he arrest him?
No.
In that case the traffic warden would be told to jump in the lake half the time.
He will not jump in the lake just because he is told to do so.
If a cyclist rides through he can do nothing about it. He has power to charge but he may not arrest.
The appointment of traffic wardens is a function of the local authority. If we go back to Section 90 we find that the Commissioner is fully responsible for the appointment of car park attendants who also have certain functions with regard to traffic. Why has the local authority the function in one case and the Commissioner in the other? I would have thought it would be the logical thing to leave the local authority responsible for the appointment, conditions of service and employment of both traffic wardens and car park attendants.
In regard to traffic wardens, it was the local authorities and other public committees or local committees that first sought to have these wardens appointed and given some sort of status. In addition to that, it is my belief that local authorities have contributed towards the cost of equipping these people; certainly some cost fell upon them. With regard to the other people with whom we dealt earlier on, the parking attendants, it would appear that these people will not be a charge on the local authority; neither will they have been sponsored or requested by the local authorities. There is that distinction in the origin or the possible origin of the two categories, traffic warden and parking attendant. They originated in a different way. One is very closely related and emanates from the efforts of local authorities whereas the other is not so closely allied to them.
Would the Minister consider that a cap is a sufficient description of a uniform?
I would say that an armlet is less so. You could see a cap but not an armlet.
What about a white coat or a distinguishing garment?
The regulations provide a white coat.
The subsection says:
"uniform" includes any garment, armlet or cap.
The Minister will by regulation prescribe the uniform in all of these cases.
He can prescribe a cap.
Of course, he could say a white boot, but that is not likely.
Why define "uniform" at all if the Minister will make regulations to define it?
It can be any garment. It could be a sock, an armlet or a cap.
The Deputy need have no fears that anything strange like that will happen by regulation.
I have no wish to be jocose about it or to introduce a spirit of levity. Up to now I think "uniform" has been understood to mean a white coat. I think they should preserve that uniform garment.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 97.
Question proposed: "That Section 97 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section which deals with the removal of a car which is abandoned or left badly parked, and so on. Subsection (2) provides:
Where a vehicle is removed pursuant to this section, such charge in respect of the removal as may be specified by the Minister for Justice by regulations shall be paid to the Commissioner by the owner of the vehicle.
Again, in subsection (3) we read:
Where a vehicle is stored pursuant to this section, such charge in respect of the storage as may be appropriate in accordance with a scale specified by the Minister for Justice by regulations shall be paid to the Commissioner by the owner of the vehicle.
I would ask the Minister to consider in both of these subsections providing that the charge will be a charge to cover expenses reasonably incurred and that there should be some words of limitation to prevent the charge being imposed as a penalty. I am not fussy as to how it will be done but I think something of that sort should be done.
I must say I agree with the Deputy that it would be wrong that there should be, or that there should appear to be, a penalty imposed by means of regulation described in a charge, by making it unduly high. It was that thought which prompted this section in the manner in which it appears now. Nevertheless, if it is felt that it is too weak in that respect I shall give it further consideration and, if need be, amendment. This section was introduced lest there might be the inclination to impose, possibly without much thought about the matter, a fixed charge which would be a penalty plus cost.
If the Minister inserted the words "charge to cover expenses reasonably incurred" or such words——
I shall look into it.
The question arises of liability for any damage that might occur to the vehicle in the course of removal or any damage which might take place during the period of storage. I take it there will be some indemnification whereby the Commissioner of the Garda will not be liable for any alleged damage during that operation.
No provision is made for any specific indemnity.
It would be desirable to provide that there would be no liability for such damage. It is possible that the vehicle might have to be removed and stored in the local pound, yard or garage as the case may be. It might be there for several weeks. In the course of storage, damage may be caused. It may deteriorate very considerably. Would there be any question that the owner could have an action against the Commissioner of the Garda for any such damage?
Looking at it from the other side of the picture, the absence of any indemnity clause in this regard is in itself an insurance to the owner of the car that it is likely to be carefully handled by those removing it lest any damage might occur for which he would claim damages thereafter or for which he could not, if there was an indemnity clause. I can have a look at that also. There are two sides; this is another aspect of the matter. The absence of an indemnity clause may effectively be somewhat of an insurance that the car will be treated with proper respect and due attention during its removal and period of storage.
In the event of the insurance company of the owner not providing that indemnity——
The car could be damaged.
Deputy Moloney wants to go the other way.
Double indemnity.
If the insurance of the owner is not effective at the time——
I shall have a look at that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 98.
I move amendment No. 91:
To delete subsection (1) and substitute the following subsection:
"(1) A person shall not do any act (whether of commission or omission) which causes or is likely to cause traffic through any public place to be obstructed."
Amendment No. 92 reads as follows:
To add to the section the following subsection:
"(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a good defence to the charge for him to show that there was lawful authority for the act complained of or that it was due to unavoidable accident."
The two are interrelated and can be taken together. These two amendments are designed to improve the draft Bill by making it clear that there is no onus of proof on the prosecution to show that an act of obstruction arose in the exercise of lawful authority or due to unavoidable accident. I believe there is a need for this type of precaution and that it is generally accepted that such need exists. Other sections are drafted similar to that which the amendment will now bring about.
Does that apply to pedestrians? I have in mind jay walkers, for instance. Could they be accused of obstruction by darting across the street?
They could, in theory, but I think they would be more effectively controlled and covered by the bye-laws which will be made, rather than by the section. Theoretically, the section would apply to them.
I do not know what the position is in Dublin city. I assume that for a public meeting in College Green or O'Connell Street the permission of the Garda Síochána is sought. The situation in small towns and villages is that the meeting is merely advertised and held. Is this a new proposal? In respect of public meetings, must the permission of the Garda be sought? Is permission sought in respect of a funeral?
It is contained in the 1933 Act, as we now propose by amendment to have it in this Bill. That should answer that.
So much is being put in now that it is not intended to enforce it.
I would not say that is the intention.
In legal theory, if one is to hold a public meeting, one must get the permission of the Garda.
Is it not quite the same thing.
It is the constitutional right of assembly. The Garda have no authority.
Is there not a conflict between that and the Road Traffic Act? You are not supposed to obstruct the traffic.
That is a different matter.
The one observation answers the other. Surely the traffic laws must take second place to the Constitution?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 92:—
To add to the section the following subsection:
"(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a good defence to the charge for him to show that there was lawful authority for the act complained of or that it was due to unavoidable accident."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 93 not moved.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 99.
I move amendment No. 94:
In subsection (1), page 75, lines 41 and 42, to delete ", without lawful authority or reasonable cause, hold on to, get on or in to, or remain on or in," and substitute "hold on to, or get on or in to,"
Amendments No. 94 and 95 are similar in purpose to the previous amendments which have been agreed to.
I do not like the position where the onus of proof is being taken from the prosecution as it is throughout this Bill. However, I am not objecting.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 95:
To add to the section the following subsection:
"(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a good defence to the charge for him to show that there was lawful authority for the act complained of or that otherwise there was reasonable cause therefor."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 99, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 100.
Question proposed: "That Section 100 stand part of the Bill."
In this section, it is stated:
(1) A person on a bicycle or a tricycle in a public place shall not hold on to any other vehicle (other than a pedal bicycle which no person is driving)
Why is a pedal bicycle which no person is driving excluded? Is the person cycling on a road and holding on to another bicycle not a danger to traffic and the public? I cannot see why this exclusion is made and I think there is no justifiable case for it. I should like to hear what motivated the Minister to include such——
He has two bicycles.
I do not doubt that the Deputy should raise the point and also point out that the practice of cycling on one machine and pushing another is possibly a dangerous procedure. On the other hand, one may be using a bicycle which may be his only means of getting round. If a person wants to move another bicycle a distance, there is not much way of doing it unless he can find some other means of doing so.
International conventions have, in fact, adopted this form of recommended legislation. I should be inclined to follow that. I should be inclined on my own to defend it also, even if there were not any international convention. Despite the fact that the Deputy may insist it could be a dangerous practice, it can be a very useful one. A person may not have any other means of transport for himself, his wife or family. A man going to work may have no other way of travelling.
Does the Minister assume that a number of people in this country have two bicycles, that one might break down and that it would be no harm to take a second one?
This is not a spare bicycle.
It is most dangerous.
Would the Minister say whether a man riding a bicycle leading a horse is entitled to that?
It is not illegal.
Is it illegal to get a crossbar?
That depends.
Is it illegal?
Not under this section.
Can a person walk holding on to a horse-drawn vehicle?
Walk?
Walk beside a horse-drawn vehicle?
Anybody who wishes to walk beside a horse-drawn vehicle——
Under this section, is he entitled to hold on to it?
He would be, unless there was some reason why he should not.
And he is not, if he is riding a bicycle?
My question should have related to Section 99.
That is, holding on to a vehicle.
How does a person stand in regard to a horse-drawn vehicle under Section 99?
I suppose it would be wrong to say he would be entitled to do it in all cases, but——
I have often seen young persons holding on to a car.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 101 to 103, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 104.
Question proposed: "That Section 104 stand part of the Bill."
There is a change here as against the present position. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on it? Am I right in saying that the present position is that notice of intention to prosecute must be given within 14 days, unless warning is given on the spot? Under the provisions of Section 104, there are now certain circumstances in which the notice need not be given, as set out in subparagraphs (II) and (III) of paragraph (c).
It does differ in respect of the notice to be given with the exception where the 14-day notice is no longer operative.
There is also the addition that, again, the onus of proof of service of the notice is removed from the prosecution?
By and large, that is so.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 105.
Question proposed: That Section 105 stand part of the Bill."
Paragraph (b) says:
...and it shall not be necessary to prove that the watch or electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.
Is the Minister satisfied with that subsection? I must say I am not. If the defence called for some proof that the watch was in good working order, would it not be wise to allow provision to have it tested?
It is possible that the defendant could show in some manner that the stop watch was defective. If that were possible, undoubtedly it would be a satisfactory defence. He would not be precluded from doing that by this section.
He would have some fun proving that any particular stop watch was the one used. It would be worse than the driver who turns up at a parked car and swears he did not park it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 106.
I move amendment No. 96:
In subsection (1), page 79, to delete "being" in line 59 and substitute "is".
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 97:
In subsection (1), page 80, line 2, to delete "is incapable of making" and substitute "could not be expected to make"
A doubt has arisen as to the situation in which a driver is required to report an accident. As the Bill stands, a driver need not report an accident if somebody involved in the accident is present and does not demand the driver's name and address or other particulars. This exception, where the accident need not be reported, does not apply where the person who is present is incapable—in other words, if he is injured to such a degree that he is no longer capable of demanding anything from the driver in question.
It has been put to me that while a person might not be unconscious and might appear to be capable of looking after his own interests, it could well be that a broken limb or some other injury could bring about such a state of shock and confusion that the person, in spite of appearances, might not, in fact, be capable of properly looking after his own interest. It is to meet this point that the amendment has been put down.
Supposing the person concerned knew the name of the driver and did not ask his name? If they agreed not to report the accident, would that be sufficient?
In the event of agreement, the obligation would, I take it, be removed. The obligation would no longer rest on the driver to make that report if there is agreement by somebody capable of reaching that agreement.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 98:
Before subsection (2) to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Where—
(a) a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that an injury has been caused to person or property in a public place and that a vehicle was involved in the occurrence of the injury (whether the use of the vehicle was or was not the cause of the injury), and
(b) the member is not aware of the place where the vehicle is being kept,
the member may require the owner of the vehicle to state to the member where the vehicle is being kept and the owner shall comply with that requirement."
Perhaps, with the agreement of the House, amendments Nos. 98, 99 and 102 could be debated together.
These amendments are designed to deal further with the hit-and-run driver. The Garda have experience of cases where such a driver will put his vehicle out of sight until blood stains and other marks are removed, body repairs carried out and broken lamps replaced—anything that might identify him with the accident. The new subsection (2) proposed in amendment No. 98 would require the owner of such a vehicle to disclose its whereabouts. His refusal to do so would be made an offence under amendment No. 99. Under the new subsection (5) proposed in amendment No. 102, the Garda would be entitled to apply for a warrant to enter premises and search for such a vehicle in cases where the owner's co-operation was not forthcoming or not fully forthcoming. In other words, the three amendments are designed to cope with this problem of the hit-and-run driver. It is a rather baffling one, and I believe that what is sought by the amendments is not unreasonable. I think the general belief is that whatever we can do about this matter within reason, we should attempt. These three amendments are a reasonable attempt to help detect the hit-and-run driver.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 99:
In subsection (2), page 80, line 11, to insert "or subsection (2)” before “of this section”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 100:
In subsection (2), page 80, line 12, to insert "on summary conviction" after "liable".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 101 was discussed with amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
Amendment No. 101 not moved.
I move amendment No. 102:
To add to the section the following subsection:
"(5) (a) Where—
(i) a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that an injury has been caused to person or property in a public place and that a vehicle was involved in the occurrence of the injury (whether the use of the vehicle was or was not the cause of the injury), and (ii) the member has, either consequent upon a statement made pursuant to subsection (2) of this section or otherwise, reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is being kept in any premises,
the member may, on information on oath, apply to any justice of the District Court or Peace Commissioner for a warrant under this subsection.
(b) On an application being made under the foregoing paragraph, the Justice of the District Court or Peace Commissioner to whom the application is made may, if he so thinks proper, by warrant—
(i) authorise any specified member or members of the Garda Síochána to enter, within one week from the date of the warrant, and if necessary by the use of force, the premises to which the application relates, and
(ii) authorise any person or persons entering the premises under the warrant to search the premises and to examine, and take possession of for the purposes of examination, any vehicle found during the search, and any such warrant shall operate in accordance with its terms."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 106, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 107 and 108 agreed to.
SECTION 109.
I move amendment No. 103:
In subsection (1), page 81, line 39, to delete "on a public road" and substitute "in a public place".
This is largely a drafting amendment. It ensures that a Garda's power to stop a vehicle will apply to public places and not merely to public roads. It extends, or rather confirms, the intention of the Bill that public places shall be treated in this regard in the same manner as public roads.
I have no objection either to the amendment or the section but there is just a small point I wish to raise. It seems it might be better to provide in Section 109 that the obligation of stopping when required to do so by a member of the Garda should apply only in the case of a Garda in uniform. The Minister is probably aware that anyone travelling nowadays on the roads is frequently flagged down for lifts and if we do not specify that the member of the Garda is to be in uniform, a person will not know whether he is committing an offence or not if he chooses to ignore the person who signals him to stop.
Section 111, in fact, does provide what the Deputy seeks.
I think it does, in the main, cover it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 104 not moved.
Section 109, as amended, agreed to.
Section 110 agreed to.
SECTION 111.
Question proposed: "That Section 111 stand part of the Bill."
This section does, I think, deal with the question I raised on Section 109. There is just a vague possibility of a Garda, not in uniform, signalling a person to stop and being ignored and an offence could be committed because the non-uniformed Garda is able to produce an official identification card.
I think that would be asking the impossible, that he should produce the card and stop a man who would not know he was a Garda. You cannot have it both ways. I do not think there will be any real difficulty there.
Probably not.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 112.
I move amendment No. 105:
In subsection (2), to add at the end of the subsection "and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment".
The purpose of the amendment is to apply to the offence of taking a mechanically propelled vehicle without authority a heavier penalty than the common penalty. The penalty it is proposed to apply is that which applies to a similar offence under the 1933 Act and I think it should meet the wishes of the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 106 was discussed with amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
Amendment No. 106 not moved.
Section 112, as amended, agreed to.
Section 113 agreed to.
SECTION 114.
If the House so wishes, amendments Nos. 107, 108 and 109 may be discussed together and separate decisions may be taken, if required.
I move amendment No. 107:
In subsection (1), page 82, line 50, to delete "five" and substitute "four".
In the section, the Minister takes power to permit the driving of certain vehicles over a period of 5½ hours and this amendment seeks to reduce the period to 4½ hours. Amendment No. 108 is also designed to reduce the total number of driving hours in a period of 24 hours from 11 to 9. Amendment No. 109 seeks to extend the rest period for drivers of certain classes of vehicles from a half-hour to one hour.
I suppose the number of hours a driver may be permitted to drive and the rest period he may have are matters of opinion. The opinion of the Minister seems to differ from that of many Deputies. As far as I am aware, the provisions the Minister has embodied in this section are similar to those embodied in the 1933 Act 28 years ago. Surely the Minister must realise that these hours need to be changed? It may be pointless to put the question to the Minister: would he like to have to drive for 5½ hours continuously?
He often has to do so.
I do not think the Minister has ever driven a large lorry to that extent.
It would surprise the Deputy to learn what I have driven.
I should be surprised if he did and I am sure there are not many in the House who have driven large lorries for 5½ hours. We consider that 5½ hours is an excessive period to expect a driver of a big bus or a heavy lorry to drive.
The second amendment is designed to reduce the overall driving time in any 24-hours period from eleven to nine hours. Surely it is unreasonable that the drivers I have mentioned should be required to drive up to 11 hours in 24. I do not know what prompted the Minister to reintroduce this section embodied in the 1933 Act. In that period, driving was not as difficult as now: traffic has increased five, or six times, and possibly ten times, since 1933. The hazards and risks are greater. It may be true that roads have improved, that bends are not as bad, that road surfaces are better, but despite that it seems to me a tremendous operation for any man to drive in these modern conditions for a period of 11 hours.
One of the subsections proposes that the driver may get a rest of half-an-hour. Our amendment is designed to increase that period to one hour. I do not know what is in the mind of the Minister when he suggests that a driver who may be compelled by his employer to drive continuously for five and a half hours should then be content with half an hour's rest. Unlike the Minister or Deputy Lynch I have never driven a heavy lorry or a bus but I hate to contemplate my physical condition after driving say from Cork to Dublin, then getting a half hour's rest during which I am expected to have my lunch, and then get back into the cab of the lorry or bus and drive back to Cork or a similar distance which would take me five and a half hours. It is unreasonable that the Minister should expect a driver to be subjected to these conditions.
In the ordinary course of events if these amendments suggested new sections the Minister might be entitled to say that it was for the men's trade unions to negotiate on this matter but here the Minister takes power to determine what the maximum driving hours should be, what the overall driving hours should be in one day and what the rest period should be. We suggest in these three amendments that in the first case a driver should not be required to drive for any longer than four and a half hours continuously or nine hours in a period of 24 hours and that for the rest period he should be allowed one hour rather than a half an hour as proposed by the Minister in the section.
Deputy Corish speaks as if these hours, which are merely continued on from what was in the 1933 Act, will require that workers and drivers must do these hours and must only have the rest that is mentioned here. These hours are the hours beyond which they may not be required and it is from that angle that I think it is only fair to approach this matter. These are the hours beyond which they may not be required to work and drive. It is all very well to say, and there is a certain amount of force in it, that what was suggested and incorporated in the 1933 Act would be very much out of date today. I agree entirely with that but not altogether for the reasons stated by Deputy Corish. Over the years since 1933 there has been little if any exception taken to the hours as outlined as the maximum hours in that Act, which is still current. It is very easy to say that things have become more difficult on the roads today.
I would disagree very much with Deputy Corish in so far as the physical strain, and indeed the mental strain, is concerned. In 1933 when a driver set out on a long journey it was a very short journey if it did not become an adventure as to whether he ever reached his destination or as to whether he ever got back with the same machine. The vehicles in some respects were not very trustworthy especially in regard to their braking systems. The comfort of the drivers today is, I am glad to see in the more recent models of trucks, now being thought about but it certainly was not until quite recently and I never saw anybody kicking up a row about that aspect, which surprised me. By and large, these are not conditions imposed on the workers: they are conditions and hours beyond which they may not be imposed upon. Another vast difference today is—and I do not say this as a cute argument or as an effort to put something over on Deputy Corish, but in all sincerity —that the effectiveness of the unions and their widespread application mean they are better placed to look after in a full and comprehensive way the conditions of employment of the workers than they were. I say that in all sincerity and not as a smart answer to Deputy Corish's plea in this matter.
Taking it all round, to seek to bring in more restricted maxima in so far as these hours are concerned would be a more apparent benefit than a real benefit. Candidly I do not see what real value would be gained if we were to bring these hours in in the manner suggested by these amendments. Conditions are very different today from what they were in those years and the hours, which are maximum hours, are not at all unreasonable considering the improvement in the roads, the improvement in the machines and the more enlightened approach of our employers as a whole as well as the more effective representation of organised labour to look after the interests of their workers. All those together are more effective than anything in this Bill or the old Bill, or anything likely to come in a new Bill.
I gather from the Minister's remarks that this section has been lifted out of a former Act and the amendments, in the Minister's mind, are not necessary in spite of the fact that conditions have changed drastically since the 1933 Act came into operation. I should like to know if the Minister is satisfied on health and efficiency grounds that a man can drive a heavy vehicle for 11 hours within 24 hours with short breaks. In view of the fact that this legislation is brought in to improve safety conditions in the country, to embody in the Act a condition based on the 1933 Act is likely to lead to a recurrence of dangerous conditions on our roads, particularly at night and in winter time if a driver is put to the limit that he may be under this section.
When the section was originally brought in—I am open to contradiction on this—I do not think there was anything in the nature of a 44 or 48 hour week so far as drivers were concerned. It was possible then to knock 66, 68, 70 or even 80 hours out of a man, if you got away with it. Why then should we leave in, in new legislation which is getting rid of prohibitions on the workers, a section which will enable a driver to be exploited to that extent and "exploited" is the word I use? The target nowadays, whether in public relations or amongst labour personnel, is to shorten the working week and even in a country which a number of people in this House are afraid to mention the working week is to be reduced to 35 hours in the near future in many fields. Here we have this Christian country making a provision that a man may be subjected to driving a heavy vehicle for up to 11 hours within a 24 hour period. The Minister should have no objection whatever to accepting Deputy Corish's amendments and particularly the one in regard to the 11-hour period. Deputy Corish and the Labour Party were quite right to put them down.
I should like to point out to the Minister that one of the reasons he did not get complaints from people driving heavy lorries for long hours is that a man with the job of driving a heavy lorry over a long distance and for long hours has what is called a good job from the point of view of pay. Many of those men are in their forties and they would not like to complain even through their unions. I know some of them. I have had experience of driving long distances in heavy vehicles when the roads were very bad. Of course I was younger then and it is all right for people in their twenties.
The Bill is mainly concerned with safety on the roads. That ideal will not be attained if men have to drive heavy vehicles over very long hours. If a standard rule with regard to hours were set down, it would save a great deal of recrimination between employers and drivers. That standard should be less than the 11 hours set out in the Bill.
I agree with the Minister that the roads are better, lorries are better, and so on and so on, but the men are expected to drive much longer distances. That is a great strain on them. They drive at greater speed and on much more crowded roads. Therefore, they are creating a greater hazard.
I see the Minister's point that this does not necessarily mean that drivers will have to drive for 5½ hours, or 11 hours in the 24 hours. Obviously, their unions would see they did not exceed what they regard as the maximal period. I think it is fair to say that what were regarded as maximal periods of driving in 1933 should at least be looked at again from the point of view of existing conditions as against the conditions of the roads 28 years ago.
Furthermore, it will probably be many years before we enact another Road Traffic Bill. The Minister is legislating not only for what is happening today but for what is likely to be happening in 25 or 30 years' time, having regard to the rapid expansion of road traffic in other countries, and despite expansion here, we still lag behind other countries in that regard. If we cannot go the whole way, the Minister might make an adjustment in these figures, bearing in mind all the present circumstances and the possible future circumstances.
The Minister seems to regard this section lightly. It would be much better not to put a section in the Bill at all limiting the number of hours a driver may drive a heavy vehicle. He is laying down here that a driver may not drive for more than 11 hours. He may not drive continuously for more than 5½ hours and after a 5½ hours journey, he must get a half-hour break.
The conflict between the Minister and me is that I do not believe those hours are the correct hours. I believe the driver should be required to drive less during the day, less on a continuous journey and have more rest periods. The Minister's arguments with regard to the state of the roads and the conditions for driving 28 years ago compared with the present day conditions is flimsy. He would nearly have us believe a journey from, say, Wicklow to Dublin 28 years ago, in 1933, was a sort of romantic escapade, a journey during which the driver did not know what to expect, that it was a sort of gamble whether or not he would get from Wicklow to Dublin.
Will the Minister consider certain people I am sure he knows of whom I know of, who must, in the corn season, get up at 4 o'clock in the morning to load their lorries, travel a distance of perhaps 100 miles to Dublin, deliver their corn there, get into their lorry, go back 100 miles, come to Dublin again with a second load and then go back home again. That is the type of person I want to protect in this legislation. The Minister says he is protecting them by providing that they must not work for than 11 hours, but they can do a double journey within 11 hours and in doing it, they are a danger to the public. It is a very good thing to say to a labour representative that their trade unions will look after them!
We do not profess to absolute perfection in the trade union movement. It is true to say that this country, in the city in particular and in the country in general, is one of the best organised in Europe, so far as trade unions are concerned, but there are people who are not embraced by the trade union movement and despite all the efforts of the movement, will not be embraced by it, such as casual workers living far away from towns and cities. They are being exploited by merchants in the country today. They have to drive 80, 90 or 100 miles to and from Dublin twice per day. The Minister says they can work for 11 hours in the day and not break the law. On the second journey back from the city, the driver is a pretty tired and groggy man. He can have an accident through no fault of his own but because he is tired and sleepy in his cab.
The Minister wants to continue that situation on the roads of Ireland where there is ten times more driving than there was in 1933. It was not as dangerous in 1933, although they had the solid tyres and bad roads and did not have the speed. There were not the same risks or hazards as there are on the roads today. No matter how well the lorries have improved or how much the surface of the roads has improved, there are still fast sports cars and other vehicles on the roads. The driver must be aware of these conditions. He must be conscious and look out for them. How can he do that when he is driving for the eleventh hour in the day?
I am making these arguments because the Minister is laying down certain rules and conditions. He says there are limits beyond which you cannot drive, and that 11 hours is the maximum which the driver can be required to drive during a day. Certain of the drivers who are organised can be discounted but there are men who are casual drivers today and labourers tomorrow. They are the people who have to be protected and they are the people against whom the public must be protected because, not deliberately but by reason of these conditions, they may cause accidents. The present Taoiseach was in charge of the Road Traffic Bill of 1933 and when the Labour Party asked him at that time to extend the break from half an hour to one hour, he said he would consider it, that it was a good point. Here we are, 30 years after, and the matter is still being considered. It is still being considered whether a driver of a heavy lorry should get more than half an hour's rest in the day. Deputy McQuillan pointed out that conditions of employment have changed, changed so radically that a worker who worked a 54-, a 50- or a 48-hour week in 1933 now works a 40-hour week. If there is an improvement for workers generally, surely the Minister could have provided in his Bill for a reduction in the hours worked by drivers of heavy lorries.
The particular hours suggested may not suit the Minister. There has been a suggestion of a two-hour reduction in the over-all driving. We suggest an increase of half an hour in the break period and that a driver shall not be compelled to drive for more than four and a half hours. The Minister may not agree with these reductions. Surely he does not still contend that the hours acceptable to Dáil Eireann in 1933 should now be acceptable to Dáil Eireann in 1961. I appeal to the Minister to consider these three amendments in an effort to improve the lot of drivers who may not be protected by trade unions.
We are, I think, inclined to pay too much attention to the isolated effect of this section. We are told that 1933 is a far cry from 1961. We are told, not without a certain amount of truth, that conditions today are vastly different and that the strain of driving is more severe than it was in 1933 when these hours were laid down. It is worthy of note that the hours we are discussing here are the hours laid down in the 1960 British Act. If the argument of congestion on the roads and added mental strain in driving in heavy traffic carries weight, surely it should carry weight in Britain to a greater degree than it does here. I am not using that as an argument, but these hours are the absolute limit we think should be allowed. They are not the hours drivers must work. I suppose we will always have with us some few employers who will exploit their drivers and workers if they can get away with it; but, while these people are with us, nothing I might say on this Bill will prevent them acting in that manner, and Deputy Corish knows that very well. This section will not prevent the unscrupulous employer putting the screw on his worker. Usually the workman is afraid that, if he objects, he will lose his job, and he cannot afford to lose his job. Something written into this Bill will not prevent that odd isolated case.
The hours stipulated here are the limits beyond which no worker may be required to go. The possibility is that, by agreement, employers and workers will suit themselves where hours are concerned. I know drivers who drive 11 hours on one day and do no driving at all the following day. The people employing these are private employers, not very strong financially. They have to treat their drivers well because if they overwork them to the point where they may wreck the vehicle and cause damage, then it is the employers who lose.
And then they will sack the unfortunate drivers.
Isolated cases in which unscrupulous employers push their drivers beyond the limit of endurance, to the detriment of their business and the endangering of the lives of others, are not a proper foundation on which to base a general case for further restricting the freedom of the employers and the workers to make arrangements between themselves to suit both workers and employers, without putting an undue strain on any particular driver. If we were providing that drivers must work the 11 hours six days out of the seven and work not less than 5½ at a stretch, I would be absolutely with Deputy Corish, but that is not what is provided here. We are laying down the outside limit beyond which no driver may be required to work.
I will put it in another way. Consider the position of drivers on long-distance haulage. They might resent bitterly being compelled to stop by the roadside for an hour. Stopping for half an hour for a snack is much more to their liking. We are not saying here that drivers must do this or must do that. We are saying they may not be required to drive for longer than a specified period and that they must have a break of at least half an hour at the end of that period. That is an entirely different matter. Arrangements are usually made between the employers and the workers—sometimes by agreement with the trade unions—and a good driver is not so easy to come by. The employer who gets a good driver is very careful in his treatment of him because he is anxious to retain his services. Others will be looking for good drivers and, if he does not look after them, others will. I do not think the fears expressed by Deputy Corish are well founded. If there is still in this country a boss man who has so cowed his employees that they are afraid to complain, nothing written into this Bill will remedy that position. I do not think we should base our case on that type of employer as against the type of general employer we have in this country.
Would the Minister say how he arrived at these figures?
They are the 1933 Act figures.
This is a reintroduction of a section in the 1933 Act. Would the Minister attempt to justify these figures now rather than say they are figures that are taken out of the 1933 Act? All the arguments the Minister has used now suggest to me that he should not have put in any figures.
Would the Deputy like me to remove them, because, mind you, I would?
No. The Minister and I have two different policies on this. I would do exactly what the Minister did but I would reduce the hours.
Let us be quite clear. Again, I am not being smart about this. The Deputy did say that before —"why put them in at all"—or something to that effect.
No. I said, because the Minister put them in, I was asking for a reduction——
Anyhow, you want them in?
——as against the argument the Minister might have used to put no figures in at all and, if I moved an amendment, the Minister might have told me that it was a matter for the trade union movement.
It is quite easy to clarify the point made by Deputy Corish. With regard to the figure used in 1933, that was the time of the Model T and the split rims and the punctures on the roads. The legislation was based on the length of time it would take to make the single journey from, perhaps, Letterkenny to Dublin for one of these very charitable traders for whom the Minister shows such regard. It was accepted that the journey would take 11 hours and that, in all conscience, it was unfair to suggest that a driver who had driven over 200 miles from Letterkenny to Dublin with a heavy load should be expected to about turn after a half-hour or an hour's grace and undertake the return journey.
Even in Ireland we are moving, although not quite as fast as in other countries, and we have discovered that it is now possible for one of these gentlemen in Letterkenny to send a driver to Dublin to collect a heavy load and to make the double journey within eleven hours. That is the reason the eleven hours has been retained.
The Minister has given no justification whatever for retaining the figure of eleven hours incorporated in the 1933 Act. It is sad to hear a Minister at this stage saying that good drivers are perhaps, scarce and that it is up to the employer, if he has a good driver, to be nice to him or some other merchant will take him away from him. That is no argument at all when we are dealing with legislation in connection with the welfare of members of the community.
The Minister has suggested that this provision is incorporated in the 1960 British Act. To be fair to him, he went on to say that that had no bearing on its introduction here. If it had not, I do not know why he was so anxious to mention it. The fact that the British decided on such a measure surprises me and I should like a little more information with regard to the safeguards provided in the British legislation in which such a provision as this was incorporated, as the Minister suggests.
When I was about 11 or 12 years of age, the journey from Athlone to Dubline took about four hours. There were a number of breaks to fix the occasional puncture. A good deal of bad language was used on those occasions by the driver with regard to the condition of the roads and the frequency of punctures. It was a leisurely journey, if you like, pleasant in many way. The condition of the roads and the leisureliness of the pace at that time are not comparable with present day conditions. Nowadays, it is a matter of arriving at one's destination in the shortest possible space of time. The stage has been reached when few people are prepared to stop to help a neighbour in trouble on the road. I know, of course, it has no bearing on the matter of the hours involved in Section 114 but it is clear that in 1933 the journey to the city of Dublin from Kerry or Cork or the tip of Donegal could be done inside 11 hours and the House was progressive enough at that time to say that that was the limit and that a driver would not be allowed to make the return journey. The measure was progressive in 1933, but, in 1961, the reintroduction of that type of legislation is putting the clock back, to say the least of it. I suggest that the Minister, at this 11th hour, should accept the proposal of Deputy Corish.
The main point made by the Minister is that there is no compulsion in this, that the section does not intend that a man should be compelled to work up to 11 hours. We all agree that the Minister's main function in this Bill is to try to prevent road accidents and death but in this section the Minister's attitude is that if a driver of a heavy vehicle drives for a period less than 11 hours, he is deemed not to be a danger to the public—not absolutely—he may be if he drives only for half an hour. From many points of view, if a man drives for over 11 hours, the Minister and the Government think he is a danger to the public. That is laudable. The Minister's intention in the Bill is to try to protect the lives of the road-using public but he ought to analyse this matter of the 11 hours.
The Minister did have occasion to say that in cases where a man may be required to drive 11 hours in a day, that would not happen for very many days or, at any rate, for very many weeks. I want to assure the Minister that in the season for, say, the distribution of lime and fertiliser and delivery of corn, men are required to drive for very long periods over a period of practically two months.
The Minister says, by inference, if you like, that the man who drives for, say, 2½ hours to Dublin, who waits there for his lorry to be unloaded, say, an hour, and gets into the lorry again and drives back for another 2 hours or 2½ hours, who is hanging around there while the lorry is being loaded and, although he may not be required to do so, helps with the loading of the lorry, which may take another hour or an hour and a half, and who is required to undertake the 2½ hour journey to Dublin again, there to be hanging around or doing odd jobs on his car for another hour, who gets into the cab and goes back on the two and a half hour journey, is pretty safe so long as he is driving only for 11 hours. The Minister must also consider the time in between. Even apart from the time in between, a man who is driving for 11 hours in a period of 24 hours and who does that for weeks must be a danger to himself and to the public.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 31st May, 1961.