Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 May 1968

Vol. 234 No. 9

Road Traffic Bill, 1966: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In page 36, to delete lines 32 to 52 and in page 37, to delete lines 1 to 7.

—(Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick(Cavan):

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Before reporting progress on Tuesday night, I had moved this amendment, the effect of which is to delete section 64 of the Bill. The object of section 64 is to amend section 103 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, by conferring on lay persons, to be known as authorised officers, the powers conferred on members of the Garda Síochána by section 103 of the Principal Act. It is therefore no harm, very briefly, to point out what, in fact, section 103 of the Principal Act does.

Section 103 is the section which confers on members of the Garda the right to impose on-the-spot fines. As we know, to date, on-the-spot-fines have been imposed only in respect of parking offences. We must not lose sight of the fact that section 103 of the Principal Act may be applied to such offences as the Minister by order directs because subsection (1) of that section reads:

This section applies to such offences under this Act as may be declared by the Minister by regulations to be offences to which this section applies.

I am against the proposal contained in section 64 of the Bill with which we are now dealing, to extend the powers contained in section 103 to authorised officers who are to be recruited by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána in an informal way, who will not have any police training. I say they are being recruited in an informal way for the reason that section 64 of the Bill, which my amendment proposes to delete, specifically says that neither the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, nor the Civil Service (Regulation) Act, 1956, shall apply to the situation of an authorised officer for the purposes of section 103 of the Principal Act. I consider that highly undesirable.

Subsection (1) of section 64 says inter alia,

In this section "authorised person" means a person appointed by the Commissioner to be an authorised person for the purposes of this section.

As we know, members of the Garda Síochána are recruited as a result of open competitive examination conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners; they are subject to an interview and to medical examination and they undergo a course of training before being entrusted with police duties. Here we are going to depart from that procedure which has given such satisfaction down the years and are going to let loose on the city of Dublin, and presumably on the rest of Ireland, a number of persons to be known as authorised officers and who are to be recruited in the informal way which I have described, a way which will not be subject to the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, and the Civil Service (Regulation) Act, 1956. That is undesirable.

Let us be clear about this. The people we are thinking of appointing now are not traffic wardens whose duty it is to assist schoolchildren on their way to school. There seemed to be some confusion about that on Committee Stage. That is not the type of authorised officer we are dealing with. We are going to hand over to these people such regulations as may be entrusted to them by the Minister under the powers vested in him by section 103 of the Principal Act. The Minister's explanation on Committee Stage for the informality proposed in relation to these appointments was that these would be part-time appointees. I think he went on to say that they would be part-time persons paid a small salary or small wage. I said then, and I say now, that I do not think it desirable to entrust police duties to persons employed on a part-time temporary basis. It is police duties we are entrusting them with here. It may very well be that these people will consider that they will have to render a good account of themselves, that they will have to make a good number of detections, and that they will have rigidly and maybe ruthlessly to discharge the duties entrusted to them so that they will be retained in their positions. That is highly undesirable.

If the Minister is considering the delegation of police duties to people other than properly recruited and adequately trained policemen, then the least he should do is to see that these people are properly recruited and that they have some fixity of tenure. I can see this leading to a most undesirable state of affairs. I think the Minister on Committee Stage said also that these people could not direct a prosecution, but the fact of the matter is that they will be prosecution witnesses and, having reported a person for a breach of the Road Traffic Acts, will be very anxious to sustain a conviction. Human nature being what it is, they will be all the more anxious to sustain a conviction because they will be purely part-time, temporary officers and at the whim of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána or the Minister for Justice and may be hired and sacked at will.

I do not know if we are following a precedent established elsewhere. If we are, it is a bad one. If we are not following a cross-Channel precedent, we are creating a very bad precedent here. I do not know what the Minister will say at this stage in justification of his proposal, but I affirm that section 103 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, extends much further than the provision of traffic wardens. If the Minister intends to confine the duties of these authorised officers to a limited category of offences, then he should alter section 103 accordingly and state that specifically. But I will go further and say that to entrust to these part-time people, employed in this highly undesirable way, any form of police duties, even the duties of regulating parking, is going too far, is departing from the well-established practice here down through the years whereby these functions were discharged only by members of the Garda.

I am opposed violently to the proposal because it is wrong and I think that the method of recruitment is highly undesirable. If we are to get people to work for small wages, I think the result will be we shall not get good service and that we shall have abuses. For that reason, I propose the deletion of section 64 which, in effect, means that section 103 of the 1961 Act stands as it is and that the system of spot fines will remain, but that the people who will operate under section 103 will continue to be trained and respected members of the Garda, subject to the provision for recruiting them which now exists and subject to the fixity of tenure which they now enjoy and to the strict code of discipline operated within that force.

Mr. James Tully

Many of us appreciate the difficult position the Garda are in at present when, though they happen to be very much under strength, the Department of Justice have to devote the time of trained personnel to routine traffic duties. For that reason, many of us agree that a change should be made. However, I fear that the Minister has gone completely across to the other side. The position now is that the cure will turn out to be worse than the disease.

Nearly all of us, from time to time, have had experience of the untrained, part-time person who has been put in charge of a small group of people as, say, a steward at a sports meeting, a car park attendant or what have you, and, having got a little bit of authority for a few short hours, proceeds to throw his weight around and make things unpleasant for everybody. Many of us fear that a bad mistake will be made if the Minister goes the whole way with this proposal.

I had a question down last week about traffic wardens. The Minister had made a very strong case on Committee Stage that this proposal we are now discussing involved a type of glorified traffic warden. Traffic wardens have their own troubles. They are not insured persons; the only job they have is the position of traffic wardens and, because insurance cards are not stamped for them, when they have to give up their position, they have no right to social welfare or other benefits accruing from their job. Here we are to have a group of people who according to the Minister—he did not say it in so many words—will be typical examples of people working a small number of hours for bad wages. In my question last week I tried to find out the wages and hours of traffic wardens and how one would relate one to the other but the Minister would not give me information.

If Deputy Fitzpatrick's interpretation of the section is correct—and having studied it with a number of people who claim to know the law, I am prepared to go along with Deputy Fitzpatrick on this point—it appears that these people, who will be purely parttimers, not appointed under any regulations but at the whim of the Garda Commissioner, can in fact carry out police duties in a much wider sense than traffic wardens can do.

Do not let anybody say that the things which Deputy Fitzpatrick said might occur will not happen. I had experience of even a garda on spot fine duty. I had sold a car and possibly I was careless because I did not change the ownership of the car in writing with the local authority. Some months afterwards a garda found the car parked illegally, as he termed it, in Galway. He spoke to the person parking the car and after a discussion proceeded to have a summons issued against me if I did not pay a fine of £1. It would have cost me a lot more than £1 had I been prepared to go to Galway to defend the case.

If this can be done under the present regulations by a garda who should know the regulations better, what could happen under the regulation where a civilian, an untrained, part-time, badly-paid civilian, is given the authority to take action such as this against any citizen of the country or of any other country who happens to be here? I think if the Minister goes fully into the matter he will agree that it is highly dangerous. We do not want to see given into the hands of people who will have no police training and very little responsibility to anybody the right to carry out the duties of a policeman. It does appear that this is what the new Bill will empower certain individuals to do.

I am not suggesting that the fact that they are selected by the Garda Commissioner means that they will all be supporters of the present Government but it could happen. Worse still the Garda Commissioner, being a very busy man, could decide, and almost certainly would decide, to allow, in each area where these people were to be employed, somebody to make the appointments for him. God knows who would make the appointments—possibly people who might be about to retire from the Force and felt that some of the people they knew could do with a part-time job. The whole thing is fraught with difficulties and dangers and I feel that there has not been enough attention given to it by the Minister's Department. If he goes fully into it, he will find that a proposal such as that in the Bill is not one which is likely to work out as we would wish it to work out.

I am not accusing the Minister of attempting to put one across on the House but I think this was a hastily thought out solution to something which is worrying us all. We all know the difficulties the Garda have at present because there are not enough of them to do the police duties which they should be doing, but simply to find a solution to this by appointing in a haphazard sort of way a group of people who would be badly trained and need not have any special recommendation because it is not laid down in the Bill that they should have, but will have powers which should, in my opinion, not be given to a civilian who is not subject to the authority of the Department of Justice is not right.

For that reason I would ask the Minister to have another look at this particular section before it goes any further. I am quite sure that if he does so, he will agree. If he has an explanation to all this—and he may say he has an answer to the statements made by Deputy Fitzpatrick and myself—I would like to hear it, but I would remind him that during the Committee Stage any rebuttal of the cases which we made which he attempted to make was not very convincing, and unless he has some new evidence, I will be forced to support Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment in this case.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Boland)

Under the present system parking regulations can only be enforced by the Garda who, as it is generally admitted, are hardly sufficient in numbers to carry out their other duties, both in relation to the Road Traffic Act and other measures, and I would have thought it would have been agreed that it was necessary for routine jobs such as this that other people should be employed because these duties do not require the same level of training in police duties as is necessary for the Garda. As far as I could gather, Deputy Fitzpatrick is opposed to the creation of these new posts of parking wardens primarily because it is, in his opinion, being done in what he describes as an off-hand way.

Apparently it is the method of recruitment of these officers which worries the Deputy most, the provision under subsection (4) of section 64 that neither the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956 nor the Civil Service (Regulations) Act, 1956 shall apply to these posts. The reason for this provision is to bring the recruitment of these parking wardens more in line with the recruitment of members of the Garda Síochána than that of civil servants. Members of the Garda Síochána are not recruited under the Civil Service Acts. Initially it is proposed to recruit a small number of parking wardens on a temporary, non-pensionable and part-time basis but provision must be made in the Bill for their recruitment on a full-time basis, if and when this becomes necessary, and it may not become necessary. I think it reasonable to expect Deputies to accept that they will not be appointed in a haphazard way. The Garda Commissioner has the function of enforcing the parking regulations and surely it is reasonable to expect it to be accepted that for the purpose of carrying out this function, he will make sure to recruit people who will be suitable for the particular job which he wants performed?

I should like once again to emphasise that these authorised officers or parking wardens will be engaged solely on duties in connection with illegal parking. The enforcement of road traffic regulations generally is becoming more and more important and it is making more and more demands on the time of the Garda. If the enforcement of all these traffic regulations, which are increasing almost year by year, is to be tackled and if the other important duties of the Garda are not to be neglected in consequence, it is necessary that functions not requiring full Garda training should not take up their time. The aim in this section is to relieve the Garda of this kind of work, which is of a purely routine nature and which does not require all the training and qualifications that are held by the Garda and provided at some expense by the State.

Section 103 of the 1961 Act as amended by this section merely permits a member of the Garda Síochána or an authorised officer to deliver to a person or attach to a vehicle a notice stating that an offence has been committed under the section and Deputy Fitzpatrick's fears that the powers of these authorised officers would be extended are completely without foundation. It is completely wrong to say that either these proposed traffic wardens or the present members of the Garda Síochána can impose on-the-spot fines. They can only serve notice which the person concerned is perfectly free to ignore. I think it is quite clear that by its nature this section is applicable only to offences the committing of which is absolutely clear from the facts.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister does agree that if the traffic warden or the garda serves a notice on somebody who is 200 miles away, they have no option. They either pay the fine or it costs them ten times as much to answer the charge, particularly when they are too darn lazy to summon the person they find parking the car.

Mr. Boland

There is an organisation of which motorists may or may not be members which would defend a case like that. I appreciate that every motorist is not a member of it.

Mr. James Tully

I am a member of that organisation but it would be a bit stupid to ask them to send a person to Galway.

Mr. Boland

They undertake to do that.

Mr. James Tully

I am aware of that.

Mr. Boland

The fact of the matter is that these people and the Garda themselves cannot in fact impose on-the-spot fines. I suppose there will be difficulty in some cases in not accepting the fine all right if the person happens to be some distance away but the type of case Deputy Tully mentioned, where the ownership of a car had not been notified, would be an exceptional one. Generally speaking, it is quite clear and beyond any doubt that a car is parked illegally and there is no dispute. In fact, even in Deputy Tully's case, the car was parked illegally.

Mr. James Tully

The garda spoke to the driver and did not summon him. Obviously he dislikes TDs and summoned me.

Mr. Boland

I do not know about that. Did he get the name and address of the driver?

Mr. James Tully

It was his fault. He was speaking to him for over ten minutes.

Mr. Boland

Presumably he went to the licensing authority office and there got the owner's name and address.

Mr. James Tully

He did not. As a matter of fact, it took him about a month or so in phone calls to Navan and Galway to find out who owned the car.

Mr. Boland

I do not think he was looking for who originally owned the car. He was looking for the owner of the car and, as far as the licensing authorities were concerned, Deputy Tully was the owner of the car. I think he admits there was a certain amount of negligence on his own part.

Mr. James Tully

I am prepared to admit that.

Mr. Boland

I do not think there is any need for Deputy Tully to refer to the people who will be recruited as untrained civilians. It will be the responsibility of the Commissioner to see that his parking wardens are properly instructed and properly trained. There is no reason to feel that he will fail to exercise this duty properly because the only reason for recruiting those people will be to try to have the parking regulations properly enforced. As far as I know, such people are used in every other country. If they were not, it would be impossible to enforce these regulations.

The effect of this amendment would be to make parking regulations unenforceable. In view of the other onerous duties of the Garda, both in relation to road traffic and the prevention and detection of crime, I could not accept it. If all the other provisions with regard to the regulation of road traffic are to be reasonably well enforced, this section is absolutely necessary. Most people look on it as extremely wasteful of the time of highly-trained personnel like the Garda to have them carrying out those parking duties. Most people feel that this is the obvious thing to do and I think it is of very great importance, if we are to have the other improvements in road traffic regulations which we are making in this Bill reasonably well enforced. This is of fundamental importance.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Anyone listening to the case made by the Minister against this amendment could not but be convinced, if he did not know any better, that we were providing in this amendment for the provision of parking attendants or parking wardens. There is not one word about parking wardens in section 103, as it originally stands, and there will not be a word about parking wardens in section 103, when it is amended. What we are doing here is handing over to those untrained and informally employed people, I repeat, such functions as the Minister may decide to entrust to them under the Road Traffic Acts.

The Minister tells us that the proposal is to entrust them with the duties of car parking wardens. Ordinarily, when we get such an assurance from a Minister in charge of a Bill, the Minister can speak for himself, but he cannot speak for his successors, and in this particular instance, the Minister cannot speak even for himself because he is not the Minister who will delegate these authorities—it is his colleague, the Minister for Justice. In the extraordinary situation we have here, the Minister for Local Government is responsible for the making of the laws and then ceases to have any further jurisdiction over the laws. They are enforced by his colleague, the Minister for Justice. Here is another case of a blank cheque. We are handing over to these untrained people, these untrained civilians, who will be keen on holding on to their jobs, badly paid as they will be, such duties under the Road Traffic Act as the Minister for Justice decides to delegate to them.

There is no use in the Minister saying here that the only function of the authorised officer under this section will be to put a sticker on a car, or to hand a notice to the owner of a car, or, as in Deputy Tully's case, somebody who is not the owner of the car. Really what we are doing here is saying: "You have been guilty of an offence, whatever it is, under the Road Traffic Act. You can either pay a fine of £1 or may be £50". Let us not run away with the idea that it is a fine of £1 because it is such fine as may be specified and such fine as the section which creates the offence specifies. The person is given the option of paying the fine or going to court. If he says: "I am not guilty of any offence", the witness against him in court will surely be the warden under this section, the person who detected the offence. That is what I am against.

I want to know what training these people are to have? The Garda Síochána have six months training in the Depot. Indeed an argument could be made that six months training is not sufficient but if six months training is considered adequate for the Garda Síochána, who have to perform a multiplicity of these duties, I shudder to think what length of training the people the Minister has in mind will have.

The Minister says the object of subsection (4) is to bring the recruitment of these people more into line with the method adopted for recruiting members of the Garda Síochána. He says these requirements do not apply to the recruitment of the Garda Síochána. Surely the Garda Síochána are recruited following an open competitive examination held by the Civil Service Commission? That is my understanding of the position.

Mr. Boland

By whom?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): By the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Boland

Oh, no.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Who conducts the examination?

Mr. Boland

As far as I know, it is done by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am sure the Minister has more accurate information at his disposal than I have. I certainly know that if an inquiry is made in the Department of Justice by a man applying for membership to the Garda, he will be told that an examination will be held.

Mr. Boland

That is not under this Act. The Garda Commissioner asks the Civil Service Commissioners to conduct the examination.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Is the Minister prepared in the Seanad to put in an amendment to this Bill, to write into the Bill that those people will be recruited in the same manner, whatever that is, as it is satisfactory enough, as the Garda Síochána?

Mr. Boland

These are completely different.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either the object of subsection (4) of section 64, or whatever it is, is to enable these people to be recruited in a slipshod informal way, or it is not. If they are to be recruited as are members of the Garda Síochána——

Mr. Boland

It is intended to do it in a practical way. Deputy Fitzpatrick is making a farce of the whole thing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Fitzpatrick is doing no such thing. Section 54 (4) is making sure that these people can be recruited in a way which is too informal and highly unsatisfactory. We are left that even the Minister cannot tell us how they are to be recruited. I said the Garda Síochána are recruited by the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Boland

They are appointed by the Commissioner.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I know they are appointed by the Commissioner but they are appointed. I hope, in order of merit, having sat for an examination conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, as I understand the position. This is another case of giving me authority to do what I like but I will only do certain things and that is what is happening here. That is why I am against this section, why I believe when people realise what is in this section, they will be against it. I cannot put the matter further. I have opposed it on Committee Stage and again now.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand", put and declared carried.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 23.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 37, after line 22, to insert the following new section:

"(1) Whenever a vehicle has been involved in an accident in a public place, an authorised person may—

(a) investigate the circumstances in which the accident occurred,

(b) enter (on production of his authority if so demanded by the owner or person in charge of the premises hereinafter mentioned) at any reasonable time any premises where there is a vehicle which was involved in the accident,

(c) carry out such inspection and examination (including a test) and, subject to regulations, make any requirement and do all things which appear to him to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of the investigation, and

(d) report to the Minister concerning the causes of, and all the circumstances surrounding, the accident and make recommendations in connection therewith.

(2) Whenever the Minister considers it necessary, he may direct that an inquiry be held into the cause of an accident in which a vehicle was involved and, where he thinks fit, such inquiry may be held in public.

(3) For the purposes of holding an inquiry under this section, the Minister or the person authorised by him to hold the inquiry may—

(a) require any person to attend as a witness to give evidence or to produce any documents relating to the subject matter of the inquiry;

(b) administer or cause to be administrated on oath and take evidence under oath.

(4) (a) The Minister may by order make provision for—

(i) the payment of costs incurred by him in connection with an inquiry under this section,

(ii) the recovery from any person of costs arising from an inquiry under this section,

(iii) the payment by the Minister of the expenses reasonably incurred by a person giving evidence or producing documents at an inquiry under this section.

(b) The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section.

(5) Any person who contravenes a requirement made by an authorised person under subsection (1) of this section or who obstructs an authorised person in the performance of his duties under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(6) If any person (hereinafter referred to as the witness)—

(a) on being duly summoned as a witness before an inquiry under this section makes default in attending, or

(b) being in attendance as a witness refuses to take an oath legally required to be taken by the person holding an inquiry under this section or to produce any document in his power or control legally required by the person holding an inquiry under this section to be produced by him, or to answer any questions to which the person holding an inquiry under this section may legally require an answer, or

(c) does any other thing which would, if the person holding an inquiry under this section were a court of law having power to commit for contempt of court, be contempt of such court,

the person holding an inquiry under this section may certify the offence of the witness to the High Court and the High Court may, after such inquiry as it thinks proper to make, punish or take steps for the punishment of the witness in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of the High Court.

(7) A report made under this section shall not be used as evidence in any legal proceedings arising out of the accident in question.

(8) The Minister may make regulations for giving effect to this section.

(9) In this section "authorised person" means a person duly authorised in writing by the Minister for the purposes of this section.

With the growth in volume of road traffic, the possibility develops of accidents occuring which are more serious than the normal in their effects possibly involving a considerable number of casualties, or which are more important in their implications, for instance, for those such as myself charged with the responsibility of making road traffic regulations. It is desirable, therefore, to ascertain the causative and other factors involved in such accidents, and this amendment proposes to give the necessary powers. Similar powers are available here in regard to accidents arising through the use of other forms of transport and are available in regard to road traffic accidents in other countries.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The section proposed by this amendment is very far-reaching and is obviously an afterthought. I think we should have considerable information about it. I have an open mind on it at the moment. Under the road traffic code at the moment, the Minister for Justice and the Garda Síochána have all necessary powers to investigate accidents, to inspect vehicles that have been involved in an accident and to enter premises where vehicles are stored. I think they clearly have that power if they believe a vehicle has been involved in an accident.

I said a few moments ago that, normally speaking, the Minister for Local Government is not the person to investigate accidents or to enforce the law relating to road traffic. That is the function of the Minister for Justice but here the Minister is asking for authority to appoint an officer to hold an inquiry whenever a vehicle has been involved in an accident in a public place. We do not specify the type of vehicle. It may be a Mini-Minor: that is a vehicle. It may be a 40-seater bus. We are in Committee now and I am sure the Minister will give us more information. He has said that provisions are made under other codes for investigations like this, into accidents arising out of other means of transport. I suspect that the Minister has in mind inquiries ordered by the Minister for Transport and Power under the Airlines Acts, or similar inquiries which I think the Minister for Transport and Power can order in the case of a train accident under the Railway Acts.

I really do not know what the Minister has in mind here. If I correctly interpret his reference to inquiries into accidents which occur in other forms of transport, I can only think of the airlines and the railways. I know we have provision under Acts for holding inquiries into such accidents. I think that is right. The only other case the Minister must have in mind is the case of an accident involving CIE or other large operators. If that is so, there is certain merit in the amendment, because we may take it that, by and large, road transport in this country is operated by a semi-State body. Very frequently some of these semi-State bodies think they are above the law and should not be subject to the law. Worse still, members of the Garda Síochána seem to feel from time to time that where a semi-State body is concerned they should soft-pedal a bit. They seem to think that bodies like CIE and the ESB occupy a certain privileged position and that, if they break the law, it is really a mistake or an accident and that it is not a wilful breach of the law such as might be committed by John Citizen. I have a feeling that the Garda through no fault of their own—because this atmosphere is generally abroad in official circles—are inclined to take things easier with these semi-State bodies.

This amendment might not be necessary at all if a strict instruction were issued to members of the Garda that, as far as the law is concerned, CIE, the ESB and all other boards enjoy the same rights as and no more than any ordinary citizen of the State. I have a feeling that is the reason this is being introduced. If it is to deal with public transport—the Minister mentioned accidents which might involve many people—this amendment should be altered—if it is agreed to when we hear more about it from the Minister. I think the word "vehicle" is too wide and that the case would be met if before the word "vehicle" were inserted the words "a large public service". I think that is the sort of thing the Minister has in mind, but I would like him to tell us more about what is behind this.

Mr. James Tully

Deputy Fitzpatrick has sown a doubt in my mind when he refers to large public service vehicles. I think the right to have an investigation into an accident should be there, no matter what vehicle is involved. Very small cars have been known to cause grave damage and loss of life when they have gone out of control. There is the right to hold an inquiry when an aircraft crashes and the right to hold an inquiry here should be given to the Minister in charge. However, there are a few things I want to comment on. I do not like the use of the expression "authorised person".

Mr. Boland

It is defined in subsection (9).

Mr. James Tully

Even the definition does not satisfy me—a person duly authorised in writing by the Minister for the purposes of this section. Surely the Minister could have found another expression? We have been arguing earlier about an authorised person who was not the same type of person at all.

Mr. Boland

It is the expression that is used generally.

Mr. James Tully

Call the other people "traffic wardens" and I will be satisfied. Subsection (4) (a) (ii) proposes the recovery from any person of costs arising from an inquiry under the section. That is a rather serious thing. It could mean that somebody might be found responsible for an accident and might not be in a position to pay heavy costs. The Minister should re-word that. In addition to the fines imposed by the courts, there would be this additional penalty put on him. That is wrong.

Subsection (5) states:

Any person who contravenes a requirement made by an authorised person under subsection (1) of this section or who obstructs an authorised person in the performance of his duties under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

Subsection (6) states:

If any person (hereinafter referred to as the witness)—

(a) on being duly summoned as a witness before an inquiry under this section makes default in attending, or

(b) being in attendance as a witness refused to take an oath legally required to be taken ....

Should that not be re-worded? After all, there are people who do not take an oath but may affirm in a particular way. Religious beliefs should be taken into consideration in that case.

I would object also to subsection (7) which states:

A report made under this section shall not be used as evidence in any legal proceedings arising out of the accident in question.

Why not? If there is a costly inquiry, which proves some wealthy person is responsible for an accident, why should not the aggrieved person be allowed to use the evidence in that report— which cannot be got in any other way —if a case is being taken for damages? It is a good idea to have the inquiry and I would not like to see it confined to large public service vehicles or to semi-State concerns. Would the Minister say if State vehicles are envisaged in this? We all know that when a State vehicle is involved in an accident, it is extremely difficult to get any redress.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is introduced to get over certain arrogance on the part of CIE.

Mr. James Tully

I am not satisfied that is so. I would like to hear the Minister. There was arrogance on the part of the State when an Army lorry knocked down a boy and injured him and the State would not pay even the medical expenses. Subsequently in reply to a question here the Minister said he was satisfied from the information he got from the driver that it was not the responsibility or the fault of the Army. No one else was allowed to give evidence. No questions were asked of the person who was knocked down. That sort of thing should be covered by the section. The right to have an inquiry, if demanded, should be included.

Mr. Boland

As Deputy Fitzpatrick said, it is to obtain similar powers to those already there in regard to marine, rail and air transport, that this section is introduced. Deputy Fitzpatrick thought it was desirable that the word "vehicle" should be qualified to make it clear that it was only large public service vehicles to which this should apply. He said that on this wording it might be a Mini Minor or a 40-seat bus. Any accident occuring even with the smallest type of car could be one which would involve a large number of people, because if an accident occurred which appeared to indicate some defect in the design of the car, or in a particular component of the car, then the more of those vehicles there were on the roads the more people could conceivably be involved.

There have, in fact, been cases in which defects in some component of a particular car have been discovered at a time when a large number of those models were already on the roads. In all those cases the company have taken steps to call in all the cars and replace the parts in question. If an accident gives reason for suspicion that something like that might be involved, it would be desirable to have power to have an inquiry. The normal inquiries into the causes of and the factors in an accident are carried out by the Garda as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, but in a case like this, the Garda might not be technically competent to investigate the matters that appeared to require investigation. For that reason it is desirable that an engineer of my Department should make an investigation and, if it seems to him that it is called for, an inquiry should be held. So it is definitely essential, in my opinion, that this should be so provided as to apply to any type of vehicle.

With regard to the question of costs, I think Deputies will see that it is possible that quite a large manufacturing company may be involved, and it is in those cases only that it would be proposed to recover costs.

Deputy Tully referred to subsection (7) which ensures that a report made under this section will not be used as evidence in any legal proceedings arising out of the accident in question. This is considered necessary in order that witnesses will not be inhibited from giving information at an inquiry which is for a completely different purpose. It is not for the purpose of establishing blame in relation to a particular accident. It is to get to the root cause of the occurrence. It is particularly important that people should not be inhibited at an inquiry from giving full information.

Mr. James Tully

But they are supposed to be on oath. Surely it is a question of telling the truth? Surely it is wrong that a person might be prevented from winning a case which he could win, because evidence was not available?

Mr. Boland

This type of inquiry is carried out in a different manner from the investigation of an offence against the law. It is described as inquisitorial. It is completely at variance with the manner of obtaining information from witnesses in a court of law, where the obtaining of information is prescribed by certain very well-defined rules which Deputy Fitzpatrick will know better than I. Obviously it would be wrong to use a report which was obtained from the type of inquiry envisaged here as evidence in legal proceedings. In any case I think the admissibility of such evidence would be questioned in court. That is why it is being laid down here that it should not and will not be used for the purpose of legal proceedings. There is no intention of suppressing facts. This report concerns the conclusion to be drawn from those facts.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It would not be evidence.

Mr. Boland

It would be queried in court. We are providing in the section —and I think it is wise—that it will not be utilised for legal proceedings. With regard to the point about the oaths to which Deputy Tully referred, the position here will be the same as it is in the general law.

Mr. James Tully

Is that the phraseology used in the general law?

Mr. Boland

It says, a witness who refuses to take an oath legally required of him.

Mr. James Tully

It that the phraseology used in the general law?

Mr. Boland

The general law indicates circumstances in which a person may be excused from swearing. The intention is that the same circumstances will apply here. It is taken from a similar clause in the Trade Marks Act, 1963. I assume it is the usual clause. It definitely says, a witness who refuses to take an oath legally required of him.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister can see the difficulties there, can he not?

Mr. Boland

No more than the difficulties that arise in any case.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister quoted a 1963 Act to which the same attention might not have been given.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I dealt with it in the Seanad.

Mr. James Tully

Did the Deputy object to it?

Mr. Boland

There are circumstances in which the taking of an oath is excused. They will apply here as they do in other places. This power can be used in regard to State vehicles as well as for other kinds of vehicles.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Having heard the Minister, I am now clear in my mind as to exactly what is intended by the section. It is intended to carry out an investigation where there is reason to believe that a vehicle involved in an accident was in some way defective, and that defect was the cause of the accident. By and large, I agree with that.

Here again I think the Minister should clarify the position in the Seanad because, under the section as drafted, it would be open to the Minister to order an inquiry into any accident, into a case of careless driving, drunken driving or dangerous driving. I do not know whether or not the Minister wants to get that power. I do not know whether he wants to be able to hold an inquiry following an accident in which a large bus is involved with a view to ascertaining whether or not the driver of the bus was guilty of negligence. The section as it stands is wide enough for it.

I should have thought the existing provisions are wide enough to enable that sort of investigation to be carried out. Therefore, I think some amendment should be written into this which would read something like "Whenever a vehicle has been involved in an accident in a public place and there is reason to believe that the vehicle was defective ....". I think that that would make it clear that this section is to be used by the Minister only in the exercise of his functions, as the Minister responsible for ensuring that road traffic vehicles comply with a certain standard. I think that that is really what the Minister has in mind here.

Mr. Boland

It could be a question of road junction or road design. It might not be the vehicle at all. It could be other things—road surface, road design.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I think it could be amended to provide for that, too. I want to exclude whatever road traffic offences the Minister will agree are not within his province. I suppose an argument could be made for entrusting this inquiry to the Minister for Transport and Power. The only case that could be made for entrusting it to the Minister for Local Government is that he is the Minister responsible for ensuring that vehicles are up to a certain standard. Otherwise, it would fall to the Minister for Justice and to——

Mr. Boland

The Minister for Local Government is also responsible for roads, public lighting and so on.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Would the Minister consider amending it on those lines to clarify that it is only for the purpose of investigating the suitability of the vehicle or the road?

Mr. Boland

There could be other things, too. There could be public lighting, for instance. I shall see if it is possible to do it but I think the Deputy should give some credit to the likelihood of there being a certain amount of commonsense in the Department concerned.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Yesterday, we could have introduced a Bill saying: “We shall hand over everything to the Minister. We know he will not do anything that is not proper.” I am not prepared to do that at this stage.

There are two matters here. Subsection (2) says that the Minister may, if he thinks fit, direct that such inquiry may be held in public. It follows from that that the inquiry might be held in camera or privately. I think something should be written into this section which would entitle any person having an interest in the outcome of the inquiry—such as an injured person —to a right of audience, a right to be represented there. If that is not written into it, I think, as it stands, it would be open to the Minister to direct that the inquiry be held in private. It could happen that a person who was very badly injured, or a number of people who were very badly injured, in the accident would not be entitled to be present themselves or to be represented and to take a note of the evidence and to see what was going on. I think that would be a reasonable request.

Deputy Tully also raised a point in relation to the provision in subsection (4) (ii) dealing with the recovery of costs. This seems to be one-way traffic because the Minister may make provision for the recovery from any person of costs arising from an inquiry under this section. I think that that envisages that the Minister may recover his costs from somebody else. But supposing that some individual or firm, large or small, becomes involved —innocently involved—in a lengthy inquiry lasting several days or maybe weeks and costing a lot of money, is there any provision in the proposed section whereby he may be indemnified against costs? Under other statutes authorising the setting-up of tribunals, the Minister has power to award costs where he thinks the justice of the case demands it. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should have a look——

Mr. Boland

Is that not there?

Mr. James Tully

The next subsection.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Subsection (4) (iii) of section 3 of this amendment by the Minister for Local Government reads:

The Minister may by order make provision for the payment by the Minister of the expenses reasonably incurred by a person giving evidence or producing documents at an inquiry under this section.

"Expenses" is a neat word. It would appear to me to cover witnesses' expenses.

Mr. James Tully

The legal man would know.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister draws a very neat distinction between subparagraphs (4) (a) (ii) and (4) (a) (iii). When he is protecting himself, he talks about “costs”. In (4) (a) (ii) he says:

The Minister may by order make provision for the recovery from any person of costs arising from an inquiry under this section.

In (4) (a) (iii) he says:

The Minister may by order make provision for the payment by the Minister of the expenses reasonably incurred by a person giving evidence—

—witnesses' expenses surely—

—or producing documents at an inquiry under this section.

Perhaps the Minister intended that that should cover legal expenses. I am not satisfied that it does. I suggest that the ordinary provisions which apply to the holding of inquiries, and which enable the Minister or a tribunal to award costs, should apply here because otherwise an injustice may be done. The owner of the vehicle might be a mighty corporation but it could happen that he might be the owner of a little Mini Minor, as the Minister agreed. Provision, I think, should be made there for the payment of costs to meet the justice of the case.

I would also suggest, and it might get over Deputy Tully's objection, that where subsection (7) says:

A report made under this section shall not be used as evidence in any legal proceedings arising out of the accident in question ...

the report should be made available to a person having an interest. I do not think it would be evidence in court any more than the report of a district court prosecution is evidence on the hearing of a civil case in the Circuit Court or in the High Court. But it would be, or might be, extremely useful to a person who suffered frightful injuries to have the report available because he could then perhaps contact expert witnesses or get expert witnesses from the information available to him. That is not an unreasonable request. I think the report would not be evidence even if this subsection were never there and it might be—it is—most necessary that the report should be available to a person having an interest, in view of the fact that the concern involved might very well be a State or semi-State concern and a person might think, if deprived of the report, that he was unfairly deprived of it and that there was some sort of collusion between one section of the State and another.

Ordinarily I would put down these amendments on the lines I suggested but this far-reaching suggestion has been presented to us for the first time now. It was not in the Bill as originally drafted; it was not introduced on Committee Stage. I understand that the Seanad is thirsty for work and desires that this Bill should go to it fairly soon. I do not want to hold it up unnecessarily, although I would be justified, I think, in asking time to put down an amendment to this, but I suggest that the Minister consider carefully the points that have been raised by Deputy Tully and myself and that he make provision to implement them in the section when the Bill is before the Seanad.

Mr. James Tully

May I make a very brief comment on subsection (7)? While I understand that what Deputy Fitzpatrick has mentioned covers the point, I would remind him and the House that this will not be the report of district court proceedings; this will be a full-scale Government investigation into a serious accident and as such the report will be a very important document. The fact that the inquiry can be held in public means, of course, that the report will normally be available, but if it is not held in public I agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that any person interested should have the report made available to him. This would serve two purposes. It could convenience some legal people, who might be asked to take on the case, that in fact a case existed. Often, as we know, they are not anxious to proceed with a case if they feel there is grave doubt that the person bringing the case or the action for damages has a good case. They are perfectly right in that because there might be no way of recovering costs and people who have no case at all might be inclined to make such a case. For that reason the report should be made available.

Secondly, it would be a handy reference for people who should be interviewed or asked questions, or people who should be asked to give evidence, even if they could not be forced to do so. For that reason I think the report should at least be made available. It serves a useful purpose. Even if, as Deputy Fitzpatrick suggests, the ordinary rules of court would rule it out of evidence, it should not be against the law—as it will be if this subsection is passed—for a witness or counsel to refer to the fact that in the inquiry a certain fact became clear.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I think subsection (7) means nothing. I do not think it would be evidence anyway and it only restates what is almost certainly the law. Instead of that, I think provision should be put in that the report should be made available.

Mr. Boland

In regard to a person who is involved in one way or another in an accident, or in the effects of an accident, having the right to attend an inquiry such as this or to be represented at it, it seems to me that is desirable, and if it is necessary to prescribe that specifically, I shall look into it and have it done. Similarly, in regard to the question of costs, I agree that the ordinary provisions regarding inquiries such as this should apply and I assume that subsection (4) does that but I shall have it examined and if it does not, I shall move to have it amended in the Seanad.

In regard to subsection (7), I agree that the report should normally, at any rate, be made available to any interested party and I think that normally this would be done. I am told, however, that it might not be desirable in certain cases and that to do so might adversely affect the effectiveness of this type of inquiry. If that is so, I am sure it would only be in very exceptional cases and that the normal thing would be to have it made available as the whole purpose of such an inquiry would be that the result of the inquiry would be made as widely known as possible so that any action or any precaution that appeared necessary as a result of the inquiry could be taken. I am told that to prescribe definitely that the report should be made widely available would not be a wise thing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): In view of the Minister's attitude, which I consider quite reasonable. I am prepared to agree to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Amendment No. 24 not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 39, in the amendments of section 65, to delete the last two such amendments, and substitute the following:

"The deletion of subsections (1) (e) to (1) (g)."

I indicated on Committee Stage that I would consider whether the substitution of a reference to the Social Welfare (Occupational) Injuries Act, for the old reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act would, in effect, reduce the scope of the remedies available to employees. I am not satisfied that it would, but to put the matter beyond doubt, I am introducing this amendment which cuts out the exclusion altogether. Employees will now be entitled to the benefit of motor insurance, even in respect of an injury coming within the scope of the Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Act.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I raised this point on Committee Stage because I thought the effect of the proposed amendment would be to reduce the remedies ordinarily available to an employee injured in his employer's car, and as I understand the Minister's amendment will restore the position to what it was before the introduction of the Occupational Injuries Act, I am satisfied that this is in the interests of the employed people and I am, therefore, obliged to the Minister for introducing the amendment.

Mr. James Tully

It is rather a pity that the Minister was not able to cover in this section the case of the person who meets with a road accident in the employment of somebody else, because at present, as the Minister may know, there is considerable trouble with local authorities over this. The situation seems to be that the insurance companies are getting away with claiming that the accident occurred in the course of employment to an insured person and if such persons are entitled to medical treatment under the State, they should get that treatment and the State or local authority must pay for it. They will not pay any expenses except those which are excluded by the previous Acts. I suppose the Minister cannot do very much about it now, but maybe he would have a look at it and see if he can. It is causing a lot of annoyance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 40, after the amendments of section 95, to insert the following:

“Section 96.	The substitution of ‘school wardens’ for ‘traffic wardens’ in subsection (1)
	The substitution of ‘school warden’ for ‘traffic warden’ in subsections (2), (4) and (6).”

During the debate on Committee Stage, some confusion arose as between the wardens who assist school children to cross the road—they are called traffic wardens in the 1961 Act —and the persons whom it is proposed the Commissioner of the Garda will appoint to assist in parking enforcement. It is likely that the latter will become known as parking wardens, but since their opposite numbers in Britain are known as traffic wardens some confusion may persist. It is proposed, therefore, that the wardens who assist school children will be known as school wardens in future. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. James Tully

It is not intended to amalgamate in any case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 42, to substitute the following for the last amendment of the Second Schedule:

5B. An offence under section 52, where the contravention involved the driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle, being a third or any subsequent such offence within any period of three years."

On Committee Stage, I undertook to consider a suggestion that consequential disqualification in respect of convictions under section 52 of the 1961 Act, as amended, should apply to a third rather than to a second conviction. This amendment provides accordingly.

Mr. James Tully

I thank the Minister.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I also welcome this amendment.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I should like to make reference to an allegation made by the Minister for Local Government in this House recently that the Bill was being delayed or obstructed by the Fine Gael Party. I want to go on record as refuting that suggestion completely. This is a very far-reaching Bill, which was introduced here as recently as 22nd February, 1968. As the Fine Gael spokesman on Local Government, I consider it my duty to go through such a Bill carefully, to object to any provisions of the Bill with which I disagree, and to seek to amend the Bill where I think an amendment would improve it.

Those are my views on legislation in general. Those are my concepts of the duty of a Parliamentary Opposition. I say that a Parliamentary Opposition should, now more than ever before, finecomb Bills of this sort. There is a trend at the present time and for some time past to take away from this House its authority and to hand over to the Executive blank cheques ad lib. This Bill is a classic example of very considerable authority being taken away from the House and handed over to the Minister. On several occasions during the debate on Committee Stage we have been told by the Minister: “What the Deputy says could happen but it will not happen. The Minister or the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána or, indeed, the ordinary garda will see to it that abuses will not take place.” We have far too much blank cheque legislation being put through this House by the Government, and I for one am not prepared to stand by idly and be a party to that. I do not think I would be discharging my parliamentary duty if I were to do so.

That does not mean that I do not think a Bill of this sort is necessary. I fully appreciate the problem which is being presented by the huge increase in the volume of road traffic, especially the volume of road traffic on city and country roads which are unable to carry it. It is necessary to take all reasonable precautions to rid the road of people who impair their judgement by the consumption of alcohol or drugs and, as a result, are not capable of exercising proper control over motor vehicles.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzpatrick will appreciate that on the Fifth Stage he is entitled to refer only to matters contained in the Bill. We cannot have a Second Reading speech at this stage. He will also appreciate that amendments dealt with previously may not be discussed again.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not seek to do that. I fully appreciate that at this stage I may comment only on what is in the Bill. However, I did avail of the opportunity—and I know you have had patience with me —to deal with the allegation made by the Minister that this Bill was delayed or obstructed. I will conclude on that aspect of the matter by saying in regard to the allegation that the Bill was obstructed or delayed, that the Minister, as a result of the discussion on the Bill, has accepted or introduced a number of amendments. I think that is desirable, and is something that justifies the parliamentary procedure we have here.

Regarding what is contained in the Bill, there are too many provisions for regulations in the Bill. There are various matters which could have been dealt with specifically but which have been left to the Minister to deal with by regulations, such as the restriction on the import of vehicle parts, and more particularly, the sale of vehicle parts within the country. The qualifications of the Director of the Bureau should have been written into the Bill. The Minister stated that he will consider that later and I hope he will. As the Bill stands, the qualifications of the Director of the Bureau are not in it.

The main bone of contention in the Bill has been the amendment of section 49 of the 1961 Act by providing that a concentration of alcohol in the blood, 125 milligrammes to 100 millilitres, is an absolute offence, whether the person is capable of driving or not, whether his judgment is impaired or not. The Minister and I disagree on this and only time will tell which of us is correct. The Bill has gone too far in that respect; it has gone further than necessary to achieve its object, further than necessary to ensure road safety and it has gone further than was recommended by the Report on Driving While Under the Influence of Drink or a Drug. I have made the position clear on that and I want to repeat it.

Arising out of other provisions I can only hope that the breathalyser section will be used with discretion and that the Garda will be instructed to use discretion in exercising these powers. By discretion, I mean nothing more or less than that they should not be used unreasonably. It remains to be seen whether the breathalyser tests in England have really been effective or whether they have not. As yet the time has been too short. I wish to register a final protest against the amendment of section 103 of the 1961 Act by section 64 of the present Bill. This refers to the extension of police duties to untrained civilians who are not subject to a proper disciplinary code and who will be there on a part-time basis.

An Ceann Comhairle

This amendment, of course, has already been debated at length by the Deputy.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): But it is now a part of the Bill. I am sure I am in order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The House has already decided on that amendment and we cannot——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It was in the Bill and I am pointing out it is a bad part of the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot have another discussion on an amendment accepted by the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Surely, with the greatest respect, if the Chair is right, and the Bill has been accepted by the House, we cannot say another word about it? I understood that the purpose of this particular Stage was to enable Deputies to talk about what is in the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to be unfair to the Deputy——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I should like to clear my mind on this.

An Ceann Comhairle

——but I do not want another discussion on amendments which have been discussed here and which have been either defeated or accepted.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Surely I can discuss what is in the Bill? I understood those were my rights in this matter. I want to say that it is wrong to hand over police duties to untrained, part-time civilians and I am convinced that time will prove that that is so. I can only hope that the other abuses which this amendment of section 103 could lead to, in relation to the recruitment of these people, will not occur. I can only hope also that they will be remunerated properly and that this is not merely a device for getting cheap policemen.

In conclusion, I wish to say that in so far as the Minister has met the amendments put down by me, or my suggestions, I am obliged to him. While the Minister may consider that the discussion here was a waste of time, I do not and I feel that reading the debates here will prove that the Minister has, as a result, accepted a number of amendments. For example, a lorry driver will not now automatically lose his licence for the second offence of careless driving; he is going to get a third chance. Before this he was only to get a second chance. Another example is that the workman will not now be deprived of his common law right in regard to negligence against the owner of the vehicle, or against his employer. If those two things only resulted from this debate, it was well worthwhile, but many others did too.

Mr. James Tully

As the House and other people know, our Party had a number of different views on certain sections of the Bill, and while I supported particularly the breathalyser and the blood and urine tests, some of my colleagues did not agree with them and the right to have a free vote, if that was required, was given to them. I supported all sections of the Bill, with the exception of two, one of which was referred to by Deputy Fitzpatrick, the appointment of these officers who would be glorified traffic wardens. I was not in agreement with that. The other one to which I was opposed was the question of a check on a man three hours after he had been seen driving a car. It is wrong that somebody should go into his home and check after he had a few drinks following a day's work.

A point which I should like clarified is this: a number of people outside the House tried to give the impression that the test of whether a man or woman was under the influence is the breathalyser. It cannot be repeated often enough that that is not so and that in fact the breathalyser is only a method of finding out if a person is suspect. That is the big point. I should also like to ask the Minister if the State has procured an instrument which will accurately check 125 milligrammes of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood? Has the State got such an instrument or does such an instrument exist? My information is that it does not. If it does not, then whether the Bill is right or wrong, we will not have it in operation for a long time.

I should also like to ask the Minister to ask his colleague, the Minister for Justice, to enforce a section of the road traffic law which apparently is not being enforced. This is in regard to diesel fumes which will, according to Deputy Lemass, make people who are driving behind some of these lorries which are belching dirty black smoke for hours, not only in the country but in the towns and cities, react in such a way that if they are tested, the breathalyser will turn green. Already the fumes make the drivers turn green.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It might be a good defence yet.

Mr. Boland

In regard to Deputy Fitzpatrick's complaint that I—I think it was at Question Time one day— alleged that this Bill had been delayed or obstructed, I do not think this could be taken as a complaint on my part. It was, as far as I can remember, in reply to an unfounded allegation by a member of Deputy Fitzpatrick's Party that it was Government proposals which were causing the delay in the enactment of this measure. At no stage did I suggest that the discussion here was a waste of time; it is a fact that this Bill could not be taken on many occasions and there were considerable delays in that respect.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but I do not know what exactly he means. As far as I am aware, I was available any time the Bill was available.

Mr. Boland

That just is not the case.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is the case.

Mr. Boland

It is not. While I have no objection to every point the Opposition consider it necessary to put being put, and being put effectively, there is no doubt that there was quite an amount of unnecessary repetition on Committee Stage. Deputy Fitzpatrick did not merely finecomb the Bill, which is the function of an Opposition, but he raised the same points in the same detail on every Stage of the Bill, and I think the Official Report will show that. For example, when efforts to prevent the institution of this new offence had failed, in regard to the section in which we were creating this new offence of driving, or attempting to drive, a mechanically propelled vehicle when the blood-alcohol content had reached the level of 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres, the same arguments were repeated over and over again on every section consequential on that section and at a point of time when acceptance of the views expressed would involve the wiping out of the offence for which the House had already made provision. I did not make any formal objection and it was only when a Deputy on the Fine Gael Front Bench stated that this Bill was being held up by other Government proposals that I pointed out that it was not being held up because of any action on the part of the Government. Deputy Fitzpatrick said today that this Bill was introduced in February, 1968. The Bill was introduced on 21st June, 1966.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am sorry.

Mr. Boland

The Bill was circulated in either November or December, 1966. The Second Stage commenced on 7th March, 1967, and the Committee Stage commenced on 10th May, 1967, but there was a gap between the Committee Stage in that session and February, 1968, and that gap was not due to any action on the part of the Government. The Committee Stage was in full swing but it was found impossible to continue until February of 1968 and, then, as I have said, we had all the arguments repeated all over again. So far as the particular section to which I have referred was concerned, it was the same as if we had had no discussion at all on this matter in the earlier period. I quite agree that the Opposition were entitled to adopt that attitude, if they liked, but I do not agree I made any complaint about it. What I did say was that the non-enactment of the Bill was not due to any action on the part of anybody on this side of the House.

With regard to Deputy Tully's question about the existence of an instrument to measure the concentration of alcohol in the blood at the level of 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres, it is true that the instrument in Britain is calibrated to measure only the level they have adopted there. It is merely a question of calibration. There is no difficulty in having an instrument calibrated to the figures we are adopting.

Mr. James Tully

That is not so.

Mr. Boland

Of course, it is. There is no difficulty about it.

Mr. James Tully

What firm is making the one the Minister is going to use?

Mr. Boland

There will be no problem.

Mr. James Tully

It is the Minister's problem and "problem" is the word. The instrument does not exist.

Mr. Boland

There will be no difficulty whatever. It is purely and simply a matter of calibration.

Mr. James Tully

Not at all.

Mr. Boland

No difficulty is expected in that regard. It might have been more desirable possibly to have gone to the lower level, the level they have adopted in Britain, but, remembering the opposition the level we propose to adopt here has met with, I can visualise the kind of opposition the lower level would have encountered.

Question put and agreed to.