Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 May 1933

Vol. 16 No. 18

Road Traffic Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That this Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O'Kelly)

This Bill is founded on the report of the InterDepartmental Committee on the Control and Regulation of Road Traffic. That Committee consisted of representatives of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, Department of Justice and the Department of Industry and Commerce. Their report was circulated to members of the Oireachtas in October, 1928. The Committee received very full evidence both written and oral, and the minutes of evidence will be found in the library. A glance through the Bill will at once show that it is very detailed and comprehensive in character. It is what most of us would like to see from time to time, a codifying measure, and has the distinct advantage that there is little or no legislation by reference. Its very length and detailed character is some explanation of the delay in bringing the Bill to its present stage. In November, 1931, it had, in fact, passed the Committee Stage in the Dáil, but other matters intervened, including a General Election, which resulted in a change of administration, and the Bill had to be re-examined and re-introduced.

Beyond mentioning that the Bill is divided into 11 Parts containing in all 174 Sections, together with a Schedule which repeals five Acts entirely and specified portions of 11 other Acts, it is not proposed to go into the measure in a detailed way. It will be more helpful to give a general review of those provisions and the details can be more properly looked into on the Committee Stage. Looking at the Schedule it will be noted that some of the enactments repealed are from 70 to 80 years old and that even what may be called the charter of the motorist is 30 years old. The number of enactments mentioned in the Schedule shows how desirable it was to codify the legislation. This has been done in the Bill before the House by discarding obsolete, or useless, matter; by retaining anything of value; by improving, where modern traffic development has shown improvements to be necessary and finally by bringing forward entirely new matter which such developments called for.

Provision is made for re-classification of motor vehicles in terms which more closely indicate the type of vehicle covered by the description applied to it. Up to this a motor car is legally known as a light locomotive. The term locomotive is now to be applied, with few exceptions, to what the average person understands to be a locomotive. Similarly, the term light motor vehicle now adopted indicates a small car, whether a private car or a small lorry. The requirements of each class are fully set out, and as it is not always easy to foresee developments in the construction of vehicles, power is taken to vary the classification by an Order of the Minister, but such Order is to be approved by Resolution of each House before the Order can become effective.

The law with regard to driving licences is being entirely re-cast. Different age limits are laid down in respect of the driving of motor cycles, light motor vehicles, heavy motor vehicles, goods carrying and passenger carrying. The minimum age limit under existing legislation is 14 years for the driving of a motor cycle, but we think that under modern traffic conditions that minimum age should not be less than 16 years. We think that drivers of public passenger carrying vehicles of the bus and charabanc type should be at least 21 years of age. These ages will not, it is thought, be considered unreasonable in the light of other provisions in the Bill—for example, the removal of the speed limit in the case of the light motor vehicle (unless it is drawing a trailer) and the increased speed limits laid down for buses and charabancs. There may be some difference of opinion, of course, on these proposals, but they are at least a recognition of the fact that we must move with the times. In dealing with these speed limits it must always be borne in mind that the most stringent regulation is proposed to deal with the offence of dangerous driving, including the driving of vehicles by persons under the influence of drink. If motorists in future do not feel themselves subject to speed traps they must bear in mind that they are liable to very heavy penalties, including both fine and imprisonment, if they are proved guilty of dangerous driving. We think we are justified in placing reliance on these clauses to cure the evils which exist to-day rather than reliance on mere arbitrary speed limits. In the case of the heavy vehicle other considerations enter into the matter—for example, the greater distance such vehicles have to travel before they can be stopped. The question of road damage would also enter into consideration. Power is being taken in the Bill to vary the speed limits which are laid down, but any Order of this kind must be approved by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.

The demand for a Bill of this kind was, I think, largely brought about by the growth of the modern bus as an agency of travel in this country and by the fact that in respect of all motor vehicles accidents happened and no compensation was payable to the injured party or to the representatives of people who were killed. For these reasons, approximately half the Bill is devoted to legislation concerning compulsory insurance and the regulation and control of public hire vehicles.

Under the head of compulsory insurance there is unlimited liability in respect of injury to persons. We have also thought it desirable to provide for injury to property to a limited extent, and we have placed the limit under that head at £1,000. Claims in respect of property of greater value must be dealt with by the owners themselves effecting the necessary insurances. I have had definite statements from the representatives of insurance companies that they are prepared to do all in their power to carry out the provisions of the Bill in a reasonable way. We have endeavoured to secure that claims will not be turned down by insurance companies on purely formal or technical grounds. We propose to specify conditions that must not be inserted in policies, by way of restriction of liability. By the special provisions for a combined policy and guarantee it should be possible for people who are willing to bear some portion of the risk themselves to get a cheaper insurance. They would, of course, have to get a guarantee in respect of the portion they are carrying themselves.

We have cured what I believe to be some serious defects in the law in respect of claims. I refer to the position in Section 75 (2) where the insured dies or becomes bankrupt or insolvent the monies payable to such insured on behalf of an injured party shall not rank as assets of the insured or applicable to the payment of other debts. Another feature to which I refer is the extension of the personal liability in Section 168 for negligent driving to the real and personal estate of the person who caused the injury. The third defect in reference to cases of compensation is also specially dealt with in Section 167 under which the State accepts liability in the same way as any of its citizens. At present, payments by the State are made on an ex-gratia basis and no one regards that system as satisfactory.

In regard to public hire vehicles the Bill places full control in the hands of the Gárda Síochána and contains provisions for appeals to the Courts in certain cases—generally where the character of the applicant is concerned —and to the Minister in other cases— generally where the vehicle itself is in question. Already the Gárda Síochána have had limited powers in Dublin County Borough. The Bill enlarges those powers and extends them to the whole State. Vehicles will be subject to expert examination at the outset and to periodical inspection while in use. Drivers of public hire vehicles must possess certificates of competency of driving and conductors must be carried on all the larger buses. We have found it necessary (Section 90) to deal with the special cases where buses and other means of transport are not available so that children in outlying districts may be brought to school and that people will have transport facilities where public events attract an assemblage of the people. We must, I think, face up to the position that we have not buses and railways everywhere, and I think that a suitable compromise of the various difficulties—of which I am not at all unmindful—has been reached by placing the matter in the primary control of the local Gárda Superintendent.

The present law requires only one white light in the front of a motor car. We think there should be two. They will define the width of the vehicle. We provide for the carrying of red reflectors on the rear of the ordinary pedal cycle and on all other vehicles which are not mechanically propelled vehicles. We ask, however, for a lamp showing a red light to the rear in the case of such vehicles where they carry a load projecting more than six feet. Of course, all motor vehicles will continue to carry a red light in the rear as well as a white light in the rear, the white light to indicate the identification number. Provision is also made for the lighting of vehicles drawing or being drawn by other vehicles and for the carrying of additional lamps in certain cases. That is dealt with in Section 160. The problem of dealing with dazzling headlights does not yet appear to have been solved. My Department are, however, watching developments in the solution of the difficulties and we are taking power in Section 160 (1) (c) to deal with this matter if and when the solution can be found. In the Bill as originally introduced we had a section requiring a person driving animals on the public road to carry a lamp. This seems to be objected to as onerous and in fact unnecessary. On the Committee Stage we modified it by the substitution of a red reflector or a warning instrument, but this, too, apparently was not quite acceptable, and after full consideration we decided to drop it and the present Bill, as amended on Report Stage in the Dáil, does not contain it. The Bill also makes provision in regard to parking places; appointment and payment of assistants at such places; erection of weigh bridges; closing of roads to vehicles; punishment of joy-riders; restriction on continuous driving; payments to hospitals, and very many other matters of a miscellaneous and useful character.

I think the enactment of this measure which is in itself a handbook of the traffic laws should be of immense advantage to all those concerned in the administration of such laws. Its structure is, we feel, sound and progressive. It aims at securing public safety on the roads, and where public safety is violated the Bill will secure payment to the injured party or to the representatives of the victims of fatal accidents caused by the negligent motorist. No doubt suggestions will be made for the modification of the Bill. These suggestions will have the fullest consideration and examination, as our object is to secure that the Bill in its final form will reflect the considered judgement and combined wisdom of all Parties in the House.

Mr. Johnson

I think that every member of the House will agree that this is a measure very much desired and not by any means hurried. The Minister said that the Report on which the Bill is based was circulated in 1928, and it is known to those who read the Dáil Reports that the Bill, or a similar Bill, has been before that House for a couple of years, I think.

I was struck by the remark which the Minister made at the end of his speech, when he spoke of the Bill as being, in effect, a handbook of the traffic laws. I have endeavoured to read and to understand the Bill, but I think it is very far from being a handbook, if one means by that expression something of easy reference and easy understanding. On the contrary, it seems to me to be rather unnecessarily detailed and difficult to understand. I would suggest the desirability of an official handbook being issued to explain the Bill. That is by no means meant jocosely but quite seriously as a proposal that would be of use to the average person interested either as driver or as a person likely to be injured by a driver of a motor car. In the Bill I come across quite a number of phrases or terms that seem to me to be unnecessarily unwiedly. The term "motor vehicle" is transformed right through the Bill into the term "mechanically propelled vehicle." Motor vehicle is a term that is very easily understood, and is just as expressive and explanatory as the term "mechanically propelled vehicle." I find in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that that change is very simply adopted by saying that the term "mechanically propelled vehicle" shall be called hereinafter a "motor vehicle." That seems to me to be just a little illustration as to how this Bill could be simplified for the average person who is likely to be affected by the Bill. I realise that to attempt to simplify it now would be almost an impossibility; nevertheless, it seems to be worth consideration as to whether some modification of that kind could not be made even at this very late stage. We get phrases like "consequential disqualification" and "ancillary disqualification"—very interesting terms, no doubt, but not easily understood and not quite suitable for a handbook.

I am not going to deal with what might be called the general principles of the Bill, but there is a number of minor matters that will have to be dealt with, I think, on the Committee Stage. There are a couple of these to which, I think, it might be well to direct attention with a view to consideration being given to them before the Committee Stage begins. Some matters, probably, would not be easily dealt with by the unofficial Senator. I have two items particularly in mind. One of these is a minor matter really— I think it is Section 15—where in the case of a person applying for a driving licence, there is no indication of personal application being necessary, and it has come to my notice recently that it is habitual in these days for a firm having a number of vehicles to apply en bloc by an agent or an employee going down to the tax office, putting in a number of applications, signed either originally by the applicant, or by the person who is making the payment of the motor tax in the name of the applicant. It seems to me that that is a matter which ought to be remedied in Committee Stage and that the applicant, when making an application, should apply in person. However, that is purely a minor matter.

Section 30 is much more important, because it deals with public safety. I do not know to what degree my comments on this might be acceptable to many of my friends, but where a person is charged with driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle while he is drunk, he is guilty of an offence, and there is a rigorous punishment provided for such offence; but there is provision made for an appeal against the decision of the District Justice. Previous legislation, touching on this kind of subject, gave the District Justice power to disqualify, within his discretion, during the period between the hearing before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and the Appeal Court. That discretion is removed under this Bill, and the person who is charged with being drunk while driving or attempting to drive a vehicle may appeal, and in the period between the first hearing and the appeal he is free to continue driving. The case may be a perfectly clear case, and the person may be proved to be completely incapable by virtue of his regular habits of drunkenness, but if he appeals, during the period between the first hearing and the appeal, he is free to continue driving. This seems to me to be a deliberate omission, because in the Acts on which this particular Bill is, to some extent, founded, there was provision made for the suspension of the licence during the period between the first hearing and the appeal.

In that same section also there seems to be an omission in respect to the question of control. As the Bill reads, every person who drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle in a public place while he is drunk shall be guilty of an offence In previous statutes, and in the Road Traffic Act of 1930—a British Act—they have dealt with the person in control of a motor vehicle. In this Bill, the phrase "the person in control of" or "when in charge of" is removed. At least, it does not appear. This kind of case appears as likely to arise, or possible of arising, and for such a case there is no penalty involved—a man may be too drunk even to attempt to drive a car, and if he can be proved to be too drunk to attempt to drive a car there is no offence under this Bill. A man may be sitting at the wheel of a motor car and he may know quite well that he is incapable of driving, and he refuses to drive or to attempt to drive, but he is in charge of the car. His defence is a perfect one if he can satisfy the justice that he was too drunk, and knew he was too drunk, to attempt to drive the car. The offence here is for driving or attempting to drive, and the terms of the Road Traffic Act—I do not know whether the provision existed in previous Irish legislation or not—that is, where it was an offence to be drunk in charge of a car—are omitted. That, I think, would require some reconsideration, and we ought, at least, to have regard to such a possibility and make provision that a person who is in charge of a car must be a sober man. Those are the only two points to which I want to direct attention with a view to reconsideration between now and the Committee Stage. Other matters, more technical and more difficult to explain, would have to be raised on the Committee Stage, but I would like some consideration given to the particular aspect of the section I have quoted.

Mr. Dowdall

I think everybody in this House thoroughly agrees that such a measure as this is absolutely necessary. I agree with Senator Johnson that this Bill deals so thoroughly with road traffic that any discussion on it will be more useful in Committee than on the Second Stage. However, I should like to touch on the point, as Senator Johnson did, of consequential disqualification; that is, in a case where a driver is convicted of drunkenness while either driving or attempting to drive a car, in addition to such penalties as are set out here, it follows as a consequence that his licence is suspended. I would ask the Minister to look at sub-section (3) of Section 30, which deals with that matter, and I wish to know if the consequential disqualification follows in case a person is convicted under that section; that is, where a man may be either under the influence of drugs or under the influence of drink, but not drunk; because I think that such consequential disqualification should apply to that section also.

With regard to the speed limit, I think myself that we are all suffering from a mania for speed and I trust that the Minister will leave it to the option either of the Superintendent of the Guards or of the local authority to construct such speed limits, within the areas over which they have jurisdiction, as they may deem advisable or necessary. Of course that is a Committee point. With regard to compulsory insurance, every decent insurance company will welcome it, and more especially in regard to third party injuries. The Minister made a statement which I, as one connected with insurance to some degree, resent; that is, that precaution will have to be taken to prevent the turning down of claims by companies on the ground of technicalities or informalities. Everyone who has any connection with insurance knows that, not only in respect of motor accidents but in respect of other accidents insurance companies always pay, except there is substantial reason to show that there is no obligation to pay at all. It may be well if the law is tightened up so as to ensure that shady companies should not evade their obligations, but in the case of the vast bulk of insurance companies there is no necessity for this tightening up at all; the law needs no strengthening in regard to them.

Mr. Douglas

I agree with previous speakers that on the whole the Bill is an exceedingly good one and that, after detailed debate, it ought to be passed with considerable satisfaction by the House. I do not propose to go into any details, except in certain respects, where I would like to have it made clear the kind of amendments one might put down in the Committee Stage. Before coming to these details I would like to say that I have a certain amount of sympathy with Senator Johnson in regard to the point he made about its being difficult for a layman to understand the Bill. That is a sympathy, however, that I would feel in regard to almost every Bill of the kind. The difference here is that a great many of the new regulations will affect the ordinary man in the street, and he will have to carry them out. It occurs to me to ask whether there is any power, inherent in the Minister or his Department, to issue some kind of general handbook in connection with this legislation. If some kind of summary could be issued and sold at a few pence it would, in my opinion, save the police a considerable amount of money in getting the Act enforced. I do not think it would be possible, simply by changing a few words, to get people immediately to understand the effect of the changes on the law, but if someone in the Department could prepare a handbook and set out the detailed changes which are made, they would be easily understood, whereas otherwise it will take years for people to understand them. If there is no such power I would like to see included in the Bill a clause giving power to the Minister and his Department to issue such a handbook in the future. I do not think an obligation to attend in person is of any value. The fact that a clerk sees a person who signs, and is competent to give information, is not proof of his qualification to drive. It is provided that any person who signed the declaration that he has no disqualification is entitled to a licence unless there is proof to the contrary. I think you would also cause considerable delay in insisting on a personal application.

Mr. Johnson

The Senator forgets that you are giving powers to refuse a licence to persons who appear to be under a certain age.

Mr. Douglas

I did not say that there are no flaws in the Bill. But with regard to age, if you say you are 21 years and upwards it is accepted without giving the exact age. Now there are points that I wish to refer to dealing with the question of insurance. Am I correct in reading that compulsory insurance—third party insurance—is only insurance against accidents caused by negligence? That is my reading of the Bill, and if that is so it means that, as far as the public are concerned, they are only half protected.

Mr. Dowdall

I think in practice it will be found that where there is an accident the insurance company will pay.

Mr. Douglas

That statement by an experienced man like Senator Dowdall rather emphasises my point. Because the only reason why it should be confined to negligence would be if the insurance companies charged a considerably higher premium, but in view of the statement of the Senator I assume that is not the case. What is in my mind is that some of the worst accidents are accidents caused by skids. Some of these may be due to negligence, others not. Again, in many accidents there is a nice point whether there is any negligence. I have driven a car for many years and have been fortunate in that there was never a claim against me for third party damages. But I know a number of other people, against some of whom there have been such claims. One case came to my knowledge where a person said if he admitted negligence a claim could be made. He did not believe there was negligence and asked would he run into danger of the court if he admitted negligence in order to help the claim to be made. I want to suggest that if it were possible to make it clear that in a bona fide accident, which was not caused by negligence, the driver would be covered for third party risks it would be a good thing. If that could be done it would add much to the value of the Bill in the eyes of the public. The Minister will understand the position.

Another small point dealing with insurance is the question of licensing the driver. I find the insurance I hold provides that my car may be driven by any licensed driver. It also gives me protection for third party while I, as owner of the policy, am driving another car. But as regards licensed drivers, one may as well openly confess one's sins. I have found two or three days have elapsed sometimes after the expiry of my licence before I renewed it. As no reminder is sent that does often happen to drivers. I think in most cases insurance companies would not make a great deal of that point, but I think third-party-cover should cover any driver once licensed. I think it right, of course, that the companies should take precautions and should be able to withdraw the insurance if they thought fit. I do not want any flaw, due to the fact that a particular driver may, for a fortnight, less or more, inadvertently neglect to renew his licence. I shall bring that up on Committee Stage.

I would like, also, to ask in regard to compulsory insurance whether any provision is made to deal with the motor garages. That is what I had in mind when I spoke of the possible amendments on Committee Stage. Reading the Bill I do not know whether motor garages are insured or not. It is well known that motor garages can obtain, a general insurance, and that that general insurance covers all their employees when driving any car. That is exceedingly important. Cars come in for repairs, sometimes they are insured, but sometimes their insurance is allowed to lapse because the owner does not need the car until it is fit again for the road. The car is in the garage and is repaired and taken out on the road to see if it is fit. The driver may be asked to produce the certificate of insurance in regard to a particular car. The garage mechanic will not be able to do that, and the fact that there is a provision of insurance for that garage covering third-party for any car should be sufficient. Again, there is provision in the Act that no licence is to be issued after a certain date unless the licensing authority produces a certificate of insurance with regard to that car. That may lead to difficulties. In many cases the insurance is not attached to the car but to the driver as in the case of a garage. I take out an insurance policy on my own car, but I have a right to take out another car. And there is no reason why I should not be properly covered for third-party insurance without an insurance for the particular car.

There are also the licences issued to garages called "Trade Plates" and they cover any car. In that type of licence you could not produce the actual certificate referred to in the Bill. I think that some provision should be made that any firm that obtains Trade Plates should produce a certificate to the effect that the firm is covered for all its employees. That would get over the difficulty and add to safety from the point of view of the public. That is all that has struck me so far. I repeat what I said that the Bill is an exceedingly good one and will do much for the safety of the public.

Mr. Comyn

The short speeches made in the course of this discussion have indicated quite clearly to me that the Senators who have spoken have studied this measure, because they have all hit upon the very points which I think are of the greatest consequence. Senator Dowdall made a particularly remarkable statement. He said wherever there is an accident the insurance company will pay. He, I presume, has some connection with an insurance company, but of this I am certain that in making their calculations as to the amount they will charge they make them on the basis that they are to pay in the case of other accidents. If the Minister could possibly secure that under the provisions of this Schedule they should be legally obliged to make a case, such as I have mentioned, I think it would greatly improve the Bill.

The two points of great importance are Section 56, which provides for insurance and Section 168 dealing with the extension of personal liability for negligent driving. Senator Douglas is quite right in saying that under the provisions of this Bill there is no liability except in the case of negligent driving, so far as insurance is concerned. That is provided for in Section 56, sub-section (1), paragraph (a). I suppose the Minister is confining, and must confine himself, within the definition which has been laid down of negligence. It is a great pity that he is not able to afford protection in cases where negligence cannot be proved. That law of negligence in relation to accidents on the highway is in a most unsatisfactory condition. The plaintiff or person injured has to allege negligence and, in the defence which is put in, there is usually a defence of contributory negligence. One would imagine that the issue raised in a case like that would be very simple and very easily resolved. It was so at one time. The old judges put the question: "Was the defendant guilty of negligence?" and the further question: "Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence?" and, then, they put the determining question: "Who was most to blame?" There was a lot of commonsense in that question. It was the question that used to be put in my junior days at the Bar, but judges in England and elsewhere and the House of Lords, who considered their intellects more refined, have elaborated that in such a way that it is impossible now for a juryman to understand the meaning of the questions put to him, because this is the question now: "Assuming that the defendant was guilty of negligence and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, could the defendant, by the exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the consequences of the plaintiff's negligence?" That is one of the simpler questions that are put, so that this matter of negligence and contributory negligence in regard to road accidents is in a most unsatisfactory position. I am sure that was brought to the notice of the Minister and, if, by this measure, he could cut the Gordian knot and resolve that question into its simple elements, he would be doing a great public service.

There is another point to which I wish to call attention. In the case of a road accident in which a person is killed the widow claims compensation. How is she to prove negligence? The person who could prove negligence is dead and the person who survives, who may be the negligent person and, in nine cases out of ten, probably is the negligent person, will say: "No, it was the fault of the poor man who is dead." That is a blot, not on this Bill, but in the law as it stands, and the Minister, when introducing a section dealing with the extension of personal liability for negligent driving, ought, if he possibly could, grapple with the entire question. If there is an accident involving a death, perhaps the best thing to do would be to say that there should be compensation for the widow of the dead person, but it might be better to recast all this law in relation to compensation where there is a road accident and put it on some other basis than the basis of negligence, which has not received a highly technical meaning as a result of the various decisions and contentions. That is a matter which might be brought up on Committee Stage. No doubt the Minister has already considered it, but it is of such grave importance and requires so much consideration that I think the Second Reading Stage is the proper stage on which to bring it forward with a view to seeing whether some plan could not be devised to do substantial justice, particularly in the case in which the person who would be a witness of the negligence is dead and his widow and children are the sufferers. I am pressing this point, because Senator Dowdall said that in the matter of this third-party insurance a charge for the insurance would be made on the basis that there will be compensation in the case of every accident.

There is another matter in regard to Section 169 I should like to refer to. The section is very good in regard to the duty of drivers on the occurrence of an accident. The most disgraceful thing in connection with these road accidents is that the person who injures a man, not knowing whether he has killed him or not, drives away either in a panic or from heartlessness. There are numerous accidents in which the person who does the injury drives away, and this section imposes considerable penalties on the person who acts in that way. I would suggest another penalty. I would suggest that a presumption of negligence should be drawn, as a matter of law, against a person who drives away, or that something should be done in the way of raising a presumption of negligence against him either at the suit of the wife or the person injured. That is a suggestion that will require great consideration. I am bringing these points forward only as suggestions. I know the great difficulty of legislating on these matters, but I can assure the Minister that the difficulty is nothing compared with the necessity for such legislation, and I hope the Minister, now that he is bringing forward a comprehensive, splendid and well-thought-out measure, will take the bull by the horns and grapple with this greatest difficulty in connection with road traffic.

Some matters have been raised by Senator Johnson which are deserving of very serious consideration. I do not agree with him when he says that "motor vehicle" would be a better phrase to use in this measure than "mechanically propelled vehicle." Lawyers like to be accurate, and clients and the public generally are the persons responsible for making lawyers desire to be so accurate, because a lawyer would not split words if his client did not insist upon it. "Mechanically propelled vehicles" is the proper term to use. The phrase "motor vehicle" would be altogether misleading, seeing that there are so many descriptions of mechanism besides the internal combustion engines which are used for the propulsion of vehicles and, therefore, on that point, I would rather agree with the draftsman.

There was a point made by Senator Johnson which, I think, was very wise, in connection with persons who are drunk when driving motor cars. The old law in regard to this matter was that if a person was drunk in charge of a horse and car he was liable. That was very simple, and I think that really it applies in the case of motor drivers as much as in the case of drivers of horse drawn vehicles. Of course there is the distinction that a motor cannot move unless the levers are altered, but I do not think that is reason enough for making an alternation in the law, particularly when a person may have a motor car stationary at a dangerous point in the road. Therefore I think that unless it is already provided for the suggestion of Senator Johnson, which will no doubt be considered, ought to be accepted. These are all the matters that occurred to me in regard to the Bill, because I must say that the Bill seems to be remarkably well balanced, and to represent a great amount of labour and thought and to be very sensibly constructed, but these are matters which I think ought to be considered with a view to improving the Bill. They are the most difficult matters and the most urgent matters in connection with road traffic. They are also of the greatest importance, and now that the Minister is bringing forward this measure—and he will receive, as I can see from the speeches made, every assistance in this House— I hope that he will be able to grapple with that question of loss arising from road accidents in a more comprehensive way than by basing it on the old criterion of negligent driving.

Mr. O'Farrell

This seems to be a very complete Bill and, to me, at all events, it would appear to have covered, with the necessary detail, practically the whole of the points involved in this traffic code. There is one exception, however. There is one provision absent from the Bill which I think should be in it with regard to the placing of responsibility on pedestrians. Anybody who drives a car, or who observes things at all, will agree that there is a very considerable proportion of what are known as jaywalkers amongst the general community. Unless a person exercises the most extreme care he cannot drive a car any day through Dublin without knocking down and probably fatally injuring quite a number of people, and that can be done without being accused of undue negligence. A great many pedestrians seem to place the whole responsibility for their safety on the drivers of vehicles, and the serious part of that is that I have noticed reports of numerous accidents that have been caused by drivers trying to avoid pedestrians who, without warning, step in front of a motor car. In trying to avoid those people he has often to swerve and, perhaps, mount the footpath and possibly kill or injure somebody else who is acting in a careful manner.

Under the French code of laws, there are definite penalties for the pedestrain who walks carelessly or negligently across a thoroughfare because of the danger of causing other people to be knocked down by drivers trying to avoid him. The British Safety First League, in issuing its periodical reports, indicates that quite a large proportion of the accidents, amongst them being hundreds of fatal accidents, are due to the carelessness of pedestrians. In all cases, it is not the person who was careless is killed, but someone else who has been knocked down by the driver trying to avoid an accident. This Bill puts no responsibility upon the pedestrian. It is all placed upon the drivers of motor vehicles and cyclists. I think there should be some sharing of the responsibility in that respect. In Section 15 the Minister has power to make numerous regulations, including that dealing with the construction of vehicles and with noise. One point that requires consideration is the size of some of these double-decked lorries and vehicles of that kind for carrying sheep, pigs and live stock, especially on narrow roads. They are really a great source of danger. Cars coming behind and wanting to pass are unable to do so. Going round corners and places of that kind it is necessary to drive blind to try to pass them. Some of these vehicles should not be allowed on roads that are not wide. At present they seem to be allowed on all kinds of roads.

Sir John Keane

Furniture vans also.

Mr. O'Farrell

Yes, and then there are tractors drawing other vehicles, all creating risks of a very definite character. In regard to noise I certainly think that regulations of a more severe character should be imposed in connection with motor bicycles. These machines are one of the horrors of modern transport, and are a terrible test for nervous people and for invalids. Drivers of motor bicycles seem to think that the more noise they make the greater are their machines. A regulation should be enforced for the insertion of some effective silencer on these machines. When there are four or five of them dashing along the roads they are an absolute torture to the nerves. It might also be noticed that a very large proportion of accidents are caused by motor bicycles. A young fellow who has a girl sitting on the pillion seat behind him seems to lose all sense of discretion. He simply goes mad and that accounts for a tremendous number of fatal accidents.

In regard to dangerous driving I notice that one aspect does not seem to have been taken seriously, and that is the speed at which buses meet other cars on narrow roads. The private driver has always to slow down and to pull in close to the footpath. I have never yet met a bus which slowed down when passing a car. Buses go along at full speed causing a tremendous draught owing to the size of the vehicles. It is left to private drivers to exercise care. I would characterise as dangerous driving, the failure of a driver to slow down when meeting other traffic on narrow roads.

Senator Douglas, Senator Comyn and others raised points about insurance. That is a very important question, especially where people are killed without there being any negligence on the part of drivers. I think owners and drivers of public service vehicles should be insured against genuine accidents because there are genuine accidents in which lives are lost. It is a terrible consideration to think that the bread-winner of a family might be killed by a motor vehicle in a genuine accident and that his dependents had no redress. I welcome particularly Section 54 in which it is proposed to punish the owners of vehicles who make out a time table which, in order to be worked to, involves breaking the speed limit. There are scores of cases in which drivers were summoned for exceeding the speed limit although it was proved that in order to carry out the instructions of their employers, and to work to a certain time table, they had to exceed the speed limit or lose their jobs. The Bill remedies that by making the person who issues the time table responsible.

Another valuable provision is contained in Section 166 which puts a limit upon the hours in any one day during which a driver may be employed on a public service vehicle. Of course, the time is very long, and it may be 11 hours all-over, but, not for more than 5½ hours continuous driving. A valuable portion of sub-section (4) penalises a driver who drives longer than 5½ hours, because it will deal with the owner-driver of a public service vehicle who drives for whatever hours he feels inclined or for whatever pay. After a certain period he must of necessity be a menace to other people using the highways, because such drivers get tired and sometimes sleepy. To that extent, the Bill tightens up the law, although a provision of this kind which has been in operation in Great Britain for some time under the Traffic Bill of 1930 has been evaded wholesale. There has been a certain amount of collusion between drivers and employers for monetary considerations with a view to evading this portion of the law. Complaints have been received wholesale, so that I trust the Gárda will, for a time, at all events, see that this section of the Bill is administered effectively. If it were only closely enforced for a year or 18 months employers and employees would gradually work to it.

This Bill has been a long time overdue. It was the subject of a Commission that sat for a couple of years and it has been dealt with in two Parliaments. It brings our laws, which are about 30 years behind the times, up-to-date. The one justification for the delay was the completeness with which the Bill covers the whole subject. I entirely agree with the suggestion that someone might be employed to prepare a simple handbook explaining the main points. It would be bought eagerly by everyone interested in transport, whether drivers or owners of cars and by large numbers of people. The Department, I am sure, by the sales, would be able to defray the cost of the preparation of such a book if a reasonable figure—say about 6d.—was charged that would cover the cost. It seems to me to be necessary, because this is a fairly complicated code of law covering a very wide field of activity now, and it is necessary that drivers and owners of vehicles, as well as a big section of the general public, should have a fairly general knowledge of what the law is.

Mr. S. Robinson

I am very interested in the suggestion that there should be a handbook published if any official with the necessary knowledge could be got to prepare it. I think it would be worth while to have it. A handbook such as has been suggested would require to be accurate and to contain the full details. I do not see how it could be done except purely by a compilation of police traffic regulations. When the Minister is replying I would like him to consider the advisability of allowing civilians to apply for the two positions of inspectors of bodies and of the mechanical parts of motor cars. A policeman is most unlikely to have the knowledge of civilians in that respect, because it would require a great many years' experience to be able to detect mechanical and body troubles in motor vehicles. In cities like Belfast and Cork I understand that civilians are at present doing that duty. I would not like to see civilians definitely barred if they were better fitted for the work.

Mr. O'Connor

Many things affecting live stock have been referred to here in connection with traffic regulations for motor vehicles. At present, there are no standard arrangements dealing with the construction of these motor vehicles for carrying cattle or live stock. There is a great necessity for some regulations dealing with loading banks, so that there would not be cruelty in the loading or unloading of live stock. That work is often accompanied by cruelty when stock are being put into these lorries and also at the cattle market where there is no provision for discharging them. At 6 or 7 o'clock in the mornings accommodation is hardly available for unloading cattle from these lorries at the market. When passing cattle, sheep and pigs on public roads I think it should be compulsory that motor vehicles should pull up. It is not a question of going easy. It is impossible for a motor vehicle to pass through cattle without the risk of danger. It was only last week I had a bullock in a bunch of ten killed because the motor car was not pulled up. People driving motor cars or lorries should pull up or go very slowly in order to avoid injury to animals. The Minister has given a great deal of consideration to the pros and cons of the traffic problem.

I think the Bill would be all the more successful if the points I have referred to were dealt with by such legislation. I have strong opinions regarding pillion riding on motor bicycles. Pillion riding should be abolished. Many of the accidents that we read of in which young people are killed are caused by pillion riding. Reference has been made to the noise caused by motor bicycles. It may be satisfactory to the riders of these machines but it is the reverse for people who have to put up with it. Another matter to which attention might be paid is in reference to the use of motor horns. It would be a good thing if there could be one kind of motor horn for all vehicles so that we would not have the variety that we have at present. Some of these motor horns make people frightened. If there could be a standard motor horn, something like the whistle on a railway engine, so that people would know what was coming when they heard it, it would be an improvement.

Perhaps if motor manufacturers were approached there could be produced, without any great hardship, a horn of uniform size for different classes of vehicles, the horns to be such that they would indicate the type of cars they belonged to. I strongly suggest to the Minister that it should be compulsory on the owners of all cars to carry rere lights, so that a driver could give an indication when he proposes pulling up suddenly. Because of failure to give an indication of that kind I have seen very bad accidents occur when, for instance, a car coming from behind ran into one in front. Accidents of that kind could be avoided if drivers carried a rere light, and gave an indication when they proposed to pull up. I hope the Minister will give attention to the points I have mentioned. My suggestions have been put forward in a helpful spirit. I believe the Minister, in putting through this important legislation, will have the assistance of all classes of the public, and particularly the members of the cattle trade, in which I am specially interested.

Miss Browne

I wish to say a word on behalf of a class, rather a numerous class, that seems to be forgotten altogether—those who ride and drive horses on the roads. They get very little consideration from motorists. The motorist, when he meets a man with a horse on the road, seems to think that he owns the road, and that the man and horse ought to get out of his way. I am one of those who still ride and drive horses a great deal on the roads. I can say that on many an occasion I have escaped from motorists when riding or driving a horse with, as they say, "the skin of my teeth." In my opinion a motorist ought to be compelled to stop at once when he gets a signal from a person riding or driving a horse, especially when coming near towns. In many places it is highly dangerous to bring a young horse out on the road at all. The tendency for motorists, evidently, is to think that the horse has no right to be there at all. The usual signal for a person with a horse on the road to give is to put up his hand. In nine cases out of ten that signal is disregarded, and the motorist rushes by. He rarely looks behind to see whether the rider of the horse has been killed or not. Occurrences of that kind have often made me wish that such people would be in a hotter clime before they reached the end of their journey.

It has to be remembered that a great many people still ride and drive horses, and especially farmers, whom I represent here. They contribute a good deal to the upkeep of the roads. They have as good a right to be on the roads as any motorist. I would like to see a provision inserted in the Bill for the imposition of severe penalties on persons who disregard a signal from a person with a restive horse on the road. In this connection I would like to say that motor bicycles are a terrible danger. Even old horses, accustomed to almost all kinds of traffic—to passing traction engines and motor cars., etc.— become terrified and restive at the noise of motor bicycles. I hope the Minister will give attention to the points I have mentioned. I speak on behalf of a large number of people who either from choice or because they cannot afford to have a motor car, still ride and drive horses.

Mr. Crosbie

In listening to Senator O'Connor, I could not help thinking that I never came across a person who ever sounded a horn loud enough to satisfy me. I think a loud horn is a very useful thing in helping to clear a road. I put it to Senator O'Farrell that the old view the law took of a motor car was that whoever drove it or brought it on to the road was in charge of a very deadly machine. In the old days, I believe—I am sorry that Senator Comyn is not here to bear me out in this—the person in charge of such a machine was expected to take extraordinarily good care. If an accident happened the onus was put on him to show that he had taken every precaution. But of course, as we all know, "the law is a hass." In my opinion the best illustration of that is to be found in the law with regard to motors. If a man steals your money with the intention of putting it back, such an explanation as that will not satisfy a court of law, but a man may take your motor car, drive it around and wreck it, and he is not regarded as a robber or a thief. He is merely regarded as a joy rider. Members of the House know that an enormous number of accidents have taken place as a result of this practice of joyriding, and still no discredit attaches to people who have stolen cars that have caused accidents. The law regards them very differently from other types of thieves. I would suggest to the Minister that, when overhauling the laws dealing with motorists, he would make the taking of a motor car by irresponsible people a criminal offence, just as the stealing of money out of a till is.

Sir John Keane

I hope the Minister, in making regulations, will go cautiously along the lines suggested by Senator O'Connor. A very great hardship would be imposed on people if, suddenly, all kinds of new mechanical devices such as automatic lighting, dipping headlights and so on, had to be attached to motor cars. No doubt these are all desirable things. The makers of new cars are fully alive to their importance, but I think it would be a great hardship if all these expensive devices had to be attached to all cars. A great number of people for years to come cannot afford to drive anything but an old car. All these devices and recommendations are really the outcome of the desire to make the road safer for the dangerous driver. Of course, the real protection and safety is in careful driving, but nowadays the tendency is to make the road safe for the speedy driver. We see all over the country where, with that object in view, corners are widened. While all that is very desirable it should not operate so as to relax ordinary care in driving.

There is another matter that I would like to refer to. In the case of accidents insurance companies always ask: "Did you sound your horn?" If a person did not sound his horn the assumption always is that he is in the wrong. That is why there is so much horn sounding going on. The Minister has been to America, and he knows that there is extraordinarily little horn sounding in that country. There is no horn sounding going around corners except you overtake a car. The reason for that is that everybody is supposed to be on the right side of the road, and therefore there is no need to sound the horn. Another reason why there is so little horn sounding in America is that when driving from a by-road on to the main road the driver has to stop dead before entering a main road. Therefore, there is no reason for people driving on the main road to be continually sounding the horn. I hope the Minister in making his regulations will consider these points. Their adoption, I think, would make for greater safety and much less noise. I would like to know from the Minister if some means could not be devised so that people could take out a five-year licence. It is a great nuisance having to take out a fresh licence every year. Sometimes one forgets all about it. If five-year licences were issued I think it would save a lot of trouble.

Mr. Counihan

I think that in the course of their remarks Senator O'Connor and Senator Miss Browne were a little bit too hard on motorists. Their remarks might, perhaps, apply to the drivers of buses and lorries but certainly not to the motor-owner-driver. I think it will be admitted by most people who use the roads that this latter class are most courteous and considerate. There are certainly some people who, as Senator Miss Browne said, think nothing should be on the road but themselves. Such people are in the minority. Senator O'Farrell's remarks with regard to "safety first" struck me as being very wise. I suggest to the Minister that in consultation with the Minister for Education, he might consider issuing instructions to school teachers to have "safety first" lectures delivered to the children once a week or once a month. I think if such an instruction were given it might have the effect of saving very many valuable lives.

With regard to Section 46 of the Bill which deals with speed limits, it strikes me that the regulation for trapping motorists is a great nuisance and hardship to many people. They are pulled up and put to considerable expense and trouble in defending the charges made against them. Could not the matter be more effectively dealt with by having the engines of all cars "governed" down to the speed limit desired. I remember I had a little car when the times were more prosperous than they are now—that was before the economic war started—and it was "governed" down to 25 miles an hour. I think if my suggestion were adopted it would save the public a great deal of annoyance and would obviate the necessity for these police traps. With regard to Section 161 which deals with the carrying of lights in connection with live-stock travelling on the roads the Minister's statement on that satisfies the objection I had to the section—that the lights need only be carried by the drivers after the live stock.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister to conclude.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O'Kelly)

I am very grateful to the members of the Seanad who have spoken on this Bill. The number of suggestions of a useful kind that have been made is quite large. I, as well as the officials of my Department who have had the duty cast upon them of drafting this measure, will be very happy indeed to go very carefully between now and the Committee Stage into the suggestions made. We will be quite happy to try and put into form for the Seanad any suggestions that we think would be an improvement on the Bill and that would meet with the views put forward by the Senators who have offered them.

Senator Johnson, I think, suggested a handbook. It is usual with lawyers who are interested in a specific subject, when a piece of legislation of this kind and of so comprehensive a character as this, is issued in this country, as in other countries, to take upon themselves voluntarily the task of compiling and issuing a handbook of the nature suggested. I firmly believe that before this Bill becomes an Act such a handbook will be produced. Already, perhaps, more than one rising barrister has such a handbook in mind, and I am strongly of opinion that there will be competition among young lawyers who wish to make a name for themselves as being experts on this subject and in the compilation of handbooks. I do not know whether that would be exactly the type of handbook that Senator Johnson had in mind. Probably he had something more simple in mind, something that would not use the phraseology that one usually finds in Acts of Parliament and in handbooks issued by lawyers largely for the use of lawyers. However, it is quite possible that something of the kind might be done even by our own Department, and I will see if it is possible. I know, of course, that there would be in the Department people quite competent to do it, but I do not know what the Department of Finance or the Comptroller and Auditor-General might think about it. I cannot say what their viewpoint might be on the subject. These are things we will have to bear in mind, but if it is possible to get the time and permission to do it, it is a matter that will certainly have our attention.

Senator Johnson also called attention to Section 30, which deals with the question of a person driving a car while drunk. We have deliberately left out of this Bill the matter of making it a criminal offence to be in charge of a motor car while drunk. That was deliberately left out. It is open, of course, to any member of the Seanad to introduce an amendment and to have the matter raised here again. Perhaps it would be a good thing to hear what the judgement of the Seanad would be on that subject, but certainly in the view of the different people who have dealt with this Bill since it was first introduced, it has been decided to change the law as it exists, and to make it an offence to drive or attempt to drive a car while being drunk. As Senator Johnson said, a person sitting in a car might realise that he was too drunk to drive. Our belief is that, so long as he does not attempt to move that car or to put it in motion, he should not be under any liability beyond whatever liability he may be under for being drunk. We think we have made the section dealing with the offence of driving a car while drunk very tight and, in the Dáil certainly, the penalties for that offence were made very severe, much more severe now than when the Bill was first introduced. Furthermore, we believe that the very severity of the penalties for that offence will render the number of cases in the future of persons driving while drunk very much fewer.

There was a good deal of discussion by several members of the Seanad on the question of negligent driving. That is a very difficult subject indeed, and it has received considerable attention since the Bill was first introduced. It has been discussed over and over again in the offices which have charge of administering the Act, in the draftsman's office, and with the various parties concerned, the police and insurance companies. I think that the wisdom of all the parties that have been consulted on the matter is embodied in the Bill. It was decided that, at any rate, so far as we have been able to gather the opinions and the wisdom of all parties, we could not go further. On the question of the insurance that would be necessary, the insurance companies would not know what they were asked to insure against if one did not make some restriction. One would not know the premiums to be charged, and they might be very exorbitant and out of all proportion. We could not get any definite promise from any of the representatives of the associated insurance companies— both Irish companies and the representatives of English companies here, that were consulted—we could not get anything from them that would enable us to come to a more definite conclusion as to how we should define this question of negligence in driving or insure against anything that would not be as definite as what is conveyed by "negligent driving," and that is not always very definite or easy to define.

Senator Douglas, I think, raised the point about persons driving a car while not actually licensed. He said, I think, that he himself had driven a car for a day or two without getting a licence. That, I think, is a fairly common occurrence, and we have provided for that in the Bill. We have got assurances from the insurance company that where a person omits to get his licence for a few days it will not be held against him in the documents that govern insurance.

Senator Douglas also raised the question of the general insurance certificate covering a motor garage and the number of cars there might be in that garage at different times. That is covered by sub-section (1) of Section 67. I think that the Senator will find that his point is covered by that sub-section. The other point which the Senator raised, about the trade plate, is covered also by that sub-section, I think. I have doubts about it, however, and will look into it. It is a point which we think it would be possible to cover.

Senator Comyn spoke about the extension of liability for negligent driving. I think that what I have already said on that covers the Senator's point. Undoubtedly, there is a grievance in the case of a person who is killed and whose relatives would be in the position of not being able to prove negligence. As far as I have taken any interest in this matter, my experience—and I think it is the general experience—is that where there is a doubt in cases of that kind and the case goes to a jury, the jury usually gives a decision on the side of negligence. That is to say, where negligence is averred in the court by a person seeking damages, the jury usually takes a very sympathetic view. How to cover that point further than we have done, however, we have not been able to discover. Perhaps the wisdom of the members of the Seanad may be able to suggest some means for covering that in a wider way and bringing in cases such as those suggested by Senator Comyn. Any suggestions that are brought in on that point we shall be happy to consider. I do not know if we can get any section that would cover the case of the person who decamps after an accident. I think that kind of a person ought to be penalised. I think that such persons, whether they decamp, as Senator Comyn said, because of panic or from some other less honourable motive, should be subject to extra penalties. That is a matter to which we will give consideration.

Senator O'Farrell raised the question of the responsibility of pedestrians to look after their own safety. I think the Senator will find provision for that in Section 144. Sub-section (k) of that section gives power to make regulations governing and controlling the conduct of pedestrians on roadways and in particular the crossing of roadways by pedestrians. Power is given under that sub-section to the Commissioner to make whatever regulations he thinks necessary. Very wide powers are given both to the Commissioner and to the Minister for making regulations in this Bill and the Seanad will be as pleased as, I think, the majority in the Dáil were, to know that practically all of these regulations will have to be laid before the Oireachtas before they come into operation.

Senator O'Farrell also dealt with the question of the construction of mechanically propelled vehicles. That is covered, I think, by Section 15. I think that the Senator will find that all that he wished to have done has been covered in that section. If not, or if any other member of the Seanad has any suggestion to make on the matter, we will be happy to consider it. The question of noises is also covered, I think, by that section.

It is proper, as Senator O'Farrell remarked, with regard to the matter dealt with in Section 54 of making the proprietor or owner liable for the person in his employment exceeding the speed limit, that the liability should be on the person who orders that person to commit that offence. That was a section very properly introduced into this Bill. With regard to Section 156, that very wide and comprehensive section to which Senator O'Farrell also referred, it is as well to state at this stage that there was very considerable discussion in the Dáil on the question of making the owners of private cars liable under that section as to the hours of working. The result has been, owing to the pressure in the Dáil and to reconsideration given by ourselves, that we intend to introduce an amendment in the Seanad here, with the permission of the Seanad, to exclude private and State cars from that section.

Mr. Johnson

Does that mean that the private owner driver will not be allowed to drive more than so many hours a day?

Mr. O'Kelly

The owner will be relieved from the obligation on this section. Senator Seamus Robinson made a point with regard to Sections 87 and 94—I do not know whether he mentioned the sections or not—that civilians should be employed for the inspection of cars. I know that as a result of amendments put into the Bill we have made it possible for experts to be employed, civilian or others, for the examination of every portion of public service vehicles.

Senator O'Connor suggested loading banks for cattle carried in lorries for transport. I doubt very much if it would be possible for us, within the ambit of this Bill, to make loading banks compulsory. One can imagine the number that would be necessary all over the country. I do not think it would be possible to bring such a provision into the Bill. It would be ruled out on the ground that it would be outside the scope of a Bill dealing with road traffic. The question would also arise as to who was to pay and where the funds were to come from. That would be a big subject, and would lead to a great difficulty as between the local authorities and the Exchequer as to who was to be responsible for the money necessary to provide them. It is hardly within the scope of this Bill.

Mr. O'Connor

I meant unloading banks more than loading banks.

Mr. O'Kelly

Call them loading or unloading banks—it amounts to the same thing—there would be very great difficulty in constructing the large number that would be required. I am quite in sympathy with the points made by Senator Miss Browne with regard to horses and I am afraid the matter has not got such attention as it deserves. I shall see if something cannot be included in the Bill to cover the point raised in regard to persons riding horses on the roads. "Joy-riding" has been covered, and has been made an offence under Section 60. Senator Counihan dealt with the education of school children on the question of traffic. I think his suggestion is a wise one, and it has already been attended to to some extent. There have been consultations between officials of my Department and the Education Department and we made some progress in inducing the Education Department to bring to the notice of the children one question of road traffic at the present day. We have not gone to the extent that Senator Counihan would wish us but we have gone some way.

Senator Johnson

What about the provision of play-grounds?

Mr. O'Kelly

We have made suggestions to keep the children off the roads but with regard to the suggestion by Senator Johnson of the provision of playgrounds that would only apply to cities at the moment. Rural districts would not be covered where play-grounds were not required. Senator Counihan suggested the provision of "governors" on motor vehicles. That has been gone into, and we have been advised that governors on motor cars are not trustworthy and have proved more of a danger than a safety.

Mr. Foran

That was how Senator Counihan lost his motor car and not owing to the economic war.

Mr. O'Kelly

I am glad to hear that because there is little that happens that Senator Counihan does not ascribe to the economic war. Again I think it was Senator Counihan mentioned the provision of lights when driving cattle. There was at first some provision in the Bill making it obligatory for drivers of cattle to carry lights. After a little discussion in the Dáil this was dropped; perhaps some members of the Seanad might like the matter revived again. The motorists want the drovers of cattle to carry lights, but the owners of cattle object. There was such a provision, as I indicated, in the Bill when originally introduced but after long consideration and discussion in the Dáil it was decided to drop it.

I regard myself in the capacity more of a stepfather to this Bill than any other. It was originally introduced by my predecessor. Of course it has since been changed and, naturally, considerably improved since we took it over. I think it is a good Bill and I have no doubt, as a result of discussions here, and of suggestions made, and amendments moved, it will be still further improved.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24th May.