Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1933

Vol. 16 No. 22

Public Business. - Road Traffic Bill, 1933—Committee Stage.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
the expression "mechanically propelled vehicle" does not include a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails; the expression "public service vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle used for the carriage of passengers for reward; the expression "large public service vehicle" means a public service vehicle having seating accommodation for more than six persons exclusive of the driver;

I move amendment 1:—

Section 3. To delete lines 40 and 41 and to substitute therefor the following:—the expression "motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads but does not include a tramcar or other vehicle running on permament rails.

This amendment is intended to simplify the terminology of the Bill right through, so that instead of having to use the phrase "mechanically propelled vehicle" in most of the sections, we would have the more easily understood and simpler phrase "motor vehicle". A great part of this Bill is based upon the report of the Departmental Committee of 1928, and quite obviously a great deal of that report was influenced by the Bill that was then projected in England— one helped the other—and, no doubt, the Bill finally passed in England, the Road Traffic Act of 1930, covers a good deal of the ground that this Bill covers. On reading the two it seems to me to be very much simpler to understand the British Act, dealing with this particular phase of road traffic, because the language is more direct. One of the means of making this Bill more easily understood would be to insert this amendment, which would define the expression "motor vehicle", and to see that that term is used throughout the Bill, instead of the phrase "mechanically propelled vehicle". I admit that there would be a considerable amount of verbal alteration, and that it would have been very much better if it could have been done long ago. Of course this Bill was introduced two or three years ago, very much in its present form, but it was not criticised from this point of view. Nevertheless, I think it worth while to draw the attention of the Minister to the desirability of simplifying the phraseology of this Act, and it would become very much nearer to what he described on the Second Reading, a handbook for road use. The expression "motor vehicle" is much more easy to understand and would fit in with the later sections because you would have the terms "light motor vehicles" and "heavy motor vehicles".

What about a charabanc?

It would not be affected. It would be a motor vehicle mechanically propelled and not a tramcar. I put forward that as a definite suggestion to the Minister to ascertain if he could simplify the phraseology.

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. First of all it would not suit, and would not be a proper definition of all the classes of vehicles dealt with in the Bill. For instance, a tractor would not usually be called by the man in the street a motor vehicle. A road engine propelled by steam is dealt with in the Bill and it would not be a motor vehicle. We have to use phraseology that would cover all kinds of mechanically propelled vehicles that use the roads. They are not merely motor vehicles, or mechanically propelled vehicles. That is the chief argument against the amendment. There is another argument of a rather practical nature, and that is that in all the Acts passed by the Oireachtas dealing with the taxation of motor vehicles, the term "mechanically propelled vehicle" has been used, and it would mean changing the whole phraseology of the Acts passed since 1922. For these reasons the amendment cannot be accepted.

I am not going to press it, not even by argument. I realise that it would mean a good deal of reconstruction. Nevertheless, I am not quite convinced by the Minister's explanation.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

On the section I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter that arises out of the definition of "mechanically propelled vehicle". It does not include tramcars. This is the only opportunity I have of raising another point. The law relating to the furious driving of tramcars, or to the driving of a tramcar by a drunken person, remains as it has been, and I understand that the penalty for such an offence is still £2, just as it was when it was a horse drawn car. I think that some revision of the law in that respect is required. I understand there was a case not very long ago— I am very glad to say it would be very infrequent—of furious driving or uncontrolled or dangerous driving of a tramcar, and that the penalty was the maximum one of £2. It seems to me that that is an undesirable limitation in the days of the electric tramcar. I do not think it could be dealt with here, but I am taking this opportunity to draw attention to it.

It is true that tramcar is not included. In the definition section which deals with furious driving, tramcars would come in.

What section is that?

Section 51.

Then my point is withdrawn.

Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

I want to deal with the definition of "pneumatic tyre". It seems to me a very curious thing that we should say in a Bill of this kind that the Minister may by regulation "prescribe the characteristics and qualities to be possessed by a tyre, in order that it may be a pneumatic tyre," and then to declare that a pneumatic tyre is not a pneumatic tyre, and that a tyre which is not a pneumatic tyre is a pneumatic tyre. That in fact is what this section does. It would have been much more desirable if the Minister had taken power to make regulations prescribing the kind of tyre that ought to be used on a particular type of vehicle, because even under the section he is to make a regulation as to what tyres are pneumatic tyres. When we draft a section of this kind, using the term "pneumatic tyre", and allowing the Minister to say that a tyre is not, when everyone knows it is, a pneumatic tyre; it is playing with the law. If the Minister were provided with power to make regulations prescribing the kind of tyre that must be used on a given class of vehicle, it would be very much simpler, and would be more easily understood by persons going to be affected.

Definitions of this kind have to be drawn in a very wide way because, as Senators know, every day in the week new inventions are coming along, and new kinds of tyres are being used. This definition is very wide, rather negative more than positive. We have to try to leave the definition in such a way that we will be able to avail ourselves of it, and to include in it any fresh kind of tyre that may come along. One never knows the day when such tyres may appear on the public streets, and we would not have anything in our laws, or regulations to include vehicles driven on tyres, as vehicles within the Act.

Sections 4 to 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
(2) For the purposes of this Act a mechanically propelled vehicle shall be a motor-cycle if and whenever and so long as it complies with all the following conditions, that is to say:—
(a) it does not exceed eight hundredweight in weight unladen; and
(b) it is supported exclusively by wheels in direct contact with the ground; and
(c) it has not more than three wheels; and
(d) it has all its wheels fitted with pneumatic tyres.
(3) For the purposes of this Act a mechanically propelled vehicle shall be a light motor vehicle if and whenever and so long as it complies with all the following conditions, that is to say:—
(a) it is not a motor cycle; and
(b) where it is fitted with a body designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, it does not exceed three tons in weight unladen or, where either it is fitted with a body not so constructed and designed or is not fitted with a body, it does not exceed two tons in weight unladen; and
(c) where it is fitted with a body designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, it has not seating accommodation for more than six persons excluding the driver thereof; and
(d) it is supported exclusively by wheels in direct contact with the ground; and
(e) it has all its wheels fitted with pneumatic tyres; and
(f) it is not being used for the traction of more than one other vehicle; and
(g) if and when it is used for the traction of another vehicle such other vehicle (so far as it is not supported by such mechanically propelled vehicle) is supported exclusively by wheels in direct contact with the ground and has all its wheels fitted with pneumatic tyres.

I move amendment No. 2:—

Section 14, sub-section (2). To delete all from and including the words "and" in line 8 down to the end of the sub-section.

The effect of the amendment would be to allow a motor cycle to be deemed a motor cycle even if it were not tyred with pneumatic tyres. A pneumatic tyre is entirely an indefinite term because it means whatever the Minister says it is to mean. It seems to me that a motor cycle should be a motor cycle even if it were driven on solid rubber tyres. If a man wanted to drive a bicycle on solid rubber tyres it would become a locomotive under this section and subject, I think, to a limit of five miles an hour. I cannot understand why we should confine the term "motor cycle" to a cycle which is fitted with pneumatic tyres. Of course the Minister may say that a solid tyre is a pneumatic tyre. I might want to drive a motor cycle at ten miles an hour or I might prefer according to the kind of tyre I used to proceed at a nice ambling gait along the road on a cycle mechanically propelled at ten miles an hour, but I might not want to use pneumatic tyres. Why that could not be a motor cycle even if it had not pneumatic tyres I do not know and I should like the Minister to explain the matter.

I cannot see how it would be possible for any person to amble along at ten miles an hour on a motor cycle with iron rims.

With solid rubber tyres.

In any case I think the Minister in a case such as Senator Johnson has indicated might be able to make regulations under Section 4.

I should like to say, as one who drove a motor cycle for a number of years, that Senator Johnson need not be a bit uneasy about anybody wanting to drive them on solid tyres even at ten miles an hour.

He might drive them on a tyre that was deemed to be a solid tyre under this Act.

The trouble is that we do not know what a pneumatic tyre has to be. Surely irrespective of the kind of tyre, a motor cycle which is under eight cwts. in weight unladen, which is supported exclusively by wheels in direct contact with the ground and which has not more than three wheels, if it is mechanically driven, might be deemed to be a motor cycle.

What about traction engines?

I do not approve of going on a motor cycle the wheels of which do not touch the ground.

I do not press the amendment but I think the Minister might give us come explanation of the section.

In the interests of the roads, if of nothing else, we have to legislate in favour of the pneumatic tyre. We have to do all we can in that direction even in the case of light motor bicycles. Of course it is more important in regard to heavy motor vehicles, but we are anxious to do anything we can to encourage even in the case of a light vehicle the use of the pneumatic tyre as against the other kind of solid tyre, whether it be solid rubber or steel or iron. While it may appear rather a kind of refinement in definition to insist on the use of a specific phraseology defining tyres we think that is necessary.

I think that what the Minister wants to get at is to ensure that people who will be driving these mechanically propelled vehicles will use pneumatic tyres that are really pneumatic tyres. We want to prevent anybody evading the law by using tyres that are not really pneumatic tyres but solid tyres which contain a small amount of air. I think the Minister is quite entitled to make this provision in view of the damage done to the roads by these solid tyres.

I think the weakness of the argument of both Senator Farren and the Minister is exemplified when we see that a heavy motor vehicle may have other tyres so long as they are of a soft or elastic material. It is the heavy motor vehicle that will inflict most damage on the roads when it is driven at a high speed but it may have a tyre of any soft or elastic material.

There is a speed limit for the heavy motor vehicle but there is no speed limit for the motor cycle.

I quite understand that. The two amendments that follow this are part of the same argument. My desire would be that the definition in regard to these other tyres of a soft and elastic material, might be applied to these other types of motor vehicle. I am not pressing these amendments. They are not matters of great importance, but I think the Bill as it stands is faulty in that respect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(1) The Minister may by order make, in relation to mechanically propelled vehicles and vehicles drawn by mechanically propelled vehicles, regulations in respect of all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the construction of such vehicles;
(b) the conditions under which such vehicles may be used;
(c) the equipment, fittings, and instruments to be fitted to or carried on such vehicles, and in particular instruments for giving audible warning of the presence of such vehicles;
(d) the misuse of the machinery of such vehicles, including the use of such vehicles when the machinery thereof is in a defective condition;
(e) the use and misuse of the equipment, fittings, and instruments fitted to or carried on such vehicles either voluntarily or in pursuance of this Act or regulations made thereunder;
(f) the amount of noise emitted by such vehicles whether occasioned by the construction or the defective condition of such vehicles or the machinery, equipment, fittings, or instruments thereof or by the use or misuse of such vehicles, machinery, equipment, fittings, or instruments;
(g) the internal furnishing and fitting of public service vehicles;
(h) the words, letters, figures, and other marks to be affixed to or painted on such vehicles and the manner and place in which such marks are to be so affixed or painted;
(i) the number of vehicles which may be drawn at any one time by a mechanically propelled vehicle or by a mechanically propelled vehicle of a particular class, and the method of attachment of vehicles drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle to such vehicle and (where appropriate) to one another.

I move amendment No. 5:—

Section 15, sub-section (1). After the word "vehicles" in line 28 to insert the words "and instruments for giving visible warning to the rear of the intention of such vehicles to stop."

I consider this addition to the section is essential for the reason that accidents are liable to occur owing to vehicles stopping suddenly without warning through following traffic. Unless a warning is given of the intention of such vehicles to stop this danger will be continued. It will be easily understood that with the advent of four-wheel brakes the stopping of such vehicles is more sudden and the consequential danger more pronounced. I am glad to see that the majority of cars or vehicles have adopted this visible signal, but it is not general on bus and lorry traffic, and I think it would be a good thing to have this amendment carried on account of the fact that it will provide uniformity of effect.

Owing to the great increase in lorry transport for live stock, I consider it essential that proper provision should be made for effectively dealing with it. This would entail a reconstruction in the type of lorry used. I consider that henceforth lorries should be so constructed that loading and unloading of live stock would be simplified. Under the present circumstances, in regard to facilities for loading and unloading, the only practical solution would be that lorries should be constructed with a falling tailboard made in such dimensions that it would reach from the floor of the lorry to the ground at a sufficient slope to enable animals to be walked from the ground into and out of the lorries. Great hardship is entailed at the present time in the loading and unloading of live stock as there can be no uniformity of loading banks at farmers' places and at fairs and markets. In most cases the animals are obliged to jump into and out of lorries from improvised loading facilities. It would not be possible for public bodies and private individuals to provide such outlay as would be necessary to build proper loading banks, and the most practical solution of the difficulty would be that vehicles for live-stock transport should be properly constructed to facilitate this loading and unloading.

I might mention in addition that the practice of using lorries for live stock practice has become almost a settled trade in a good many places, and it is highly desirable that some uniformity of practice in regard to loading and unloading and other matters of that kind should be established. There have been some loading and unloading banks already erected of a very substantial kind, but they are not suitable for a large percentage of the lorries used in this traffic.

Cathaoirleach

Are they to carry the loading banks on the rear of the vehicle? We are dealing with vehicles, and I am afraid, Senator, that you are getting outside the section.

The arrangement I suggest is a sliding tailboard that would adapt itself to the lorry. The banks that are being erected are not movable. I suggest that an adjustable tailboard should be attached to the lorry and made to suit the public loading banks. It is a matter that the Government might look into through their inspectors. If I succeed in getting them to do that, I think I will be justified in bringing forward the amendment.

The remarks made by Senator O'Connor are very reasonable. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the amendment that Senator O'Connor seeks to have inserted and which would give the Minister power to make regulations to ensure that instruments to give warning to the rear, of the intention to stop such vehicles should be carried on those vehicles. As Senator O'Connor has pointed out, since the advent of the four-wheeled brake, it is very customary to see people, especially young fellows, driving at a very fast rate, and, to show their power over their machines, suddenly stopping, to the great danger and great annoyance of people following on.

The motorist behind may be travelling too rapidly.

Senator Farren is always very reasonable, but in that observation he does not seem to have taken into account all the circumstances, because the person on the road must keep pace with the traffic. He may have a car behind him and a car in front of him, and the point of danger comes when the person in front stops suddenly.

Cathaoirleach

Does the person in front not generally signal that he is going to stop by a motion of the hand?

I do not know that he always does that. Senator O'Connor wishes that the Minister should take power to control people of that kind and compel them to use some instrument in the rear of the car to give visible warning of the intention to stop.

Cathaoirleach

There is power in the section already.

I do not think it is clear.

I have no objection to accepting Senator O'Connor's amendment, but I should like to have it examined by the Parliamentary draftsman. I am not quite sure that the method suggested by the Senator is the best one but I accept the amendment in principle and will have it examined by the Parliamentary draftsman.

I am quite satisfied.

The other point mentioned by Senator O'Connor about loading banks is, I think, outside the scope of the Bill.

The Minister has accepted the amendment in principle. I am not inclined to quarrel with that because it only says that he "may" make regulations. If I thought that the Minister was going to make regulations in a hurry, I certainly should be somewhat disturbed. I happen to be connected in a way with the motor trade, and perhaps ought to be delighted at the passing of an amendment such as this. Its effect should be to give a great fillip to trade if every car is obliged to put on a fitting which will show a visible warning. I am not sure, however, that any hasty regulation of that kind would be fair to the public. Possibly the regulations when made should be confined to certain classes of vehicles. I would point out that the four-wheeled brake is a considerable advantage because while it enables a car to draw up quickly it also enables the car following to draw up quickly. I am not at all certain that if a driver puts out his hand before he puts on the brake it is not a much more effective warning than any other. Before the Minister makes any regulation I would like him to consider whether a regulation may not make a driver feel that he is under no obligation to give any other sign. That, from the point of view of safety, might easily be worse than having no regulation at all.

I would like the Minister to consider before he makes any regulations the numbers of people who have not got modern cars. It may not be easy to adjust what is prescribed in a new regulation to these old cars. Senators are aware that all modern cars are fitted with a four-wheeled brake and that a rear light shows when the brake is applied. People who cannot afford the luxury of a modern car might be subjected to a great deal of hardship if their position was not considered when the regulations were being framed. Everything possible should be done to ensure careful driving. If people drive at a terrific speed it will be difficult, no matter what regulations are made, to avoid accidents. I agree that every precaution should be taken for the safety of the community. It is appalling the number of accidents that occur. Personally, I do not think it is the absence of devices on motor cars that is responsible. They are due mainly to the fact that people do not exercise proper care in the driving and handling of motor vehicles. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the point I have made when making his regulations.

I would like to point out that there are some lorries on the road now and they are so constructed that when the driver puts out his hand to give a warning it cannot be seen. Therefore, I think Senator O'Connor's amendment is a useful one because when the signal is given in the manner that he suggests it will be seen by the car following behind. In addition, of course, every decent driver will also give such preliminary notice as he thinks proper by putting out his hand when he proposes to pull up.

I hope that the Minister, when making the regulations, will not adopt any narrow wording. With regard to the point raised by Senator Dowdall it may be necessary to make special regulations for different types of cars—for loaded lorries, for instance.

I think that what is aimed at here is already provided for in cars with a four-wheeled brake. When you put on the brake it shows a red light. That is supposed to be good enough all over the world. It has to be remembered that if there is to be a device of the kind suggested attached to motor cars here then you will need to have a special invention for the Free State, because I do not think that, in any part of the world, there is any regulation other than the taillight which shows red when the brake is put on. It would be a very serious thing to alter regulations that apply to the motoring world.

Why not get the rest of the world to adopt such a salutary precaution as this?

I think the suggestion contained in my amendment will not entail any great expense on motorists. The signal, I think, will work well both during the day and the night. I understand that it has been adopted more or less in the North of Ireland and is looked upon as a very desirable acquisition. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle of the amendment. I think the expense involved will not be very much.

As the section leaves it to the Minister's discretion to make regulations, I am prepared to vote for the amendment. I do not think Senators need have any fear that this provision is ever likely to be used unnecessarily by the Minister. I think it is a useful addition to the Bill. As Senator Dowdall has already pointed out, the drivers of certain classes of vehicles find it difficult at times to give an adequate stopping signal in the absence of some mechanical device. For the great majority of cars, there is no need at all to have any kind of mechanical device in the day time.

I agree with the amendment. I think it is extremely necessary that there should be some stopping signal. As regards the regulations I think they should be very carefully examined before they are adopted. Perhaps the Minister would consider inserting such words as "automatic stop and turn." People take it for granted that drivers hold up their hand when about to stop. In actual fact that is not done outside the towns. I have been driving now for some 26 years. Compared to other countries, I am afraid our road manners are not quite as good as they might be. The hand is very seldom put out before a driver is about to stop a car, and hardly ever when about to turn.

I am accepting the amendment in principle. The Minister will by no means be in a hurry in bringing in regulations making changes that would necessitate the expenditure of a considerable amount of money on cars that are not of a modern type. It has to be remembered, too, that any regulations made will be submitted to both Houses and will be subject to amendment.

The regulations will only be brought in after mature consideration —after consultation with experienced motorists, the motoring associations, and representatives of the trade. Some Senators seem to fear that regulations might be made that would put very heavy and unwarranted expense on people who have not the latest types of cars. I do not think there is any danger of that. I am accepting the amendment in principle, and will bring in an amendment on Report Stage to meet it.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 6:—

Section 15, sub-section (1). Before paragraph (e) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

(e) the discharge of soot, ashes, oil, exhaust gases, the defilement of roadway and atmosphere by oil or gas.

I think there should be some definite authority given to the Minister to regulate in respect of this series of offences.

I am prepared to accept the amendment in principle and to bring it up in a revised form on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 7:—

Section 15, sub-section (1). After the word "vehicles" in line 36 to insert the words "or the load (if any) thereon."

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 8:—

Section 15, sub-section (1). After the word "instruments" in line 41 to insert the words "or by the nature, packing or stowage of the load (if any) carried on such vehicles."

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

There is one point that I wish to raise. It may be covered by paragraph (c) of sub-section (1). Most people using the roads suffer from time to time from the difficulty of trying to pass large vehicles. These large vehicles cannot hear the horn because of the great amount of noise made. I would like to be assured that paragraph (c) gives the Minister power to make a regulation providing for a suitable mirror which would enable the driver of a heavy vehicle to see what is coming behind because a great deal of inconvenience and a certain amount of danger on narrow roads is caused.

I am quite satisfied that we have the power and we have what Senator Douglas suggests in mind.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(4) Whenever a member of the Gárda Síochána observes a vehicle which he suspects of being then used in such manner as to constitute an offence under this section, such member may require the person in charge of such vehicle to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) forthwith to bring such vehicle with the load (if any) thereon to a weigh-bridge maintained under this Act named by such member and not more than two miles distant by the shortest available route from the place at which such requisition is made;
(b) to carry such member to such weigh-bridge in such vehicle;
(c) to procure such vehicle with the load (if any) thereon to be weighed on such weigh-bridge in the presence of such member.
Whenever a person in charge of a vehicle fails or refuses to do anything which he is required under this sub-section by a member of the Gárda Síochána to do, such failure or refusal shall be conclusive evidence that such vehicle is at the time when such requisition is made being used in such manner as to constitute an offence under this section.

I move amendment No. 9:—

Section 16, sub-section (4). After the word "Síochána" in line 56 to insert the words "in uniform."

The section gives the Minister power to make regulations dealing with the weights, laden and unladen, of motor vehicles and, also, with regard to persons using the roads as to various weights and so on. The sub-section provides that a member of the Gárda Síochána, if he observes a vehicle which he suspects of then being used in such a manner as to constitute an offence, may stop the driver and take him to a weigh-bridge. If there is any disobedience, there is a penalty of £10 provided for. For the protection of the driver, I think that the Guard, in such a case, should be uniformed and should be able to show his authority which the wearing of a uniform would give him. I do not think it should be at the option of any non-uniformed man to say "Stop, I am a member of the Gárda," and that, on disobedience of that order, the driver should be liable to a penalty of £10. I want to ensure that the Guard will be in uniform or that he will produce his authority.

I definitely think it should be necessary for the man to be in uniform. Most of us who drive cars know that people will try to stop you without any reason at all, and if drivers were to be placed in the position of breaking the law for refusing to stop, it would be almost impossible. I support the amendment.

We have consulted the Gárda authorities on the matter, and they are definitely hostile to the suggestion that the men concerned in the operation of this section should be in uniform. They say that, in Dublin, those in charge of the operation of the carriage laws have been, since 1853, in plain clothes, and they had no record of any abuses ever having been reported. Perhaps it could be met, as Senator Johnson suggests, by making it obligatory on them to produce their identification cards. They are supplied with identification cards, and these could be demanded at any time. I see myself that there is a difficulty. One often sees people on the road who put up their hand, perhaps, wanting a lift, and one cannot be sure, but, if these men were obliged to be in uniform, the police are of opinion that they might not be as successful in carrying out their duties. I do see, however, that there is a difficulty, but perhaps it could be met by making it necessary for them to produce their identification card. Of course, this section does not give a Gárda in plain clothes power to stop a car. He can only stop a car when he is in uniform, but he can make the necessary inquiries as set out in the section. The police view of the matter is that they will do their work better if they are not in uniform, but we could certainly introduce in this section, and one or two other sections where the matter arises, a sub-section making it necessary for the police concerned to produce their identification cards on demand.

Is it clear in the Bill that they cannot ask you to stop unless they are in uniform?

In this section.

Sub-section (4) gives a member of the Gárda, if he suspects that an offence is being committed, power to bring a vehicle to a weigh-bridge and, whenever a person in charge of a vehicle fails or refuses to do anything he is required to do——

Cathaoirleach

It does not give him power to stop.

It is very nearly power to stop.

It is, inferentially. He probably could not hold a conversation with or give an order to the driver without stopping but it does not definitely say it.

He has that power under the ordinary law, I think. The question, as it affects Dublin, is not the same as affects the country and, if a person stops a vehicle, saying "I believe you have an overload," and he is not in uniform, it is a dangerous power to give to make it an offence. I think it would be much better if we provided that he should be in uniform. I realise that one has to give heed to police experience and I have no doubt that they are very strong on this point but they have been equally strong in regard to other measures brought before the Oireachtas during the last few years and they have never wanted to be restricted in the matter of uniform but, frequently, the Oireachtas has insisted that such a power as this should reside in men only when they are in uniform. Possibly, the suggestion with which the Minister is prepared to agree might meet the case and I am not going to press this amendment against his strong objection, if he will provide the other safeguard.

As the Minister is considering this section, I hope he will make some provision other than the production of an identification card when a car is stopped. I quite realise that it would be wholly impossible for police officers to deal with motor traffic if they were required to be in uniform. At the same time, it is not advisable, I think, to give any person, who cannot show some sign of identification, power to stop a car. Perhaps the matter could be adequately dealt with if the policeman who is on duty at that time were supplied with some sort of signal or sign which he could hold up and which could be taken as and for the identification card suggested by Senator Johnson. It is wrong to allow any person in plain clothes to stop a motor car on country roads, and, at the same time, it is not desirable that the police who are charged with this duty should be in plain clothes.

Some way out of the difficulty must be found and I think the proper way is to provide the police officer with such a signal as could be seen by the driver of a motor car and recognised. It would not be unreasonable, I think, to require the driver of a motor car to stop on the production of such a signal. Perhaps, that would be a better method of dealing with the matter than the identification card referred to. The Minister is quite right in saying that a police officer is not supposed to stop a car unless he is in uniform, but this section cannot be worked unless a police officer has authority to stop a car. The provisions of the section really imply power in a police officer, whether in uniform or in plain clothes, to stop a car and, therefore, I think he ought to be provided with some method of signalling which would identify him as a policeman as well as intimate to the driver of a car that he is expected to stop. I think it is possible to do that.

This particular section deals only with the weight, laden and unladen, of vehicles. In the great majority of cases, it will not be a question of stopping the car on the road, but in relation to a car which is being loaded in a town or at a shop or warehouse door. It will be, in most cases, and, I suppose, the vast majority of cases, there that this will become operative. It will really only affect cases where the vehicle is stationary and then a person can come and demand of the driver that he should take the vehicle to a weighing machine without having to produce his authority and without wearing a uniform and, therefore, I think the Minister should accept this amendment. The uniform, in the case of this offence, is particularly desirable.

In the first instance, I was disposed to vote for this amendment, but I am not at all certain after what the Minister has said. I think I shall vote against it. He has informed the House that the people who have to do the particular duties referred to are very much against its being obligatory on them to do that duty in uniform. I do not think that the House ought to take information of that sort lightly. The Minister has told the House that, to stop a car in motion, a Civic Guard must be in uniform. If that is the case—and, perhaps, he would enlarge a little on that —I think it disposes of the difficulty, because it is highly unsatisfactory that a Guard in ordinary clothes should stop cars for the reasons already referred to. If this work is done with vehicles which are standing and do not require to be stopped, I do not think it is necessary for the Guard to be uniformed provided he can show his proper authority. I am not favourably impressed with Senator Comyn's suggestion that some form of signal should be devised with which a man, not in uniform, could stop a car at speed, because I do not think it is satisfactory. After all, cars go very fast and there are all sorts of varying degrees of light and it is very difficult for a man driving a car to be certain whether it is the particular signal it is supposed to be or not.

I think that Senator Johnson's proposal would be met by some slight alteration of sub-section (4). As I read it, a member of the Gárda may require the person in charge of a vehicle which he suspects to do all or any of certain things. That presupposes that, if the car is moving, he, first, stops it, and, in order to do that he has to be in uniform. Possibly the Minister could explain that point, but if I am right in that, and if the sub-section could be amended, it would probably cover the matter.

From the view-point of stopping cars, it may be taken for granted that nobody will have power to stop them except a Guard in uniform. Nobody driving a car along the country road is going to stop for everybody who puts up his hand. That is all that is required on the assumption that is being argued here. This should be dealt with from the point of view of the stationary car. In that case there should be an obligation on the member of the Gárda concerned to produce an identification disc. But I think we may rule out the case of a man in mufti holding up cars. To deal with that would be quite impracticable, because it would be open to all sorts of abuses. The special signal suggested by Senator Comyn would be quickly learned by people who had no right to use it but who might use it to inquire the time or to request a lift to the nearest town. This matter should be dealt with from the viewpoint of the stationary vehicle. It is only when the vehicle is stationary that a Gárda can make up his mind as to whether the law is being broken in this respect. We should shut out the question of un-uniformed persons stopping cars.

I agree with the general argument of the Senator, but I disagree with one of his conclusions —that we should disregard altogether the stopping of cars. I suggest to the Minister that before the Report Stage he should consider, as this Bill is more or less a charter dealing with roads, the introduction of a general clause making clear that where, in the exercise of power under the Bill, it is necessary to stop cars in motion, the Guard who does so should be in uniform.

That is the law at present.

There seems to be a doubt as to whether or not it will be the law when this Bill passes. If the Minister is clear that it will be, I shall accept his word without question. It might be worth while in a new Bill, covering many sections and altering the law in many respects, to have that matter made clear.

The law at present is that only a policeman in uniform can stop a car. We do not propose to change that. It may be open to question whether, inferentially, there is not power given in this section to police other than those in uniform to stop a car. I shall have the matter examined from that point of view and, if there is any doubt about it, I shall have the section made watertight.

Amendment postponed to Report Stage.

On the section, I can see that difficulty will arise in connection with bulk loads of farm produce or manure. A man may, without any intention of breaking the law, overload his vehicle. He may be held up, brought two miles to a weigh-bridge and discover that he has overloaded the vehicle. I should like that the Minister, when making regulations, would advert to that kind of difficulty. Take the case of a man with a four-ton lorry. He may load it with 4 tons 10 cwts. of manure. That is a bulk load. Similarly, in the case of turnips, mangolds or hay. He has no means of knowing what exactly is the weight on his lorry. This is an agricultural country and anything we can do to ease the position of those carrying on agriculture should be done. I trust that the Minister will be able to deal with a position of that kind in his regulations.

I agree that difficulties may arise in this connection in dealing with farm produce, but I do not think that the law will be so very red-tapish that a man will be hauled into court because he has overloaded, in the circumstances mentioned, to the extent of a quarter of a ton. If it were known to the police in his area that a particular man made a practice of overloading, I think it would be right that action should be taken. But if he offended only once in a while because of difficulty in getting to a weigh-bridge or for some similar reason, I doubt if the police would be so pernickety as to bring him before the courts.

As the section stands, the Gárda can require a person to go two miles to a weighbridge. In many cases a farmer would prefer to go four or five miles in the direction in which he was going rather than go two miles in another direction. Perhaps the Minister would make that provision a little more elastic.

I shall see that that matter is covered in the regulations. I think that the suggestion is reasonable.

Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."

I do not know if this section deals with motor buses, but, in making regulations, in regard to single-deck vehicles, I think the Minister should provide that smoking be prohibited in the cities. The position is different on long journeys, but it is no hardship on a smoker to abstain from smoking until he has finished his journey in the city.

I do not think that there is any great demand for what Senator Dowdall suggests. If restrictions of that kind were imposed, I am afraid that the demand would be in the opposite direction. My attention has been called to another point on this section—that there is no power taken to enforce payment for damage. When the section comes before the House on the Report Stage, I shall ask leave to introduce an amendment, if, on examination, it is thought necessary.

Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."

I am not sure that this section does not go a little too far. It may be subject to a limiting interpretation. The section states:

Every council charged with the maintenance of a road may erect at such places on or adjacent to such road as it thinks proper, and shall when required by the Minister so to do, erect at such places ... as the Minister directs machines ... for the weighing of vehicles.

In previous legislation touching this point, the language was less emphatic. The local authority had power to do various things, but, presumably, the power was subject to agreement. I am not sure whether this section does not give the councils more authority than they should have, and whether there should not be some limitation regarding the consent of the Minister, agreement by the persons concerned, or agreement regarding the taking of the site. I should like to hear the Minister's view on that point.

The section includes the words "when required by the Minister so to do." The provision is not obligatory. It is not likely that you will have an individual occupying Ministerial office so unreasonable as to go against public desire or public convenience. No Minister would, I think, insist upon the construction of a weigh-bridge on a person's property against the very strong wish of the local people, the local authority or the individual whose property was being requisitioned. Acting officially, I think Minister will be found to be reasonable people.

We are dealing with the council.

The public are represented there. You have all sides represented on the councils, as a rule, and public opinion can make itself felt. In most cases, if there is any body of public opinion opposed to the proposal, it will make itself felt. I doubt if a local authority would force the public to accept a weigh-bridge in a particular spot if the people in that neighbourhood did not wish to have it there. That is my view, but if there is any strong opinion in the House to the contrary, I should like to hear it.

I propose to refer to sub-section (3), which provides that every council maintaining a weigh-bridge may charge for the weighing of vehicles such fees as shall be approved of by the Minister. I should have imagined that the local council would be the better judge of what fees should be charged. I am sorry to say that the Corporation of Dublin, on which farmers are not represented, charge fees for weighing which, applied to the war period, might be reasonable but which at the present time are excessive. When the Minister is approving of such fees, I hope he will remember that farm produce is very low in price. The weighing charge in Dublin is 1d. a cwt. That amounts to a good deal. The Corporation fills its coffers and we have no redress. I hope that the Minister will be a buffer for us and that when he is approving of those things he will have due regard to the interests of the farmers.

On the section, my emphasis on sub-section (1) is that, as it is drafted, it seems to me to be a departure from the usual phraseology and seems to emphasise the giving of absolute power to the council to erect on any site it may decide, irrespective of the wish of the owner. Incidentally, I may say, for the Minister's notification, that this has something to do with Town Planning. In regard to the section, as a whole, I draw attention to what, in my view, is not vital, but I think the House should be made aware that there is a repeal of Section 4 of the Locomotive Act of 1898, touching this subject. In that Act it was provided that the road authority should pay for any loss caused by delay consequent on direction by a constable to go to a weighbridge, if the weight was found to be within the limits authorised by law. I am not saying that that should be maintained as it was in the Act of 1898, Section 4 of which is to be repealed by this Bill. But I think it is desirable that the Oireachtas should have its attention drawn to the provisions of the existing law, because in this case a person may have to have his load weighed, and that might mean the loss of a train, or the loss of a market, and not be entitled to get any compensation. Apparently under the existing law he would be entitled to some compensation.

I think Senator Johnson's remarks should be taken into account by the Minister. Is there any reason for repealing this section? It does not effect any good purpose, and it can, at least, give a person the satisfaction of knowing that he cannot be unnecessarily delayed.

It is as broad as it is long. The taxpayers would have to pay or the farmers would have to pay.

A man who is injured should be paid by someone.

Under this Bill, weighbridges are going to be much more common, apparently, because the Road Fund is going to bear some of the expenses of erecting them. Weighbridges are going to be much more used, and people will not have to go long distances as in the past to find them. As traffic is mechanised so much the delay and the extra cost will be infinitesimal.

What is the necessity for repealing the section?

I think I have mentioned it.

We will deal with it on the Schedule.

I ask the Minister between now and the Report Stage to consider what Senator Wilson and Senator Johnson have stated. I cannot imagine anything more likely to aggravate the farmer than to be brought two miles out of his way to have a load weighed, and to have his time and perhaps his market, lost on the instructions of a police officer. The amount of anger engendered, if that could be done without paying the expenses of the farmer, is not a thing to be overrated, because it will be out of all proportion to the expenses, if this portion of the Bill is strictly enforced or with reasonable vigilance. If the farmer does not get his expenses in case he is wrongly brought to a weighbridge, I can very well imagine the amount of ill-will and general opposition that will be engendered throughout the country, and I would suggest to the Minister, pending the Report Stage, that the observations of Senator Wilson and Senator Johnson should be considered.

The matter is not dealt with in the section.

In the Schedule. We would like to oppose the Schedule.

Sections 19, 20 and 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22 (2).
It shall not be lawful for the owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle to employ another person to drive such mechanically propelled vehicle on any road unless the person so employed holds a driving licence granted to him under this Part of this Act, and for the time being in force, and licensing him to drive such vehicle.

I move amendment 10:—

Section 22, sub-section (2). After the word "person" in line 49 to insert the word "knowingly."

Sub-section (2) deals with the employment of a person who has a licence. In the case of a person who drives himself no question will arise, but where he employs a person I am given to understand the responsibility would be on the employer.

I am opposed to this amendment. If a man drives a motor car he ought to have a licence, and he ought to carry his licence. An employer employing another person to drive a motor car ought to see that that person has his licence. If you put in the word "knowingly" here you will entirely nullify the obligation of the employer to see that his workmen are licensed to drive motor cars. This would be altogether too much in favour of a negligent employer as against the ordinary prudent employer. I am sure Senator Douglas, in his experience, and in his own business, will take very good care to see that those who are employed by him to drive motor vehicles are licensed to do so. What the Senator, or what other Senators, would do for themselves, I think they ought, in the public interest, provide that it should be done by other members of the public, who are not as careful as they are.

I cannot agree with Senator Comyn. I think it is not unreasonable to put the obligation on the employee. Naturally the employer would have to pay the licence, and the least the employee should do is to see that he has his licence. I am supporting the amendment.

Would there not be a good deal of trouble finding out whether a man who was in temporary employment had a licence? Supposing something happened when a person was driving a car and that a man who knew how to drive was available, the owner might say to him, "I will give you a few shillings to drive this car." The owner then becomes liable if the new driver has not a licence. There is not much wrong with the section as it stands, where the employment is regular, but there are cases where an owner of a motor car might employ a man temporarily and render himself liable to prosecution if there was no licence. The owner of the car would have to take the word of the man he was employing that he had a licence. This really means that everybody associated with a car who is given a job as a driver must have a licence in his pocket. I do not think that is what the Minister wants. As far as one can judge, it is being made impossible for the owner of a car to hire anyone without seeing that he has a licence. That is where the hardship comes in.

The law at present is that a driver of a mechanical vehicle must carry his licence with him, and a policeman is entitled to stop him at any time.

Not under this Bill.

What difficulty is there in a person who employs another asking to be shown the licence? In my opinion there is no difficulty. Any person who has not a licence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle should not be allowed to drive. After all the ordinary citizen has to be considered, and precautions have to be taken to ensure that the lives of the public using the roads are safe. No man should employ another who has not a licence to drive. On the demand of the police authorities drivers must show their licences. I do not think we should get away from that position.

I do not propose to get away from any such position. I notice that when Senator Farren talked about taking precautions he looked at the date of his licence.

I have three of them here, and I wanted to see which was the right one.

I think it was a wise precaution. Although I am careful I would not be surprised if at some period, for a day or two, I omitted to renew my licence. What I am trying to provide is that in the case of a regular or a temporary employee, who has a licence, the onus will not be placed on the employer to see that the date for renewal has not passed. It seems to me to be reasonable to expect that the employee as well as the employer should watch the date. The employee is using the licence every week and he should see that it is renewed. Senator Comyn is fond of paying nice compliments to other Senators, and has spoken as if this could never happen to me. I do not like to take compliments when they are not deserved, so I may as well confess that it has happened, and that on the last occasion it was three days over the time when I discovered that my licence should have been renewed. In the case of a person employed by me he was fined the other day because he was one day late in renewing the licence. I did not know that was so, and the man did not know it.

It will never happen again.

I do not propose this because the people I employ did not see that the date for renewal had elapsed. Under this Bill and under the present law no notice of renewal is sent out by the authorities, and in perfectly good faith even careful people could offend. I think the person using the licence is the best person to see that that does not happen. My reason for putting in the word "knowingly" is to put the onus on the person licensed. I am not proposing that any person should be allowed to drive without a licence. The sub-section deals only with the owner and I want to put the onus on the person in whose name the licence is, to see that it is kept up to date. Otherwise he could be as careless as he liked, and then if fined for driving without a licence he could say, "Oh, the employer is responsible." That is not a healthy way of dealing with the matter.

The law is, as Senator Douglas has stated, that everybody who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle, whether employer or employee, must have a licence. We are strongly of opinion that there ought to be responsibility on the employer as well as the employee. If an employee drives a mechanically propelled vehicle without a licence he is liable to prosecution. We have the added protection that it is necessary, in present circumstances, that an employer who has a number of men employed to drive mechanically propelled vehicles, should have the responsibility put upon him also of seeing that most of his employees are properly licensed. It does not relieve the employee in any sense. It is a double safeguard. There has been a considerable amount of evasion all over the Free State. Whether it is that the police authorities are responsible for not looking after the matter as accurately as they should, I am not prepared to say without further information. That there has been evasion of the law with regard to the carrying of licences, and seeing that licences are in proper order is certainly a fact. There has been very considerable evasion, and the Department is of opinion that the responsibility should be on the employer as well as on the employee.

With regard to the point made by Senator Jameson, where a man might be employed, even in a temporary capacity, to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on the public roads, he should be a properly licensed driver. It may be an inconvenience to keep persons away from business for a temporary smash, or for a temporary break of some kind, but even there, once they are taking such a dangerous weapon as a mechanically propelled vehicle on the public roads, we think the safeguard of having the licence is one that we cannot forego.

I intend to ask the House to divide on this. I should like to point out that I do not disagree with the contention that there should be some responsibility on the employer. I am only concerned with the meaning of the word "knowingly." If you engage a man, and he says his licence is in order, that is not enough as the section stands. You must make sure, and you must be quite satisfied that he is the man mentioned in the licence. The Minister says that there must be responsibility on the employer as well as on the employee. My view is that the responsibility should only be on the employer when he knowingly employs a person without a licence. Where, however, the employee fails to renew his licence, and the employer has no means of knowing that, I think the employer should not be held responsible. Again, in the case of temporary employment, if a man produces a licence and says "that is mine," and it turns out afterwards that it is not his, then the responsibility should be on the man himself and not on the employer he has misled. I think the word "knowingly" does not in any way take away from the responsibility that should rightly lie on the employer's shoulders, but I disagree with the Minister that there should be any responsibility on the employer where wrong information is given to him and where he has no means of knowing that the person he has employed has not got a licence.

I had not got the Motor Car Act when speaking previously, but I have now the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, a paragraph of which states that "a person must not employ a person who has not a current licence to drive a motor car on such roads." So that the present law is that it is an offence to employ a person who has not a current licence. The effect of the amendment, if it were inserted in the section, would be that the prosecution would have to prove that the employer knew. I say that would be an almost impossible task for the prosecution to prove that, and the assumption must be that the employer does know when he employs a person to drive a car. After all, we should not be reducing the responsibility of owners of cars by this Bill. This is a codification, but it is also a strengthening of the law in regard to dangerous driving, and this amendment seems to have the effect of modifying the law in favour of the careless owner and the careless driver. I think we ought to conceive of this legislation as shewing keener recognition of the fact that the motor car is a dangerous weapon in the be a dangerous weapon in the hands of irresponsible people, and the employment of a person to drive and handle that dangerous weapon should be an act for which the owner should be responsible. If he cannot take on the responsibility of knowing that the person he employs to use this dangerous weapon has authority to use it, then I think by this amendment you are reducing the responsibility of the owner and throwing all the responsibility on the employee. It is easing the possibility of the illegal use of motor cars if the employer is not to have responsibility for seeing that the person he is employing to drive is duly authorised to drive. I think that the amendment is distinctly weakening the present law in regard to the responsibility for driving cars.

Might I suggest to Senator Johnson that it does not always follow that because a man has a licence he is a good driver? The most dangerous driver I know is a man who has a licence—to kill.

Neither is the unauthorised driver assuredly the most careful driver.

Of course it is quite impossible to secure, having regard to the imperfections of human nature, that every person who gets a licence is a careful driver. That is an impossibility in this world. Before the House divides, I should like Senators to consider the argument put forward by Senator Douglas. The effect of the amendment is that the owner of a car cannot be convicted unless it is proved affirmatively that he had knowledge of the fact that his driver had no licence. What arguments are put forward by Senator Douglas in support of this very drastic amendment which would really nullify in a great measure any provision for the protection of the public? He says it is quite possible that a driver may deceive and defraud his employer, that he may produce a licence in the name of John Brown and say, "I am John Brown," and that the owner of the car would be defrauded in that way and yet would be guilty of an offence. I think circumstances such as these would afford, if not a complete defence to a prosecution under the section, a very great mitigation of any penalty. It is very unlikely that the owner would be liable to a prosecution under circumstances of that kind. I should say it would be only in one case in ten thousand. If Senator Douglas thinks that such a case as that might arise, why does he not bring forward an amendment to deal with a case of that kind, an amendment to provide that where a person fraudulently produces a licence as his licence the licence of another person, and thereby deceives his employer, in such case the employer would not be liable? It would be quite easy to produce an amendment of that kind and probably the Minister and this House might consider it a reasonable amendment. These are the arguments put forward in support of an amendment which in practice would completely exempt the employer from liability under this section. I hope the House will not yield to the arguments put forward by Senator Douglas which are not arguments to this amendment but arguments for a wholly different amendment which he might propose at some other time.

I think the House should not accept the amendment, because I can see if the amendment is passed the possibility of an employer being at liberty to employ a man whose licence has been suspended perhaps for killing or injuring pedestrians or other people on the roads. There is no hold on the employer if this amendment is passed. I think it should not be passed because as things are at present it is difficult enough for other road users to safeguard themselves without allowing an employer to employ anybody he wishes to drive a motor car, whether the licence of that person has been suspended or not.

I do not think it would have that effect, but as that seems to be the impression I propose to withdraw this amendment and to put down another amendment for the Report Stage in which I shall endeavour to make it clear that the object is to provide that where a man has been bona fide licensed and has ceased to renew his licence and where the employer has no means of knowing that, he should not be held responsible. Possibly also he might have his licence endorsed without the employer having any means of knowing it. I shall endeavour to deal with the matter on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."

I am not quite sure whether there is any offence committed or any punishment for an offence in the case of a person attempting to obtain or obtaining two licences. It is not an offence I think if a person attempts to take out a licence in two counties, taking the risk of one being refused and the other granted. I should like the Minister to look into that matter and see if there has been an omission.

I think that point has been covered. That would amount to a false declaration. However, I shall look into it.

It is not at all clear.

Question put, and agreed to.
SECTION 24, sub-section (2).
(2) Every application under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be signed by the applicant and shall state the age of the applicant and such other particulars as shall be prescribed and shall either be accompanied by a certificate of fitness granted under Part VI of this Act to the applicant within one month before the date of the application, or contain or be accompanied by a declaration in the following form signed by the applicant, that is to say:—
I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge I am not suffering from any disease or physical or mental disability which would be likely to cause the driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place by me to be a source of danger to the public.

I move amendment No. 11:—

Section 24, sub-section (2). After the word "applicant" in line 23 to insert the words "in the presence of a person appointed by the licensing authority to receive such applications."

This amendment requires that the application for a driving licence shall be made in person. I am moved to do that by a fact to which my attention has been drawn, that in respect of car licences it is becoming the practice in Dublin—whether it is the case in other places I do not know—for the owner of one or more vehicles to send a servant with the applications. That servant signs all the forms that are necessary in the name of the employer, pays the money and gets the licence. I do not think that was contemplated in respect to a motor licence, and in respect to a driving licence it seems to me that there should be a personal application. If that is not practicable in the case of a city, where there may be only one office, it may be made practicable by the local Gárda Superintendent in the district being authorised to receive the application in the first instance. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 contains the phrase that the licence shall be granted "unless it appears to them that the applicant is under the age of sixteen years." That phrase itself suggests that there must be a personal appearance of the applicant, otherwise it could not appear that the person was under sixteen, but that by the way. The plea I am making is that the application should be made in person and that it should not suffice for the applicant simply to sign forms and make declarations, but that the Gárda authorities should know that there really exists such a person and that such a person is prima facie competent to have a car in his charge. Whether there is any strong objection to that I do not know, but it seems to me that it is contemplated that there shall be a personal application and that the authorities should know by visual observation that the person actually exists. In that case there should be provision made for the application being made in person.

There are a great number of restrictions in this measure and in other measures that have been brought forward in recent years. I think it is desirable that no more restrictions and no more inconvenience than is necessary should be imposed on the general public.

For that reason I would put this to Senator Johnson: The police officer, the person responsible, will not issue a licence unless he is satisfied in his own mind that the person is over 16 years of age, that he is not disqualified and that he is a person who carries on business in the functional area. I think it would, therefore, be unnecessarily stringent to require applicants in all cases to be present at the police station. If the officer who grants the licence knows the person, if he is acquainted with his signature and if he is satisfied that the application is a proper one, why should he not, in some cases, be allowed to issue the licence without a personal application? Where is the necessity for bringing a person to the station in a case such as I have described? Moreover, there may be cases in which the applicant for a licence would be unwell. He may be well known to the Superintendent of police and he may be in bed sick. He may need a licence and send some properly authorised person with the application to seek the licence for him. If the Superintendent is satisfied, why insist on his personal attendance? It is in the interests of the public that the regulations are properly carried out with as little inconvenience as possible within the limitations set down in these Acts of Parliament. I think that in a proper case the applicant ought not to be required to give his personal attendance when making his application in a case where the Superintendent of police, or other responsible officer, is quite satisfied that it is a genuine application. I think, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary; that it is unnecessarily restrictive of the ordinary rights of the people.

I am afraid that, from the point of view of practicability, very great difficulty would arise in accepting the Senator's amendment. There are in every part of the country owners who have more than one car, business people and others. Some have great numbers of cars, and if every time the licence falls due the owner or manager of a business firm—

This deals with driving licences.

Well, take the case of the driver of a lorry for a business firm, if he had to go and make personal application for the licence he might have to spend two or three hours at the registration office waiting for it. I have such an experience myself in the City of Dublin. In order to get a driving licence I went to the office at Cork Hill. There was a queue, I think, of about two hundred people waiting there. I could have got into the office by another door and got my licence in five minutes, as I happened to be a member of the Corporation. I did not do that. I stood in the queue and had the experience of seeing people being buffeted about for something like two and a half hours. I would not like to see people who were unwell or people with very important business engagements having to go through a performance of that kind. I think business people, for instance, should be enabled to send a member of the staff to get the licence, a person whose time was not as valuable as that of the head of the firm. I think no harm would be done by sending a properly authorised person to get the licence. If the declaration form is improperly filled up, then there are ample powers under the law to bring those who make false declarations to account. It might be a good thing if every individual who needs a driving licence were to present himself in person to the official concerned, but in practice I am afraid it would not work.

I suggest to the Minister that in the case of first applications, a person seeking a driving licence should apply in person, but that in the case of renewals a properly authorised person should be able to get it.

If the Minister were to adopt that suggestion it would meet the greater part of my intention. I was quite prepared to reconsider the amendment so far as renewals are concerned. I think the case the Minister has made as regards inconvenience is really one for better facilities on the administrative side for the issue of licences. If the individual makes his application in the first instance and proves that prima facie at any rate he exists, that he is not clearly incompetent despite his declaration, I think there would be some safeguard, and I do not think it is by any means impracticable.

If it is provided that a person making an application for a driver's licence must do so in person, how is the official who issues the licence to know that he is, in fact, the right person? The declaration is not made on oath. What Senator Johnson suggests might be all right in a country district, but I do not know that it would be practicable in cities. I had occasion to make application for a motor licence once and I am quite sure the official who issued the licence did not know me from Adam. How is the official to know the thousands of people who make application for licences?

The individual would sign his name on the declaration in the presence of the official.

I am afraid that would not prove much of a safeguard unless it was done on oath.

If Senator Robinson was found driving through the country with a wrong name on his driving licence he would render himself liable to the severe penalties laid down in the Bill. It would not be wise for him, or for anybody else, to make a wrong declaration.

If the Minister raises a serious objection to this from the point of view of administration I am not going to press it. I would urge him, however, to consider between now and Report Stage whether he would not provide that in the case of a first application for a driving licence the applicant must appear in person.

Arising out of the point made by Senator Robinson, I would like to call the Senator's attention to Section 27 of the Bill which provides that when a person gets a licence he must sign his own name on it.

From the point of view of administration and practicability I think grave difficulties would arise in asking everybody to go to the office in person for their licence. I will look into the matter of first applications and see whether, in the view of the Department, that would be practicable or not. If there is no great objection I will bring up something on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."

Provision is made in the section for the reissue of mutilated driving licences. I would like to know from the Minister if he would make provision for this class of case: An owner employs a motor driver. He gets a driver's licence for him, and pays the fee of 10/-. The owner may find after a short time that the driver is incompetent, or he may leave. On doing so he takes the licence with him. It is personal to himself. The owner engages another man and has to get a fresh licence for him. I wonder if provision could be made by which, in such cases there would be a transfer of the licence from the man for whom it was originally got to the new man? Cases of the kind happen very often.

I think in cases like that the employer should satisfy himself that the driver he was employing in the first instance was a competent man. If he did that he would not waste his 10/-.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, every driving licence shall remain in force for 12 months from the date on which it commences and shall then expire.

On behalf of Senator Sir John Keane I move amendment 12:

Section 28. After the word "months" in line 50 to insert the words "or such longer period as the Minister may by regulation prescribe."

I had a post-card from Senator Sir John Keane expressing regret that he could not be here to-day and asking me to move this amendment for him. The arguments in favour of the amendment are that the Senator feels there may be cases in which it would be desirable to give the Minister power to make regulations to have licences for a longer period than 12 months. In the United States, I understand, you can get a licence for life. I think five years is the longest period that Senator Sir John Keane would favour. There may be something to be said for the issue of licences for a longer period, provided of course that the same rate is paid. I do not imagine, however, that there is any danger of Senator Wilson doing it in the case of any of his employees. The object of the amendment is that licences could be issued for a longer period than one year.

I do not know of any case in which a licence is granted for more than a year. I think the reason has something to do with the revenue, but whatever the cause I have no knowledge of a licence of this kind being granted for a longer period than a year.

The great inconvenience so far as motor licences are concerned is that they will not be issued while you have an unexpired one. In such a case the licensing authorities will not take your money for the ensuing year. You must go on the exact date that the licence expires, or a few days after it, and get the new licence. The general effect of that is that people go unlicensed for a considerable time. I hope I am not incriminating myself when I say that my licence expired on 14th February—Valentine's Day, a day that I should remember. Unfortunately I did not. It was some time after I got it. To be frank, it was only when the question of licences was discussed in this House that my conscience pricked me. I then sent word and found that my licence had expired. On several occasions, when my licence was unexpired, I sent to the licensing authorities for a licence for the following year. They always replied that they could not issue it until the existing licence had expired. I think that any arrangement that would enable one a month beforehand to renew his licence would be a great convenience.

I am afraid it would not be practicable from the point of view of taxation. The motor licence is an excise tax and the practice is that excise taxes are reviewed every year and it would, in a sense, be tying the hands of the Minister for Finance. It is within his power to alter the rate of taxation in the year and, if we allowed a licence to be issued for a period of five years and a number of people took advantage of it, you would be creating a vested interest and, if an attempt were made, at some future date, by a Minister for Finance to alter the rate, you would have very great protests raised by the people who had already paid what they considered to be a just and equitable tax and who would resent very much the increase in taxation. Such licences, if they were issued, would have to be paid in advance and you would have complications if the tax were changed. If it were reduced, there would be refunds to be made and unless we said that they would have to take the chance and that they would get nothing back, it would not be practicable. You would have protests of a vigorous nature if the tax were raised and they had to pay additional tax. It is looked on officially as an unwise thing and a suggestion that we could not accept.

I presume, as the Senator is not here, that there is nothing for me to do but to withdraw the amendment. I am rather horrified by the tone of the Minister's speech. At the end of it he did not think that the tax might be reduced, but, all along, he seemed to be thinking of the possibility of its being increased. That is rather horrifying and I would never have moved the amendment if I thought there was any suggestion of that. With regard to Senator Comyn, he says that he does not know any part of the world where the period is longer than one year, but Senator Sir John Keane informed me, in a card, that, in certain other countries that he knew, the period was longer.

I meant "in this country." I did not wish to contradict Senator Sir John Keane.

I am sorry. The Senator, at any rate, informed me that, in, I think, the United States, one could have a licence for life. That involves a certain amount of gambling in advance by the paying for a five-year or a longer period in order to get a licence, on which, I think, the State would gain. If this is regarded as impracticable, there is nothing else for it but to withdraw the amendment, though I must say that I think, on the whole, the State, by people dying who had paid five years in advance, would stand to gain. I cannot see that the State would lose. I am not impressed by the excise duty argument, because it seems to me that, some short time ago, I heard the Minister for Finance—I do not know whether he was in the present or the late Government— explaining that there was a differentiation in rates owing to the fact that excise duties were not always collected in the same year.

Might I suggest to the Minister that it would be possible to have an arrangement by which one could get a licence renewed a month before it expires?

I do not know whether one can get a licence a month before the old licence expires, but I do know that there is no objection to paying a month before and leaving with the officials instructions to forward the licence. I know that that has been done.

That satisfies me.

That has been done in the City of Dublin and the officials are glad to facilitate people in that way.

It strikes me that all this objection is being made by wealthy and busy men. I think that the case could be met if the Minister made regulations for the different authorities by which men, instead of paying a five years' licence down, could give instructions to the licensing authority and by forwarding a banker's order on the date of the expiration of their licence ensure that their licence would be renewed automatically every year. That could be done if a bank order were given to the licensing authority for the payment of the licence, as is done in respect of subscriptions to clubs and societies.

In the Dublin area, what usually happens is that the licensing authority, some weeks before the expiration of the period, sends a notification to the person holding a licence, stating that renewal will be due by a certain date and that if the person will send on a cheque with particulars the licence will be sent to him in due course. There is nothing to prevent anybody sending it a month before with the necessary money. The licence will be issued on the date on which he is entitled to get it. I cannot see any difficulties in the way whatever.

My licence is in the Dublin area and that did happen three or four years ago, but I have had no notice since.

Might I point out to Senator Crosbie that, in sub-section (4) of Section 25, there is authority for the issuing of a licence before the expiry of the licence already in hands. It is laid down that the second licence shall follow automatically after the date of the expiry of the first licence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
(1) Every person who drives or attempts to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he is drunk shall be guilty of an offence under this section and on summary conviction thereof shall be liable, in the case of a first offence, under this section, to a fine not exceeding 50 pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment and, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence under this section to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
(2) Whenever a person is convicted of an offence under this section the court by whom such person is so convicted shall make an order (in this Act referred to as a consequential disqualification order) declaring such person to be disqualified from holding a driving licence during such period as such court shall think proper and shall specify in such order but not less than—
(a) 12 months from the date of the order where the offence is the first offence under this section of which such person was convicted, or
(b) three years from the date of the order where the offence is not the first offence under this section of which such person was convicted.
(3) For the purposes of this section but no further or otherwise a person shall be deemed to be drunk while driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle if the court is satisfied that such person was, by reason of the consumption by him of intoxicating liquor or by reason of his having taken drugs, in such condition that he was incapable of exercising effective control over such vehicle while in motion.
(4) Whenever a member of the Gárda Síochána is of opinion that an offence under this section is being or has been committed he may arrest without warrant the person believed by him to be committing or to have committed such offence.

I move amendment 13:—

Section 30, sub-section (1). After the word "drive" in line 61 to insert the words "or is in charge of."

This is a recommendation of the Committee and seems to be required, because the offence of attempting to drive is one thing, the offence of driving is another, but a person may be, as I said before, too drunk to attempt to drive and yet he may be in charge of a car. I am aware that, in the definition, the word "driving," when used in relation to a motor vehicle, includes managing and controlling, and it may be said that, therefore, a person who is in charge of a car may be said to be attempting to drive it even though he is not in the car. I do not know how that is going to be done. I think that the section itself ought to include, as the present law does and, as I think the British Act does, and as this recommendation of the Committee suggests, a provision that a person in charge of a car while he is drunk is guilty of an offence. That is the object of the amendment.

In support of what Senator Johnson has said, I would remind the Minister that, in the case of horse-drawn vehicles, a person drunk in charge is liable to a penalty. That provision was found, I think, to work very well. Whether there is any difficulty created by the fact that a person in charge of a motor car is in a somewhat different position, I do not know. Probably the Department has some very good reason for omitting, from this statute dealing with mechanically propelled vehicles, the locution which was used in the case of horse-drawn vehicles, but this I should like to say, that a person drunk in a motor car is likely to be as great a danger to the public when the motor car is stationary as he would be if he were attempting to drive or driving, because people in that condition usually stop in the most awkward places. I do not know what reason the Minister may have for using this particular form of words or whether he has any objection to the amendment.

With the object Senator Johnson has in mind I am in agreement, but I am rather doubtful as to the exact effect of the amendment, and I should like the Minister to give us some indication of what "in charge of" would mean. Senator Johnson spoke of the possibility of a drunken man trying to drive a car from the outside, but he would want to be very drunk to attempt to do that. There is a danger, however, that he might sit in the car and, feeling better before he was in a safe condition, attempt to drive it. On the other hand, there is this point of view. If a man has the misfortune to find himself drunk in charge of a car —and I think there are very few people who start right off from the beginning in a drunken condition— what is he to do? If he is fit to drive in to the side of the road and leave the car there, it is the safest thing from the public point of view, but, if you provide that he is to be held as being in charge of the car, he will drive on because the penalty will be just the same as it would be if he put the car at the side of the road.

I would not like to put anything into this Bill which would make it just as easy for a man who finds himself drunk to drive on as to drive to the side of the road and leave the car there. If he is to be held as being in charge of the car by reason of the fact that there is no one else in charge of it, although he leaves it at the side of the road, I think it would be dangerous for this amendment to be put in. It almost entirely depends on what is the exact meaning. If a man finds himself the worse of liquor, the proper course for him, before he becomes completely incapacitated, is to drive the car to the side of the road. That is the best thing to do and I should not like to do anything which would make it difficult for him to do that.

If he has sense enough to go to the side of the road, ought he not have sense enough to go out of a public place and into, say, a yard?

Would not the Senator's argument about a drunken man apply to anybody left in the car at the time—somebody, without a licence, who is left in the car alone? You could accuse that person of having the intention of driving that car. You are going to accuse a man, because he is drunk, of intending to drive a car though he never does so and though you are not able to prove that he even attempted to do it. Yet, you are going to inflict some penalty on him as if he has committed the crime of attempting to drive. The same thing would apply to anybody left in the car who is not qualified to drive because they are left by themselves and supposed to be in charge of the car and, therefore, are liable to all the penalties for attempting to drive. I do not see how you are going to apply one law to a man who is drunk. He is not breaking any law so long as he does not attempt to drive the car and that would apply to every individual who is not qualified to drive but who might be left in the car. This is a new penalty—that one is to be held accountable for crimes that one never committed. I have never heard of it before.

I think we are all at one in what we are anxious to do with regard to securing that a person in charge of a car must be a person who, so far as intoxicating liquor is concerned, is competent and that no person the worse, as Senator Douglas says, for liquor should be allowed to drive a car. I am advised that the definition here of "driving," as Senator Johnson says, covers the control and management of a car. If a man sitting in a car turned on the lights of the car, though the car was not moving, he could then be charged, if he were drunk, with driving the car. If he does any act in the car of a mechanical nature, he could be charged with being drunk and with driving the car because he has done an act preparatory to driving, such as turning on the light.

A point was raised about the law in regard to drunkenness in charge of a car. That is the law and it relates to horse-drawn as well as mechanically-driven vehicles. A horse does not require anybody to start him. He can start off on his own without the drunken man being aware of it and, in that way, be a grave danger. A car will not start—except there is some mechanical defect—unless some act is done to it. My advice is that it would be unwise to charge a man who is drunk in a car with driving a car while drunk—that is, if he merely sits in the car and is sensible enough to remain there. He is open to the charge of drunknness, but it appears to us that it would not be fair or wise to charge him with driving the car when he does no act which puts the car in motion or make it a danger to the public. So long as he does not control or attempt to control or manage the car while drunk, we think this charge should not be brought against him.

While saying that, I am at one, as I think we all are, with what I think is in Senator Johnson's mind—that we should prevent drunken men from driving motor cars. If the House is strongly of opinion that this provision requires still further tightening, I am willing to have it tightened. We do not want drunken men in charge of what has been already described as "a dangerous weapon" on the public roads, but we think the case is fully met in the Bill. This is not a Ministerial measure. It is one on which we are anxious to have the advantage of everybody's wisdom. Whatever the majority view is with regard to this matter, we are prepared to adopt.

I quite appreciate that there is a general desire to prevent a person who is drunk controlling a car on the public road. But the omission of those words "in charge" from the present Bill seems to indicate that there is a weakening of the intention of the Legislature in this respect. The present law speaks of the person "in charge" of the vehicle. If we deliberately omit that reference, it will be an indication that we are not so particular if the person concerned does not attempt to drive the car. Under the Bill, it is an offence if the person in the car attempts to drive. It will be very difficult to prove the offence of "attempting to drive." A man, clearly drunk, sits in a car and unless a Guard sees him pull a lever or act in some such manner, he cannot prove that he attempted to drive. When the policeman turns his back, the motorist may pull a lever and move away. The Guard will not be able to prevent his driving then. The damage will have been done—the pedestrian will have been killed. The offence of driving a car while drunk will have been committed, but the power of the policeman to prevent that man driving is gone. The recommendation of the Committee was that a person who was noticeably under the influence of alcohol while in charge of a vehicle on any road or public place should be guilty of an offence.

It seems to me that there is a clear weakening of the law in this Bill in respect of the drunken man having charge of a car in a public place. The assumption should be that he intends to drive and when we take out these words "in charge" of a car, we are practically giving him an opportunity to avoid a prosecution since he can challenge the police constable to say that he saw him attempting to drive. "Attempting to drive" will be an offence difficult to prove, and the intentions of the Minister would be more likely to be met if it were made an offence for a man while drunk to be in charge of a car in a public place.

The weakness of Senator Johnson's case is that if a man is drunk in a car a policeman can arrest him for drunkness. Under the ordinary law, that man is liable to be arrested for drunkness. If a policeman sees him he is bound in duty to arrest him. If a man can be dealt with under the ordinary law and treated as an ordinary "drunk," there is no reason why the penalties proposed in this section should apply. Under this Bill a man can be fined up to £50 if he attempts while drunk to drive a car, or he may get a term of imprisonment. I think it is going too far to apply these penalties to a man who is drunk in a car but who makes no attempt to drive the car.

It has occurred to me that the men in charge of parking places would nominally be in charge of the cars parked there. One of these men might get drunk. He might slip in for a drink because he could not get home to get a meal. He might be rendered liable to a fine of £50 or a term of imprisonment under this provision. Every reasonably-minded person is, with Senator Johnson, in favour of the strongest possible penalties for persons who, while under the influence of drink, attempt to drive mechanical vehicles. All we want to ensure is that too great hardship will not be imposed for an offence such as sitting, while under the influence of drink, in a car. We are all at one in pressing for severe penalties for persons who drive while under the influence of drink, but, while doing that, we should not make the person who though drunk in a car, does not attempt to drive the car, liable to the same severe penalties.

I think the Senator is wrong in his statement of the facts.

The Minister took, as an instance, a person who, while drunk in a car, switched on the light. He would be held to be attempting to drive the car. Suppose a man is drunk in a saloon car. The rain comes down and he puts up the window or, if he is in an open car, he puts up the hood. Would that have the same effect as turning on the light? I think we have got as far as we can go in regard to this matter and that any more restrictions would make the provision ridiculous.

I support Senator Johnson. I do not think that any chance should be given to a man to get into a motor car and hide when he is drunk, as may happen in this case. A policeman is much more likely to see him and recognise that he is drunk if he is out of the car. He may be lying in the motor car drunk and a policeman may pass and think he is asleep. I should not give any chance to a drunken man to sit in a motor car under any circumstances.

I suggest that the Minister should consider this matter again in view of the discussion that has taken place here. What we are trying to arrive at is not so much the question of punishment. We are all in favour of heavy penalties, but we are far more concerned with preventing people from committing this offence than with punishing people who do commit it. We want, as far as possible, not to tempt people who find themselves the worse of liquor to go on driving the car. If the Minister is correct, the Bill requires some sort of amendment. If a man drives a car on to the side of the road at night, he has to put on the brake. If the car is on a slight hill, it will sometimes move on its own account. The driver should put the brake on and the lights on before he gets out of the car, if he is going to leave it by the side of the road. These are the very things that the Minister seems to think would constitute an offence. I have a suspicion that the Minister is not absolutely correct in this case, but, if he is, I hope he will bring in an amendment on Report Stage.

I think I am correct in saying that it is not an offence under the law for a man to be drunk. If he is also disorderly or a nuisance to his neighbour, then it is an offence, but the chance of his being charged with being disorderly while in a motor car is small. He may be as drunk as he likes in a motor car without being subject to a penalty under the law as it stands at present, if the car is not in a public place. The offence lies in being disorderly. He cannot, therefore, be arrested simply because he is drunk and, thereby, prevented from killing a neighbour. I should point out that drunkenness under the definition is not merely drunkenness due to an excess of alcoholic liquor; it may also be due to drugs. That also suggests the desirability of not allowing this legislation to be slackened, which is the effect of the present section.

I do not think that one ought to be too tender with people who get drunk. When a person gets drunk and goes inside a motor car there is a danger of his starting to drive the motor car and he ought to be clapped into jail as quickly as possible.

I am inclined to agree with Senator Colonel Moore to a certain extent and with Senator Johnson also, but I am afraid that if we go into such detail as to make it an offence for a man to be drunk in a car it would cover the case of a man who would pull up at a hotel for the night and leave his car standing outside the hotel, going in fully intending to have a good night and get drunk. I do not think that it should be in order for the police to go into the hotel and arrest him.

While dealing with the question of drivers' licences, many of the Senators seemed to be speaking from experience. Perhaps some of them are speaking from experience on this matter, but it does not look like it. For a considerable time we were referring to "persons," but Senator Miss Browne departed from that and said she would not give a chance to any "man" to get drunk. It was up to Senator Miss Browne, if she said anything at all on this matter, to say that she would not give a chance to any woman. She overstepped the mark, and if the Minister takes any serious notice of her remarks, I hope he will include women in the provision.

I would like the Minister to accept the amendment.

I will look into it, and consider it, if the Senator puts it down for the Report Stage. Personally, I am of opinion that the matter is covered by what we have done.

Amendment adjourned to the Report Stage.

I move amendment 14:—

Section 30, sub-section (3). To delete all from the word "to" in line 19 down to the word "vehicle" in line 20, inclusive, and to substitute therefor the words "to have been drunk."

This is rather a grammatical change. The sub-section reads:

For the purposes of this section but no further or otherwise a person shall be deemed to be drunk while driving or attempting to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle if the court is satisfied that such person was, by reason of the consumption by him of intoxicating liquor or by reason of his having taken drugs, in such condition that he was incapable of exercising effective control over such vehicle while in motion.

It is a matter whether he should be deemed to have been drunk.

I would accept these words, but not the rest.

If the Minister accepts Senator Johnson's words it means that the man had been drunk but had recovered. He may be in a state of convalesence. The grammatical construction is absolutely wrong.

This deals with a prosecution when a man is before the court. He may be quite sober in the view of the magistrate, but to say that he "shall be deemed to be drunk," surely is not the intention.

A person shall be deemed to have been drunk "while driving." He had been drunk.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 15:—

Section 30, sub-section (3). After the word "vehicle" in line 20 to insert the words "and shall incur consequential disqualification for such periods as are defined in the foregoing sub-section."

If the Minister assures me that as the sub-section is drawn the consequential disqualification described in the preceding sub-section applies I am satisfied.

I am quite satisfied that disqualification follows.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 16:—

Section 30, sub-section (3). To delete in line 24 the words "while in motion."

This is similar to Senator Johnson's amendment, which the Minister promised to look into.

Amendment adjourned for the Report Stage.

I move amendment 17:—

Section 30. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 18, sub-section (1) of the Courts of Justice Act, 1928 (No. 15 of 1928), whereby it is enacted that an appeal shall lie in criminal cases from a justice of the District Court against any order (not being merely an order returning for trial or binding to the peace or good behaviour) by any person against whom the order shall have been made, where an appeal is lodged against the conviction by the District Court for an offence under this section or the next succeeding section the driving licence of the person so convicted shall be suspended pending the hearing of the appeal unless the court otherwise orders.

This is a rather important amendment, and has reference to later sections, so that it may be as well to argue the case now. As the Bill is drafted a person may be convicted by the district justice, and according to the Courts of Justice Act, 1928, there lies an automatic right to appeal, not merely an appeal against conviction, but an appeal against the order of disqualification. The period between the conviction before the district justice and the hearing of the appeal in the Circuit Court may be a long one. However convincing and however obvious the offence may have been, however severe the penalty may have been, however unqualified the person may be to drive a car, while the appeal is pending, he is free to drive and the order of disqualification is suspended. The object of the amendment is to retain for the district justice a power which he now has, which was in the British Act, and which was re-enacted after a period of test, the power of a district justice to suspend a licence pending appeal. It seems to me to be a real defect to allow a person to go on driving—no matter how grave or how clear the evidence before the district justice was—to kill as many people as he wishes in the meantime pending the appeal, all because we remove from the district justice the power he now has of suspending a licence, if he thinks it desirable. It is the discretion which is to be left with the district justice that I wish to ensure by this amendment. At the present time there is, I think, some appeal to the Minister to exercise the prerogative of mercy, but if some such amendment is not carried, the position is that the offender is a free man, with liberty to drive, no matter how great an offender he may have been, until his appeal has been heard. The House will see that is a dangerous right to give to a man who is, perhaps, a habitual drunkard, or to a man given to drugging himself, who has been proved quite incapable of having charge of a car, but whose licence, if he decides to appeal, cannot be suspended.

When I read the amendment I gave it considerable thought. I would like to be able to support it in entirely, but I see certain difficulties. I am in agreement with the object Senator Johnson has in mind. This seems to me to be a matter that requires careful consideration. There are in the Bill three kinds of disqualification, one following conviction for drunkenness, another following certain other convictions, and then a disqualification which does not arise under this amendment, for physical defect. The disqualification following a conviction for drunkenness, or for other offences may be for two purposes, for punishment or for the protection of the public. Where there is evidence that a man has been habitually drunk, or where there is a danger that he may again become drunk, then some protection is necessary for the public, and it is very undesirable that simply by appealing that man should be enabled to go on driving.

On the other hand, we have to recognise the main principle of justice in this country is that a man who is innocent should not receive what may be a very serious punishment. The ordinary driver in his own car is relatively unimportant, but there are many people whose livelihood depends entirely on having licences to drive. It would be a very serious thing indeed if such a man were convicted wrongly. An appeal may take months—I can conceive it taking a year—and it would be very serious if such a man who was found not guilty had lost his means of livelihood for a year. That would be a punishment which might or might not be for the protection of the public. The suggestion I make is that the Minister should not adopt the exact wording of Senator Johnson's amendment, but should introduce a provision into the Bill giving the district justice power, where he is satisfied there might be a danger to the public if the person continued to drive, to suspend the licence, pending appeal, but to put the onus on the district justice and to make it have no relation to the punishment he would inflict where he was satisfied there was a danger to the public in allowing a man to drive. A licence may be withdrawn in Section 32 owing to physical incapacity. That is not a stigma. There would not necessarily be a stigma in this case, and it would only be done where the district justice was satisfied. As far as possible I would rather not introduce the principle that a man could be punished, or might lose his livelihood for a year, if it turned out afterwards that he was not guilty. It will be mainly in cases of drunkenness that appeals will arise, and I think it will be sufficient to give the district justice power to suspend the licence, pending appeal, on the ground that there would be a danger to the public.

That is the amendment.

Too far east is west. I think there is great danger that in our anxiety to make this Bill perfect we may violate very important principles of human right. The law says that where a right of appeal is given the parties shall remain, as much as possible, as they were until the appeal is determined. You should either give no appeal, or, if you give an appeal, you should provide that the parties should be in as good a position after the appeal, in case it is successful, as they were at the beginning. If Senator Johnson examines the amendment he will see that if the licence is suspended pending the appeal the man is punished. The judgment is irrevocable so far as the livelihood of the person is concerned in the meantime. You cannot give him back the time he has lost. Therefore, you really provide a punishment in a case where you agree that the conviction might be wrong. That offends against every principle of law which has been recognised up to the present. If a right of appeal is given there should be no punishment until the appeal is determined. There is really no final determination, and it is our experience that the decisions of District Justices are very frequently reversed. Human nature is imperfect. The cases may be doubtful cases, but I should say, probably in a very high percentage of cases where an appeal is taken, the appeal is successful. Otherwise appeals would be discouraged and would be very few. Take the case of an innocent man.

Take the case in which the justice is wrong in convicting. The man is innocent. He has not committed the offence, but he is punished. That punishment is irrevocable so far as it relates to the earning of his livelihood. What recompense would you give that man? Suppose the conviction is reversed on appeal. Suppose the man has for three or six months, as Senator Douglas has stated, been prevented from earning his living. If he succeeds in his appeal, the assumption is that he was wrongly prosecuted and convicted. What recompense are you going to give that man? Have you any provision in this Bill to compensate a man under circumstances of that kind? I cannot see any. I quite agree that it would be very wrong to allow a habitual drunkard after conviction to be in charge of a car, but I cannot see the possibility of a habitual drunkard ever getting a licence to drive a car. Therefore, that is not the case. If a man is a habitual drunkard it will not be one offence that will be involved. There will be many offences.

I think the arguments made in support of the amendment do not justify it, and for that reason I think that this House ought not to violate what is a fundamental principle of justice, that pending an appeal there should be no enforcement of the penalty, and that is what I think would be the meaning of Senator Johnson's amendment. The enforcement of a penalty itself ex hypothesi is wrong without any provision being made for compensation in case it is proved to be wrong. I do not think Senator Johnson intended that, but I do think that in his great anxiety to see that the Bill is made as perfect as possible he has gone a little further than he intended to go. I do not think that he should press the amendment. It has serious implications, because when one amendment of this kind gets into the laws of our country it undermines great principles and sets up a precedent that will be followed in other matters. I should not like that a beginning of that kind should be made on the motion of Senator Johnson. I am sure if he will consider all the circumstances of the case and the implications of his amendment he will not press it.

There is another case to be made against the amendment. This is a Road Traffic Bill, and it would be unseemly in a Road Traffic Bill to amend the Courts of Justice Act. That is what in fact you are doing. From that point of view I think the amendment should be withdrawn.

I agree very strongly with Senator Johnson in this amendment. Every day in the week we read in the papers of motor accidents. The vast majority of them are caused by drunken men. In spite of what Senator Comyn may say doctors differ. A friend of the motorist will come along and swear that he was not drunk. Another doctor will come along and swear that he was. In the meantime human lives are being lost. There may be a difficulty about the Courts of Justice Act, but surely there should be some means of getting over this difficulty? If a man is convicted of drunkenness and appeals, it is a terrible thing to think that he should go on driving and being allowed to drive his motor car for a year or eighteen months until the appeal is heard. I think that if there is not something to prevent that you will have an appeal in every case. Senator Comyn has said that you have appeals constantly, but unless such an amendment as this is passed you will have an appeal from every drunken motorist who is brought up and he will go on killing people in the meantime. Senator Johnson I must say gives the most minute attention to the details of Bills and he does not usually bring in frivolous amendments. There must be some way of meeting these cases. I should like as far as it can be done to support Senator Johnson in this amendment.

The appeals in these cases are very speedy. There is no such thing as waiting twelve months for a decision.

I think in this particular case Senator Johnson is perfectly right in his attitude. I was not impressed with what Senator Comyn said on the question of principle and in regard to the judgments of District Justices. My experience of District Justices is that they have got a jolly good idea of what is right and wrong. In any cases that come before them where there is any doubt whatever that the man is guilty, I think the District Justice should have a discretion to prevent his driving a car pending an appeal. I would suggest to Senator Johnson to withdraw this amendment now and to bring in an amendment in a slightly different form which will embody what I have said, on the Report Stage. It would then be an agreed amendment. Certainly I think in the public interests such an amendment is more or less necessary.

I wish to say that in our view we are not satisfied that what Senator Johnson seeks to achieve is not already provided for. We believe it is.

The Minister might tell us where.

We believe it is already covered by the law as it stands at present without reference to the Bill. In case there is any doubt about it we are satisfied to have the matter examined and if necessary to bring in an amendment to see that it is covered on the Report Stage.

I have consulted a lawyer on the matter, and he assures me that the Courts of Justice Act, Section 18, sub-section (1) does override anything else. That is to say that the appeal will be against the order as well as against the punishment. I would point out in reference to what Senator Comyn and what Senator Wilson have said, that the grant of a driving licence is not a civic right. It is a privilege granted under certain conditions. An authority may grant a licence unless it appears to them that the applicant is under the age of 16 years or is disqualified from holding a licence through other reasons. There are certain conditions to be complied with before a licence shall be granted and if the authority is in a position to refuse a licence to a person, surely if before a court of justice a man is proved to be incompetent to hold a licence, he should not be permitted to drive a car pending an appeal. We had better remove the power to disqualify altogether from the District Justice and we had better not attempt to legislate against the drunken driver of a car——

Take away the appeal.

That means altering the Courts of Justice Act. This is not, as is alleged, an attempt to alter the Courts of Justice Act. It is an attempt to say that the licensing authority shall have power to withdraw a licence which is given as a privilege. In regard to what Senator Douglas has said, it is within the discretion of the District Justice according to the amendment not to suspend the licence, because it says: "Where an appeal is lodged against the conviction, the driving licence of the person so convicted shall be suspended pending the hearing of an appeal, unless the court otherwise orders." So there is a discretion left to the district justice, and I want that discretion still to remain with him. The Minister, or at any rate, the Minister for Justice, knows that at the present time, where licences are suspended by order of the district justice, an appeal may be lodged, and while the licence is suspended, the applicant very often makes an appeal to the Minister for mercy in the matter. The Minister communicates with the justice concerned and the district justice, knowing the facts, will make his recommendation yea or nay, but the fact that the suspension of the licence is hanging over the offender is a greater deterrent than a fine of £1, £2, or £3. I am very anxious that the Minister should ensure that what I believe to be a defect in the Bill should be remedied. That is to say that there should be no right to retain a licence pending an appeal, by virtue of the appeal, which is I think the effect of the Courts of Justice Act. I shall postpone the amendment to the Report Stage in the hope that the Minister will introduce a better version embodying the same intention.

Would the Senator be satisfied by changing the wording of his amendment so as to provide that in cases where there was a suspension of the licence it should be by a positive order of the justice and that the conviction itself should not carry suspension? That would leave the discretion with the justice.

I would be quite satisfied with that.

Amendment deferred to Report Stage.

Sections 30, 31 and 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 33.

(4) In this section and in the next following section the expression "disqualification order" includes a consequential disqualification order, an ancillary disqualification order, and a special disqualification order.

I move amendment No. 18.

Section 33—sub-section (4). To delete in line 29 the words "and in the next following section."

This is really part of the argument we have been dealing with.

As far as I am concerned it is not.

May I go back to Section 32?

Cathaoirleach

Have you an amendment down, Senator?

Cathaoirleach

It is not a good practice to argue on every section.

But surely we are entitled to discuss every section.

Cathaoirleach

I am entitled to suggest that it is not a good practice. The effect of it would be to have long drawn out debates.

The only answer to that is to attempt to amend every section.

Cathaoirleach

It might be a very good thing.

I submit with all respect that it may be desirable to get an explanation from the Minister of what a section means even though we are not prepared to put amendments forward.

Cathaoirleach

That may be your opinion Senator, but it may not be mine.

Are you ruling me out of order?

Cathaoirleach

No. We are now on Section 33. Do you wish to go on with your amendment, Senator?

I do. This amendment is part of a series of amendments dealing with Section 34, and as it is really a consequential amendment I think I had better not move it now until I deal with the later amendments on Section 34.

Cathaoirleach

Is Senator Douglas moving amendment 18?

I am. I move:

Section 33, sub-section (4). To delete in line 29 the words "and in the next following section".

I do not want to take any advantage of Senator Johnson. I think it is rather unfortunate that both of us should have exactly the same amendment down. It is obvious, from the following amendment, that we have something different in our minds in what we are endeavouring to achieve. My reasons for wanting to delete these words from the sub-section are these: You have in the Bill three distinct disqualifications for the holding of a licence. One of these is called consequential, another ancillary, and the third a special disqualification. The first two follow a conviction under the Act. It seems to me that it is not a desirable principle to provide an appeal against a conviction for a breach of the Act to another district justice of the same rank in another place. When you come to the special disqualification order I think the position is different, because the order is not for any offence under the Act. It is simply a disqualification because of the physical unfitness of the individual. For the sake of argument, if a person is residing temporarily in Donegal and is there held, on the application of the Gárda, to be physically unfit, I see no objection, in three or four months' time, to his going to the district justice in his home area and proving that he is now physically fit. That would be no reflection on the decision of the district justice in Donegal. It would be, in no sense, an appeal from one district justice to another; but when you include the ancillary order and, more particularly, the consequential disqualification order you are really providing an appeal in relation to what, as Senator Johnson pointed out, may really be the biggest penalty of the whole lot—the one people dread most of all, losing their licence. Having been convicted by one district justice, you are providing that the person so convicted can go to another district justice and see if he will reverse the conviction.

The reason I want these words deleted in Section 33 is because I am anxious to make a different provision when we come to Section 34. I want to make this right of being able to go to another district justice apply only to the special disqualification order. Senator Johnson was only concerned with the consequential order, but it seems to me that the principle should apply also to the ancillary order, following a breach of the Act. I think the provision in Section 34 is really an excellent one for dealing with physical disability, but a most undesirable one for dealing with convictions by a district justice. I think Senator Comyn said that the decisions of district justices are not always right. I have no opinion with regard to that. Most of them are very good decisions indeed, I think. I was told by a district justice that they find the greatest delight in upsetting each other's decisions. I do not know whether or not that is quite fair, but it does not seem to me that they should ever be placed in the position in which they would be upsetting each other's decisions.

I think Section 34, which Senator Douglas has been arguing is right for this reason. It does not mean that a person convicted, say, for being drunk, thereby incurring consequential disqualification can go to any other justice and apply for what is practically a licence. The only person he can go to is the justice of the district in which he resides. I think it is advisable even in the most stringent legislation, "to temper the wind to the shorn lamb." A man may come to Dublin and, let us say, he is charged with being drunk when driving a car. That may be only one event in his lifetime. He is well known in his own district and is a perfectly sober man usually. I think it is only fair that he should be allowed to go to his own justice, a man who knows him.

A man whom he knows.

To a man who knows him and apply for a licence. The justice in his district is likely to be able to form a better judgment than the justice whom he meets casually in the police court in Dublin.

The justice who tries the case.

The justice who tries the case very frequently gives a judgment which is not justified by the facts, and the facts themselves may sometimes be very doubtful. A too stringent enforcement of the law, without any chance of modifying it in any way, is not desirable either in the ordinary administration of justice or in relation to the legislation dealing with motor cars. I think the section is very well done as it is. It shows a tremendous amount of consideration and a great deal of commonsense. I would not be in favour of a meticulous amendment of the sections here and there.

I take it that we may discuss Section 34 (1) on this amendment.

Cathaoirleach

Quite.

I think Senator Comyn is very far astray in his argument on this section. To allow it to pass as it is seems to me to be giving very great liberty. First, the District Court may decide that the individual was guilty. A disqualification order will follow. Then the appeal, which the Senator justifies, is made, and on appeal the man is again found guilty. But, under the section, the man may go to his local justice and make application for a cancellation of the disqualification order. The local justice knows nothing about the case. He only knows what is brought before him on appeal, the hardship to the individual offender, and such police reports as may be provided from the distant district where the offence was originally committed. I think an attempt would be made to plead the cause from the point of view of sympathy with the offender in a court which knows nothing about the circumstances of the case. If there is an appeal for a relaxation of the order it ought to be in the place where the case was originally tried, where all the facts will be known to the court, to the police officers, and to the justice concerned.

Let us take for example the case of a man who comes to Dublin during Horse Show Week or on a fair day. Perhaps Senator Counihan would know a few cases where people do come once a week or once a month to Dublin. They are away from home, and from the strict grip they have upon themselves when at home. That is not an exceptional practice in the case of some people. When they are at home, under the eye of the local justice, they are perfectly sober, reliable and decent people. That does not prevent a man who at home is reliable, decent and sober, driving dangerously when, say, he gets drunk in Dublin. I think that all the facts of the case ought to be before the court, the court to which the second application is made. The sub-section says: "Such justice may, as he shall think proper having regard to all the circumstances of the case." How can he have "regard to all the circumstances of the case" unless it means the case that is made before him on the application for a reversal of the order, or does it mean all the circumstances of the case when it was originally tried? If that be the intention he cannot know all the circumstances of the case that were put before the justice that convicted.

In regard to what Senator Douglas said my amendment which immediately follows the one nominally under discussion does exactly what he would desire. It adds the words "consequential disqualification order or an ancillary" in line 33, so that what Senator Douglas would desire is entirely what I desire in that respect. It does not deal with the special disqualification order. The essential part of this argument is that it is not desirable that a person who has been disqualified in, let us say, Dublin, should be able to go to a justice in Clare or Donegal and ask for a reversal of the order of disqualification. He should have to come to the court which disqualified him.

I thought, in reading Senator Johnson's amendment, that he would provide for this revision in the case of ancillary and consequential disqualification. The point I want to make clear is that I do not think there should be any revision by any District Justice in the case of the first two.

That is my intention.

I want to avoid that and I want to provide that there should be one definitely in the case of Section 32, which deals only with the special disqualification order. In that connection, I should like to say, having regard only to the special disqualification order, that I quite disagree with Senator Johnson as to the place where reconsideration should take place. Where there is no question of crime or a conviction under a court and where it is only a matter of an application in a certain time by a Superintendent of the Gárda that so and so is physically unfit, it is quite correct to go to the district where you are known, but if it is going to be virtually an appeal against a decision of the previous justice, I would not agree with Senator Johnson. I think that the three classes of disqualifications are different and that the third is a completely different kind now introduced into the Bill, more or less necessarily, because of the new kind of licence being introduced. I completely approve of the way of withdrawing it after proper care by the District Justice where the man lives. I think that, in that case, where there is no question of a crime, he is clearly the right person not because he will know you better, but because the Guards, who will give the information as to your fitness, will know you better.

This discussion has become rather extended. We are discussing three different amendments at one time——

Cathaoirleach

They are all practically the same. They are all involved, at any rate.

They are certainly concerned one with the other. With regard to amendment 19, I take it that the effect of this, if passed, would be to deprive a person who had been the subject of a special disqualification order of the right to come back again after, let us say, three months or six months to the District Justice for a revision of the order?

That is right.

I do not want to deal with that matter at all. I am with Senator Douglas on that. I may have made a mistake——

It is not the Senator's intention to deprive a man of that right to come back and ask at the end of a certain period that the Order should be reviewed?

I take it that Senator Johnson will not move that.

Cathaoirleach

I take it that he will not.

I do not quite know what the point is. My amendments are part of a piece and the section would read:

Any person in respect of whom a consequential order or an ancillary disqualification order has been made may ... apply to the justice of the District Court where the disqualification order was made for the discharge of such order.

I quite see now that there should have been a further amendment giving the right of appeal to the local man in the case of a special disqualification order.

The Senator is taking it away by that amendment.

I see that, now.

If the Senator will withdraw his amendment for the present——

I do not know how that is to be done, but I should like to know how the Minister proposes to meet the case to be made in respect of consequential and ancillary disqualification orders?

With regard to the one dealt with in Section 34, it might cause great difficulty if a person could not go to the district justice in the area in which he resides. If he were disqualified in Donegal or Clare and he resided in Dublin he would have to go back to Donegal or Clare and put his case in the hands of the district justice there. I wonder if the case the Senator has in mind, and, perhaps, that Senator Douglas has in mind, could not be met by asking the district justice in the place where the application is made to get a report from the district justice in the other area.

To state a case.

One justice could not state a case to another, but I think that the suggestion of a report is a good idea.

That is a way out. It could be done after consultation between the justices. It might be difficult to ask a man to go back to Clare or Donegal.

I am not in favour of it. I have argued on that with the Minister.

If something happened while a man was on holiday in Donegal, Clare or Cavan, he would have to go back there. I think that, if it could be arranged that there should be consultation with the district justice in the area in which the man was disqualified, the difficulty would be met.

Which form of disqualification is the Minister now dealing with?

The consequential disqualification is the one I have in mind.

In that case I am against the provision altogether.

We must get clear as to what we are talking about. I am with Senator Douglas as regards the special disqualification order and the Minister agrees, that is to say, that the place of residence would be sufficient in the case of a special disqualification order, but, in the case of an offence such as drunkenness in charge of a car, which entails a consequential disqualification order, the Bill provides that, if the offence was committed in Cork and the person resides in Dublin, he may come to a Dublin justice for a revision of the order or, more likely, if a person resides in Donegal and commits the offence in Dublin and is disqualified in Dublin, he can go to Donegal and make his application for revision or cancellation of the order there. For such a serious offence and for so great a revocation, I do not think it is a tremendous burden to put on a man the obligation of going to the place where he was tried originally if he is seeking a revocation of the order. After all, it is almost universal that, in certain classes of cases, people come to Dublin to hear their cases tried in the Four Courts.

But they will not always have the same judges.

They will not always have the same judges, I agree, but coming to the court where the prosecution was dealt with I do not think is too great a burden to put on a person who is applying for this privilege. I agree that the Minister's suggestion would be an improvement on the Bill, but I do not think we should be too lenient with a man who has been disqualified because of the offence of driving a car in a public place while drunk or drugged.

There are other offences besides that, for which he may be disqualified.

There are other disqualifications, but I am speaking now of this consequential disqualification order that is automatic on conviction for being drunk in charge of a car or while driving a car. There are other offences which do not inevitably involve a disqualification order and it may be that those should be dealt with a little less rigidly, but, in all the circumstances, I think that, where there has been an offence committed in a particular locality and the case has been tried in that locality and the man convicted in the locality by the district justice, if he is seeking a revision of the order of disqualification, it ought to be to that same justice or that same court, at any rate, that he applies for the revision and not to the court which knows nothing about the circumstances of the case.

It is also true, of course, that district justices have changed.

I agree that they do change occasionally.

And, moreover, a man will not like to go back to the court where he has been humiliated so much. I think that you will make this Bill so perfect that it will not work.

My case is that where there is an order of this sort made, revision should be a matter of appeal to a higher court. I think it is quite wrong that one should have to go to another district justice of the same rank in another district and virtually appeal.

No, because he has to wait for three months.

No, he has not. The phrase is "from time to time after the expiration of three months." Once he has given notice to the police officer within ten days he may appeal immediately and he may appeal again after three months.

Cathaoirleach

There are three or four different amendments and the Minister may be prepared to bring in something which may be in accord with Senator Johnson's object. I do not know whether he is in accord with Senator Douglas.

I do not know whether I am not in accord with Senator Douglas also. Perhaps it would be wise to drop the idea of an appeal to another justice altogether and let the appeal be made to a higher court, as Senator Douglas suggests.

I want to say this: I did not get this out of my own head. I do not want to mention any names, but it did come from a district justice who felt that the thing was unsatisfactory.

Cathaoirleach

Will Senator Johnson agree to adjourn all the amendments until Report Stage?

Yes, I should like to hear the Minister's views.

Amendments 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 24 adjourned for Report Stage.

SECTION 34.

I move amendment No. 21:—

Section 34, sub-section (2). To delete in line 46 the words "for all purposes."

This amendment is different from those which have been adjourned and it raises a different question. I want to draw attention to the effect of this phrase "for all purposes." The sub-section sets out:—

Whenever an order is made under this section discharging a disqualification order the period of disqualification specified in such disqualification order shall for all purposes be deemed to expire on the date specified in such first-mentioned order for the discharge of such disqualification order.

Sub-section (3) of Section 35 says:—

Whenever a special disqualification order is made in relation to any person the court shall cause particulars of such order to be endorsed in the prescribed manner on the driving licence....

There is a provision elsewhere, I think, by which consequential orders are to be endorsed on the driving licence. If an order discharging the disqualification is made it shall be deemed to cancel out every endorsement and every record in all the courts. I think it is definitely set out in the Bill that, where an order has been made, the Minister shall be informed and notification shall be given to the various police officers through the country. If this phrase "for all purposes" is going to include the cancellation of that notification, and if endorsements on the licence are also to be cancelled, any record of a man's offence is going to be eradicated as well as the mere removal of the immediate disqualification. That is, I think, treating the matter too leniently. I think it is very desirable that the authorities should know the record from year to year of a driver. If he has once been convicted of being drunk while driving a car, that should be known if he comes up again within five years. Therefore, those words "for all purposes" should be deleted. Otherwise, all the records of all the offences the man has committed will be unknown. I do not think that it is the intention of the Minister that that should follow. If so, it is a defect in the Bill.

It was not our intention that what the Senator has in mind should operate. Our intention was that the order should expire at certain periods but unless the words "for all purposes" remain the court might hold that the disqualification order was deemed to expire for the purposes of this Act only, and not for any other purpose. We think it is safer, from our point of view, that the words should remain. What Senator Johnson has pointed out is very far from our intention.

If Senator Johnson had waited until we came to the question of ancillary disqualification orders, his point might be met.

I quite agree, but I draw the Minister's attention to this matter which might be overlooked.

I do not know that the construction of the sub-section is as the Senator thinks (sub-section read). Does not the phrase "for all purposes" refer there to the period of disqualification?

That is so.

It might read in that way. It is quite probable that the ordinary construction of the courts would be as the Senator has indicated, but I am not sure that it is perfectly clear. Perhaps the Minister would glance through it.

We are quite satisfied that it is all right. The phrase refers to the period.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 34 and 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
(1) Any member of the Gárda Síochána may demand of any person driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle the production of his driving licence, and if such person refuses or fails to produce such licence there and then he shall, unless within five days after the date on which such production was demanded he produces his licence in person to a member of the Gárda Síochána at a Gárda Síochána station to be named by such person at the time at which such production was so demanded, be guilty of an offence under this section.
(4) Any member of the Gárda Síochána may arrest without warrant—
(a) any person who in pursuance of this section produces his driving licence to such member, but refuses or fails to permit such member to read it, or
(b) any person who, when his name and address is lawfully demanded of him by such member under this section, refuses or fails to give his name and address or gives a name or an address which is known to such member to be false or misleading.

I move amendment 25.

Section 39, sub-section (1). After the word "person" in line 19 to insert the words "or by a duly authorised representative."

The object of this amendment, which is not a very important one, is to deal with the case of a man who is touring the country and accidentally leaves his licence in the hotel as he is going away. Perhaps, I ought to say that this amendment was suggested by one of the automobile associations to Senator Sir John Keane and me and that it seemed desirable to put it down for discussion. They are anxious to encourage motor touring. In many cases, a man will stay one night at one point and another night at the next point. He may accidentally leave his licence behind and we would like to provide that he could arrange, having signed his name, for his wife or somebody else to bring the licence to the barracks of the area in which he resides without having to go home within five days, which would destroy his tour, or to stay in the same place. The object of the amendment is that he should be allowed to send somebody else to the barracks with the licence. That might be objectionable with the old type of licence, but, with the new type of licence, where he can be required to sign his name, it should be an adequate test if the signature be sent to the barracks at which he says he will produce the licence. As the section stands, it might be a serious drawback, due, perhaps, to inadvertence.

I am afraid that we cannot agree to this amendment. We had this matter thrashed out in the Dáil several times. The friends of the Automobile Association and others put forward amendments on similar lines. We examined them sympathetically from every angle and we decided that it would not be desirable to have such a provision. It might facilitate some people but we think it is much more desirable that the law should be as we propose.

The Minister will be horrified to learn that I did not read any of the Dáil debates and did not know that the matter had been discussed. I am not going to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 26.

Section 39, sub-section (4). After the word "Síochána," in line 41, to insert the words "in uniform."

This is a more serious matter than the last because it gives authority to any member of the Gárda to arrest without a warrant any person who fails to produce his licence. That seems to me excessive power to give unless the person concerned is able to prove that he is a member of the Gárda by virtue of his wearing a uniform. I do not think that we should encourage the Gárda who are in plain clothes to exercise this power of arrest and to tempt—almost provoke—the driver of a car to resist arrest and, thereby, make himself guilty of a further offence. Before he is allowed to arrest a man without a warrant, a member of the Gárda should be in uniform.

I have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Johnson's view but we consulted the Gárda Síochána and they are very keen that they should not be forced to have their men always in uniform. They say that work of this kind in the past was very frequently supervised, and is at present being supervised, by men in plain clothes and that there never has been any abuse. They do not think that it is likely there will be any abuse. I am quite prepared to insist on their producing, when required to do so, an identification card of some description but we think it would be an advantage not to force the police on all occasions to be in uniform when making arrests for breaches of the law under this section.

From the woman driver's point of view, I think that members of the Gárda engaged in this work ought to be in uniform. Suppose a man stops me and asks me for my licence, if he is not in uniform how am I to know who he is. If I am on a lonely, country road and a man puts up his hand to stop me and ask me for my licence, I may assume that he is somebody who wants to get into the car in spite of me and do something I do not wish him to do. If he were in uniform, I should stop at once but, if not, I should be inclined to pass him by as one who wants to attack me. The uniform would seem to me to be a protection to the police officer and to the driver of the car.

This will almost always be a case of stopping. It is very rarely that the police go up to a motorist on the side of a road and ask for his licence. It is essential, therefore, that the police doing this work should be in uniform. That brings us back to the old position. If the Minister can satisfy us on Report Stage that there can be no stopping except by uniformed men, that will meet the point that Senator Mrs. Clarke has made. Otherwise, I should be inclined to press the matter.

The law at present is that police doing this work must be in uniform. I am afraid that if this Bill were passed as it stands it would override that.

That is what I am afraid of.

Perhaps the Senator would bring up the amendment again on Report Stage.

I shall bring it up again on Report Stage. I feel that this is a matter of principle and that it is very important. If the Minister is not prepared to meet me on the point, I shall have to ask the House to divide.

Amendment postponed to Report Stage.

Section 39 agreed to.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Progress reported.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until Thursday at 3 p.m.
Top
Share