I do not think the regulations under the previous Convention attracted a great deal of attention since it was introduced in the Dáil in June, 1966. It has been the subject of prolonged debates in the Dáil and of numerous articles and letters in newspapers and magazines. Senators are now, therefore, no doubt, fully aware of the main provisions of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to amend and extend the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. The necessity for the amendment of the 1961 Act arises mainly out of the report of the Commission on Driving While Under the Influence of Drink or a Drug. The establishment of this Commission was decided upon following the Parliamentary Debates on the provisions of the 1961 Act relating to drink and driving. The Commission was set up in September, 1961, under the chairmanship of the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Cahir Davitt, with the following terms of reference:
To investigate and to report on the feasibility of fixing a standard, by reference to the alcohol content of the blood or by any other test, as constituting drunkenness for the purpose of the offence of drunk-driving and the legislative measures which might be taken to deal with the offence of driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a vehicle in a public place while under the influence of drink or a drug, including the following matters:—
(a) objective tests of drunkenness,
(b) graded offences, according to the degree of drunkenness,
(c) penalties, and
(d) method of trial and court procedure generally.
The Commission's report was published in October, 1963. The main recommendations are summarised in the appendix to the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with this Bill. The Government gave full consideration to the recommendations of the Commission and the views submitted by the public and, while accepting in general the import of the Commission's recommendations, decided that a blood-alcohol level of 125 milligrammes should be taken as absolute proof of the Commission of an offence related to drink and driving and not merely prima facie evidence as recommended by the Commission.
The existing law relating to drink and driving is contained in sections 49 and 50 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. Under these sections, it is an offence to drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle or to be in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while unfit to drive through drink or drugs. The wording of these sections was intended to make it clear that in order to commit an offence a person need not be drunk in the socially accepted sense. These changes in the law, however, have not been as effective as was intended and, as the Commission in its report states: "it is probable that under the present system many persons are now acquitted who would deservedly be convicted if there were a fixed standard of incapacity."
Part V of the Bill proposes to extend the existing provisions in regard to drink and driving so as to give effect to the Commission's recommendations and the Government's decision on them. In view of the importance of the subject and because of the general interest it has aroused, I propose to depart from the usual practice by discussing the provisions of this Part of the Bill first.
I shall begin by outlining as briefly as possible the arguments for an objective standard, and in doing so I shall be largely summarising the reasoning which the Commission followed. It is generally accepted that official statistics in many countries have a built-in tendency to understate the extent to which drink is a factor in road accidents and this appears to be true about our own statistics also. It has been confirmed by experiments and surveys which have been conducted abroad to determine the part that drink plays in road accidents. The results of these agree with the conclusions reached by the Commission which can be summarised as follows:
(1) Alcohol is a significant factor in a considerable proportion of road accidents and particularly in fatal accidents. Drivers who had recently consumed alcohol are significantly over-represented in the accident group.
(2) Of drivers involved in accidents after taking drink, a relatively high proportion have high blood-alcohol levels.
(3) The risk of being involved in an accident increases greatly as the blood-alcohol level rises. Both drivers and other road users become less skilful and more accident prone at the same blood-alcohol level. Experimental evidence indicates that as the blood-alcohol concentration increases there is a progressive deterioration in driving skill. Even at relatively low concentrations of alcohol in the blood some impairment sets in at an early stage and there is no threshold for sudden deterioration; relatively moderate concentrations of alcohol affect driving performance critically.
There is plenty of information published on what happens to the human body when drink is taken. I do not intend to repeat it but I would like to say a few words on the effects of drink —even at the risk of stating the obvious. At an early stage, attention and judgement are impaired, as are self-discipline and those skills involving refined co-ordination. Visual acuity suffers also at an early stage and sensory mechanisms are affected. Later, behaviour becomes irregular, speech becomes hesitant or thick, memory becomes confused, and errors in co-ordination and some impairment of balance become noticeable. Generally, however, it is at a later stage still that staggering, slurred speech, flushed face, glassy eyes, et cetera, appear and it is only at this stage that subjective examination of a person can lead to a definite conclusion that he is under the influence of drink.
What I would like to emphasise is that what is generally and mistakenly taken to be almost the first signs of alcoholic influence appear, in fact, only when there is a high concentration of alcohol in the blood and at an advanced stage of impairment. Long before these symptoms make their appearance, the individual concerned may be quite incapable of driving safely.
To enforce the existing law relating to drink and driving it is necessary to establish that an arrested person is incapable of having proper control of the vehicle by reason of drink. To do this the prosecution relies to a great extent on the opinion of a doctor or on the evidence of the gardaí or of independent witnesses as to what they observed about the condition of the accused. The doctor's opinion is formed as the result of what is termed a clinical examination, which relies on personal judgment and experience and of necessity must be based on the visible effects of alcohol, just as are the observations of the gardaí and other witnesses. As stated already, these visible signs such as errors in co-ordination, impairment of balance, slurring of speech, flushed face, etc., are indications of a high concentration of alcohol in the blood or, in other words, an advanced stage of impairment.
Since clinical examination is not sensitive enough to detect incapacity before a high degree of impairment occurs, it is unreliable. Furthermore, it may confuse the symptoms of sickness or injury with those of excessive drinking; it may allow the drinker who has learned to control the visible signs of intoxication to escape while catching the novice; such lack of uniformity in standards of assessment and inconsistencies in results inevitably lead to inequitable decisions by courts. There may be acquittals where there should not be, and, in rarer cases, there may be wrongful convictions.
Here the Commission concluded that "the methods used hitherto in this country appear to have been comparatively ineffective in dealing with the problem of drink and driving", and that a clinical examination is not a reliable method of estimating the extent to which a person's capacity to drive has been worsened by the consumption of intoxicating liquor." This is entirely consistent with the conclusions reached in numerous studies carried out throughout the world, and it has been confirmed since the Commission's report by studies made by OECD, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport and the BMA. Subsequently also, the authorities in Great Britain. and later in Northern Ireland, faced with a similar problem to ours, have opted for the kind of solution which is now proposed in the Bill, that is, to supersede the clinical test by setting out in law a standard of impairment by reference to the level of alcohol in the blood.
To return to the argument, medical science has established that it is not the amount of alcohol consumed by a person which is the measure of impairment of driving ability. It is the amount absorbed into the blood and thus circulated through the body, affecting the brain and other nerve centres and correspondingly the mental and/or physical faculties. The concentration of alcohol in the blood is accepted as the best index of alcoholic influence. There is a constant ratio between the concentration of alcohol in the brain and the concentration in the blood and in assessing the effects of alcohol on driving performance it is, therefore, appropriate to make the assessment by reference to the concentration in the blood. I may say that research has now established that, at concentrations in excess of 80 mg. per 100 ml., alcohol emerges as the dominant factor in accidents involving alcohol. In other words, when this concentration has been reached, other accident causing factors have been ironed out and alcohol dominates the picture.
It has been decided, therefore to make use of the blood-alcohol level in dealing with offences related to drink and driving. However, this decision does not, of itself, solve our problems because the blood alcohol level could be used in three ways—(1) merely to corroborate or rebut evidence based on clinical examination, or (2) as prima facie evidence of incapacity to drive, or (3) as conclusive proof of an offence. The Commission rightly decided that the first of these courses would not give satisfactory results.
The Commission recommended the adoption, initially at any rate, of the second course, that is, making a specified blood-alcohol level prima facie evidence of impairment of driving capacity. I should emphasise, however, that they did not rule out the possibility of the establishment of a specific blood-alcohol level as conclusive evidence of a new offence, at some future date. They merely considered that it was unlikely to be acceptable at the time they reported.
The Commission's own view that, at a blood-alcohol level of 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres, the driving ability of the great majority of persons will be seriously impaired, would seem to justify a provision making that level proof of guilt rather than prima facie evidence as they recommended. All the scientific evidence available shows that at this blood-alcohol level, capacity to drive safely will be seriously worsened in the case of the great majority of persons, if not all.
The community should be entitled, therefore, to say that any person whose blood contains that concentration of alcohol should refrain from driving, whether or not he considers he is completely capable of doing so.
It is very doubtful whether, if a particular concentration of alcohol were to be taken as prima facie evidence of incapacity to drive, there would be any greater uniformity in court decisions—experience shows that different courts would be likely to accept different evidence as discharging the onus on the accused. A further argument is that, in order to discharge the onus which would be placed on him, a defendant would have to rely on evidence, including evidence of opinion, based on clinical examination or observation. It would be very undesirable and unsatisfactory if the courts were to accept such evidence, which has been shown to be extremely unreliable, as discharging the onus on the defendant or, in effect, rebutting the evidence as to blood-alcohol level.
There are, therefore, grounds for believing that the establishment of an elaborate system of breath, blood or urine testing would not lead to any appreciable improvement on the present position unless evidence as to the blood-alcohol level were made conclusive proof of an offence. This the Bill proposes to do.
Senators may have different views as to whether the blood-alcohol level specified in the Bill is the right one. In considering this question it is important to bear in mind that all the evidence available suggests that at relatively low blood-alcohol levels, say, 30-50 milligrammes, some impairment of driving ability will occur in all individuals, irrespective of individual tolerance to alcohol, while at relatively moderate blood-alcohol levels, somewhere between 80 and 150 milligrammes per 100 millilitres, the great majority of persons will be seriously impaired.
A number of countries in Eastern Europe completely ban driving after drinking. In a number of others, for example, Norway and Sweden, a blood-alcohol level of 50 milligrammes is taken as proof of an offence. One could, of course, go to the other extreme and fix the level at 150 milligrammes or more. At this level the majority of persons would be obviously intoxicated: in other words, they would display symptoms which, on clinical examination, should give a positive result. A suitable blood-alcohol level should represent a level at which a significant number of persons will be impaired though not necessarily showing obvious signs of intoxication. It should be one which a reasonably-minded public will, in its own interests, accept as fair and just.
The Commission on Driving While Under the Influence of Drink or a Drug having considered the evidence available on the question of the blood-alcohol level at which serious incapacity to drive sets in, concluded that 125 milligrammes would be a suitable level. At that level they believed that "the great majority of persons will be critically impaired". An important advantage of the 125 milligramme level is that at that level practically all, if not all, drinkers—light drinkers, moderate drinkers and even heavv drinkers—will be critically impaired. The Bill, therefore, fixes the maximum level at 125 milligrammes. If, however, future developments demonstrate that it is desirable to reduce the specified level. I can assure the House that the necessary amending legislation will be introduced.
I do not propose to discuss separately each section of Part V but, instead to describe generally how it is proposed to operate the provisions.
The Bill creates new offences, the essence of which is exceeding the specified blood-alcohol level, irrespective of whether the person concerned is drunk in the normal sense or not. Provision for the new offences is made by amending sections 49 and 50 of the 1961 Act so that each of these sections will contain provision for two alternative offences—the existing offence and the new offence, in the case of section 49, of driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle while there is present in the body a quantity of alcohol such that, within three hours afterwards the concentration of alcohol in the blood will exceed 125 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. The same maximum penalties will apply to the new offences as apply at present to the existing offences.
It is necessary to retain the existing offences because cases may arise in which the services of a doctor cannot be obtained by the gardaí in time to take a specimen from a suspect, in which the accused may not have been apprehended at the material time, or may have been under the influence of drink to such an extent that he was quite incapable of understanding the requisition or of consenting to the provision of a specimen. There will also be cases in which, though the blood-alcohol level of a person is below 125 milligrammes, the gardaí will have sufficient grounds for instituting a charge of driving while unfit. In such a case, the prosecution would, as at present, rely on evidence based on observation and clinical examination, where it has been possible to have such an examination carried out. The retention of the existing offences is also necessary to deal with cases of being under the influence of drugs.
The Bill seeks to solve some of the problems of enforcement associated with the new offences by providing, in section 28, for a preliminary breath test with an apparatus which does not give results reliable enough to be used as evidence in court but which does, however, give a fair indication of the extent to which alcohol is present in the body. The purpose of the test is, on the one hand, to aid in the enforcement of the new provisions and, on the other hand, to prevent unnecessary inconvenience to drivers. It will be an offence to refuse or fail to undergo a preliminary breath test when required to do so.
However, that alone would not fully solve the problem because guilty persons might well refuse the test and deliberately choose the lesser offence and the lesser penalty involved. If, in the case of such a refusal, the garda is of opinion that the person concerned is, in fact, breaking the law, he may arrest him because, as in the case of the existing offences, a member of the Garda will under the Bill be empowered to arrest, without warrant, a person who, in his opinion, is committing or has committed one of the new offences.
Under the Bill, blood or urine specimens and breath specimens for accurate analysis, may be taken or provided only at Garda stations. When a person is arrested because he is believed to have committed one of the existing or one of the new offences or the offence of refusing a preliminary breath test and he is brought to a Garda station, the garda in charge there will be empowered under sections 30 and 33, to require him either to provide a specimen of his breath or a specimen of his blood, or both. As an alternative to permitting a blood specimen to be taken, the arrested person may provide a specimen of his urine.
Before such a requirement may be made, however, the arrested person must under section 36 be given a final opportunity to have a preliminary breath test, if he wishes. Although the Bill authorises the making of a requisition for a specimen of breath for accurate analysis, it is proposed to accept the recommendation of the Commission that, initially at any rate, breath analysis should not be used as a method of producing evidence for use in court. The reliability of this method when used in normal everyday conditions has not been conclusively established.
Research on the subject is continuing and it is likely that the technique of breath analysis will improve. However, it is considered wise to provide in the Bill for the taking of breath specimens from arrested persons. Such specimens could be taken in addition to specimens of blood or urine and it would, therefore, be possible to use breath analysis experimentally, in conjunction with blood or urine analysis in certain areas, probably the larger cities. If the improvement in breath-testing techniques continues to a sufficient degree, it might be feasible, in time, to replace blood or urine analysis by breath analysis.
I should say a few words on the use of urine samples. Direct analysis of the blood is to be preferred for several reasons but, because of the objections some people have to giving a specimen of blood, it was thought better on balance to permit as an alternative the giving of a specimen of urine. Just as the concentration of alcohol in the blood can be determined by analysing and relating the concentration in the breath, so also can it be determined by analysing and relating that in urine. But urine analysis ranks rather with direct blood analysis than with breath analysis. There is, of course, a relationship between the concentration of alcohol in the urine and that in the blood.
The determination of the alcohol concentration in the urine can, as in the case of blood, be carried out by an independent scientific authority. A sample of the urine taken can be given to the suspect for independent analysis or a part of the sample originally analysed can be retained for further analysis. Urine analysis is used generally in conjunction with blood-analysis, in other countries. On balance, therefore, it was felt that it was better to provide this as an option to giving a specimen of blood. If, however, experience shows that the difficulties involved prove greater than now expected, amending legislation may have to be introduced proposing that only blood samples may be offered.
As recommended by the Commission, regulations will prescribe the procedures to be followed in order to give practical effect to the provisions relating to the new offences. These will cover such matters as the method of taking specimens, preservation of specimens and how the alcohol content will be determined and certified.
Since it is essential to have evidence of the blood-alcohol level in order to prove the new offences, it is necessary to prevent people from evading the new provisions by refusing a specimen of blood or urine. The Commission recommended that such refusal should be made an offence punishable in the same way as the offence for which the person was arrested. The Bill provides accordingly.
It further follows the Commission's recommendations by providing, in section 36, that, in a prosecution for refusing or failing to permit a blood specimen to be taken, it will be a good defence to satisfy the court that there was a special and substantial reason for the refusal or failure. The section affords a further good defence to the defendant who shows that, when required to permit a specimen of blood to be taken, he had not been cautioned in the prescribed terms of the possible effects of his refusal or failure.
The Commission considered that if the new system of dealing with the problem of drink and driving was to function satisfactorily, it should not be necessary for the doctor who obtained a specimen to appear in court to give evidence merely of this. This suggestion has been adopted in section 44 (1) of the Bill, where it is provided that the certificate completed by the doctor will be sufficient evidence in any legal proceedings of the matters certified, until the contrary is shown.
The Commission's suggestions that the analysis of all blood and urine specimens should be carried out by an independent authority and not under State control but under the control of a Medical Director are being implemented, and the Bureau will be established under sections 37 to 41 of the Bill. The Bureau will further arrange for the provision of equipment for the taking or provision of specimens and may undertake research. The Bureau will be empowered to enter into an arrangement with an appropriate institution, such as, for example, a scientific or medical department of a university college, under which the work of analysing specimens would be undertaken in the university laboratory by persons employed there. The net expenses of the Bureau will be met out of the Road Fund.
Section 43 (2) deals with the procedure to be followed when a specimen is received by the Bureau. It provides that a part of the specimen shall be analysed and the concentration of alcohol therein determined, and that the remainder of the specimen shall be preserved—this is in case a further analysis is required under section 45. When a determination as to the concentration of alcohol in a specimen has been made, the Bureau must notify the Garda and the person from whom the specimen was taken. In accordance with the recommendation of the Commission it is provided in section 44 (2) of the Bill that a certificate issued by the Bureau must be accepted as conclusive evidence of the concentration of alcohol. However, the person concerned may, under section 45, require the Bureau to carry out a further analysis, on the part of the specimen preserved by them, in his presence or the presence of his nominee, if he so wishes. If it results in a lower figure, it will prevail over the first result.
Section 46 provides a further safeguard. Under it, a person who permits a specimen of his blood to be taken or provides a specimen of his urine must——
(a) be given an opportunity of providing an additional specimen to a doctor of his own choice or,
(b) if he requests, be supplied by the Garda doctor with an additional specimen provided by him.
In the event of any material difference between the results certified by the Bureau and those given in evidence by the accused's own analyst, it would be a matter for the court to resolve the controversy as best it could, taking into accounut all material circumstances relating to the case.
Part V of the Bill contains provisions in relation to other traffic offences. Section 48 increases substantially the maximum penalties which may be imposed for the offence of driving a pedal cycle while under the influence of drink. This again follows a recommendation of the Commission. Under sections 49 and 50 it is proposed to split the existing offence of driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration into two separate offences, one of which, driving without due care and attention, will carry a heavier maximum penalty than the present offence. It is intended to proceed under this in the type of case in which juries and justices have tended to acquit on a charge of dangerous driving but which nevertheless involves more than lack of consideration. Sections 51 and 52 propose amendments to sections 53 and 55 of the 1961 Act, which deal with dangerous driving and dangerous parking, respectively, designed to remove technical difficulties which have arisen in the operation of the existing sections. Section 52 also extends to dangerous parking the power to arrest without warrant, which already applies to dangerous driving. This power is required to enable the Garda to deal effectively with offenders who find it easy to evade the law.
I turn now to the other Parts of the Bill. Many of these provisions are self-explanatory and notes on them have been provided in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill. Part 1 contains the usual provisions relating to short title, interpretation, commencement and collective citation and construction. Under section 3, the provisions of the 1961 Act and the Bill must be construed together as one Act. This will have the effect of applying many important provisions of the 1961 Act to the Bill, for example, the definitions, the general power to make regulations, the financial provisions, and the provisions relating to the general penalty in section 102 of the 1961 Act.
Part II has the object of ensuring that vehicles in use on the public roads are roadworthy, particularly in relation to the design and fitting of vehicle parts and driver equipment, the design and quality of the vehicles themselves and, in the case of goods vehicles, their ability to carry loads. Responsibility will be placed on the supplier of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, etc., of ensuring that what is supplied by him meets the requirements which will have been determined beforehand. Flexibility in the use of the new controls will be essential because of movements towards European harmonisa-tion as well as developments arising from the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and having regard to the extraordinary diversity of the problems arising in relation to motor vehicles. The specific requirements will, therefore, be determined by regulations under the appropriate sections. Before such regulations are made the various interests involved will, of course, be consulted. The provisions of Part II of the 1961 Act, which place responsibility on the owner or user of a vehicle, will continue to apply, to ensure that the vehicle, once supplied, is properly maintained and used.
This Part of the Bill also provides for spot checks on vehicles in use on the public roads, the exercise of a measure of surveillance over the vehicle maintenance operations of persons having reasonably large fleets of vehicles, more effective checking of vehicles suspected of carrying excess weights and a sliding scale of fixed penalties where serious overweight is detected.
The provisions of this Part of the Bill are rather technical and complex and are, I feel, more appropriate for discussion at Committee Stage.
Part III of the Bill amends and extends Part III of the 1961 Act so as to provide for control of driving instruction, eyesight tests for persons who make application to undergo the driving test and the issue in certain cases of limited certificates of competency to drive. It deals also with the removal, suspension and postponement of disqualifications for driving.
The rate of failure in driving tests which in 1967 averaged 55.8 per cent suggests, that driving instruction throughout the country is not always up to the right standard. Control of driving instruction for reward would go some way towards solving this difficulty and powers to this end are provided in section 18 of the Bill.
Section 19 of the Bill amends section 29 of the 1961 Act, which relates to the removal by the courts of disqualification for driving. Under its main provision it will extend the scope of the courts' power to remove ancillary disqualification, as distinct from consequential disqualification.
Section 20 introduces automatic suspension of the operation of ancillary or consequential orders pending appeal. The existing power of suspending a special disqualification order, pending a decision on appeal, is retained. The section also provides that a court, when making an order disqualifying a person from driving, may postpone for up to 6 months the commencement of the period of disqualification provided it is fully satisfied that this action is justified by exceptional circumstances. Such postponement gives a convicted person whose livelihood depends on driving, the opportunity to train, say, a member of his family so that he will be in a position to support himself and his dependants.
An eyesight test is one aspect of driver testing which is not covered in the scheme as hitherto operated in this country. It is normally part of the test in other countries. While there is no proven association between poor eyesight and accident causation it is accepted that a person with defective vision is at an immediate disadvantage. There are many aspects of eyesight which may effect driving—and the nature and scope of the eyesight test, under section 21 of the Bill will, therefore, be determined from time to time by regulations following investigations and consultations with bodies competent to advise on the subject. For the present, it is envisaged that the test will be a simple one of visual acuity but a more complex test may be introduced later.
Section 22 of the Bill covers a point which has occasioned some hardship for a limited number of applicants for the driving test. In this country the number of classes of vehicles for driving licence purposes has been kept to the minimum, in line with international practice. As a result some classes embrace fairly wide ranges of vehicles and the driving test must take account of this by requiring that the vehicle on which the test is carried out is representative of its class. Hardship may result in a special case where a person wishes to take the test in a particular type of vehicle and it is clear that there is no likelihood of the person concerned driving a more difficult type. In such a case the issue of a limited certificate of competency would meet the exceptional difficulty involved while retaining the overall pattern of the present driver licensing system. The issue of such limited certificates is provided for in section 22.
Section 23 makes it an offence for a person to substitute for another at a driving test. The maximum penalty will be £50 or 6 months imprisonment or both. Furthermore, any certificate of competency or driving licence obtained by reason of the substitution will be void.
Part IV of the Bill deals with speed limits. Apart from a number of minor amendments to the existing law, this Part of the Bill authorises the introduction of a general speed limit for all mechanically propelled vehicles and in respect of all public roads, or all public roads with specified exceptions, should such a course appear desirable in the light of experiments and research here and abroad. The provision for a general speed limit is a flexible one which would enable such a limit to be introduced for holiday or other peak traffic periods for an experimental period or on a permanent basis. I may say that An Foras Forbartha have been asked to undertake in advance a full study on this question of a general speed limit. Another important amendment in this Part of the Bill is the provision in section 25 which makes possible the application of special speed limits on specified roads for certain periods of the year, e.g., during the summer months in a holiday resort.
Part VI of the Bill modifies the compulsory insurance provisions of the 1961 Act. Section 53 terminates the system under which cover may be afforded by an approved guarantee. This system has not, in fact, been operated in this country for a number of years and it has disadvantages both for the guaranteed person and for third parties. An "exempted person" under the 1961 Act is in effect allowed to carry his own insurance. This option has been availed of only by Córas Iompair Éireann. Sections 54 and 55 of the Bill propose to limit the right to statutory bodies and semi-State companies, as it is considered that, in present circumstances, it would be unwise to continue to permit bodies other than statutory and semi-State bodies to be exempt like the State from compulsory motor insurance.
It was proposed in the Dáil that the compulsory insurance provisions of the 1961 Act be extended so as to cover the negligence of passengers in mechanically propelled vehicles. This proposal raises issues of so complex a nature that an extended study is called for. Other Departments as well as the Department of Local Government are concerned—in particular the Department of Justice which administers the law relating to civil liability. As the Minister for Local Government stated in the Dáil, it is intended to have the subject studied to see if a reasonable solution can be found.
Part VII of the Bill contains minor amendments and extensions of the provisions of the 1961 Act relating to the control and operation of public service vehicles. In addition, it provides for the transfer from the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána to the Minister for Local Government of the power conferred by section 86 of the 1961 Act to make statutory instruments to control and regulate stopping places and stands for omnibuses. These powers, which are of a general nature, are applicable throughout the entire State and are of a kind with the powers conferred by section 88 of the 1961 Act to make general bye-laws for the regulation and control of traffic. For reasons which I shall refer to later, these latter powers are being transferred from the Commissioner to the Minister and it is considered desirable, therefore, that the powers conferred by section 86 should also be transferred.
Part VIII of the Bill deals with the regulation of traffic. Section 59 is a new provision, designed to deal with pedestrians who are under the influence of drink in public places to such an extent as to endanger traffic or themselves. It implements a recommendation of the Commission on Driving While Under the Influence of Drink or a Drug.
Section 88 of the 1961 Act, under which the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána may, with the consent of the Minister, make bye-laws applicable throughout the State, for the general control and regulation of traffic and pedestrians in public places, is being repealed by the Bill. Instead, under section 60 of the Bill the Minister is being empowered to make regulations for similar purposes. Bye-laws under section 88 are in effect, the Rules of the Road, the formulation of which must, in the light of developments in recent years, now be regarded as a matter of policy. As such, it is more appropriate that they should be made by the Minister directly answerable to the Oireachtas.
Section 61 is designed to make it clear that restrictions on vehicles using a bridge may be related to axle or wheel loads as well as overall weight and to make it possible to bring combinations of vehicles, as well as single vehicles, within the scope of such restrictions.
Section 62 is purely an enabling section under which all traffic management functions in a specified area can be vested in one road authority. This would have obvious advantages, provided the authority concerned was capable of discharging the functions effectively and had established an adequate organisation for the purpose. It will be possible to transfer to a specified road authority, by order under section 62, functions of the Commissioner as well as functions of other local authorities.
Section 63 replaces section 97 of the 1961 Act under which a member of the Garda Síochána may remove or arrange for the removal of a vehicle which is left on a public road in such a position as to cause, or to be likely to cause, danger or obstruction or is abandoned on a public road. The section was found to be inadequate. The problem of abandoned vehicles has become a serious one in recent years and the new section will enable regulations to be made establishing an effective system under which vehicles may be removed, stored and, after the expiration of a specified period, disposed of.
Part IX of the Bill contains three sections. Section 64 will enable the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána to appoint persons to aid in the operation of the system of parking enforcement which has come to be known, incorrectly, as "fines-on-the-spot". The growing volume of vehicles on the roads is making ever increasing demands on the Gardaí, whose duty it is to enforce road traffic law. The stage has now been reached where the gardaí, particularly in Dublin, are becoming seriously short-staffed and find it hard to cope with their primary tasks of preventing and detecting crime and preserving law and order. Much of the work connected with the enforcement of road traffic law is of a routine nature and could well be performed by persons other than gardaí, who are highly and expensively trained in police duties proper. Faced with the choice of expanding the strength of the Garda Síochána or recruiting a special traffic service whose personnel would not be required to be of the physical standards and police training of the Garda, it has, very naturally, been decided to opt for the latter. The Bill provides that the new personnel will be used for the work of affixing and delivering "fines-on-the-spot" notices. The members are to be appointed by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and their remuneration and conditions of service will be fixed by the Minister for Justice in consultation with the Minister for Finance. The actual cost of the service will be recouped from the Road Fund. Prosecutions where the person concerned opts not to pay the "fine-on-the-spot" will be taken by the Garda in all cases, with the members of the new corps acting as witnesses if required. I should have said in that connection, that the words "fines-on-the-spot" are in quotes because the Minister makes it clear that the use of the words "fines-on-the-spot" has a particular significance.
Section 65 is designed to remove certain difficulties which have arisen in connection with section 112 of the 1961 Act, which makes it an offence to take or use a vehicle without the consent of the owner or other lawful authority. In particular, the scope of section 112 is being widened so as to make it a specific offence, not just as heretofore, an offence of aiding and abetting to allow oneself to be carried in a vehicle which is known to have been taken without the owner's consent.
Section 66 enables the Minister to conduct an investigation or inquiry into a road accident, and gives the necessary ancillary powers. This can be done in respect of accidents involving other forms of transport. The power will be used only in cases of accidents having more than usual significance, for example, in relation to vehicle design or road traffic regulations. The normal type of accident— if one can safely use that phrase— will continue to be dealt with by the gardaí.
I do not propose to discuss the various amendments to the 1961 Act made by section 6 and the Schedule to the Bill. These are points of detail and notes on each of them are included in the explanatory memorandum.
In conclusion, I repeat that it is appreciated that legislation by itself cannot solve all our road traffic problems, but it must provide the framework for action on a wide front and not merely that of enforcement. The Bill aims at bringing right up to date our legislation on this important subject, which is of practical concern to nearly everybody in the State in his daily life.
I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.
