Road Traffic Bill, 1966: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 20, between lines 40 and 41 to insert a new section as follows:

"The Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 49:

(1) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he is 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 while there is present in his body a quantity of alcohol such that within three hours after so driving or attempting to drive, the concentration of alcohol in his blood will exceed a concentration of 125 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or, at the discretion of the court, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

(3) Subsection (1) of section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, shall not apply in relation to an offence under this section.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána is of opinion that a person is committing or has committed an offence under this section, he may arrest the person without warrant."

Amendment No. I and amendment No. 2 may be discussed together because the same principle is implied in both. On Committee Stage I had amendments down which, due to reasons outside my control, did not appear on the amendment sheet in the way in which I had intended. The purpose of this amendment is to weld the amendments provided in section 29 of the Bill into section 49 of the Act, so as to produce section 49 of the Act of 1961 as one complete whole in this Bill. It is desirable to do this for this reason. This is the new section dealing with drunken driving. The amendment produces in one place in one statute all of the law relating to the offence of drunken driving and indeed brings it into this Part V of the Bill we are discussing, which contains all the other sections relating to drunken driving, with the exception perhaps of being drunk in charge.

Again, in section 32 we are incorporating part of the provisions of section 50, which is being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle. We are bringing that into section 32 of the

Bill and we are bringing within the framework of the Bill before us in Part V as many as possible of the sections dealing with the offence of drunken driving.

Whatever force the Minister's argument had on the amendments I had in relation to the careless driving section and bringing them all together in a sort of sequence, these arguments apply with even greater force to the proposed amendment. On the Second Stage of the Bill, there was considerable criticism from all sides of the House of the manner in which the Bill was drafted. The Minister was not here at that time and I do not know whether he has had an opportunity of looking at that portion of the debate. I would hope he would accept these amendments. If he does, I think they will certainly make for a somewhat easier understanding and interpretation of this Act and the Act of 1961.

Mr. K. Boland

I agree that in theory an amalgamated section such as is suggested has attractions and, in conjunction with the Parliamentary draftsman, we have given considerable thought to this suggested procedure. But I am afraid the decision has been that it would be better to leave the task of amalgamating the two sets of provisions until the time comes for consolidating the legislation. For one thing, it is doubtful if the consequential results which attach to this type of offence at present would attach to the new offence if this were accepted. In addition, if this were to be done, a lot of other consequential amendments would be required and the ultimate result would be to make the whole thing more complex. While I see the desirability of having it clearer, I am afraid this would not help us. In view of the fact in particular that there would be doubt about the consequential results attaching to the new offence, I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. In addition it would require a number of other consequential amendments.

Mr. O'Quigley

In what direction?

Mr. K. Boland

In the Schedule.

I think doubts could be raised as to the application of the consequential amendments.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is a great pity the Parliamentary draftsman did not advert to this at the time the Bill was being drafted originally. This particular document is anything but a tribute to the draftsmanship, whether parliamentary or otherwise. I accept all the Minister says. I have not an opportunity of going into it but I can well see that consequential amendments might be necessary in the Schedule when you are dealing with a Schedule as long as this which is as long as today and tomorrow. I suppose some sections are bound to be lost in it at some stage. I can only accept what the Minister says, that it would have that effect, and in those circumstances, it would be very foolish, imprudent and improper for me to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Government amendment No. 3:

In page 28, line 27, to delete "this section" and substitute "subsection (1)".

Mr. K. Boland

Amendments No. 3 and 4 are designed to secure the effect of what Senator O'Quigley proposed on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 4 is in the terms proposed by the Senator on Committee Stage, except for the substitution of subsection (1) in line 2 for "this section". That is because there are now three subsections in the section. Amendment No. 3 is consequential and effects in subsection (2) the same change as is effected under Senator O'Quigley's original amendment.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am very grateful to the Minister for knocking my amendment into Parliamentary draftsman's language and glad that he has seen his way to accept at least one amendment on this Bill, apart from the others which have been accepted — Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30 — which, I hasten to add, are Government amendments. In order to justify what the Minister has done, might I say, in fact, that what I said earlier today — that there was need for this amendment — is correct because I have since had the opportunity of looking up the Criminal Justice Act of 1924 which provided that an accused person could give evidence in his own defence but it went on to provide that a person charged with an offence:

...shall be a competent witness for the defence at every stage of the proceedings...provided as follows:

...(f) a person charged and called as a witness in pursuance of this Act shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed or been convicted of or been charged with any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged...

So, he can be asked questions relating to the offence with which he is charged. That was the interpretation put on that section in the case I mentioned earlier this evening where the judge said, in relation to a person giving evidence on notice of intention to prosecute, that once he had gone into the witness box to give evidence on that matter, he was liable to be called on to give evidence on other matters.

I think the Bill is improved by this amendment which is the type of amendment that would arouse less antagonism to the proposals contained in the Bill in relation to drunken driving which I and, I think, everyone else in the House fully endorse. I am grateful that the Minister has put this amendment into a shape that will fit into the other sections of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 4:

In page 28, between lines 27 and 28, but in section 46, to insert the following new subsection:

"(3) Where the defendant gives evidence to establish that the provisions of subsection (1) have not been complied with, unless he wishes to do so, he shall not be asked and shall not be required to give evidence about any other matter."

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

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

Mr. O'Quigley

There are just a few brief remarks I should like to make. I am sorry the Minister for Local Government was unable to be present in the House when the Bill was going through the Second Stage and part of the Committee Stage. I suppose that was not his fault but there are some matters on which I think we should all have liked to have heard him because he has a more immediate grasp of the situation than the Minister who substituted for him. There are one or two matters related to the implementation and administration of the road traffic code to which I should like to draw his attention.

When churches were built in this country, there was not very much regard for the requirements of the road traffic code because it did not exist in those days, and since the road traffic regulations have come in, in quite a number of cities and towns the position has arisen where willy-nilly the road traffic regulations are contravened Sunday after Sunday. Nobody can do anything about that. People must park their cars somewhere within reasonable reach of churches, and they park contrary to regulations about parking opposite white lines or within 30 feet of corners, and a whole lot of other regulations of that kind.

I do not know what the solution to the problem is, but I rather think that some discretion must be exercised by the Garda authorities in the administration of this Bill in not upbraiding people who must necessarily park their cars in places which constitute an offence according to a strict interpretation of the road traffic regulations. There must be some kind of suspension of that during Mass time. I do not know whether one should do that administratively through the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána issuing an instruction or whether some saver for that kind of parking should be inserted in the road traffic regulations. I prefer that it should be done in the latter way. If it could be done, it would avoid irritation that is caused to members of the public who are chivvied by members of the Garda Síochána on Sunday mornings because they have their cars parked in a manner contrary to the road traffic regulations. However, there is no clearcut view expressed by the Garda authorities as to what ought to be done.

In the matter of public interest in road safety, I hope all of us who are in any kind of position to influence the public will set a good example. I regret to say when one looks at the parking of cars around Leinster House, one is not reassured. There are certain regulations laid down by ourselves for the parking of cars but they do not seem to be very well observed by Members of the Oireachtas within the precincts of their own House. It is regrettable that we should fail to observe our own regulations. I have seen and other Members have seen from time to time, cars used by Ministers of State parked in outrageous positions two and three abreast outside Government Buildings. I am quite sure that is not any fault of the drivers concerned, that they are told to have the car there and, like the people going to Mass, they must be there. One has heard comments from members of the public that if it were somebody else's car, he would not be allowed to park in that fashion. Example is better than precept or certainly is useful in a case of this kind, and I should be glad if an example were set in that direction.

I hope the Minister will get under way as quickly as possible a more intensive course on different aspects of road safety. It is no use having a particular film on television for short periods or having a whole lot of them going on at the one time. We should concentrate upon the more important aspects of road safety over a prolonged period until certain fundamental things relating to road safety get into people's heads.

I am quite satisfied in my own mind that, apart from drunken driving, speed is the great killer of people and cause of accidents. Research may be necessary and, if it is, it ought to be carried out as quickly as possible. More and more emphasis should be placed on reducing speed. Accidents do occur at 50 miles an hour, but it is a different matter when they occur at 75 and 80 miles an hour. I would urge upon the Minister, now that he has dealt with drunken driving, to concentrate in the future on discouraging speed.

This Bill was introduced in 1966. The Minister for Agriculture had something to say about the delay in enacting the Bill which certainly has not been driven through the Dáil at a speed or in a manner which was in the interest of the public. I would urge upon the Minister, however, to bear in mind that if it becomes necessary to amend even one or two sections of the Bill, if they are important amendments that should be made, he should not hesitate to bring them before the Oireachtas. Nobody will blame him and say: "You enacted this Bill only a few months ago or a year ago and you are now coming in with this amendment." It is impossible to foresee, especially in relation to the way in which this Bill is drafted, what amendments might be needed to various sections. I am sure his advisers will keep the matter continuously under review, and I would urge the Minister to make whatever amendments are necessary in the shortest possible time.

Mr. K. Boland

In regard to this question of parking outside churches where no provision was made for the parking of cars, I think that, generally speaking, the Garda act in a reasonable way. However, we can see that at churches in certain areas the parking of cars at particular times can cause serious obstruction and, indeed, danger, and that in some cases it just may not be feasible to permit the type of parking that people attending the churches would consider almost necessary. There is an obvious case for a movement towards the provision of car parks at churches all over the country, and that is the only real way in which this can be dealt with.

I hope that Senator O'Quigley's remarks in regard to the observance of parking regulations in general will be effective and, in particular, in regard to ourselves here. I have not noticed the double and treble parking of Minister's cars outside Government Buildings. If it does happen, I am sure it is only for very short periods while the Ministers are being dropped for a Government meeting or something like that.

Mr. McGlinchey

Minister's wives are supposed to be driving State cars, according to Fine Gael.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is no need for the Senator to become acrimonious. That is not the manner in which this discussion is being conducted.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McDonald)

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. K. Boland

In regard to the road safety campaign, an effort is being made to bring home to the public generally the enormous responsibility that drivers take on themselves when they take a car on the public road, and suggestions such as Senator O'Quigley has made are always welcome. There is a committee of all parties who are interested in road safety which advises on the various campaigns, and I will convey Senator O'Quigley's suggestion to that committee.

I quite agree that the factor of driving while under the influence of alcohol is only one contributing factor to accidents on the roads, but it is a factor that should not operate on any occasion. It is something that is within the power of the driver to avoid, and it is obviously quite justifiable to insist that this danger be avoided, and that drivers in no circumstances should place themselves in the position of being a possible danger to other users of the road or themselves through the consumption of alcohol. I agree it is one contributory factor only. It is a substantial factor, but I would not go so far as to say it is the major one. Certainly I think it is the most culpable one. There are many other factors.

I agree that the fact that we are introducing new legislation to deal with that particular aspect does not provide any reason for complacency with regard to other things which cause accidents. We must continue to do everything possible to deal with other factors contributing to accidents, and if an amendment to the Road Traffic Acts appears to be desirable, even to effect some small improvement which will contribute to road safety, that amendment should be made as soon as possible. I can assure Senators that as far as I am concerned there would be no question of postponing anything that appeared to be desirable until such time as we have a considerable amount of amending legislation to bring in. Even if there is just one small amendment which would have some good effect in regard to road safety, I agree it should be brought in, even if it is on its own.

As Senator O'Quigley said, I was not here for the major part of the consideration of this Bill but I should like to thank the Seanad for the manner in which they dealt with the Bill. I am sure we all hope it will contribute in a substantial way to the lessening of the serious damage caused by accidents on the roads, and serious injuries and deaths. As I say, I thoroughly agree that we are dealing with one aspect only of this matter in dealing with drunken driving. We must continue to explore every possibility of ensuring that the roads will be kept safe for the people using them.

As the Minister for Agriculture said, the main thing which will make the roads safe is if we can get every individual user of the roads to appreciate his own personal responsibility in this regard. That is really the only thing which will make the roads safe.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1968