I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
The Bill has two purposes: to reduce accidents and to secure a more efficient use of our road system. In 1960, there were 292 fatal accidents on our roads and 3,973 involving personal injury. Accidents involving material injury amounted to 3,066 in 1959, but it may be assumed that there were many more of this latter category which are not reported. Even if one takes into account the growth in the number of motor vehicles (now over 300,000), the fact that some accidents are unavoidable and the fact that very many are due not to any serious culpability on the part of road users but to a brief distraction or an honest error in judgment, there can be no doubt that a considerable number are without excuse. Indeed, when one realises the responsibility that rests on all road users, even the minor faults of inattention and poor judgment assume a more serious aspect. We may pride ourselves on our national traditions of courtesy and kindness, but no one can say that these traditions are evident in our behaviour on the road. The conclusion is inevitable, that all those responsible for training the citizens of the future, and parents most of all, must make more earnest endeavours to develop a full sense of civic duty in those under their care. I take this opportunity to appeal to all mature citizens, and in particular to parents and teachers, to take their responsibilities seriously in this regard so that by their words and example young people may become better aware of their duties and obligations.
The prime loss in road accidents is the wastage of human beings and the unnecessary suffering that results. The loss of the father of a family, the crippling for life of a promising child —these are a terrible price to pay for a moment's carelessness, or worse, for the momentary thrill of a burst of speed or "taking a chance". If this type of loss could be reduced, even fractionally, all our efforts would be justified.
The other loss is something we are inclined to forget. It is, of course, a secondary consideration but it is a very real loss nevertheless. The economic loss in the killing and maiming of productive human beings, in the destruction of valuable machines largely made from imported parts and materials, is something we cannot afford. It reflects itself in such things as high insurance rates, which affect the cost of transport, itself a significant item, affecting the cost of production and the cost of living, particularly in a country like Ireland where a large section of the population is so considerably dispersed.
There is a further economic loss due to traffic congestion, delays and inefficient vehicle operation. Calculations made both here and abroad show that the cost is very substantial, constituting a further charge that affects the cost of transport.
These are the considerations that justify the imposition of restrictions and other obligations on road users such as are proposed in this Bill. That is not to say that road traffic legislation will completely solve the problem. It must be attacked on all fronts. I have already mentioned the fundamental need for a new approach to social education. Road Safety propaganda must be maintained in those various forms that seem most likely to inform and influence the people's minds. In this regard I may mention that my Department, which has turned out quite a lot of material over the years, is at present issuing a series of leaflets on specific aspects of road behaviour and is making some short films on the same subjects. Here I would like to pay a tribute to the voluntary efforts of bodies such as the Safety First Association, who have kept plugging away at what to some is an unwelcome theme.
Road engineering is another weapon in the battle. The various devices available to the traffic engineer to assist and control traffic, road signs and markings, islands, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and so on, can be of considerable value. Road improvements have been shown statistically to give the most positive return to date.
In some cases accidents occur on an improved road, and unthinking people immediately claim that the improvement has led to more speed and more accidents. The cold facts do not bear that out. For instance:
(a)accident statistics on the Bray road taken over a period of years showed that, mile for mile, the incidence was three times as heavy on the single carriageway sections as on the stretches of dual carriageway;
(b)accident statistics for a period of years in respect of two stretches of the trunk road passing through Roscrea showed that the improvement of a substantial stretch of road on one side of the town resulted in a striking reduction in accidents, while the number increased on a corresponding length of unimproved road on the other side of the town.
It stands to reason, of course, that divided carriageways which cut out all chance of a head-on collision, better camber which helps a vehicle to keep to its proper lane, removal of bad bends and gradients and of blind corners, wider roads, provision of shoulders to take a halted vehicle or to enable one to run off in safety, must make driving safer. The sound economic value of such works has been proved time and again.
I have now sketched quite briefly the background of this legislation. The proposals put forward in this Bill are those which seem to us to be most likely to be effective on the legislative side. They provide the machinery for training road users and for sifting out poor material, they provide stern penalties for infringements of the rules of the road and measures which will help in the enforcement of the law, and finally there are a number of provisions which will enable the responsible authorities to help the road user by securing better regulation of traffic. Here I may say that, being fully conscious that legislation without enforcement is worse than useless, I sought and got from the Minister for Justice his agreement that proper enforcement of the law is an important factor in road safety, and his assurance that the Garda Síochána will act on that basis.
After taking up office as Minister for Local Government, I turned as soon as I could to the problem of road traffic legislation. I found that, even in the period during which the proposals for legislation then on hands had been under consideration, the growth in traffic and the measure of the problem had increased substantially. I felt it my duty to go through the existing proposals very carefully. When I had done so I came to the conclusion that they should be revised in several respects. For instance, I decided that there should be a full driving test and provision for vehicle and medical tests. I put the revised proposals to the Government, with a recommendation that they were so far-reaching and affected so many interests that they should be published in White Paper form. The Government accepted my recommendations generally, and the White Paper was published. There was a great volume of response to the invitation to the public to give their views. On the whole the proposals were welcomed. There were many different views on details, and some of those views cancelled one another out. On some points we felt we should meet the case advanced, for instance, in the matter of hackney licensing. When all the views put forward were analysed and considered, revised proposals were put to the Government and the drafting of the Bill was authorised.
The drafting has been very difficult. Several completely new provisions were involved. Then there was the task of bringing up to date and consolidating provisions included in old Acts, relatively recent ones and Emergency Powers Orders, all with a different drafting base. The wide range of subjects to be covered included offences, driving licences, tests, speed limits, traffic regulation, motor insurance. Each subject had to be dealt with adequately in itself, but the words used in one part interact on other parts. Account had to be taken, not merely of court decisions both here and in Britain since the 1933 Act came into operation, but of the trend shown in court decisions and of the doubts raised by them. Here I may mention that in 1958/59 out of 88,819 summary prosecutions, 53,534 were for road traffic offences.
Care has been taken as far as possible to provide a workable Bill which will not be defeated by technicalities. The need for revision will, of course, arise in time, but it is desirable that as far as possible the main base of road traffic law will be sound. All this has taken time, but I think that, for the reasons I have stated, the time spent has been well spent. In the meantime, I have availed myself of the existing powers to make such changes in regulations as were feasible and useful; for example, the regulations which introduced the new type of pedestrian crossing. Again, I have allowed expenditure on items such as improved public lighting for traffic purposes to rank for recoupment from the Road Fund.
The explanatory memorandum with the Bill has, on my direction, been prepared so as to give the House a firm explanation of the significance of the detailed provisions of the Bill, and I do not propose at this stage to go into them in detail. I wish to concentrate on a few general matters and then to deal with the subjects of prime importance in the Bill.
It will be noted that the Bill deals mainly with motor traffic, the reason being that such traffic is, of course, more amenable to legal controls than pedestrians, pedal cycles and animal-drawn traffic. Furthermore, while other road users can by their behaviour create the conditions under which an accident is likely to occur, it is the motor vehicle that actually does the harm because of its speed and weight. The provisions of the Bill do, of course, apply to pedestrians and non-motorised traffic, where appropriate, and every effort will be made to appeal to such road users to ensure that by their actions they do not put their own lives and the lives of others in jeopardy.
Another general issue I should like to mention is that of regulations. The Bill gives various powers to spell out details by regulations; these are indicated in the Explanatory Memorandum, which also shows the kind of regulations that can be made under the various sections. The power of making regulations imposes on a Minister the difficult task of refusing when pressed to make regulations which he regards as unwise, and the unpleasant task at times of making regulations which are unpopular with particular interests. Road traffic is a business, however, which is diverse and complex, which is growing in diversity and complexity, and which, therefore, needs flexible handling and flexible powers. In some countries, the problem is solved by giving overall powers to an executive organ to make what ordinances it thinks fit on the subject. The solution put forward in this Bill is that the Oireachtas should lay down the general lines for the control of each aspect of road traffic and leave it to the executive organ to fill in the details, often very technical and generally subject to variation in accordance with the requirements of experience and changing conditions.
A further subject is the onus of proof clause. It occurs quite frequently in the Bill. I am aware that there is a prima facie case against such a clause. I find, however, that the trend has developed in the courts to require the State to prove matters which the layman might be forgiven for thinking were not really relevant to guilt in a case. I am not criticising the courts in any way. The trend is there, however, and we have been faced with prosecutions dismissed on what I would regard as technicalities, and a burden of proof thrown on the State so intensive that enforcement of the law becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Nobody wants to depart from the basic principles of the law which ensure that a man has a fair trial and that the dice are not loaded against him, but if the Bill is to be effective, it must contain those provisions which will enable the courts to deal with the issue of guilt, without having first to clear a series of technicalities.
Part 1 of the Bill deals with preliminary and general matters. Section 3 lists various definitions used in the Bill, and also defines some phrases used throughout the Bill. Some of them need particular mention. Take the words "drive", "park" and "use". "Use" is the widest possible phrase and is the basis now proposed for compulsory insurance as well as other provisions, for instance, most of those in Part II. It has not been necessary to specify that it includes "drive", but it is desirable to make it clear that it includes "park". "Drive" has the meaning given to it in the 1933 Act, but is extended for drafting purposes to cycles. "Park" is a new one, to cover the cumbersome phrase "keep or leave stationary", which would have to be repeated frequently.
Another group of words relate to ownership. "Owner" is defined as in the 1933 Act with the omission of certain words, so that a person hiring out a car on a hire-drive basis is now regarded as the owner for various provisions of the Bill, notably those relating to compulsory insurance. The owner is not necessarily the "registered owner", and the latter is far easier to trace. He is referred to in the Bill as distinct from the owner in two cases only: for the serving of notices under Section 104 and as the person liable in certain circumstances for a parking offence under Sections 86 and 90.
The reason for the first case is that the person to be served with the notice must be capable of being readily traced. The reason for the second is that there can be a great number of these relatively minor offences and it would be extremely difficult to establish ownership in all cases. Elsewhere, the owner as distinct from the registered owner is made responsible. Liability is thrown on the owner as well as the driver or actual user of a vehicle in cases where one might reasonably expect the owner to show responsibility, for example, using a defective, excessively laden or uninsured vehicle. Where, however, the person actually using the vehicle by his own decision infringes the law, then, except in the case of parking, and therefore the special reason I have mentioned, the owner is not made liable. The simplest example is dangerous driving. I have used the words "actual user" and here I may explain that court decisions have established that when a person uses a vehicle as the servant of the owner and on the owner's business, the owner is also regarded as using it. This explains some of the refinements in drafting in Part VI and elsewhere.
Generally, where the owner is made liable, he is given a defence. In the compulsory insurance provisions, and in those dealing with vehicle tests, the enforcement procedure for which is based on that for insurance certificates, he has the same defence as in the 1933 Act, and the driver is also given a defence. In other provisions, equity does not call for a defence for the driver, and the owner is given the defence of proving that the use of the vehicle was unauthorised.
Here I may mention a phrase which it has not been necessary to define in Section 3, but is used throughout the Bill, viz: "person in charge." It includes the driver where a vehicle is being driven, and in other cases the person in charge at the time, for example, of a stationary vehicle. It replaces a number of phrases used in the enactments being repealed, such as "person having control,""person having charge."
Two other phrases in Section 3 I may mention—"public place" and "public road." The sense of the definitions in the 1933 Act is preserved, but ambiguities are removed. "Public place" is the wider phrase. Provisions in the general interest of public safety, such as those relating to the construction, equipment and use of vehicles, driving licences and driving offences, insurance, general bye-laws for the regulation of traffic, apply to public places. Other provisions, which relate to particular controls, such as restrictions on weight, speed limits, local traffic and parking bye-laws, apply to public roads.
Part II of the Bill has general provisions relating to vehicles. The most significant is that providing for vehicle tests (in Sections 18 and 19) which I have already mentioned. Regulations will determine the classes of vehicle affected. Experience and the growth of traffic may dictate the extension of this provision to wider classes of vehicle than those for which it is intended in the beginning—old vehicles and possibly heavy goods vehicles. When the testing scheme is in operation it should be feasible also to have the testing of public service vehicles carried out under Section 18 instead of, as at present, under the public service vehicle licensing system; that would not affect the licensing of public service vehicles, however.
The system of enforcement is based on the production of a test certificate, and will correspond to that used for insurance certificates. Flexible provision is available to enable the Minister for Local Government to settle the authority to issue test certificates. It may be the Garda Síochána, the local authorities or even the Department of Local Government. A choice will be made of the authority to use in the beginning, and if experience shows that a change is needed, such change can be effected. This is necessary in the case of a completely new service. Similar considerations apply to the case of driving tests and tests of fitness for drivers, which I shall mention later. I may add that the Bill will enable commercial garages to be used for testing if that is thought desirable. Furthermore, full use will be made where possible of existing testing arrangements; for example, those in force in concerns with substantial vehicle fleets.
I shall mention briefly the other provisions of Part II. Section 11 replaces Section 15 and Part X of the 1933 Act, but gives wider powers to deal with the construction, equipment, use and lighting of vehicles. Some matters that it will now be possible to consider in this regard include the naming of built-up areas as silence zones at night-time, the compulsory use of safety harness or crash helmets, the reflectorisation of the rear of lorries, and the display of reflectorised warning signs to the rear of vehicles stopped on the road at night. Many suggestions which would be considered under the powers contained in Section 11 have been made to my Department. Study on the subject by international bodies has been particularly fruitful in recent times. All such suggestions and studies will be considered before the new regulations are made.
Section 12 deals with weights of vehicles, and Section 13 with special permits, both on the basis generally of the 1933 Act. Section 14 contains a definition of unladen weight for road traffic purposes. For these purposes, it is relatively unimportant, but to avoid confusion it is necessary to adopt the same definition as that in the motor tax code. Section 15 deals with weighbridges, and allows, as did the recent motor tax Act, the use of weighbridges other than road authority weighbridges. It also allows mobile weighbridges, which could be used to check axle and wheel weights. Section 16 has provisions on the lines of the 1933 Act enabling the Garda to check weights of vehicles. The section extends these powers to authorised officers of road authorities whose county engineers have complained frequently about the damage done to roads by vehicles laden beyond the legal limits. Section 17 is a redraft of the Public Roads (Ireland) Act, 1911, as amended, dealing with damage to roads caused by extraordinary traffic.
Section 20 gives the Garda power to deal with vehicles having dangerous defects and to spot check also public service vehicles not up to standard. It replaces provisions of the 1933 Act and of an Emergency Powers Order which has lapsed.
Part III of the Bill, which replaces Parts III and VI of the 1933 Act, deals with driving licences, driving and fitness tests and disqualifications. Driving and fitness tests are covered by Sections 22, 33, 34 and 42. Regulations will prescribe the classes of persons who will require certificates of competency of fitness before applying for a driving licence. It is intended that in the beginning only new drivers will be required to have a certificate of competency, for which they will require to pass a driving test and a test in knowledge of the Rules of the Road. The testing of public service vehicle drivers can also be dealt with under this provision. Consideration will be given to requiring persons convicted of certain offences, for example, careless driving, to pass such tests. In any event the courts will have power under Sections 26, 27 and 28, either on conviction of a person or an application of an officer of the Garda Síochána, to require a person to undergo the tests.
Fitness tests will, it is intended, apply in the beginning only to persons who suffer from certain disabilities, for example, loss of a limb, or to drivers of certain classes of vehicles such as buses. They may be extended also to persons over a certain age. Again, the courts will have power to require persons to undergo these tests. Furthermore, a driving examiner may realise that an applicant for a certificate of competency suffers from such a defect as bad eyesight and request that he first get a certificate of fitness. Provision is made for appeals to the courts against decisions on driving and fitness tests.
In my remarks on vehicle tests, I have already covered the question of the administration of these tests. Driving and fitness tests will be related to the class of vehicle, hence driving licences may be restricted to particular classes of vehicle, and this explains the drafting of some of the provisions on driving licences, which otherwise generally follow the pattern of the 1933 Act. There are some changes, of course. For instance, it will be possible under Section 42 to prescribe a different form of driving licence from that in use at present, and I am considering the adoption of a document with a photograph, as is used internationally, which can be renewed easily. For that reason, provisions such as Sections 24, 25 and 41 relating to the signing of licences have had to be stated in conditional terms. Provisional licences, another inevitable consequence of driving tests, are covered by Sections 35 and 42.
Disqualification is a very effective weapon to deal with bad road behaviour, and particularly with the person who repeats his offence. Section 26, therefore, extends considerably the consequential disqualification provisions of the 1933 Act, which related only to driving while under the influence of drink. It provides for consequential disqualification as follows:
(a)severe disqualification for driving while under the influence of drink and for dangerous driving resulting in death or serious bodily harm;
(b)substantial disqualification for a second offence in the case of certain serious offences which are listed in the explanatory memorandum;
(c)light, but, nevertheless, irksome disqualification in the case of certain minor offences, where the offence is repeated three times or more in a year. These offences are listed also.
Section 27 continues the provision of the 1933 Act regarding the power of the courts to disqualify in cases not involving consequential disqualification. Section 28 provides for the disqualification of a person who is obviously unfit or incompetent to drive, application being made to the court by an officer of the Garda Síochána. This is a preventive measure, based on Section 32 of the 1933 Act. Various minor improvements to the 1933 Act provisions regarding disqualification and endorsement procedure have also been effected.
Under Section 29 of the Bill, a person to whom a consequential or ancillary disqualification order applies may apply to the court, subject to certain conditions, for its removal. This is intended to replace the position under the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, whereby the Minister for Justice may remit a disqualification, and Section 124 in Part IX has a specific provision to that effect.
Apart from disqualification by court order, a person may be disqualified on the grounds of age—or rather, youth— under Section 31, and on the grounds of health under Section 32. Under the latter provision, certain diseases and disabilities may be prescribed which will automatically disqualify a person for holding any driving licence. Only defects which clearly make a man a danger on the road will be prescribed, for example, epilepsy or eyesight below a certain standard even with glasses, but it is necessary to have flexible powers because of the continuing research on this subject. It is intended that the new form of application for a driving licence will specifically ask a person if he is suffering from the prescribed defects. The form will also ask a person to state if he is suffering from any other defect which would warrant his undergoing a fitness test before being given a licence.
Section 42 enables regulations to be made to implement Part III generally, and examples of this are set out in the section. For instance, a subject which was not dealt with altogether satisfactorily in the 1933 Act, namely, the manner of endorsement of licences, transfer of licences from the courts to licensing authorities and so on, will be covered by regulations. In view of the complex provisions of this Part of the Bill, the regulations will be long and involved and are likely to contain a great amount of detail.
Section 43 contains transitional provisions. I shall illustrate the type of problem involved. It is intended, for instance, to enable persons to apply to the courts under Section 29 for removal of disqualifications under the 1933 Act. Again, it will be some time before driving tests and the new scheme of driving licences are brought into operation. It is desirable, however, to bring in immediately certain provisions of the Bill, such as Part V and Section 26, which provide substantial penalties for driving offences, including consequential disqualification. The apparatus of the 1933 Act will in the interim period be used to implement such disqualifications.
Part IV deals with speed limits and is largely self-explanatory. Ordinary speed limits were set down in the 1933 Act, but are now to be covered by regulations under Section 44, because research may show the need for changes from time to time. The built-up area speed limit of 30 m.p.h. is provided for in Section 45. If experience shows it is too low, it can be raised. I decided not to adopt the British system of relating the limit to public lighting, because of doubts that can arise as to the applicability of such a limit. Instead, the basic area will be a town, urban district, borough or county borough, but there will be power to add and subtract.
I do not think this power should be widely used but there may be a case for including villages carrying important through roads and suburban roads outside cities and towns. Again, there may be a clear, wide road in a city or town which should not be subject to the special limit. The procedure I envisage is that the police and road authorities in each area will be asked to draw up a list of the roads in the municipal areas which they consider should be excluded and of roads outside these areas which they consider should be included and that those will be fully examined before being listed in the regulations.
Special speed limits are provided for in Section 46 on the same basis as in the 1933 Act, except that the requirement of a local inquiry is dropped. However, there is general power in the Local Government Acts to hold an inquiry, if one is required. There is only one special speed limit under the 1933 Act, that in Bray, and it will be continued under Section 10 until either the Garda or the urban district council ask to have it revoked.
Sections 44-46 enable categories of vehicles to be excluded from the speed limits, for example, ambulances and fire-engines. Section 47 provides for the penalty for exceeding a speed limit. Proof of speed in connection with offences under the Bill is dealt with in Section 105.
Part V deals with a group of serious offences under the title "Driving Offences." A new offence of dangerous parking is introduced and various improvements have been effected in the other sections, which replace provisions of the Licensing Act, 1872, and the Road Traffic Act, 1933. In the case of those sections, the penalties have been substantially increased.
The new offence of dangerous parking is contained in Section 55. It relates to all vehicles, because trailers and even carts can cause very serious hazards to traffic, but the qualifying words "in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger" will control the scope of the section. An offence may be committed in the daytime, because parking round a blind bend can be very serious even in the day-time, but the more serious offence is parking unlit at night-time and that is indicated in the difference in penalty.
The offence of driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of drink is dealt with in Section 49. The basic penalty proposed is imprisonment, and it is also proposed that the Probation Act shall not apply to the offence. Following the publication of the White Paper, I received some suggestions for the introduction of a blood, urine or breath test followed by automatic conviction if a certain level of alcohol were proved. I decided against including such a proposal in this Bill for the following reasons: (a) it was not mentioned in the White Paper, and the public reaction to it could not, therefore, be gauged; (b) research on the subject is not conclusive, as to the validity of such a test as to the level of alcohol to take, or as to the method of use; and (c) it raises serious constitutional questions relating to personal rights, which would have to be fully considered.
The proposal will be further examined by my Department in the light of further research on the various issues involved and of how the provisions in the present Bill work in practice. Apart from Section 49, the provisions of Section 50 are relevant. That section replaces a minor offence in the Licensing Act by a serious offence of being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle while under the influence of drink. To an extent it is a preventive measure. Furthermore, a fairly recent court decision should remove much of the difficulty in getting conviction in clear cases. Of course, if experience and further research show that something like the blood test should be introduced, an amending Bill can be prepared. For the reasons I have given, I could not justify holding up this Bill because of this single issue.
One further driving offence I may mention is dangerous driving, dealt with in Section 53. A new category of this offence is set out in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), which provides for a heavy prison sentence where the offence results in death or serious bodily harm. This is necessary because of the difficulty of securing convictions on manslaughter in the type of case that shocks the public.
Part VI deals with compulsory insurance. In general, there are no major changes here. I have already mentioned the change from "negligent driving" to "negligent use" followed in the drafting. There are some other matters I may mention.
The 1933 Act provided for compulsory cover for passengers only in the case of public service vehicles. Section 65 enables the Minister for Local Government by regulations to specify the classes of vehicle to which compulsory passenger cover will apply. I can say that the regulations will apply, of course, to public service vehicles and that, while I shall fully consider any representations on the subject, my views at present are that the regulations should apply also to all vehicles of the private-car and station-wagon types.
Section 64 tightens up the law on fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining insurance cover. Some minor changes have been effected which would enable us to adhere to a European convention in due course if we decided to do so. These are in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section 72 and subsection (2) of Section 76.
Under Section 78, the Motor Insurers' Bureau system and the collateral guarantees under it will apply to all new insurers, guarantors and exempted persons. Existing companies have all given the necessary undertaking.
A device known as a "combined policy and guarantee" was provided for in the 1933 Act. I understand that it was never used and is not required. References to it have been omitted.
Part VII deals with the control and operation of public service vehicles. Two Parts of the 1933 Act dealt in very great detail with this subject, although very important matters such as driving licences and the construction of vehicles were dealt with far more tersely, but quite effectively. This was due to what I might call historical causes, including the fact that the provisions of the 1933 Act on public service vehicles were based on existing local Acts and bye-laws, which naturally went into much more detail than a general Act does. The balance has now been restored and the result is a relatively short Part which contains the gist of Parts VII and VIII of the 1933 Act and of Emergency Powers Orders, now lapsed, on the same subject. Again, the testing of public service vehicles would now more appropriately fall to be dealt with under Section 18 of the Bill, when the general testing under that section comes into operation.
Under Section 82 regulations will be made dealing with the licensing of public service vehicles and drivers. It is intended to retain the licensing of hackneys under these regulations.
Section 84 enables the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána to make bye-laws fixing taxi stands in an area. Power is given to him to make temporary rules on the subject so that traffic control experiments can be carried out. Similar power is given in Sections 89 and 90 (in Part VIII) regarding local traffic and parking bye-laws.
Sections 85 and 86 have provisions regarding bus-stops which are based on Emergency Powers Orders, now lapsed. The procedure under the Emergency Powers Orders was flexible and was found to be workable, whereas the procedure under the 1933 Act, requiring bye-laws, was unsuitable for a subject sometimes requiring speedy action. Queueing at bus-stops will be governed by general bye-laws under Section 86 instead of individual local bye-laws.
Part VIII deals with the regulation of traffic. Most of the sections are based on provisions of the 1933 Act and of the 1946 and 1955 Local Government Acts, but they have been improved in various respects. I shall give two examples of this.
Section 90 makes it clear that parking meters or "blue zones" (involving the use of discs) may be used. Scientific parking control can lead to far better use of existing roads and so save heavy expense on road improvement. That is not to say that necessary road works will not be undertaken. I envisage that the Garda Síochána and the local authority concerned will consider the particular scheme most suited to an area before a decision is taken. If, say, parking meters are decided on for a central city area, then the Commissioner will make bye-laws naming the sections of street where meters will be provided and the local authority will administer the scheme in so far as provision of meters and collection of fees are concerned. The Garda and the local authority will, no doubt, come together to settle a scheme for enforcement.
Section 101 deals with the provision of off-street car parks, and enables local authorities not merely to provide them themselves but also to assist private enterprise to build them. These off-street car parks can be of considerable help in reducing traffic congestion.
New provisions are contained in Sections 91 and 97. Section 91 makes it clear that the Garda Síochána may take special steps to deal with traffic in the occasion of what I might call emergencies—large processions, traffic jams and so on. It also incorporates a provision of the Fire Brigades Act, 1940, to the same effect.
Section 97 enables the Garda to remove a vehicle which has been abandoned or is causing danger or obstruction, and to recover from the owner the cost of removal and storage. Part IX contains a number of miscellaneous provisions, largely taken from the 1933 Act and improved where necessary. Section 102 provides for a penalty for any offence for which a specific penalty is not named in the Bill.
Section 103 introduces what has been called "fines on the spot", but the procedure is not quite that. A notice will be given to the person or affixed to the vehicle concerned, and a prescribed sum may then be paid at a Garda station or the person concerned may opt to have the issue determined by the courts. Increased penalties are provided under a number of sections, for example, Section 106, which deals with the hit-and-run driver.
Section 107 deals with the duty of the owner of a vehicle to give information as to who drove it when it was involved in an offence. The present draft removes a loophole that existed in the 1933 Act.
Subsection (3) of Section 112 reenacts the provisions of an Emergency Powers Order, now lapsed, which made it an offence unlawfully to take possession of a pedal cycle. It is difficult to secure conviction for larceny in such cases. Section 120 authorises local authorities to incur expenditure on road safety, and enables Road Fund grants to be given for that purpose, too, both to local authorities and to bodies primarily concerned with road safety.
The provisions of the Bill will be brought into force as quickly as possible under Section 2. The programme we have in mind is somewhat as follows:
(1)Immediately the Bill is passed, bring into operation Part I which is general; in Part II, Section 20, which gives the Garda Síochána power to test vehicles; in Part III, Sections 26 and 29 which set out consequential disqualifications and enable a person to apply to the courts for removal of disqualifications; Part V, dealing with driving offences; Part VI, dealing with motor insurance; practically all of Part VIII, which deals with the regulation of traffic; practically all of Part IX. Regulations and bye-laws made under corresponding provisions of repealed Acts will for the time being apply to the new provisions under Section 10. In one or two cases some simple new regulations will be necessary.
(2)Fairly soon after the making of regulations bring into operation Part VII dealing with public service vehicles; the remainder of Parts VIII and IX.
(3)The provisions of Sections 18 and 19 relating to vehicle tests, and what will be left of Part III—relating to driving and fitness tests, etc.—must await the establishment of the organisation to carry out the tests and the making of the necessary regulations.
(4)The remaining provisions of Part II should await the preparation of the new regulations under Sections 11 and 12 of the Bill, which will take some time.
(5)Part IV can be brought into operation when the survey of roads for speed-limit purposes, which I mentioned already, has been completed, the regulations are ready and the traffic signs are up.
All the work necessary to get the whole of the Bill into operation without delay will be pressed forward as quickly as possible.
I think I am safe in assuming that Deputies of all Parties will welcome this Bill. For my part, I can assure them that I will give full consideration to every positive proposal for its improvement.
I trust and hope that the Bill and the other measures I have mentioned will achieve their purpose, and in particular the purpose of stopping the appalling slaughter on our roads. We shall proceed with our efforts to rouse in the public an awareness of their responsibilities, to foster a spirit of courtesy in all road users and to develop in them the knowledge and application of rules of good road behaviour. The provisions of the Bill, implemented by appropriate regulations, will be available to all those engaged in the work of making our roads safe. The Garda will be on the alert to detect and check bad road behaviour, and by caution and prosecution where necessary, to improve our standards. The courts, I have no doubt, will play their part in serving the community. If, despite all those efforts, there still remains a hard core of resistance to the demands of a civilised society, then I think that more stringent action will be necessary and ruthless use should be made of the penal provisions of the Bill, many of them quite severe. Such a course would be justified, because to my mind killing and maiming on the roads is no different from killing and maiming in other circumstances. I trust, however, that the good sense and the traditions of our people will render such a course unnecessary.