Let me say at the outset that I welcome this Bill. If I have any complaint to make, it is in regard to the delay in introducing the Bill. It will be exactly four years ago next month since the present Taoiseach, then Deputy Lemass, intervened in a debate on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government and made an appeal to the then Minister, myself, to introduce amending legislation. Having read through this Bill very carefully, and the White Paper, I find that the main heads of the Bill are exactly the same as a Bill drafted four years ago and which was available to the Minister in the Department.
I appreciate the difficulty that any Minister for Local Government has in drafting a Bill. I appreciate further that he is not bound in any way to follow any suggestions or proposals which his predecessor may have left. I also appreciate that he has got a number of other Departments to consult, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Justice particularly. I appreciate his difficulty but still I do not think there was any necessity for this long delay in introducing the Bill. I am convinced that were it not for the fact that Deputy Dillon and some other Deputies of the Fine Gael Party introduced a Private Members' Bill in regard to lorries we might be still awaiting the Second Reading of this Bill.
The Bill is a very important one. It is a Bill which will be debated at considerable length, especially on Committee Stage. It is a Committee Bill and I sincerely hope that when we come to discuss it in Committee, it will be left to a free vote of the House and that Deputies will not be bound by Party affiliation. This is a Bill which will be welcomed by everybody. The Act will be a most important one. It is almost 30 years since the last principal Road Traffic Act was passed. If this Bill is to run for that length of time, it is only right that every section and subsection and every amendment should be debated at length.
The principal purpose of the Bill is the prevention of road accidents. No matter what legislation is introduced, unless we can put across to the public what the law is, we will get nowhere. A start should be made in the schools to educate the people as to the law on the subject. I should like to see members of the Garda appointed to give lectures to the various classes in national schools on the main principles of traffic regulations and traffic laws. Within the next 12 months, we are to set up our own television service. This is an ideal opportunity for television planners to include in their programmes, as other television corporations have done, instruction on the main provisions of road traffic legislation.
Regular viewers of B.B.C. television know the advantages to be derived from the lessons given on that network on road traffic laws and other branches of the law. The Ulster T.V. authorities are doing a terrific job in the lessons on road traffic they televise. Our television planners should provide for lessons on road traffic laws for the purpose of eliminating accidents.
The principal criticism of the Bill I have to make is that we are again falling back on legislation by regulation. I would ask the Minister the number of regulations which have been made under the Road Traffic Act, 1933. I am convinced that the number is 300 to 500. It is all very fine to say that the regulations are laid on the Table of the House, but there is not much use in Deputies knowing what the regulations are, unless they can put them across to the public. The people must know what the regulations are. By means of discussion of the Bill in the House, publication of the debates and discussion with various organisations and individuals, we will get the main sections of the Bill across to the public, but how are the public to be made aware of what is contained in regulations made under the Bill? The Minister for Local Government may make regulations; the Minister for Justice may make regulations; the Minister for Industry and Commerce may make regulations; and the Commissioner of the Garda may make regulations.
I am convinced that at the moment only members of the Garda are aware of all the regulations made under the Road Traffic Act, 1933. When private individuals are prosecuted for breaches of regulations made under the 1933 Act, one is amazed at the ignorance of those regulations, not only on the part of the defendants but on the part of members of the legal profession. The regulations are procurable only from the Stationery Office. Unless one is aware that a regulation has been made, one has no hope of procuring a copy if one has not a standing order with the Stationery Office. Ordinarily, the regulations are issued in pamphlet form in very small print. They must be correlated with the Road Traffic Act, which is a most difficult code to construe.
Even if it meant that the Bill would contain many more sections, I would much prefer if all the provisions were contained in the Bill and could be discussed in this House rather than that we should have legislation by regulations, which very few people will have an opportunity of studying or being aware of.
The Minister referred to one of the methods whereby we may avoid road congestion and road accidents. He referred to road improvements and to dual carriageways. Unfortunately, it will be many years before we will have dual carriageways on more than a few main roads in the suburbs of cities. The Council of Europe recently published a draft report of the Economic Committee on Road Safety which refers to this question of roads. I quote from page 10 No. A.S/E.C. 1259:
Traffic and road engineering has made great progress since the war and road safety considerations have become one of its main concerns. To make roads safer emphasis is laid on adapting the road to the traffic. This is done by determining the technical properties of the road which have an influence on accidents.
It goes on to mention the hazards we ought to try to eliminate:
Some of the hazards of the roads that can be reduced by road engineering are humpbacked and narrow bridges——
These are two hazards which are very common on our main roads and now, when the necessity for these narrow bridges is being eliminated by the closing down of railway lines in some places, we could possibly go a distance in eliminating these two hazards at a very early stage.
The report continues:
——the acute angle and other crossroads and junctions——
We should take lessons from the Six-Counties in that matter. They are at the moment eliminating crossroads. Where roads intersect, the crossing from the right on to the main road is not exactly opposite the crossing at the left. They endeavour to eliminate a direct crossing and eliminate that right angle at a crossroads. We could do something to eliminate that hazard at very little cost.
The report continues:
—sharp and unbanked bends—
I think our road planners are doing a fairly good job of that at the moment.
The report continues:
—the bad surfaces.
It will take some time to eliminate those hazards, but it is something we shall have to do and which the Department of Local Government can do with the limited resources at their disposal. When that is done, we shall have gone a long way towards the removal of hazards on the road. The Garda should be used in a preventive manner more than anything else on the roads, particularly since we have motorised the force. They should endeavour to remove what I might call passing hazards. For instance, the hazards caused by tinkers parking on the sides of our roads. The law at the moment does not prevent tinkers camping on the roadside, but it does enable us to prevent their grazing horses on the roadside. These horses grazing on the roadside are a considerable hazard, and if a patrol car, at night, could endeavour to eliminate that hazard by finding out the owners of those horses and prosecuting them for permitting these animals to wander on the roadside, we would be doing a considerable amount. We must bear in mind that if a horse is unattended and breaks away from the caravan to which it is attached and wanders on to the roadside, causing a serious crash, the owner of the animal is not liable for any injuries which may arise from his negligence.
The Minister has referred to speed limits as one of the methods of eliminating accidents on the road. I think we are all in favour of speed limits, but he will have to be careful. I note he does make provision for altering the speed limits on certain roadways and for having speed limits at certain times. I am satisfied that 30 miles per hour, particularly with the modern car of high horse power, is too low a speed even in built-up areas. For instance, on the road between Dún Laoghaire and Dublin confining the modern car to 30 miles per hour could create bottlenecks in traffic and would defeat the end which we have in view by introducing speed limits. On the other hand, in other parts of the city 30 miles an hour may be even too high. Therefore, I am glad the Minister has retained the power to alter the regulations as he sees fit.
There is one statement in the Minister's speech which I do not like. I refer to paragraph 2, page 6 of his speech in which he refers to the onus of proof:
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 may 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.
What the Minister is suggesting is that where there are technicalities the State should not be required to prove them, that the onus is on the defence to disprove them. Who is to determine what are technicalities? All the laws of the State since its foundation, all the common law and the statute law, which is now the law of the State, lay down that a man is innocent until proved guilty. Here we have the thin end of the wedge inserted, that in technicalities there is an onus on the defendant to prove them; otherwise they are presumed not proved.
The Minister in his speech admits there is a prima facie case against such a clause. I would ask him to re-examine this and he may find some simple method of proving what might be called mere technicalities other than throwing the onus on the defence to rebut them. If such a simple method of proving these mere technicalities could be found I would prefer to see it in the various sections of the Bill to which the Minister refers. It is a dangerous principle, one we should not encourage. Once we get into technicalities it is easy to move from that to something else. Let us never depart from the maxim that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty.
I am in full agreement with the Minister that driving tests are essential but what kind of driving tests are we to have? I am convinced that any man who has reached maturity and who has experience of sitting in motor cars can become capable of steering a car, changing gears, braking and of performing such other elementary manoeuvres. I do not think these elementary things are the causes of accidents and I hope the tests will lay more emphasis on a knowledge of the rules of the road because, in my opinion, the lack of that knowledge is the major cause of accidents.
The Minister also has suggested that there be a test on certain vehicles over a certain age. I do not know whether we should confine it to old cars. I should like again to refer to the Draft Report of the Economic Committee on Road Safety of the Council of Europe, which says at page 15:
Many accidents which result in catastrophe are due to purely mechanical causes. The most common defects include brakes, improper lights, blow-out of tyres, unsafe steering mechanism....
That Report lays down that there must be certain international standards in the mechanism and equipment of motor cars. If we had that it would go a good distance towards eliminating accidents due to mechanical defects. It is not necessary to have an old car to have bad brakes, improper lights, blow-out of tyres or unsafe steering mechanism. If we are to have a test on cars at all, it should not be confined to old cars. We should provide that any car may be examined. We see some cars of pre-war vintage which are much safer than some of the post-war models. Tests should not be confined to a particular class of car.
May I mention direction signals? Surely it should be possible for the Department to get some agreement with car assemblers whereby only standard direction signals will be fitted. I remember a case not long ago where a car, with one of these flashing direction signals, was about to turn left and as it did so a lady motor-cyclist shot up and crashed into it on the left. Questioned as to why she did not see the signal, she said: "I did, but I thought it was a short circuit of your tail light." That is true. One can understand that a person not familiar with these blinking signals can easily mistake their meaning. It would be helpful if we had some standard signal and also if such a standard signal were made the subject of the lesson, to which reference was made, and possibly of a television programme. That might help to eliminate accidents and anything that would tend to achieve that aim would be helpful.
Might I suggest that instead of annual licences, motorists should be able to take out licences for two or three years? Many times, many of us overlook renewing our licence simply because we forget the date of expiry but if we were permitted to take out licences for three or four years—paying the appropriate amount for the period—it would be very useful and would result in savings for the local authorities as some of them send out renewal notices to motorists within their jurisdiction. That would save them sending renewal notices annually and would ensure that certain moneys would be made available and that drivers would not overlook renewals.
Under the 1933 Road Traffic Act, and under this Bill, provision is made for the endorsement of licences. Speaking as one with considerable experience, I want to point out that the Minister and the Legislature under the Act gave discretionary power to the district justice, who found it necessary to inflict the punishment of endorsement of licence and suspension, as to the removal of that endorsement pending the hearing of an appeal. In any conviction under any statute other than the Road Traffic Act, once notice of appeal is served there is a stay on all consequential results of the conviction. You then appear on appeal, just as you appeared on the original summons, without any stigma and without having suffered any penalty.
Under the Road Traffic Act and under this Bill, the justice must endorse your licence but he may refuse to remove the endorsement, pending the hearing of an appeal. The Minister may say that is within the discretion of the justice and I am glad to say that from the passing of the Act until about 1936, district justices did use that discretion and in at least 90 per cent. of cases, once notice of appeal was served, the justice removed or said he would remove the endorsement pending the appeal. But since 1936, for some unknown reason—I often suspected it was a direction from the Department of Justice—in 99 per cent. of the cases in which there has been a conviction, particularly for drunken driving, the justice refuses to remove the endorsement, pending the appeal.
I knew a case where a man was convicted in the month of November under Section 30 of the Act of being drunk in charge of a motor car. His licence was suspended for 12 months and he immediately appealed against the decision but the district justice refused to remove the suspension. That appeal could not be heard until the sitting of the circuit court in the following March. Meantime, for five months his licence was suspended and, as he was a commercial traveller, he had to employ a driver. On appeal, the circuit court judge reversed the decision, as he was satisfied that the man was not drunk. He dismissed the summons but could not compensate the man for the money he had spent employing a driver for five months. I think that defeats the purpose of the appeal.
We should endeavour to bring an accused person or defendant before the circuit court and give him a trial de novo without having this punishment inflicted on him in the meantime and I ask the Minister to amend the section by saying: “The justice shall remove the suspension on service of notice of appeal.” If he could not go so far, the Minister might say that the justice, for some sufficient reason, may remove the suspension. If he put such a directive in the Bill, it might assist justices in using their discretion. We can look into it in detail, perhaps, on Committee Stage and in the meantime perhaps the Minister himself would look into it.
I am glad the Minister has incorporated fines-on-the-spot in the Bill, although I think the term is a misnomer. I am afraid I was personally responsible for that. When I decided to introduce a Traffic Bill, I found opposition to this section from every official in the Department. I found considerable opposition from my colleagues in the Cabinet and I congratulate the Minister on being able to convince, not only his own Department but also his colleagues in the Government. It is an excellent idea but it is a pity we did not find a better name for it.
I once heard the former Deputy Cowan say in this House that on one occasion a district justice in the Dublin District Court heard 300 motoring offences in one day. I checked that and found it was true. Most of the cases were undefended; most were parking offences; and in most of them the same penalty was imposed. That, in my opinion, first of all takes up the time of the court and if a defendant appears either in person or through his solicitor, it takes up his time and possibly some of his money if he employs a solicitor.
With fewer trains running, we have more cars coming from the country to the city and it will take a considerable time for the parking regulations— which change not only from time to time but from hour to hour—to become known. One can easily imagine motorists from West Cork or Donegal breaking the parking regulations unwittingly. They go home and a week or ten days later, they get a summons. They can then decide to appear in Court and explain the position; or they can employ a solicitor to act for them or they can ignore the whole thing. Very often when such a summons is ignored, the justice treats the matter as two charges: a breach of the parking regulations and contempt of Court in refusing to recognise the summons of the Court, and a justice may, and very often does, impose a fine, taking into account the fact that the summons was ignored. If such a motorist had the option of paying the fine, I think he would opt to do so straight away.
The suggestion the Minister has made is an ideal one. A Garda finds you parked in the wrong place; he serves a notice informing you of the offence and the penalty involved. He cannot take the fine from you and neither can any other Garda. You have 14 days, or whatever the period will be, within which to call at any barracks and pay the fine and the Garda there will give you a receipt and retain a duplicate to be forwarded to the authorities in Dublin. If you think you are in the right, you may ignore the notice. After the prescribed period, a summons will issue and it is then your own look-out as to whether or not you will defend the suit or appear at the hearing. You have, however, the option of paying the fine. There will be no personal contact between the offender and the Garda who is prosecuting. I do not believe there could be any abuse in this and it will have the merit of saving considerable time. It will avoid cluttering up the Courts and save motorists a great deal of inconvenience. The Minister will make regulations prescribing the offences and the fines. I hope that it will be possible at some stage to increase the offences schedules. That would be an excellent thing and something which would be welcomed by all.
With regard to Section 104, under Sections 50 and 51 of the 1933 Act— Section 50 deals with careless driving and Section 51 with dangerous driving —some difficulty arises. For the prosecution to succeed in a charge of careless or dangerous driving, the defendant must be informed at the time of the accident that he will be prosecuted. If he is not so informed, there is a period of 14 days in which to serve notice of intention to prosecute. If neither course is taken, no proceedings can be instituted.
