Whilst we all welcome the tenor of this Bill generally, there are a few omissions upon which we should comment and there are a few insertions which are quite startling and which also call for comment. I would have thought, in regard to section 62 in which the Minister seeks power to make regulations providing for the removal of vehicles abandoned on a public road or in a car park, that he would also have sought power to remove abandoned vehicles from a public place. It is sometimes difficult to differentiate between a public place and a public road and if the Minister would consider it from that point of view, he might come to the conclusion that it would be as well to cover public places as well as public roads and car parks in the section.
Having regard to the number of tragedies caused by wandering animals — in my own constituency, a young man was killed by a horse which was the property of an itinerant and another young man had his face kicked in by a horse which was also owned by an itinerant — I was surprised that the Minister did not take this opportunity to revise the penalties for allowing animals to wander on the road. They are becoming more and more a menace every day as we have more and more cars on the road. The Minister might re-appraise the Bill in that regard.
There is an excellent case to be made for the compulsory insuring of pedal cycles and horse-drawn vehicles. The Minister in his opening speech did refer to pedal cycles and did indicate that on occasion they could be exceedingly lethal vehicles. In those circumstances, the Minister might consider whether at this stage it would be wise to make it compulsory to insure these bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles so that people injured or killed by them will not be left without redress.
Another thing which the Minister might consider is that under existing legislation the only thing for which a motor car owner is liable is the negligence of his servant or agent. There are many occasions on which the negligence of a passenger in the owner's car causes damage. A passenger may open the door of the vehicle suddenly and a cyclist or motor cyclist may collide with it and damage may be caused. At present the legislation does not make anybody other than the passenger liable for such damage and very grave damage can be done in such circumstances. I should like the Minister to consider that particular aspect of road traffic law before this Bill gets the final sanction of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
There is another matter, and I do not know exactly how it could be dealt with, but it should be dealt with, that is, that the legislation passed in 1961 created a new offence, not in lieu of but in addition to manslaughter, dangerous driving causing death or grievous bodily harm. Such cases have to go to the Circuit Court but such is the disposition of the authorities that the result is that the courts are cluttered up with deposition cases. This is a waste of time and the Minister might look into the matter.
These are the omissions to which I referred and I have dealt with them rapidly because they might be dealt with in more detail on Committee Stage. We welcome the main intention of the Bill inasmuch as it is intended to discourage the depredations of the drunken driver in whose defence naturally no voice in this House would be raised but there are other aspects of the Bill which are very distressing and could be very dangerous. Deputy Fitzpatrick dealt with them already and I want to deal with them because on every occasion on which a Bill comes before the House making unfettered provision for the making of regulations by the Minister, I have always opposed and always will oppose such proposals on principle. It is true, of course, that legislation of that type is of such detail that it would be difficult for this House to deal with all of it and that is why we have this administrative law. That is the reason this House surrenders its rights to the Minister and his officials.
The Minister will make the stock reply and say that regulations made under this Bill will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is no doubt true, but the laying of regulations before both Houses has not the same impact on the minds of Deputies, Senators, or the public, as the actual legislation which is put before the House in a Bill. For that reason I regret that this Bill makes provision for so many regulations. Some are startling.
I hope to deal in detail with the provisions of section 9 on Committee Stage. Reduced to ordinary everyday language, the provisions of section 9 (2) (b) mean that the Minister may prohibit some citizens from selling specified goods or specified classes of goods, while he may permit other people to sell them. I cannot understand the intention behind such a proposal. Goods of a pharmaceutical nature are not referred to in this Bill. Goods such as ordinary equipment for cars are of such a nature that they are fit to be sold either by all citizens or no citizen. The Minister should explain why he seeks to take power by regulation to prohibit certain citizens from selling certain specified goods or specified classes of goods, while he may permit other citizens to sell them. To say the least of it, that is open to abuse. In the absence of any good reason being given to the House by the Minister as to why he seeks power to make such a regulation, the House should be very slow to pass this section.
Section 9 (3) out-does in its daring any effort I have ever seen made by any Department of State in this House to take power to make regulations. I ask the Minister seriously to consider this matter before he asks the House to pass that subsection which provides:
Different regulations may be made under this section in respect of different classes of vehicle parts and for different circumstances.
I have never heard of such a wide proposition being made to this House. I have never before heard it being proposed in this House in such general terms that this House should surrender its rights and, indeed, its duties to any Department of State to make regulations "for different circumstances", without any further indication of what those circumstances might be. I think the House should reject this intrusion on its rights, and insist that the Minister should set out in the Bill the circumstances he has in mind for the making of these regulations.
The provision of a breathaliser for the purpose of having breath tests is something which, having regard to the experience in other countries, the House will approbate. I do not think it can be approbated in the manner in which the Minister puts it before us. It simply says that this is the instrument that is going to be used. It does not tell us the type of instrument. It does not tell us about its efficiency or whether it is capable of making mistakes. This is an instrument which could play an important part in the lives of some of our citizens. If the Bill passes in the terms in which it is proposed to us, it could have very serious consequences for motorists in general.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that is the sort of instrument which is used elsewhere, and that is all about it. The Minister should tell us more about it. He should tell us the type of instrument it is. He should give us some specification and not ask us to give him carte blanche to make regulations in respect of this instrument. I do not think the House should let the Minister do this. I agree that there must be some sort of breath test but unless the Minister tells us what the experience has been, not only amongst the police forces in other countries but also amongst the motorists in other countries where this breathaliser is used, I do not think we should give him the power he seeks. Incidentally I may mention to the Minister that in the county of Cork there is a tree which bloometh which will defeat the objects of the breathaliser. If you suck some of the leaves of this tree, no breathaliser can find out whether you have an exact amount of alcohol in your blood.
Similarly we can object to the Minister asking us to give him carte blanche in regard to the procedure which will be followed in respect of the taking of blood and urine tests. None of us would willingly submit himself to these tests, but if it is necessary for the protection of the citizens that these tests must be submitted to, at least this House should be given the opportunity of having before it in detail the procedure which will be used in the sort of circumstances in which people will have to submit to blood or urine tests.
I regret that the Minister should even consider that this is a proper principle upon which to proceed, and say to the House: "Look, we are going to take blood and urine tests and we are not going to tell you how we do it." I do not understand why the Minister cannot tell us. If this legislation has been on the stocks long enough, and if this sort of legislation has already been implemented in other countries, there is a well tested pattern for taking blood and urine tests, and I do not know why the Minister does not put in green and black what his proposals are in that regard, so that when the Bill becomes an Act, the public will have in one document, readily procurable, the details of their rights and duties as members of the public.
It is all very well for the Minister to say they can be found in the regulations. Even for lawyers it is hard to find some regulations which are made by this House. They can, of course, be found in the bound copies of the Statutory Regulations which are published about five years after they are made. Those volumes are so voluminous that it is quite difficult to find the regulations in question. I suggest to the Minister that both as a headline to other Departments and as a matter of procedure and principle, he should put into this Bill the exact circumstances and the exact manner in which people will be asked to submit to the very embarrassing tests for which the Bill provides.
I do not see why the Minister should try to put so many parts of this enactment on the long finger by providing for regulations because, in effect, the making of regulations means that we start all over again in both the legislative and the administrative machinery. I suggest that so far as he can the Minister should avoid making regulations.
The regulations in the Principal Act of 1961 give the Commissioner of the Garda very sweeping powers in regard to bus routes, bus stops and various matters of that nature. There is a provision that the Commissioner shall consult with the local authorities before he makes regulations — but consult only. Having consulted with a local authority, he can throw all the representations and views of the local authority in the fire and proceed to follow his own sweet will in any way he wishes. That was in fact the spirit in which the Commissioner approached these regulations. That was the spirit in which he approached the statutory injunction which was placed upon him to elicit the views of the local authorities. I think it was a very bad thing. I think the Minister will agree with me that it is bad because, when we speak of the Commissioner, we speak of the local sergeant, the local inspector, the local superintendent or the local chief superintendent, whoever happens to be the man who actually looks after the traffic in the area. I think the only preoccupation of the average garda in that regard is to make the traffic safe and to make it flow just as the preoccupation of the local authority would be to preserve the business amenities and the various things which follow the flow of traffic. I know of grave hardships which have been imposed on industry by reason of the literally unfettered power of the Commissioner to make regulations in regard to matters of that nature.
There is provision in section 61 of the Bill that the Minister, by order, may pass on to road authorities in their functional areas the functions now carried out by the Commissioner under sections 84, 85, 86, 90, 93, 95 and 96 of the 1961 Act. Instead of giving to the Minister power to transfer these functions, I suggest that the section should be more explicit and more farreaching and should transfer to the road authorities in their functional areas the powers to make the regulations provided for in these sections.
The Minister referred to section 27 and to the use of the instrument to which I have already referred, that is, the breathaliser. He said it meant that a garda would not be able to stop individual vehicles at random and require a driver to take the test. There is nothing in the section to make that plain. Something should be inserted in the section to indicate to too officious gardaí — and there are a few — that they are not given the wide powers by the section that, from my reading, it would appear to give, that is, in relation to the breathaliser the Minister will prescribe by regulation for testing our breaths.
I agree with what Deputy Fitzpatrick said — I do not intend to traverse the ground he has already traversed — that refusal to take tests should not be proof but only prima facie proof of an offence. I press the Minister and I urge the members of the Minister's Party to press the Minister hard in this regard. This Bill cannot properly operate, when it is enacted, unless we have the goodwill of the populace towards it. I do not think we shall have the goodwill of the populace towards it if we provide too many oppressive sections in the measure. I think the provision of a section in the measure to make the tests prima facie evidence would be sufficient to deter the would-be drunken motorist from going on the roads and I would press the Minister very hard not to continue with the proposals in the Bill at this stage.
Another section which appals one is the Minister's proposal to take back power of which he divested himself in the 1961 Act, that is, the power to over-rule the courts in regard to disqualification from driving. I do not know why the Minister has done it. In his opening remarks, he gave no good reason why it should be done. I do not make any specific allegations against the Minister or his predecessors but it is plain to everybody in this House that it is a power which should not be given to a political figure because it is wide open to abuse of every description.
If a person is disqualified and is dissatisfied with the order of the court to which the disqualification was ancillary — usually the court which imposes the penalty and orders the disqualification is the District Court — he has a right to appeal to the Circuit Court. I do not see why, in these cases, the Minister should say, in effect, irrespective of what the district justice in the lower court might do and irrespective of what the judge on appeal might do: "I am going to take power to override the orders of the courts of justice of this country". It is particularly upsetting in view of the regulations made in this House not so long ago by one of the Minister's colleagues to the effect that people who were friends of his or of the Party would get preference, all other things being equal, and the danger of that is bound to arise in the minds of the public.
I think it is doing discredit to this House and it is doing discredit to the Minister's office to make a proposal to this House that we should give him back powers of which he divested himself so willingly under the 1961 Act. If he wishes to take them back, let him give some reasons better than those he gave when introducing this Bill. Otherwise, I would invite the House to reject the proposals of the Minister in that regard.
I might mention that a lot of the damage and the dangers with which this Bill proposes to deal could be prevented by a greater emphasis on publicity along the lines of "If you must drive, do not drink". The minimum of advertising is used. Space on public hoardings should be used for this purpose. Newspaper advertising and newspaper publicity generally should be used in this connection. I see nowhere any official advertisements directed to that end. There is one advertisement I pass when coming out of my constituency which has kindly been put up by a firm of beer manufacturers and it could refer to this particular matter because it does say: "Will you have a harp tonight"? That is as far as we have gone in regard to publicity of that type. I suggest to the Minister that we should use publicity which would indicate to the people that if they are going to drive at dangerous speeds or if they are going to drive when they have too much drink, the very grave possibility is that either they or some of their fellow-citizens will have a harp tonight.