Committee Reports > List of Committees > Seanad > 1964 > Select Committee on Statutory Instruments > Report No. 01 - Statutory Instruments

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 2 Nollaig, 1964.

Wednesday, 2nd December, 1964.

The Committee met at 4.30 p.m.

SENATOR G. O’BRIEN in the chair.

ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.

Messrs. E. T. Sheehy, M. J. Murphy and K. Coughlan (An Roinn Rialtas Aitiúil) called and examined.

16. Chairman.—Senator Sheldon has certain points to raise in regard to the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, 1963 (S.I. No. 191 of 1963).

Senator Sheldon.—Many of the points of which notice has been given are very minor. Some of them arose from a difference between the neostyle copy which was furnished to the Committee and the printed copy. We have been given a copy which turns out to be incorrect. Most of the differences are printing errors, I think, but there are one or two which could have led to confusion.

Mr. Sheehy.—Perhaps I can explain. We regret the error and hope it will not happen again. In this particular case three very large regulations were involved. It was desirable, for various reasons, to bring them into force not later than 27th October to coincide with lighting-up time. We had gone through the very intricate process of public consultation during the year before making them. First of all, we published our draft proposals as prepared by an advisory technical committee. Then, we took the observations of the public and went through them again with this technical committee representing road-users and transport operators. The process took a good deal longer than we had anticipated. At the same time, we felt that, as we had given public intimation of our intention to make the regulations, in fairness to the public, some of whom would be involved in expense, we should make every effort to bring them into operation on the date intimated. There was a lot of rush and, quite frankly, it was hard to overtake the amount of work involved. They were constantly being checked and cross-checked. In the end we were preparing the stencilled copies for issue and some changes were effected at the last moment. Purely by accident, some of the unamended copies were sent to this Committee. They were given absolute priority and paradoxically this resulted in the error which we regret. I understood that the corrected copies had been sent to you immediately but apparently that did not happen.

Senator Sheldon.—The Library got the printed copies but I think the Library gets its copies from the Stationery Office and they would not be aware that copies would be needed for the Statutory Instruments Committee.

17. Senator Cole.—Were those incorrect copies sent to anybody else?

Mr. Sheehy.—A few were sent but were recalled immediately. We understood your copies were recalled, too, but a mistake occurred.

18. Senator Ryan.—Perhaps we could deal with the three queries put to you in writing in the first place.* The phrase, “save where the context otherwise requires”, is, I take it, put into the Regulations because it is used in the Act?

Mr. Murphy.—It was used because it was used in the Act. We always like to follow as closely as we can the wording of the Act under which we are making regulations. Instances can be shown as in the Public Service Vehicles Regulations where it is proper that this phrase should be used. Under these Regulations, a public service vehicle licence is defined as being a licence under Article 20 of the Regulations. There is a transitional Article—Article 62—in which we use the phrase “every public service vehicle licence granted under Part 7 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933”. That is one example where the phrase “public service vehicle licence” does not carry, and could not carry, the meaning which is given to it in the definition section. It is possible that, in other regulations, we could have omitted that phrase and relied on the context of the Regulations or on specific definitions to show the difference in meaning but, again, the Regulations were a trilogy and I think where we use the phrase once we use it all the time. I feel it is a safeguard. While I agree we should not use it unnecessarily, I think in any complex instrument, its use is a safeguard which most draftsmen would like to avail of and which is availed of frequently in the drafting of legislation generally.

Senator Ryan.—I think it is very undesirable that it should be used because, in effect, it means that there is a definition but one can never be sure that the definition will apply. So, the definitions are, to a very considerable extent, worthless if you have that clause. There may be other examples. I think it would be better, if it were only to apply in a few cases, to leave out the particular definition altogether, or alternatively to make a point of inserting at the end of the clause, where a different definition is used, some words such as “to this extent the definition in Article 3 does not apply”.

Mr. Murphy.—I can see that.

19. Senator Ryan.—Unless you are able to rely on the definition as you read the Regulations, and be able to refer back and rely on it, it is worthless. You either leave it out, if it is to be so qualified, or put a note in the particular clause where the original definition does not apply. Otherwise, you have the uneasy feeling that you are never quite sure that the definition applies. I do not think the fact that it is used in the Act is relevant because the context might require it in the Act where it would not require it in the Regulations. Only the words, as defined in the Act, will bear the same meaning in the Regulations. To that extent the phrase, as used in the Act, is already carried into the Regulations. I agree, however, it should not be used indiscriminately simply as a drafting habit.

20. Chairman.—The second query deals with the taximeter area. The Committee felt that it would be simpler to amend the Regulations if there were further areas to be added rather than to do it in the way in which it is done in the Regulations.

Mr. Murphy.—I think the Committee is probably right in that. The use of the word ‘includes’ in relation to the definition of taximeter area was in contemplation of the probably unlikely event of there being additional taximeter areas. The reason behind the drafting, as it applied in the Regulations, was to safeguard the position in the event of the introduction of other taximeter areas.

Senator Desmond.—It appears we have two taximeter areas and no more.

Senator Ryan.—Dublin and Cork are both taximeter areas.

21. Senator Desmond.—What about other areas which are thickly populated?

Mr. Sheehy.—The point is that taximeters are quite expensive to install. Unless there was a real demand for a taximeter service in an area, we would not feel warranted in providing for it. For instance, if the local demand for a taximeter service built up in Limerick and we were satisfied that vehicle owners would equip their vehicles and provide the service, we would not hesitate to put the service in operation.

22. Senator Desmond.—Do not taxis rely on public demand?—Yes.

Senator Sheldon.—There is not much point in saying “shall have a taximeter area” if nobody wants it.

Senator Desmond.—It is required in Dublin and Cork?—Yes.

Senator Desmond.—There are taxis everywhere.

Mr. Sheehy.—No, not everyone has a meter.

23. Senator Desmond.—A taxi is a public service vehicle, a car for hire. Is it the position that there is sufficient demand for meters in two areas?

Senator Sheldon.—The Department says there is not a demand for the service in Limerick.

Mr. Sheehy.—Perhaps I should explain. If we make Limerick a taximeter area, no person could ply for hire without having his vehicle fitted with a meter. We have not had a demand for one in any other area outside Dublin and Cork, not alone since the 1961 Act, but since the 1933 Act. If there was a demand for it, we would consider it.

24. Chairman.—The third query raised originally has been dealt with adequately by letter. Senator Cole, however, has a couple of points which he would like to raise.

Senator Cole.—One point deals with section 46 (2) (a), fees in respect of licences.

Mr. Murphy.—Our feeling in regard to that is that the Minister has power to make that particular regulation under this section. The Minister may make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to this Part of the Act. The purpose of this fee, and the provision concerning the information, is really to enable insurance companies to acquire, for the purpose of their business, information concerning driving licences. They are, in fact, the only people who avail of the Regulations in practice. Approximately 15/- has been collected on foot of those fees in Dublin. Nobody is charged any fee for information concerning his own driving licence.

25. Senator Cole.—Surely there is no fee prescribed at all?—Section 42(2) says:

Regulations under this section may, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, make provision for all or any of the following matters.

Mr. Murphy.—I think I am right in saying that the fact that a matter is particularised in sub-section (2) of that section can in no way derogate, as it were, from the Minister’s power under section (42) (1).

Senator Cole.—On the question of fees, it is part of our duty to examine and see what basis there is for them.

Mr. Murphy.—The fee is prescribed on the basis that, first of all, the information is required by people for the purposes of their business. The fee will, to some extent, discourage people from looking for information without good reason. It is reasonable that a fee should be charged to cover the cost of giving the information.

26. Senator Cole.—I agree it might be reasonable, but surely 2/6 will not deter me, or anybody, from getting information about your driving licence?—You might find somebody looking for information in bulk, covering many specified persons. The view taken is that the matters in the second subsection are only an indication by the Oireachtas of matters for which power is already given in the first sub-section. The fact that anything is prescribed in the second subsection does not cut down the power in the first sub-section. It only particularises and highlights the matters for which regulations may be made, but it cannot be used to cut down the general power in the first subsection. On a slightly historical note, I might say that this form of subsection where Regulations may be made for the purpose of giving effect to an Act was criticised as long ago as 1932 in the Donoughmore Report. They were classed as powers which were almost impossible to restrict. The Donoughmore Report refers to this type of power and specifically mentions Regulations to give effect to an Act. I do not wish to rely too much on that in our “defence,” as it were.

27. Senator Cole.—In subsection (f) there is a definite fee prescribed.

Mr. Murphy.—There are two points. There is the question of duplicating driving licences. It is a big item and I would make the point that, even though specifically included there, it cannot be used to limit the power of the first sub-section.

28. Senator Cole.—If it were not in there do you think the fee could still be charged?

Senator Sheldon.—There are two points. One is whether or not a fee can be charged if there is not statutory authority to prescribe it. Parliament must be perfectly satisfied that no one can charge fees unless specifically empowered to do so. A fee is equivalent to a tax on the people and as such can only be imposed with direct parliamentary authority. The other point is the wide phraseology used in the Regulations—“A licensing authority shall, on request and on payment of a fee of two shillings and sixpence, supply to any person such information as requested in relation to any driving licence …” It is not tied down to telling what is on the driving licence. “Supply to any person such information as is requested in relation to any driving licence,” is a wide provision, is it not?— It is a phrase with wide power. It is in fact a continuation of the power under the 1933 Act. To that extent it was carried over from the Regulations made under the 1933 Act. I could go back further to a similar fee which existed in relation to vehicles in 1903 concerning registration numbers, not licences. It is widely phrased. It is carried over from the Regulations under the 1933 Act. In practice, it is very little availed of.

29. Senator Cole.—Might I draw your attention to another point of which you have not been given notice? Under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the 1961 Act, the Minister “may make Regulations in relation to the control and operation of public service vehicles”. Then the section includes provision under subsection (2), which says “the payment of specified fees in respect of licences, badges or plates granted under the regulations …” Have you not got the word “granted”? In the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, 1963, in subsection (4) of Article 31, page 13, it says—“Where an application for a public service vehicle licence is refused, two-thirds of the fee paid by the owner of the vehicle shall be repaid to him by the licensing authority to whom it was paid”. What authority have you for retaining one-third of his fee? Is there any authority other than that I have cited?

Mr. Murphy.—I see the word “granted” is used in the Regulations. I would have to answer that by saying it refers to the types of licences, badges and plates granted under the Regulations. It does not imply necessarily that the particular badge or plate is actually granted.

30. Senator Cole.—If I put in a perfectly sincere application for a public service vehicle licence and for some reason it cannot be granted, it seems to be unreasonable that you should retain one-third of my fee without any authority.

Mr. Sheehy.—As regards the word “granted”, it can be read as part of the phrase describing badges and plates and not necessarily limiting the charging of a fee to the time when the licence was actually granted. As regard retaining part of it, a lot of work is involved in checking and examining the vehicle.

31. Senator Cole.—It might be obvious from the first note of my application that I could not possibly get a licence and yet you will charge me £2 at least?—In practice, that does not arise. A thorough inspection is carried out and the licence has to be refused when substantial defects are revealed. That was really the purpose of retaining the one-third—to cover the costs of that.

32. Senator Cole.—Is there authority in the first clause of the subsection for retaining?—“Retaining” it is a negative way of stating it; rather the two-thirds is refunded. We read it that the fee can be claimed on the application for the licence. The phrase “granted under the Regulations” was framed to describe what kind of licence and badges you apply for.

Senator Cole.—I do not follow that.

Mr. Sheehy.—It is really part of the phrase “licences, badges or plates granted under the Regulations”. It is a descriptive phrase rather than limiting the charging of the fee.

Senator Cole.—The Minister is only entitled to charge, to my mind, under that section of the Act for licences granted. There is no authority for retaining one-third of his fee.

Senator Ryan.—If anybody took proceedings for the one-third, I think you would be well advised to give it back.

Mr. Sheehy.—If, on reconsideration we are satisfied we have not got the power, we shall amend the Regulations.

Senator Sheldon.—You will have to do more than amend the Regulations. You would have to amend the Act if you want a fee for inspection. At the same time, I think I would have another look at the section dealing with putting in a fee.

33. Senator Cole.—In the Second Schedule some revocations are mentioned. Why is there a reference to some articles only of the Public Service Vehicles Regulations, 1936? Could they not all have been incorporated?

Mr. Sheehy.—Those articles were repealed but in S.I. 190 of 1963. They relate to the construction and the use of vehicles rather than to public service vehicle control.

34. Senator Cole.—They might have been included.

Mr. Murphy.—They are included in the Schedules to other Regulations.

Senator Cole.—I should like to see all those kept under one Regulation.

Mr. Sheehy.—We try to present the public in the repeals schedule with a list of the Regulations that have been replaced by the particular new Regulations which have transitional provisions.

Mr. Murphy.—I think I should say in justice to Mr. Sheehy’s section, that the public receive from time to time a complete list of Regulations which are in operation, showing amendments. If you look at page 64 of the printed version of Statutory Instruments No. 190, you will see the remainder of the old Large Public Service Vehicles Regulations are repealed except Article 56.

35. Senator Sheldon.—I should like to deal with a few points which have not been raised previously. The first one is Statutory Instrument No. 189, dealing with lighting. On page 62 of that instrument, Article 49 (3) refers to the use of direction indicators. It struck me that unless one is changing direction on the road it is now illegal to use indicators. Motorists, in practice, find it a very convenient way of indicating to an overtaking vehicle by putting on the left-hand indicator that the signal has been seen and acknowledged. That is done quite a lot. It struck me, in reading this Regulation, that it is being broken by doing so. I am not actually changing direction; I am just acknowledging a signal. Is that so?

Mr. Sheehy.—Basically, the Senator is correct. Direction indicators should not be used unless direction is being changed. Generally, when you are allowing somebody to overtake, you move slightly to the left and that justifies the use of the left-hand indicator. We have been in consultation with the European Conference of Ministers of Transport and other European bodies and they all stress that it is dangerous to give a signal telling some other road user to do something. In other words, he should rely on his own judgment. I think it has been fairly well established that there has been quite a lot of misuse of this kind of practice in Great Britain. We think the Regulation should operate. We believe the indicators should be used only to signal change of direction.

36. Senator Sheldon.—On page 64 there is something just like a point which was first raised by Senator Ryan in relation to vagueness. Article 50(2), page 64, says “the bye-laws made or deemed to have been made”. What precisely is meant by “deemed to have been made”?

Mr. Sheehy.—They are the bye-laws (made under the 1933 Act) deemed to have been made under the 1961 Act. It would not have been feasible for the police to make new bye-laws overnight. They would have to consult the local authority before they were put into operation. By now most bye-laws are actually made under the 1961 Act rather than the carried-over Act.

37. Senator Sheldon.—In Statutory Instrument No. 190, page 10, there is a question about a track-laying vehicle while it is being loaded on a runway or while it is travelling between such vehicle and a place off the road for a distance not exceeding 100 yards. Where is this 100 yards? Is it along the roadway?

Mr. Sheehy.—It is along the roadway.

Senator Sheldon.—In regard to Article 49(3), while I accept that the intention is that the distance should be measured along the road, is that made clear?

Mr. Sheehy.—I think so, because this provision applies only to the use of public roads and what happens off the public road is not controlled. It is not always easy in these regulations to get what precisely one wants and yet preserve clear and simple English. There are tremendous difficulties in it.

38. Senator Sheldon.—I have been fascinated by the clarity of all this. Some of it may be confusing to read for the first time but the clarity of the definitions has filled me with admiration. One gets suspicious when one finds fees charged which Parliament has not allowed. In regard to “weight laden,” the Act refers to “weight unladen” in section 14. I could not find a definition of “weight laden”.

Mr. Sheehy.—You will find it at paragraph 4 of Article 3. It is part of the definitions also and is, in fact, at page 6 of the stencilled copy.

39. Senator Sheldon.—Thank you. On page 14, Article 11, dealing with the length of vehicles and combinations of vehicles, I tried to work out what one could do and I could not make it out! Can you explain, Mr. Sheehy?—I agree it is a complex Article. It arose this way. We took basic rules and published our proposals regarding them. Various interests, generally people dealing with a small number of vehicles of particular types, came along and made representations that they were being affected. The proposals were considered again and suggestions made sifted. We had these people in where necessary, and where there was a genuine case we felt we should meet them, where the vehicle was rare, not interfering with the general flow of traffic and doing a reasonably good job. For 99 per cent the basic rules apply. We are dealing with 400,000 vehicles of numerous uses, from cement mixers, excavators down to motor cars.

Senator Sheldon.—I was satisfied myself later on looking at it. If you were starting to build vehicles, you might be confused but if you had a vehicle it was easy to see. It is really a combination of vehicles that becomes difficult, is it not? —This type of provision is for the assembler rather than the man who uses the vehicle. We have prepared documents and diagrams for the benefit of the motor trade simplifying the Regulations in diagrammatic form. It is the only way we can do it.

40. Senator Sheldon.—I am not sure about Article 11(6)(d) where there is the provision “the drawing vehicle is used only occasionally with a trailer.” What is “occasionally”?—Sometimes it is difficult to avoid words like that, although I agree that it is best to avoid them. An exceptional case was put to us where one particular firm uses the procedure of drawing a trailer by a 30-foot lorry on a main road, say, as far as Naas, then leaving off the trailer and proceeding further with the lorry. The trailer is unloaded and connected up with the vehicle again on its way back. It is almost impossible to use a 30-foot lorry on the average road with a trailer. This clause was put in for these exceptional cases but phrased so as to prevent any kind of general practice developing.

41. Senator Sheldon.—Is there any limit on the length of the drawbar—Article 11(8)(a)(i)? —It is limited by two clauses. There is a specific limit in paragraph 7 of Article 12; it is a generous one. There is also a limit on the drawbar involved in Article 11. Under it, there is a limit on the overall length of the combination and individual limits on the length of each unit. If you subtract the total of the lengths of the individual units from the overall length you will get a limit on the drawbar. 54 feet is the general rule for overall lengths.

42. Senator Sheldon.—I was worried about the measurements of tyre wear. It is not very easy and I should love to see the administration of this. I was wondering about decisions in between these two provisions, (a) and (b). You could get a tyre with 99 per cent wear but there may be a bit that would not comply with (a).

Mr. Sheehy.—The basic rule in Article 11(7) of course is that no tyre should be excessively worn and we felt some indication should be given to the public about it. We decided the best we could do was to give two examples, one where a tyre did not comply with the regulations and we do that under subparagraph (b) which adopts the standard of no portion of the tread pattern being visible. Then we decided to take the case where on the basis of technical advice we could say that the tyres were definitely all right. We took that as being where the pattern showed at least to a depth of a millimetre. It is very small but it assures you that you are all right. We could not go below that or have a grading in between. We try to give the public the best guidance we can and decided it was all right to have a millimetre, and not if no tread is showing.

Senator Sheldon.—You should get the decimal system introduced here.

Mr. Sheehy.—A lot of this is really a run in to give people an indication of the kind of standards we have in mind for vehicle testing.

43. Senator Sheldon.—On Page 27, Article 17, about half way down, it says “such other relevant information as the local concerned authority may require”.

Mr. Sheehy.—The local authority have complete discretion to refuse a permit. We decided to give them a fair flexibility in this matter. They have complete discretion to refuse the granting of a permit.

Senator Sheldon.—Does that not place the applicant in a rather awkward position? Might it not prejudice the local authority unfairly against him?—This is really a permit which applies to exceptional vehicles which, without permit, would be illegal. The local authority should be reasonably free to ask for and find out all the circumstances and what safeguards will be provided.

44. On page 30 there is the question of validity of permit for a period of one year. Would this regulation allow of its use more than once, say, continual use?— There will be two kinds of permits. There will be a permit covering a particular journey over, may be, a long route, or there could be a permit covering casual use, say so many runs during the year. The latter type of permit would last for a period up to a year. We felt it was as well to limit it to the year because of various circumstances, such as traffic congestion increasing on the route or possible developments in vehicles which would enable the operator to get a better machine for the job. We thought it best not to give a vested right for an indefinite period.

Was it envisaged that the local authority would in the course of a year, say, review the use of the permit?—You could say that.

The words are capable of various interpretations?—It would be used only to enable the local authority to make particular rules to cover particular cases.

45. Then there is this question of “adequate protection” where it is involved in Article 22, on page 31. What is “adequate protection”?—That is another example of a phrase about which we were not very happy but to which we had no alternative. In regard to brakes, for instance, we have specified exactly what kind of standard should be complied with. On the question of wings, it is not really possible to specify the exact standard of wings that would be adequate. This was the best we could do. Of course, the courts will decide the specific cases that come before them.

46. In relation to a bus, the question arises as to whether the rere wing was to be covered or whether it is the body. The construction of such a vehicle would be such that there would not be any wings. On page 33, there is reference to rere-view driving mirrors to be fixed either internally or externally on the lefthand side. Could that not be taken to read that an internal mirror should be affixed to the lefthand side?—That was not the intention. Of course, the Senator has a very good point there for amendment later.

47. Article 30, paragraph (2) (b), deals with a device which could be readily operated by a person while he is being carried on a vehicle. What was envisaged in that?—We meant to include either driver or helper. We meant that the device should be out of the reach of people working on the vehicle or being carried on it in any capacity.

48. I am wondering what was meant by Article 32, which I propose to ignore. Article 71 (a) on page 70 deals with a vehicle which is equipped with a device for opening a door. It struck me it could be a very dangerous thing because I suggest it puts one between the upper and the nether millstone?—I agree it could give that impression. The type of vehicle envisaged here is the one-man bus. The intention is that this means of opening a door would be available to the driver and the passengers. There is always the danger of a driver collapsing, as has happened. I may say this clause was drafted in consultation with CIE who are the only people we know who intend to operate this type of vehicle. It is difficult to spell out all the details envisaged.

49. On page 72, Article 72, there is reference to a case where a passenger might use a tip-up seat. Should it not be made compulsory in the regulations that any tip-up seat should be spring-loaded so that it automatically would neutralise obstruction?—The phrase “tip-up seat” does include spring-loaded seats but is not confined to them. We felt that in view of what is involved, the number of buses in operation, we could not confine it like that. There is such a regulation in Northern Ireland.

Senator Sheldon.—It is all very well to say there should be a tip-up seat, but if the seat were left down an accident might occur in the dark by a person stumbling on the seat.

Mr. Sheehy.—The same regulation applies in Great Britain. We did consider the point made by the Senator but we did not think it would be reasonable to bring in such a regulation here.

Senator Sheldon.—Personally, I would be much more concerned with the safety of the person involved than with the expense of the operator of such a vehicle.

Mr. Sheehy.—I quite agree but I should say we have not had any cases of such accidents happening.

50. Senator Sheldon.—On page 79, all the equipment is very meticulously described. The sizes of the dressings to be used are prescribed as three inches by three inches, and then you come to the triangular bandages. Apparently you can have them at about the size of postage stamps.

Mr. Sheehy.—There are constrictive values to be considered.

Senator Sheldon.—I know they would have to be capable of constricting something or other, but what size?—Here the Department was dealing with what was primarily a health question. We looked through the British regulation and there was not any restriction in it. These items are standard. The triangular bandage, for example, is a standard item about which there is no need to specify. It is a widely recognised type of bandage. We felt specification was not necessary.

Surely the large dressing is standard?— Apparently you can get different kinds of dressings but the triagular bandage is a definite type.

51. Senator Sheldon.—On page 88, Article 92(2) reads: “A passenger in a vehicle in a public place shall not wilfully obstruct or impede the driver or, without reasonable cause, obstruct or interfere with the working of the vehicle or distract the driver’s attention”. I thought it might be better to tie it to “a vehicle being driven in a public place”. It was “distract the driver’s attention”, “obstruct or impede the driver” that struck me. If he distracted the driver’s attention he would be technically at fault though the driver was not driving——

Mr. Sheehy.—There might be a case where this should apply to a stationary vehicle. I am sure cases of that kind could occur to you, for instance, at a crossroads. In any event, there is a saver in it which says “without reasonable cause”, which would, we think, get over the case of any harmless discussion with the driver where no harm is being done. There may be cases where although the vehicle is stationary circumstances would warrant the driver being very alert.

52. Senator Sheldon.—For the record all I have to say on the speed limit one, No. 18 of 1963, is that it is fascinating to find this enormous document which is no less than a lesson in geography. One thing struck me in it, and that is where we talk about the distances of 50 or 500 yards from a road junction. Where do you start measuring from a road junction?

Mr. Murphy.—This is a question which occurs time and time again. It is hard to explain this almost without diagrams. I think you must measure from the first point where the two roads meet, not from the centre of the junction. The definition of a junction is a constant headache for us.

Chairman.—Can it not be defined?

Mr. Murphy.—We have tried to define it and have failed. Take the junction of College Green and Westmoreland Street. There is a tremendous sweep around the Bank of Ireland.

Mr. Sheehy.—We gave a lot of thought to it and made diagrams of every possible type of junction but just could not do it.

53. Senator Sheldon.—Generally in relation to these limits as defined, what is the machinery by which they are dealt with?

Mr. Sheehy.—The Minister makes the Regulations. He consults in certain cases. In the case of special speed limits he has to have an application from the local authority or the police, but the Minister makes the Regulations. Generally, people write to the Minister about it, although they also approach the local authority and ask them to make representations in appropriate cases.

54. Senator Desmond.—The local authorities do the measuring out is it not? —When these Regulations were being made we got the advice of a local technical committee which prepared maps and gave a description of where the points should begin. We sent our own officers down to check on the spot in each case. There is quite a job checking descriptions, names and distances and they settle on the spot subject to the Minister considering the proposals and signing the Regulations ultimately.

Is it the local authority that settles the matter with you on the spot?—The local technical committee consists of engineers of the local authority and garda officers.

A technical man went out and did the measuring in these cases?—Every report from the technical body was considered by the elected council.

55. On the Ministerial side only?—It was put before the elected body.

You are satisfied, before measuring is done, as to who is to decide on a spot on, say, the Dublin/Cork road near Cork city where a sign should be erected?— The elected body comes in specifically.

The Ministerial body, is it not?—In cases where the elective body departed from the recommendations of the technical committee the Minister considered both views and in some cases he decided in favour of the elective body.

56. Senator Desmond.—I understand that even the local authority having seen all the signs up are entitled to make recommendations for alterations.

Mr. Sheehy.—The position at the moment is that the Minister has the question of the arterial routes under consideration. It would be impossible to do all the routes quickly but he is considering the amendment of the limits on the arterial routes first. These would be the main routes on which a great deal of travel takes place. One of the Senators mentioned the case where the sign is too far out. I may say the local people feel the signs should be far out.

Senator Desmond.—There could be two local authorities involved. The county council and the corporation could be involved. The sign could be in the county council area and the corporation area may be somewhere else. I can understand there might be confusion. That problem does arise.

57. Senator Sheldon.—I take it what is prescribed here is the law and if the sign is in the legal place, that is that. However, some authorities could get badly caught.

Senator Desmond.—You would have to have Ministerial sanction for any change.

Senator Sheldon.—Some 30 mile limits signs are far out.

Mr. Sheehy.—I fully appreciate what the Senator is saying. But very often there is a school near a sign and there could also be a public walk. You would be surprised to know the amount of local feeling amongst parents and others regarding this matter.

58. Senator Desmond.—There will be the same procedure at the 40 mile limit sign. In some places where it is 30, the local authority say they would prefer 40.

Mr. Sheehy.—That matter is being considered in connection with the arterial routes.

Senator Desmond.—That would be a very sensible way to deal with it.

Mr. Sheehy.—We have statistics to show that the incidence of death or injury in the built-up areas has gone down since the speed limits came into operation. You may have inconvenience because of them but you have fewer deaths. In this case the public would not hesitate to put safety first.

Chairman.—I think that deals with all the points. I thank the witnesses for attending.

The witnesses withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 6.5 p.m.

*See Appendix I.