The Minister stated in his argument now that a yardstick to define the amount might be got by suing the individual driving the car or vehicle. Now, supposing the Minister eliminates the idea of damage to the person or, say, the killing of a person, and he comes to the case of damage to property, is he going to ask the individual who has been injured to risk suing the person driving the car, who might be a person with a very small wage, in order to establish his right of proving that he has suffered, say, £15 or £20 damages, and that after doing that he is to go on and find out whether the Attorney-General will consider whether he has made good his claim or whether he is entitled to compensation? Now Section 50 (4) says:
"Where a person charged with an offence under this section was, on the occasion on which such offence is alleged to have been committed... it shall be a good defence to such charge for such person to prove that he was using or driving such vehicle on such occassion in obedience to the express orders of such owner."
If the servant of the State is driving a Post Office car, and he is travelling speedily to catch a train, that is a good defence for him, and the citizens under the Bill cannot sue him. Yet the Minister calmly says that he knows that it is in the Bill. The citizen is debarred not only from suing the State, but from suing the driver.