The Minister seems to have turned completely against the amendment and disclaims all responsibility for men who may become disemployed. Has he considered the suggestion that the matter might be handed over to the Commission on Workmen's Compensation?
Road Traffic Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 52:
Before Section 36 to insert the following new section:
The Minister may make regulations following consultation with representatives of the workers and employees concerned providing for the payment of compensation to any driver of a specified class whose employment is terminated as a result of his failure to pass a test for driving specified classes of vehicles, provided that the compensation referred to does not impose a charge on public funds.—(Deputy Corish).
I would have no objection to that if it would further the cause which the Deputy has supported. I can see no reason why it should not be referred to that body.
Would the Minister undertake to make regulations to that effect if such are found to be necessary? I do not know whether the Minister appreciates the seriousness of this matter. There may be only five men who will be disemployed but it will mean that there will be five people who will find themselves without a job. The Minister will be instrumental in doing the damage but he says that he has no responsibility after that.
We are making laws and regulations which are for the benefit of the general public and it may be that in carrying out these laws and regulations we may find, through the medium of tests and investigations, that there are people driving who are a danger to themselves and to the public. Surely it cannot be held, boldly and bluntly, that I am responsible for pushing these people out of employment and that I should carry the responsibility of negotiating how employment or compensation should be provided for them? Even if four or five people lose their present employment as a result of being found not fit to drive surely the Deputy will agree that over the past year, over the past ten years, and for years before that, without tests being obligatory at all, many people have found, by visits to their own doctors or by visits to the company doctor, that they are grounded? You do not blame the doctor in that case and ask him to pay compensation.
I appreciate the Deputy's approach to the matter but I do not appreciate his assertion that compensation for employment lost as a result of being found unfit should fall to be dealt with by the Minister for Local Government, that it should be paid out of the Road Fund or other public funds or that the Minister should sort things out so that this would follow. I am not saying that there is not a problem but it is a problem which already exists. It may be accentuated by virtue of the tests but the solution to that problem is surely not that we are to underwrite and make provisions in a Road Traffic Bill to meet circumstances which are far more appropriate to our social welfare legislation and to workmen's compensation.
I fully subscribe to the Deputy's view that it would be proper to refer this matter to the Commission on Workmen's Compensation and I can see no reason why it should not be referred to that Commission. I am with him in that but when he says that I can do something about it I do not agree with him. I agree that there may be a problem, that we should try to remedy it and, if it is a remedy to refer it to that Commission, I would be happy to subscribe to that view.
I find it difficult to follow the Minister in this case. As far as we are concerned we agree with the main purpose of the Bill which is to protect the public in the use of the highways. In doing that other problems, which may be regarded as small problems, have thrown themselves up. Having presented themselves, we suggest that it is the Minister's duty to bring in some protective clause in that regard.
I do not think it good enough for the Minister to say he has nothing to do with providing compensation for such people affected by the Bill. That is an unprecedented attitude to take. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said, when introducing a Transport Bill which, because of the general policy enshrined in it, inevitably caused redundancy—in the case of C.I.E., where we had branch lines closing down and a reorganisation within the company—that there should be provision in that Bill to compensate the people rendered redundant through the general policy of the House. Here we have a measure on which there is largely the general concurrence of people on all sides of the House and I hope the Minister will appreciate our concern for the people who must fall by the wayside because of the implementation of this general policy.
There should, without a doubt, be written into this Bill provision for compensation for people who will lose their employment as a result of the Bill, as a result of the fitness test. We do not quarrel about this fitness test, because we believe that persons deemed unfit should be put off the roads in the interest of the general public. But such persons are entitled to the consideration of this House, and I am surprised the Minister should say that, while he appreciated that point, it was not his job and that he hoped in the sweet by-and-by some other Minister would come along with a Bill to deal with that side of the question. I do not think that is good enough.
If a person loses employment through the operation of this Bill—a genuine employee who has given very good service—it is very poor consolation to him to hear that during the passage of the measure which rendered him jobless the Minister for Local Government expressed great sympathy with his type of case and promised that if in the dim and distant future one of his colleagues would introduce legislation he would be very sympathetic. If this Bill in this way put only one man out of employment—say a C.I.E. employee or a respected employee of a private firm—the company or the firm might pay compensation. However, that would be entirely optional when it should be made compulsory by a provision written into the Bill.
We have in this country dispensary doctors who are 70 or 80 years of age, some of them are deaf and some blind and a number stupid, but we do not throw them out of the public service. If we do, we pay them compensation and very handsome compensation at that. Dispensary doctors render a vital service to the community but some of them are left doddering around for years and if we put them out we must compensate them. On the other hand, you have a good family man with four or five children who, through no fault of his own, will be rendered unemployed by this measure; yet he will get no compensation for it. I hope the Minister will reconsider this. He will not be creating a precedent if he writes into this Bill something to provide for the problem of these men who will lose their work as a result of the fitness test.
I agree with Deputy Casey. I, too, feel a great injustice can be done to these men who have given good service. I think the Minister should go even further and provide in his Bill that these men will not get the hammer through no fault of their own. Possibly the Minister is afraid there will be too many involved. I believe it would only concern a handful. I think the Minister will not be straining himself too much by embodying these suggestions in the section.
It seems there is some misconception here. By reason of the fact that a person is already a licensed driver he will not be obliged to apply for a certificate of fitness under this Bill unless he either has committed an offence under the Bill or, under Section 28, an officer of the Garda has reasonable grounds for believing that by reason of disease or disability he is unfit to drive. I think Deputy Casey is working himself into a frenzy quite unnecessarily, because a person who is an old and trusted employee, who has given many years of service, will not be affected unless he gives grounds to an officer of the Garda for believing that he is unfit or unless he commits an offence. If his record is perfectly clear and if he gives no reason for a Garda to suspect any physical disability he is not obliged to do the fitness test.
The people we are talking about must undergo the test.
If you take that class, surely you are making a rule here for people who are physically incapable or for people who are incapable, perhaps, on grounds of general mental make-up—not the sort of people you would like to see driving a public service vehicle. If they are not competent to do that, is there any reason why they should be compensated?
That is the whole point.
It is the whole point. It is not a question that bears any comparison with the employees who were declared redundant by reason of Government policy, who had their source of employment taken away, although they were good workers, only because it was not in the public interest that their jobs should be maintained. In those cases jobs had to be found for the men or they had to be compensated. Here you have a case where a person is obliged to have a test in the public interest and is found to be incapable. Why should the community have to compensate a person who wishes to do something which it is dangerous for him to do?
As Deputy Casey pointed out, when we have an unfit dispensary doctor we retire him and give him a pension.
I have never heard of an unfit dispensary doctor.
The Deputy never had anything to do with them.
Deputy Coogan is probably right there, but I cannot understand how this can come under this Bill. It is purely a matter of providing for the public interest and public safety.
And provide for the problems arising out of it.
These problems are matters for social welfare legislation, not for road traffic legislation. All that road traffic legislation can do is to safeguard the public interest. Compensation is an entirely different matter. All Deputy Casey or Deputy Corish can do is to accept the Minister's view that he will support any application in another quarter in respect of such compensation. It cannot be dealt with here. That is something which could go on to a ludicrous extent.
I never saw the Deputy more unhappy about any contribution.
Mr. Ryan
I agree with Deputy Casey that Deputy Booth is unhappy in regard to his contribution to this discussion. Deputy Booth should bring the point of principle involved to its logical conclusion. If society demands for society's protection that certain people are put out of employment society has a debt to those people. That is the principle behind this very simple amendment. This is not only a Bill of the Minister for Local Government; it is a Government Bill. There is a principle of collective responsibility involved and it is not good enough for the Minister to have spent a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes today washing his hands and saying: "Maybe it is somebody else's responsibility but it is not mine" and then reluctantly, after further prolonged discussions, saying that it would appear to be a matter for the commission. He has not explicitly said he will bring the matter to the notice of the commission which is now sitting to consider the workmen's compensation code and it is most important that he should.
Let us consider whether or not it is appropriate to put it into this Bill. We have heard a great deal about not putting irrelevant matters into Bills. That led us to the situation eight years ago whereby a Health Bill changed the law very radically in relation to the right of people to compensation in respect of injuries caused by road accidents. Before the Health Bill of 1953 was passed if a person was injured on the roadway through the negligence of another person, he recovered all expenses, including hospital expenses and surgeons' fees, from the party guilty of the negligence. Under the Health Act, 1953, because proper provision was not made in that legislation, if a patient has a blue card or is a person entitled to a contribution from the local authority, he cannot recover against the negligent party the cost of hospitalisation. The result is that the taxpayers and ratepayers have been paying for the negligence of some people on the roadway for the past eight years because the draftsman and the purists said it would not be appropriate to deal with it when the Health Bill was being enacted. It was a matter of road legislation; road legislation was being changed by a Health Bill.
In this Bill we are changing conditions of employment; whether we like it or not that is what we are doing. We are interfering in the ordinary contractual obligations that exist between employer and employee and I suggest that if the purists are to have their way and no compensatory provisions are included in this measure, at least there is some obligation on the Minister which he cannot discharge by shrugging his shoulders and saying this is somebody else's bailiwick. We believe that where any Department of State is going to make a radical change in relation to contractual obligations between the employer and employee, negotiations should take place with other Departments. If the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Social Welfare have not already adverted to this it is a sorry commentary on the heads of the Departments concerned.
Deputy Casey said the Minister for Transport and Power made provision for redundancy brought about by the closing down of branch railway lines and that that was directly comparable with this matter under discussion. Redundancy brought about by closing down a particular works, factory or branch railway line is a condition that has been created by the closing down action, but if a person is examained by a doctor and found to be unfit, how can it be said that the Minister who was responsible for his being examined brought about his unfitness? It is a matter of finding out that he was unfit, not of creating the condition as would be the case with redundancy.
Deputy Ryan suggests we are interfering with conditions of employment and the ordinary contractual obligations entered into by employers and employees. Under the 1933 Act there is a provision whereby a driver can be brought to court if there is reason to believe he is unfit to be a driver due to some physical, mental or other incapacity. As a result of being so brought to court, he may be disqualified for driving and thereby lose his job as a driver, which is what is under discussion here. In that 1933 Act there is no clause or section dealing with provision for compensation nor indeed have there come before this House any examples of damage done as a result of the operation of that section of the 1933 Act.
In regard to the whole picture as I see it and, I think, as members of the House generally see it, the matter of being unfit for work, premature retirement, retirement through illness or injury, retirement through old age or infirmity—all these things form themselves into a pattern of social welfare. The care of these people and of all other people in various walks of life who have not got some private means or private arrangements of their own for meeting the vicissitudes of life comes within the scope of social welfare. It has been the purpose of many measures passed in this House to give social welfare benefits to such people.
The matter raised now is also one which falls within the framework of social welfare and is indeed very appropriate to be dealt with in that way. In regard to the Commission which has been set up by the Minister for Social Welfare to deal with workmen's compensation, this is a question that has been suggested as being very appropriate to be considered by them. In answer to Deputy Ryan, if I did not say I would refer this matter to the Commission it was because I was not quite sure whether my saying so would be of any real worth or any satisfaction to the Deputies who have been speaking on this matter during the past 15 or 20 minutes. The people who spoke on this are, perhaps, aware of how appropriately it could be dealt with by that Commission. If they feel it can be properly dealt with by the Commission, I shall be glad to undertake to refer it to the Commission for their consideration.
The Commission have been sitting for five years and have not found it possible to deal with the terms of reference given to them originally. It would be very poor consolation for the people concerned to tell them that when the Commission are finished dealing with the problems set them five years ago, they might address themselves to the subject of this amendment. That might be five years hence.
That was not my intention.
I know that. I am simply pointing out the facts.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Burke, James.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McLoughlin, Joseph.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Russell, George E.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Spring, Dan.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Galvin, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies M.P. Murphy and Spring; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 36.
I move amendment No. 53:
In subsection (1), page 31, to delete "may" in line 40 and to insert "may (and, in the case of an offence which would be an offence such as is specified in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 or subparagraph (b) of paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to this Act if it were a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years, shall)" in line 41 before "by".
It is proposed that this amendment and amendment No. 54 be taken together as both amendments are designed to secure that a compulsory endorsement on a licence in the case of the more serious offences which carry consequential disqualification on the commission of a second offence will be there as a record for the courts in regard to such offences. It might also be pointed out that under Section 37 an endorsement will run for at least three years. This will tie in with the provision in respect of subsequent or consequential disqualifications as outlined in the earlier parts of the Bill with which we have already dealt.
I take it that the Minister and the county councils will ensure that the situation will not arise in which, although an endorsement goes on the licence, it will be possible for the holder of such a licence to go along to the county council after a couple of weeks and apply for a new licence—which he may get—which will not show the endorsement. Will the endorsement also be notified to the licensing authority?
Yes, the regulations will provide for that and for whatever may be necessary to ensure that what the Deputy has in mind cannot happen.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54.
In subsection (2), to insert "or is required to be made" in line 47 before "under" and to add to the subsection:
"and, where the order under subsection (1) of this section was required to be made by that subsection, the appellate court—
(a) if it sets aside the conviction, shall annul that order,
(b) if it refuses the appeal and does not vary the sentence, shall confirm that order,
(c) if it refuses the appeal and varies the sentence, shall annul that order and by a new order direct particulars of the conviction to be endorsed on the driving licence held by the person concerned or, if he is not the holder of a driving licence but subsequently a driving licence is granted to him, on that driving licence."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55.
In subsection (3), page 32, line 18, to delete ", annul or vary" and substitute "or annul".
This is purely a drafting amendment. The word "vary" is not necessary in the opening clause of the subsection because, as appears from the numbered paragraphs, an appeal court will not vary the endorsement order where it varies the disqualification order but will cancel the endorsement order of the lower court and make a new one. In other words, the higher court's decision will be the decision rather than a variation of what was the original decision or the decision of the lower court.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That Section 38 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
Subsection (2) paragraph (b) contains one of these objectionable presumptions in law which lead to injustices. I wonder if it is necessary to have a provision of that kind providing that it will be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that he did not at the time hold a driving licence having effect and licensing him to drive the vehicle. This is done purely to convenience the State. Is that not more or less the position? It is done to save the State having to prove that a defendant did not have a driving licence at the time. It is dangerous to make these presumptions if it is not necessary and it certainly will lead to injustices unless the Minister accepts some of the amendments that we have put down. I do not like to let the section pass without commenting on it.
There is just one point that I should like to clarify. Apparently the section provides that it is compulsory for a person to have a driving licence. Now that that is so, I want the Minister to consider what persons might be entitled to have a licence in addition to being required to have one.
The 1933 Act referred to driving on a public road. That is being extended now to driving in a public place, a much wider term. Suppose a function is held in a sportsfield, does that make the field a public place? Suppose there is a demonstration on a private farm, does that make the farm a public place? There are, too, many farmers who have able-bodied sons of 14, 15 and 16. Under this Bill even a hardy chap of 16 will not be able to obtain a driving licence for a tractor. The 14-15-year olds will likewise be prevented from helping in and around the farm because they will not get any licences.
I think we shall have to have another look at this. Many farmers' sons are quite competent to help around the farm now that farming has become so highly mechanised. It might be necessary for these boys to drive a tractor across the road or some distance up the road to another field. Some provision will have to be put in this Bill to cope with that situation and enable farmers to go on taking advantage of mechanisation. A combine harvester is a self-propelled vehicle. A licence will be required in future for it. I hope the Minister will see his way to making some provision to cover the points I have raised.
I should like the Minister to clarify "public place" with special reference to tractors and other mechanically propelled farm machinery. Does the provision apply to the movement of machines from one farm to another, or from one field to another in the same farm? Does it apply to ploughing championships and other functions of that nature? Does the fact that the public attend these functions mean that a licence must be held by all who take part in these championships?
Deputy Rooney has referred to the position of the under-16 on the farm. I should like the Minister to consider the case of invalid children who may need a chair to get around. Surely they will not be prohibited from driving an invalid chair. I understand the h.p. is one-quarter. An invalid child in the country may need a chair to travel to and from school. In the same way, a child living a distance from school may need an auto-cycle. Again, the h.p. is one-quarter. I do not believe such a machine would kill a chicken. If there is to be a ban on all the under-sixteens there will have to be some exceptions to cover the cases I have cited.
Deputy Ryan raised the question of the onus of proof. He feels the situation as outlined in the Bill is not as he would like it to be. In the past it was assumed that where a driver fails to produce a licence the onus of proof is on the defendant because the fact that he had or had not the licence would be knowledge peculiarly his own. The principle was applied over quite a while that the onus of proof fell on the person concerned.
It would be an almost impossible task for the prosecution to prove that a person did not have a licence, has not a licence or never had a licence. As I say, the onus of proof was on the driver until the position was upset by a decision of the court as a result of which the onus of proof was placed on the prosecution. There is no great difficulty for the defendant to prove that he has or has had a licence. He knows where to find evidence to prove the fact. The prosecution is not in the same happy position. A driver knows whether he has a licence or not, where it was issued and, if he no longer has a licence, it is no great burden on him to get evidence to the effect that he had a licence.
Deputy Cunningham and some other Deputy raised the question as to what is a public place for the purposes of the Bill. Take, for instance, the grounds or the roads of the Airports in Dublin or Shannon. A very good example is the Phoenix Park. These are obvious examples of what is a public place for the purposes of the Bill.
A question was raised as to movements of tractors, farm machines, self-propelled and otherwise. If it is within the farm or within the private avenues, laneways or roadways of the farm, which are private, there can be no question of applying the terms of this Bill to such movements. Neither would the requirement of a licence arise, whether the driver was under 16 or over 16. Once those machines came on to the public road, it would be a completely different matter, even if it were only for the purpose of crossing the road from one field to another. Of course, I am sure it would not be beyond the ingenuity of a person under 16 years of age or a person who had not a licence to cross 16 or 20 feet of roadway. I am sure they have done it and will continue to do it, no doubt keeping a look-out to see if there is a Garda in the vicinity who would be likely to pull them up. The strict interpretation of these matters is that these machines can be driven within the confines of the farm but cannot be driven, without an offence being committed, on the public highway. The public highway is a public place and a machine that would be on the public highway for even the short time involved in going across the road would be subject for that very short time to the ordinary law applicable in the case of any other vehicle.
Deputy Sherwin suggested that special provision should be made for invalided children under 16 years of age who may have difficulty in getting to school. He suggested that they might be given licences to use auto-cycles, scooters or some such mechanically propelled vehicle. That suggestion appeals to one on first hearing but if we were to make special provision for handicapped or incapacitated children, what possible defence would there be against a claim that a normal, healthy child should also get the facility? Where could the line be drawn? What would be the minimum age limit?
The intention is not to prevent people from having licences. The minimum age limit in regard to specified types of licences is not designed to prevent persons under that age having a licence. To go below that age limit would create undue danger. The granting of licences to young people might cause them to be not only a danger to themselves but to other road users. We must look at this matter from the point of view of the safety of the persons concerned and that of the general public. It is not a matter of restricting the issue of licences for the sake of so doing.
I am sure that a case could be made in support of Deputy Sherwin's plea but assuming that invalided or incapacitated children were to get licences, I cannot see how a claim on behalf of a normal, healthy child could be resisted. If the Deputy considers the matter, he will appreciate that the matter is not as simple as would appear on first sight. The case could be made that the granting of a licence would meet a particular case of hardship but we have to consider all the other cases that could arise for the granting of licences to young people who we consider should not be given a licence to drive any type of mechanically propelled vehicle. We cannot very well go back, although we would go back if we felt we would be justified in doing so. I do not think we would be justified in reducing the age limit and in making special provision for special cases. If we were to do so we might just as well abandon the idea of a minimum age for the issue of a licence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle.
I feel the Minister should consider this point further. He mentioned that it is not necessary for a person to have a driving licence in order to drive any type of motor vehicle in a private place regardless of risk. It does not matter what age the person may be, he could drive a motor car in a private place.
However, there are still points to be considered. The Minister mentioned the driving of a tractor by a person of the age of 16 from one field to another on a farm and also the fact that it was quite clear that such a person would be breaking the law if he drove a tractor across the road from one field of the farm to another. The Minister knows that labour on farms is becoming very scarce. Wage earners are moving away from the land into other types of work and the result is that the farmer is becoming more and more dependent on his young son to help him along with the ordinary work on the farm.
I am well aware that there are young mature fellows aged 14½, 15½ and 16½ years driving tractors for miles along the roads on behalf of their fathers and in connection with the work of the farm, whether it be in connection with the delivery of milk or in other circumstances. They are driving the tractors from their own farmyards to the conacre letting which may be a few miles away from the farm proper. These tractors are being loaded with fertilisers, or perhaps with crops, and are being driven long distances. Rather than leave the tractor lying in the yard the farmer must ask his grown-up sons who are under the licensing age of 17 years to drive them. It is becoming a burning question on these farms. And these are not high-speed vehicles. They are capable of a fair speed if driven furiously but, in the ordinary way, they are not high-speed vehicles and neither is the self-propelled combine harvester.
The wage-earners are going off the land at the rate of 7,000 a year. Their places must be filled by machinery and by the grown-up sons of the farmers. There is also the case of a man who loses his licence in connection with the driving of a car, lorry or motor van. If he does so, he also loses his licence to drive an agricultural tractor. There again he has the right to drive it from one field to another on his land only, but he cannot drive it to a field across the road or to his conacre letting. This person would be of an age to hold a licence but for the fact that he had lost it in connection with the driving of a high-speed vehicle.
In fact, I have an example of a man who lost his licence in connection with the driving of a motor van. He was using a tractor to drive his milk down the road for about a mile to the place where it would be collected. As a result he had to sell his dairy herd. He could not afford to engage extra staff and, when he could not drive along the public road and could not get the dairy people to call to his farmyard to collect the milk, he had to sell the dairy herd. I feel that the Minister should try to meet that problem which is growing on our farms. I want to emphasise the fact that a special licence for the driving of tractors could be issued. That would meet the case, particularly considering the fact that a tractor is a slow-moving vehicle in the ordinary way.
If the Minister does hold with the eloquence of Deputy Rooney I would ask him to consider the consequences and provide for them. If these young boys are going across the public road they cannot be insured and I consider that there should be a clause put into the Section providing for the liabilities of insurance companies. This action would have to be taken in the interests of the public generally. There have been many serious accidents due to the driving of tractors.
This is a very serious matter. I have suffered from a serious injury and had to attend clinics where there was nothing but cripples and teenagers. There are many young people who would be quite capable of looking after an invalid chair which moves only at a low rate of speed. Surely the Minister can have no objection to a person under 16 years of age having a licence if certified by a member of the medical profession and if the application is made before the district justice? Surely he does not compare an able-bodied youth with an invalid? He should consult the medical profession and get their point of view on this matter.
I was speaking about this matter with my son who has a motor cycle and he told me that an ordinary motor cycle has one horse power, a mini-cycle has a half horse power and an engine attached to an ordinary cycle has a quarter-horse power. If you ride a bicycle with a quarter horse power and go up a hill it will stop. If there is a good wind it will stop. I do not see any danger in a vehicle having a small motor to enable cripples to get around if they are under 16 years of age and I think the Minister should get the point of view of the medical profession on this matter. We cannot compare able-bodied youths with invalids who are otherwise capable of driving. If a boy of 12 years of age has no legs but is able to control an invalid chair with his hands, surely he should be allowed to drive one? Why should he be compelled to sit still? He should be able to get around. I would ask the Minister carefully to consider this question of invalids who might otherwise be incapable of looking after the vehicles they would be compelled to use. The only vehicles now of any use to invalids are all mechanically propelled.
I should like to say to Deputy Sherwin at the outset that I appreciate what he is trying to get across. But let us take the case of a child who is severely physically incapacitated but who is still able to use his arms and hands. He might be twelve years of age from the point of view of his stability and his mental responsibility. We are not preventing the under-sixteen invalids from holding licences because of the suggestion that they would not be physically capable of manipulating the vehicles. Judging from my knowledge of their capabilities, I would say there is no want of ability in this respect in the under-sixteens but it is a fact—this is a matter on which the House has had a mind over the years—that downwards from the age of sixteen, and progressively so as you go back in years, their sense and responsibility cannot be expected to be such as would meet the requirements of present day traffic requirements and traffic codes. They are just as likely to drive across a roadway where there is a stop sign as the child who is not incapacitated of the same age. It is for those reasons that we do not propose to bring down the age limit in respect of which licences should be given.
Even with pedal cycles there is a problem with the young because young children on pedal cycles can still achieve dangerously high speeds. Nobody, however, says we should stop young people from using pedal cycles until they have reached the age of 16. The point is that you can find a young girl or boy of fourteen, thirteen and twelve who has the mental stability, sense and responsibility far greater developed than somebody of 21 or even 31 but, in general, we must have regard to the fact that people of tender years cannnot be expected to have this sense of responsibility, the mental maturity that is required for their safety and for the safety of others of us who use the public highways. Accordingly we cannot license children to have control of mechanically propelled machines which would add considerably to the growing dangers on our roads today.
This is a point that can be argued all along the line. One could say that a child of eleven in certain cases had more stability than one of twelve, than one of ten had more than one of eleven, and so back the line. There is a point there and the whole question is whether or not we are satisfied that the age of 16 is the point or not. Is that the point, everything considered, under which we should not go? We have got to put a stop somewhere.
I agree with sixteen, but there should be exceptions.
A most deserving and a most unique case could arise where anybody who had the discretion would be compelled to accede to such a request because of the circumstances of the child, because of the hard luck stories attached to the child's incapacity, but it still would not prove whether or not the child, physically incapacitated as it might be, could have effective control over a mechanically propelled vehicle. There is no way of ascertaining or ensuring that in making the exception and in giving the licence, the child's sense of responsibility is any more developed than that of a normal, healthy child running around. That is really the point around which this whole discussion of the subject of Deputy Sherwin's suggestion must revolve. I cannot see the answer to it at all.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 55a:
In subsection (1), to add to the end of paragraph (a):
"or unless the person produces in Court the licence signed and stamped by a member of the Garda Síochána at the Garda Síochána station so named by the person, stating the date and place at which such licence was produced to such member of the Garda Síochána and such licence so signed by a member of the Garda Síochána shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated thereon without proof of the signature of the Garda Síochána or that the person purporting to be a member of the Garda Síochána is in fact a member of the Garda Síochána”.
Amendments Nos. 77a and 77b could, I think, be discussed with this amendment.
Mr. Ryan
This involves the same point I raised under Section 19. I was not in the House when the Minister replied to my points on Section 19 about the production of the test certificates. I think the Minister was prepared to consider the necessity for these amendments whereby, if a person is asked to produce a test certificate, there would be a statutory obligation on a Garda officer to endorse on the certificate the fact that it had been produced and that the endorsement would be prima facie evidence of its production.
At an earlier stage, I undertook to the Deputy that I would look into the procedure in operation at the moment and, from that, to give an indication of what the procedure is in relation to test certificates. I have here a sheet called Garda Síochána Form CT 34 which is used at the moment in regard to these particular matters. If I were driving in Dublin and were stopped by a member of the Garda and had not got my driver's licence or my certificate of insurance, I nominate my home Garda station— in my case in Co. Donegal—at which I would produce the document required, within, at the moment, five days.
This form is filled by the Garda who has pulled me up. He gives on it the day and the date, the name of the person held up, the registration number and so on and the particulars of the document I failed to produce. He signs the form and sends it on to my home station which I nominated when pulled up. The station sergeant at my home locality will then complete the form and return it to Dublin. So if will be seen that there are no loopholes, that no surprise prosecution can be sprung on the person pulled up. That is the system operated at the moment and it seems foolproof. It does not leave any room for a situation where a person might find himself short-circuited or put on a spot unnecessarily. I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16th, 1961.