Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1961

Vol. 189 No. 9

Road Traffic Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In subsection (1), page 82, line 50, to delete "five" and substitute "four".—Deputy Corish.

Mr. Kyne

I wish to recommend this amendment. Having a sufficient interval between spells of driving is an essential to road safety. I am aware the Minister considers that the question of hours is a matter for conditions of employment rather than road safety. However, the fact that in present-day commerce it is quite common for drivers to be asked to drive distances of from 300 to 400 miles without a suitable interval of rest should indicate clearly to him the hazard these weary drivers constitute on the road. All our work over the past week in providing penalties and regulations for road safety will be set at nought if we permit men to do something whereby they will constitute a source of danger to the rest of the traffic on the road.

It is ridiculous to suggest that a man driving a heavy lorry, say, from Dungarvan to Dublin, a distance of 126 miles, and getting a break of only half-an-hour before returning the same day, could be considered as competent returning as he was setting out that morning. It is quite common for distances far exceeding that distance to be travelled. I heard last evening from a fellow Deputy of lorry drivers being sent as far as from Waterford to Belfast. It is true that after a period of five and a half hours they are compelled under this Bill to rest for a period of half an hour. I suggest and the Labour movement suggests that that period should be reduced by one hour. There were similar proposals away back 30 years ago in the 1933 Traffic Bill. Surely the change in road circumstances, in traffic density and the speed at which traffic is travelling should convince the Minister that some alteration should be made in the rest period.

It is quite true that good employers will not require their employees to drive excessively but we are catering not only for good employers. The trade union movement, as far as possible, have agreements with good employers where the measures we are suggesting will be unnecessary. However, there are many unorganised employers who take advantage of the State to compel their employees to work extremely long hours in driving. The Minister, in view of the danger to the public, should save these employees who, either for big money or because of fear of their employers, are prepared to risk the lives of others on the road in order to carry on. The Minister should seriously consider this amendment and at least meet it in some way on the next Stage of the Bill.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

My view is summed up in the statement that I feel that this is not properly a matter to be dealt with here—conditions of working—and that it should be dealt with if necessary in some other way.

It is true that the present provisions, in so far as the hours and the breaks, and so on, are concerned are the same as those outlined in the 1933 Act. In that Act, as well, provision was made for an advisory committee to act on this matter and to give advice as to whether or not any changes should be made. My information is that this committee was appointed time after time, that it never met and finally, not having met, on its re-appointment people refused to act. In other words, it became completely obsolete and went out of existence.

The present provision does not include the advisory committee provision which was in the 1933 Act but, in subsection (7) (a) (b) (i) (ii), it makes another provision and that is that within the terms of this section and within the hours specified, the Minister for Industry and Commerce may vary these hours by agreement of the employees and the employers. In other words, if the employers and employees meet the Minister for Industry and Commerce and agree that certain changes are desirable then the Minister for Industry and Commerce is empoyered, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government, to vary the hours as set out in the section proper.

It might be said, and it has been said, that the representatives of the workers do not embrace every lorry driver or all workers in the transport business. However, if the workers' representatives in the unions and the employers' representatives, representing both groups of employers and employees, in a general way agree to vary or to seek a variation in these hours, then that variation, if agreed to by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, would be applicable with the full force of law to all operatives regardless of whether or not they were members of any particular union. That is one of the outlets. If the workers' representatives wish to press their view that these hours should be varied, there is specific provision here for that purpose. I believe that, on that basis, the workers and their representatives have nothing to fear in this measure.

It was argued that conditions are very different now from what they were in 1933, different in that it is alleged that the duties of drivers are more onerous today than they were then. I doubt very much if the fatigue factor which is the operative one in so far as my view is concerned in regard to the safety factor is any greater now than it was then and I do not go in the other direction and believe that the physique of our drivers today is any less than it was then.

By and large, I am not of the belief that from the medical point of view— you might put it that way—there is any greater danger inherent in these hours today than there has been in these same hours over the years. The British 1960 legislation contains the same hours. If we were to follow the argument of a greater amount of traffic on the roads resulting in greater fatigue and greater danger, if we were to follow that view expressed here in relation to Irish roads and Irish conditions, surely the British provision which lays down the same hours must give us very serious food for thought. There, road conditions, the density of traffic and all these factors that are being advanced as arguments here exist in even greater measure. Yet, as recently as last year these same hours were agreed to and have been legislated for in Great Britain.

By and large, I think we get back to what I have already said and that is that these hours, as laid down, are the hours beyond which no driver may be required to drive, not the hours which every driver will be asked or compelled to drive. On that basis, no real difficulty is presented to the workers or to their representatives. The conditions of workers and their relationship with the employers of today are surely much improved. A very great advance has been made in that regard as against conditions existing in 1933. The workers' representatives today, without any doubt, are surely in a very strong position in regard to negotiating working conditions for their people.

Again, to counter the argument that the unions do not represent all the workers and all the drivers, if they represent them as they do represent them in a general way then as such they may, in conjunction with the employers' representatives, sit down with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and reach an agreement between the employers and themselves. Then the hours, if agreed to by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, will be binding on all, regardless of whether they are members of the union or whether the employers are members of whatever general group or federation they might have.

Taking that into consideration, I think the weakness pointed out in the union not representing all drivers does not hold water. In this instance, they will have the control as if they did represent each and every driver provided they get the agreement from the employers' representatives and get the Minister for Industry and Commerce to go along with them. I believe that is sufficient safeguard, if safeguard is necessary. Operated in a proper manner, it can bring about all the variations that might be required. To leave it as it stands and to allow this machinery to operate as outlined in subsection (7) (a) and (b) of Section 114, is, I think, fairly meeting the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Kyne

Assuming the trade unions and the employers meet the Minister for Industry and Commerce and come to some agreement similar to the Labour Party proposals, who would enforce that law? Is it the inspectors of the Department or will the Minister write it into the Road Traffic Act by way of regulation? It is well known that at present there are not sufficient inspectors in the Department to carry out factory inspection and other work.

Mr. Blaney

It is not the Department's representatives who would enforce the law; it is the Garda authorities. With a view to making such enforcement effective, there is a requirement in the Bill that a record of hours worked and travelled must be kept. There would be a log-book from which checks would be made and from which it could be ascertained if the number of hours worked was in excess of the permitted figure.

Mr. Kyne

The Minister says "the hours worked." Would that cover an owner-driver, a man with a plate? Generally speaking, I believe they are the worst offenders. They do not think anything of themselves or the people on the road. They continue to drive for periods long in excess even of the present regulations and they get away with it. There does not appear to be any check at present. Only in the case of an accident have I heard of any serious attempt to check. Does the Minister say that the Garda will now have power to check owner-drivers?

Mr. Blaney

As the Deputy will appreciate, regulations must be made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce laying down what conditions must be kept. At this stage, I certainly would not like to commit the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to what he would do. The matter raised by Deputy Kyne and all other matters will be taken into consideration when these regulations are being drafted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I presume any representations made to the Minister would be useful in enabling him to draft effective regulations.

At the moment proper effect is not being given to the law. The difficulty is that no records, by regulation or otherwise, are required to be kept. The keeping of records is, therefore, a big advance because it will enable the law to be enforced. The present weakness lies in the fact that no records are required to be kept. I would not like at this stage to commit another Minister, who will be concerned in the type of regulation to be made. The power is being provided so that an effective method of detection and administration will be available and so that real control of the situation can be envisaged.

Mr. Kyne

I am sure the Minister can understand why the trade union movement, realising the difficulty of covering such a wide field, considered that this was a short cut. We are doubtful whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce could in fact legislate in such a way as to cover people who did not come within the category of employees. That matter will have to be examined. But now that the Minister is limiting travelling hours, surely it would be a simple matter to examine the position and say that, in view of the increase in the density of traffic, in the number of regulations and in the strain of driving now as compared with 30 years ago, we should consider public safety?

No one can deny that tiredness is a factor of the utmost importance in driving. Those of us who feel sleep coming on as we drive—perhaps because of the night we stayed up before—can understand the grave risk not only to the driver but to the public. Any sensible driver in that situation is inclined to pull in and rest. But if you are an employee, with a schedule of runs to keep, or if you are driven by the motive of gain, unless there is a deterrent, you are inclined to ignore the tiredness factor and continue driving. That is why we consider we are not asking the Minister too much when we ask him to consider an alteration in the rest periods.

The amendments put forward by us are not unreasonable. It is true this change has not been made in Britain, but other factors may be operating there. Not all British legislation is good, nor do they always lead. For instance, they have no legislation such as our legislation regulating the conditions of office employment. If we create a second precedent in this case, I think it would be something to be welcomed.

Mr. Dillon

I have sympathy with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Kyne and I agree with him that excessive driving hours require to be controlled. But has he looked at or considered paragraph (c) of subsection (2), which states:

any time spent by the driver of a vehicle at work (other than driving) in relation to the vehicle or load carried thereon, including in the case of a public service vehicle any time spent in any capacity (other than as driver or as a passenger) on the vehicle while on a journey, shall be reckoned as time spent in driving;

I am thinking of rural conditions, with which I am familiar. I am thinking of the travelling shop. I want to declare to Deputies that I am a country shopkeeper, but I do not operate a travelling shop. I know many people who do, however, and they are mostly small men struggling to earn a living for themselves. In operating a travelling shop, they are, in fact, moving from one neighbour's door to another and sometimes from one crossroads to another. You stop at the crossroads and deal with the goods on the vehicle.

Unless I am mistaken, paragraph (c) will mean that time must be counted as time driving a vehicle. If we circumscribe too harshly the limit of time for which the vehicle can lawfully be driven and retain that definition of driving, I think we are going to cause a great deal of difficulty for many people in rural Ireland and particularly for that category I have mentioned. Therefore, we should be rather circumspect in dealing with a matter of that kind because although we can, with advantage, look to the experience of other countries for guidance, we must remember that we have a social pattern of our own in rural Ireland to which we should have regard.

The vast majority of country shopkeepers would be very glad to see the travelling shop harassed out of existence and, being a country shopkeeper myself, I sympathise with and understand that reaction, but I believe that there is always enough for everybody and if the small man is trying to push his way into independence, into a living, his neighbour should be very slow to agitate for his elimination by legislation of this or any kind. Many young fellows attain to a livelihood by working hard when they are young and making their way.

Suppose you provide that the travelling shop cannot operate for more than 4½ hours without a period of rest and follow that through the other amendment standing in Deputy Kyne's name, cutting down the period of total driving in 24 hours from 11 to nine, bearing in mind the significance of paragraph (c), you will wipe out quite a number of small shopkeepers if the law is operated. This makes one wonder how you are to get these people to keep the kind of records the Minister refers to, a book showing driving hours. I should be interested to hear from Deputy Kyne if, in recommending these reductions in this series of amendments, regard has been had to the significance of paragraph (c) of subsection (2).

Mr. Kyne

The amendment was not intended to deal with travelling shops but with drivers who had to drive continuously for a period of 5½ hours.

Mr. Corish

And who may not have to work outside driving.

Mr. Kyne

I can quite well appreciate why Deputy Dillon says that there would be need for an alteration in paragraph (c). There is no intention in the Labour proposal to wipe out anybody. In fact we would feel, were it not for paragraph (c), that these people were not doing continuous driving at all. It is the long distance drivers mainly, the men required to drive, and who sometimes do drive, up to eight or nine or ten hours continuously, with perhaps a stop while a tank is being taken off the lorry. I am thinking of container traffic where a crane is used to unload the tank and the lorry turns around immediately and goes back to its base.

I seriously suggest to the Minister that there is grave danger on the roads from sheer tiredness of drivers. I put down an amendment to this Bill aimed at having two people on the lorry but the Minister said he could make regulations to cover that and I was satisfied to withdraw it. The object of that amendment was that two drivers would travel so that one could replace the other and that neither would become so exhausted as to be a danger to road users. There is much merit in this proposal and I would press the Minister to consider it and see if, on Report Stage, he could not introduce some section containing suitable safeguards to meet the point made by Deputy Dillon, possibly by the exclusion of certain types of people or businesses from whatever regulations he may make.

Mr. McQuillan

May I ask if it is seriously suggested that travelling shops should be allowed to have drivers in their vans driving for 11 hours of the day and employed for 11 hours each day? I am as familar with the travelling shop in the west of Ireland as anybody and my experience is that the drivers for these travelling shops are not members of any trade union and there is no limit to the hours they may be asked to work. So far as the Labour Party amendment is concerned, I do not think Deputy Kyne should have any worry about including drivers of vehicles described as travelling shops, in addition to drivers of long-distance vehicles.

Mr. Sherwin

Would they not have plenty of rest?

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Sherwin was not here last night when we discussed the situation obtaining at present. If this section is passed as it is, it will enable a trader in Letterkenny to dispatch a driver to Dublin in the morning to collect a load at some wholesaler's premises, who, after a half hour's rest, will be forced to come back to Donegal the same day. That is a journey of approximately 400 miles in one day. Is it seriously suggested that, when we are bringing in a measure to improve road conditions and secure safer travel, any driver is capable of working continuously at that type of driving? I know Deputies who complain of being tired after a short journey from Limerick to Dublin or Cavan to Dublin, or even from Tuam to Dublin. If they had to return that evening, they might have to take a long rest.

Mr. Dillon

How do you drive a lorry 400 miles in 11 hours?

Mr. McQuillan

It may interest Deputy Dillon to know that it is being done at present.

Mr. Dillon

It could not be done. You could not drive 400 miles and discharge a load in 11 hours.

Mr. McQuillan

Does Deputy Dillon realise the speed these vehicles travel at?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Booth

They do not average 40 miles an hour.

Mr. Kyne

Very close to it.

Mr. Dillon

You could not average 40 miles an hour.

Mr. McQuillan

They do approximately 40 to 45 miles an hour. I have stayed behind these trucks in order to gauge their speeds.

Mr. Booth

The average speed would be about 30 m.p.h.

Mr. McQuillan

On the road between Dublin and Mullingar I have stayed behind trucks going to Donegal and travelling at 50 m.p.h., before I branched off for Roscommon.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy's main point is that they are driving for over 11 hours.

Mr. Dillon

The Bill forbids that.

Mr. McQuillan

This Bill will not prevent employers in Letterkenny from sending lorries to Dublin and expecting the drivers to be back that night with their loads. The Bill is specially designed not to alter the existing situation when the 1933 Act was brought in. It is an evasion of duty on the part of the Minister to suggest his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, will be in a position to rectify cases of injustice or hardship in conjunction with the trade union representatives and the employers' representatives. We know perfectly well that human nature does not change and that the employer is the same employer today as he was 100 years ago unless he is prodded along every year.

The fact that he may have a little more respect today for the worker is due to the organisation of the worker and the power that the worker has. However, human nature does not change and if we listen to remarks made at Chambers of Commerce dinners and manufacturers' dinners we know perfectly well what they would do if they got the opportunity. If we give them an opportunity by passing legislation to say that it is considered safe to have a man drive for 11 hours in 24 hours the argument which will be put forward by the employers' representatives to the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be that the Dáil considered that was all right and "why should we go against what the Dáil has decided?" This House will have to set the example and we should put in a maximum period over and above which no man should be allowed to drive a vehicle.

The amendment by the Labour Party is a reasonable one. I do not want to make this comment as a personal criticism of the Minister but as I said last night godless Russia is aiming at a 35 hour week for its workers while holy Ireland is, in 1961, embodying in legislation a provision that will make it legal for an employer to put a man driving a heavy vehicle for a period of 11 hours in 24. If that is progress I do not like to see it in this country.

Mr. Kenneally

Under the Transport Act of 1932 and the Road Traffic Act of 1933, licences are issued and it is stipulated that drivers may not drive for longer periods than 4½ hours.

Mr. Corish

I have said all I want to say about the actual hours. The Minister's argument in connection with subsection (7) may seem to be a reasonable one but I want to say that it is quite unacceptable to me. The Minister says these hours may be varied by regulations after consultations between the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the employers and the employees and set hours agreed upon. That is not acceptable because the Minister lays down hours and in these consultations we are going to work from 11 hours as the overall driving in the day in five and a half hour periods with half an hour's rest. Would it not be much better if the Minister embodied a section which laid down the hours as nine hours driving during the day and let this consultative body work on that? Let them increase it to 11 or reduce it to six or seven in certain cases, like the case mentioned by Deputy Dillon of the small man who must work and drive. Let that case be dealt with there. Here the dice is loaded against the workers who have to drive for long periods by the Minister embodying a section which says that up to 11 driving hours may be allowed in any period of 24 hours.

I am sure this measure has the agreement of the Government. Last night the Minister went to a lot of trouble to explain how it was possible for a man to drive for 11 hours and still be deemed safe on the road. I assume his colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce agrees with that view. Therefore consultations will be with the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is of the same mind as the Minister for Local Government and believes 11 hours is reasonable and with the employers who in the majority of cases will try to insist that the 11 hour period be retained. You have the third party, the workers represented by the trade unions, who, as they have said to the Minister and the Government over the last few months, believe that 11 hours is excessive.

Over and above that, after these consultations the Minister for Industry and Commerce has to consult with the Minister for Local Government who makes the regulation. The Minister seems to be very strongly in favour of 11 hours driving during the day and he is in favour of a continuous period of driving up to 5½ hours and also in favour of allowing a mere half hour's rest after a driving period of five and a half hours. That section may seem to be attractive; it would be if the Minister had not set the standard himself and argued strongly in favour of 11 hours driving in 24 hours. I would accept the Minister's argument in respect of subsection (7) if he agreed to reduce what I consider to be the limit of 11 hours to 9.

Mr. Blaney

I would say that during the night Deputy Corish has been brought around somewhat to the idea of what was a reasonable and balanced approach from my point of view with regard to this matter of 11 hours as against shorter periods. Special cases have been built up for these long distance drivers and Deputy McQuillan has worked it out pretty finely that Letterkenny—which is in my own constituency—is just the requisite distance from Dublin to demand in some way that I should allow sufficient rest for the drivers of Letterkenny who would be compelled to come to and go from Dublin in the one day. It is quite a plausible argument but I think Deputy McQuillan knows the worth of it from that point of view just as I do. If there are special cases, and it is quite possible there are, and special classes, then subsection (7) of Section 114 is designed to deal with those special classes by the workers' representatives and the employers agreeing with the Minister for Industry and Commerce to change the hours for the special classes.

The overall pattern is there and within and around it these variations may be made for the special classes. Provision accordingly is contained in subsection (7) (a) and (b) of Section 114. The suggestion is that all this will be very difficult; it will be a big feat to get the trade unions and employers together to agree and, having done that, get the agreement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. While that might all be possible, the idea that the Minister must then consult with the Minister for Local Government seems to infer that any benefit that might accrue under this section would be out of reach of the people concerned. The reason for the requirement that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should consult with the Minister for Local Government is on the off-chance that an extension of the hours upwards could become a danger factor beyond which the Minister responsible for this legislation would not agree to go, rather than the opposite being the case as would seem to be in the mind of Deputy Corish.

Mr. Corish

Why start at nine hours?

Mr. Blaney

What not at two?

Mr. Corish

Why not? Where did the Minister get 11?

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy did not come up yesterday and neither did I.

Mr. Sherwin

From where?

Mr. Blaney

From wherever it was. Let us not go into that. There is no point in talking about starting at nine or two or 22.

Mr. Corish

What is the normal working day? Can the Minister not base it on that? Surely 11 hours is not the normal working day?

Mr. Blaney

I am not legislating for conditions of work. That is a matter which is done elsewhere, has been done and I am sure will be done, and looked after in the proper way, by those concerned. I have put this matter to the House at length. I believe the pattern of hours as given here is of such a nature that, with the safeguard of subsection (7), it can be adapted to suit all concerned. No hardship will be created, and certainly this Bill is not directing hardship to be created. By and large, the pattern as laid down, with the safeguards and variations, is such that no one can quibble or complain about it. Cases have been quoted as proof that these hours should be reduced. If there are such cases at the moment under the present law, by reducing these hours, we will not remedy them. Surely it is evident that some means must be found to eradicate those abuses? If the present law is being abused, the new law could be abused. This legislation in itself will not remedy that situation and some other means must be found to eradicate it.

Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 18.

Tá

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Teehan, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

• Casey, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McQuillan, John.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Russell, George E.
• Sherwin, Frank.
• Spring, Dan.
• Tierney, Patrick.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies Kyne and Spring.

Question declared carried.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 108:

In subsection (1), page 82, line 53, to delete "eleven" and substitute "nine".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 109:

In subsection (2), page 83, line 16, to delete "half-an-hour" and substitute "one hour".

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Nil, 18.

Tá

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Teehan, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

• Casey, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McQuillan, John.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• Russell, George E.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Sherwin, Frank.
• Spring, Dan.
• Tierney, Patrick.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies Kyne and Spring.

Question declared carried.

Section 114 agreed to.

Sections 115 to 118, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 119.

An Ceann Comhairle

Could amendments No. 110 and No. 111 be discussed together?

Mr. J.A. Costello

I agree to that. They raise the same issues and can be better discussed together.

Mr. McQuillan

I move amendment No. 110:

In subsection (1), paragraph (c), lines 9 to 11, to delete "(other than a health institution within the meaning of the Health Act, 1947)" and to add to the end of the subsection: "irrespective of whether the injured person was entitled to medical services under the Health Acts."

This section is a very important one and both amendments should be considered very carefully by the Minister in view of the fact that the results will have a bearing on the finances of the local authority.

Section 119 as it stands excludes the health authority from the right to claim against the owners or the insurers of vehicles for the cost of treatment afforded in health authority hospitals to injured persons. This right to claim is given to the authorities of voluntary hospitals. The result means that as far as the health authority hospitals are concerned treatment must be afforded in those local authority hospitals at the rate appropriate to the category into which the injured person falls under the Health Act, 1953.

I cannot see any good reason why the ratepayers and the public purse should be saddled with the cost of treatment afforded in respect of injuries resulting from any insurable risk and the insurance companies thereby relieved. I cannot see any good reason —and I am sure members of local authorities in this House will agree with me—for relieving the owner of a vehicle or his insurer of the cost of treatment afforded in respect of an injury because the injured person happens to obtain treatment in a health authority hospital. If the treatment for an injury was afforded in a hospital other than a local authority hospital, the owner of the vehicle or his insurers would be liable for the full cost.

In the White Paper issued by the Minister it was suggested, and it was intended, I understand, to include all hospitals in the same category as voluntary hospitals are in now, but when the legislation was being prepared, that proposal was dropped and the reason, I understand, was that the Health Acts entitled each class of persons to free, or partly free, hospital treatment, and it was doubtful if the cost of the treatment in such cases would be recovered. I think there is no trouble at all in providing legislation to ensure that this would not happen.

A simple provision in the section excluding from the provisions of the Health Act the treatment of injuries caused by vehicles would have been sufficient to clarify the point. In the past, insurance companies were able to avoid their liability with regard to this matter on the basis that arrangements or settlements were made without admission of liability. Actually, I was not in a position to cover that matter properly in my proposed amendment but I think it comes into the next amendment which Deputy Costello has tabled. I feel that the insurance companies should not be put in a privileged position in a matter of this nature and I would ask the Minister, if he is not prepared to accept the amendment I have put down, to consider a suitable adjustment of the section itself that will meet the point that I have raised.

I am quite sure that, technically, my amendment is not very satisfactory but I am concerned with bringing home to the Minister and the House here that members of local authorities and the public will be seriously perturbed if the local authority hospitals are excluded from the right to follow the insurance companies for the cost of treatment of patients in local authority hospitals. Every local authority that I know of in the West and indeed in other parts of the country has already made strong representations to the Department in connection with this matter and I am sure that other Deputies in the House who are members of local authorities have been asked by their own county councils to ensure that this section as it stands is not allowed to go through the House.

Mr. J.A. Costello

With the object behind Deputy McQuillan's amendment I am of course in complete agreement and I agree to his amendment and mine being considered together because I think that, fundamentally, they are aimed at the same purpose. As the section stands at the moment and as the general law is not altogether, but to some extent, being administered in various courts by judges and juries throughout the country, the position is, and it has to be faced, that a person who is guilty of a civil wrong against another person and, under the law, is bound to pay damages to him, is being subsidised by the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country. That is the fundamental issue that has to be faced.

I do not understand the purpose behind this section at all. I had some difficulty in relation to the original section in the Act of 1933. I would like to know if that section has ever been operated to any extent at all. In my experience it has not. It was put into the Act, as I understand it, because of the position that existed at that time about voluntary hospitals and also hospitals then established in the nature of health institutions—as they are now called—otherwise, places where poor people had to go, and there was some reason why they were entitled to a certain amount of money. The fundamental position is as I stated at the beginning.

Let us get down to the actual principles of this matter. This section as it stands at the moment proposes that where a person has been injured by another, has suffered damage and is treated in a hospital other than a health institution, then that hospital is entitled to recovery of a certain figure for treatment and medical and surgical expenses, I presume. I emphasise "a certain figure" as it seems to me that the section as it stands limits the right to recover the full amount of the cost of hospital treatment, maintenance in the hospital and medical expenses in general.

The general law is that if a person injures another through his own fault, which is the situation envisaged in this section, that person has to pay damages. These damages include what are known technically as ‘special damages.' Special damages include in particular the cost of maintenance in hospital whether it be a public hospital or a nursing home. They include reasonable expenses for physicians, surgeons, physiotherapists, nursing attendance, and medicines. That is all given as a matter of course. It is no thanks to the defendant to have to pay this as juries are frequently reminded. This merely indemnifles him against his costs and the expenses which he has actually to pay. The only check on that is that the jury is bound and entitled to give only reasonable expenses. In other words a person cannot go wild and spend any amount of money because there is the safeguard that a jury of twelve reasonable men are bound to allow only reasonable expenses. That is the position as it stands. This section cuts into the administration of the Health Acts, and the administration of the law relating to insurance companies, whom the law makes liable for the payment of these moneys, under the Health Acts. I hope I am putting this thing as clearly as possible to people who perhaps do not understand the significance of it as it works out in the courts. In every case that comes before the courts, there is wrangling about this before the case comes into court. What are known to our profession as notices of petition are served by the defendant—otherwise, by the insurance companies: Is the plaintiff entitled to the benefits of the Health Acts and, if so, what is his position? They then proceed to plead that he is not so entitled, that the defendant is not bound to pay the surgeon, the specialists and the physiotherapists who looked after him or the hospital which provided his food. They are getting out of their liability to the plaintiff by this means and who is to pay? The taxpayer and the ratepayer combined must pay. I say it is quite unjust and wrong that that should be the position.

I went into this matter very fully on the Second Reading of the Bill because I felt so strongly about it that I wanted to give the Minister as much time as possible to consider the matter which the Deputy thinks is causing great disturbance in the administration of the courts in relation to these negligence actions, actions arising out of breaches of duty, and other matters of that kind. Look at the position. The common law is that a wrong-doer now in fact, in these negligence cases, in running-down cases, is the insurance company. The law is founded on justice—that they are bound because of this wrong-doing to defend the wrong-doer against reasonable expenses that he has incurred. If a person is injured by another, he is not alone entitled but he is bound to take reasonable steps to become well as quickly as he can. He is bound to get the appropriate expert surgical and medical attention. That is not a question of a luxury; it is a question of a liability on him under the general law on damages. The person is bound to minimise his own damages. I have reason to believe that I have judicial support for the statement I am making, that it is both of benefit to the injured party and to the insurance company that the injured party should get the best surgical and medical attention, the best possible treatment, to enable him get better quickly. He is bound to get the best surgical and medical attention.

What happens in these negligence cases is that a person is injured; he is on the roadside, either unconscious or so seriously ill that he is not able to take into account the fact that he is entitled to go to the best nursing home or get the best medical attention. Because he is unconscious, because he is lying on the roadside, because of the accident and the wrong that has been committed against him, he is brought to some public health authority hospital. He is brought there, not knowing where he is being brought. He is put there and he is bound to stay there.

If he had sufficient sense or if there was a lawyer at his elbow, he would, when the ambulance came along, tell the ambulance men to go to St. Vincent's Nursing Home or, say, the Bon Secours Hospital in Cork. What happens? He is brought to the first hospital, which is usually the county hospital, but if he had the sense he might have said: "I want to go into hospital as a private patient." Dealing with the question of reasonableness because he is unconscious, because he is suffering from so much pain he does not know where to get relief but he is brought into a county hospital. Then the insurance company say that because it was an accident he was brought there. That institution is subsidised by the taxpayer and the ratepayer. Surely there is no justice in that? Why should an insurance company be subsidised by the taxpayer or the ratepayer? Why should the county surgeon, the nurses and the physiotherapists have to give their services to this person, in effect, free, while if he had been brought to a private hospital, the surgeons, the doctors, the physiotherapists and the nurses would get their reasonable fees settled by a jury? I see no justice— rather do I see great injustice—in all this—injustice to the injured person and injustice to the taxpayer and the ratepayer.

I want to emphasise that when I am asking for this rule to be changed, so far as it is a rule of practical law, I am doing so because the injured person is not getting benefit out of it or the best surgical, medical and hospital treatment he should get. He is getting no benefit out of it. He is getting general damages for pain and suffering. It is ridiculous and unjust that because a person happens to be unconscious on the road, he is brought to the local authority hospital while, if he had his full senses, he could go to a surgeon in a private hospital, or a nursing home. Because he is unconscious, he is brought to a county hospital and this section comes into operation.

May I put just another consideration from the point of view of the public interest? These accidents on the road have become very frequent and the time and attention required to be given by county surgeons, nurses and other people in these institutions are becoming more and more demanding. Because of these accidents and the results of these accidents, because of the wrong-doer, the county surgeon has at any time this sort of emergency facing him. The county surgeon, to the detriment of the other patients in the hospital, has to give his entire time and attention to treating accident cases. Where is the justification for that? Does it not work unfairly against the other patients who are entitled to get free treatment in the hospital, who are entitled to get the full time of county physicians, nurses and other necessary experts? Their time and attention are being taken away from people who are being deprived of them in order that the person who has been injured by the wrongdoing of another person may be dealt with. How can it be justifiable in those circumstances to say that the insurance company must be indemnified and, at least, subsidised by the ratepayer and taxpayer? The thing is beyond all reason and I cannot understand why it has been allowed to go on so long.

It has gone on so long because no one, when the Act was going through, ever envisaged a situation of the kind arising, but when the matter becomes one of practical importance, of course the insurance company sees the point and says: "When the law gives you a right, if you are a person of means, to free treatment, although we injured you wrongly and although we insured the person who wrongly injured you, you must get your money from the taxpayer and the ratepayer." Where is the justice in all that?

My amendment proposes to insert a new section in the Bill which deals with the situation I have described. Deputy McQuillan has been placing health institutions on the same level as ordinary hospitals. I think the section itself is of little use. The plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, to recover his hospital and medical expenses; he is bound to pay these to the hospital. Why the hospital itself should then have the particular power that is put into the Bill, I cannot say, but if it is necessary, let it be for all and let it be perfectly clear that the insurance companies are not going to be subsidised by the taxpayer and ratepayer.

I want to emphasise that a man who is injured by a wrong-doer, which is the case envisaged in this section, is entitled to get the expenses he is put to for medical, hospital and other expenses. He is bound to get the best of medical attention in order to minimise his damages. He gets these expenses from the judge and jury or from a judge without a jury. The hospital then gets what it is entitled to get for treatment and maintenance of that person and other services given to him.

That is the logical and legal position as it stands, irrespective of these Acts. I think that when the matter has been brought to the attention of this House, it should right what is really a grave injustice to the ratepayers and incidentally to those people who are entitled to free treatment or partially free treatment in health institutions. It should also set right the position in relation to doctors and surgeons who are giving their services to these classes of people at the expense of other classes of people and who give their services free, gratis and for nothing.

Mr. Russell

I agree with most of what Deputy Costello has said, that if an injured man in his senses had the option, he would go to a nursing home. I think it is more than likely nowadays that, with the advances in health institutions under the control of local authorities, he would opt to go to the county hospital.

Mr. J.A. Costello

Not to go as a private patient. That is my point.

Mr. Russell

I quite agree. Perhaps I took the Deputy up wrongly in giving the impression that the patient might not get the best treatment possible.

Mr. J.A. Costello

Not at all; on the contrary.

Mr. Russell

Speaking for my own county, I would say it is more than likely he would go to the health institution run by the local authority or run jointly with the local authority as in the case of a regional hospital, in which instance the expenses would fall on the county ratepayers and, of course, a proportion on the taxpayers. We must also have regard to the fact that future legislation is likely to extend the number of health institutions coming within the scope of the Health Acts and it is not too exaggerated a view to think that at some time in the not too distant future, we may have a completely comprehensive national health scheme which will include almost all hospitals. If that should happen, it would virtually mean that the cost of treatment in a hospital would not fall on the insurance companies at all. The easiest thing for the Minister to do in relation to subsection (1) paragraph (c) is to exclude the words "other than" and insert "including a health institution within the meaning of the Health Act, 1947."

It is a wrong principle that where an accident occurs and the insured party is treated in an institution within the meaning of the Health Act, 1947, or any other subsequent Health Acts, the cost should fall on the taxpayer and ratepayer. To my mind, it is unjust and it cuts across the whole idea of insurance as we understand it. I should like to ask the Minister to have another look at the section in the light of the views expressed.

Mr. O'Donnell

I suggest that the Minister should look at these amendments from another angle. One of the greatest hardships people have to bear at the moment is the ever-increasing burden of rates. Year after year, our rates are increasing and one of the major matters contributing to that increase is the Health Act. Health costs are rising. The Health Act was introduced, in my opinion, for the purpose of giving to those people who could not afford it the benefit of health services free of charge at the expense of the other citizens of the State.

It is unfortunate that these people should have to go to institutions when they fall into sickness or disease and it is also unfortunate that the taxpayers must pay for their treatment while they are there. Is it not much worse that the taxpayer must pay for them when they are being medically treated and receiving hospitalisation as a result of the neligence of some person who has paid a premium to indemnify himself against such negligence?

The cost of the upkeep of a patient in a hospital, apart from medical treatment, is, I understand, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25/- or 30/- a day. One can visualise the position of a labourer or a small farmer who may be unlucky enough to be maimed in a road accident, through no fault or negligence of his own. He may find himself in hospital for a period of 12 months. It is unfortunate for him but it is equally unfortunate for the taxpayer who must pay, apart from surgical fees, a sum of 25/- or 30/- per day for keeping him in the hospital as a result of the negligence of a third party.

I do not know who objects to these amendments. Certainly it is not the local authority. The local authority would be very anxious to see these amendments accepted because it would relieve the burden of rates. I know of no motorist who objects to these amendments. Therefore we must boil it down to this, that the only people who object to the amendments are the insurance companies. If the insurance companies, with all the increases we have allowed them in their premium charges, must distinguish between voluntary hospitals and public institutions for the purpose of cutting down expenses, it is something we should consider in this House.

As Deputy Costello pointed out, one can visualise a man being knocked unconscious and finding himself in a public institution where he may have to remain for a considerable time. That man, if he had been conscious, might have elected to go into a private nursing home or into part of an institution reserved for private patients. He would be paid for by the insurance company, if he was in the right, while being treated there. If he is put into a public ward and treated in that part of the hospital where public patients are usually treated, the local authorities cannot recover maintenance costs.

Though it has been the practice for insurance companies or solicitors for the defence to say in their particulars of special damages: "Was the plaintiff entitled to free hospital treatment? If so, such treatment should not be included in the special damages," very often, however, there has been a dispute between the county manager and the patient as to whether he was entitled to free hospital treatment or not. The patient may never have applied for a medical card. Up to the present when such a dispute arose and if there was a settlement, insurance companies usually paid whatever fee was demanded by the county manager. Here we are relieving the insurance companies of the fee payment which they made up to the present in settled cases. I would ask the Minister, from the taxpayers' point of view, to accept these amendments for the purpose of relieving the taxpayer of the burden of paying for those unfortunate people who find themselves in hospital.

Mr. Blaney

As the House is well aware, under the Health Acts, eligible persons are entitled to hospital and specialist services as a right, not as a concession. That being so, the conditions relating to eligibility relate to his present circumstances. In the case of an injured party, whether by road accident, an accident in the home or wherever it may be, his eligibility is dependent on his circumstances as at that time and not on the basis of regard being had to the outcome of some possible future legal action following an injury for which somebody else is blamed. The first thing we have to realise when a person is injured and the position is still undetermined, as it must remain for some time, is that the injury was caused by another, that that other was concerned in a road accident and that insurance claims and such will follow. Those things cannot possibly be taken into consideration on the admission of the injured party to whatever hospital he may be brought. To have regard to the future in that instance is not part of the condition of a declaration as to eligibility for Health Act benefits to these eligible classes.

Another point which I think should clearly be understood is that no distinction whatever is made in our existing health services legislation as to the circumstances whereby the disability has arisen. For instance, it would be strange indeed and somewhat inconsistent that a health authority would be expected—to follow the line of argument used here—to follow a person for costs who, as a third party, was negligent and that at the same time, if a person through his own negligence injures himself or brings some disability on himself—and there are many such cases—he should be treated free under our health services, whereas a person who was injured by a third party in the self-same circumstances would have his injury covered by recourse to the courts and a claim established against the insurance company.

Another matter which I think is of importance in this, taking up the matter raised by Deputy J.A. Costello, is the case of the injured unconscious person along the roadside who is brought off to the nearest institution and has no choice in the matter. He has no choice anyhow, if he is badly injured, even if not quite unconscious. It is generally somebody else, particularly if the injury is in any way serious, who comes along and makes the decision as to where the nearest medical aid can be obtained. If he is not a medical man, he does not know how serious the injury may be. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the nearest medical or surgical institution is, I take it, the place to which the injured party will be brought.

If the person is injured and unconscious and is brought to an institution which, by being nearest, also turns out to be a public authority institution, there is no reason why, when he regains consciousness, he should not demand and be brought to some other voluntary or private institution. It is open to any of these parties, whether it is on the roadside where the injury takes place or later in the public institution, to decide that he wants to have other treatment, to be treated in a different place, to be treated by a different surgeon or physician or specialist, as the case may be. Nobody precludes that person, so injured, from opting to have these things done.

Also, no one, whether or not he is eligible for benefits under the Health Acts, obliges that person to avail of these health services benefits. In fact, under Section 4 of the 1953 Act, it is specifically set out that one is not compelled to avail of them. On the other hand, if a patient is brought to a public institution and remains there, and does not seek to get out or go elsewhere, that person may also, on leaving the institution, settle up the account and insert that cost in his claim for damages and costs.

Mr. J.A. Costello

If he does, it will be disallowed. That is happening.

Mr. Blaney

It may be but I do not see why it should happen.

Mr. J.A. Costello

Under the direction of the judges.

Mr. Blaney

Probably some of them interpret the law in that way. I have no information that that is the interpretation of the law. I do not disagree with the Deputy: he may be aware that such interpretation has been made. The whole outcry seems to be that, regardless of the circumstances, merely by reason of the fact that a motor accident involves some innocent party who is injured, because an insurance company enters into this matter, the insurance company should be made to pay all and sundry costs arising from or relating to a particular injury despite the fact that the person concerned is in his own right, by his own eligibility, entitled to certain specific treatments, both hospital and specialist.

It is all very well to say that surgeons and their staffs in these institutions are, in effect, giving free service to these people. Surgeons and their staffs are already being paid to give service to this category of person and an additional fee to be paid from insurance or where you will is in fact paying those people on the double for doing the job they are already liable to do under the Health Acts and through their local authority conditions of employment.

Also, it has been said that a county surgeon has to give his whole time, his undivided time, to these cases which are brought in, to the detriment of others entitled to free treatment. The person under discussion here is already entitled to free treatment from the self-same surgeon, hospital and institution. Therefore, he is not taking away from others in the hospital any rights they have. He is not getting something to which he is not entitled already under the Health Acts. Any argument in that direction is not, I think, a watertight argument.

It is also in some way suggested that by doing as we propose in the Bill, we are putting money into the pockets of the insurance companies. Insurance premiums, as we have heard on many occasions, have become inflated as a result of claims settled inside and outside the courts, arising from accidents. The costs in question here are costs which, if not taken from the insurance companies, must mean, if they are of a substantial nature over a period, a lesser cost of insurance premiums to road users in general. It would not be true to say—in fact it is wrong to say—that the insurance companies will reap the benefit. It is the people who are obliged to insure who will reap the benefit in that their premiums need not, of necessity, be then as high.

Incidentally, Deputy Costello's amendment makes no provision to prevent the removal to a public institution of any person injured on the roadside.

Mr. J.A. Costello

Of course, it does not. It would be absurd to put it in.

Mr. Blaney

Of course, it would. Then why talk as if it should be?

Mr. J.A. Costello

Because the public institutions should be entitled to get their full charges against the wrongdoer.

Mr. Blaney

I may have misunderstood the Deputy, but I understood him to complain about the situation in which an injured person on the roadside is brought off to a public institution.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I did not complain. I merely illustrated the facts of the position arising out of a wrongdoer's act.

Mr. Blaney

That gave me the impression that the Deputy was complaining that this did happen. There is nothing I can see that we could do to prevent this happening, if the person injured is incapable of giving directions at the time. However, that is not the really important point. It is this: the question of telling the public that where an insurance company is concerned in a motor accident, the insurance company is fair game for all that can be piled upon it.

Let us be quite frank about this. I have had experience—and I know other Deputies have had experience— of what happens when a vehicle is damaged. When you go to a garage, there are two prices: one, if you have to bear the cost of the repairs yourself, and the other, if it is borne by an insurance company. In the first case, it is not such an exorbitant charge; but if there is an insurance claim, there is different treatment. It may be better treatment—I do not know—but certainly it costs the insurance companies a lot more to get a job done on my behalf——

Mr. J.A. Costello

The poor, unfortunate creatures!

Mr. Blaney

——than it costs me if I have to carry the burden myself.

Mr. J.A. Costello

What are their assessors doing?

Mr. Blaney

Of course, the Deputy knows a lot about those operations.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I do, indeed.

Mr. Blaney

In this case, I take it, there would not be any assessors at all——

Mr. J.A. Costello

Why not?

Mr. Blaney

If special fees were to be charged, I take it the bill would be made out and special fees would be laid on.

Mr. J.A. Costello

What about the insurance company assessors who know well what the charges are? The thing is ridiculous.

Mr. Blaney

I am talking about surgical and medical fees and whether they would be acceptable to decide whether such fees were appropriate.

Mr. J.A. Costello

There are 12 reasonable jurymen to decide that.

Mr. Blaney

We are making a special plea for injured persons, eligible by right to health services, institutional and specialist treatment, that when they are involved in a motor accident, the insurance company should bear the costs of their treatment; but if there is an injury in the home or on the farm, it is not said that the person involved should follow somebody else in order to get this special treatment which only the insurance company can afford.

Candidly, I believe the treatment an injured person gets in this country is not related to whether or not he is an insurance case. When a person is brought into a hospital, voluntary or public, in an emergency, the first thought is the treatment and who pays is, in my opinion, a secondary consideration. Therefore, I cannot see why it is felt that, because a person may be incapable of directing those who find him after an accident or who accompanied him, it is going to be to his detriment. When he comes around to full consciousness, he can, if he wishes, ask for special treatment, perhaps as a private patient in a voluntary hospital or as a patient of a doctor other than the doctor who treated him in the first instance. In such cases, the additional costs can be added to the bill of damages and costs for the person who caused the injury. Under Section 4 of the 1953 Act, persons are not obliged to partake of these benefits, if they do not want to have them, but in getting treatment over and above normal health service treatment, they could legitimately claim the recovery of such costs, and I have no doubt that they would succeed in any of our courts.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I do not intend further to put up my blood pressure arguing this matter because it is quite obvious that the Minister having produced specious arguments, no one of which had any validity in relation to the case put forward, has made up his mind not to accept this very just demand made in the interests of the ratepayers and taxpayers. Accordingly, I do not propose to occupy the time of the House further. But I want to make one observation, when the Minister talks about the unfortunate insurance companies. Have they reduced their premiums since they started pleading the Health Act in court in order to justify their refusal to pay doctors' and hospitals' expenses? They have put them up.

Mr. Blaney

So has everybody else.

Mr. McQuillan

I have listened very carefully to the Minister's remarks. He stated the argument had been put forward here that this was putting money into the pockets of the insurance companies. May I put it another way—that the section as it stands is taking money out of the pockets of the ratepayers and taxpayers, since the costs involved should be paid by the insurance companies? In the course of his remarks, the Minister disclosed that he is here as the advocate of the insurance companies. The only case he made was that about the two types of costings for the repair of cars, where in one case there was an insurance policy and in the other, the owner of the car had to bear the cost himself. The insurance companies have their assessors and it is up to the insurance companies to protect themselves in regard to the cost of repairs. They are very familiar with making assessments. I cannot see how the Minister can make a comparison between assessing the cost of repairing a car and the cost of treating an injured person in hospital.

If his case has any fragment of truth in it with regard to the question of premiums, will he now answer the question: why is it that voluntary hospitals are treated in a different way? Why does he single out the hospitals that are controlled by the public and whose administration is under the control of the public through public representatives? Why does he single them out and make the local authority pay the charges, thereby saving the insurance company, and give special consideration to the voluntary hospitals? Is it simply because the number of voluntary hospitals is now reduced? As Deputy Russell pointed out, as time goes on more and more of them will be absorbed and come under the Health Act until we reach the stage where the insurance companies will be free of responsibility with regard to the payment of hospital charges altogether although people will be paying higher premiums. In comes this young Minister to act as the defender of insurance companies in a matter like this.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy McQuillan is not as innocent as he would like to appear. He has tried to convey to the House that he does not realise that since public institutions are there, administration costs are practically the same one year with the other. A few patients up and down do not interfere with the costs which are of considerable magnitude. The staffs of the hospitals, surgical, medical, nursing and domestic, are the same one week with the other because these costs are continuing and a few patients more or less do not affect them very gravely. This particular isolated group of eligible persons under the Health Acts are already being provided for. Whatever may be their disabilities, whatever sickness, accident or otherwise befalls them, there is provision already to make the full paraphernalia of the health institutions available to them by right and for these services the local authority, through the ratepayers and the general public through the taxpayers, must contribute whether there is a greater or lesser number of patients.

It is true that the amount of food eaten by extra patients would directly affect the cost but the overall cost of maintenance, the pay of medical, surgical, nursing and domestic staffs, the heating, cleaning and so on of these places is already a very big item which the local authorities or the ratepayers or the taxpayers cannot get away with.

According to the Deputy we should insist that when a person goes into this hospital, provided with all its services at very great cost, because of the fact that he was injured in a road accident and an insurance company stands somewhere in the background, the surgeons, physicians and anaesthetists and others should be paid additional fees for treating that person whom they are already paid to treat, by the local authorities, the ratepayers and taxpayers. It would be well, if the Deputy and the House are to have regard to reality, that they should calculate whether or not the treatment of the eligible group by the hospitals under the ordinary health services to which they are entitled, is not more economical than if double charges for the same patients were to be allowed. I think the Deputy will appreciate that argument. While you may suggest the taxpayers or ratepayers may pay somewhat more, it means that, taking it by and large, a more economical method of treating the injuries in these cases can be found if this measure before the House is passed than if the amendment were accepted.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 62.

Tá

• Belton, Jack.
• Burke, James.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McQuillan, John.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Russell, George E.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.

Níl

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Teehan, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies McQuillan and Russell; Níl, Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 119 agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 111.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I do not propose to move my amendment, but I want to make it perfectly clear that my not moving it is in no way an acceptance of the Minister's case or his arguments. I want to consider the matter further.

Amendment not moved.

Section 120 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 112.

Before Section 121 to insert the following new section:

"(1) The Minister may establish a Road Traffic Research organisation to undertake research into matters relating to transport, traffic movement, traffic control, road construction, planning and design, vehicle construction and design, and such other matters as may be related to the improvement of the safety and efficiency of road traffic.

(2) The Minister may make suitable arrangements for liaison between such Road Traffic Research organisation and local authorities, town planning departments, the Garda Síochána, road safety organisations, and such other bodies as may be concerned with the study of traffic problems."

The amendment is more or less self-explanatory. I do not propose to speak at length on it but I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I should like to point out, however, that the British Road Traffic Act contains identically the same section. The Minister is to some extent influenced by what appears in the British legislation and I do not blame him for that because conditions are somewhat similar in the two countries.

The establishment of a research organisation such as is proposed in the amendment would do a tremendous amount in the cause of promoting better road traffic conditions. I would be the first to agree with the Minister that no matter how much legislation goes through this House to regulate traffic and to provide penalties for contraventions of road traffic rules, we still will have a tremendous number of accidents, unfortunately. No matter how much we legislate and no matter how many penalties there are, there will still be careless drivers who will deliberately do wrong.

A research organisation like this would certainly assist the Minister and all those concerned with trying to provide for a proper flow of safe traffic. From time to time, traffic experts from other cities in Europe have visited this city. Recently a traffic expert came here from Germany. How he helped road traffic in the city, I do not know, or whether or not he did help it, I do not know. This organisation would be in a position to get information from other countries, especially in Europe, and from England, if needs be, in an effort to improve traffic conditions and transport generally, to improve traffic control, road construction, planning, design, vehicle construction and design and other different matters which we all agree relate to the improvement, the safety and efficiency of road traffic.

In proposing such an organisation, one does not, of course, omit the local authorities and the Garda who are primarily concerned with the construction of roads and the control of road traffic. In fact, our case is stated in the two subsections of the amendment, which is, as I have said, self-explanatory. I know the Minister does not want any organisation which would appear to coerce him along certain lines of action. This would be purely a consultative research organisation whose deliberations and decisions would be passed on to the Minister, the local authorities and the Garda for their information. It would not be mandatory on them to implement any recommendations made by this organisation. In fact, we are lacking in that type of research which would provide us with better roads and better control of road traffic.

Mr. Blaney

The matters in the amendment proposed by Deputy Corish are, in fact, unnecessary for the reason that even as things now are, there are bodies carrying out exploration and consultation in certain respects at the moment. With regard to the problem of Dublin traffic which was mentioned by the Deputy, a group representative of the Department of Local Government, the Garda and Dublin Corporation has been set up with a view to getting the fullest co-operation between all parties concerned in this matter. They are considering and studying what might best be done to improve the general traffic pattern, in particular, in the city, and to improve traffic in a general way.

Another group of which the Deputy may be aware representative of the Department, the Garda and the motoring organisations, local authority engineers and Bord Failte advised on the 1956 traffic signs regulations. Another group which had been continuously working on the Road Traffic Bill was representative of the Department, the Garda, the local authority engineers had, in fact, started to work on a review of construction, equipment and the use of regulations. That work has had to be deferred during the passage of this Bill through the Houses. That same work and review will again be taken up as soon as we get this measure from the Oireachtas and have finished with it here.

Another matter of interest also is that money has been made available from the Road Fund to University College, Dublin, at some stage or another, for research on the reconstruction of roads, for instance, over peat sub-grades. That is merely an indication to the House of what has been done and indeed is being done as things now stand. It is my firm belief that research of various kinds can usefully be carried out and will be carried out, and that no law and no special provision is necessary. The Deputy and the House will appreciate that to embody it in legislation will not make it any more effective, particularly as a consultative body.

Many and varied bodies set up on an ad hoc basis in this type of situation are likely to be a better approach altogether than putting it into law by an amendment of this kind. So far as research is concerned, I feel from experience that the indications plainly are there to be appreciated that such work will continue in future, and that this aspect of the whole road traffic and road safety problem is given full and due consideration and will undoubtedly get the same consideration in the future.

For those reasons, and not because I disagree with the intention of the amendment in any way — because the amendment is not really necessary, or writing it into law does not improve the situation in any way, and an ad hoc basis of operation is, in my estimation, a preferable approach to these many matters which will arise as circumstances change — I assure the Deputy that, bearing in mind past experience, the opinions of experts at present, and the wish of any Minister for Local Government on this matter, all and any of these aids are a greater safety and that regulations dealing with road traffic will be availed of to the full.

Mr. Corish

I am sure the different bodies the Minister mentioned are diligent and conscientious. He has mentioned five or six organisations which concern themselves, often on a voluntary basis, with our road traffic problems, road construction and the other matters pertaining to road traffic. It seems to me from what the Minister has said now that there is a stronger case than ever for some attempt to coordinate the efforts of all these organisations. The principal organisation which the Minister mentioned was that in relation to the city of Dublin. Whilst I appreciate that the traffic problem in the city of Dublin from the point of view of congestion is about the biggest problem in the whole country, there still needs to be established some sort of organisation which will engage in research, say, with regard to the method of construction, cambering, surfacing, the materials used, and so on. This is a section which does not bind the Minister to anything. I do not intend to press it to a division, but I am sure the Minister will note that the amendment says "The Minister may establish." He could, I think, well consider accepting the amendment. It does not necessarily mean that he is under obligation to establish this organisation.

When this Bill is passed, we all know that it will take years and years to have introduced in this House even the slightest amendment in connection with road traffic problems. That seems to be the pattern of legislation in this House. Deputies on both sides have pressed for an amendment of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, on various counts and the attitude of successive responsible Ministers has been: "We are collecting all these defects in the Road Traffic Act of 1933 and, when we have them all, we will introduce a new Road Traffic Bill." I do not think that is the proper way to behave in these matters. It is twenty-eight years now since a Road Traffic Bill was introduced into this House. If the Minister does not accept amendments in relation to which he does not feel sufficiently enthusiastic, they do not go into the Bill; but here is an amendment which merely asks him to accept power to establish a research organisation, if he so thinks fit, and not this year, or next year, or the year after. The amendment merely gives this power to any Minister who may feel that such an organisation is worthwhile. It does not bind.

It is very desirable that we should have such an organisation. Perhaps the Minister would consider accepting this, or a similar, amendment between this and the Report Stage.

Mr. Blaney

The power is already there. There is no question of that. I do not have to be given power to set up such an organisation. Perhaps it is not fully appreciated that I already have the power.

Mr. Corish

I accept the Minister's statement.

Mr. Blaney

The power is there.

Mr. Corish

Has the Minister that power by virtue of the fact that he is Minister for Local Government?

Mr. Dillon

It is included in his general powers as Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Corish

I am quite satisfied if the Minister has the power and bears in mind what I have said this morning.

Mr. Blaney

I certainly will. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 113:

Before section 121 to insert the following new section:

"(1) The Minister shall appoint a Road Traffic Advisory Council representative of local authorities, the Garda Síochána and of workers' and employers' organisations, to which regulations proposed to be made under this Act shall be referred for its observations.

(2) The Advisory Council may appoint sub-committees to consider particular draft regulations or regulations proposed to be made under particular sections of this Act.

(3) The Advisory Council may submit proposals or recommendations to the Minister in respect of any matters relating to road traffic or road safety."

I think we thrashed this out fully on an earlier amendment. I do not intend to divide the House on it, but I should like to have it put.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sections 121, 122 and 123, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 124.

Question proposed: "That Section 124 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

Under this section we are taking away the right of appeal to the Minister for Justice for the removal of a suspension of a driver's licence. That right of appeal has been exercised in many cases down through the years. A great deal depended on the political pull of the suspended driver where the removal, or otherwise, of the suspension was concerned. I am in complete agreement with the section, but I suggest that this might be a good time to declare a moratorium. Possibly some drivers who had their licences suspended were in a position to exercise political pull to have the suspension removed: others were not. Would the Minister make representations to his colleague, the Minister for Justice, and ask him to declare a moratorium removing all suspensions, and then let us start with a clean sheet under this section?

Mr. Blaney

A general amnesty. I shall pass on the suggestion.

Mr. Corish

For what it is worth.

Mr. Blaney

For what it is worth.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 125.

Question proposed: "That Section 125 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

A good deal of trouble will ensue under this section in regard to the definition of nuisance. I am told that within the next three or four months many vehicles with loud speakers attached, which might be described as a nuisance, will be operating round the country in connection with the forthcoming general election. Here, in the city of Dublin, there are vehicles going round advertising various commodities or making appeals for various organisations. A Garda may decide that such an apparatus constitutes a nuisance and the user may find himself prosecuted.

I can give an illustration. I know of a particular case in Bundoran. It is the custom there during the summer months to use a vehicle known as a "Duck"—mechanically propelled and amphibious—for the entertainment of guests on the beach. Certain people have taken exception to it and have suggested it is a nuisance. It may be that these people think the vehicle too cumbersome on the foreshore. Those who operate it may find themselves prosecuted under this section.

Mr. Corish

What does this "Duck" do? Does it make noise?

Mr. O'Donnell

It does what a duck usually does. It ambles along the foreshore and it goes out to sea with visitors. It is amphibious.

Mr. Corish

Would this be on a public road?

Mr. O'Donnell

In a public place.

Mr. Corish

I do not know whether the Minister would have any responsibility for a foreshore.

Mr. O'Donnell

Unfortunately, it has now been held that a "public place" is not necessarily a public road. In the Northern courts it has been held that the precincts of the Catholic Cathedral in Derry are a public place. People have been successfully prosecuted for parking vehicles inside the grounds of the Cathedral in Derry. It may be that our courts may follow suit and we may find a public place described as any place to which the public has access. The public has access to the foreshore and this section may cause considerable inconvenience.

Mr. S. Flanagan

A lot of cars go down the foreshore.

Mr. O'Donnell

As Deputy Flanagan points out, a lot of cars go down the foreshore and it may be that some local authorities may get the Garda to invoke this section to endeavour to create private property of what should be open to the public. The section itself really worries me in that respect.

Mr. Blaney

I do not quite follow what the Deputy is after because this section is a continuation of the section in the 1933 Act and does not prevent any particular action being taken.

Mr. O'Donnell

I fully agree with the Minister but when the 1933 Act was introduced it was accepted and has been accepted for a good many years after its introduction that a "public place" merely referred to a public roadway. As a result of recent decisions, that has been extended and a "public place" is now any place to which the public has access. That is really what worries me. I agree that it was in the 1933 Act. If the Minister would care to look up the debate on the 1933 Bill, he will find that when the section in that Bill was being debated it was accepted generally that it was merely referring to a public roadway.

Mr. S. Flanagan

A public place within the meaning of the Road Traffic code.

Mr. O'Donnell

Exactly. That is being extended to cover a place to which the public has access.

Mr. Blaney

What I do not quite comprehend here is what the Deputy's fears stem from. If this definition by the courts in cases tested and tried widens the scope of what may be regarded as a public place, I do not get the significance of what the Deputy's worry can be as to how this section will apply or not apply to something which is in itself a nuisance or said to be a nuisance. I do not get that.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is a private nuisance, not a public nuisance. The word "private" is what really worries me — private nuisance.

Mr. Blaney

What I feel about the section, from what the Deputy has said, is that this section does not affect the law at all in regard to the fears being expressed by the Deputy.

Mr. O'Donnell

One can imagine a crank who complains that such a vehicle creates a private nuisance to him and then the law is invoked by the public prosecutor on behalf of that private individual, as distinct from a nuisance which may affect the public generally.

Mr. Blaney

That does apply at the moment and this does not affect the present law.

Mr. O'Donnell

I agree with the Minister, it does apply, but could we amend it in some way by the elimination of private nuisance and merely making it a public nuisance? Perhaps the Minister would look into it between now and Report Stage?

Mr. Corish

Give us an example of what could be a private nuisance.

Mr. Blaney

A duck in Bundoran. It depends on the duck.

Mr. O'Donnell

Some of those people from inland places, when they come to Bundoran, are a bit scared of some of the ducks they see around and they need not go to the foreshore.

Mr. Blaney

That is what I was thinking. They do not all swim.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 126 agreed to.

SECTION 127.

Question proposed: "That Section 127 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

What on earth does that mean?

Mr. Blaney

The section gives power to make special facilities or regulations for dealing with Irish drivers going abroad and outside drivers coming into this country.

Mr. S. Flanagan

It is to make it easier.

Mr. O'Donnell

As far as I understand it, the position is that if you use your motor car in Britain you will not be compelled to tax it there if it is already taxed in this country, and vice versa.

Mr. Dillon

Everybody seems to be quite well satisfied. I compliment the Minister on the White Paper he circulated, which gave us a great deal of valuable information. It tells us in regard to Section 127:

Section 127 modifies the Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909, by substituting references to Part III of the Bill for references in that Act to the Motor Car Act, 1903. This provision is of a transitional nature: the 1909 Act is repealed by the Local Government Act, 1955, but the repealing provision of the latter Act has not yet been brought into operation pending the making of comprehensive new regulations on the subject of international circulation.

So, this is a transitional proviso to fill a gap until the Minister makes new regulations under this Bill?

Mr. S. Flanagan

No, under the previous Act.

Mr. Blaney

Yes, that is quite right. It would be under the Local Government Act, 1955.

Mr. S. Flanagan

On that, could the Minister say when it is expected that these comprehensive regulations will be available?

Mr. Blaney

Quite soon.

Question put and agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

There are only two sections under the Local Government Act, 1955, that are being repealed. The rest of the Act stands.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SCHEDULE.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 114:

Before the Second Schedule to insert the following new Schedule:—

"SECOND SCHEDULE

OFFENCES UNDER THIS ACT INVOLVING CONSEQUENTIAL DISQUALIFICATION ORDERS.

1. An offence under subsection (2) of section 18, being a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years.

2. An offence under subsection (10) of section 20, being a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years.

3. An offence under section 48, being a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years.

4. An offence under section 49.

5. An offence under section 50, being a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years.

6. (a) An offence under section 53 where the contravention involved the driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle and caused death or serious bodily harm to a person other than the convicted person.

(b) An offence under section 53 where the contravention involved the driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle (not being an offence specified in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph), being a second or any subsequent offence under section 53 within any period of three years, provided that —

(i) in case it is a second offence as aforesaid, the other offence was an offence where the contravention involved the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle, or

(ii) in case it is a subsequent offence as aforesaid, one at least of the other offences was an offence where the contravention involved the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

7. An offence under section 54, being a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years.

8. An offence under section 55 where the contravention involved the parking of a mechanically propelled vehicle and where any part of the period of the contravention was a period within lighting-up hours (as specified in the section) during which the vehicle did not fulfil the requirements imposed by law with respect to lighting and reflectors, being a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years.

9. An offence under section 56, being a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years.

10. An offence under second 106 where there is injury to person, a mechanically propelled vehicle was involved in the occurrence of the injury and the convicted person was the driver of that vehicle, being a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years.

11. An offence under subsection (2) of section 112 being a second or any subsequent offence within any period of three years.”

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

This amendment has been discussed with amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44. Its acceptance involves the deletion of the Second Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I want to return to it for a moment, if I may. There is provision here, Sir, in paragraph 4 which refers back to an offence under Section 49. That is what we had some discussion about and I want to say another word on that.

The House has decided, apparently, in principle not to adopt blood tests, breath tests or the definition of the words "under the influence of drink or drug." I want to say one last word on that matter. The last time I spoke about it Deputy Murphy was alarmed and dismayed by what he thought was the extravagance of my proposal.

I want to put it to the House that where we prescribe penalties there is a very great obligation on us to make it perfectly clear and certain what is the offence which involves the penalty. I would direct the attention of the House to the fact that in Great Britain today, by the passage of the Homicide Act, no man now knows whom he may murder and whom he may not. You murder one man and you are hung. You murder somebody else in extravagantly worse circumstances the following morning and you get what is in effect nine years penal servitude. A situation of uncertainty and ambiguity is arising there which militates gravely against respect for the law.

I hope that despite the Minister's reluctance to adopt the methods obtaining in Scandinavian countries and in many parts of the U.S.A. he will be able to consider, before we finally dispose of this Bill, at least providing a person charged, with the right to ask for a blood test and providing somewhere in this Bill the minimum alcoholic content of blood which will sustain a charge of being under the influence of drink. I think unless we do that we are creating a degree of uncertainty or ambiguity about the law in a situation which involves mandatory disqualification together with other substantial penalties that we ought not to allow.

Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule deleted.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Ceann Comhairle

Report Stage?

Mr. O'Donnell

Is the Minister going to look into this matter?

Mr. Blaney

It is probable it will take a couple of weeks. At the same time we could order the Report Stage for next week.

Mr. Dillon

Next Tuesday week.

Mr. Blaney

We shall leave it at that and formally fix it for that date.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 13th June, 1961.