I beg to move the motion standing in the names of Deputy Mulcahy and myself:
"That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that Emergency Powers (Mechanically-propelled Vehicles) Order, 1942, made by the Minister for Supplies on the 24th April, 1942, should be revoked."
I should like to say, at the start, that I rather regret the position in which a Deputy is put by reason of the fact that he has no possible way, through the medium of Parliament, of making representations with regard to alterations in an Order, or making suggestions with regard to the carrying out of an Order, in a more reasonable manner than that of putting down a motion that the whole Order be revoked. That is the outstanding drawback of the present tendency to do things by taking the easiest road, namely, through the medium of regulations rather than of legislation. Powers were given to the Government, in the first 24 hours of the world war, to do business through the medium of emergency regulations.
The Parliament at that time felt itself faced with the danger of immediately terrible war and gave those powers to the Government to be used with reason for and in a grave emergency. They have since been used or, rather, freely abused so as to replace practically in toto the kind of business that should be done through the medium of legislation that would give the representatives of the people an opportunity of making suggestions, Parliament an opportunity to point out to Ministers where the legislation appeared to be unduly harsh and Ministers the opportunity of considering those suggestions. Here, however, we find ourselves in the position that an Emergency Order comes out from goodness knows where and devised by whom I do not know. The only way one can get consideration given to any of the ramifications of that Order is by putting down a motion to revoke the whole Order. That is unwise and discourteous.
We are left to presume, through reading the newspapers, that the reason for the Order is shortage of petrol. I do not know whether that is the case for the Order or not. In fact, I do not know what the case for the Order is, but semi-official pronouncements appearing in the newspapers indicate that the justification and reason for it is that there is very little petrol in the country and very little coming in. Any information that I can get indicates that more petrol came in during the first three months of this year than in the first three months of last year, that whatever arrangements existed last year between the petrol companies of this country and the British Petroleum Board were re-enacted for this year, and that the risks of petrol supplies being interrupted were equally as grave last year as this year. On the assumption that that information was correct, I consider that the general public here got very little consideration, and that at least an opportunity should have been given to the representatives of the people to make representations on their behalf before they were branded as criminals for using a vehicle on the road for which they had a licence from another Government Department. It may be that some other case will be made to justify this Order than a shortage of petrol. The country and the owners of cars will be interested to hear that case, and the sooner it is made the better.
On the assumption that the reason for this Order is shortage of petrol, then I could not visualise an Order being carried out in a more asinine manner than this particular Order has been. Assuming that the Order is framed in order to economise petrol, and because there is a serious danger of a petrol shortage, then every encouragement should be given to every user of the road to economise petrol. Road users should be applauded for making use of any and every device that would make petrol go further, and help thereby to economise the supply. If there was anyone in this country who could design and patent a gadget to attach to the carburetter of his car so that the petrol in it would do 100 miles to the gallon instead of 30 miles, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Supplies and every other member of the Government would applaud him as an individual who had done his bit towards bringing this country through a great emergency by extending the scope of the available petrol supply. Now, without providing any extraordinary gadget the man authorised to use a motor car, a member of the essential services, who is prepared to put up with the hardship of using a light motor bicycle instead of a luxurious car is making every gallon of petrol do 100 miles instead of 30, but any member of the essential services attempting to do that since this Order came out is regarded as a criminal. He will not be allowed to economise petrol even by inflicting hardship on himself.
It was suggested to the Minister and to his advisers before the Order came out that provided a person classed as a member of the essential services had a motor car registered in his name, that he kept it registered and insured and, in addition, registered a motor bicycle, he should be authorised to use the motor bicycle in fine weather in order to make the petrol go further. The first answer to that was: "Well, one person could use the car and the other could use the motor bicycle." That was a perfectly reasonable answer. It was suggested, however, that that could not take place if the registered owner was given a single transferable disc that he would use on the car to-day, if it was a wet day, and on the motor bicycle to-morrow if it was a fine day, and that, seeing there was only one disc, there could be no abuse and no loophole. Finally, the only reason for refusing that demand was that it placed one person in a position of advantage over another.
I would venture to say that is not the function of the Minister for Supplies. His function is to safeguard, and equitably distribute, whatever supplies of petrol are available. In the newspapers—we have to go to them for our information—I have seen the members of essential services classed as doctors, midwives, veterinary surgeons and clergymen. It may be news for the Minister—but I can tell him it is so—to learn that there is not that cut-throat competition for business between the members of any of those professions. The mind of the huxter would be the mentality behind the suggestion that, because one man had a car and a motor bicycle and was allowed to use one or the other, he could sometimes best his neighbour.
The only reason why anybody would do it is that the allowance of petrol is so inadequate that the only way a man could put a face on half doing his job is by using a vehicle that will consume less petrol in fine weather and conserving a little petrol for the car in bad weather. What difference does it make if a man gets only one-fifth of the petrol to do his job?
Take the case of a doctor. What does it mean in his case? That patients are visited once when heretofore they were visited five times, and for four days they will be left to carry on in a state of mental anxiety, possibly excruciating pain, because the doctor cannot reach them. If, on the other hand, he can use a motor bicycle, and he makes the petrol go three times as far, it means that he can visit these unfortunate patients three times when heretofore he used to visit them five times. Is that a thing which, in the opinion of Parliament, should be discouraged? Is there anything unworthy in that? Is the man to be condemned only to be able to reach on one-fifth of his patients because somebody says it would give him a position of advantage over rival competitors? How can you get equality? One man may have a horse; another man may be young enough to ride a bicycle; another man may have producer-gas fitted to his car. But in all these cases an equal grant of petrol will be made.
If the Minister would look into this question from any but a Party point of view, he would see that it is the function of the Minister for Supplies beyond anyone else to encourage everybody to use any and every possible expedient in order to do as much of their job of work as heretofore with very considerably less petrol. I would say to the Minister in all seriousness that we are living in a time when it is necessary to economise not only in petrol, but in petrol and tyres, and the obvious way to economise in both is to encourage people when possible to use the very lightest type of motor vehicle. The present Order, as carried out, makes that impossible. You are told you can have a disc for your car and not for a motor bicycle, or you can have a disc for the motor bicycle and not for the car, and that that disc is not transferable. The allowance of petrol in either case is mathematically worked out, so that, whether you opt for the car or opt for the motor bicycle, the petrol will only carry you exactly the same distance. Being human beings, what will people do if the petrol is only going to carry them the same distance? They will opt for the luxury vehicle; they will opt for the car. They will cover less ground, they will use more rubber, and the life of the tyres will be shorter.
My suggestion is that the disc given to such people should be transferable from one vehicle to the other, so that fine weather and good roads will tempt the disc holder to use the more economical vehicle as frequently as possible, and thereby do more work and use less rubber. Surely that is a point of view with which any sensible man outside the Civil Service will readily agree? Why is it not done? What is against it? That one man might do more work by that means than his neighbour; that one man might be able to bring relief to more suffering human beings by that means than his neighbour; that one clergyman would bring spiritual consolation to more people through that means than another. Are these worthy reasons for turning down the suggestion? If there are better reasons, then I am anxious to hear them. If there are not better reasons, it is not a sufficient answer to the suggestion to say that it is made from the Opposition Front Bench. It is not a sufficient reason for refusing the suggestion to say that the Order was in draft before the suggestion was made.
Nearly 18 months ago I urged on the Minister and his advisers the absurdity of giving a flat-rate allowance to clergymen, doctors and others that had no connection with their work. They were given an allowance of petrol on their diplomas and not on their work. The man who had not to travel a mile in the year to do his duty got the same amount of petrol as the man with the biggest rural district, with the greatest population in the whole country. When I put up that nearly 18 months ago, and when I pointed out the absurdity of it and asked to have it justified, the answer I got was that the Order was in print.