Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Jun 1958

Vol. 168 No. 8

Return to Writ—Galway South. - Transport Bill, 1958—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—

() When the Minister grants a merchandise licence following an application made in accordance with sub-section (5), he shall grant adequate extensions of the conditions specified in such licences in respect of standard vehicle unladen weight, area of operation and classes of merchandise.—(Deputy Cosgrave).

Mr. Cosgrave

In speaking on this amendment last Thursday, I mentioned the fact that since the 1933 Transport Act was passed, great changes have taken place in the types of lorries used and in the equipment with which these lorries are provided and, as a result, the weights of lorries have increased substantially. I have here some particulars of the types of lorries at present in use. Taking the three normal types, the Austin truck, a five-ton truck with a petrol engine weighs two tons, 14 cwt., two qrs., to which have to be added three qrs., 11 lb., for helper springs, and additional weights, if it possesses an Eaton two-speed rear axle, making a total of approximately three tons one cwt.; the seven-ton forward control Commer weighs, in the case of those driven by petrol, three tons, one cwt. and in the case of the diesel, three tons four cwt.; the Commer chassis five-ton petrol is two tons 11 cwt. and the five-ton forward control diesel is two tons 19 cwt.

I give these figures because from general experience to-day the present unladen weight usually granted in respect of merchandise licences is inadequate when account is taken of the changes that have occurred. Recently a case arose of a truck owner being requested not merely to weigh the truck but, in addition, to weigh the container which, of course, will bring it far outside the normal maximum of 2 tons 11 cwt., which, so far as I can gather, is the maximum permitted. I would suggest, therefore, that there is a strong case, because of the alteration in the type of truck used, which is safer, is equipped to carry greater loads, is fitted with modern equipment and devices, is therefore, generally in everyday use and is the only truck available, that an extension in the weight range should be granted.

On the question of altering the area of operation and the classes of merchandise, again conditions have altered very considerably since the Transport Act was passed. It is common knowledge that throughout parts of the country unlicensed hauliers are operating, both to the detriment of licensed hauliers and C.I.E. That situation has been allowed to develop without any protection being afforded to those who are possessors of merchandise licences, and in many cases C.I.E. have in fact themselves operated a permit system which is not in accordance with the Road Transport Act and which has been used, or accepted, as a device to comply with the Act but which, in fact, does not come within the terms of the Act at all.

I would suggest to the Minister that as this legislation is being passed, steps should be taken to bring it into line with conditions as they exist. Whatever abuses exist should be recognised and steps should be taken now to provide in this Bill power to enable the Minister to grant adequate extensions in respect of weight, area of operation and classes of merchandise.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Lemass)

The short answer to the Deputy's proposal is that it is superfluous, since the Minister for Industry and Commerce already has power under the Road Transport Act of 1944 to extend the operation of any merchandise licence or grant a new licence where he believes that the transport facilities available are inadequate and that the additional facilities required can be provided more conveniently and more effectively by someone other than a statutory authorised undertaking.

It would be wrong to dispose of Deputy Cosgrave's proposal, however, merely by pointing out that it is superfluous and that the power he is seeking to give the Minister the Minister already has, because we are all aware that the representatives of the Licensed Hauliers' Association have been contacting Deputies and circulars have been addressed to Deputies by that association urging the point of view that in some way the enactment of this legislation will be detrimental to their interests or, alternatively, that the whole basis of our present legislation should be reviewed and altered so as to remove restrictions on the operations of licensed hauliers.

Whatever we may do now or in the future about transport policy, we have got to try to move in one direction only; if we try to move in all directions simultaneously, we will end in futility. The basis of our present transport policy is found in the legislation passed in 1933. I refer in particular to the Road Transport Act of that year. That Act was designed to freeze the transport position of private transport operators engaged in the business of carrying goods on the roads for reward at the point it had then reached and to enable the railway companies to acquire these operators and take over the business they were doing. A number of them were acquired and substantial sums in compensation were paid by the railway companies. Those concerns which were not acquired— and there are still some 950 licensed transport operators—have since been protected in their share of the transport business by reason of the fact that no new licensed hauliers were allowed to enter into the business.

We now have a proposal from the licensed hauliers that they should be freed of all restrictions. They have some alternative proposals, if that proposal is not adopted, but their main representation is that they should be freed of all restrictions. If we were to take that course, we would be striking at the root of present transport policy. Maybe it is a good thing to do, but let us not do it without appreciating its full significance. It may be that we shall be forced to do that at some time in the future if the present effort to preserve and make more economic the public transport operators should fail.

I do not think that, if we have to write off the public transport operators as a failure and resort to new methods of ensuring that adequate transport facilities are available to the public, any of us would contemplate doing so on the basis of allowing that limited number of individuals licensed under the Act of 1933 alone to develop their operations. In circumstances in which we had to decide to write off the railways and public operators, I am sure we would do what they are proposing to do in the Six Counties, namely, restore the free-for-all position on the roads in which anybody could engage in the carriage of goods for reward.

I feel sure that the proposal of the Licensed Hauliers' Association that they alone should be permitted to operate — and to be permitted to operate without the restrictions — would not be acceptable. Let us consider whether they have a grievance. If they have a grievance, it is the duty of the Government to propose how it would be put right in so far as it can be done without conflicting with the main aims of policy. I can only put the point of view that the information available to me does not suggest that their situation is as they have described it.

In the first place, they said in the document which they have circulated to Deputies that the position of the licensed hauliers has deteriorated since 1933, due to certain legislative changes made in the meantime. The statistics published in the Trade Journal show the opposite. Taking the last three years for which the statistics are available — that is, 1954, 1955 and 1956 — it seems clear that during these three years, the licensed hauliers steadily increased their business, whereas C.I.E. steadily lost business on its road transport services during the same period.

In so far, therefore, as their suggestion is concerned, that, because of some legislative arrangements, business has been taken from them, the information available appears to show the contrary. It is true that, when the Act of 1933 was passed, each person then engaged in the business of carrying goods for reward on the roads in a motor vehicle was authorised to continue in that business with the same unladen lorry weight as he had then and that those who were not acquired under the compulsory acquisition powers given to the railway companies emerged from the whole operation with their operations limited to the extent that they could continue to operate only the same unladen lorry weight as they had then.

That situation has been changed more than once since—twice, by Acts of this House: once in 1944 and again in 1953. Increased unladen lorry weights were given in a general way to licensed operators. Over and above that, it was arranged that, where a diesel engine was substituted for a petrol engine, the unladen lorry weight specified in the licence was increased by five cwt. and that where a tipping-gear was added to the lorry, the unladen weight specified in the licence was increased by ten cwt. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the position of these licensed hauliers has been left unchanged since 1933. On the contrary, this House, in legislation, has taken full cognisance of the changes in the design of lorries which have occurred in the meantime—to the switch-over from petrol to diesel engines and to the need to acquire such equipment as tipping-gears.

In one of the submissions made by the Licensed Hauliers' Association, there is a reference to anomalies. I admit the possibility that there may be anomalies and, if there are, they should be eliminated. I would be prepared to consider any representations in relation to individual cases based on the ground that some anomalous situation existed. We have had representations of that kind in the past and anomalies have been eliminated by alterations in the conditions of licences. In so far as legislation is required to enable that to be done, it was passed many years ago in the Act of 1944. There is no need for an amendment to this Bill or for new legislation to get that power. The power is there. However, while I say I am prepared to deal with any anomalous situation, any impediment which a licensed haulier might be suffering from now because of some mistake made by him or his predecessor when applying for his licence back in 1933, I am not prepared at this stage to consider any general removal of restrictions on licensed hauliers as a class.

If we are to face up to a situation in which we diverge from the policy of trying to get traffic for the C.I.E. service and allowing that traffic to go instead to the licensed operators then we could not consider a situation in which the only people who could benefit by that change would be those who now have licences. We would have to consider either a very considerable extension of the number of licensees or the withdrawal of the licence provision altogether. For the moment, the aim which this Bill is intended to secure is to attract traffic back to the public operators so that they will be able to operate without loss and provide our country with an efficient transport service without the need for subventions from the taxpayer. It would be contrary to that aim of policy to create a situation in which still more of the traffic C.I.E. might reasonably expect to get would be taken away from them by other operators.

The memorandum circulated suggested that in some way this legislation was unfair to licensed road transport operators. It is true that, under this Bill, C.I.E. are being relieved of the common carrier restrictions which heretofore operated regarding them, but that is also true of the licensed hauliers. I do not know whether or not they were aware of it, but the effect of the legislation is to release them from the common carrier obligation from which C.I.E. are being released.

In so far as the Bill contains provisions for the elimination of illegal haulage—the carriage of goods for reward by people who are not licensed to do so—we can discuss them as we come to them. In so far as that matter is concerned there must be a common interest between those who are anxious to preserve and develop the business of public operators, of C.I.E., and those who are licensed to engage in the haulage business. We can, of course, go to ridiculous lengths in trying to deal with that abuse. The proposals contained in the Bill are based upon the report of the committee and, if they are not as effective as they should be, if Deputies will suggest, or make recommendations as to how these illegal haulage measures can be strengthened, I shall be very glad to consider such recommendations.

The position, therefore, so far as Deputy Cosgrave's amendment is concerned is that these powers are already possessed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. As to the question of how I should use these powers I am quite prepared to use them to remove anomalies, to straighten out slight irregularities and insure reasonable treatment for individuals as individuals. I am not prepared to use them to reverse the transport policy of which Dáil Éireann has approved. That policy must be directed towards diverting traffic, to the extent that it can be done, to the public operators so that they will be able to get the volume of business which will enable them to operate without loss.

Mr. Norton

I think C.I.E. have always admitted that they have never been much worried about licensed carriers as such. There are only about 900 to 1,000 licensed carriers while there are 40,000 odd licensed lorries on the roads. All these lorries are privately owned and are hauling merchandise, the remainder being owned by firms who transport their own goods. They are getting traffic which 40 or 50 years ago went to railways. About 1938 we had 10,000 lorries in the country and now we have over 40,000 lorries. When we had 10,000 lorries, the goods which are now carried by the additional 30,000 lorries which have been placed on the roads since then, were carried by the national railway undertaking. It is that kind of indentation on the available traffic for C.I.E. which has brought about the very serious financial position into which C.I.E. has got.

C.I.E. is being starved for traffic on its freight side and the kind of freight which it does get is the kind of stuff which, unfortunately, does not pay best. It is the kind of freight which many firms with private lorries do not carry themselves, and it is the kind of freight which a private haulier, without a licence, is never keen on seeking. I do not think any small adjustment to the licensed carrier would cause any hardship to C.I.E. The best service that could be done would be to deal with the problem of very large lorries, six and eight wheel lorries with trailers, which can be seen on our roads every day of the week. I do not know what the technical estimate is of the damage which these lorries do on main roads but, where they get in on secondary roads and by-roads, they do irreparable damage in the course of their activities. Every county engineer in the country will testify to that fact.

We are a small community of 3,000,000, with not much prospect in the forseeable future of that population expanding. In fact, all those concerned with the statistical side of the problem will tell you that the tendency appears to be in the direction of a falling population. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable that we should ask ourselves this question. Here we have a large transport undertaking represented by C.I.E. which has to indent heavily on the public purse; in fact, to such an extent that now under this Bill we are wiping out £16,500,000 of C.I.E. losses. That has been wiped at the public expense and, in addition, we are giving C.I.E. a subsidy of £1,000,000 for the next five years. All that money is not coming here like manna from Heaven, and it is not being made available because we have discovered a new goldmine. All that money is being got out of the taxpayers of the country.

Is life so easily faced here that we must, while maintaining at public expense a national transport undertaking such as C.I.E., at the same time import—with all the consequences the importation has on our balance of payments—these gigantic juggernauts which are hauling a whole variety of commodities that could be loaded into the empty wagons which are to be seen in the C.I.E. marshalling yards up and down the country? It may well be that we think we can carry on like the big brother next door and permit these things to roam our roads. It may well be that while we have a population of 3,000,000, compared with Britain's 50,000,000, we think we should have the same pattern of life. It may well be that we think we may parallel the German transport system which has these gigantic lorries on the roads all day and all night. Our resources do not permit us to do that.

We should consider whether we shall continue to import these gigantic lorries while apparently we will have an annual balance of payment problem for some years to come.

Mr. S. Lemass

That is a different and much wider question than this one.

Mr. Norton

I am suggesting this is the next remedy to find. We should find what to do with this problem. C.I.E. should put the telescope on the real source of their losses but, in relating the entire question——

Mr. S. Lemass

The amendment relates solely to licensed carriers and restrictions on them.

Mr. Norton

I do not know if the Minister objects to what I am saying.

Mr. S. Lemass

It is not the question we are discussing at the moment.

Mr. Norton

It is germane to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Merchandise licences.

Mr. Norton

And the effect of extending them. I am pointing out that the effect of the extensions to 1,000 licensed carriers is, in fact, trivial to the whole set up because C.I.E. do not regard the licensed carriers as their enemy as much as they do the very large lorries which are the real enemy taking the traffic from them. These lorries are the enemy of the taxpayers because the taxpayers have to make and maintain the roads for them. They are the enemies of everybody who has to pay for financing our railway system. That system could be made economic if we kept these heavy lorries out in future, compel those who are now using such lorries to divert their traffic into the national railway undertaking and stop C.I.E. having to sign cheques on the public purse.

Mr. Cosgrave

Deputy Norton has raised a very wide question and there may be something to be said for considering it at some stage. I did not suggest there should be a general extension. What I did suggest was that where weights have increased very much during the last 25 years, adequate extensions should be granted. The Minister says that power exists. I think we have all received the same circulars from the Licensed Hauliers' Association and they do not appear to be satisfied with the extensions granted. However, the Minister says he is prepared to look into it.

He went on to say then that if this were adopted, it would mean a change from existing policy. I think that what is really wrong is that we have been trying to save the railways, while at the same time moving in the opposite direction. The Minister is aware that a number of State undertakings are themselves the biggest offenders— Bord na Mona, the Sugar Company, the E.S.B., the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, to name only four. They are all either State or semi-State bodies and each of them operates a separate fleet of lorries. Some of the heavy lorries to which Deputy Norton referred—some of the very heaviest— are lorries operated, and which have come into use only in recent years, either in compliance with or in conflict with the express provisions of earlier Transport Acts.

Certainly, one has only to travel over any of the roads, either main or side roads, to see fleets of heavy lorries operated by the Sugar Company. Others, probably less heavy ones in some cases, are operated by the E.S.B. Therefore, if there is to be a national policy of preserving a single transport undertaking, we should start on the basis that no semi-State bodies will be allowed to conflict with that policy. Whatever policy is adopted should be adopted universally for all users and operated impartially, without giving the right to State or semi-State bodies to operate lorries in conflict or in competition with the national transport undertaking.

Mr. Russell

I am sure that there is a good deal to be said for the Minister's point at this stage, that if there is any question of diverting traffic from the national transport undertaking on to the roads, it would be wrong policy to confine the authorisation to transport goods to the less than 1,000 licensed hauliers who at present enjoy that privilege. The Minister did not say and I do not think he intended to infer, that desirable as it may be to convey, direct or encourage extra traffic to C.I.E., it was in his mind that the licensed haulier as such should be put out of business. In other words, I assume that the Minister agrees they should be kept at their present figure—950—with the present restrictions continuing, with certain small anomalies levelled out.

I wonder if that is quite fair. If you accept the fact that there is a position, as I think there is, for the licensed haulier, in fairness and in justice, he is entitled to operate on fair terms, particularly now that C.I.E. have been relieved of the restrictions placed upon them as common carriers. The licensed haulier contributes a very useful service to the overall services to the community—which, to my mind, comes even before C.I.E. However, we are not discussing that to-day. The main thing is to provide the public with an efficient transport system. At the moment, that transport system consists of C.I.E. as the national undertaking, the licensed hauliers, the merchants who run their own lorries and the people who run their own motor cars. There is a place for them all. How the goods and passenger traffic should be divided up, I am not quite certain.

It is obvious that at the present time we have far too much transport, both national and otherwise, for the amount of passengers and goods which are there to be carried in this small country; but, whereas from time to time we have heard criticisms of the service which C.I.E gives to passengers and traders, I have yet to hear any complaint against the service which the licensed haulier gives. I have had some experience myself down through the years of these men. They are like one-man or two-man family units: they operate their lorries on a county, a provincial or a Twenty-Six Counties basis. They give a first-class service. Admittedly they work long hours, but they give first-class service to those whom they serve, particularly in the outlying areas where there are no railways; and any question of allowing them to peter out or discouraging their operation would be a step in the wrong direction.

I feel, therefore, the Minister might consider this; and if he will accept that these are an essential unit in the overall transport picture, they are entitled to reasonable conditions in which to operate.

When these licences were issued originally in 1933, conditions were very different from what they are to-day. It is fair to say that undoubtedly the time has arrived at least to examine the position of these carriers, not merely to iron out anomalies but to see that they have an opportunity of operating and giving an efficient service to the community, particularly to the trading community. It might be worth examining it along the lines that, if they are to get extended licences, they should pay more for them. At the moment they pay only a nominal licence fee of a couple of pounds a year, whether their licence allows them to travel 20 miles or throughout the Twenty-Six Counties. I do not think it would be unfair to ask a man who has a right to travel the whole Twenty-Six Counties to pay more than the man who is restricted to 20 or 30 miles. Apart from anything else, it would be a useful source of revenue to the Exchequer if some such system could be operated.

The question of illegal haulage is probably the biggest bugbear which C.I.E. has to face. One possible way of helping to eliminate it would be to seek the co-operation of the licensed haulier by allowing him to operate under fair conditions. Having done that, we could look for his co-operation in stamping out illegal haulage. I agree with Deputy Norton that these 1,000 licensed hauliers should not be considered as a serious menace to C.I.E. I would regard them as complementary to C.I.E. and as giving a service largely where C.I.E. does not operate or would have to operate uneconomically. From my personal experience over a number of years, I regard them as an essential unit in the overall transport system of the country. In the circumstances, the Minister might go further than just considering some slight anomalies, particularly as to weight or the extension of their licence. I think they should be placed on a rationalised basis and they should pay a licence fee in accordance with the size of the truck and the distance which they cover. I do not think they would menace C.I.E. by this but would be complementary to the service given by C.I.E.

In the past, every Deputy has had some experience of representations being made and of one of the excuses given being that the whole question of transport, particularly in regard to C.I.E., was under consideration and that nothing could be done in the interim. It seems that, irrespective of what might be in the 1944 Act, the time is opportune now to consider the whole question of the licensed haulier and the service which he gives and his particular place in the overall transport system.

Dr. Esmonde

I think the Minister might reasonably accept Deputy Cosgrave's amendment. If C.I.E. close down a railway and do not give an alternative service, it is obvious that they are closing it down because it is not economic and they are not providing an alternative road service because it is not economic for them to do so. Then it is a question of someone providing that service. Otherwise, a district would be left totally isolated. Surely, if a merchant applies for a merchandise licence to operate in that district, he is operating under considerable difficulties. He is a single individual, trying to supply the public with the services which the national transport service has failed to provide. I think the Minister accepts that such a man has not the same opportunities as the public transport undertaking has. Public transport has a big organisation at its disposal. It also has its annuity for the next five years which the taxpayer is paying. A private individual is to come in where that public transport system has failed and therefore he should not be limited in any way.

I admit the Minister says that he has now, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, the power to give private individuals whatever facilities they may require. Deputy Cosgrave's amendment asks for facilities with regard to weight, area of operation and so forth. We cannot reasonably expect any private individual to take over an area which has proved uneconomic for this big public transport organisation, if he is to be limited in his facilities. If anybody proposes to set up a private enterprise transport organisation in fairly isolated areas—as in most cases they will be—why should he be restricted entirely to that area? Why should he be restricted in regard to weight? If a person has enough incentive and enterprise to take over such an area, he should be given every possible facility. It is quite unrealistic to fall back on the system with regard to road transport here. Obviously, the old situation has changed. If it had not changed, we would not be discussing this Bill. The set-up here was that we had, more or less a monopolistic control of public transport. If C.I.E. are unable to carry on, somebody has to take their place.

The Minister could reasonably accept this amendment. I do not think he will be committing himself in any way in doing so. It will serve a very useful purpose as it will ensure that areas are not cut off and that private people with the enterprise and the courage to embark on transport undertakings of this type will be willing to come forward. I think the Minister could accept the amendment and I do not see that it will affect public transport in any way. It is solely concerned with Part V, which deals with the position where the public transport system no longer carries on. That is all that Deputy Cosgrave seeks. He asks that the Minister should give a fair deal to the person coming in. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, he will isolate large areas of this country. C.I.E. cannot have it both ways. If the Bill goes through, with this amendment, they are going to get a pretty fair deal from this House.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I welcome the Minister's statement that he has examined appeals from private hauliers regarding the 20-mile radius and that he has also carefully examined the position in the changed circumstances that exist to-day, whereby in 1933 a lorry had to have a certain unladen weight. I am satisfied with the Minister's assurance on these two points. The position in regard to the 20-mile radius has changed considerably since 1933 and the point I want to make is that, if we are accepting taxation from private hauliers, and if their business has deteriorated due to other circumstances that have also changed since 1933, I feel in justice we should examine that position. The Minister's statement that he has power under the 1933 Act to extend the 20-mile radius, after giving the matter due consideration, is good enough for me.

Mr. Norton

There is no such mileage in the 1933 Act.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I thought it was in the 1933 Act.

Mr. S. Lemass

There could have been, in some cases.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It is in one of the Acts.

Mr. Norton

It is not in any of the Acts. I am only putting the Deputy right in his arithmetic.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am deeply grateful to the Deputy.

Mr. Norton

I knew the Deputy would be.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The only point with which I am concerned is that things have changed so much since the licensed haulier got his licence. Now there are thousands more lorries within the country, and as we are asking these people to pay extra taxation and as their conditions have worsened, I thought it was a position which the Minister should examine. However, in reply to Deputy Cosgrave, the Minister said he had examined that position and has also examined the position with regard to weight. I am therefore fully satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister and I merely raise it because I promised a few of my constituents that I would. Their position has been badly affected as they have lorries and have to get hauliers' licences, to tax the lorries and maintain them. As their conditions have disimproved considerably, I think such people are worthy of some consideration and, in justice, their cases should receive sympathetic consideration.

Mr. T. Lynch

Is the Deputy in favour of the amendment?

Mr. P.J. Burke

No; I am accepting the Minister's assurance.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Deputy is making the Minister very happy.

Mr. Allen

I want to inquire from the Minister whether under existing legislation he has power to extend further the unladen weight of vehicles of licensed hauliers. As far as I know, each time he needed power to act, he had to come to the House for further legislation. Many Deputies will be aware that in the past many approaches were made to them by people holding licensed hauliers' plates who could not operate their new lorries because the unladen weight was greater than that set out in the licence. As far as I understand, there were only two small extensions. I am told, on good authority, that the restrictions they are operating under at the present time do not enable them to increase the carrying capacity of their vehicles to make them economic. The private hauliers, especially those to whom Deputy Norton referred, have eight, 12 and 24-wheeler lorries on the road, but the licensed haulier is confined to a vehicle of a certain unladen weight, the body of the vehicle being weighed in for taxation purposes, and that is a restriction on them. There is no doubt about that. It has been represented to me that they are unable to carry an economic payload with the present unladen weight of the vehicles in many cases. I want the Minister to consider that.

It should be said that there is no intention in the Bill of squeezing 900 people out of existence. I hope that will not happen and I am sure the House would agree they should not be squeezed out by restricting them to an uneconomic sized vehicle as against any competitors they may have. That is the difficulty I see in it. It is one to which I should like the Minister to give further consideration. If 1,000 or 900 licensed hauliers went out of existence in the morning they will not be replaced by C.I.E. vehicles. They will be replaced, as all other vehicles have been replaced in the past ten or 20 years, by privately owned vehicles. There is no doubt about that. No matter what type of legislation may be passed in this House you cannot beat the 40,000 or 60,000 vehicles in this country which are in the hands of private individuals. While it is a sound national policy to try to maintain a public transport system like C.I.E., Governments which will come in here in future will still have to pump money into that company.

Since the end of the war especially, traders of any kind worth talking about have their own fleets of private transport and nothing which C.I.E. or this House can do will help them in any way. We see Messrs. Guinness with their big tankers. They have doubled up the size of these tankers and they now have trailer tankers carrying stout all round the country. That may be good or bad but there is no come back to C.I.E. from bodies like that which have provided their own fleets of transport at very great expense.

I would suggest to the Minister that he should give consideration to that aspect of the matter. If C.I.E. had been as vigorous and as active as the owners of these 900 vehicles, there would not be so many vehicles in the hands of private individuals carrying merchandise at the present time because there would be no necessity. There is nothing in this Bill to make the situation worse than it is at present. Vehicles coming on the road are very big but in three years' time they will be even bigger. The Minister will then be asked to bring in new legislation to allow those people to operate. I would ask him to consider whether there is a problem there or not.

Mr. Cosgrave

Could I ask the Minister a question? As I understand it, I think Section 115 of the 1944 Act gives power to grant extensions. Assuming that I am an existing holder of a merchandise licence and that the overall unladen weight is 2 tons 15 cwt.—that is the maximum—and I buy a new truck, a Commer diesel which will weigh about 3 tons 5 cwt., that is an increase of 10 cwt., but if you have to include a container, am I entitled to get the weight increased?

Mr. Norton

No.

Mr. G. Boland

I thoroughly agree with Deputy Norton that the big problem is the enormous size of these new lorries coming on the road. This may not be a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce but for the Minister for Local Government, I believe that some of our roads are not fit to carry these enormous weights which are put on them. In my constituency practically all the main roads have bog foundations and are unable to carry the heavy loads. If it is not a question for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, some member of the Government, perhaps the Minister for Local Government, should put a limit on the weight of these lorries. I think they are going far beyond what could be allowed on the roads of this country. Surely the Minister for Local Government cannot look on and see the roads smashed by the heavy vehicular traffic going on them at present?

Mr. Crotty

I think we are travelling much too far. I wonder if the Minister is right in what he stated about giving general extensions. I do not think general extensions are asked in this amendment. Sub-section (5) says:—

"If the board does not propose to provide an alternative road transport service the notice shall state that applications for passenger licences under the Road Transport Act, 1932, or merchandise licences under the Road Transport Act, 1933, or both, as may be appropriate, may be made by persons desiring to provide alternative road services."

I take it for granted that this amendment deals only with persons who apply to provide an alternative road service where C.I.E. are not going to provide them. I think this amendment is a proper one. If a person provides an alternative service in an uneconomic area, where C.I.E. will not provide it, that person must be given some extension of the licence. I mean that particular person, not all the licensed merchandise hauliers. The amendment deals only with the particular person who is going to provide an alternative service where C.I.E. are not prepared to do so. I think it is only reasonable, where a person comes in and provides that alternative service, that he should be given a greater area to cover in order to make a living. That is all this amendment deals with. I do not think it deals with every haulier of merchandise. It deals only with the particular cases where persons are going to provide an alternative service. I think the matter should be dealt with from that point of view. If C.I.E. closes a particular service and I or somebody else will provide a service in that area we should not be confined to the area which has been closed down but we should be given an extension to make the proposition an economic one.

Mr. S. Lemass

Deputy Crotty may not have been here when I was speaking earlier. There is no problem so far as the amendment is concerned. An amendment of this kind to the Bill does not alter the position in any way. The question is how the Minister is going to use the power he has. If C.I.E. do not provide the transport facilities reasonably required in an area, whether they close down a railway line or not, these facilities may be provided by a licensed haulier. To the extent that that requires either the extension of the scope of some existing licence or the issue of a new licence, that is the way it will be met. There is power to do that. There is no need to get additional power in order to get that done. Therefore, as far as the amendment is concerned, if I had not got that power already, I would not mind taking it. The only objection to the amendment is that it is superfluous. That power already exists.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does the amendment not require the Minister to do a particular thing?

Mr. S. Lemass

In fact, the power I have is wider than the power the amendment proposes to give me. The amendment proposes to give me that power only in circumstances where C.I.E. withdraw a rail service. I have power to do it generally.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The amendment would require the Minister to exercise it in these particular circumstances.

Mr. S. Lemass

There is no problem in that regard. That is the power that is there and that can be used and that is how it will be used, to give facilities for the provision of transport facilities by licensed hauliers where C.I.E. are not providing reasonable facilities for any reason. I also can use that power, and have used it in the past, to deal with cases of hardship, where a licensed haulier shows that the restrictions on his existing licence make it impossible for him to earn a reasonable livelihood, or where he can show that some mistake or error was made when the licence was originally being applied for. There is not a problem of getting powers in this regard. It is a question of how we will use them. I have no desire to travel a bit of the road with everybody. I want to have my position clearly and precisely stated.

The people of the country are entitled to reasonable transport facilities. When it is clear that some additional facilities are needed in any area or for any trade, C.I.E. has the first option on the provision of those facilities and, where they fail to provide them, then, licensed hauliers must be facilitated in providing them, either by getting the necessary authority under existing licences or by the granting of new licences.

I will go a little further than that. If C.I.E. withdraw a rail service or withdraw any facility which they are now providing and the question of allowing licensed hauliers to provide the facility arises, policy should be aimed towards extending, if necessary, the scope of the licence of some existing haulier rather than the granting of a new licence, and in the great majority of cases where the problem is likely to arise, that can be done without any difficulty.

What, however, we have been discussing arising out of representations which have been made to Deputies by the Licensed Hauliers' Association is the question of a general extension in the carrying capacity of licensed hauliers. They say: "Effect that general extension by allowing us to increase our carrying capacity". The alternative way would be to effect it by increasing the number of licensed hauliers, issuing a number of new licences to people to engage in the business. I am against either course because we cannot go along that road and at the same time try to eliminate C.I.E. losses. C.I.E. losses arise enentirely from the fact that they are not getting enough traffic. If they could increase the total volume of business available to them by 10 or 15 per cent. their losses would be eliminated. We cannot hope to get C.I.E. that increase in business and at the same time allow the capacity of other people carrying goods for reward to be increased as well.

If, notwithstanding the additional powers and resources we are giving to C.I.E., we find the railways cannot be preserved, that the public transport operators cannot carry on without heavy losses, which the taxpayer will have to meet, then we may have to consider changing our route altogether and dealing with the problem of providing transport facilities by removing all these restrictions and letting anybody who likes carry goods for reward. I do not think that any of us would contemplate providing as a substitute for C.I.E. merely an extension of facilities to existing licensed hauliers. That would be a situation which, in time, could produce twice as many difficulties and twice as many abuses as have arisen so far.

There is one other thing I want to say arising out of remarks by Deputy Allen. There has been a suggestion conveyed to Deputies in some of the representations they have received that in some ways this Bill worsens the position of licensed hauliers. When the Licensed Hauliers' Association came to me and asked that this Bill should be availed of for the purpose of giving them these extensions in their powers which they were seeking, I said that this Bill deals with C.I.E. affairs and with nothing else, and it is not intended that it should deal with anything else, and if there is to be any question of a general revision of the Road Transport Act, 1933, it should be done in a separate Bill.

In fact, there are some provisions of this Bill which have, indirectly, consequences for licensed hauliers, but, in so far as they have, they improve their position. In fact, the only real change made in regard to them is that the termination of the common carrier obligation in respect of C.I.E. is accompanied by the termination of a similar obligation in regard to licensed hauliers. Apart from that, their position is not affected and is not certainly being worsened in any respect by the enactment of this measure.

It is true that there has been a contention that licensed hauliers cannot get business in sufficient volume to enable them to earn a reasonable livelihood. My answer to that is that the available statistics published in the Trade Journal show that the amount of business they are getting is increasing year by year, at a time when the amount of business that C.I.E. is getting is falling away and that, therefore, would suggest to me that they have advantages which enable them to protect and preserve their position at a time when one, perhaps, would have expected to find something different.

There is power, however, as I said, in the existing legislation to deal with licensed hauliers on an individual basis, to deal with the case of an individual haulier who for some reason could show that the conditions of his existing licence were imposing hardship on him. If, for example, a licensed haulier in Limerick had not authority to carry goods for reward into Clare, I would say that that was due to some mistake at the time the original licensee was making his application, attributable to some oversight on his part, which could be rectified. I should say that a licensed haulier in Limerick should have power to carry for reward, certainly in the counties around, and that would apply to licensed hauliers in Sligo, Cork or anywhere else. If some original applicant made the mistake of leaving out of his application some territory in which he could obviously be expected to be entitled to operate, then the licence could be amended accordingly.

Wherever a case of hardship of that kind arises, there is no problem in dealing with it. Wherever a case arises of providing new facilities, either because of some new need or because of withdrawal of facilities by C.I.E., there is no problem in dealing with it. The point at which I draw the line is when I am asked to give to all licensed hauliers increased carrying capacity, which must cut away still further the volume of business available to the public transport operators.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister say what is the position in regard to an existing licensed haulier who wants to get a new lorry? The unladen weight is much greater now than it was 25 years ago. Will he get an increase in that?

Mr. S. Lemass

The answer is that the minimum unladen weight of licensed hauliers was increased since 1933 by the 1944 Act and there was a further change in that regard in the 1953 Act. I do not want to say that there may not still be cases of hardship. I would not like to prejudge the position without hearing the individual claims that might be made, but there is power to deal with hardship, if there is hardship, and I will deal with hardship if it can be shown that it exists. But, the representations of the association are not dealing with this one an individual basis. First, they claim that there should be no restrictions on the operations of hauliers, no restrictions on the size or number of lorries that they should operate or, alternatively, that there should be an all-round expansion in their carrying capacity. I could not accept that.

Mr. Cosgrave

I did not propose that.

Mr. S. Lemass

No.

Mr. Norton

It is true that this amendment has limited scope. The Minister, when intervening in reply to Deputy Cosgrave, in the first instance, used the occasion for the purpose of explaining the general effect of this Bill in so far as licensed carriers are concerned. That is how we got into a discussion on the wider issues involved. I am sure the Minister is aware of the difficulties for him in exercising the powers in the 1933 and the 1944 Acts. Under the 1933 Act, all those who were then carrying goods for reward automatically got a licence. They got those licences on the basis of their unladen weight and on the basis of the areas in which they travelled.

Many of those who owned lorries at that time got other persons to fill in the official form, which was a rather formidable document. They had them filled in by somebody with no knowledge of transport at all and the licence was then issued on the basis of whatever information was conveyed on the form. From time to time, cases have arisen in which it was established that the areas mentioned in the application submitted in 1933 did not adequately represent the area in which, in fact, a lorry operated at that time. Consequently, changes have been made in these licences by extending the area.

Of course, 1933 is now 25 years away and I have had to deal with applications in the Department, as I am sure the Minister had, where persons said they were operating their lorries in areas which were not covered in the licence. There was no means of checking where the lorry they had in 1933 went to. Many of those people kept no accounts whatever and there was no documentary evidence to substantiate their case. The result was that the Minister was left with a big question mark in his mind: Is this story by the applicant true and if it is true what should the Minister do to remedy the situation? Or should be discount the story because of a fear that the applicant is taking advantage of the effluxion of time and trying to say something happened which cannot be disproved at this stage?

That is the problem which besets the Minister in deciding what he will do in these cases. The wisdom of Solomon, even if one could transmit that to present requirements, is not adequate to deal with difficulties of that kind. If my memory serves me correctly, there is a view on the file by the Attorney General as to what constitutes cases of hardship and it is a pretty thin line as to what constitutes cases of hardship. If it is represented by a person with two children that he is suffering hardship in operating his lorry is he to receive the same treatment as a person who has ten children to keep with a similar lorry? One would have to decide where was the hardship. Was it hardship for a person to be confined to certain areas or was the hardship of a human or of a commercial nature? That is the problem with which the Minister had to deal.

There is the further consideration that if you make a decision in favour of an applicant, instantaneously everybody within 30 or 40 miles knows about it, and immediately you get applications in from everybody in that area saying that his case is on all-fours with that of John X who got an increase in his licence. If individual cases are to be considered, that could develop into nepotism.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy should not be putting bad thoughts into the Minister's mind.

Mr. Norton

He has no more room for bad thoughts—I mean, political ones. That puts in the hands of a Minister terrific power, power to do something for one person while with-holding it from another person. No Minister concerned for the public welfare is anxious to be given powers of that kind, in the exercise of which, no matter what his views may be, he will get political pressure that may at times be difficult to withstand.

Instead of dealing with individual cases of hardship, the Minister should face up to the problem by dealing with it by a mass decision and eliminate the submission of individual cases of hardship which can be supported by all kinds of pleas, some of which it is not now possible to check. It would be better for the Minister to disarm himself of that power, to have no power to look at individual cases, but to look at the problem in its wider context. You will get the basis of smoother and cleaner legislation—when I say "cleaner legislation", I do not mean any reflection on anybody charged with the administration of the Road Transport Act—in that way. Where a Minister or where a Department has power to make individual exceptions, there is always a danger that a particular kind of pressure skilfully executed will get what the merits of the case would not justify giving.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I do not believe it.

Mr. S. Lemass

To avoid misunderstanding, may I intervene? In my communications with the Licensed Hauliers Association, I did not rule out consideration of action along those lines. I indicated the considerations of policy which would have to be decided in any course I adopted, but if they are prepared to keep their representations as to the changes which they desire in the legislation within those policy limits, I am prepared to consider them and told them so, but I would regard it as a possible matter for separate legislation and not for a Bill which is concerned primarily with C.I.E. affairs.

Mr. Norton

When I was Minister for Industry and Commerce, I was approached by one person, in the first instance—whom I did not know from Adam—who wanted the licensed weight of his lorry increased because of the fact that he was installing a diesel engine which was heavier than an ordinary petrol engine. He said the carrying capacity of the lorry was not improved by the installation of the diesel engine. It would still carry the same quantity of goods as previously. He felt he should not be penalised because he wanted to instal a diesel engine, now that his old engine was worn out, and that it was a more economic buy, from his point of view. As I have said, I dislike dealing with an individual case and, in consultation with the Department, decided that everybody who fitted a diesel engine instead of a petrol engine, would get an increase in the unladen weight of his vehicle. That decision would apply to all, so that the Minister would not have to concern himself with granting or refusing individual applications.

Similarly, representations were made that tipping gears facilitated the loading and unloading of goods on lorries. The position was put to me that this would increase the unladen weight over and above that set out in the licence. There again I gave a general direction that the licence should be adjusted by the additional weight that was involved by having the tipping gear on the lorry for the purpose of making for more efficient transport. These two decisions applying to the entire transporting community affected, that is, the licensed hauliers, was a smooth administrative operation and eliminated the possibility of one having to consider giving concessions to one person, whilst withholding them from another. As far as possible Government policy ought to be directed towards giving one decision to all the people in that class.

To some extent, the old Great Southern Railways, in their halcyon days, when they had the patriarchal kind of transport and equipment for which it was noted, by its inertia and indifference, helped to bring about the use of a substantial number of privately-owned lorries. If our transport undertaking had gone after the haulage of goods by a method similar to that subsequently adopted by the large transporters of goods——

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy is forgetting something. Let us be fair to them. They were not allowed to engage in the transportation of goods by road.

Mr. Norton

I know they were not.

Mr. S. Lemass

They were prevented by law.

Mr. Norton

But I do not think that they ever sought power to do what they could have done. I would even extend it to C.I.E. for the purpose of the discussion. They might have instituted an enterprising road haulage policy which would circumvent the use of lorries by large firms. Many of these large firms gave their business entirely to C.I.E. They left C.I.E. for a variety of reasons, reasons not common to all the firms concerned. Many of these firms had to contemplate raising substantial capital, buying a substantial number of lorries, setting up a whole transport fleet, providing accommodation for the fleet and operating it. This was a kind of work entirely different from their normal retail activities, and if they, did that, obviously there was some compelling reason behind their action.

I believe they might have been headed off doing that if C.I.E. had said: "We will give you, or put at your disposal, a fleet of lorries which will do everything that a privately-owned fleet can do and we will manage your fleet for you and render an account to you. We will undertake that the cost of this will not in fact be more, and will possibly, be less— because of our centralised control and centralised ability to buy — than the fleet you would buy and operate yourselves."

An enterprising C.I.E. board may well be able to get traffic back under the control of C.I.E. by providing for such firms the kind of service now provided for these firms through their own activities. I think the situation in respect of the licensed hauliers is such that it might be possible for C.I.E. and the licensed hauliers to consider doing a deal. There are only about 900 licensed hauliers in the Twenty Six Counties and many of these have licences for local operation only and many have small lorries. It would pay C.I.E. to enter into negotiations with the licensed hauliers to see if C.I.E. could not give them a contract on a remunerative basis whereby the licensed hauliers would haul locally and feed the traffic they get on to the rails heads. In other words they could feed the rail-heads and in that way divert a substantial quantity of goods now carried on lorries to the traffic-starved wagons which C.I.E. have available in abundance.

It may be it is not possible to do that—to make a national deal between C.I.E. and the licensed hauliers—but it is well worth trying. Even if we got only 35 or 40 per cent. of them to agree it would represent a substantial addition to C.I.E.'s rail traffic. Without doubt, we are hauling too much freight on the roads which could usefully be hauled on the permanent way now available to C.I.E., especially as so much money has been spent by the State and the public in subsidy on the rehabilitation of the rolling stock and the railway lines.

These are matters which I think the Minister might consider and see if it is not possible for him to indicate to C.I.E. new lines of approach to the problem of getting more freight because C.I.E. can only live and be economic, keep its head above financial water, if it can attract to itself a substantial quantity of economically rewarding freight. Freight is its life blood and it must concentrate all its efforts on seeking additional traffic because unless it can get that traffic this debate will be paralleled over and over again for the next 50 years.

Dr. Esmonde

I do not think the Minister has really answered the point that I made just now. What we are discussing at the moment is not whether C.I.E. has more traffic on a particular line. We are really discussing what will happen if C.I.E. proposes to clear out of a certain area. Everybody wants C.I.E. to remain and to function even in isolated areas if they possibly can but our actual discussion concerns the situation when C.I.E. decides to retire. It is not necessary, under Section 5, to replace the rail service by an alternative road service. What we are discussing is Deputy Cosgrave's amendment.

If, under private enterprise, a lorry takes over the service in such an area will the owner be given special facilities? The amendment would embody that in legislation. It is true that the Minister has said he has power already to give an owner a licence and has indicated that he will do so but he may not always be Minister for Industry and Commerce. There is always the possibility of the Government going out or of the Minister being put out of his high office. Surely it is reasonable to ask that this amendment should go into the legislation? It will do nobody any harm and it will not effect C.I.E.

The amendment will become operative only if C.I.E. goes out of an area. It is not unreasonable to ask that when somebody comes in through private enterprise he should get an adequate extension. I should like the Minister to reply to that.

Mr. S. Lemass

I think the Deputy misunderstands the position. The Minister has the right to give the licence——

Dr. Esmonde

I know that.

Mr. S. Lemass

And when he grants a licence, he certainly grants it for the purpose for which it is intended and he has power to do it.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister might as well have two strings to his bow. He should take this one also.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I want to support the point of view put forward by Deputy Esmonde. I may be misinterpreting the Minister's argument but as I followed him—I did not hear the Minister in his original reply on Deputy Cosgrave's amendment—in his later interventions he seemed to me to make the case that he would not accept the amendment as it was unnecessary because the power was there already and it was his intention to use the power in the manner suggested by Deputy Cosgrave in his amendment. I think that is a fair summary of the Minister's position.

What Deputy Dr. Esmonde has said is quite true. It is one thing for a Minister to hold a particular view and that may not obtain for more than six months or a year——

Mr. S. Lemass

Even with the amendment it still depends on the Minister's view as to what are adequate facilities.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

There is this distinction: The amendment would require the Minister to give this matter consideration——

Mr. S. Lemass

The amendment requires the Minister to grant adequate extensions—that is, what the Minister thinks are adequate extensions.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

This would require the Minister——

Mr. S. Lemass

The Minister has already taken a decision to give the licence and he has power to give the licence.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He has the power but he may not do it if he thinks fit——

Mr. S. Lemass

But this amendment deals only with the case where he has already done it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

No; he has done it. He has given the licence, but he may not have given it with adequate extensions——

Mr. S. Lemass

Which would be a very foolish thing to do.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

In any case, if the Minister's point is true—that it does not make any difference—that is all the more reason why it should be done, because it is not harming the Minister's Bill or his policy in any way. I took it that the Minister's view was that he would have power to deal with these licences, as far as extensions are concerned, in cases of hardship. I am not talking of new licences but am I right in thinking that the Minister can only deal with extensions if there are cases of hardship?

Mr. S. Lemass

No, that is not quite correct. The hardship could be general. It does not need to be particular, as may have been assumed from my earlier remarks. It will be remembered that in 1953, for example, there was new legislation regarding road taxation which had an unexpected effect in imposing some hardship on licensed hauliers. That was met by an all-round alteration in conditions of the licences given to these hauliers which overcame that particular hardship.

The point is that the Minister has an obligation to ensure that there are adequate transport facilities. He is empowered to give these licences to private persons to operate, notwithstanding the policy of supporting the public undertaking, where he is satisfied that facilities are inadequate. Deputy Cosgrave says that when he has taken that decision and decided to give new licences, that those licences should have adequate scope. Certainly that is what is intended. The effect of the amendment would not be to alter the position in the least. It would only mean that where the Minister had already taken the decision that facilities were inadequate, he would give the licence.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister mentioned a point I was about to come to. To a certain extent, this amendment has been discussed from the point of view of the licensed haulier rather than from the point of view of the public who are depending on the transport. It seems to me that we should all look at it the other way. This section is one of the sections which enables C.I.E. to withdraw a service without imposing on them any obligation whatever to provide an alternative service. That has been done in order to assist bringing C.I.E. to what has been described as "a position of commercial adaptability."

It is in the interest of C.I.E. that they should get this power without the obligation of providing any alternative service. Power is being vested in the board of withdrawing a service without any kind of effective let or hindrance by any appeal tribunal or anything else. In those circumstances the person to be protected is ordinary John Citizen, who has either been a passenger or a customer dealing in merchandise and who is now going to find himself without the service which heretofore has been provided by C.I.E.

Machinery is being put into this section to enable an alternative service to be provided, if C.I.E. are not going to provide it. It seems to me that if we look at this from the point of view of of the public, not from the point of view of the particular licensed haulier, whether he is an existing one or not, and not from the point of view of C.I.E., it is essential that there should be some kind of safeguard such as is envisaged in this amendment by Deputy Cosgrave.

I should like to make this general suggestion to the Minister. I do not intend to talk on this section again. I do not know whether or not the powers I have in mind are already there, but it seems to me it would be a good policy, and in the public interest, if the Minister had the power, in the event of a service of this sort being withdrawn by C.I.E. and no alternative provision for a road service made by C.I.E., to declare the area affected by the withdrawal as an exempted area, an area where anyone could carry for reward without a licence at all. The Minister should give some consideration to that aspect of it.

Many of us pay lip service to the idea of private enterprise. In a case like this, where there is a withdrawal of service and if C.I.E. are not providing an alternative, it seems to me that the ideal solution, if the people in that area want the service, is that they should be able to make their case to the Minister and that the Minister should have the power to declare that area an exempted area.

Mr. S. Lemass

May I say that the intention is that where C.I.E. withdraw a rail service and do not provide an alternative road service, licences to operate these road services will be given to private persons. The section provides that persons interested are entitled to all information to enable them to decide whether or not it is a practicable proposition. I should dislike an amendment which would appear to compel me to meet the transport needs by giving a new licence. In many cases it would be more conveniently and economically met by extending some existing licence, if indeed such extension was required at all. In so far as there may be some question as to whether that intention is clear in the section, I will have it examined. The intention is that in the circumstances described—the withdrawal of a rail service and a decision by C.I.E. not to provide road services —the Minister will grant to applicants in the area the necessary facilities to operate these services, whether passenger or freight.

Dr. Esmonde

What the Minister has just said seems to raise another point. The Minister mentioned extending the area of an existing licence. Might not that create difficulty? You might have a certain area which perhaps——

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy should appreciate that that might not be the problem. In fact, a number of these licensed hauliers are authorised by their licences to operate anywhere. There will be no question of extending the scope of the licences in that regard. In practice we know they provide transport services only within a limited range of wherever they have their headquarters. Perhaps it would be better in some instances to issue a new licence. If there was a situation where a local licensed haulier was prepared to provide the services but was prevented from doing so by some limitation of his licence, the removal of that limitation would be the best way of providing an adequate service.

Dr. Esmonde

I beg to disagree with the Minister. I think he would be causing endless confusion by doing it that way. If you are going to extend a man's scope by, say, another 20 miles, then you have this particular area in one direction. You would have to give him a licence, say, increasing his area from 50 to 70 miles. Would you not have to extend it 70 miles in all directions? You are then letting one man into another man's area.

Mr. S. Lemass

It is usually expressed in terms of counties.

Dr. Esmonde

Even so, you will have exactly the same parallel situation.

Mr. S. Lemass

I shall look at the section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Casey

I feel the Minister has brought a lot of unnecessary trouble on his shoulders in regard to the issue of passenger or merchandise licences in areas where C.I.E. terminate rail services. Looking at the branch lines which might possibly be considered for closure during the next five or six years, I know of none where C.I.E. are not at present operating road passenger and freight services in an adjoining area. It would seem to me that where a branch line is closed by C.I.E. it will be in most cases a simple task for C.I.E., and one which they will probably be glad to undertake, to extend from the adjoining area their own passenger and road merchandise services, in which case the issuing of these licences to private undertakings will not arise at all.

I am wondering whether the Minister has not in fact given himself a great deal of trouble in providing here for a contingency that is most unlikely to arise. The only occasion on which it could arise would be in an area where C.I.E. have no road passenger or road merchandise services operating in an adjoining area and where they might feel that to start a new road freight or passenger service would be uneconomic. The only occasion upon which an application would be made to the Minister would be where C.I.E. felt they could not make the provision of transport a paying proposition.

I have difficulty in visualising any private individual or private firm applying to the Minister for a licence in such a case if C.I.E. throw in the towel and say that transport in such an area would not pay. C.I.E. would have at its disposal buses and units from its road freight fleet, trained crews and a very wide experience of operating road freight and passenger services. If C.I.E. decide it would not pay, it passes my comprehension how anybody could expect a private individual or a private firm to come along and provide such services. The only way in which it could be done would be if some individual or firm set up a transport undertaking with poor transport, low wages, and inferior conditions as compared with C.I.E.

There is a distinct possibility that in isolated areas, particularly in the poorer and undeveloped areas, no transport will be provided at all. Up to now the obligation quite rightly, was placed on the national transport undertaking to provide adequate facilities in every area in which they already had a rail service. Henceforth the position will be that, if they close a branch line, and decide it is uneconomic to run a road passenger or freight service, such areas will be left without any transport at all. Nobody will be in a position to compel anybody to provide transport then.

We are relieving C.I.E. of a legal obligation they had up to this and we are divesting ourselves of power to compel C.I.E. to provide adequate road passenger and freight transport in any area in which they close down a branch line. That is an undesirable departure and one which the Minister could easily have avoided if he had seen fit to make provision for these special cases.

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy is wrong in one respect. It is not correct to say that C.I.E. is under obligation to provide transport services in all parts of the country.

Mr. Casey

Where they close a branch line.

Mr. S. Lemass

Their obligation is limited in that respect. Where there is no branch line, C.I.E. have the option of providing road transport services and, if they do not take up the option, the right can then be given, and has in the past been given, to other operators. There are some 30 to 40 individuals licensed to operate road passenger services. I cannot say why C.I.E. allowed these to continue initially, but they so allowed them and the services have been operating since to facilitate the public. Since the passing of the Act in 1933 I do not remember having received a single complaint about the services provided by these private operators. The situation is that in future the obligation to provide alternative services where a branch line is closed down is being removed. C.I.E. are being relieved of that obligation. They will be put in the same position as that in which they are in other parts of the country at the present time; either they will provide services, which I am sure they will wish to do in most cases, or, alternatively, a limited licence will be given to private persons.

Dr. Esmonde

This section gives C.I.E. the right to close down any rail service they consider to be uneconomic. They need only publish a notice in the journals for a period of two months beforehand. That is, I think, a fair interpretation of the section. They need not provide any alternative transport. If the House gives effect to this provision we shall leave certain areas in the country in a very unsatisfactory position. Under these provisions C.I.E. will be free to do what they like and to conduct their own affairs as they like. Section 6, which this section appears to cut across, stipulates that they must provide reasonable transport. The closing down of a rail service can be a very serious matter. Once it is closed it can never be restored. If C.I.E. decide it is not economic to operate a particular service they will be under no obligation to provide an alternative service. All they are asked to do in this Bill is to make themselves economic. That is the primary intention of the Bill. That is why I object to this section.

The section in effect gives them power to close down any rail service they consider uneconomic. There are probably quite a number of rail services which are uneconomic. There is nothing to stop C.I.E. going far beyond the recommendations of the Beddy Report. If their primary aim and object is to make themselves solvent—it is reasonable to assume that is the point of view they will take—their purpose will be to keep themselves solvent while keeping as many people as possible in permanent employment and, from that point of view, there is no reason why they should not close down so-called uneconomic services all over the country. If there is no obligation on them to provide alternative services, this House has no redress whatsoever.

Constituents come to us and complain now that they are completely isolated. They have no public transport. Now numbers of people are entirely dependent on public transport. People come to us in different rural areas and say: "We are completely isolated here. We have no transport whatsoever. There is no 'bus." The answer we get here, probably, if we raise the matter is that it is in the Bill, that it was the legislation passed by this House, that the Minister has no function in the matter whatsoever, that he has given full facilities for any private company to set up. It is just ridiculous.

Mr. S. Lemass

I do not give that answer: I am accepting that I have responsibility.

Dr. Esmonde

Just read Section 18. Is it not clear that they can terminate any rural services they like? It is entirely within their discretion to do whatever they like. There is no reference to any parliamentary control; there is no reference to the Minister or to any appeal to any tribunal. They have just to publish the notice in the newspaper.

Mr. S. Lemass

I have responsibility for seeing that there are transport facilities.

Dr. Esmonde

There is nothing in the Bill.

Mr. S. Lemass

The Minister can give a licence to a private operator.

Dr. Esmonde

You cannot force a private operator to go into a district.

Mr. S. Lemass

In the great majority of cases there are already alternative services.

Dr. Esmonde

Can the Minister tell me how he will provide transport for those who have not a car and for those who cannot afford to hire a taxi, if the service is cut down? I strongly object to Section 18.

I would have no objection to this section if, in view of the extraordinary circumstances, the financial concessions being made to C.I.E., the Minister had instituted parliamentary control. As a rule, I am not in favour of parliamentary control. However, as I said on the Second Reading, if we are paying all the debts and giving the company the right to close down where they like, we should at least have parliamentary control. The Minister is not being fair to the House in introducing that legislation. I think Section 18 should not go through without any parliamentary control.

Mr. Norton

There is no question about it: that is the effect of Section 18. C.I.E. may give notice of their intension to close a branch line. If it is sufficiently attractive to them financailly to operate a road passenger service or a freight service they may do so. Suppose the Board of C.I.E. decide a railway line is uneconomic. Suppose they do not think they can make a profit on the road passenger service or on the freight service. In such a case, C.I.E. have washed their hands entirely of responsibility for transport in that area. The local people will then say: "Where will we go next?". That depends on whether there is anybody in the area or outside the area willing to come into the area to operate a 'bus service for passengers or to operate a road freight service or to have his existing business expanded to carry on a road freight service.

I do not think the real danger will arise so much on the road freight service. A sufficient number of people will always want an extension of their road freight licences and provide all the lorries necessary to haul all the goods. I am not worried on that score. I am concerned with people living in isolated areas, sparsely populated areas not offering much road passenger traffic. I fear C.I.E. may count heads and the administrative expenses in each case and say: "No. That would not make a profit for us. Consequently, we will not touch the road passenger service."

The Minister says a number of road passenger services are running which are not operated by C.I.E. Let us get some particulars of these and see the mileage. In the main, they are small undertakings and the bulk of them are run on shoe-strings. I think quite: number of them are only seasonal activities. We will try to get particulars about these before the Bill finishes. A number of these are mainly run in connection with seasonal activities, usually to a nearby resort or, where the C.I.E. service runs from, say, North to South and C.I.E. will not run an East to West service, they provide an inter-sectional bus service of that kind.

My main concern is this. I think the road freight service will probably look after itself if C.I.E. abandon the branch line: it is the passenger side which I think needs attention. Even if the Minister gives C.I.E. power to abandon or not to provide a road transport service or a road freight service, he should impose on them and retain on them the obligation to provide a road passenger service where they close a branch railway line. It is in respect of the conveyance of passengers that these rural communities will lose heavily. If C.I.E. cannot profit by conveying passengers in these areas, another operator is hardly likely to come into that area to operate it unless on the basis that he will work his employees 12 hours a day, pay them 60 or 70 per cent. of the normal rate of wages paid to bus drivers and bus conductors, and give them very little holidays. Their general standard of employment will be substantially below that recognised by the public transport undertaking.

C.I.E. are getting very generous concessions in this Bill, but they ought to be reasonable in their appetite. The Minister ought not overfeed them with generosity at the expense of the public. I think the Minister should still retain in the Bill the power to require C.I.E. at least to provide an alternative road passenger service. It is going far too quickly, as I said before, and we are taking far too big a step at this stage to let C.I.E. shed entirely their present statutory responsibility which is that where they close a branch line they have to provide an alternative road passenger service. Even if the Minister wants to let them out on the freight side, he ought still retain the obligation on the passenger side.

Mr. S. Lemass

For the information of the House, the figures published in the Beddy Report show that in 1955 these licensed operators of passenger transport services operated a total road mileage of 2,158 miles and in that year carried 1,240,000 passengers. There were 31 such operators in that year. On the point made by Deputy Norton, I do not know that in practice the situation he contemplates is likely to arise in relation to passenger services — that is, where C.I.E. refuse to provide a service and no private person will come forward looking for a licence to provide a service or that there is a real need for a service which C.I.E. cannot be persuaded to provide. In practice, there would be no difficulty in getting them to do it where the need is clearly established. In the great majority of cases, where a branch line closes down, alternative road services will already be in existence. I cannot think of any part of the country where a branch line at present is operating and there is not already a road passenger service functioning there too. I cannot see circumstances under which the situation the Deputy contemplates could arise.

Mr. Russell

What about a schools' bus to an outlying area?

Mr. S. Lemass

We are dealing now with a position in which a railway service is withdrawn. In any other case where there is no rail service, where there never was a rail service, C.I.E. have the right to provide a road service but also not to provide it if they think it is likely to be uneconomic. If there is a demonstrated need for a service, others can be allowed to meet it. In relation to the branch line areas, the situation will be as if there never was a branch line. I do not know of a single instance where there was a branch line and where a road service is not already established.

Dr. Esmonde

Consider the case where a railway line is closed down and an alternative transport service is not provided: I am talking about an individual passenger service. If representations are made to a Deputy by people in that area to the effect that there is no transport and if this Bill is made law and he comes into Dáil Éireann and tries to make that point and to make representations, what redress has anybody got?

Mr. S. Lemass

There is no upon the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whoever he may be, the obligation of ensuring that reasonable transport services are provided. In these circumstances, the Deputy would be quite entitled to make his case here that transport facilities should be provided in the area in respect of which the complaint has been received.

Dr. Esmonde

What can the Minister do? Is the Minister empowered to do anything in this section?

Mr. S. Lemass

What does the Deputy suggest?

Dr. Esmonde

Is the Minister empowered in this section to force C.I.E. or the public transport to provide such transport? I think he is not.

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy is talking about complaints which he has now received from areas which have not got a public transport service.

Dr. Esmonde

I am talking about what will happen, if certain areas close down subsequently.

Mr. S. Lemass

Can the Deputy tell me one such place where there is not already a C.I.E. bus service?

Dr. Esmonde

It is not up to me to name areas.

Mr. S. Lemass

I am suggesting the Deputy has two problems. One is the problem of an area which has no rail or road service at the moment. That problem is not affected by this Bill. No problem of that kind is likely to arise out of this Bill.

Dr. Esmonde

I am asking a purely hypothetical question as affecting the whole country. I am thinking principally of rural areas. The Minister does not know what railway lines will be closed down, but, according to this section, C.I.E. is empowered to close down railway lines. They have not to provide alternative services and if they close down a railway line—I am referring purely to passenger services——

Mr. S. Lemass

Does the Deputy seriously contemplate that where there is a rail passenger service now, it will not be possible to get a private operator to provide a bus service?

Dr. Esmonde

That is not the point I am making. I am making a hypothetical case. What will happen if there is no service to a rural area, if no alternative service is provided?

Mr. S. Lemass

It is the same as any area where there is no rail service at the moment. C.I.E. has the right to provide a service in such an area or, if they do not, the Minister can give a licence to a private operator.

Mr. Sweetman

If that situation does arise, the Minister may come into this House and say: "It is a pity there is not a service, but I can do nothing about it."

Mr. S. Lemass

It is not likely to arise where there has been a rail service.

Mr. Sweetman

If the situation Deputy Esmonde suggests arises, the Minister has no power to deal with that. I want to make it quite clear that Deputy Esmonde is right in his interpretation of the Bill, and to ask the Minister this question. Section 18, as I see it, is in relation to closure in future purely, in places where there are rail services. Rail services have already been closed in certain places, closed under the statutory obligation on C.I.E. to maintain alternative services in those places. I want to have the Minister's assurance that under the provisions of this Bill, C.I.E. will continue to be obliged to provide alternative services in places where there is a closing of railway lines.

Mr. S. Lemass

The position has not changed, as far as the law is concerned.

Mr. Sweetman

It has been changed in Section 18.

Mr. S. Lemass

Not necessarily.

Mr. Sweetman

But it is only in respect of a future closing, not in respect of any past closing.

Mr. S. Lemass

There is no change.

Mr. Sweetman

Shillelagh is one of the places I have in mind.

Mr. S. Lemass

I cannot see circumstances in which C.I.E. will not service Shillelagh.

Mr. Sweetman

Does the law remain in that respect?

Mr. S. Lemass

Whatever obligation exists at the moment is still there——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Is that clear?

Mr. S. Lemass

——as far as the existing pattern of road services is concerned.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I had in mind what the Minister outlined—I am not talking of his Second Reading speech— that the intention of legislation was to allow C.I.E. to close any existing service, road or rail.

Mr. S. Lemass

This relates only to rail services. I am not quite sure what their statutory obligation is regarding road services. The problem has never arisen. Our road services always kept on growing and growing, and I would not like to say off the cuff what their obligations are in regard to road services.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

They have a statutory obligation to provide a road service where they have closed a rail service?

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister have a look at sub-section (2) of Section 18. It states: "The Board shall not terminate a service——"

Mr. S. Lemass

That is a rail service.

Mr. Sweetman

Is it because road services are also mentioned in the same section lower down? I think it should be defined as a rail service.

Mr. S. Lemass

It is a "service of trains for passengers and merchandise."

Mr. Sweetman

As in sub-section (1)?

Mr. S. Lemass

That is what is intended to be there.

Mr. Sweetman

I think it should be tightened up from a drafting point of view.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 41.

Tá

• Allen, Denis.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Griffin, James.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

• Burke, James.
• Byrne, Tom.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Russell, George E.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Tully, John.

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

Question declared carried.

Section 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister explain what is behind this section?

Mr. S. Lemass

It is in regard to the Sligo-Leitrim line. There is no procedure under which the Sligo-Leitrim company can abandon the line and this section is designed to enable them to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. Lemass

This is to facilitate the Kildare County Council. The present law is that when a railway company abandons a line it may either sell the land under and adjoining such land by private treaty or by public auction. There are no powers to sell to a county council. Kildare County Council has an interest in a railway line, which is already abandoned, for the purposes of some road diversions or some road scheme. This section will enable the railway company to sell to a county council.

Mr. Cosgrave

They can sell to a private adjoining owner?

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

It does not exclude the existing law?

Mr. S. Lemass

No, but it empowers them to sell it to a county council.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not know where it is. Can the Minister tell me?

Mr. S. Lemass

It is a line to Edenderry.

Mr. Sweetman

Oh, yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 15:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—

(1) The board may not close to navigation any canal or part of a canal belonging to it save with the consent of the Minister who shall, before giving such consent, seek the views of interested parties and also consult with the Commissioners of Public Works as to the feasibility in all the circumstances of maintaining such canal or such part of a canal as a navigable waterway.

Mr. S. Lemass

Amendment No. 17 might be taken as meeting the other amendments—I do not know.

Mr. Norton

I do not think it covers our point of view on this section.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister ought to go up to a term of five years. We are doing everything in terms of five years nowadays.

Mr. Cosgrave

Does public navigation include a privately-owned barge?

Mr. S. Lemass

May I say what the section intends? At present C.I.E., under existing law, have power to withdraw a service or barge operating on the canal. C.I.E. abandon a canal only if, in fact, there is no traffic for it. That is what the section was intended to do —only if nobody is using the canal.

Mr. Cosgrave

Assuming——

Mr. Norton

May I speak on this amendment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Are amendments Nos. 15 and 16 being taken together?

Mr. Norton

Perhaps we could discuss them all. We may get separate votes on them, if they are needed.

Mr. Sweetman

Amendments Nos. 15 to 19 together.

Mr. Norton

The purpose of Section 22 is to give C.I.E. power to close to navigation any canal or part of a canal belonging to it and it may do that just by giving one month's notice, to be changed to two months under amendment No. 19 in the name of the Minister. When the board has decided to close the canal or any part of it to navigation, the public have to accept the situation that C.I.E. is under no further obligation to maintain that canal in a navigable condition.

I think C.I.E. regards the canals as unwanted children. It regards them as a nuisance and the sooner they are got rid of the better, so far as C.I.E. is concerned. Its general attitude may not unfairly be described by saying that they did nothing whatever to boost transport by canal, that they did nothing whatever to advertise the services which could be provided by the canal and that, generally speaking, they took no steps whatever to make the canals popular, either with the freight carrying community or with tourists, whether from overseas or holiday-makers at home.

The fact is that the Grand Canal system was constructed at enormous cost and every country in Europe regards canals as very valuable media of transport. Many of the canals throughout Europe are regarded as pleasure places offering considerable attractions to the local people and offering considerable facilities to tourists. Generally speaking, they are regarded as part and parcel of the economy of the country which they serve. One has only to look at Belgium or Holland, or at some of the canals cut in various parts of Central Europe, to see the extent to which canals are utilised as media of transport. I can see that our population set-up is entirely different from that of these other countries where there are larger populations living in greater densities. Nevertheless, the fact remains that I believe that in almost every country in Europe every effort would be made to maintain such a waterway as the Grand Canal, hooking up as it does with the River Barrow and providing access to one of the finest rivers embellished with numerous lakes, as the Shannon is.

To contemplate closing the Grand Canal for navigable purposes means a severance of that present unified waterway, unified in the sense that it provides access from one part of the waterways to another. If C.I.E. is allowed to do that, a very valuable artery can be lost to the public. At the same time, its closing for navigable purposes may seriously impair the prospects of utilising the canal as a tourist attraction. In recent years on the Continent and elsewhere, the utilisation of canals for holidays has been a striking new development in tourism. One has only to look at what are described as the Norfolk Broads to see how people in England manage to work out holidays for themselves on a waterway the attractions of which do not stand comparison with the beauties to be seen on the Grand Canal and on the Barrow and which certainly fade into utter insignificance when compared with the beauties which the Shannon has to offer tourists.

My fear is that if we allow C.I.E., because it regards the Grand Canal as an unwanted child, to close that canal for navigable purposes, very serious damage will be done to our tourists possibilities. It is one thing to say to C.I.E.: "We will not ask you to construct a new canal," but to permit them to close a canal as a waterway seems to be nothing more than short-sightedness, merely because on this undertaking they cannot make a profit. The loss does not appear to be significant because, if I read the Report of the Committee on Internal Transport aright, it seems that the cost of maintaining the service is about £27,000 odd, and that the income of the canal section of C.I.E. is about £24,000.

There may be some other explanation of a deficit which I do not see disclosed here but if it cost only £27,000 to maintain in the Grand Canal system, and if £24,000 of that is available in receipts under other heads, I think some public explanation is called for as to why we are going to permit the possible closing of the canal by C.I.E.

Mr. S. Lemass

During the adjournment for tea will the Deputy read the speech he made in 1950?

Mr. Norton

I will read all my past speeches on transport if the Minister having read his 1944 speech on transport does not feel obliged to come in and——

Mr. S. Lemass

Do not call the canals the unwanted children of C.I.E. The Deputy forced them on C.I.E.

Mr. Norton

Like the Minister I do not regard the C.I.E. set-up, either in management or directors, as a supernatural body.

Mr. S. Lemass

Why did you force the children on them?

Mr. Norton

I admit they are not infallible and that they have all the weaknesses which common man inherits from his ancient predecessor.

Mr. S. Lemass

Do not forget to read that debate.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.