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.