Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1958

Vol. 168 No. 9

Transport Bill, 1958—Committee Stage (Resumed).

An amendment, in the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, appeared on the Order Paper as follows:—

23. Before Section 26 to insert a new section as follows:—

Notwithstanding Section 9 of the Road Transport Act, 1933, a person whose only or chief occupation is farming may, without being the holder of a merchandise licence, carry for reward in a vehicle drawn by a tractor owned by him live stock owned by a person resident not more than two miles from the carrier's residence if the live stock are being carried to or from a farm from or to a live-stock auction mart on the day on which the auction takes place at that mart and they are not being carried in either direction on any part of a public road which is more than 20 miles by public road from his residence.

Debate resumed on the following amendment thereto:—

In the fourth line, to delete "drawn by a tractor".—(Deputy Sweetman.)

Mr. Casey

I must confess that I had considerable sympathy with the Minister when I heard him making his case for his amendment in the House last night, chiefly because I felt that he had been charged with making a case in which he himself did not believe. I say that for many reasons. To my mind, first of all, this amendment of the Minister does represent a very serious departure from transport policy, as it has been pursued in this House for quite a long time, a departure from transport policy as enunciated by the Minister himself, both inside and outside the House. I felt, therefore, when the Minister was speaking last night, making a case for this amendment, that he was to a large extent speaking with his tongue in his cheek.

I am convinced that the reason the Minister eventually put down this amendment was the considerable pressure brought to bear on him, even within his own Party. I think it cannot be denied that it is inappropriate that such a serious departure from transport policy should be made in this fashion, by way of an amendment to a Bill where it is scarcely appropriate at all. I recall that when we were discussing an amendment moved by Deputy Cosgrave yesterday, which urged that facilities to licensed hauliers should be extended —that they should be allowed be greater carrying capacity and greater scope of operation—the Minister said that, whatever about the merits of the argument, he felt this Bill was an inappropriate place to discuss them, because the amendment did represent a definite departure from what had been the Government's policy in regard to transport. I am quite sure it is clear to the Minister that that argument applies with equal force to his own amendment now before the House.

In moving the amendment the Minister said that a concession, such as that outlined in his amendment, has been recommended in the Beddy report, and that is true. However, it is significant that although such a recommendation had been made in the Beddy report, in the Minister's statement on transport in November of last year, when he outlined what his new Transport Bill might contain, he made no reference at all to the fact that we would now be discussing such a departure here. Quite obviously, before the Minister made his statement and before he introduced this Bill, he must have given very serious consideration to every recommendation in the Beddy report. As well as that, following the publication of the Beddy report, various interests who felt they had some useful comment to make, made their comments to the Minister.

The Minister had the report of the Committee on Internal Transport before him and he also had recommendations made by various representatives from different sectional interests. I know that some interests urged the Minister not to agree to this recommendation and I think it may be taken, as well, that organisations like the National Farmers' Association, at that time, put their case very forcibly before the Minister.

Having weighed all these arguments the Minister saw fit to make no reference to the matter in his policy statement of November last and to exclude any such provision from the Bill as he first brought it to the House. It is reasonable, in those circumstances, to say that the Minister had rejected that particular plea. It is a plea that was not a new one, a plea on behalf of the farming community that they be allowed some facilities for the haulage of goods for themselves and their neighbours. The Minister recognised that as a departure from the accepted transport policy of the country and he rejected it. To my mind, then, it was only as a result of considerable pressure that he found himself in the minority in his own Party. Because of that I had considerable sympathy for him when he found himself in the position of making a case for this amendment last night.

I think there is no doubt at all but that this amendment gets at the kernel of this whole Bill. To a large measure, whatever good is in the Bill and whatever concessions are made in it will, to a great extent, be completely offset by this unfortunate amendment. It may be said in defence of the amendment that the concessions given to the farming community are very limited and are clearly specified. We all know from experience, however, that those who want to get outside the law, particularly as far as illegal haulage is concerned, can do so quite easily. The fact of the matter is, that under this amendment a farmer or his family having a tractor is entitled to haul goods for a distance of 40 miles—20 miles to the market and 20 miles in the other direction. I can see the difficulties that the Garda, or anybody else charged with detecting illegal haulage, are going to have from now on.

I am quite sure that the Minister is aware that a provision quite similar to this has led to all sorts of trouble as far as road transport is concerned in the North of Ireland. Their experience there has been that such a provision has given an opportunity to people to get completely outside the law in regard to illegal haulage. We know that the law, as it stood up to now, gave ample scope to people to carry on illegal haulage. I had urged, and I know it to be the intention of the Tánaiste, that this Bill should go a long way towards putting the illegal haulier off the road. Some sections of the Bill will help in that direction. The Minister did put sections into this Bill which will be a deterrent to the illegal haulier but it is apparent that, after the publication of the first list of amendments, the pressure on the Minister became so great that he agreed to this amendment which, to a large extent, completely nullifies much of the good work which the Bill set out to do.

Because of that I would ask the Minister to consider reverting to his original opinion when he had studied the report and the representations made by the various groups and came to the decision that such a provision was undesirable in this Bill. To my mind, this is the thin edge of the wedge and he will find it extremely difficult to resist other types of pressure which will obviously be brought to bear on him to get away from what he himself enunciated as the transport policy of this country. I ask him to have another look at the matter and to realise that there is a danger that this amendment will completely nullify what is otherwise good in the Bill.

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

The Deputy's sympathy is appreciated but it is misplaced. My attitude to the idea which this amendment contains is not what he assumes. This is not the first time that this idea was considered in the House. We all recognise that since the Road Transport Act of 1933 was passed new transport needs have arisen and other things have taken place which make justifiable some modifications of the restrictions.

The matter was discussed in the Dáil in the lifetime of the previous Government and Deputy Norton set up an inter-departmental committee to consider what could be done. That committee rejected the idea of doing anything because of the practical difficulties associated with the modification of the restrictions. The Beddy Committee came to a different conclusion and recommended that something be done to facilitate the haulage of farm produce for reward by farmers for their neighbours. They dealt with it from the point of view of what was necessary and equitable rather than what was practicable. The objection to a wider proposal than is in the amendment is the danger that a new type of transport operator would be brought into being and that people would get into the business as a means of livelihood, and then, not being able to make a livelihood out of it, would get into illegal haulage in other directions.

When, therefore, the National Farmers' Association came with this proposal to me, I examined it from that point of view, to see could we go thus far to meet the representations they were making, without creating these dangers which we feared. I found we could. It seems to me, so long as we confine the modification of the restrictions to the extent that is proposed, that a farmer should be allowed to use the combined tractor and trailer to carry live stock to an auction mart on the day the auction was being held at the mart, the task of the Guards in supervising such operations would be simplified and the danger which we saw—that is, the emergence of a new type of public transport operator—would not arise.

I would agree fully with the Deputy that that is as far as we could go without creating such a danger. That is why I could not agree to Deputy Sweetman's suggestion that this facility should be extended also to cover lorries. I think that would open up this prospect I refer to, of people acquiring lorries for the purpose of doing this business and, finding there was in this business not enough income to give them a livelihood, pressing for further modifications of the restrictions, or illegally getting into haulage operations. Indeed, the view of the National Farmers' Association is that this is of interest to them at all only in so far as the road tax concession would operate—which, of course, would not apply in the case of lorries.

I do not think Deputy Casey is correct in stating that this amendment will widen the operations of illegal haulage or undermine the principles of the Bill. I am very satisfied in my mind on that score. I think that, so long as it is confined as it is now proposed, that is not likely to arise. Indeed, I was impressed by the reasonable case which the representatives of the National Farmers' Association made in that regard and by the fact that they limited their proposal to what is in this amendment.

Mr. Wycherley

I welcome this amendment, but I fear it does not go just far enough. The Beddy Report recommended the carriage of goods by the farmer and I really think that, in the very near future, in addition to cattle in the auction marts we shall also have various other commodities. Therefore, in addition to permitting the transport of cattle, farm goods generally should be permitted, as long as they are for sale in an auction mart.

Mr. Casey

Does the Minister see what I mean?

Mr. Moher

Is it live stock or cattle? Live stock, I presume.

Mr. S. Lemass

Live stock.

Mr. Wycherley

Wool, for instance, is a commodity which will be offered for sale in the auction mart before this year ends. It would not be practicable or feasible to employ a six-ton C.I.E. lorry to go around to the farmers' houses in the morning to collect wool from half a dozen farmers. In the first instance, such a lorry could not enter 75 per cent. of the farmers' places. It would be altogether impracticable to expect either C.I.E. or the private haulier to cater for the requirements of the present day. I am glad the Minister has realised the change which has come over the marketing system in the present time and that we here must change the legislation to cater for these developments.

While I know that 20 miles is a very reasonable distance to expect the tractor and trailer to travel to a mart, I can foresee difficulties where that 20 miles limit will exclude farmers in certain peninsulas from bringing their cattle to a mart. For instance, a new mart is being erected in my town, in Skibbereen. Previous to this we had to transport our cattle to Bandon, a distance of 33 miles. From Skibbereen to the Mizen Head is 35 miles. I expect that the mart in Skibbereen will be the mart furthest west in that area. Therefore I think the Minister should consider that the transport of cattle or agricultural produce to the nearest mart would be involved in this amendment. Otherwise, the people of the Mizen and Goleen and, I am sure, other outlying areas, will be greatly inconvenienced, as they will have no other market but the nearest mart.

I think the concessions are not wide enough for modern times. While I welcome this and am very glad the amendment has been brought in, I agree with Deputy Sweetman's amendment that it should be extended to cover light pick-up trucks. They are not at all in competition with public transport or with the private haulier. They are catering just for a section of the people which could not be catered for otherwise. A wool market may be held only twice a year; the mart is once a fortnight. It would not pay C.I.E. or the private haulier to hold a valuable lorry idle for three or four days a week for the sake of the one day.

Mr. S. Lemass

That is the whole point. What will he do with the lorry on the other days? He has use for his tractor; he has no use for the lorry.

Mr. Wycherley

There are many farmers who cannot afford a motor-car but who have a pick-up truck for doing practically their own work. They are doing their own work. I had one myself for a time, but when I got on I bought a motor-car. That position obtains in many places. It still obtains and I think the Minister should very carefully consider permitting light trucks to haul agricultural goods within a reasonable distance. Now, we have the two-mile limit. This is going to be a very complicated business.

Mr. Casey

They will get around that one all right.

Mr. Wycherley

I have farmers who are practically my nearest neighbours —and I am sure others are in the same position—and as the crow flies across the ground they are a quarter of a mile away.

Mr. Casey

You will strain a point there, I am sure.

Mr. Wycherley

But if I am to get to their residence by road it would take three miles. That is a common occurrence. The two-mile limit in this respect is not at all sufficient and is neither workable nor practicable. If it were two miles straight as the crow flies, it would be of some benefit, but not if it is two miles around the road——

Mr. S. Lemass

It does not say "two miles around the road."

Mr. Cosgrave

I hope they do not start going across country.

Mr. S. Lemass

You can measure it as the crow flies.

Mr. Wycherley

In that case we shall be able to help other farmers, if it is two miles across country. If it were two miles round the road, very few farmers would be allowed to benefit at all. The change has come about by the auction mart system and if we are to be a progressive country we must change with the times and amend our laws to suit the requirements of the people and not have the farmers every day going the roads and of necessity breaking the law. I hope the Minister will consider this point. I think he should extend the two-mile limit to at least three or four miles and make it more practicable for the farmers to work freely in doing their own business. They will not interfere in any way with either C.I.E. or the private haulier because neither C.I.E. nor the private haulier could possibly cater for that type of work in rural Ireland. Their lorries would get bogged down on the roads and in the fields and they could not——

Mr. Moher

They could charge waiting time if they got bogged down.

Mr. Wycherley

They just could not do it and even the men in charge of them would not be experienced in that type of work. I think we should widen the scope of the amendment so that there will be more flexibility in the working of the scheme.

Mr. Manley

I, too, welcome this amendment as much for its general principle as for the easement it gives, and it certainly gives easement which is very desirable in this case. The whole transport system of this country has compulsion behind it and if there is anything that is annoying and frustrating to a businessman or producer it is to find himself circumvented by a whole lot of regulations compelling him to use this or that particular thing. This compulsion applies to freight; it would be just as logical to apply it to passengers but you dare not restrict the liberty of the people.

There is great need for this amendment. Take the case of the farmer who is living in a remote area with a long winding passage to his home up which the licensed haulier will not drive. That man might have only one beast for the mart and it would be a great assistance to him if a neighbouring farmer, who has a tractor and trailer, were able to take it for him. It will certainly assure the people in those areas that they are not being neglected and that they still have freedom in their operations.

Take the case of the licensed haulier who is confined to a radius of 15 miles of some central town near which he lives. He may be living 14 miles from that town and the town might be just five miles from the mart, on the other side of where he is living. He dare not haul to that mart because it is outside his radius. I think the licensed haulier in that case should be allowed to take live stock for reward to the mart nearest to him.

That easement itself would obviate the need for the farmer to be allowed ply for reward in the carriage of goods for his neighbour. I suggest to the Minister that that would obviate, in part, the need for the amendment. To meet Deputy Wycherley's point of view I think a special concession should be made for the peninsulas like the Beara and Kilcrohance Peninsulas. Such places are remote and the people living there have to endure sufficient hardships and handicaps without being handicapped further by legislation. These could be specified in the Bill and special facilities allowed to them. It would bring much relief to these areas where we have such emigration.

Mr. Moher

I want to point out something that has not been stated already. The request from the National Farmers' Association gave rise to this amendment. It is a request from an organisation which has a vested interest in marts. I do not mean to convey that I am opposed to the mart system. I think the mart system is one which ultimately will, to a very great extent, replace the former monthly or bi-monthly fair. If we are to examine the position in relation to marts, the modern mart will cost anything from £20,000 to £25,000 and that will limit its erection to a certain given area. You will find that they will be erected in centres or in towns with populations of 2,000 or over.

Mr. Dillon

Over.

Mr. Moher

The marts will not be erected in the poorer areas as they would not be a safe commercial undertaking. You will find that the marts will spring up in the areas where you have the bigger fairs and where you have a higher density of cattle. In other words, it will be in the big breeding areas. When you go into the poorer areas, where you have a much lower density of cattle, the mart will not be erected and the farmers in the areas will still have, for many years to come, to turn to the local fair.

When I was listening to the debate here last night I got the impression from the Minister, after Deputy Sweetman had spoken, that the Guards would have difficulty in controlling the operation of the same concession to a fair as to a mart. I cannot see why the concession would not be extended to fairs. After all, you are legislating for a particular organisation who have made a request and who have a vested interest in marts. There will be a huge area in the country where the cattle population density per acre is low, where no marts will be established and where the farmer will still have to depend on the monthly fair. I can see no operative difficulty in this. After all, on the 1st January you can buy Purdons or Old Moore's Almanac and get the date of every fair. The Guards will know the traditional dates fixed for these fairs; in many instances they are fixed for years and years ahead.

The Minister should give some consideration to the suggestion made by Deputy Sweetman that if we are to legislate for giving this concession to marts, it will logically follow we are giving a concession to the more fortunate section who are living where the marts will be erected. We are depriving the farmers in the more remote areas and, in many instances, in the areas where they will have to move cattle at greater inconvenience and for longer distances to the fair. I would ask the Minister to examine this concession.

There is also the point that we shall have to defend the position that, if you give that concession to the farmer to divert his cattle to marts, you will be open to the accusation of legislating for the liquidation of the fair in the small village and town. This is something which we should consider. It is something we should not do now, we should not legislate for one particular section at the request of an organisation that has a vested interest in marts, and then proceed to deprive a very large section in the more remote areas in which those people have no interest of the same concessions. I do not think you can do it for one without seriously considering making the same provision for the other.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to reinforce what I said last night. I am glad to hear Deputy Moher support it. Undoubtedly there are precisely the same arguments in favour of extending this provision to a fair as to a mart. As Deputy Moher said, the fairs are known in advance. There is no likelihood of two fairs taking place in the same locality on the same day. Therefore, the problem of enforcing the law would be simplified by reason of the fact that it is a known venue. The arguments which induced the Minister to introduce this amendment apply with equal force. In addition, I believe that with the extension of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis requirements in a great many cases where farmers even yet walk cattle to the fairs, they will bring them in lorries or in trailers attached to tractors.

I should like to ask the Minister to consider, between now and Report Stage, the desirability of extending this provision to include fairs, because, if there is an argument in favour of applying these facilities to a mart —I believe there is a good case for doing so—there is undoubtedly an equally good case for applying them to fairs. The same difficulties of ascertaining whether people will go outside the area or whether they commit a breach of the law will apply in both cases. If the Guards are in a position to check on a mart, they ought equally to be in a position to check on a fair.

Mr. S. Lemass

May I intervence at this stage to say that Deputies Wycherley, Manley, Moher and Cosgrave have now been proving Deputy Casey right?

Mr. Casey

Exactly.

Mr. S. Lemass

Deputy Casey said that once you breach the restrictions you will be driven further and further to extend the concessions until the whole basis of transport policy is undermined. When I accept what is a reasonable proposal, I am immediately under pressure to extend that further and further. Once we start going in that direction, there is no point at which we can stop. We will be asked to go further still and then we are back to the situation where the whole effort to build up the public transport organisation will be completely frustrated. I should like to make it clear that it was with considerable hesitation I accepted the proposal in the amendment, knowing it was likely that I would be asked to extend it.

Mr. Cosgrave

What is the difference between a fair and a mart?

Mr. S. Lemass

There is a fair every day. There are 30,000 or 40,000 of these tractors. Consider the problem of the Guards who will see on the roads this transport operation taking place. I do not think it is a problem for the Guards when they know there is a mart on a particular morning. It is impossible for the Guards to stop every tractor they see on the road.

Mr. Dillon

May I ask the Minister a question? In the name of Providence why does the Minister think the farmers will be carting cattle up and down the roads? Is it to give them fresh air?

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy misunderstands the problem.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Casey sees an awful vision of all the farmers turning out a couple of cows in a lorry, tearing up and down the roads and the Guards running this way and that.

Mr. S. Lemass

That misses the point altogether.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister think that people put cattle in a lorry or a trailer in a casual way? It is quite a formidable operation. Did the Minister ever try to put a cow in a lorry? We all know how difficult it is to persuade a beast to get into a lorry. It will travel in every direction but the right one. Every Deputy with rural experience will agree that he would gladly drive a beast two miles from field to field rather than load the beast in a lorry. It is a very formidable operation to load a beast. You load a beast because you want to bring it to a mart or fair looking fresh, whereas if you walk it two or three miles, it will be slavering at the mouth and sweating and will not look its best. If you are only bringing the beast from field to field or to a neighbour's place, you would prefer to walk it rather than load it.

I can assure the Minister that there is not any scope in this regard for the development of a huge volume of vehicular traffic. The last thing any farmer wants to do is to load a beast. When loading a beast, a dealer needs four or five assistants but a farmer has no assistants. I want to try to bring some ray of reality into the proceedings. I do not say this is the fact but sometimes to hear the Minister talking or Deputy Casey talking, one would think the farmers were some sort of public enemy who were concerned to undermine and tear down all the institutions of the State. No farmer willingly engages in the transport of live stock, unless he has to. There is no urge to do it.

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy is missing the point altogether.

Mr. Dillon

I am not missing it at all. All that is suggested is that where a farmer is moving cattle to a mart, a market, a factory or any place for sale——

Mr. Casey

Why put any restriction at all on them?

Mr. Dillon

I have no doubt that Deputy Casey is a reasonable man. There are very few farmers outside the richer areas of Ireland who have a lot of cattle for sale. In the old days, that kind of man sent his cattle to the Dublin market, but very few of us were able to do so because we were never able to fill a wagon or even half fill it. You could not do it unless you were in a very large way of business. The ordinary man may have two, three of four beasts. Many have only one beast. Any of us who has driven one beast to the market or elsewhere knows what that procedure involves.

Talk of travelling as the crow flies, you do not travel as the crow flies following one beast to the market or fair; you travel as the jack rabbit travels, over every hedge and through every gate that the cow can find her way through.

Here it is proposed, very reasonably proposed, I think, that if one fellow in the parish has a lorry or trailer, if Deputy Sweetman's amendment be accepted, on the morning of a fair he could agree with four or five neighbours to pick up their cattle and all the cattle would go to the fair. At the fair or mart the cattle would be unloaded and exposed for sale, in the knowledge that, if they are not sold, there is a neighbour's lorry or trailer there to enable them to bring them back because, if you are ten or 15 miles from home, or even seven miles from home, with two or three cattle, and you cannot get within £2 of what you want to get for them, you are very tempted to lose £6 on three cattle rather than face plodding home behind them after plodding in the morning.

Are these requests unreasonable? The present situation—and I am sure the Minister knows it—is that we walk behind them because there is no other means of getting them there. We are not proposing that any traffic which C.I.E. is at present enjoying is to be taken from them. At present it is walking traffic. All we are asking is that this additional amenity be made available. Does anybody in this House seriously suggest that as a result of this concession there will be six loads a year of existing traffic taken from C.I.E.? Does anyone seriously suggest that if you ask C.I.E. to-morrow to go around the village of Kilcolman and pick up a load of cattle there from eight farmers they would even consider the traffic?

Mr. Casey

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Go away out of that.

Mr. Casey

Yes. They have done so.

Mr. Dillon

Well, at a price. I do not want to be driven to the point of making too strong a case. I know a case where it was a question of shifting a bull and the bull was sold at ten in the morning and the lorry was to be there at ten to shift it. The lorry did not come at 11 or 12. Inquiry was made at the local station and the reply was that it was being looked into. To cut a long story short, the lorry came at 5.30 p.m. and there was somebody sitting beside the bull all the time. They loaded the bull. The two chaps on the lorry were asked: "How is it you did not come before this?""Ah well," they said, "we could not come until we were sure we would be paid overtime.""Could you not get an assurance on that from the local fellow?""No. He had no authority to give it and he had to get in touch with the man at the central station"— I think it was Waterford—"and he was at his dinner; we could get no answer and we would not start until we got an assurance that we would get overtime."

Mr. Kyne

Good men. They were right.

Mr. Dillon

I am not complaining but that bull was sold and the fellow that bought the bull was prepared to wait for him. But, if you were trying to get to the fair or mart in some particular center and the fellow had to pick up, not one bull, but eight bullocks in eight different places in one parish in the morning, the probability of ever getting to the fair or mart would be remote.

Mr. Casey

No. They do so successfully every day of the year. Every day of the year they carry out such operations.

Mr. Dillon

I am 35 years watching them. I never saw them do it yet. They may do it in Kildare and Meath and places like that where there are large agglomerations of cattle readily accessible. I am, frankly, thinking of the same kind of farm that is present to the mind of Deputy Wycherley and those who come from the relatively congested areas. Could I persuade the Minister of this——

Mr. S. Lemass

The Deputy cannot persuade me to go one step further than the amendment and, indeed, I am rather reluctant about the amendment.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister claims that his mind is now closed. This will not take one lorry load of traffic from C.I.E. It will provide a new accommodation for country people which they have not got and which they have not been allowed to have, in a false belief that denying this amenity to country people is calculated to improve the monopoly enjoyed by C.I.E.

Mr. Kyne

Is it not correct that they could carry it free for their neighbours —if they did not charge for it—under the existing law?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, I suppose they could but did the Deputy ever try to do it and be held up by a Guard and say: "I am carrying it for so-and-so free, gratis and for nothing"? The Guard says: "When did you get so lághach? There is a summons and come in and tell the D.J. that." You do go in and tell the D.J. and he says: "You are very lághach. I did not know that you came from such a liberal family. I fine you £2 and, if you do not like that, you can go to the Circuit Court and appeal". Does the Deputy not know that is what happens?

Mr. Moher

He does, of course.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose the Deputy met me sailing down the road with a lorry load of cattle and I told him that I had gone to eight of my neighbours and picked up one beast for each of them because I love them, would he come in and tell Deputy Norton, "Deputy Dillon is very lághach" or would he say, "That fellow is engaged in very doubtful business"? Would the Deputy believe me if I told him?

Mr. Kyne

No. Knowing farmers, I would not believe it.

Mr. Dillon

And knowing them, I would not believe it either. Knowing trade unionists, if they announced that they were picking up the whole branch to bring them to the sea for nothing, I would begin to wonder when did they get so lághach.

Mr. Kyne

They would not say it.

Mr. Dillon

But, if they did, the Deputy and I would begin to suspect their bona fides. There is no prospect of this proposal taking from C.I.E. one load of traffic that they would at present carry, not one. I put it to the House that, far from the Minister taking up the position that he is constrained to stick rigidly to the terms of his own amendment, he could without the slightest danger expand it in the terms suggested by Deputy Moher. He could also with perfect propriety provide that a similar facility would be extended where the live stock were being brought to a factory for slaughter. I know of divers cases in rural Ireland where the fact that farmers live close to one bacon factory and ten, 15 or 20 miles from another means that the factory in their vicinity will not give them the value of their pigs but, if they had access to the competition of the factory ten, 15 or 20 miles away, immediately they would get from the local factory, 5/-, 10/- and sometimes 15/- a cwt. more for the pigs.

At the present time, any farmer moving milk to a creamery is entitled to bring it on a lorry for reward for his neighbours and bring it back. Does anyone in this House believe that C.I.E. lost £1 of revenue as a result of permitting farmers to carry milk to a creamery and skim milk back? Not a shilling. I think everybody will agree that farmers acquired a very considerable amenity but, what is much more important, hundreds of days' labour have been saved in the agricultural industry because, instead of 20 men going down with 20 ass carts, one man now goes down with 20 cans.

I am often appalled in this House at how remote some people are from all the norm of country life and the ghosts that they conjure up by theories. I think the most absurd ghost ever conjured up is the picture of farmers dashing up and down the roads with cattle, carrying them for their neighbours for hire, nowhere at all, just giving them an airing. That is the apprehension that is entertained.

I urge the Minister most strongly to make it permissible for any farmer to carry live stock for reward in a lorry or in a trailer to a mart, to a fair, for sale or to a factory for sale and slaughter and I am perfectly certain— and I have a very detailed experience of rural life in this regard—that the result of such a concession will not be to deprive C.I.E. of £100 revenue in 12 months of which it is at present in enjoyment but that it will provide a valuable additional amenity to country people. I do urge the Tánaiste to consider this matter.

I think he himself withstood for many years and resisted the proposal to permit lorries to carry milk for reward to creameries for exactly the same reason as Deputy Casey advances to-day, that if you opened this chink, it would be extended to a variety of other spheres to the great detriment of C.I.E. We opened the chink, and, as far as I know, it did not injure or interfere with C.I.E. in any degree. However, there are few Deputies on the Labour Benches or anywhere else who will not agree that it provided not only a great amenity but a great economiser of time to the farming community, and the proposal in the Minister's own amendment, expanded as is suggested by Deputy Moher and by Deputy Sweetman, would greatly contribute to the efficiency of agricultural marketing in rural Ireland.

Mr. Norton

On a point of order, was it understood that we would go on to Education at 11.30 a.m.?

Mr. S. Lemass

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Transport Bill was finished.

Mr. Sweetman

We would go on to the Industry and Commerce Estimate if the Transport Bill was finished. If not, we would finish it and then go on to Education.

Mr. Dillon

It only means that, having passed 11.30, we shall not take the Minister's Estimate to-day.

Mr. S. Lemass

If that is the wish of the House. So far as I am concerned, I am anxious to get this Bill through the Committee Stage. That is my only interest in the matter, but I was asked to facilitate certain Deputies and was agreeable to do so. If there would be a desire to do that now, I suggest we might proceed on the basis of leaving the remainder of the amendments, committing them back on Report Stage, and concluding the Committee Stage of the Bill now. That is the only suggestion I have to make.

Mr. Casey

There are some amendments which we have not touched upon at all yet and which may not get an easy passage.

Mr. S. Lemass

There are only two issues left.

Mr. Norton

This proposal was made last night and it was not possible to get agreement on it. I do not think it matters much now.

Mr. Dillon

I think we ought to carry on.

Mr. S. Lemass

As far as I am concerned, I was only trying to facilitate certain Deputies.

Mr. Dillon

This is a very important matter. I know some other Deputies may not think so, but, living in rural Ireland, I know what this means to my neighbours, and this is the place the story ought to be told. I was struck by the obvious apprehension of the Minister that if he made a concession on the lines suggested in Deputy Sweetman's amendment to his amendment, farmers would buy huge lorries and, having bought them, would find no other use for them and thus be drawn into illegal transport. That is quite an illusory idea and was most admirably answered by Deputy Wycherley who said he was thinking in terms of the pick-up truck. No farmer is going to buy a vast truck to carry live stock. If the Minister would stop for a minute to think that investment in such a truck would involve a sum of £1,800 to £2,000, he will realise what a phantasmagoria such a thought is.

All we are concerned with is to let the farmer carry his neighbour's stock to the market for a reasonable reward, and it seems to me that every argument favours him. I cannot too strongly emphasise that this fierce reaction, that any concession to farmers in respect of live stock is calculated to undermine the whole transport system of the country, is driving the farmers mad. It is not impossible to get a reasonable modus vivendi between the various interested parties. It is not impossible to give the transport monopoly a fair try-out, provided reasonable concessions are made in relation to their everyday business to those who live in rural Ireland. If the general impression is created that any marginal concession to the agricultural community is a trespass on the transport monopoly, there will be a growing volume of bitter resentment amongst the agricultural community, the feeling that their interests are entitled to some consideration and that they are not always to be subordinated to the overriding considerations of industrial enterprise and public transport.

I think it was Deputy Norton who, as Minister, made the concession in respect of milk cans for farmers, but I think he made it with great trepidation and anxiety, lest it should develop into the kind of thing about which Deputy Casey is apprehensive, but it did not. It was never meant to and it did not. I assure the Minister, for what it is worth, that if he is prepared to try out even experimentally what we are now suggesting, that for fairs, marts and factories, he should permit the transport of live stock for reward by farmers for their neighbours, he will have no more reason for regret than had Deputy Norton in the concession he made. If that is done, the very considerable volume of existing resentment amongst the rural community in respect of the transport monopoly will be removed. So long as a concession of this character is withheld from the agricultural community, they have justifiable grounds for complaint. The benefits accruing to certain elements in our community from the transport monopoly are bearing unreasonably on legitimate agricultural interests and that is particularly exasperating in that the evil element in the situation could be removed by amendments such as we have now before us, without injuring materially the transport industry itself or those who work in it.

Mr. Russell

I was interested in the Minister's statement that he was impressed by the arguments put forward by the National Farmers' Association. How impressed he was is indicated clearly by the fact that he put down this amendment which we are discussing. I think the amendment is a reasonable one. I do not agree with Deputy Sweetman's amendment to the amendment, but I do most strongly agree with the suggestion by Deputy Wycherley, Deputy Moher and others that the distance goods may be carried and the types of goods that may be carried on a tractor trailer should be extended. I think I am correct in saying that in my own county of Limerick there is only one auction mart in the entire county. Straightway you create a state of affairs where there is an injustice done to a large section of farmers who cannot or do not desire to avail of that auction mart. Farmers living near Limerick, within a radius of two, three or four miles of Limerick, would not be able to avail of this amendment or, if they wanted to avail of it, would have to turn their backs on Limerick, as the amendment stands.

If you limit the concession to tractor trailers, you will achieve three objectives, the first of which is that efficient use will be made of transport which is there already. As the Minister pointed out, those tractor trailers can be used only at certain times of the year and if they are lying idle without other employment, they will deteriorate and will be an expense not only on the farmer but on the community. Secondly, you will encourage more neighbourly use of existing transport between the farmers themselves and I think that is one of the objects of the amendment. Finally, in the long run, you will ensure that C.I.E. as the national transport undertaking gets more freight carriage because one factor that has not been mentioned in the discussion is that the freight which C.I.E. must carry depends largely, in the final analysis, on what the farmer produces from his land, and if we can ensure that the farmers can cut costs of production and work more efficiently and have more expeditious means of transport to auction marts, fairs and factories— and to the railheads, I would say—it will be reflected in our economy.

I would allow the tractor trailers to be used to bring live stock or live-stock products to the railheads and so be feeders to C.I.E. If we can ensure that, we will ensure that production from the land and production of live stock and live-stock products will increase and it must flow over the national transport system in one form or another.

I agree with the point made by Deputy Manley that the restricted licensed carrier should be permitted to carry cattle. It is no secret that a number of them are doing so illegally at present and it is better that we should face up to the issue and allow them to carry cattle for reward. The amount of cattle they carry is strictly limited and they do a very local or parochial business. I agree also with the view expressed by Deputy Dillon and others in that I do not think that this kind of co-operative neighbourly service will put C.I.E. to any expense. Taking the overall picture, any contribution we can make towards lowering farming costs and increasing production will, in the long run, work in the interests of C.I.E. and every section of the community.

I support the Minister's amendment, but I think the provision should be extended to include at least transport to fairs and pig markets. Why differentiate between a farmer bringing a bullock to an auction mart or pigs to a fair or calves to a calf market? If we give these concessions, limited to tractor trailer transport, I think we will benefit the producer and the consumer as well, without doing any injury to C.I.E.

Mr. Rooney

This amendment recognises a need which is obviously there. We must recognise the need which exists in relation to our marketing system and modern transport, and I feel the Minister who has brought in this amendment in relation to auction marts should see also the necessity to extend it. The case has been made by previous speakers that the same need exists for transport of live stock to fairs and factories. A very fair case was made by Deputy Wycherley that the amendment should extend to the nearest live-stock auction mart or a distance of 20 miles, whichever is the lesser because it is possible that we might have an auction mart—particularly in Deputy Wycherley's area—over 20 miles away and that difficulty could be overcome by providing for a distance of 20 miles or the nearest live-stock auction mart, whichever is the lesser.

The Minister would be most unreasonable if, having given this concession in regard to live-stock auction marts, he did not extend it to fairs which are recognised and listed. It is unlikely that any extra fairs will be set up; most of them are traditional and have been taking place for generations. There would be no difficulty so far as making provision for them in this Bill is concerned. It is obvious also that the use of tractor trailers is the best way to deal with this question. It will make live stock in rural areas more mobile. If a farmer in a rural area at present has to call in C.I.E. or public transport, he has to travel great distances and may not have a telephone service within reasonable reach. There are various difficulties in hiring one of these lorries compared with giving messages by word of mouth or across the neighbour's fence that transport is required at a certain date and time.

Live-stock auction marts, I think, deal only with cattle and possibly, sheep, but we must remember that the words "live stock" relate to cattle, sheep and pigs. Pigs are brought mainly to fairs and not to live-stock marts, and I think most of those who spoke in this debate should be in a position to convince the Minister that the provisions of the existing amendment are too limited and do not meet the reasonable and obvious needs of live-stock owners in rural areas where it is considered easier to hire a tractor trailer than to seek transport by means of a large six-ton lorry.

This amendment is a welcome departure in relation to the haulage of live stock. There have been many complaints regarding the treatment of live stock when public transport was provided for them. It is obvious that live stock will arrive in better condition if brought direct from farm to auction mart and back again. Nobody in contact with live stock and knowing the manner in which that live stock has been transported up to now will say that the transport facilities can be compared with the transport provided by the ordinary private haulage contractor.

I hope the Minister will expand this amendment to cover the other points mentioned which would really meet the need. The present amendment is merely a small gesture and really does not meet the general need. It is obvious that if the Minister at this stage cannot agree to extend the terms of his amendment, he will be faced with the necessity of doing so within a short time when it has been made clear that it would be unfair to one section as against another to confine the amendment to the carrying of live stock to auction marts.

Mr. S. Lemass

Might I intervene at this stage? I produced this amendment with very considerable reluctance and hesitation, realising fully the possible consequences of any proposal to move away from the policy enshrined in the Road Transport Act. I could not under any circumstances agree to go further. As far as I am concerned, in realisation of my fears that the pressure will be entirely in that direction, if I had my choice I would prefer to withdraw the amendment than to go further in the direction Deputies want.

When Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture his Government set up an inter-departmental committee to consider what concessions of this kind should be made to the farmers. That committee recommended against making any concessions because of the practical difficulties involved. While I have no doubt Deputy Dillon argued with himself as eloquently and as fully as with the House here to-day, he did not convince himself. He accepted the recommendation that no concession should be made.

Mr. Dillon

Is that the Beddy Committee?

Mr. S. Lemass

No, the inter-departmental committee set up by Deputy Norton, when Minister, after the matter had been discussed here in the Dáil. The desirability of the review of restrictions was urged on the Government. It is all very well to say we should make concessions here and there. But let us not lose sight of the main purpose of this Bill. Our public transport service is losing money heavily. The employment of 24,000 people depends on the survival of that service. It cannot survive unless it gets more business. Therefore, as I said, you cannot follow two divergent roads at the same time. You have got to frame legislation to make it possible for that public transport service to get more business or it will fail. You cannot help it to get more business by letting more people into the business of public transport.

It is not a question of allowing farmers to oblige their neighbours. The question is how you can do that without taking the risk that people will represent themselves as farmers and avail of the modifications and restrictions introduced to set themselves up as transport operators. That is the practical difficulty involved. That practical difficulty, while it exists, is not serious so long as we confine ourselves to the limits set out in this amendment. Once you go beyond that —certain Deputies talked about the operation of lorries for the carriage of live stock to factories—then, of course, you are creating a situation where the enforcement of the restrictions becomes impossible for the Gárda Síochána. People will set themselves up as operators of this kind of transport for the purpose of getting a livelihood, and then the whole basis of our public transport legislation has been undermined.

As far as lorries are concerned, I could not agree at all. The farmers who urge some modification as proposed here are not interested in lorries. They say it could not be done by farmers on the limited basis we are contemplating if the full road tax and petrol tax have to be paid. They are interested only in facilitating this obligement arrangement within the limits they think it will be practicable to do so. As far as I am concerned, any transport operation that is to be carried through to sell service for reward by a lorry will be confined to the public transport operators and licensed hauliers.

Mr. Norton

While I agree, in theory at all events, that some case can be made for, perhaps, some relaxation of the transport regulations in respect of the transport of goods by one farmer to assist another, nevertheless one has got to realise that the moment one takes a step in that direction, one calls into question our whole policy in respect of public transport. Even this discussion to-day shows the wisdom of the inter-departmental committee's recommendation because they foreshadowed all the things that reveal themselves here to-day.

What is the purpose of this amendment? I am certain that if the amendment is accepted in the form suggested by the Minister or in the form of the further amendment moved by the Fine Gael Party, not a single licensed haulier will haul a head of cattle in a rural area in the future—not a single one of them. These people to-day earn a livelihood because they hold a merchandise licence that entitles them to transport cattle. In the future, if a farmer is entitled to use a lorry to transport not merely his own cattle but to offer his own lorry for hire to carry the cattle of everybody else then you are creating a new type of transport operator. That person will compete with the existing licensed haulier. He will be entitled to do so under the Bill as amended. If he has a lorry he will say: "This is good business. I will transport my own cattle and within an area of 40 miles I can carry everybody else's cattle to the market."

Mr. Sweetman

But you cannot. It is within an area of two miles.

Mr. Norton

Oh, no. We know how the present three-mile limit is overcome, even in fairly large centres of population. I do not think there would be any difficulty in exceeding the two-mile limit unless we are to augment the Garda force by three or four times its present strength. You have to decide whether you will create a new type of transport operator.

The whole purpose of this Bill is to try to get more traffic for C.I.E., to put C.I.E. in a position of financial solvency, and to ensure that C.I.E. will not continue to indent on the public purse. Although that is the purpose of the Bill, the Minister comes along with an amendment, the effect of which is to create a new type of private transport operator. He may say that that new operator will not carry on widespread activities and will not seriously indent on the traffic of C.I.E. But the discussion here to-day shows that it is only a matter of time, if you open this door, until it will be suggested that farmers with tractors and lorries should carry cattle, not merely to marts, but to a railhead, to fairs or to a factory. Later on it will be suggested that they should be allowed transport pigs in the same directions.

Deputy Moher said that one of these days these marts will deal with the sale of wool. These marts may deal with the sale of a number of other commodities. After a number of years you will be dragged into the situation in which you will have created a new type of transport operator who will get his traffic at the expense either of C.I.E. or of the licensed hauliers. The Minister now, I think, sees the dangers in his own amendment and, if this amendment is carried even in the rather limited form suggested by the Minister, there will be constant and sustained pressure to open the door wider.

There can be no other result of this amendment than to take away traffic from C.I.E. and from the licensed hauliers. The Minister has been unwise in opening this door at all at this stage, whatever might be done at a later stage; at this stage the Minister is merely fertilising the idea of creating another transport operator and that transport operator will function to the detriment of C.I.E. and the licensed carriers. After all, these cattle for which transport facilities will in future be provided by means of a tractor and trailer are at present being carried somehow. So far as they are carried by the farmer in his own lorry, well and good; that operation will continue. So far as they are being carried by the licensed haulier or by C.I.E. they will lose that traffic in future. What other way could these animals go? On the road?

Mr. Dillon

That is the way they are going now.

Mr. Norton

That is the way they are going to some extent but, so far as the man who has to push his cattle along the road is concerned, I am not sure that he will be a beneficiary under this at all. This will benefit the man with the lorry or the man with the tractor. In future, he will be a transport operator. It is not the fellow who yearns for the money to buy a tractor or the fellow who yearns for the money to buy a lorry who will benefit under this amendment. It is the man who has got the lorry and the man who has got the tractor and, under these two amendments, the same results will be achieved, but one result will go wider than the other.

At the time when we are trying to sustain C.I.E. and give it more traffic the Minister comes along with an amendment the purpose of which is to create a new type of transport operator. How he reconciles that with getting more traffic to C.I.E. is a mystery that has not yet been explained.

Mr. Wycherley

Deputy Norton does not seem to realise that a new development is taking place all over the country and, in relation to that development, there is a new development in transport. Taking cattle to and from marts is something that has never been embarked on hitherto by either C.I.E. or the licensed hauliers. This is a new business as a result of the establishment of marts, situated perhaps 40 miles apart. It has nothing to do with either the past or present trade of either C.I.E. or the licensed hauliers. In the long run it will help C.I.E. because, when cattle are sold or bought in the mart, the usual procedure is to have them transported by rail. If the Minister cannot accede to our request with regard to lorries, he should seriously consider extending the concession to enable farmers to send their cattle to the nearest mart. Deputy Russell pointed out that there is only one mart in Limerick.

Mr. S. Lemass

Deputy Russell, of course, does not realise that the Transport Act does not apply within ten miles of Limerick. There are no restrictions within ten miles of Limerick.

Mr. Wycherley

In my constituency in West Cork the farmers in Castletownbere will, for instance, be precluded from sending their cattle to the nearest mart. It is unfair to give people within a 20-mile radius the concession and exclude people further away. This will not take away business from either C.I.E. or from the licensed haulier if the concession is extended to farmers in more remote districts.

Mr. Moher

I agree with the Minister inasmuch as I would not permit lorries under any circumstances to operate within the scope of this amendment. The Minister will agree that the tractor as a mode of transport is somewhat immobile as compared with other forms of transport; its range is limited. It is such a slow form of transport that there is no danger that it will be used to snatch business from C.I.E. or the licensed hauliers. I do not know whether I should press this further in view of the fact that the Minister is now undecided as to whether or not he will withdraw the amendment, but any little concession we get is something.

It must be remembered that the number of marts which can be erected is limited. They can only be erected in those areas in which there is a high cattle population per acre. There will be no marts in the poorer farming areas where the cattle population is per acre low. Fairs will remain a feature of agricultural life for a long time. Ultimately, with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, they will disappear and the fair will be replaced by the auctioneer's sales yard. It is inequitable to cater for the better off sections in this amendment. If one looks at a map illustrating the marts one will see that they are sited, or it is proposed to site them, mainly in the big breeding areas where there is a high density of cattle. There will be no marts in the poorer farming areas. Marts must be a commercial proposition. They must be planned on the basis of operating at a profit. The Minister should, first of all, limit the concession to the tractor and trailer, leaving the lorries out, and then cater for the fair and the auctioneer's sales yard.

Dr. Esmonde

It is quite obvious from the debate that this amendment is very acceptable to the House as a whole. It is certainly acceptable to rural Deputies who are aware of the circumstances under which farmers have to carry on. Deputy Norton said that the only person whom this amendment would benefit is the tractor-trailer owner. That is an unrealistic statement. The people who will benefit are the small farmers and those who own one or two beasts. It is common knowledge that it is quite impossible in certain areas to get C.I.E. to transport stock. C.I.E. does not go out after the small job and it will not put a lorry on the road to take half a dozen cattle to a fair.

It is argued that if you reduce the economic costs and the overhead charges of the agricultural community, the people will produce more. That is perfectly true. This amendment will facilitate people living in rural areas. It is long overdue. In every other country farmers are entitled to carry stock for their neighbours in tractors and trailers and, as far as I know, in lorries as well.

The Minister seems to be getting rather apprehensive on account of some criticisms that have been levelled at his amendment. These criticisms have come, practically entirely, from those who live in cities and who are not rural Deputies in the accepted sense of the word. They do not live in rural Ireland and they do not realistically approach the situation. If the Minister accepted the amendment relating to fairs and markets, which I think he can reasonably do without causing hardship to anybody, the position would be improved. Surely there is a safeguard there? The very amendment itself confines the owners of vehicles to the collecting of live stock within a radius of two miles and, altogether, they can take it only 20 miles. Obviously, as Deputy Dillon says, they will not be taking live stock around for the good of their health. They will collect the stock and take it to the local fair as well as to the mart.

Deputy Moher made a very good point and Deputy Russell made the same point. In the more densely populated areas there are marts but in other areas where the population is small there are fairs and markets. The Minister's amendment favours those areas in which auction marts are held. If we introduce legislation, let it be fair legislation and let it apply to everybody.

The Minister is apprehensive in relation to Deputy Sweetman's amendment about lorries. According to this amendment, the only people who will be allowed to carry will be persons whose chief or only occupation is farming. If anyone buys a lorry and proposes to use it solely for the purpose of carrying live stock he ceases to earn his living by farming chiefly, mainly or solely and it rules them out straightway. The Minister has adequate safeguard there. A lot of rural Deputies have spoken on this. Mostly, they are from this side of the House. That is only natural in a controversial debate. The consensus of opinion from all the rural Deputies who have spoken is that this is a good amendment but that it does not go far enough and that it should be extended.

The Minister is asked to extend the amendment to fairs and markets and Deputy Sweetman has asked that it be extended to include lorries also— with the safeguard that the persons earn their living solely from farming.

I will make two suggestions. The first is that the Minister will produce an amendment on the Report Stage covering these points, with any little extra safeguards he feels may be necessary. The second suggestion is that he will leave the matter to a free vote of the House. If he does so, there is no question but that there will be an overwhelming vote in favour of the farmers getting this concession which is long overdue.

Far from affecting C.I.E. in the country whatsoever, this amendment, if it goes through, will turn it into an assembling centre. It will bring in live stock more so than heretofore. Then C.I.E. will have more opportunities of getting business than they had before. A big combine such as C.I.E. wants big business. They can work in the big centres. The stock that is sold will be transported to other places in order to be sold in the Dublin market or shipped, or wherever it may be. That is C.I.E.'s purpose.

I suggest the Minister need have no apprehensions whatsoever. I should like him to leave the matter to a free vote of the House or else to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage.

Mr. Kyne

The speeches made by the various Deputies in support of the Minister's amendment are the greatest case any Labour Deputy can put forward on behalf of the trade we are trying to protect. This Bill is specifically introduced to help C.I.E., along with the licensed hauliers. This amendment torpedoes the whole idea. It is strange to read the Minister's amendment and to compare it with Deputy Sweetman's amendment and amendment No. 24 by Deputy Cosgrave, which reads as follows:—

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

() It shall not be lawful for any person to enter into an agreement for the carriage for reward of merchandise by any other person unless such other person is a licensee under a merchandise licence or such merchandise is to be carried exclusively within an exempted area."

Anyone except, I presume, a farmer can recognise that.

Why do we want to put restrictions on the ordinary people? Take, for instance, a small shopkeeper carrying his own goods. Why can he not come along to another shopkeeper and say: "I will help you out now for a small reward?" Anyone would think someone was trying to inflict a particular hardship on one section of the community, the farmers, to listen to all these Deputies. Everyone knows that this Bill inflicts hardships on people and diverts traffic in a certain way. It is done in the national interest. Farmers are expected to contribute to that, the same as everybody else.

Why has the small trader to comply with the law? Why does he not get an exemption? Why does any small shopkeeper or anybody else not get an exemption? Nobody is anti-farmer. The National Farmers' Association put up a very good case and did a very laudable thing for their own section. I like trade unions whether they are for farmers or for workers. It was their job to put forward the case. The Minister has failed lamentably in giving way to it—not because he wants to oppose the farmers but because he wants to keep C.I.E. or the licensed hauliers or the public transport system as it is in being.

I feel that if a Minister of that Party, other than the present Minister, were piloting this Bill the extensions asked for here would readily be agreed to. This is the thin end of the wedge. This will finish off the haulage of cattle. What Deputy Wycherly says is true: this is a new business. Of course, the idea of cattle marts is new. But the fairs are as old as this country and now the fairs are dwindling. Business was done at the fairs. That goes now. With this new business coming in, you have a new set of hauliers. It is ridiculous to say that they will be engaged for only one portion of the day.

What will happen now is that a tractor will be bought in the name of a farmer. His son will use it and put in two or three days a week to take business from the licensed hauliers and C.I.E. because there are as many as three cattle marts within a radius of 20 miles from each other. Naturally, living in the vicinity, they will choose different places for the auctions. He will be engaged on three days a week hauling cattle for reward within a two-mile radius of his farm. As Deputy Norton says, that two-mile radius will be stretched.

If there is to be enforcement of the regulation, you will have to treble your police force. In the first place, you will have to establish a two-mile radius. Then, there will be the question of working out whether he exceeded 20 miles. Then, there will be the question of time—whether or not it was the day of a mart. A day starts one minute after midnight and extends until 12 o'clock the following night. If you have all the variations of times that can be included in that, for three times a week, and all to be examined by the local Gardaí, I can see them with no time to do anything else. This is just the opening of the floodgate to what will come after. It means the end of the haulage of live stock. It would be preferable if the Minister would say: "Let all live stock be hauled free or without any question of licences at all." At least we would have it honest, open and above board.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I wish to support the Minister's amendment because I feel he has gone a long way to meet what was required. I was rather disappointed with some statements made by Deputies on the other side of the House this morning, inasmuch as they tried to convey that we are not concerned with the interests of the farmers at all. That is completely wrong. I do not think the Minister is interfering with any privileges enjoyed by the farmers up to the present. In my constituency any farmer who wants to go to market with his cattle or produce can do so, and in this amendment the Minister is going a long way to meet the needs of the farming community.

Representations have been made to him by a very responsible body but it must be remembered that the Minister's job is a very invidious one. He has to try to save the transport system, on the one hand, and to be fair and impartial to all sections of the community on the other. I have pressed him on numerous occasions for certain exemptions for farmers in my own constituency, and many times I have pressed him unduly hard. Nevertheless, I have to recognise that he has a national responsibility, either to save the national transport system or let it go and allow private enterprise to take its place.

If there are hardships in any area where the public transport system has failed to carry cattle to a mart or fair and where proof can be given to the Minister that there is direct hardship on any small section of farmers as a result, the position should be considered in the light of experience. As we know in rural Ireland there are fairs within reasonable distance of small and large farmers alike. We have, of course, the emergence of the fact that the mart is replacing the fair and, with that development, marts might be longer distances away from farmers than fairs were. The Minister, however, has gone a long way to assist the farmers, and the various concessions he has given to them over the years were welcomed by the farming community in my constituency.

Where C.I.E. fail to cater for an area, where they fail to collect cattle from, say, John Murphy or Paddy Burke, where these people are a long way away from a fair or market, and C.I.E. feel it is not economic for them to cater for that small class of trade, in exceptional circumstances of that kind the Minister should be reasonable. Where a case is put up to him that there is great hardship in a particular area, due to the public transport system not bringing cattle to a particular place, I am sure the Minister will seriously and sympathetically consider any representations made to him on behalf of any group of small farmers thus adversely affected.

Mr. Sweetman

It is nonsense for anyone to say that the effect of the amendment to the amendment is to create a new type of road haulage operator. Deputy Dr. Esmonde made it perfectly clear that it is nonsense for anyone to say there would be, within a radius of two miles in the country, sufficient cattle to make it worthwhile for anybody to operate a road haulage business within that radius. Anyone who knows anything about the situation surrounding the marts in rural areas will know that on the face of the section all that would be done under the proposals, and all that should be done, under the proposals here, would be to have a convenient method of picking up the odd stray beast around an area.

I can appreciate the argument which the Minister made in relation to the difficulty of supervision. That is an argument which may have some substance and it is on that basis, and only on that basis, that there can be any possibly reasonable objection. But to suggest that this is bound to create a new type of haulage operator is so far divorced from reality as to make one believe that that argument is just being put up for the purpose of clutching at any stick by those who have a bad argument. I want to admit quite frankly that, as far as the farmers with lorries are concerned, there would not be a great number of them in the community. There would be a certain number in Kildare and Meath, perhaps, but they would not be widespread throughout the country.

While I think it would be a good thing, in an area where there are lorries, that they should be able to take the genuine traffic of this type, trifling traffic that it would be, I can see the argument against it from the point of view of the difficulty of enforcement of the law as I wish to see it. I do not think that provided the amendment as amended, so to speak, were properly enforced it would make the slightest difference to C.I.E. or to the ordinary licensed haulier. It would merely mean that live stock which at the present time go on foot, with the damage to condition that that involves on the one hand, and on the other hand with the additional time that is involved for the farmer by walking the stock into market, would be carried.

As I say, I can appreciate there might be some difficulty of enforcement in relation to lorries. I do not think the benefit is so widespread in relation to farmers owning lorries but I think it would be undesirable that it should be widespread and create the same problem that tractors do create. For the life of me I cannot see any possibility of tractor haulage in any way operating as the Minister seemed to fear, in competition with the ordinary haulage by C.I.E. and licensed hauliers. Tractor haulage of the type of live stock we have in mind here is going to be, by and large, for the short distances and for neighbours only.

One must remember that in rural areas everybody knows the business of everybody else within a radius of two miles; it is entirely different from operating in a city where nobody knows whether, say, Deputy Mrs. Lynch, or Deputy Booth, or Deputy Sweetman, is sending goods out of his or her own premises in the City of Dublin to be sold.

I know very well that, within a two-mile radius in the country everybody will know whether it is Deputy Moher's or Deputy Dr. Esmonde's cattle that are being carried. As long as there is the restriction to the two-mile radius, there is no possibility of fraud in that respect. Equally, so long as it is restricted to a tractor, there is not the same difficulty for the Garda Síochána. I should like to see lorries included, but I can see the Minister's point of view that the inclusion of the lorry would create difficulties for the Garda. The tractor does not create any difficulty at all.

If the amendment is to be restricted to the tractor, I think the Minister could double the distance, as he has been asked to do. There cannot be any possibility of creating doubt in the minds of the Garda. He knows that it is the lorry he has to check, and only the lorry. Everybody will know if X in any rural area is carrying cattle out of his area. It is not by snap checks on the roads that the Garda find breaches of the Road Traffic Act, or that they find evidence to convict in cases of criminal larceny. We all know that, in rural Ireland, it a little more forthcoming as regards the Garda and enables them to move.

The argument has been put forward that marts are restricted to certain areas and that fairs are not. The Minister said last night that it was not possible to give a difinition of a fair, but surely it must be possible to do so. I am quite prepared to contribute to easing the Minister's mind by withdrawing my amendment, if he will be a little more forthcoming as regards the restrictions on the tractors and if he will include fairs as well as marts.

Mr. Casey

In opening the discussion this morning, I began by expressing my sympathy with the Minister in the situation into which he had been manoeuvred by certain interests, culminating in his tabling of this amendment. The Minister felt that my sympathy was misplaced and he was fortified by the argument that the concessions he had agreed to make were very limited and specific. I am quite sure that, having listened to the debate here this morning, he is not now so very sure of himself. The very thing that I predicted would happen has already got under way. I pointed out that the concessions contained in the amendment would not only themselves be abused but that they would be used as a springboard for the advocating of further concessions for private hauliers in all fields of transport.

Within five minutes, that campaign had started in this House. Not satisfied with the concessions agreed upon between the Minister and the National Farmers' Association, we had Deputies on all sides jumping up and saying that, while the concession is desirable, it does not go far enough and that there should be more concessions. The Minister's amendment confines itself to the haulage of cattle, but we had Deputies asking why it should be confined to the haulage of cattle and why wool was not included. It was stated that the auction marts would soon be dealing with wool and Deputy Wycherley indicated that these marts might even go farther afield and deal with other commodities. Deputy Wycherley asked why, if a farmer was entitled to take his neighbour's cattle to the mart, he should not be entitled to take his wool and other commodities.

Other Deputies asked why the concession should be confined to tractors and why it should not be extended to lorries. Other people felt that the mileage extension was too restricted and they asked why should the haulage be confined to cattle and why should it be restricted to farmers within a two-mile radius. They asked why the haulage should be confined to a limit of 20 miles. Why should it not be 30 or 40 miles? Again, it was asked why the concession should be confined to marts and why it should not apply to the haulage of cattle to other places and to fairs. Deputy Dillon enlarged on that view and said that the concession should be extended to fairs and to cattle going to factories for slaughter.

There is no need for me to enlarge further on this matter. The speeches made here to-day asking the Minister to go further than he intended are ample evidence of the fact that he has embarked on a very slippery slope. I had the feeling, and I think the Minister himself had the feeling when he framed the Bill originally, that one step in that direction would lead to a very serious situation. It behoves all of us to ask ourselves what we are discussing. What type of Bill are we discussing?

This Bill is designed to give C.I.E. a fair crack of the whip and to give it an opportunity of breaking even. This Bill is before the House because we all feel that there should be a properly integrated system of transport in this country on an economic basis and that, at some future date, the national transport concern should be able to carry on without having to come back here every second year, or even every year, and asking for further subventions from the Exchequer. We are discussing this Bill because Deputy Dillon feels that he should be entitled to go down to Kingsbridge and get a train to Cork within a reasonable period; because he feels that if he has cattle to bring from Ballaghaderreen to Dublin, they should be carried in a reasonable time and at a reasonable charge.

As the Minister has pointed out, you cannot have a public transport system that pays its way or breaks even, unless you provide by legislation a situation in which it will get the necessary traffic. In this Bill, many concessions have been made to C.I.E. They have been presented with an opportunity, not alone of winning back traffic which they have lost in past years, but of going out after new traffic and of putting themselves on an economic foundation. That is the purpose of this Bill. I think it was an ill-advised step on the Minister's part—and I am quite sure that he realises it now—to bring in this amendment, which appeared to go even the slightest step in the opposite direction.

If transport policy should change, if we should feel that we do not want a national transport concern, or if we feel that we should authorise every farmer, shopkeeper or working man to pull and drag by his own lorries and buses or by anything he likes, let the House at some stage decide on that. We have not decided on that. Our policy has been a reasonably good, properly integrated system of transport, carried out by the national transport concern.

I have no doubt at all in my mind that if this amendment goes through as it stands, there will be set up here, throughout the length and breadth of the country, a new type of transport huckster. A precedent is there in the North of Ireland, where they have reached the stage now that it is impossible to make public road transport pay, because of concessions they made to the farming community in good faith, regarding the haulage of cattle to fairs. The position is now that we see these lorries operating not alone in the North of Ireland illegally, but coming down here to the fairs in the South of Ireland, nondescript lorries without any indication as to who owns them or what they are entitled to do, and drawing illegally out of every fair here. There is no rural Deputy who is not aware of that.

I do not wish to add further to the Minister's troubles. Some of the suggestions made here to-day have landed him in a bad enough mess, without my adding to it. The suggestion has been made, however, that this is all right because it is simply tractors that are mentioned in the section. I should like to know the legal interpretation of the word "tractor." It is not defined in this Bill. It may well be that some eminent legal man might regard it as any form of traction. I want to point out that these detachable Scamell unites, capable of drawing a trailer, with a load capacity of ten tons, are described as tractors.

While not wishing to add further to the worries of the Minister, I would say that, if he proceeds with this ill-advised amendment, he would need to have another look at what the word "tractor" means. If it means that a slick operator in some rural area can purchase one of these Scamell units with trailer attached and carry up to ten or 15 tons of goods, I think that is not what the Minister had in mind and I would say it, was not what the National Farmers' Association had in mind, either.

In conclusion, I urge the Minister to have another look at this. He can see from the contributions made here to-day that he has opened the door and has taken a very dangerous step; and if he does not close it quickly, I am afraid no one knows where he will end up or where the transport system will end up in the future.

Mr. Maher

I have come to the conclusion that there must have been a considerable degree of merit in the case made by the National Farmers' Association for a concession in relation to tractors; otherwise I am sure we would not be discussing this amendment here to-day. Our transport problems arise, in the main, from our having too much transport in the country. Every Deputy has acknowledged that fact. We are legislating to try to eliminate the difficulties caused by this superfluous transport. We have had some discussion about the concession which has been given with a view to giving some extra facility to the farming community by way of allowing tractors to carry live stock to marts, and it is being asked that that should be extended to lorries. I see a great danger in that. We have too much transport; we have over 40,000 private lorries; and there will be a big increase in that number if the feeling gets abroad that anybody can buy a lorry and get permission to carry live stock for reward in a legitimate way.

Deputy Sweetman seemed to think that no difficulty would arise, if the concession were extended to lorries. I know a considerable number of farming families who have settled up their own private affairs and where a farmer's son or several of them may have £1,000 or £1,500 and the urge may be on them to buy a lorry. Such a farmer's son will do it, if he gets this concession. That is my opinion. I would advise him to buy land or live stock or something else, but the tendency is there, with the cost of land, to use this £1,000 or £1,500 to go into transport business. Even though the radius of two miles seems to be a safeguard, I listed down five or six sales located within 20 miles of each other, where it appears that a remunerative transport business could be set up without circumventing the regulations.

For example, if a young fellow in Ballylinan in my constituency bought a lorry with a view to carrying live stock in a legitimate way within the scope of this legislation, perhaps he could carry it to Carlow, Athy, Tullow, Naas and many other sales within a 20-mile radius. Since we have already far too many facilities for the carrying of the goods that are there, it would be a retrograde step for the community as a whole if any encouragement were given to people who contemplate branching into the transport business, which is already overdone.

With the development of the marts, there may be some merit in granting facilities to the tractor owners. I do not know how one can ensure that a person's main income is derived from the pursuit of farming activities. Where a family has not separated the property, where the holding is fixed in one son and another son is living there, he could buy a tractor and be using it on the farm, but he could buy it for the main purpose of carrying live stock to a number of marts surrounding him.

I think our balance of payments problem is difficult enough. I do not want to disgress too far from the question we are discussing, but I think we will find ourselves purchasing more mechanisation, more lorries and more tractors and making our balance of payments problem more acute, by encouraging people to go into what I consider to be unproductive work. That tendency is there and if we encourage it here, it would be a wrong step for us to take.

We should take a firm stand. If we are going to try to drive traffic on to C.I.E. in order to enable them to eliminate their losses and save the Exchequer from contributing large subventions of taxpayers' money year after year, we must draw a firm line in relation to the facilities which we will permit other people to provide in the transport business.

I feel that by our actions here, if we allow the lorries to carry cattle, we are ensuring that there will be a discussion here year after year on this C.I.E. problem and that we are taking a step by which beyond all shadow of doubt C.I.E. problems will be aggravated and the taxpayer will be called upon, in the future as in the past, to cover the losses that have arisen and that are likely to arise.

Perhaps as a rural Deputy I should go all-out for an extension of the lorries but I am putting the national considerations before everything else. I think an extension of the lorries would be a retrograde step and not as easy to get over as Deputy Sweetman says. It would be wide open to abuses and even this amendment is open to abuses. The National Farmers' Association must have put up a very convincing case and I am prepared to accept that they have convinced the Minister. I think the Minister would be well advised not to go any further.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know to what the Deputy refers when he mentions an inter-departmental committee. He is here long enough to know the function of such a committee is to put the joint wisdom of the various Departments together and Ministers, if they are sensible Ministers, will let the Departments speak. They do not necessarily agree with the recommendations put forward by the Departments and any Minister of experience knows that. As Deputy Sweetman said, if it will make any contribution, we are prepared to waive the proposal about the lorries.

I think Deputy Casey is mistaken. It is a good thing to debate these things in Dáil Éireann and I do not think there is any need for the Minister to feel he has set his foot on a slippery slope. Nobody wants to force him into giving a concession which would materially undermine the principles upon which the transport legislation stands. Sometimes when I hear Deputy Casey speak, and even the Deputy from Laois-Offaly, I wonder if they try to put themselves in the position of the small farmer. What are you to do if you have seven lambs for sale? You cannot walk seven lambs from Ballaghaderreen to Castlerea. You have either of two courses open to you. You can take what you can get for them in Ballaghaderreen or else you can try to bring them to Boyle or Castlerea to get a better market. You cannot get a C.I.E. lorry to do that for you.

The present situation is that the small farmer takes what he can get in the immediate vicinity of his home. The large farmer, with whom the Deputy from Laois-Offaly is familiar, hires a C.I.E. lorry and takes 40 lambs to a mart, or to the Dublin market or wherever he wants to, where they can be most advantageously sold.

Mr. Maher

Is Deputy Dillon making the point that the small farmer is compelled to take less for his seven lambs because he sells them on his own land?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Maher

I would not agree with that.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy never sold a lamb in his life. I know from bitter experience that if the word goes out that I have to sell lambs on my own land, it will cost me from 5/- to 10/- a lamb. The moment I take them to Castlerea and sell the first half-dozen and get the full price, I shall get a better price for the rest of them. I have been offered 5/- apiece less for lambs on my own land than the same buyer paid me for the same lambs in Castlerea.

Mr. Maher

From my experience of buying lambs I found that it was much easier to buy them at a fair. In 99 cases out of 100 they were cheaper than if they were bought from the farmer on his own land.

Mr. Dillon

That is not my experience of selling. I have been paid 5/- apiece more for lambs at a fair 12 miles away, than the same buyer was prepared to give me for the lambs on my own land.

Mr. Maher

I have had the exact opposite experience.

Mr. Dillon

Generations of farmers have not brought their live stock to markets and fairs for fun. They know that in the competition of the open market they will get, as a rule, a better price than if constrained to sell them locally. I think Deputy Casey makes this great mistake. You can push a good case too far. We can carry the people with us up to a point in making sacrifices to preserve C.I.E., both in order to maintain the transport facilities in existence and the employment provided thereon, but you can push that too far. Our aim should be to enact legislation which preserves the employment in C.I.E., maintains the transport system and at the same time provides certain minimal facilities for people living in rural Ireland.

There is this additional consideration which I put to the Minister and which he may have overlooked. The small towns in rural Ireland are not having a very good time at present. One of the means by which the small town subsists is the monthly fair and the weekly market. A good many small towns already feel the impact not only of the existence of auction marts in certain centres but of the booming prices for cattle which results in a very considerable number of cattle being bought on the land without being brought to the fair at all. I put it to the Minister that he has a duty to consider that aspect as well as every other aspect.

There are more people earning their living in the distributive trades and services of the small rural towns than there are even in C.I.E. Many of them are losing their jobs and their businesses as a result of shops closing down in the small towns because the fairs and markets tend to dwindle. In many small towns the pig fair is gone. In every small town in Monaghan the pork market is gone.

Is it not rather hard that at this moment cattle going to the marts in Carrickmacross may be carried by the farmers' tractors and cattle going to Ballybay, Castlerea, Clones or Monaghan must be walked? Would the Minister not come as far as saying that cattle going to a mart, a fair or to a factory, for sale or slaughter, and carried by agricultural tractors should be eligible for the benefits of this amendment? If he would come that distance, we might make a fair deal upon this matter and, by our withdrawal of the lorry proposal, get general acceptance that we did not want, at this stage, to set our feet on a slippery slope and that we were prepared to be unanimous in the fact that this amendment was not designed to develop a new haulier industry but was to be strictly designed to providing an amenity—which otherwise cannot be brought into existence—mainly for the benefit of the smaller farmer.

Mr. Casey

The Deputy knows when he is making a good bargain.

Mr. Dillon

A bargain is a bargain.

Mr. S. Lemass

I took the proposal from the National Farmers' Association and implemented it in full.

Mr. O'Reilly

I would ask the Minister to accept the recommendation made by Deputy Dillon. We all appreciate how far the Minister has gone in that respect. He has gone so far as to meet the people in areas where auction marts are operating, but take the areas where they are not. In my county, we have only one. I feel we are going to permit the driving of a coach and four through the law, as far as this amendment is concerned. A farmer bringing cattle to an auction mart may bring them to a fair on the way and he could say that he was only resting them at the fair. It cannot do any harm where tractors operate only inside a radius of two miles.

The Minister is aware of the facts in relation to the rural areas at the moment. Transport conditions have changed very much as regards the farmers. Years ago, the farmer had to do all his work with his own horses. He now finds for economic reasons, the horses being sold, that the work is being done by tractors. When the work can be done by tractors on the farm, I do not see what is wrong with the tractor owner carrying the farm produce for hire to the market. I think the Minister, before turning this down, should reconsider it.

Mr. S. Lemass

It should be clearly understood that this facility being used by farmers depends entirely upon their continuing to get the road tax concession now allowed to them for agricultural purposes. There is no likelihood that it would be extended to tractors used for general haulage. The people responsible for the Road Fund would be strongly opposed to any extension. I do not think anybody would be interested in hauling for reward.

Mr. Cosgrave

On what basis was the amendment drafted to exclude a fair and confine it to a mart?

Mr. S. Lemass

That is my proposal.

Mr. Cosgrave

On what basis can you differentiate?

Mr. S. Lemass

From the Local Government side, where the question of the maintenance of the Road Fund is important, there would be objection to any extension on the basis of a reduced tax.

Mr. Cosgrave

Allowing the road tax to continue to give preference to agricultural tractors, is there any reason why it should not be allowed for bringing cattle to the fair?

Mr. S. Lemass

I would not be worried about the extension, on the understanding that the road tax concession would not apply. In practice, I do not think anybody would be interested.

Mr. Cosgrave

It does not apply to the mart.

Mr. Norton

I should like to know whether this proposition was discussed with C.I.E.

Mr. S. Lemass

They are strongly opposed to it.

Mr. Norton

To what extent would it indent on their practice?

Mr. S. Lemass

What is contemplated is that this facility will be used where the conditions are not suitable for the use of a lorry.

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put: "That the new section be therein inserted."

The Committee divided: Tá, 78 78; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• Dillon, James M.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Galvin, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Griffin, James.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carew, John.
• Carty, Michael.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Coburn, George.
• Collins, James J.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Toole, James.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Russell, George E.
• Ryan, James.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

• Casey, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Everett, James.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Norton, William.
• Tully, John.

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

Question declared carried.

Amendment No. 24 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Casey

On the section, may I take it that the provisions for dealing with offences of illegal haulage applicable to other acts of illegal haulage will also apply to people who may chance their arm under, the provisions made in the Minister's amendment? As I outlined when discussing the Minister's amendment, I feel that a further opportunity is being given to persons who may wish to embark on illegal haulage, and I particularly asked the Minister to clear up exactly what is meant by the word "tractor". I pointed out that in the Bill itself there is no strict definition of the word "tractor", and I have fears that this looseness in the section as amended will lead to all sorts of abuses which certainly the Minister or even the people who supported the amendment had not in mind.

I should like the Minister to let me know if my fears in that direction are well founded. I am led to believe that even these detachable Scamell units which can draw trailers of quite large dimensions can come under the category of tractors. Secondly, will the Minister ensure that adequate steps will be taken to see that this section, as amended, will not be utilised as I fear, it will be, in the broadening of the opportunities for illegal haulage. I should like to have the Minister's assurance that the Garda or whoever else may be charged with the detection of this breach of the law will be made conversant, by every means possible, with what is intended in the section as amended by the Minister.

Mr. S. Lemass

If there is any possibility of ambiguity about the significance of the word "tractor", we can remove that by inserting the word "agricultural" in front of it. It is agricultural tractors we have in mind. I may move an amendment on the Report Stage. As regards enforcement by the Guards, I can only say I assume that they will take all reasonable steps to enforce the provisions of the Act and to see that their members are informed about the requirements of the law.

Mr. Norton

On the section proper, I think the Minister is right in pitching the Bill as it has been pitched for the purpose of dealing with illegal haulage. Illegal haulage has done irreparable harm to C.I.E. and illegal haulage by private transport operators resident in the Twenty-Six Counties and outside the Twenty-Six Counties has seriously indented upon C.I.E. traffic. It is well known that a number of private hauliers gather around fairs wherever traffic has accumulated for the purpose of endeavouring to get business to which they are not entitled in the normal operation of their business.

Because many of these illegal hauliers were able to employ people for very long hours, under very bad conditions and at low rates of wages, they were able to undercut the national transport authority and to that extent they simply undermined with impunity our efforts in this House to maintain a solvent transport undertaking like C.I.E. It is desirable, therefore, that those who deliberately engage in illegal haulage should be made amenable for their actions in that respect. After all, there are 20,000 persons employed by C.I.E. and it is unfair that their livelihood should be put in jeopardy simply because people decide that they will deliberately break the law in the hope that if they are caught out they will be punished by the imposition of a nominal fine which is regarded by them merely as a small overhead in the operation of their haulage business.

The provisions in the section are wise and I hope they will give C.I.E. a better chance in the future in securing legitimate traffic. It is quite obvious to everybody who knows the position and to C.I.E., who have made a detailed study of the matter, that illegal-haulage has siphoned off from C.I.E. a very substantial portion of traffic which they could have carried over the system and by the carrying of which they would have indented to a lesser extent on the public purse for subsidies to maintain their services. I welcome the provisions of the section.

Mr. Dillon

Are we talking about the old Section 26 or the new section?

Mr. Norton

Section 26 as amended.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are now on Section 26 in the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Is there any precedent for sub-section (4) of Section 26? Sub-for sub-section (4) operates in the Transport Bill to repeal sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act. If there was any Act of Parliament which has appeared to justify itself it has been the Probation of Offenders Act. I know we are becoming exercised about the iniquities of illegal haulage and the natural instinct is to want to remove every possibility of allowing people to get away with it, by doubling the fine, trebling the fine and prescribing all sorts of extreme penalties. But the Probation of Offenders Act surely ought not to be casually repealed. I can remember no Act of Parliament passed in this House in which by a sub-section of one section we have suspended the operation of that Act.

Mr. S. Lemass

I want to raise a point of procedure. I understand there has been agreement between the Whips that we should adjourn discussion on this Bill at 1.30 p.m. That was not in the original Order of Business.

Mr. Norton

Then we resume on Education after questions?

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

In other words we finish this Bill now.

Mr. S. Lemass

Finish this Bill to-day at 1.30.

Mr. Dillon

I understand we are doing this to make it convenient for the Minister to go to the Seanad.

Mr. S. Lemass

No. There was a question of taking the Estimate for the Department.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister answer the question I have raised on the section?

Mr. S. Lemass

I cannot answer the Deputy's question as to whether there is any precedent; that would require a knowledge of the law that I do not possess. Admittedly the principle of minimum fines is novel in our legislation but the view expressed by the committee investigating these matters is that you cannot hope to eliminate this illegal haulage except by an arrangement which will take the profit out of it, that is, this system in which the fines become steeper and steeper, eventually leading, at the discretion of the court, to the forfeiture of the lorry. I am assuming sub-section (4) is consequential on the minimum fine provision of sub-section (2).

Mr. Dillon

I demure strongly at this whole scheme of minimum fines which never works. I was once drawn to it myself in regard to fishery matters but there again it never worked. I must strongly deprecate the repeal of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Mr. S. Lemass

This was the recommendation of the committee.

Mr. Dillon

That is not enough.

Mr. Casey

You have already changed the transport policy generally.

Mr. Dillon

The Labour Party is at least supposed to be a liberal Party. Do they seriously argue——

Mr. Norton

We do not purport to be a liberal Party.

Mr. Dillon

At least a Party of liberal minds. Is it seriously suggested that a sub-section in Section 26 of the Transport Bill is the appropriate place to repeal the Probation of Offenders Act?

Mr. S. Lemass

It is not to repeal it.

Mr. Dillon

As good as.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is now 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Dillon

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.