Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1958

Vol. 169 No. 3

Transport Bill, 1958—Report Stage.

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

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 3, between lines 18 and 19, to insert a new section as follows:—

Every Order under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after the Order is laid before it, the Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

This amendment is to some extent consequential on amendment No. 3. At least, the fact that provision for the amendment of Statutory Rule and Order No. 13 of 1930 is being made, makes it desirable and necessary that this procedure for tabling Orders and the possible annulment of Orders by the Dáil should be adopted. It would not, in the ordinary course, be necessary if the Orders merely related to the alteration of level crossings and so on, but with this power being taken to amend what is in fact a statutory instrument, it is clear that the Dáil must have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it if such an Order is made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. S. Lemass

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 3, line 28, Section 6, to delete "reasonable" and substitute "reasonable, efficient and economical."

This is an amendment I undertook to bring in on the definition of the general powers and duties of the board when we discussed the matter on Committee Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. S. Lemass

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 4, Section 7, between lines 24 and 25, to insert two new subsections as follows:—

(6) The Minister, on the application of the board, may by Order vary (whether by addition, substitution or deletion) the terms and conditions of carriage contained in Statutory Rule and Order No. 13 of 1930, and references in this section (including this sub-section) to such terms and conditions shall be construed as references to those terms and conditions as so varied.

(7) Where an application is made under sub-section (6), the board shall, if the Minister so requires, give notice of the application to the public in such form and manner as the Minister directs.

This is the amendment I referred to on amendment No. 1. Section 7 of the Bill provides that, unless otherwise specified in writing by C.I.E. all merchandise carried by rail shall be taken to be carried subject to the terms and conditions of Statutory Rule and Order No. 13 of 1930. These standard conditions and terms for the carriage of goods were settled by the Railway Tribunal set up by the Act of 1924 in 1930 and were applied as standard conditions and terms of carriage by the subsequent Transport Acts we passed through the House in 1944 and 1950. The 1944 Act contained provision for the alteration of the standard terms and conditions by ministerial Order, but the 1950 Act did not contain provision for such amendment. This Bill, as introduced by me, followed the precedent of the 1950 Act and contained no provision for amendment. In the absence of such a provision the standard terms and conditions of carriage —there is a very long schedule of regulations relating to the packaging of goods and so forth—could only be altered by legislation, since the 1930 Order has the force of law.

C.I.E. asked for provision in the Bill empowering them to alter these standard rules and conditions, many of which are now obsolete because of changing conditions affecting freight transportation, and urged that power to secure some amendment of these rules would be desirable to facilitate them in exploiting the commercial freedom which the Bill aims to give them. I indicated during the discussion in Committee my intention to introduce this amendment and, as I said, consequent on doing so, we are making this other provision for the tabling of any of these amending Orders and for their possible annulment by the Dáil.

Mr. Dillon

Is this the instrument which defines the liability of a common carrier?

Mr. S. Lemass

No, it deals with the conditions of carriage.

Mr. Cosgrave

It specifies weights.

Mr. S. Lemass

Weights and packaging and so forth. It deals with the liability of the company in respect of damage to goods in transit and matters of that kind.

Mr. Dillon

Does it impose the obligation on the company to accept such traffic as may be tendered on the terms set out by the company?

Mr. S. Lemass

They are free to refuse merchandise which does not conform to the standard conditions set out here.

Mr. Dillon

I am not clear in my mind, and I hate passing legislation when we really do not know what we are doing. There has been a good deal of talk about the suspension of the obligations on the transport company of a common carrier. I do not know where the obligations of a common carrier are defined precisely, if it is not in the document to which the Minister has referred and which, I understood, laid down the terms and conditions under which the transport company was bound to accept traffic at standard rates. If I am correct in that belief, the section which we are now about to insert in the Bill authorises the Minister on the application of the company to alter materially the conditions which have heretofore been known as the obligations of a common carrier. Am I right in that?

Mr. S. Lemass

No. The common carrier obligation was an obligation to carry all goods offered, subject to these standard conditions, at uniform charges without discrimination. That obligation has been removed now in the sense that they can refuse traffic or offer special terms to attract traffic. Nevertheless, the standard conditions will apply to any goods they accept.

In these conditions I see, for example, that the full name and address of the consignee and sender must be attached to the goods. I see that they will not carry a milk churn over 20 imperial gallons in capacity. Another rule I see is that in the case of cans, churns and butts the consignees or their agents must assist in their loading and unloading. There are a number of conditions of that kind, some of which are now due for revision because of altered circumstances. The problem is to arrange a procedure for revision that does not involve legislation. That is what I am aiming to do here.

Mr. Dillon

I realise this is Report Stage, but, some time at his convenience, could the Minister inform me of where I could find in simple form the obligations of a common carrier set out? There may be some statutory instrument or some judgment of the courts—some document of which the Minister may know to which he could refer me. I do not mind if he has not got it by him now, but I would be grateful if he would be kind enough to ask his Department to send me a note.

Mr. S. Lemass

I shall certainly do that.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Esmonde

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 4, line 39, after "order" to add:—

"and in particular to ensure that level crossings are of sufficient width to allow of the passage of modern agricultural machinery."

Mr. Dillon

Is the Minister accepting this amendment?

Mr. S. Lemass

No.

Dr. Esmonde

There are approximately 1,000 level crossings in the railway system in this country. They are scattered throughout the country. The standard width of these crossings is nine feet. As the House will appreciate, it is a great many years since these crossings were constructed. Now, with the advent of modern machinery, it is quite impossible for a farmer to get in his machinery under existing conditions where he owns land on both sides of a railway. In fact, several cases have been listed in the courts in reference to this situation.

According to a section of an old Act of 1845, which is known as the Railways (Consolidation) Act, there is no need for the railways to do anything about any part of their system if it has been in existence for six years. Whereas, in times past, it might have been the farmer's intention to save his crop with an older type of machinery, in modern conditions he has to use modern machinery, such as a combine harvester. When he applies to C.I.E. for facilities to enable him to harvest his crop it has not been found possible to reach any measure of agreement.

In the light of all the circumstances, it seems to me that the terms imposed upon the farmers are not reasonable. In the first instance, C.I.E. has demanded that the cost of any work done to enable the passage of machinery should be borne by the farmers and, secondly, that an agreement should be entered into between the board and the farmers to indemnify the board against any action, or claims, etc., arising out of the use of the crossing. Further, it has been stipulated that a joint insurance policy must be taken out in the names of the farmers concerned and the board in the sum of £50,000 to cover the possibility of an accident at the crossing. All that does not make sense to me.

There have been several instances in which farmers have found themselves in the position that they cannot get across the railway. In two cases—one in my own constituency and the other, I think, in Offaly—farmers were constrained to remove the piers to get their machinery across the railway lines; otherwise, they would have lost their crops. Those two cases have culminated in legal proceedings. In one case, in the very wet harvest of 1946, they were forced to remove the piers so as to get the machinery in. They subsequently replaced the piers. In that particular case some minor damage was done to the piers. Now, they simply had to go in with their machinery or lose the crop. The only satisfaction they could get out of C.I.E., was that, according to the 1845 Act, they were not in any way responsible. Not only does the thing not make sense, but it is unrealistic in modern circumstances. Before mechanisation, a width of 9 feet was sufficient to permit of entrance to these lands. As the Minister is probably aware, farmers have had to reconstruct their own entrances and put up wider gates to enable modern machinery to enter their lands.

This amendment seeks to rectify the position. There are a great many of these crossings. Several of them are very often on the same farm and it would probably not be necessary to widen more than one on the same farm. Surely, some measure of agreement could be reached in that regard? To strengthen my argument, I should like to cite to the House one case which actually went to court. The district justice expressed sympathy with the farmer and hoped that some agreement would be reached between the board and the farmers generally in this matter, but he gave a decree, as he was compelled to do, under this obsolete legislation of 1845.

I would ask the Minister to give consideration to this position. It has arisen in the past and it will arise again. With regard to the indemnity of £50,000 it seems to me the board is trying to shelve its responsibilities and put the onus on the shoulders of the farmers. That is not a reasonable approach. It is only fair to state that the indemnity of £50,000—if one could get an insurance company to accept liability; I do not know whether or not that would be possible—would cost by way of premium some four guineas per annum. That imposes an additional permanent charge on the farm and thereby depreciates the value of the farm. It also increases the overheads in general and the cost of production as a whole.

This is a matter the Minister should reasonably consider. If he is not prepared to accept my amendment, perhaps he would bring in an amendment of his own to meet the situation. What I want to ensure is that some reasonable agreement will be reached immediately between C.I.E., the farmers concerned and the representatives of the National Farmers' Association in general so that the matter may be put right.

There has been correspondence between the National Farmers' Association and C.I.E., beginning at the end of last December. So far, the association have had two communications saying the matter is under consideration but there are legal difficulties in the way, and so forth. I should like to point out to the Minister that the harvest is rapidly approaching and these difficulties to which I have referred in the cases I have cited will arise again in the very near future. I would ask the Minister to give the matter his urgent consideration.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to support the views expressed by Deputy Dr. Esmonde. He has put the facts fully before the Minister. It is not necessary for me to add to what he has said except to point out that the Minister, I am sure, is aware of the great changes that have taken place in farming generally as a result of mechanisation and in the general dimensions of agricultural machinery now as compared with the time when the Railway (Clauses) Consolidation Act of 1845 was passed.

Deputy Dr. Esmonde showed me the correspondence to which he has referred. Undoubtedly, some quite remarkable cases have arisen. There may be only a few, but in those few it is obvious that the farmers concerned have suffered hardship. In one instance the farmer was, if not convicted, at least decreed in court in respect of damage done to C.I.E. property. In another case, permission would not be granted by C.I.E., when C.I.E. were approached. Then the proposal was made that a substantial bond should be agreed and arranged between the farmers concerned and the board of C.I.E. From looking through the correspondence and the Acts concerned, it seems to me that the board is obviously afraid of doing anything which might involve them in an action for damages. If this amendment does not meet the position, or if there is a better way of dealing with it, perhaps the Minister will devise some solution to rectify the situation. It is certainly a situation that requires to be dealt with.

It may be that the number of level crossings or the number of entrances into farms would not be as great as the number referred to by the company; I think they mentioned 1,000. Quite a number of farmers must find it difficult to use the lands in question and cultivate them in the manner in which they would wish. This difficulty arises mainly in connection with combine harvesters, seed barrows, and wide machinery of that sort. I suggest to the Minister that, in consultation with the board and the National Farmers' Association, some arrangement ought to be arrived at which would enable whatever changes are necessary to be made in order to ensure that farmers can get their machinery on to their lands and, at the same time, ensure that the company will not be liable and the farmer will not be involved in a lawsuit with the company in relation to whatever structural changes have to be made in order to widen these openings or entrances.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to support the remarks of Deputy Dr. Esmonde and Deputy Cosgrave. I have nothing to add except to remind the House of something that seems to be forgotten —that this problem arose from the fact that when the railways were laid out they had no regard to boundaries. If the House wants any evidence of that, all they have to do is go down and look at the farm of the Department of Agriculture at Athenry which is bisected by the railway. In the vicinity of my farm they will find the railway running straight across the land and dividing the holdings in two. Most of my land is on one side of the railway and very little on the other, but my neighbour's land is evenly divided by the railway.

Originally there was an obligation put upon the railway company to provide adequate level crossing accommodation for any person whose land had been bisected by the railway, and they have done it. The level crossings are there. They have a statutory duty to maintain them. Although they now maintain level crossings which were considered to be adequate to convenience the farmer in 1845, it is manifest that they are not adequate for the farmer now. All that is proposed here is that the facilities which the railway company were obliged to provide in 1845, where the railway bisected a farm, should be brought up to date so that the railway company would provide a level crossing suitable for the kind of machinery that is now in use. If what is suggested here by Deputy Dr. Esmonde and Deputy Cosgrave is not acceptable, doubtless some other words or device could be found, and no doubt Deputy Dr. Esmonde would be satisfied if the evil could be abated either by amendment of this Bill or any other means the Minister may suggest.

Mr. Coogan

May I put forward a suggestion which might reduce the cost to C.I.E.? The farmer himself has got over this difficulty. Instead of taking down the actual gate he has inserted a removable centre post with the addition of a wicket. I have seen that working very well and I make that suggestion to the Minister as a means of reducing expenses.

Mr. Wycherley

It is necessary to have these level crossings widened to facilitate the use of modern machinery. The present level crossings are a hindrance to farmers especially at harvest time, and C.I.E. and the farming community should come to some amicable agreement by which machinery can have access to fields. Harvest time is not a time for bargaining. It should be done now under this heading. I welcome Deputy Dr. Esmonde's amendment. If the Minister can see fit to improve on it, all the better.

Mr. Casey

The case made for this amendment appears to be quite a reasonable one designed to bring up to date the statutory obligation placed on C.I.E. and their predecessors in this respect. The only objectionable feature I see in it is that it would throw the cost of widening these level crossings completely on C.I.E. Farmers already have had to widen gaps, gates and entrances at other parts of their farms at their own expense. I do not think we should create the position where every farmer in the country whose lands are crossed by a railway could chase C.I.E. immediately in order to get the company to renovate and bring up to date these entrances at level crossings. Something should be done to remedy the situation outlined by Deputy Dr. Esmonde, but we should not throw the whole onus on C.I.E. to meet the not inconsiderable cost of bringing all these level crossings up to date. If the farmer needs this renovation he should be prepared, and possibly would be prepared, to meet the cost himself.

Mr. S. Lemass

The section in the Bill relates to the control of public level crossings. Deputy Dr. Esmonde made it clear he is thinking solely about accommodation crossings, that is to say, crossing gates provided for the convenience of a local landowner who has the obligation of opening and shutting the gates himself whenever he uses the crossing. I could perhaps raise the procedural point that this matter was not adverted to in the Committee Stage discussion and that an amendment at this stage might not be in order. However, it is just as well it has been raised because I want to make my view in the matter clear to the House.

So far as I know, C.I.E. will not refuse to effect the widening of an accommodation crossing where the local landowner requires it; indeed I think I can give an assurance that C.I.E. will facilitate local owners in that regard. But the question is, as Deputy Casey pointed out, at whose expense is the work to be done? I cannot agree to putting on C.I.E. a statutory obligation to do the work at their expense and it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so. The person accommodated surely is the person who is liable to meet the cost.

Furthermore there is this very important consideration that the widening of these accommodation crossings to an extent that would permit the passage of combine tractors increases the danger of accidents at these crossings and, therefore, C.I.E. very properly require to be indemnified by means of an insurance policy against claims for damages due to accidents at these crossings. That is a perfectly reasonable provision and I would have to oppose a proposal that C.I.E. should not seek indemnity against claims for damages arising from such accidents.

The position, therefore, as far as I am concerned, is that C.I.E. will seek to accommodate local farmers by increasing the width of these crossings. I think I can give an undertaking they will do so wherever the need for it is demonstrated. However, the cost of doing the work is a matter for the persons accommodated, not for C.I.E. and C.I.E. must be indemnified against possible claims for damages through an insurance policy.

In so far as there is a desire to make some general arrangement with C.I.E. by negotiating with farmers' organisations or in some other way, that is a development I would welcome, but it is a matter for negotiation with C.I.E., not for imposing upon them through statute an obligation to do this work, C.I.E. having the assurance that the cost of the operation will be met by the person accommodated and being indemnified by way of insurance against damages.

Dr. Esmonde

Why does the Minister consider it more dangerous to take a combine harvester across a railway through a wider gate than, as in present circumstances, to take the same type of machinery through a narrower gate?

Mr. S. Lemass

If there was an accident the claim would be substantially greater.

Dr. Esmonde

Not for £50,000. There is no sense in that at all. It might be a couple of hundred pounds.

Mr. S. Lemass

I am sure that is a matter that could be negotiated with C.I.E.

Mr. Wycherley

Is the farmer allowed to use local labour for the widening of those gates?

Mr. S. Lemass

I am afraid I cannot answer that question, but C.I.E. must have responsibility for ensuring that the type of gate used and the arrangements made will minimise the danger of accident.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill re-committed in respect of amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. S. Lemass

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 4, Section 8, between lines 39 and 40, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) The Order may require the board to recompense, in such manner as the Order may prescribe, any person performing services for the board at the level crossing under any form of agreement, where that person's services under the agreement are dispensed with as a consequence of the Order.

I think amendments Nos. 5 and 6 can be taken together. They are designed to meet the case of wage-earners employed as crossing-keepers. Where they are wage-earners, they come under the compensation arrangement and where they are not wage-earners, the effect is to ensure that some suitable arrangement will be made to meet the case of the person concerned.

Mr. Coogan

Does this cover the case of workers who, during the war years, through no fault of their own, became redundant?

Mr. S. Lemass

We have not reached the Deputy's amendment yet.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 reported and agreed to.

Mr. S. Lemass

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 6, line 10, Section 13, before "and" to insert: "or whenever an Order is made under Section 8 in relation to a specified level crossing".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. S. Lemass

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 6, Section 13, to delete lines 31 to 39, inclusive, and substitute:—

(6) The Minister may by Order extend the provisions of this section to any case in which, within five years after the passing of this Act, the services of an officer or servant are dispensed with or he is transferred to another position because of redundancy arising from any scheme for the reorganisation and more economical operation of any department of the undertaking affecting any section or category of workers, and may by Order amend any such Order.

Deputies will remember the discussion we had on this matter on Committee Stage. I proposed an amendment on that occasion which provided for the payment of the compensation to be granted under the Bill to workers disemployed by reason of a general reorganisation as distinct from the closing of a line or station and where that scheme of reorganisation had been agreed to by the trade union concerned. In subsequent discussions with the representatives of the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation, it was agreed that that arrangement of prior agreement by the trade unions should be deleted because it was felt that it might create a position of difficulty for unions to some extent particularly where more than one union was involved. It was agreed that the provision of compensation for workers disemployed through such general organisation should not be made conditional upon prior agreement and that that condition should be deleted.

However, it was considered desirable that I make it clear that, in my view, the practicability of successfully achieving general reorganisation measures of that kind depends very largely upon full prior consultation with the trade unions concerned and upon an attempt to secure agreement upon the character and scope of reorganisation proposals. I told the trade union representatives that I would say that here in the Dáil, and would indicate that I was doing so at their request, and that I would emphasise that they are, on their side, exceedingly anxious to have joint consultation with C.I.E. on these matters. They would like to have that made clear so that proposals for reorganisation of that character can be fully considered and implemented within the period stated in the Bill during which compensation will be payable.

The amendment, as it now appears, is one which was agreed upon following these discussions with the trade union representatives and I am putting it forward as a better proposal than that which I moved in Committee, while making it clear that the intention is, not to avoid consultation, but to facilitate consultation and in the hope that full and effective machinery for consultation will be worked out quickly between the parties concerned.

Mr. Casey

The Minister has made the trade unions' approach to this matter quite clear. We appreciate that it will be possible to find agreement between the trade unions concerned and the company on the matters concerned. I am glad the Minister has availed of the opportunity to state here that, although the reference to the trade unions has been deleted from this section, he hopes and expects the management of C.I.E. to have prior consultation with the trade unions involved in the case of any anticipated reorganisation of the system. I am glad that he has placed that on the records of this House as his desire and his expectation.

Quite candidly, the board and management of C.I.E. appear to have quite contrary ideas on this matter. Recently, in this House, I had to point out that the management of C.I.E. endeavoured to carry out, in Cork, reorganisation among a certain group of employees without any prior consultation and without any prior notice to the trade unions involved. That was at a time when this House was engaged in the process of providing compensation where redundancy occurred. To my mind, on that occasion, C.I.E. not alone illustrated its approach to the trade unions on this matter, but displayed quite clearly its attitude to this House—that at a time when the Minister was piloting through the House a Bill dealing with these matters, they endeavoured to carry out a certain reorganisation without prior notice or consultation with the trade unions concerned.

I hope the Minister's speech on this occasion will have the effect of impresing on the management of C.I.E. that if they want to get the best results in the matter of these reorganisations, there is the only way out of doing it, that is, through prior consultation and co-operation with those employed, through their trade union.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, in the name of Deputy Coogan, have been ruled out of order, on the ground that they introduce proposals not before the Committee.

Mr. S. Lemass

They are unnecessary, anyway.

Mr. Coogan

My amendments related to redundancy caused by conditions such as war and other matters outside our control.

Mr. S. Lemass

Any C.I.E. worker who lost his employment during the war was given reinstatement before November, 1947, and in the calculation of service for the purposes of compensation, that break during the war years was regarded as service.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, may I ask this question? The Minister now tells us that the substance of amendments Nos. 8 and 9 is already in the Bill.

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Yet these two amendments have been ruled out of order for that they raise matters which do not appertain to the Bill.

Mr. S. Lemass

When I say "they are in the Bill," I mean they are in the Bill in the sense that they are carried over from the 1950 Act.

Mr. Coogan

Where you have men who have given public service in other companies, what happens?

Mr. S. Lemass

That is all covered. Previous employment with a licensed carrier or a licensed haulier counts for compensation purposes. I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 9, to delete lines 1 to 10. inclusive, and substitute:—

(1) 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 an agricultural tractor owned by him, and in respect of which a duty of excise at the rate specified in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 4 of Part 1 of the Schedule to the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act, 1952, is chargeable, 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 or a place where a market or fair, specified by Order made by the Minister under this section, is held, on the day on which such auction, market or fair takes place and they are not being carried in either direction on any part of a public road which is more than twenty miles by public road from the carrier's residence.

(2) The Minister may, by Order, specify markets and fairs for the purposes of this section.

(3) The Minister may, by Order, revoke or amend an order under this section.

This is the point on which we had the long debate during the Committee Stage. I have given the matter a great deal of consideration following upon that debate and the practical problems which were brought to light during it.

The effect of the changes proposed here is, first, to extend the facility which I was proposing should be allowed in respect of the carriage of live stock by tractor-trailer by a farmer for his neighbour to live stock marts, to carriage to fairs and markets. I want to say something in that regard, however, which, I think is necessary. I had contemplated that that facility would be allowed in respect of the main fairs of the country. A fair, according to the law, is a market and while I had intended to confine it to fairs in the ordinary understanding of the term, the term "market" had to be used because a "fair" is a "market".

Secondly, I had intended to limit it to the main fairs of the country. That is why I put into his amendment a sub-section which would require the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make an Order specifying the fairs and markets to which the section would relate. There is no official list of fairs and markets. While there are lists published in various almanacs, I understand that they are by no means accurate, that they often list fairs which have long become obsolete and sometimes do not include fairs still developing. The practical difficulty of preparing a list will be very great and, indeed, may prove to be such that the preparation of such a list and its publication by Order may be impossible. I certainly do not want to take on myself as Minister for Industry and Commerce the obligation of defining the principal fairs and markets of the country.

That is a matter which is still under examination, but I think I should mention it because it is one of the practical difficulties which have not yet been solved. This, of course, extends quite considerably the scope of the facility which was contemplated. There is a very large number of activities which could be described as fairs or markets. It is, of course, to be clear that the facility will be restricted to the carriage of live stock and will not extend to other commodities. The danger of that extension of the facility leading to a widespread abuse and the carriage of goods for reward in a manner not contemplated by the section is, I think, very substantially reduced by the further provision in the amendment which makes it clear that this concession is given only in respect of tractors which are agricultural tractors in the sense that they are paying road tax only at the rate for agricultural tractors.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is, the £8 rate?

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes. Any tractor owner who uses his tractor otherwise than in accordance with the strict provision of the Act would not merely be taking the risk of the penalties which this Bill provides but would also automatically make himself liable to the higher rate of road tax. That fact, which had been well appreciated and known, is likely to prove such a deterrent that the risk of any widespread abuse is not there.

I felt that from the beginning it was going to be impossible to confine this concession solely to auction marts and I was, as Deputies remember, pressed from all sides of the House to extend it to fairs and markets, during the Committee Stage discussion. It is with some reluctance I am doing so, mainly because of the difficulty of defining what are fairs and markets. I have not got over that difficulty yet. I thought I could get over it by the process of specifying in an Order the fairs and markets to which the concession will apply. I am not quite clear that that will be possible and, therefore, we have to visualise the possibility of a concession applying to live-stock fairs and markets generally. There are quite a number of these and they are held quite frequently. However, I believe the possibility of abuse is minimised by the further tightening up of the section which I am proposing now.

On the whole, it is the best attempt I can make to meet the wishes expressed from all sides of the House during the Committee Stage of the Bill, and at the same time, to avoid the danger which I visualise, of persons seeking to get into the business of transport as a means of livelihood, through this device. I think the tax arrangements will effectively prevent that. On the whole, the extension of the section is not likely to cause further difficulty for the public transport operators or the licensed hauliers and indeed, the new facility will meet a transport need which is of only recent growth and a situation which was not contemplated when the original restrictions upon haulage for reward were being devised.

Mr. Moher

Would the Minister consider, when any definition is being made of a fair or market, including in that definition the clearance of live stock from an auctioneer's sales yard?

Mr. S. Lemass

Certainly not. In no circumstances whatever would I agree to that. That is business for the public transport companies and in no circumstances would I allow these operators to do that. That is completely contrary to the whole policy of the Bill.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister said he proposed to specify by Order the fair or market and that the difficulty arises because of the number of these fairs and markets and the problem of specifying particular cases. I take it there is no great problem in regard to the larger, well-known fairs?

Mr. S. Lemass

Except in deciding what are the larger and well-known fairs.

Mr. Cosgrave

Exactly. As I see it, the value of this concession will be to smaller cases, in the main. In the case of the big fairs, whether they are in county towns or in small towns or villages, the public transport company would probably supply lorries, as it would be worth while doing so. That would not apply in the case of a small fair or market in a remote area.

Mr. S. Lemass

I accept that. I agree that the facility might be much more advantageous there. That is the argument against confining it to the larger ones.

Mr. Cosgrave

It may be that the Minister would have to make a general Order allowing it to all fairs and markets.

Mr. S. Lemass

I think that is very likely, but it will be for live stock only, cattle, sheep and pigs.

Mr. Dillon

I suggest that—at least his Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give him expert advice—there will be no serious difficulty at all in establishing where fairs and markets are being regularly held, if he applies to the C.A.O. of each county for the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. S. Lemass

I think it would be of very little help to me in this regard.

Mr. Dillon

I do not agree. I think the Minister would get a very reliable list of existing and functioning fairs and markets in each county on which he might very fairly stand in making an Order, specifying these and altering the Order from year to year as the chief agricultural officer might advise as a result of fairs and markets disappearing or arising. I do not think there will be any difficulty about this and I believe his Parliamentary Secretary will tell him there is a source of information——

Mr. S. Lemass

There is no official list of fairs or markets. There are these almanacs, such as Purdons, but they are not very reliable. Some of these functions were established by charter, some by urban authorities under legislation——

Mr. Dillon

I think the Parliamentary Secretary will probably agree that the C.A.O.s in the counties probably have at their disposal the kind of information the Minister wants in regard to this matter and would be glad to supply it.

Mr. Wycherley

Could the Minister not make it cover the carriage of live stock to the nearest market?

Mr. S. Lemass

There are three other limiting arrangements, the first of which is the carriage of live stock by a bona fide farmer, one depending on farming for his livelihood. Secondly he can only carry for a neighbour living within two miles and thirdly, he cannot carry for more than 20 miles. All these will operate.

Dr. Esmonde

I should like clarification of just one point as a result of what Deputy Moher asked just now and to which the Minister replied that the animals could not be taken away——

Mr. S. Lemass

May I interrupt the Deputy to make it clear? He is talking about the farmer bringing some cattle to the fair, not selling and taking them home again. What Deputy Moher was talking about was a clearance of a fair.

Mr. Moher

I spoke about this on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I can see the position arising where it would not be profitable for a company or an organisation to erect a mart——

Mr. S. Lemass

It is not confined to marts now.

Mr. Moher

No, but in such an area where an auctioneer's saleyard might serve the purpose of a mart——

Mr. S. Lemass

May I interrupt the Deputy again? The argument in favour of this was that it would convenience public transport operators to have these collections of traffic brought to particular centres and facilitate the Gardaí in ensuring that transportation of live stock sold at these markets, marts or fairs to their ultimate destination will be limited to public transport operators. It is in the sense of that argument I am defending this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moher will appreciate that we are on the Report Stage and he may speak only once on each amendment.

Mr. Casey

This is the section of the Bill in which the Minister himself does not believe and it may be no harm to reflect on the circumstances and the manner in which this section was put into the Bill. The House will recollect that the Beddy Committee made a recommendation in their report that farmers should get special concessions for drawing farm produce and requisites for neighbours by tractor. That suggestion, no doubt, in common with other suggestions, must have received the serious consideration of the Minister but, obviously, it was rejected by him. In his policy statement on transport in this House at the end of last year, he made no reference to it. He did not indicate then, when he was outlining broadly what might be in this Bill now before us, that he had these concessions in mind.

Probably I would be correct in saying that various interests made representations to him between the end of last year when he made his policy statement and the time the Bill was eventually introduced. He resisted all that pressure. He produced a Bill which contained no such concessions for the section of the community now covered and it is quite obvious that hidden hands of great strength must have forced the Minister, because, at the eleventh hour, he produced an amendment which is designed to give certain specified concessions to farmers. On that occasion, when speaking against the amendment, I said he would be open to all sorts of pressure and in discussing the amendment in the House, we immediately had pressure on the Minister from all sides to extend the concessions which were enshrined in the amendment as it then was——

Mr. Dillon

Is not that what the House is for—to express views?

Mr. Casey

The Minister in dealing with the pressure brought to bear on him made his argument against it and he has not explained to the House now what has happened since 3rd and 4th of June to make him change his mind on this subject. On 3rd and 4th of June, Deputies made the case here that the concessions should not be confined to auction marts, that they should be thrown open to fairs and markets as well. I argued against that; the Minister argued against it. He said he would not contemplate doing so, but to-day we find him bringing in his amendment which shows he has changed his mind in the matter, but he has not explained to the House what has brought about that change.

Mr. Cosgrave

He must have been impressed by our views.

Mr. Corish

He is not always impressed by your views.

Mr. Casey

I think the best argument I could make against this highly dangerous amendment is to quote the arguments made by the Minister a few short weeks ago when he was being pressed to bring in this type of an amendment. He referred to his interview with the National Farmers' Association, and at column 1156 of the debate of June 3rd, he is reported as saying:—

"They asked that the Road Transport Act should be amended so as to permit a farmer to carry cattle to an auction mart on a day an auction was being held and that the concession should be confined to servicing other farmers living within a two-mile radius of the farm of the tractor owner. Their argument was that a new type of traffic need has arisen, in consequence of the development of these auction marts, which cannot conveniently be met by any of the existing transport services, and that if that concession were allowed, a benefit would accrue to C.I.E., in the sense that the collection of cattle in these marts offers to C.I.E. the type of transport business they are seeking, that is, a large volume of freight of a specialised kind collected at a particular centre on a particular day."

He goes on to say, as reported at column 1157, onwards:—

"I undertook to bring an amendment to the Dáil and that is what I am doing now. I do not think the danger I had to safeguard against is likely to arise from it—the danger of a new type of transport operator coming along who would seek to supplement what he could get from this operation by engaging in other transport operations—provided"

—the Minister said he was protected—

"it is limited to tractors and limited to the conveyance of live stock to auction marts on the day such marts are held."

He felt there was a grave danger of widening the scope for illegal haulage unless he confined himself to those concessions available for the carriage of live stock to auction marts on a particular day.

Deputy Cosgrave pressed him and asked him:—

"Can the Minister say if ‘auction marts' include fairs?"

The Minister replied:

"No. That is one of the questions I put to the National Farmers' Association: whether I was likely to have pressure put on me to extend this facility to fairs? They said ‘No'. They said fairs are still held in a number of centres to cater for cattle brought in from a comparatively small radius. The problem of the auction marts is to move cattle from a far wider range, a longer distance than the cattle could be walked. There is a transport need there which could not be met in any other way."

The case the Minister made was that this special new transport need had sprung up with the establishment of the auction marts, that he was making the concession because of that, and because of that only, and that under no circumstances would he extend it to fairs.

At column 1163 the Minister is reported as saying:—

"I mentioned that the people who came to me from the National Farmers' Association wanted this arrangement for auction marts only. They may have a particular interest in confining it to auction marts. It would be far more suitable, from my point of view, so to do. I see no difficulty whatsoever as regards enforcing this arrangement in the limited conditions contemplated here because these auction marts are held once a fortnight or so, and clearly it would be a day on which one would expect to see this transportation taking place, whereas, on any other day, one would not expect to see it."

Obviously, the Minister had in mind the difficulties that would face the Guards in the detection of illegal haulage if it were on any old day at all. If a fair was being held anywhere within a radius of 20 miles the Guards could expect to see cattle being hauled by farmers in their tractors and trailers for reward for some of their labours.

The following day, Wednesday, 4th June, 1958, the Minister said, as reported at column 1172 of the Official Report——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These quotations are rather long. It is not usual to give such lengthy quotations.

Mr. Casey

I shall be very brief.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might summarise it.

Mr. Corish

If he summarised it he would be asked to quote it.

Mr. S. Lemass

Not by me. I assure you I shall not.

Mr. Casey

The Minister was pointing out the danger of extending it to fairs as well as to marts. As reported at column 1180 of the Official Report of the 4th June, 1958, he said:—

"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."

He was pointing out that it would be quite impossible to avoid illegal haulage if the facilities were extended to fairs as well as to marts, as they are now.

In reply to a point raised by me, the Minister stated, as reported at column 1173:—

"I would agree fully with the Deputy that is as far as we could go without creating such a danger."

I could quote from every second sentence of the Minister's contribution on that occasion. It would be the very best argument I could use against this particular proposal. At any rate, I think the Minister should have explained to the House what pressure was brought to bear on him, what new arguments were placed before him, which resulted in his turning completely round on everything he said on that occasion in relation to this particular section of the Bill.

There is just one other point which I should like to make. It concerns a comment made on the last day we discussed this matter. The Minister expressed the view that these concessions would take little or no traffic from C.I.E. He asked:—

"Does anybody in the 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.?"

I went to the trouble of getting some official figures on this particular aspect. I discovered that at two marts in the Midlands—Mullingar and Moate—the average number of loads brought to the marts by C.I.E. in the past six months has been six lorry loads per mart, with an average of 78 cattle to the lorry, and that picking up at points worked out at an average of three different lots. Similarly, over the past six months at these two marts, the average numbers delivered to buyers after the marts was three loads with an aggregate of 55 cattle.

At another point in the debate the opinion was expressed that C.I.E. would lose a certain sum of money per annum. The traffic I refer to is traffic that very likely will be lost to C.I.E. The average annual receipts which will accrue to C.I.E. on the traffic I have outlined here would be something like £1,700 for the mart at Moate and £1,500 for the mart at Mullingar.

While the original amendment was, to my mind, dangerous, and one which the Minister said he introduced with reluctance, I am quite sure that the amendment as now moved will open the floodgates to illegal haulage. The Minister said that C.I.E. had been bedevilled by the problem of illegal haulage for a long number of years. We had hoped that a serious attempt would be made in this Bill to stamp it out. I think that was the Minister's original intention, if we refer to the sections dealing with penalties which may be imposed for illegal haulage. Now, however, any person whose only or chief occupation is farming may engage in this particular type of transport.

I should like the Minister to tell me in the first place who is to decide whether or not a person is a person whose only or chief occupation is farming.

Mr. Dillon

It is done every day.

Mr. Casey

If a farmer has a shop or a public house, or is engaged in any other kind of activity, or if he may be a professional man, who is to judge whether or not farming is his chief occupation?

Mr. Dillon

It is done every day.

Mr. Casey

Has a local Garda to satisfy himself, if he finds a man is engaged in this particular type of activity on a particular day, that that man's occupation is, in the main, farming? I do not know but that is really only one of the parts of this amendment that will be wide open to abuse. I am quite sure the Minister realises the dangers in this section, and I am only sorry that the pressure which was brought to bear on him must have been such that he had to relent and put in a section in this Bill which is obviously against his own principles, as he has enunciated them both here and outside the House from time to time, on public transport. I do think he owes it to this House to explain what this type of pressure was that succeeded in making him completely turn face about and put in a section which is absolutely contrary to his oft- expressed views on public transport.

Mr. S. Lemass

I just want to say a few words in conclusion. I should like to say I agree, of course, that I argued against this extension to fairs and markets during the Committee Stage discussion. However, I gave the matter a great deal of consideration in the light of views expressed here and felt it was not possible to maintain an individual judgment against many views expressed by people who are intimately acquainted with the requirements of rural districts. I have grave anxiety about the possibility of this extension of the provision leading to an increase in illegal haulage, and the only thing I can say in that regard is that, if it does, we will have to have another look at it. We will have to consider to what extent the concession will have to be circumscribed or reduced in order to prevent illegal haulage.

I believe, however, the danger of illegal haulage is considerably reduced by the limitation of the concession to vehicles which are agricultural tractors taxed as such, and that the consequential automatic increase in road tax rate following upon any extension of operations beyond the limits fixed by the section will be a deterrent to any development of illegal haulage. That taxation concession in respect of agricultural tractors is available only for tractors which are used occasionally on the roads. If tractors are used otherwise than occasionally on the roads, then they become liable to the full tax and that, I think, will be as big a deterrent to the abuse of the section as the penalties contemplated by the Bill.

With regard to one point made by Deputy Casey, I should like to make it clear that this right of haulage is confined to haulage of cattle to or from a fair. It does not include a right of haulage to railway stations or to the premises of buyers of cattle, or anything like that.

Mr. Dillon

It includes cattle, sheep and pigs.

Mr. S. Lemass

Yes, live stock. It is intended to facilitate a farmer in conveniencing his neighbour and nothing more than that and, of course, if a tractor-trailer is used for any other type of haulage, not merely is the operation illegal and liable to penalties, but the higher tax will become applicable immediately and permanently.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 8.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carew, John.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• Dillon, James M.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Fanning, John.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Griffin, James.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheldon, William A. W.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

• Byrne, Tom.
• Casey, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Everett, James.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Spring, Dan.

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

Amendment declared carried.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.

Debate adjourned.