Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Dec 1959

Vol. 178 No. 7

Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1959—Second Stage.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the announcement already made in the House that it was proposed to promote legislation to increase the standard lorry weight of licensed hauliers to ameliorate any hardship which might be caused by the proposed new motor taxation legislation. This motor tax legislation removes the doubts which have arisen as to what constitutes the weight of a motor vehicle for motor taxation purposes and provides that additions to lorries such as creels, side-boards, special bodies etc. must be included in the unladen weight of vehicles for taxation purposes.

Under road transport legislation, a licensed haulier may not operate in the course of his licensed business a lorry or lorries the total unladen weight of which for taxation purposes exceeds the standard lorry weight specified in his licence. This standard lorry weight is based ultimately on the weight of the lorry or lorries he operated prior to licensing though it has in fact been substantially increased since that date.

The existing level of standard lorry weights has been settled on the assumption that the weight of additions, such as creels, sideboards, etc. was included in the weight of vehicles for Road Tax purposes and therefore, in standard lorry weights. A number of licensed hauliers have challenged the official interpretation of the law relating to the weighing of vehicles for Road Tax purposes and have removed creels and other additions when their lorries were being weighed for taxation purposes.

The effect of the proposed taxation legislation on these cases could be to bring the unladen weight of their lorries over the standard lorry weight specified in their licences. Hauliers so affected would be unable to continue to use their present lorries and in the absence of an increase in standard lorry weight would either have to replace their lorries with lighter vehicles or operate them without the attachments or additions which might be essential to their business.

It can be said that this was a risk which they should have foreseen when they chose to anticipate an interpretation of the law favourable to themselves; it is nevertheless the case that many did so in good faith and that the new legislation may indeed cause them considerable inconvenience or even hardship. In these circumstances the Government feels that some increase in standard lorry weight might be granted to help offset such hardship as may arise.

It would be entirely inequitable, however, to grant an increase in standard lorry weight to licensed hauliers who had deliberately excluded such equipment as creels and side-boards when their lorries were being weighed for taxation purposes and to deny such an increase at the same time to licensed hauliers who to their own detriment, abided by the long-standing and more generally accepted interpretation of the law. It would mean that of two licensees who had been entitled to identical standard lorry weights ever since 1933 when licensing commenced, one would in future enjoy a greater standard lorry weight and be entitled thereby to use a larger vehicle.

There is a wide disparity in the lorry attachments which may be used by a licensed haulier. Some licensees may have acquired comparatively light attachments only, such as side-boards; others may have acquired creels or even special bodies or tanks affixed to their lorries. The extent to which such acquisitions may have brought about an excess on their standard lorry weight will vary considerably not only according to the type of attachment but also according to the type of lorry.

It would be entirely impracticable to determine the extent to which standard lorry weight may be exceeded as a result of the new motor taxation legislation in each of some 1,000 individual cases. Moreover, there would be nothing to prevent hauliers acquiring new and heavy additions now for weighing with their lorries on 1st January next. For these reasons, therefore, as well as on the grounds of equity I have already mentioned, it is essential that any increase in standard lorry weight should be on a uniform basis and applicable to all licensed hauliers.

A special increase in standard lorry weight of 7 cwt. per lorry to permit the use of livestock creels by licensed hauliers authorised to carry livestock has already been granted on grounds of hardship to about 190 hauliers. This increase applies only while the lorry is actually being used for the carriage of livestock. The figure of 7 cwt. was found on examination to be adequate to meet the additional weight of cattle creels used with the great majority of lorries operated by licensed hauliers, that is, lorries not exceeding 2 tons 15 cwt. unladen weight. It had been claimed on behalf of the licensed hauliers that because such creels were essential for the safe carriage of livestock and that, since the weight of creels had to be included in the weight of the lorry for road tax purposes, they could not in most cases be used at all without exceeding the relevant standard lorry weights under the Transport Acts.

In all the circumstances and having regard in particular to the fact that the present level of standard lorry weights is intended to include the weight of additions, the Government consider that a general increase of seven cwt., the amount already approved for livestock creels, would represent a reasonable and indeed a generous contribution towards relieving any genuine hardship that may be caused by the new road tax legislation. The existing conditional increase for livestock creels will of course be cancelled and replaced by the general unconditional increase provided for in the Bill.

It has been represented that the proposed increase of 7 cwt. per lorry is not sufficient to meet the hardship imposed on carriers who may use certain heavier equipment particularly lift vans and special cattle bodies which may weigh as much as 30 cwt. each. The degree of genuine hardship in these cases is somewhat questionable. As I have already indicated, the present level of standard lorryweight—which has been substantially increased since 1933—and the concession authorised for cattle creels were based on the assumption that all additions of this kind were included in the weight of lorries for tax purposes in accordance with the long standing official interpretation of the relevant road tax legislation.

Indeed, representatives of the licensed hauliers have been agitating for years for increases in standard lorryweight for such purposes on the grounds that these articles must, in fact, be included in the weight of their lorries when they are weighed for taxation purposes. Hauliers, therefore, who acquired special bodies of this kind, which brought the weight of their lorries over and above the approved standard lorryweights prescribed by their licences, must have done so in the full knowledge that an adverse Court decision could have put them in precisely the same position as the new road tax legislation.

Furthermore, this Bill envisages an all-round increase on a uniform basis and there is no practical alternative to an increase on a uniform basis for reason both of equity and administrative practicality. An all-round increase of the order of 25/30 cwt. per lorry would be out of the question as it would increase the total carrying capacity of licensed hauliers in general very substantially and would enable many of them to acquire additional or bigger lorries. This would lead to a substantial increase in competition with C.I.E. at a time when that undertaking is engaged on what is indeed a life and death struggle for survival.

For these reasons, and having regard to the whole background to this Bill, I am satisfied that the proposed all-round increase of seven cwt. per lorry is indeed a very generous contribution to such hardship as may exist. Nevertheless, I will be prepared to consider under the provisions of Section 116 of the Transport Act, 1944, any individual case of genuine and deserving hardship which may be brought to my attention.

Mr. Sweetman

I am grateful to the Minister for giving the whole case away in three words—"competition with C.I.E." The purpose of the Resolution we have just dealt with, and which necessitates this Bill, part of the financial aspect of which we have been discussing, is to ensure that as much as possible of certain traffic is driven out of the hands of private hauliers into C.I.E. The Minister has just admitted that by saying it would be "competition with C.I.E." I challenge that point of view completely as being reasonable or legitimate.

We have had some considerable discussion on the other Resolution on what is to be added for taxation purposes. Let us take the lift vans, to which the Minister referred. He must be aware that a lift van is swung on to a lorry, that it is unloaded at the house where the furniture is being delivered without being taken off the lorry. That van, when placed on a lorry, is not part of the sides, like fixed creels. It is a container put down on a lorry and stays there, as the Minister for Local Government admitted a few minutes ago. Because of the height of the sides, the lorry floor, edges and back, it fits more or less into a groove.

All those who, as private hauliers, carry furniture have heretofore been under the impression, and have been accepted as being within the law, that it was the weight of their lorry only, unloaded, which was to be taken into account for motor taxation purposes. Now, as this Financial Resolution stands and as it governs the position that will arise in relation to road transport licences, those firms who carry on the furniture business will have to weigh not merely their lorry but also the container on that lorry, that is, lifted on to the lorry, because it does not come completely within the ambit of Paragraph 5 (b) of the Financial Resolution.

Every furniture remover in the country feels apprehensive that this will mean not merely that he will have to pay more motor tax but that he will be put out of business entirely because the addition of seven cwts. to his road transport licence could not possibly cover the additional weight of the container. It was my interpretation all along that a container such as I have referred to would be included in the new taxation arrangements. A few seconds ago, the Minister for Local Government made it clear that that type of container, if it fits into slots, would be covered and caught by the new taxation. Therefore, the person who has those lorries will, unless the matter is amended, be completely put off the road. I understand that that is the effect of it.

Mr. Childers

May I relieve the Deputy's——

Mr. Sweetman

Anxiety.

Mr. Childers

May I say that representations have already been made to me by furniture manufacturers?

Mr. Sweetman

I am so aware.

Mr. Childers

The position is that their conditions of operation will not be worsened. Their cases will be examined sympathetically. If it is necessary to give them an additional weight, over and above seven cwts., it will certainly be given.

Mr. Sweetman

The object should not be to worsen conditions. That is not the way to deal with the situation. It is wrong. It is an entirely wrong principle to start off by slipping into an Act a principle that hits everybody and then say: "If anyone comes along and makes a case, I shall deal with it under another section." If the Minister were doing his job properly, he would introduce a clause in this Bill under which the furniture removal people would be covered by the Act passed in this House without having to go, cap in hand, to him in his office on a hardship case. The hardship section of the Road Transport Act, 1933, was never intended to cover a general class of person like that. It was never intended to cover something of a sweeping nature in the way this Bill will inevitably affect the furniture removal people. It could be covered perfectly simply by the Minister, by introducing, on Committee Stage, an amendment covering container traffic and not merely in relation to furniture removers.

There is another section of the community who will be seriously affected by this Bill. The export of bacon, particularly from the south of Ireland, is carried out in containers. It is seldom that they can be lifted fully loaded on to the lorry at both ends of the journey. At one end of the journey, there may be a crane available to lift the container on to the lorry, but at the other end, there may not be a crane to take the container off the lorry. Therefore, it depends on whether the bacon is to be put into the container before the container is put on the lorry or while it is on the lorry. In either case, the export trade in relation to bacon will be unnecessarily hit by this proposal. Under the law up to the present, it was the unladen weight of the lorry on which the container sits which was taken into account but now it will be the weight of the lorry, plus the weight of the container.

The Minister must realise that it is not a feasible proposition to have everywhere the type of crane necessary to lift these insulated containers. If there were a crane everywhere to lift them, then they would not be affected by this Financial Resolution at all. If they are lifted on and off by crane, they are not caught by the Financial Resolution, but if they are lifted off at the port but cannot be lifted on at the factory, because there is no suitable crane, then they are caught by this measure and, in fact, they will be put completely out of business. It will be not merely a question of paying more money but of being put completely out of business, because the addition of the insulated container weight to the weight of the lorry would far exceed seven cwts. They would not then be entitled to operate under their licences and the effect would be to push that traffic, too, over to C.I.E.

I have heard also-and frankly, I do not quite understand how it arises -that there is great anxiety amongst undertakers that the effect of this Financial Resolution will be such that the seven cwts. increase will mean that they cannot carry on their business. Frankly, I do not quite understand how a hearse has been weighed up to this. I assume it must be in relation to the body-weight of the hearse and not the weight of the container within, but I understand there is considerable anxiety amongst undertakers that the effect of this Bill will be such that they will find it virtually impossible to carry on their business.

It seems, therefore, that there is all this anxiety around the country and that the Minister is forced, in his defence, to suggest that the hardship rule for individual cases in the 1933 Act is the way in which to cope with this problem. The Financial Resolution and this Bill have been rushed, and brought to this House without proper consideration from a drafting point of view and from the point of view of principles. It is not a satisfactory way of doing business, and most of all, there should be consideration for the manner in which Parliament should be run.

Mr. Moloney

It was inevitable in the ordinary course of events that provision would have to be made for an increase in the unladen weight permitted to licensed carriers. It is quite a few years since there was any review of that part of the regulations and during that time the general specifications applicable to lorries and trucks and vehicles of the kind used by licensed carriers have been adapted to an extent that it was necessary, for reasons of economy, to introduce a heavier type of vehicle.

The previous speaker made the point that one of the reasons—and I think he suggested the main reason-why this legislation was now being introduced was to favour C.I.E. At the outset, it is desirable that the Minister should explain if, in the matter of assessing unladen weight, C.I.E. are subject to the same laws and regulations as any private licensed carrier. As I understand the whole set-up, I feel I am correct in saying that under the 1933 Transport Act, a number of merchandise licences were issued to C.I.E. Those merchandise licences had attached to them specifications in regard to weight which were also applicable to a licence given to a private individual. It is very desirable that that point should be cleared up.

Provision was made under the 1933 Act for C.I.E., then the G.S.R., or whatever railway companies were operating mechanically propelled vehicles for merchandise to acquire licences. What I want to get clear at this stage is that, in 1933, the licence for unladen weight was two tons or two and a half tons. If such a licence were issued to C.I.E. for a particular lorry, have they been obliged to live within the scope of unladen weight in so far as unladen weight has been concerned since? In other words, if some legislation has not been passed in the intervening period which permitted an increase in weight to C.I.E., I want to know if there has been any differential in the weight so allowed as between C.I.E. and a private carrier.

I know that some years ago amending legislation was introduced to permit an increased weight to licensed carriers. Quite a lot of them at that time were badly in need of that concession. As I have said, the type of truck now available which can be utilised in an economic way has changed radically in dimensions from what it was in 1933. At that time the ordinary loads which were hauled were three or four tons whereas in the same type of truck to-day the 100 per cent. overloading can be safely undertaken. It was inevitable, therefore, that four or five years ago the then Government should have seen fit to bring in a Bill whereby an increased weight was allowed.

The idea that legislation of this kind can favour C.I.E. appears to me to be all wrong—if I am correct in my assumption in this connection—as C.I.E. will be obliged, I take it, to weigh their trucks in the same manner as any ordinary licensed carrier. In my view, C.I.E. should be no different, as a haulier of merchandise, from an ordinary person. If this legislation is to operate with equal justice, as between C.I.E. and the private carrier, I think it is fair enough on the surface. I wonder however, how the figure of seven cwt. now allowed has been calculated?

I do know that most licensed carriers' organisations—or certainly one organisation, the Licensed Hauliers Association have been agitating for quite a number of years for a substantial increase in unladen weight. From my own knowledge, I feel that seven cwt. is quite inadequate under present conditions and I suggest to the Minister that he should look into this point. It is undesirable that legislation should have to be introduced too often in a matter of this kind. For that reason it would be more satisfactory if the weight could now be fixed at a realistic figure. Some of the interpretations put on this new legislation have, in my opinion, been a bit exaggerated. By and large most of the licensed hauliers throughout the country have been weighing in their trucks correctly. They had to do so because on various occasions they were so obliged by the local taxation authorities. From time to time also inspections were made of their carrying capacity and their unladen weight. There was a common feeling among those carriers that C.I.E. were insisting that they would not be allowed to utilise their licences beyond the extent to which the law permitted them and, generally speaking, they were engaged in a type of trade very much more under the eye of the law than trades of a comparable kind.

The figure of seven cwt., which the Minister has indicated would be allowed under this new legislation, may in a number of cases be quite adequate but I feel there are quite a number of cases among the 1,200 licensed hauliers —I think that is about the number in the country—where that weight will be quite insufficient. A number of these merchandise licensees in recent years have gone into businesses such as furniture removing and container traffic. In such cases it is desirable that the legislation should be as liberal as possible. The Minister has indicated that under Section 116 of the 1944 Act he is empowered to examine individual cases of hardship. I think, however, that is something that he or any other Minister would be quite anxious to avoid. I suggest that, as far as possible, the legislation now being introduced should be such that he could avoid a situation of this kind.

There is a reference in the Minister's statement, as I understood it, to a 25 per cent increase being more or less sought by a number of people who are holders of merchandise licences. I think that would be quite unreasonable because in most cases if any licensed haulier has changed the kind of truck he had in use by 25 per cent I am afraid he has gone outside the law for quite some time. The legislation passed some years ago enabled a number of licensed hauliers to get over a very difficult problem which they had then to contend with and the present legislation more or less tends to do the same thing. I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he should examine the point as regards the adequacy of the 7 cwts. very carefully because from what I know of this business, and I happen to know something about it, the figure suggested is, in my opinion, absolutely inadequate generally. I am afraid the Minister will find himself in difficulties in a large number of cases if he does not meet this requirement fully now.

The question of undertakers has been mentioned but I think there is no real problem there.

Mr. Childers

It does not arise.

Mr. Moloney

I think it desirable when we are discussing a matter of this kind that, as far as possible, we should keep to the points involved and not refer to a number of licensed carriers owning other vehicles who are not involved. I have little else to say beyond suggesting to the Minister, now that he is making what I regard as a realistic approach to this problem, that before the legislation is finally enacted he should be satisfied that what he is attempting to do will meet the requirements of all concerned.

Mr. Crotty

When the Minister for Finance brought in a Financial Resolution last week I raised a point in regard to merchandise licence holders. As I told him, I was not interested in the amount of tax the lorry owners had to pay but I was very interested in the people who had lorries and merchandise licences and I felt that if the Financial Resolution went through as it was, these people would be put out of business. The Minister assured me that his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, would be coming in here the following week with amending legislation providing for the case which I had mentioned.

I felt quite happy when I heard that but during the week when I saw the Bill and read that the increase to be granted was seven cwt. I was not so happy about the position. I know several merchandise licence holders who have weighed correctly and kept to the allowance. They have put on horseboxes, or proper conveyances for carrying cattle, with new floors and so on, and they often brought these up to the showgrounds at Ballsbridge. When the inspecting Guard saw them, he said, "You are all right. Your horsebox is an addition to your ordinary merchandise licence allowance", and they were passed. Now, apparently, under this Bill they will not get through any more.

It means that he will have to tax both his lorry and the horsebox and any other addition, a cattle creel or anything else that he puts on. Definitely, seven cwt. would not be any benefit to him. If he puts on something about seven cwt. it would have to be a very flimsy creel or horsebox and there is danger of an accident and of the whole vehicle breaking down. I do not think the Minister should encourage that; he should rather encourage people to put on substantial additions when necessary. These people do not want to be outside the law. They are ordinary working men and they want to be within the law. Up to this they felt they were within the law and they were allowed to pass by the Gardai at Ballsbridge and elsewhere. But this Resolution puts them outside the law unless they get a very substantial addition to their merchandise licence. I think the Minister should consider this case favourably so that he will not have to bring in another Bill to meet the situation.

Under a section of another transport Act the Minister said that he could deal with cases of hardship. That would be all right if only one or two were involved but, if the Minister is faced with 100 or 200 cases of hardship, is he not bringing a lot of trouble on himself, having to go into these cases, take statements and so on, when he knows, or his officials should know, that these people, if they are to carry on business as they have been doing, would require much greater weight on their existing licences? I do not think it right that the Minister should put himself in the position of having to consider individual cases. When he is bringing in this Bill he should do the decent thing and give proper facilities so that carriers who bring in a lorry to have it weighed will not have to take off anything. They are quite prepared to pay whatever road taxes are due under the circumstances and the Minister should meet them and give them a proper code or proper allowances so that they can put on proper horseboxes, creels or other containers. They can get the heaviest of those weighed and pay the appropriate tax. These people are prepared to do that and I think the Minister should meet them on a fair basis.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy Sweetman suggested that the purpose of the Bill was to protect C.I.E. in some measure. I do not agree with that. Previously, on the Financial Resolution the Minister for Local Government pointed out that C.I.E., from the point of view of tax, would pay exactly the same and would be in exactly the same position as other transport operators in the State. We should also bear in mind that C.I.E. is a national concern and the taxpayers have been subsidising it as the Minister for Transport and Power pointed out a fortnight ago. I, for one, would not criticise unduly the extent to which the taxpayers have been bled in the past by C.I.E. when on the other hand we consider that C.I.E. has been employing 14,000 workers constantly.

I think the Minister's statement about C.I.E. in his introductory speech has been misinterpreted by Deputy Sweetman. I am not attempting to speak for the Minister—he is here to make his own reply—but I interpreted his statement to mean that he wanted to examine each case individually on its merits and that if he were to give a global increase to all existing merchandise licence holders, that could hit C.I.E. very much. I think that is the point the Minister made, that if you increase the existing merchandise licences out of all proportion to the amount they have hitherto been permitted to carry, it would hit C.I.E.

The point made by Deputy Crotty is reasonable. His argument seems to be that if, in the past twelve months the lorry's unladen weight was X tons and the carrying capacity X+Y tons he would be licensed accordingly and that X tons unladen weight plus 7 cwt. would be of little use to him. That is why I presume the Minister has relied on Section 116 of the Transport Act, 1944. He has pointed out that without introducing any amending legislation he is already empowered to deal with cases of hardship under the 1944 Act. Section 116 (1) states:

Where the Minister is of opinion ...(c). That, for the removal of hardships, the operation of a merchandise (existing carrier's) licence should be extended to a minor extent...then, not withstanding anything contained in the Act of 1933 but subject to subsection (2) of this section, the Minister may amend the licence to such extent as seems to him fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case.

I was a bit premature, evidently, in speaking on this matter on the Financial Resolution but I should like the Minister to be more explicit in his reply if he possibly can. I appreciate that he has said that each case will be examined and dealt with on its merits under the power vested in him in Section 116 of the 1944 Act but I should like him to be more explicit. Apart from the fact that the taxation period will be commencing on the 1st January—I am not unduly worried about that aspect of it on behalf of holders of merchandise licences—but, evidently—this debate today has to a certain extent cleared the air—there was consternation throughout the country over the weekend as every Deputy knows. The people believed that if their merchandise licence covered an unladen weight of 2 tons and if they wished to put a container on to that, or a creel or crib—as Deputy Dillon called it last week—it would weigh more than the 7 cwt. and the compensatory figure of 7 cwt. would be only a sop to those people. They were perfectly right.

Now, the Minister says in cases of hardship he can amend the licence to such extent as seems to him fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case. I dwell on this because I want the Minister to be more explicit. Would he not agree with me that it would be reasonable, bearing in mind decisions of various district justices and, indeed, of some higher members of the Judiciary, that the owner of a merchandise licence was not entirely to blame? Would the Minister not consider this proposition reasonable: if the holder of a merchandise licence can put a case to him that in the past 12 months, or two years, he carried a maximum addition to his unladen weight, that should be considered as the optimum, or maximum, amount, by which the merchandise licence should be altered and increased in his favour? In other words, I think that the average increase in the case of quite the majority of the holders of merchandise licences will be not in the region of seven cwts., but a ton and a half, or a ton and a quarter. That would be a more realistic figure-25 cwt.—taking into consideration the container, crib, creel or double-decked trucks.

The Minister may say that in the past these people were acting illegally and should have known that, but how can the unfortunate holder of a merchandise licence interpret the law when he finds a district justice in one county disagreeing with a learned colleague in another county a few miles away?

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy should address that question to the Minister.

Mr. O'Malley

Through the Chair, I am addressing it to the Minister. I am, if you like, defending the owner of the merchandise lorry. This could lead to a lot of unsavoury business, and I would respectfully ask the Minister to be a little more helpful. I know some people who are seriously debating whether they should tax their lorries on 1st January, and whether it is a gamble that the Minister will say: "Yes, yours is a case of hardship. I shall add X tons, or X cwt., to the existing unladen weight shown on your merchandise licence."

The proposition I am putting to the Minister is that if the holder of a merchandise licence can put to him. through his solicitor, or any other person, an affidavit to the effect that he carried a certain maximum weight on either one or more occasions during a specified period, it will be dealt with expeditiously and get sympathetic consideration. I do not at all understand this seven cwt. I suppose it is because I did not hear the Minister give the very cogent reasons which were, no doubt, contained in his introductory remarks as to how the seven cwt. was arrived at, but certainly it is not a realistic figure when applied to people who have an unladen weight and, when a container is added, a crib or creel, it is completely unrealistic.

As I have said, the feeling over the week-end, until we got some modicum of clarification here to-day, was that they would be swept off the roads because the seven cwt. would not cover them. Now we hear that the Minister, under Section 116 of the Transport Act of 1944 may himself— though of course he delegates his powers and accepts his advisers' advice —if he thinks it fair and reasonable, extend that, but the Minister did not refer to the snag in the extension. For his edification, I mention it now. That section states: "Where the Minister is of opinion ... that, for the removal of hardships, the operation of a merchandise ... licence should be extended to a minor extent ... the Minister may amend the licence to such extent as seems to him fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case." The snag is that there is no definition of "extent" in the Preamble to the 1944 Act. Evidently the interpretation is entirely at the Minister's discretion, and I do urge him to be more explicit as to the manner in which he will deal with these applications for an increase.

He owes it to the merchandise licence holders, in view of the taxation period which is coming on 1st January, to make a more explicit statement and, with the greatest respect, I also say he should give some indication as to what time will elapse in the Department of Transport and Power before a decision is made on any individual, specific application. In other words, if a holder of a merchandise lorry sends in an application for an increase in the unladen weight on a Monday, when might he expect to get a decision if the Minister says each case will be dealt with, like a medical card, on its merits?

Mr. Dillon

We know what happens the holders of medical cards. They lose their cards.

Mr. O'Malley

They do not lose their cards. What happens is this— but I am completely out of order in explaining what happens.

Mr. Cosgrave

They are hard to get.

Mr. O'Malley

The position is that if the Minister says each case will be dealt with on its merits, in certain cases, he will write back to the Deputy or Deputies——

Mr. Dillon

Exactly.

Mr. O'Malley

——if it is a Deputy who makes the representations. If it is a solicitor who makes the representations, he will write back to him and say: "Let me have further information and produce invoices and receipts to show you carried such and such a weight over a certain period for the financial year, or the calendar year, 1958, 1957 or 1956." Would it not be very easy if, at the outset, the Minister agreed to get printed forms, including every possible question the applicant could be asked? There will be certain individuals who have merchandise licences who will send them in envelopes with a covering scrawl which the Minister may, or may not, be able to decipher. We can allow ten days for that, still bearing in mind that the taxation period starts on 1st January, and that it is a big decision in a person's business career—deciding what he will do, whether he will get out or not. Maybe he will say that instead of taxing his vehicle for the whole period, he will tax it for only a few months, or maybe one month, if he is entitled to do that.

With great respect, I think my contribution is worthy of consideration by the Minister and I do think that last flash of genius which occurred to me about having a questionnaire ready, a stereotyped one, to cover all aspects of the history of the holder of a merchandise licence in a specific period, should be considered by the Department of Transport and Power.

Mr. Dillon

It was not an original brainwave. That system obtained before and it became the practice of certain Deputies to collect the questionnaires in handfuls, and to put a certain mark on the top right-hand corner and the questionnaires which came in on forms so marked had an extraordinary uniformity of success.

Mr. O'Malley

The vertical stroke of the Knights of Columbanus? The Minister is unlikely to be impressed. A vertical stroke was the Knights'.

Mr. Dillon

No.

General MacEoin

Is there any other one he could be impressed with?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Dillon

This was a stroke put on by the Deputy.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dillon

The forms which had not this stroke showed an extraordinary uniformity of failure. In fact, so remarkable did it become, that a regulation was introduced that no more forms would be issued to Deputies; they would be issued to applicants only. I put it to the Minister—he has now listened to Deputy O'Malley's case—that it is now proposed to fall back upon a section of a previous Transport Act—the Transport Act of 1944—which gives the Minister absolute discretion to determine, on grounds of individual hardship, whether or not a man will retain his merchandise licence in the event of his putting a certain weight on a lorry. Is it conceivably possible to have more poisonous legislation? Can you imagine every licensed haulier dependent for his livelihood on the absolute discretionary power of the Minister for the time being in charge of the Department of Transport and Power? We heard Deputy O'Doherty of Mayo boast here of the fact that 14 transport licences issued in Achill, consequent upon a political meeting held by himself and the other Fianna Fáil Deputy for North Mayo, to which no Deputy of any other Party was invited. On that being queried here, he said no other Deputy was invited because the people in Achill are all supporters of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. O'Malley

He did not say "because".

Mr. Dillon

I see. He did not say post hoc propter hoc; he just said post hoc. But he boasted that there was a meeting addressed by himself and Deputy Calleary, and he pointed out that Deputy Lindsay was not invited to the meeting; and, consequent on that public meeting, he said 14 new licences issued in the Island of Achill.

Mr. Cosgrave

Eighteen.

Mr. Dillon

Eighteen new licences issued in the Island of Achill. Can you conceive of a situation in which the Minister calls on all to have no anxiety because he has an absolute discretion in individual cases to give a much wider margin?

Mr. O'Malley

If they can prove hardship.

Mr. Dillon

Is there any Deputy who thinks it is good legislation for us here to notify a large body of small businessmen that as on and from to-day their whole livelihood will depend on the personal judgment and goodwill of the political head of a Department of State? I cannot imagine any more abominable proposal.

Mr. O'Malley

It happened in the Department of Agriculture. The Leader of the Opposition had discretionary power in the issue of licences.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know to what the Deputy refers. I do not think his remarks are relevant, but I assure the Deputy there was an inflexible rule. I think he will find that all schemes were based on the fundamental rule that the Minister had no discretion at all. Certain conditions were laid down. Anybody conforming to those conditions was entitled, as of right, to common facilities.

There is some element of certitude so long as the seven cwts. proviso applies. The other arrangement is detestable, dangerous and undesirable. Does the Minister mean in this Bill to protect the revenue or is it a Bill to force traffic into the hands of C.I.E.? I want to remind the Minister—it is a matter of most urgent and vital importance—that the livestock trade is at present passing through a depression unprecedented, in my memory, since the war. There has been a collapse in the price of cattle; there has been a collapse in the price of sheep and lambs. As Deputy O'Malley, in particular, ought to know, the pig population has fallen very heavily. Anybody who knows conditions in rural Ireland knows that one of the common assignments of the smaller haulier is going around to six or seven different farms and picking up a load of pigs to bring them in to a factory; or picking up a load of lambs to bring them into a market, or possibly a load of cattle from four or five small farms. All these operations involve the use of cribs on lorries.

I want to put it to the Minister that it is quite unthinkable that C.I.E. would undertake this work. They are not available when they are wanted. They have not the kind of local knowledge to make the kind of calls that a mission of that type requires. The whole of the operation depends on somebody with local knowledge going up the by-roads to one house and down another road to the next house, getting the job done quickly, and understanding the kind of assignment upon which he is embarked. Take that traffic away from the private haulier, and two consequences will ensue. One is that you will put the private haulier out of business because he will not have enough normal traffic to justify the retention of his vehicle. That means another man off the road —for England! Secondly, when he is put out of a decent livelihood, what will the people do who depend on him now for that kind of transport? It is a very exceptional farmer who has a lorry load of pigs for the factory. Not one in a thousand farmers would ever be in a position to fill a lorry with pigs. It is a very exceptional farmer who would have a lorry load of sheep and lambs for a market. It is only the odd farmer who would require an individual lorry to carry his own cattle.

Mr. O'Malley

The pig buyers have transport.

Mr. Dillon

I admit the pig buyer could fill the gap in the case of pigs, if he is using his own lorry. Will he be able to use his own lorry now? If he has his own lorry, and he is carrying his own goods, then if he is prepared to pay the appropriate tax, he can certainly carry his own pigs. As I understand it, however, the policy is to facilitate the farmer in sending his pigs to the factory and having them graded there for his own advantage. Perhaps the policy has been changed. I have no reason to believe it has. I am thinking of the condition of which Deputy O'Malley must have personal knowledge. I am thinking of the lorry which services three, four, or five farms and collects a load from them. They will cease to function under these proposals.

Does the Minister for Transport and Power seriously intend to put many lorries owned by private hauliers out of operation with a view to transferring traffic to C.I.E.? I want to put it to him that the effect of his proposal will be to put the private hauliers out of business without giving the traffic to C.I.E., because they are not organised for such service. You will simply drive the farmers back to less efficient means of transport and very much less competitive means of transport at a time when they are not in a position to afford that charge.

Deputy O'Malley says he is puzzled as to what exactly this legislation means. So am I. I interpreted the legislation, when I saw it, to mean that the Minister was giving notice that he was making a concession to private hauliers that he would ignore an attachment which weighed less than seven cwts. Is that correct?

Mr. Childers

They are all getting an increase of seven cwt. on what was previously written on their licence.

Mr. Dillon

And that is what I assumed, that substantially that would be the limit of the increase available to them and there would be no wider use of the discretionary power under the 1944 Act than had been made heretofore, which was virtually nil. Is that not so?

Mr. Childers

There would be hardship cases, as the Deputy heard me say.

Mr. Dillon

But there were hardship cases in the last 14 years but they were few and far between and they were marginal. Is it seriously contended that the Minister, on the grounds of hardship, will allow one citizen to have 30 cwt. added to his merchandise lorry licence and another seven cwt. and no more? Surely such legislation would be cockeyed. Let us face it. Unless the administration were one of archangels, could it be conceived that the case for hardship would not be more eloquently pressed upon the Minister by those intimately associated with him in his own Party than by people who had no contact with him other than casual official contact or even no contact at all? Surely the very essence of good law is that it should be uniform for everybody?

Mr. Childers

I do not agree with the Deputy's contention.

Mr. Dillon

I am prepared to say that if the definition of "hardship" were strictly interpreted and meant that, in circumstances I cannot envisage by the definition of "hardship" there were to be a further marginal concession, such an arrangement would be defensible, but if Deputy O'Malley's interpretation is correct, that it is to be the general vade mecum of the Minister for Transport and Power and that any case, where a person during the past 12 months has in fact bona fide used attachments up to 25 or 30 cwt., is to be, in the judgment of the Minister, a case of hardship, then surely the administration of the law would become insane. It would be much more simple for the Minister to say in his Bill “30 cwt.”, and to say to all citizens: “Everybody is entitled to have his merchandise licence increased by 30 cwt.”

Mr. O'Malley

That would not be realistic.

Mr. Dillon

There are many things important in the enactment of law and I cordially agree that realism and pragmatic practicability are two very essential things, but surely what is essential above all other things is that all men should be equal before the law. Nothing is more evil than that we should so legislate as to make it possible for discrimination to be made under the law between two citizens of the State. Surely every man is entitled to know what his position is under the law, to know with certainty whether he is conforming to the law or whether he is in breach of the law. Surely we ought not to assume in this House that the majority of our fellow countrymen do not care about the law and are prepared to drive a horse and cart through it if they can get away with it. Surely we, legislators, should seek to take every opportunity of so enacting the law that no honest man need break it and that any man who does break it is very much on his proof to demonstrate to conviction that he did it by inadvertence or else he will be deemed guilty of having broken it.

Mr. O'Malley

If 30 cwt. were given to every licensed haulier it would be unjust to a large proportion of the licensed hauliers because that would enable them to carry goods which hitherto they had not been carrying.

Mr. Dillon

If they have the restricted licence to carry, that licence sets out the class of goods they are entitled to carry.

Mr. O'Malley

Yes, the class of goods.

Mr. Dillon

If they have a general licence to carry, they can carry everything. But it must be absolutely clear to all Deputies that we ought not to enact a law which says that one man shall be confined to seven cwts. as in the Minister's Bill but that a favoured person, on the grounds of hardship or alleged hardship, will be in a much more advantageous position. That is what Deputy O'Malley is suggesting. I am making the case to the Minister that if he stands by the law as drafted by him he will put out of business a great many small licensed hauliers who who are at present getting a living out of it. He will not provide any more traffic for C.I.E. because they are not equipped to handle it and he will put the small farmers at great additional expense, either of time or money, at a time when the condition of the livestock industry makes it urgently necessary that we should do nothing to increase their costs of production but do everything that lies within our power to bring those costs down.

I am well aware, and I believe Deputies are aware, that for a long time there has been a tendency by regulation and restriction of one kind and another to seek to divert more and more traffic out of the hands of the independent hauliers into the hands of C.I.E. for the simple reason that the Minister conceives it to be his duty to assist in every way he can in reducing the deficit of C.I.E. Important as that purpose may be, I put it to him that to do it by adding substantially to the costs of the livestock industry at the present time is crazy and it is doubly crazy if he increases the costs of that industry and does not get any corresponding benefit for C.I.E.

There are certain aspects of this which are far from clear. There is a constant agitation going on in the newspapers, and generally among farming organisations, to promote the use of the container traffic for perishable agricultural produce such as pork, turkey, fowl and other commodities of that category. It is pointed out that great economies in the cost of transport might be effected if certain trade union difficulties could be overcome in order to ensure that this kind of transport was readily usable at the port of Dublin and elsewhere. Can anyone tell me, if a man has a five-ton lorry and a container is packed in Cootehill with turkeys—the Minister will know the kind of receptacle to which I refer—and if the container is loaded on to the lorry, driven to the docks and there unloaded with hooks and put on board ship, does that not make the lorry liable under the terms of this legislation? It does. Does the Minister want to do that? Does he realise that in existing circumstances it may be a matter of vital importance to encourage bodies like bacon-curers, the Cootehill Co-operative Fowl Society and analogous bodies, if we can get them organised elsewhere, to use that kind of transport?

Perhaps the Minister will say: "If they are going to use containers, let them send for C.I.E." But he may find to his cost, and to the cost of the country, that the differential in the expense of employing C.I.E. for the purpose of transporting that container and the cost of employing a local haulier may make the use of that container uneconomic. I am not familiar with all the details of the trade, but remember that to get transport from C.I.E. is not always a thing you can do at very short notice. The packaging and despatch of highly perishable produce is a matter of high urgency. At this time of the year you may have turkeys plucked and ready for collection at 12 o'clock in the night. It may be a matter of great consequence to get a container for their transport so as to be at the docks in Dublin in time for the morning boat. If an exporter applies to C.I.E. he may be informed: "That means overtime for everybody. If you wait until 8,30 a.m. or 9 a.m. the following morning, it will travel at the ordinary rates; but if you want to ship it during the night it is possible it will cost you from 50 to 75 per cent. higher," whereas, the owner of a merchandise licence and an immediate neighbour will quote a price and take the load.

I would be staggered at the thought of our putting these extra charges on the transport of agricultural commodities at present without apparently knowing, or very much caring, what we are doing. It has never been made clear to us—and I do not think the Minister himself knows—what is caught by this proviso about the container on a lorry. I do not know whether a container such as I have described is caught. The Minister's colleague certainly does not know whether a barrel containing water is caught. He says nobody will prosecute a man for using a barrel for the purpose of transporting water. That is not a satisfactory explanation of legislation to this House. Apparently, cribs are caught. I have a shrewd suspicion that the majority of Deputies do not want them to be caught and do not think it expedient that they should be caught.

I think Deputy O'Malley is trying to lay a soothing unction to his soul by referring back to the 1944 Act so that he can with a clear conscience support what he does not believe. I ask the Minister for Transport and Power this categorical question, to which I think I am entitled to an answer: does Deputy O'Malley's interpretation of the section, as read out, of the 1944 Act apply? Is he correct in believing that it is the Minister's intention to avail of his discretionary powers under that Act to give widespread concessions?

Mr. Childers

Widespread concessions have been given before.

Mr. Dillon

To private hauliers over and above the seven cwt. referred to in this Bill?

Mr. Norton

May I put a question to the Minister? Widespread concessions have been given before?

Mr. Childers

Yes, the weights of all lorries were increased.

Mr. Dillon

Given to everybody?

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. Norton

There were no widespread concessions to groups but widespread concessions to everybody?

Mr. Dillon

I hope the Minister is not being disingenuous.

Mr. Norton

Widespread concessions to raise the unladen weight of vehicles were given to everybody.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Minister understands me. I am asking in regard to the section referred to by Deputy O'Malley—which gives the Minister discretion in individual cases of hardship to raise in individual cases the unladen weight of individual lorries owned by individual private hauliers—has that power been widely used? Of course, it has not been widely used. It was never meant to be. It was contemplated to be a power to be used only in cases of hardship. Either Deputy O'Malley is right or the Minister is right. We must depend on what the Minister says. Deputy O'Malley has intervened for the purpose of interpreting what he understood the Minister to say. I think I am entitled to ask the Minister to state categorically whether Deputy O'Malley's interpretation is correct. I think Deputy O'Malley's interpretation is not correct. I think Deputy Crotty's interpretation of the situation is the correct interpretation, that they all get seven cwt. and no more.

Mr. O'Malley

No.

Mr. Dillon

I think Deputy O'Malley will at least agree with me that it is urgently necessary that all Deputies know what the facts are. The Bill, as we read it says:

The Minister for Transport and Power may, on application made to him by the licensee under a licence with respect to which this section applies, grant an increase in the standard lorry weight for the licensee.

That is subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Bill.

Subsection (3) says:

An increase under this section shall be calculated at a rate not exceeding seven hundredweight in respect of each lorry operated by the licensee or the original licensee (as the case may be)...

Is that correct?

Mr. O'Malley

Read further on.

Mr. Dillon

The subsection goes on:—

... which complied with—

(a) in case the licence was issued in pursuance of subsection (2) of section, 12 of the Road Transport Act, 1933, the qualifying conditions specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 11 of that Act, or

(b) in case the licence was issued in pursuance of subsection (1) of section 114 of the Transport Act, 1944, the qualifying conditions specified in subparagraph (v) of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of that section.

That says that in individual cases of hardship the Minister will have a wider discretion. Is that not so? The Minister, as I understood him, tells us that that is used relatively rarely although there have been in the past general concessions made which applied to all the licensed carriers.

Mr. Booth

You still can use that section in this case.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister tell us now that this Bill has no meaning at all? Am I to read it that the Bill says there will be a general increase of seven cwt. and over and above that anybody who can prove hardship is entitled to get more? What does "hardship" mean? Will the Minister explain to us what he has in mind? Suppose a person comes to him and says: "I cannot carry enough sheep, pigs or cattle in my lorry to make it worth while operating the lorry unless I put on 30 cwt. of equipment." Is that a case of hardship?

Mr. Childers

It depends on the person's position, whether he has evaded the tax and the circumstances under which he has evaded it.

Mr. Dillon

He has not evaded anything. He has come to the Minister to tell of his difficulties and to ask for approval of the course he proposes to adopt, to wit, to put on 30 cwt. to 40 cwt. of equipment in order to carry the customary load.

Mr. Childers

If he has not been evading the tax, we would not want to worsen his position.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose he has been doing that in the past, has never been charged or convicted, has acted in good faith and says: "Half the district justices in the country have refused to convict in parallel cases and, acting on that, I have consistently used this equipment?"

Mr. Childers

That is why we have to examine the cases individually to assess all that is involved.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister envisage that anybody, in effect, who has been using equipment in excess of seven cwt. in the past will be licensed to use it in future?

Mr. Childers

We do not know how many persons are involved in this.

Mr. Dillon

Let us suppose there are 250 people involved.

Mr. Childers

We do not know what the position is until we get the applications in respect of hardship. That applies to the rest of the provisions in the Transport Acts. There were a great number of cases where people applied for extension of areas or extension of classes of merchandise. Each case is examined individually. I shall be making a concluding speech on the Second Reading.

Mr. Dillon

It is necessary to understand the meaning of legislation. As I understand the Minister's intervention, the position is that this Bill means very little at all. I do not understand why he has put in a general increase of seven cwt. if it is open to him to give anybody an increase up to 20 or 40 cwt., if he is satisfied that they ought to have it.

Mr. Childers

It is because we are told that seven cwt. will cover a very large number of cases.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose it does not?

Mr. Childers

Of course, one cannot predict what will happen if it does not. I am taking the advice of the officers of my Department who have been at this for years. They have told me that seven cwt. will cover a very large number of cases. The rest is unknown territory.

Mr. Dillon

And we are to assume that anyone that it does not cover has a very good prospect of getting a further licence? Remember, if that is the representation made to this House, it ought to be honoured. Frankly, I do not believe it but I wait to hear what the Minister says in his concluding speech and I will note it well. What I want to know is: are we correct in believing that, if this is passed, any person who has heretofore used equipment ranging up to 30 or 40 cwt. legitimately can ask for his merchandise licence to be adapted under the 1944 legislation to make it possible for him to use it indefinitely in future? That, I think, is a categorical question and it is one to which we are entitled to have an answer before the Minister asks the House to dispose of this legislation.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am sorry I was not in the House when the Minister spoke because I have been approached by some licensed hauliers and furniture removal associations in Dublin county and city. Some of them seem very alarmed about the change in taxation. I just want to put a few points to the Minister.

In one case a man with eight furniture removal vans states that his increased taxation will be approximately £250, and that it may be responsible for forcing him not to tax some of his vans in future. This evening I received a deputation from some licensed hauliers from County Dublin. The licences under which they are operating are based on the unladen weight of the vehicles, which did not include lift vans or other equipment issued from time to time. An increase in taxation in respect of such lift vans would, in many cases, put the owners outside the allowable tonnage under which they have been able to operate in the past. The limitation does not apply to a cheap competitor. The lift vans are their own or other companies' or railway container vans. These are very heavy vans, which are used from time to time.

I want to get from the Minister an assurance that no lorry owner or holder of a merchandise licence will be expected to put a heavy railway van on his lorry to be weighed, when he may have it only periodically. I should like that assurance from the Minister and a further explanation of the points that have been made by these people. They state that this equipment is constantly being changed and is not permanently on the vehicles. Their vehicles, of necessity, are of the flat lorry type more strongly and heavily built than if they were built to use the lighter, alloy, fixed bodies. The vehicles that are used carry a total weight of about 4 tons. These people, especially the furniture removal people, are very perturbed as to the type of container they will put on the vehicles so as to have the legal weight. If their weight is in excess of that required by the Bill while the Bill will allow 7 cwt. over the present weight, will the Minister consider granting an exemption so that no hardship will be incurred?

Some licensed hauliers have had a lean time for a period and are finding it very difficult to continue. If, as a result of legislation passed by this House, their position is worsened, will the Minister deal with each case on its merits and see that no hardship is incurred by hauliers who have operated under a merchandise licence over the years and who give a good deal of employment in the city and county of Dublin?

While the increased taxation represents a very heavy burden on quite a number of licensed hauliers, the ordinary farmers who at present weigh their lorries without fittings will also be affected. A farmer may have one fitting on his lorry in the morning and may have a heavier fitting on the lorry in the evening. He may be challenged at any time. He may have to put a very heavy container on his lorry for some purpose. Any guard or any transport officer can challenge him and say: "What is the laden weight of this lorry to-day? Had you a container on when your lorry was weighed?"

These are the points I should like the Minister to clear up and on which I should like an assurance for the people I have the honour of representing.

Mr. Cosgrave

I want to try to clarify the position with a view to seeing what is being done under this. As I understand the legislation as it operated heretofore, the Minister had power to amend licences in order to relieve hardships and grant certain increases. About 18 months ago, there was a Transport Bill before this House. At that time, the Minister agreed that on account of changed conditions or changed methods of manufacture, lorries differed considerably from the old unladen weight of 2½ tons or 2 tons 13 cwt., some of them because of tipping gear or other such fixtures which are now commonplace on all lorries. As a result of representations made directly to him and to Deputies at the time, the matter was considered here and he undertook to grant amendments, wherever they were considered reasonable.

On this occasion, however, it is decided, under the provisions of this section, that not merely does the original discretion remain but the Minister may, on application made to him by a licensee, grant an increase in the standard rate up to seven cwt. Numerous queries have been put to the Minister to ascertain how seven cwt. was decided on. His answer is that he was advised by the officials of the Department, that that was their recommendation.

In common with other Deputies, I received representations from the furniture people. They say that the weights vary but one case put to me was that the container, box or whatever it is called, is moved in on these vans. In some cases, it is a fixture. It weighs anything up to 25 cwt. I am told that there are even one or two very large ones which can weigh as much as 35 cwt. These people who are licensed hauliers and who operated within the law and who want to continue to do so, want to know whether they will be excluded.

Then there is the other case to which reference was made—horse-boxes. I do not know whether they would come within the normal creel weight as applied to cattle. The horse-boxes that are attached, as distinct from a horse-box proper, would certainly weigh more than seven cwt. A number of these hauliers attach these and detach them as they wish to carry other traffic. I should like the Minister to explain in his reply whether he is satisfied that this proposed amendment will allow an increase to cover either furniture people or other licensed hauliers who tell me that in some cases the attachments vary in weight between one ton and 1½ tons. The details are available to the Department as well as to Deputies, but if it appears that what we are doing in this is making an amendment which will be inadequate, then I feel that there is a strong case for providing sufficient cover in the section for all these categories of licensed hauliers, whether furniture removers, people who attach horse-boxes or people who attach creels for the carriage of cattle or sheep. Sufficient cognisance should be taken of the changed types of lorries now being used and also the different equipment available over and above that which was available when these Acts were originally drafted.

From the discussions we had here on the last occasion, it is obvious that this legislation and the terms on which licences were granted are out of date when you take into account modern conditions, modern methods of constructing lorries and the various equipment that goes with them. When the original Acts were framed, lorries were generally much lighter. They had not the mechanical attachments which many of them have to-day. Consequently, I feel that consideration should be given to the peculiar position of those people who have licences and who wish to continue to carry on their business within the law and who have attachments which weigh considerably more than seven cwt.

General MacEoin

Listening to the concluding words of the Minister for Local Government on the Financial Resolution and the opening speech of the Minister for Transport and Power on this Bill, it is clear that a complete new principle is established. It is clear that this Bill will bestow upon the Minister for Transport and Power a legislative as well as an executive power. He himself will decide the type of person who can prove hardship to get more than seven cwt. in respect of a container, creel or whatever it may be. He will decide that for each individual. He indicated that by a nod of his head and a nod of the Minister's head is as good as a wink to Deputy O'Malley.

Then we had the very extraordinary spectacle of the Deputy from Limerick, Deputy O'Malley, who, when the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon, said that abuses took place in the past about markings on certain forms, named a very honourable society in this House and sneered at it. I protest against that kind of conduct and I feel that the Chair should not allow it. However, I do not want to cast any reflection on the Chair, as I suppose the Chair did not advert to it at the time. I resent the insinuation of Deputy O'Malley.

We have ample evidence over the years that when a discretionary power is left to a Minister, which is not controlled by statute, great abuses can arise. It is a fundamental principle, and a principle of the first importance, that everybody should know where he stands before the law. On the Military Service Pensions Act, I held that everybody should know whether he was in or out. It was not so held and we got dissatisfaction. Here is the same thing being resurrected in another form. The Minister argues and Deputy O'Malley asserts that it was there in Section 114 of the 1934 Act. That is being changed, as Deputy Norton properly pointed out. When one person established the case of hardship under that section, hitherto it applied to everybody in that category without any further ado. Under this new Bill, each case will be separate.

Mr. Norton

The Transport Acts have been used on two occasions to grant quite substantial increases in the unladen weight of the vehicle and that applied automatically to everybody. To that extent, therefore, the Act was used extensively in that general way. It was used in a more limited way to grant extensions in cases or hardship but only in a very minor degree and a limited number of cases.

General MacEoin

In this case, instead of seven cwt., the Minister takes power, if he so desires, to make it 44 cwt. That is something more than the statute ever intended. Furthermore, the case will be made for each individual person. That is all right for Fianna Fáil, when Fianna Fáil are in office. Fianna Fáil will not always be in office, no matter what their intentions may be. The day will come when we shall have a Minister for Transport and Power of another Government. What then? The principle the Government are now seeking to establish is most dangerous. No matter who the Minister may be, he should not be given that power. If he has it, it should be circumscribed in such a way that everybody knows what power he will exercise, how he will exercise it, his rights under it, the method by which one can secure one's privilege or one's right. We should be very careful, in view of the speech by the Minister for Transport and Power, that this Bill is not passed with this power.

Mr. Childers

I can quite understand Deputies being worried and in some degree perplexed about the discretionary powers vested in the Minister for Transport and Power in relation to hardship cases. The difficulty is that we in the Department do not yet know what character the hardship cases will take. It would be very difficult to provide in a Bill for all the circumstances under which an increase beyond seven cwt. could be given. There are very many individual circumstances relating to the operations of licensed hauliers to take into consideration. I want to make clear that there is nothing new in the Minister for Transport and Power making use of an individual discretionary power in connection with merchandise road transport legislation. The Minister has absolute power to decide on the most difficult question of contemporaneous evidence in relation to a licensee who did not, when he applied for a licence under the 1933 Act, give properly and completely the evidence for area covered by the lorries in question. The examination of that, and all it involves, is a matter for individual decision by the Minister in each case.

In reply to Deputy MacEoin, there is no statute which tells exactly whether the Minister can grant an extension in the area of the licensee, except the general declaration that there must be contemporaneous evidence. Some of the evidence is dated back a considerable period. The documents have to be examined for authenticity, to avoid accepting forged documents as evidence. There are other sections of the Act where, again, the Minister has individual discretion. He may decide to extend the area of operation of the licensee because it would appear that to exclude a particular county when in fact counties surrounding that county were mentioned previously in the documents would be inequitable.

Similarly, the Minister has absolute discretion, in some instances, to increase the types of merchandise that can be carried in the lorries owned by licensees. In certain circumstances, if, for example, a licensed haulier has a number of commodities on his licence but some are excluded, the Minister has to decide in relation to the transport available in the area whether it is reasonable to exclude those commodities. There has to be an individual decision by the Minister and there is no specific statute or subsection of a Bill to guide him.

In areas where there is inadequate transport and where statutory bodies such as C.I.E. do not operate, the Minister has absolute power to decide how many licences he will give in order to provide transport in an area. He has power to increase the weight in those circumstances, on his own discretion. There is no section in the transport legislation which determines how he can increase the weight for persons who receive licences in an area where no public transport is available. He has the discretion there. He has the choice of deciding how many licences he can reasonably give. I think he also has the choice of the classes of merchandise in each case that they can carry. That indicates that there is no innovation in making use of Section 115 of the 1944 Act to give discretion in these cases.

Deputy Dillon spoke of some event which he claims took place in which different forms were marked in a certain way. I have no knowledge of such instances. I have had enough time to confer with very experienced officers of the Department in regard at least to the recent phase of the administration of the Acts. Naturally, I have been in the main, looking at the postwar position. In that period, if I remember rightly, there have been four Governments. There has been hardly any public controversy over acts by the Minister-extensions of an area or any other decisions given by the Minister. There has been a very fine tradition in the Transport Section of what used to be the Department of Industry and Commerce. Under three Governments before the present Government was set up, and since the present Government was set up, there have been virtually no complaints, no allegations of political discrimination.

Ministers, I agree, are in a very difficult position. I always like, when I have the opportunity, to commend the work of our civil servants when this is their due. The officers of the Department of Transport and Power know the legislation backwards. They have shown a capacity for maintaining an equable approach in advising the Minister, whether, for example, Deputy Norton was Minister for Commerce or Deputy Lemass, or myself. They keep their decisions consistent and showing a pattern that can be understood. One can read in the Department literally dozens of files relating to the discretionary powers exercised by the Minister, and see running through them a thread of reasonableness, fairness, equity, common sense and a human approach. I do not believe any Deputy would contradict my statement.

I am taking a great interest in all aspects of my Department's activities but it takes longer than three months to get the whole of the transport legislation off by heart and know the ins and outs of it. No person could do it in a short period who also had to acquire a knowledge of the rest of the Department at the same time. I have had time to examine a great many files. I have sat continuously with the officers and prodded them with questions : why did you do it in this case and why not in that case? Every time the answer was reasonable and logical, and made common sense, and not only that, but there was a reasonable human approach towards the persons concerned. I hope in relation to anything Deputy Dillon said about forms being signed, whatever he was referring to is not the experience of the House in regard to the administration of these Acts.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not think what Deputy Dillon referred to was anything that occurred in this sector of the public service.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Dillon, as everybody knows, can exaggerate.

Mr. Sweetman

It did happen in another Department. If the Minister wishes, I shall name his colleague with whom it happened.

Mr. Childers

I am not prepared to accept Deputy Dillon's statement which, in any event, on Deputy Sweetman's admission is irrelevant to this issue.

Mr. Sweetman

What happened with one Fianna Fáil Minister can happen with another.

Mr. Childers

Of course, if Deputy Sweetman wants to accuse the members of the Government of a capacity to be politically corrupt in the adminitration of licences, he can do so, but I do not believe the people in the country will agree. I want to assure the House that whatever action is taken with discretionary powers to increase the weight over and beyond seven cwt. there is no intention to uproot or disrupt the cattle trade or to place impossible burdens upon the farmers or to cause a slow-down in the rapid transport of pigs, cattle or sheep from farm to market, or from the farm to any other destination. I can assure the House also that if through some unknown factor, we suddenly saw ourselves involved in anything which would cause widespread hardship, I would go immediately to the Government and say: "Here are circumstances we have not foreseen which will disrupt the cattle trade and we have to have some kind of emergency action immediately to deal with it." I do not think there is any necessity to raise scares in people's minds in regard to that question.

I want to say next that the purpose of this Bill is not to drive more traffic in the direction of C.I.E. In fact, the first result of the passing of the Bill would be an increase in the capacity of the lorries involved, by 10 per cent. or 12 per cent., at the expense of C.I.E. to some degree. Although I am determined to assist C.I.E. in every way possible in their effort to become solvent and cease to mulct the taxpayers to the tune of millions every year, I can assure the House there is no secret plot involved in this Bill to drive traffic towards C.I.E.

As Deputies know, licensees have already had considerable increases in the weights permitted since 1933. The general weights have been increased by 45 per cent. in the case of four-ton lorries and by 22 per cent. in the case of lorries over four tons. In addition to that, an allowance of 10 cwt. has been given to any lorry fitted with permanent tipping gear, and allowance is made for any lorry fitted with a diesel engine in place of a petrol engine up to five cwt. Several hundreds of licensees took advantage of both of these provisions so that a very large number of licensees have been able to increase their weight and they availed of the provisions provided for them under the terms of legislation at different times. We intend to examine every case of hardship arising from the limitation of seven cwt. on its own merits. People who were genuinely confused in regard to the weights which apply to their lorries and have been doing a bona fide trade will have their cases sympathetically considered. In the Department, we have already received a deputation from the furniture removers, who are, quite obviously, in a special category, and everything will be done to avoid unnecessary hardship on them. The same will apply to people who use containers. In relation to the Road Transport Acts, the container position is not entirely clear. If we get applications from persons who use containers that are fixed to lorries, containers that can be removed by crane, containers belonging to other parties or other types, we shall have to examine them. All I can say is that I shall have to ask the House to trust my judgment in this matter.

I believe the officers of my Department will be able to create the same kind of pattern of consistency in examining these cases as they have in the past in regard to many exceptional points which have arisen in connection with previous legislation. I think the officers have the capacity to draw a consistent pattern and one which can be easily perceived and in connection with which there can be no allegation of political bias or corruption.

If it should emerge, when we have examined many applications, that there are difficulties involved so that it would appear that it might be necessary to have some further legislation, we naturally will bring it before the House, but the officers of my Department believe they can deal with a case of genuine hardship sympathetically and having due regard to the fact that we consider that the majority of the licensed hauliers operated legally and did not evade their responsibility. Those who did not evade the payment of tax and can prove genuine hardship can be given additional weight in renewing their licences. But in cases of deliberate evasion we obviously cannot grant increases of weight without negativing the purpose underlying this legislation.

I do not think I can say any more about it than that because we have, first of all, to get the applications. I do not believe that anybody genuinely engaged in business and keeping to the law need fear a worsening of his position. We do not intend to worsen the position of those who have not evaded the law in the past. We shall do everything we can to see that the position of C.I.E. is safeguarded, but we are not going to drive traffic into the arms of C.I.E. through the operation of this Bill.

I should like to conclude by saying —and I should like to repeat—that the Minister has exercised very wide discretionary power which is fully comparable with what he will have to exercise in deciding on hardships arising from the general application of seven cwt. There are literally hundreds of files in the Department which testify to the truth of his having so acted and of having acted—this refers to all the Ministers concerned in the past ten years—with commendable restraint, sympathy and discretion. The answer is very simple—that there have been no Parliamentary Questions during the past ten years which have seriously questioned the probity or integrity of the Minister in removing anomalies or dealing with grievances.

Mr. Norton

I should like to ask the Minister in how many cases does he anticipate it will be necessary to give an extension of the unladen weight over and above the seven cwt. envisaged in the Bill?

Mr. Childers

Frankly, I am advised we simply do not know.

Mr. Norton

What percentage of cases does the Minister think the seven cwt. will cover?

Mr. Childers

I believe it will cover a fair number of cases.

Mr. Norton

As a percentage?

Mr. Childers

Yes. I could not give a percentage. It would be unfair, because I could not give one.

Mr. O'Malley

The Minister did not make any reference to a point I made. In view of the fact, I repeat, that the taxation period will begin on 1st January, and assuming that this Bill will pass all its Stages tonight or tomorrow, does the Minister propose to publish a statutory notice— strangely enough, there are people in the country who do not read newspapers—inviting all allegedly aggrieved parties to make immediate application to the Department for an increase in unladen weight and giving their reasons? I think it is vital to have a decision in as many cases as possible before the taxation period commences.

Mr. Childers

From my experience, and from the files of people who have applied for increased facilities, I do not believe for a moment that people will fail to apply. We have no legal power to make any statutory publication, I am advised. I think the report of the debate in the daily newspapers, and I am quite sure in the weekly papers, and on Radio Eireann will be sufficient. If I had any suspicions that there were licensed hauliers deep in the heart of the country who did not know the terms of the Bill, I would not hesitate to make a statement but I think Deputy O'Malley's fears will be groundless.

Mr. O'Malley

Surely the Minister could put some notice, as I said in my speech, in the papers stating what exact type of information should accompany the application for an increase in the facilities?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

I am not suggesting he could not but I am suggesting the debate has concluded.

Mr. O'Malley

Why?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

The Minister has concluded.

Mr. Norton

The Second Stage has concluded.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

Next Stage?

Mr. Childers

Now?

Mr. Sweetman

Tomorrow.

Mr. Norton

I think the Minister had better leave it until tomorrow.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 10th December, 1959.