Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Feb 1971

Vol. 251 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - Road Transport Bill, 1970: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 11, to delete "or pigs" and substitute "pigs, milk, soft fruits, vegetables, hay, silage or beet".

I am moving this amendment because I believe there should be special treatment in relation to the liberalisation of transport in regard to agricultural products. I will not make the case that there should be complete liberalisation of road haulage. I would not be in a position to do so. I believe special consideration should be given in regard to agriculture for these reasons.

Licensed haulage in the normal way whereby you are restricted to a number of hauliers is all very well where people are carrying in bulk and can make an arrangement with a haulier and it is worth his while to carry their products. There would be a sufficiently large number of the products available at a specific place for the haulier to pick up. This is not the case in relation to farmers. Many farmers, particularly small farmers, as we all know, produce in small amounts. They are dispersed widely throughout the country, whereas manufacturers are concentrated in one place and a haulage contractor can pick up the lot at that place. It is more difficult for farmers to arrange transport from their place of production than it is for the man whose product in concentrated in one place.

Farmers live in remote areas. They are far away from large centres of population. Therefore, they have to rely on transport for their goods. Farmers also frequently produce products which are highly perishable and require immediate transport. If they have to wait until they can get a licensed haulier it may be too late. Therefore, there is a case to be made for their having a more liberal type of transport and not having to rely solely on licensed hauliers.

The production of agricultural goods is uncertain as to time. It is related to the seasons and the weather. The farmer cannot predict from one week to the next when he will need transport for his goods. He cannot predict when his product will be ready to be transported off the farm, so he cannot make arrangements in advance with a licensed haulier to pick up his goods, whereas a man in industry, generally speaking, knows that his product is being produced in consistent quantities and consistently over a period of time. Therefore, he can make an arrangement in advance for transport by a licensed haulier.

Because they live in remote areas farmers find it more difficult to get transport and they have to rely more on transport. They have to rely on transport of smaller amounts. They might be transporting a very small quantity of goods and this would not be worthwhile to a licensed haulier. Industry generally produces in sufficiently large quantities to make it worthwhile to hire a licensed haulier. This can be illustrated fairly well by reference to the commodities I have included in my amendment. I mention milk. As many people know, generrally speaking, in the creamery areas it is the practice for every farmer to go to the creamery with his milk. He spends a large part of the day transporting it in and out. I do not speak from any great knowledge of the creamery industry. I do not come from a creamery area. To my mind it would appear sensible for farmers to get together and agree that one of their number would carry the milk for a large group in an area and that he would do this for hire. Under the present legislation, as milk is not one of the exempted products, he would be breaking the law.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that as reported at column 73 of the Official Report of 27th January, 1971 the Minister said:

It is our intention that once this Bill becomes law unlicensed haulage is out.

That is a pretty general statement. This man would be carrying milk for hire as a co-operative venture with his fellow farmers but, under our present legislation, he would be breaking the law, technically at least. I am not suggesting that these people will be hounded, or anything like that, by the Garda. It is quite possible that in this context the law would not be enforced in a vigorous way but, if we are introducing legislation to tidy up the law and ensure that people will not continue to break the law technically, as was the case with regard to cattle haulage until this legislation was introduced, we should include all the products that will be carried normally in an informal way by farmers for one another.

I also mention soft fruits in my amendments. Vegetables can be taken together with soft fruits. Soft fruits are produced in irregular quantities. The farmers do not know when the fruit will be ripe. Therefore, they cannot make advance arrangements with a licensed haulier to carry the fruit for them. Again, I do not claim to have any particular knowledge of either of these two lines of agricultural production but, if the transport is not available immediately, the goods will rot. Surely it would be practicable and sensible for farmers to get together and get one of their number—on an informal basis, just once a year when the fruit harvest comes in—to carry it for hire to wherever the depot is. Surely it would be much more sensible to have someone doing this who was in the business, who was ready to do it on request by the people in the area as their fruit became ripe, rather than having to rely on a licensed haulier.

If these people have their soft fruit or vegetables carried for a small compensation by one of their number, they will be, if the law is to be enforced rigorously, technically breaking the law. Two other commodities which can be grouped together also are hay and silage. Many farmers—and these include big farmers—find frequently that it is not worth their while having their own machinery to harvest hay and silage and, consequently, they hire a contractor to do the job for them. However, a farmer may have two farms within a distance of two or three miles of each other. It will be more than likely that the hay or silage will be harvested on one farm and taken to a barn or to a silage pit, as the case may be, on the other farm, so that the contractor would have to carry it along the road. Since all of his work would be done on hire, he would be breaking the law. I know that the Garda have more to do than to look after matters like these, but if we are to tidy up the legislation in regard to road haulage we must do it properly. That is my purpose in putting down this amendment.

In relation to beet, the situation is slightly more complex. It is also a slightly bigger business than the other commodities I have mentioned. The restriction which has been in operation has had a serious effect in regard to beet. The position is that the pattern of production in the beet-growing areas has been distorted by the legislation as it exists at the moment. Under present circumstances there are two types of haulage. There are regular licensed hauliers who carry beet in the beet-growing areas during the beet season, which of course is a very short season. However, there usually are not sufficient of these hauliers available because it would not be worth their while to maintain lorries especially for this short season. Generally speaking, one finds that the licensed hauliers are not able to meet the demand and what CIE are doing is giving temporary plating to private unlicensed hauliers. They license them temporarily. This would work quite well were it not for the fact that they put a 10 per cent surcharge on every person whom they license in this way.

This 10 per cent which goes to CIE comes directly from the farmers' pockets because it is the farmer who is paying the haulier, and since the haulier must pay the 10 per cent he will pass it on to the farmer. Therefore, the position is that this 10 per cent is compensating CIE for their inability to provide an adequate service themselves. In other words, they are profiting from their own inadequacies. This is a very poor situation and it has resulted in a distortion in the pattern of beet production because of the excessively high transport cost for beet.

It has become disproportionately profitable to produce beet in the immediate areas surrounding the factories whereas farmers who live some distance from the factories but whose land may be very suited to beet growing find that it is not possible for them to produce beet because of the heavy transport costs.

The Minister or somebody else may say that there may be some important difficulties in relation to the amendment I have put down and that, if a further area of transport is liberalised, the result will be that more people, particularly those within the existing business and CIE in particular, will be vulnerable. I could not accept that argument in relation to this amendment. I certainly could not accept it in relation to the transport of milk, soft fruits and vegetables. All I am endeavouring to do is to have the legislation tidied up. Nobody contemplates that CIE intend going into the haulage of milk or soft fruits or of hay or silage. Some problem may arise in relation to beet, but this is something we must face. Present transport regulations are inadequate. I would go along with one statement made by the Minister when he said that he would have no worries at all in regard to the employment situation.

This whole area of road haulage is an expanding one. As time goes on and as the economy expands there will be more and more opportunities and, consequently, there will be adequate employment for everybody. This amendment is intended merely to tidy up the law and to ensure that people will not be put in the position where, technically, they are acting illegally. Therefore, it is a commonsense amendment and one that should be accepted by the Minister.

Dr. O'Donovan

I notice that Deputy Bruton speaks on this amendment as would any Leinsterman but let me, for a moment, speak like a Munsterman. The Minister is half-way between Leinster and Connaught.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. B. Lenihan)

Ulster and Leinster.

Dr. O'Donovan

There are parts of the Deputy's amendment which are not objectionable but there are other parts for which I can see no great reason. What the Minister put before us in the Bill originally seemed to be quite logical. Down through the years we heard a great deal about prosecutions in cases where livestock was carried by unlicensed hauliers. The Minister, very properly, retains horses entirely for transportation by CIE because that company are properly equipped for the purpose. Fundamentally, of course, one of the difficulties in relation to CIE, as was pointed out by Deputy Bruton, is that they have constantly had to plate gentlemen who, to the road transport workers in CIE, are known as "hackers".

One of the difficulties I see in relation to the group of products mentioned by Deputy Bruton is, first of all, in relation to milk. The Deputy did not mention the liquid milk market in so far as Dublin is concerned. The reason for this is that nowadays the milk is collected by huge lorries which are owned by the people who sell the milk—there are only two companies now, I think, Hughes Bros. and Dublin Dairies. God be with the days when the milk was delivered in a can and when one filled a tilly at the door. Deputy Bruton was interested in milk being delivered to the creameries. I cannot see any particular reason for including milk delivered to the creameries.

Mr. B. Lenihan

They are exempted anyway.

Dr. O'Donovan

Very good, we will accept that. If I know the farmers in Munster, where about 90 per cent of the creamery industry is located, these things were always done on a quid pro quo basis. There would never be any question of a farmer paying his neighbour for carrying the milk. This is my reference for speaking like a Munsterman where Deputy Bruton was speaking like a Leinsterman. There would be no question in Munster of charging your neighbour no matter how frequently you carried his milk, if you had the transport and he had not. It would be paid for in a different way— a day's work every now and again and so on, but, generally speaking, on a fairly equitable basis.

The other commodities, soft fruits and vegetables, more or less go together. The main and almost the only vegetable market as such, exists in Dublin—I am talking now about any sizeable vegetable market—and Cork city would be the next largest. In Dublin the vegetables are delivered by the owners, people from the Rush and Skerries areas who bring in the vegetables in their own lorries. I appreciate that Deputy Bruton, as a man interested in the law, has a slightly different point of view from mine. Vegetables as such are unimportant, relatively speaking, in this context. Soft fruits come on the market only for a month or two in the year and the whole soft fruit season lasts only for about six weeks. If a person is in the soft fruit business in a big way he will either have his own transport, he will hire somebody who is licensed, or he will get CIE to transport the fruit for him. If there is this disparity between CIE and other licensed hauliers, then he will obviously get some other licensed haulier.

In regard to hay and silage, the days when vast quantities of hay were sold in Dublin in the Hay Market—there is actually a place called the Hay Market on the north side of the Liffey and I used to see carts there with vast quantities of hay—but I would nearly make a bet that you would hardly see a load of hay at the place now if——

Mr. Bruton

I did not talk about that.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am sorry, I am talking about the problem generally. I am interested in the problem in a general way and I am talking on the amendment. The Deputy spoke about a slightly different problem, where you employed a man in connection with either hay or silage and he had to bring the stuff along the road to the farm, or perhaps two farmers jointly employed him and he might have to bring it to both farms. Technically he was breaking the law. I doubt very much, however, if any member of the Garda Síochána would in a local area, where hay was being transported a short distance, prosecute an unlicensed haulier, that is to say, in effect, a farming contractor, for taking hay along the public road for a few miles.

Silage has come into existence since I was a farmer but on the whole it is almost entirely taken from one part of the man's farm to another part. The number of cases in the whole country in which there would be any question of employing somebody else, or even asking somebody else to take silage for you from one place to another would be negligible. We come then to what is in much the same category as milk and that is beet. As Deputy Bruton said, the position in regard to beet is very complicated but on the whole beet is arranged by CIE plating hackers as they are called in Dublin.

Mr. Bruton

There are some unlicensed ones.

Dr. O'Donovan

There are bound to be. I will accept the Deputy's assurance on that. The shifting of beet every autumn is now much more concentrated than it was. At one time it used run from the middle of October to the beginning of February but now the beet campaign is over by Christmas and, therefore, there is an immense concentration of effort. This is done by lorries in part owned by the Sugar Company, in part owned by CIE and in part plated by CIE, and of course there are the farmers who own their own lorries and are able to do the transport for themselves. I get the legal point involved in the amendment but when all this is added up it may amount to a good deal legally but it does not amount to very much economically. I am more interested in the economic side of the law than the legal side. You know the gentleman who said that he could drive a coach and four through any Act of Parliament. Of course what the Minister is doing here in this section——

Mr. B. Lenihan

I am not Daniel O'Connell.

Dr. O'Donovan

——is trying to fence mend. It is not a case of a coach and four, the whole fence has been demolished by the number of coaches and four which have run through it. I was interested in the case made by Deputy Bruton but I should like to hear what the Minister has to say before coming to any conclusion.

Mr. B. Lenihan

First of all, I want to emphasise that the principal purpose of this legislation, which has been lost sight of in the type of amendment put down, is to reduce the extent of own account haulage which is going on. We have the highest percentage of own haulage in Europe. We want to reduce that and encourage professional hauliers. With a view to that we are extending, as the main principle of the Bill—and indeed I want to say in the reportage of the Bill this fact has not been highlighted to the extent it deserves—the various types of licence that exist with regard to commodity, area and weight. We are extending the various types and forms of licences that exist up to the tune of 850, to one single form of licence. Now, instead of 850 licences ranging from 100 Twenty-Six County licences to 850 of various kinds, there will be 850 Twenty-Six County licences with no restriction as to area, commodity or to weight in regard to what can be hauled. Straight away this will mean a fleet of professional hauliers will be in existence and professional haulage companies will develop.

We want to do this in order to avoid the wastage of own account investment in truckage which has taken place over the years both in the industrial and agricultural communities. There has been wasted investment in this area and over 80 per cent of the haulage on our roads has been own account haulage, whereas in Britain the figure is around 50 per cent. This is what we want to eradicate and we want to see CIE on the public enterprise side, and the 850-odd licences on the private enterprise side, competing vigorously with each other to secure the maximum amount of haulage business and to reduce the number of trucks and vehicles owned by business and industrial firms and owned by farmers as well.

I view the amendment in that context. I must oppose it because the particular aspects that apply in respect of cattle, sheep and pigs do not apply here to the same extent. Cattle, sheep and pigs are the livestock type of haulage that has been traditionally carried at all hours of the day and night. This type of operation is ideally suited to the private operators and has been conducted by them to such an extent that the law has been flagrantly breached. In fact, we are legalising the position in relation to these aspects of livestock haulage.

It is this aspect of the Bill, and the matter on which Deputy Bruton has put down an amendment, that has commanded most attention in the media. However, the main purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we can develop a system of professional road haulage that will equip us for entry into the Common Market and enable us to have a properly financed professional road haulage industry. In my view, the exemption of cattle, sheep and pigs is a side issue although it has commanded most attention. It is, in fact, making a legality of a reality.

Dr. O'Donovan

I think it was because at one time there were so many prosecutions in connection with the carriage of cattle.

Mr. B. Lenihan

However, the more important long-term aspect is the matter I referred to earlier—the establishment of a professional road haulage industry, properly financed and equipped to cater for the exports to Britain and Europe in which we shall be engaged in the years ahead.

Another aspect of Deputy Bruton's amendment is this: where do you start and end in relation to the input and output of a farm? The Deputy mentioned certain commodities—milk, soft fruits, vegetables, hay, silage or beet; I could add oats, barley, poultry, fish, greyhounds, fertilisers and building materials used by the farmer in regard to production. If one starts on this there is no end to it. I should prefer to have sufficient professional hauliers available to make full use of whatever the farmer wants done in this respect. There is a certain unreality about the amendment in that milk being brought to a creamery is exempt——

Mr. Bruton

I did not know that.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is exempt at the present time, as is wheat.

Mr. Bruton

Are any other agricultural products already exempt?

Mr. B. Lenihan

No, only wheat and milk being brought to a creamery. Regarding soft fruits, vegetables, hay and silage, I would agree with Deputy O'Donovan that here we are dealing with matters that are dealt with within a farm or between neighbours and it is not reality to include them. The danger of including them is that straight away you can include oats, barley, poultry, fish, greyhounds, fertilisers and building materials, to name but a number of commodities that are equally as important to farm production as soft fruits, vegetables, hay and silage.

Beet is a high pressure business for certain periods of the year. In my view, this should be left to the professional haulage business, be it the State, CIE or private enterprise.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is very largely catered for by the professional haulage business and a good deal is by rail.

Mr. B. Lenihan

There is a good deal of business carried out by rail and quite an amount by what the Deputy refers to as "the hackers"— the non-plated people employed by CIE for that purpose. In my view this business is already catered for. While I see the point in Deputy Bruton's amendment, I do not consider that any of these categories are in the same category as livestock——

Mr. Bruton

What is the distinction?

Mr. B. Lenihan

The distinction is that livestock is carriage business over wide areas as compared with the others.

Dr. O'Donovan

Also, it is all the year round.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes, and it is over wide areas and at all times of the day and night. The nature of the business ensures that it is so, more than any of the other agricultural commodities mentioned. It is the type of business where there are haphazard calls: there is much rushing to fairs and marts and deliveries take place at uncertain times. During the years it has developed—and having regard to the nature of the business one can see the reason—as an operation suited to a particular kind of entrepreneur, an operation not suited to public transport. For that reason the law has been breached left, right and centre and we are now making a legality of a reality.

I must oppose the amendment for the various reasons I have mentioned, in particular that it goes against the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to create a professional haulage industry. In view of the fact that milk is not tied to road transport restrictions, there is not much purpose in the amendment relating to soft fruits, vegetables, hay and silage. One could add quite a number of other commodities to this list if one started to compile a list, but this is dangerous ground on which to tread. In my view, beet is already well catered for by the haulage industry.

Mr. Bruton

The case the Minister made in favour of cattle, sheep and pigs could be used in favour of the commodities mentioned in the amendment. The Minister has referred to the haphazard calls and the uncertainty. These factors could all apply to soft fruits and vegetables. These two items ripen very quickly and need a speedy mode of transport. Frequently they are produced in small quantities, and this might not appeal to the professional haulier whom the Minister and I envisage as a business man, a man who perhaps would not go out of his way to transport a small quantity of goods. However, the fact that only small quantities were available might not deter the small man who might be able to do the job for hire, but under present legislation he might be in the position of breaking the law. Perhaps I may be misinterpreting the Minister, but I think he implied that the Garda might not go after this person. If that is the case, why not make it the law? If the present law is not to be enforced in relation to some of those commodities, why not incorporate those commodities in the Bill and get it over with?

Mr. McLaughlin

I was glad to hear the Minister's remarks and to learn of the increase in the number of licences granted to private hauliers. Some years ago some unfortunate people were in trouble because they could not keep their vehicles on the road and pay the taxes. I compliment the Minister on ensuring that the scheme has been widened, thereby making it easier for people who frequently have difficulty in getting transport. In view of the many schemes being carried out at the moment CIE transport is availed of to a large extent by the local authorities. No local authority could possibly put on its own transport. The result has been that while CIE have always provided an excellent service, they have been employing workers on the various schemes whom other people might be anxious to employ if they were available.

This provision covers cattle, sheep and pigs, and they get priority over farm produce. Naturally enough, cattle, sheep and pigs have to be transported at any hour of the day or night, due to the fact that livestock may be ready for sale and there might not be a mart locally. It might be necessary to drive 50 miles or even go into the Dublin cattle market. This legislation will provide facilities for many people who would otherwise be handicapped.

Like Deputy Bruton, I wish to point out that there are other commodities which must be transported at any hour of the day or night. Poultry is a very big industry today. In some towns it is equal to a small factory and there may be 20 or 30 people employed in such an industry established by an enterprising business man. The people engaged in this industry, instead of having to put on their own vans can now avail of bigger trucks to do the job for them, which will save costs in the long run.

There is also the question of potatoes and other farm produce much of which is being transported from Dublin. Due to the climate it is becoming harder every year to produce some of these crops in certain parts of the country. Help is becoming scarcer and the cost of production is increasing. Therefore, truck loads of this farm produce are transported from Dublin to the west. Donegal was famous for the production of first-class potatoes which were delivered throughout the length and breadth of this country. I am told today by Donegal people that potatoes are now being transported from Dublin instead of from Donegal to Cork as heretofore. The fact that private hauliers can provide transport will help to keep down costs. For instance, on a CIE truck a driver and a helper are required. As well as that, the private haulier will be living among his own people and will be well known. He will have a telephone and people will have no problem in getting one of his trucks to do their business.

It seems foolish that fish should be transported from Killybegs to Dublin city and then across to the west of Ireland and elsewhere, but that is happening. Many of those people who are in the fishing industry will be only too glad to know they can provide their own truck and that if they are not employed at one type of job they can easily take on another job. The law was so restrictive in the past that many people did not bother to put transport on the road, because they might only run into trouble and be tempted to do the wrong thing.

Mr. Bruton

I am somewhat baffled that the Minister cannot accept at least some of the commodities. If they are not going to be of great consequence, why not accept them?

Mr. B. Lenihan

If you started this, there would be no end to it. I would agree with much of what Deputy McLaughlin has said. It is important to encourage professional hauliers based in certain centres throughout Ireland. There will be 900 of them in the Twenty-Six Counties. What we want to discourage is investment by farmers or by anybody else in trucks that are under-utilised. I want to encourage them to hire people in a competitive arena. Within that ambit of 900 hauliers—there might be amalgamations among that 900—plus public transport, there will be ample competition and ample scope for people to hire competitively rather than purchase vehicle stock themselves.

We are not, of course, interfering with the provision of the 1958 Act which allows for the haulage of livestock by way of tractor within a radius of 20 miles of a farm. All in all, I do not see the point in adding the items mentioned by the Deputy for the very reason that it opens the floodgates to all sorts of items. As I say, milk is excluded; beet is also excluded because it is well catered for at the moment.

The Deputy has mentioned comparatively small items such as soft fruits, vegetables, hay and silage. Most of these will be hauled by a farmer within a small radius of a farm, so that this legislation does not concern that type of activity. If we started to do that sort of thing why not do oats, barley, poultry, greyhounds, fertilisers, building materials, fencing posts, drainage equipment and anything else that one can think of which is used by a farmer in the course of his production and distribution? I am opposing this amendment because by adding a few minor matters one can with justice say, "Why not include all the other matters as well?"

Mr. Bruton

They are the only ones in the amendment.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I do not want to do anything to stop the development of a competitive haulage industry with a sound private enterprise base, as Deputy McLaughlin suggests. This Bill goes a long way towards doing that and we should let that development take place with the minimum of impingement. The only impingement I am suggesting is that cattle, sheep and pigs should be included by reason of the fact that their breach of the law at the moment should be made a legality.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister mentioned greyhounds. I do not know much about greyhounds but from what I have seen they are usually carried in the back seats of motor cars and are treated with a great deal more respect than many passengers.

Mr. B. Lenihan

A good greyhound is a valuable commodity.

Dr. O'Donovan

A certain aspect of the greyhound industry is under pressure at the moment, but it is not appropriate for discussion here. Deputy McLaughlin mentioned poultry. Would the Minister consider before the Committee Stage, making it cattle, sheep, pigs or poultry? Poultry are not as important now as they were formerly but, as Deputy McLaughlin pointed out, in parts of the country they are still of considerable importance. I cannot see any reason why that should not be considered. I agree with the Minister that milk is either covered already or out, and meat is in the same position. One is left then with the group Deputy Bruton has mentioned, which are really of no great significance. Vegetables always were and will remain very largely own transport. Men started off at 2 o'clock in the morning to bring vegetables to Dublin on their horse and cart from Rush and Lusk and this will continue. Will the Minister consider including poultry because they apply in the same way as cattle, sheep and pigs? I do not think the amendment is of great significance otherwise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bruton

I may be getting the Minister wrong but in relation to the effects of this Bill on employment in the road freight haulage section of CIE, I think the Minister made, on the face of it, an apparently contradictory statement during discussions on this Bill.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That would be no trouble to the Minister.

Mr. Bruton

At column 774 of the Official Report of 5th November, 1970, when Deputy O'Donovan said, "It is only a flea bite in the organisation——" the Minister interruped and said: "It is not a flea bite in the context of disemployment." Whereas at column 72 of the Official Report of 27th January, 1971, the Minister said, "I would have no worries at all in regard to the employment situation. There will not be any diminution of employment..." It is quite possible that I may have taken the Minister out of context at column 774, but I would like to be clear on that.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Does that not relate to bloodstock?

Mr. Bruton

I do not think so.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It was in that context I was concerned that the position which exists at present be retained in regard to bloodstock because of the specialist division that has been built up in CIE for the transportation of bloodstock. They are very expert carriers. Certainly there would have been disemployment in certain sections if bloodstock, horses, cattle, sheep and pigs were added.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister made that statement during a speech by Deputy O'Donovan. I know that Deputy O'Donovan was not referring to bloodstock but to road haulage in general at the time the Minister made an interruption.

Mr. B. Lenihan

To clarify the matter there will not be any disemployment by reason of this measure being retained because, as I have said, the haulage of cattle, sheep and pigs is being carried on at present by illegal transport which will be legalised when this Bill is passed. In that context there is no question of any disemployment but there would certainly have been disemployment if we had added horses to that list.

Mr. Bruton

I am glad to hear that.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

When the Minister was speaking on the amendment I understood him to say that it was his intention to issue a considerable number of haulage licences throughout the State.

Mr. B. Lenihan

To extend the existing system.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I think the figure he mentioned was in the region of 900.

Mr. B. Lenihan

There will be 850 licences of various kinds.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Are these restrictive licences or are they free to function in any part of the State?

Mr. B. Lenihan

One hundred of the 850 are 26 county licences, the other 750 are licences ranging from one-county licences to two-county and 20-county licences. A number of these licences are restricted to the carriage of a particular commodity. There is a weight restriction in all cases, an area restriction and a commodity restriction.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

These are known as plate holders at the present time. What is the actual increase from the existing conditions bringing them up to 850? Who gives these licences and what are the qualifications necessary?

Mr. B. Lenihan

We are not giving any new licences, but the restrictions will disappear.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

But farmers and business people generally will be dependent on existing plate holders and CIE?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Apart from cattle, sheep and pigs, that is so.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am not quite clear with regard to cattle, sheep and pigs, how are they dealt with?

Mr. B. Lenihan

The haulage of cattle, sheep and pigs has been taken outside the system altogether.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I can buy a lorry tomorrow and transport cattle, sheep and pigs.

Dr. O'Donovan

Deputy Bruton interpreted the Minister's interruption in my speech correctly. I think the Minister was trying to score a political point.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister was trying to have it both ways, as he had recently on another issue.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am glad the Deputy pointed out the illogicality of the Minister's attitude in making that point. Subsection (1) of section 9 of the Road Transport Act, 1933, which we now propose to amend reads as follows:

On or after the appointed day it shall not be lawful for any person in the course of a merchandise road transport business carried on by him to carry merchandise in any area in Saorstát Éireann unless—

(a) such person is the holder of a licence (in this Act referred to as a merchandise licence) granted under this Part of this Act authorising him to carry on merchandise road transport business in that area and such business is carried on under and in accordance with such licence or

(b) such area is an exempted area and merchandise is carried by such persons in the course of such merchandise road transport business only in such area or such area and other exempted areas.

I want the Minister to understand the point I am making. You have "such area or such area and other exempted areas". In the amendment in section 2 you have:

(i) by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:

(1) (a) subject to paragraph (1) of this subsection and to subsection (5) of this section, it shall not be lawful on or after the appointed day for any person in the course of a merchandise road transport business carried on by him to carry merchandise in any area in the State unless——

That is the first place that occurs but it occurs also later on. The Minister told us that he is going to widen the existing limited licences to the whole State. Paragraph (1) (a) (i) of this section states:

Such person is the holder of a licence (in this Act referred to as a merchandise licence) granted under this Part of this Act authorising him to carry on a merchandise road transport business in that area and such business is carried on under and in accordance with such licence, or

(ii) such area is an exempted area

What do all those words mean now? It further states:

and merchandise is carried by such person in the course of such merchandise road transport business only in such area or such area and other exempted areas.

I looked at the extent of the repeals. I want to ask the Minister, quite apart from the extreme difficulty of following this, why did he not repeal section 8 of the Road Transport Act, 1933? That is one aspect of the matter. Another is that all this reference to areas should no longer be extant once this Bill becomes law in view of what the Minister told us.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is specific exempted newspaper licences and they still stand.

Dr. O'Donovan

As I understand it the Sunday papers are travelling all round the country all the time.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is a particular type of licence which still remains. That is one exception.

Dr. O'Donovan

Surely if every form of licence is extended to the whole country there is no difficulty?

Mr. B. Lenihan

The newspaper licence is not a merchandise road transport licence. The holder of a licence to haul newspapers is not an existing carrier, as defined under the 1933 Act.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is why we have to go in for all this wording.

Mr. B. Lenihan

If the Deputy goes over to section 3, subsection (1) (c) he will see the matter clarified there where it states:

Notwithstanding anything in this section, every merchandise (existing carrier's) licence shall operate and be expressed to authorise the licensee under such licence to carry on a merchandise road transport business throughout the State in respect of any merchandise or type of merchandise.

That is the governing subsection.

Dr. O'Donovan

This is with reference to section 14 of the Principal Act?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes. That is the subsection which incorporates the principle I have been talking about.

Dr. O'Donovan

I know. In other words what the Minister says is: "Of course, this is a governing subsection". I am prepared to accept that but I think the Minister should have a look at this because this reference to areas will obviously go. In spite of there being special legislation for covering newspapers would the Minister be so kind as to explain it to me because I do not understand it?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Newspapers are one type of exemption. They are what I might call non-existing carrier licences. You have unlimited licences held by CIE, the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway and some of those others I referred to earlier in relation to milk cream and milk containers in restricted areas. You have particular licences granted for Achill Island, Curraune Peninsula and Valentia Island. They are called remote area licences. There are a number of those licences outside the main stream of licences. They are non-existing carrier licences. They are not carrier licences as defined in the Principal Act. They were granted in various subsequent amendments to the 1933 Act.

Dr. O'Donovan

Does the Minister mean that those are cheaper, that there is a much lower charge made?

Mr. B. Lenihan

No. They are limited licences for particular purposes. Take the remote area one, that for Achill Island, Curraune and Valentia, though it is not as remote as it was. They have restricted licences confined to x miles to provide haulage.

Dr. O'Donovan

As distinct from the ordinary ones?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes.

Dr. O'Donovan

It makes it all very complex.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I agree it makes it complex and that is the reason for the complex drafting. I prefer a cleaner form of drafting. That is the reason for it.

Mr. Bruton

I would like to ask, in relation to section 2, the reason for the delay in introducing legislation liberalising the transport of cattle, sheep and pigs. As the Minister well knows, this was recommended by the store cattle study group in 1968 and it had been talked about long before that. Instead of responding immediately to the report of the store cattle study group the Minister set up a further inter-departmental committee to go into the subject again and produce the same recommendations.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Deputy is quite wrong. It is not the same recommendation. In fact, we went further than the store cattle group. They recommended a licensing system in respect of cattle, sheep and pigs. I have gone much further. I have been more liberal than the store cattle group.

Mr. Bruton

Why did the Minister not act initially?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I decided the store cattle group in their conservatism did not go far enough. I decided to go further in their interests.

Mr. Bruton

Why is there a surcharge of 10 per cent on the beef haulage temporary licences which are given out by CIE?

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is CIE's business arrangement. It is administrative cost.

Mr. Bruton

Why does this surcharge have to be added?

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is business between CIE and the people involved.

Mr. Bruton

Why should they get 10 per cent for doing nothing?

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is a business deal.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is an old agency thing. For example, the Office of Public Works and the Stationery Office each do a good deal of work for some of the semi-State bodies and so on and they charge an agency fee of 12½ per cent on it. Let us be quite straight about it. CIE have the right to carry on this business and therefore if they transfer that right to somebody else they accept a commission for it the same as any other business firm.

Mr. Bruton

It is an abuse of their monopoly business.

Dr. O'Donovan

There is a lot of monopoly in private enterprise if that be so because such commission is widespread in private enterprise. Ten per cent is very modest indeed by comparison with what you find in private enterprise. Would the Minister explain subsection (1) (b) which states:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection and section 124 of the Transport Act, 1944, the holder of a merchandise licence may carry on a merchandise road transport business—

(i) in an exempted area?

Surely if it is an exempted area once he has the right to carry it on throughout the country, he is entitled to go there? The paragraph further states:

with a vehicle in respect of which a vehicle plate is not on issue to him

and

(ii) in an exempted area even though that area is not specified in the licence.

Am I wrong in thinking that an exempted area is not an area where you are exempt from the ordinary requirements of licensing?

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is related to the same point I was talking about earlier. There was some legal doubt about "limited", the limited licensees; it is these fringe licensees. Under the exclusion in section 3, there was some doubt about their right to haul. I want to make it quite clear that——

Dr. O'Donovan

The holder of a merchandise licence: I am thinking of the fellow who is now to be entitled to cover the whole country. Anyone, whether an original licensee or somebody who got only a limited area, is now entitled to cover the whole country. Consider this: "in an exempted area with a vehicle in respect of which a vehicle plate is not on issue to him". Granted that this might apply to people who had not a plate at all: that is all right. The holder of a merchandise licence: I am not certain that the draftsmen did not get tied up in this, did not tie themselves up in knots, in trying to cover something that would be covered if all this had been left out.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Take the "limited" man who goes into an area where he is entitled to carry newspapers and proceeds to haul some other commodity——

Dr. O'Donovan

Limited commodity.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I want to make sure that he is allowed to do so in an exempted area. He can do so now in an exempted area as far as he is concerned.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister is saying that, in view of section 3, there is a feeling that these people's rights were being infringed.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is precisely it. It is a very roundabout way to protect the fringe people.

Dr. O'Donovan

I shall have another look at it before the Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 41 to 56, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 to 7, and to substitute the following:

"(4) The number of vehicles with which a licensee under a merchandise licence shall be entitled to carry on a merchandise road transport business shall be—

(a) if the licence is a merchandise (existing carrier's) licence—

(i) in a case in which, immediately before the commencement of the Road Transport Act, 1971, the licensee was authorised by the licence to carry on a merchandise road transport business throughout the State—a number of vehicles equal to the number provided under sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) of this paragraph (as may be appropriate), increased by one,

(ii) in a case in which one or more than one vehicle plate was lawfully on issue to the licensee on the 1st day of January, 1969, in respect of vehicles being operated by him under and in accordance with that licence—a number of vehicles equal to the number of such vehicle plates,

(iii) in a case in which a vehicle plate was not on issue to the licensee on the 1st day of January, 1969, but was lawfully on issue to him on any day in the period of three years ending on the 31st day of December, 1968—a number of vehicles equal to the number of vehicle plates on issue to him under that licence on the latest day in that period on which a vehicle plate was on issue to him,

(iv) in any other case—one vehicle."

This amendment arises out of various representations made to me and also out of suggestions made here in the Second Stage debate by both Deputy T. O'Donnell and Deputy Foley. The amendment seeks to ensure that no inequity is caused to the holders of 26-county licences. Deputy O'Donovan expressed a certain view on this in the Second Stage debate. I felt, on merit— although I have rather an open mind on it—that there was something in the case made for the 26-county licensees. All of the people who have 26-county licences made a substantial investment in their trucks and equipment in an era when there was a very scarce financial value on these licences. As the Bill stood without this amendment, they were being left, as it were—full stop. On the other hand, 750 other licensees, with a far less valuable commodity— ranging from the licensee with a right of carriage for maybe a county, ten miles or 15 miles, a right of carriage possibly for one commodity within one county—were being lifted into a 26-county licence category. The 750-odd licensees were being given this extra value of being able to operate without limitation of area, commodity or weight throughout the country whereas there was nothing extra in it at all for the 26-county licensee who was already there and was getting no bonus under the Bill, as it were, but was being subjected to this substantial additional competition. To some extent, an inequity was being caused in that respect.

I think the most reasonable way to deal with this is governed by my amendment which, as the House can see and as I have just stated, is really a measure of compensation to the existing 26-county licensees and is designed to ensure, as it were, a levelling-up of treatment between them and other carriers.

I have spoken to the two transport associations and heard their representations on this matter. It is in furtherance of their representations to me and other representations made to me here by Deputies from both sides of the House that I decided that the most reasonable way to do this—I have not gone anywhere as far as the representations made to me sought—would be that, as and from 1st January, 1969, the governing date, each 26-county licence would have attached to it one extra vehicle. We are not giving an extra licence in that sense. We have decided on the datum day of 1st January, 1969. We are pinning all existing licenced hauliers to their number of vehicles on that date. We are doing this to eliminate any type of abuse that may have arisen subsequent to then —when it became known that this Bill was being prepared. It was important —so as not to allow people to "jump the gun" in the intervening period when this matter became public knowledge.

We have pinned all licensees back to 1st January, 1969, in regard to the vehicles they may have. Therefore, if a licensee on 1st January, 1969, had, say, three vehicles, that is all he may have under this legislation. If he had one vehicle on 1st January, 1969, that is all he may have. As regards the 26-county licensees, we decided we would give them an extra vehicle as far as their licence of that date was concerned. If a 26-county licensee had one vehicle on 1st January, 1969, we would deem him to be entitled to two vehicles. If he had three vehicles on 1st January, 1969, we would deem him entitled to four. Representations to me involved doubling the number of vehicles in their possession on 1st January, 1969. I resisted that. Therefore, a substantial 26-county holder with six vehicles on 1st January, 1969, is entitled only to one more vehicle: I want to emphasise that. It is a very minimal concession in this direction.

In the main, these hauliers are the most professional hauliers in the country. Without any attempt to diminish the value of other licensed hauliers, the 26-county hauliers are, by and large, the people with the largest investment in the business. They are the people who, if you like, have no compensation out of the Bill as it stands. This is a sort of minimal concession in their direction. I am glad to assure the House that the associations representative of all licensed hauliers—and within whose organisation the 26-county hauliers are in a minority by reason of their limited number—have all agreed that this is a reasonable concession to their fellow-hauliers who have invested in the equipment, plant and vehicles associated with this sort of nation-wide business that these particular hauliers have been engaged in.

Mr. Bruton

Our spokesman, Deputy O'Donnell, and I feel that it would be rather inequitable if the people who had in many cases spent a considerable amount of money acquiring the 26-county licences when they were very scarce should now find themselves without any advantage at all for the money they had spent. This would be rather unfair and we, therefore, support the Minister's amendment.

Dr. O'Donovan

There has been an amount of tears shed over these people. Do not forget the bulk of these men are the people who were in the road haulage business in 1933. They have had 37 years monopoly to cover the whole country and now because some gravy is being dished out to another group of people they say: "What about us?" I agree with one thing the Minister said. They are the most professional group among the road transport men. Not alone that but on the whole—I do not know if this is absolutely true—their workers are treated well, they have trade union conditions and all that kind of thing. I accept all that. The Minister is masking his batteries here. He even masked his batteries in the way he put in this amendment because there was no need for all this verbiage we have been given. As far as I can see subsection (4) (ii) (iii) and (iv) is the same as it was in the Bill already. There is not a word changed and yet in order to bring in the earlier part of the amendment, lines 41 to about 50, in page 3, the Minister puts in this long amendment. Is this not correct?

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is right.

Dr. O'Donovan

Why did the Minister do this? Why did the Minister not just give us the amendment?

Mr. B. Lenihan

This is just to make it plainer, to make it more obvious.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is not plain at all. That is not why it was done. It was to make it not plain.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I think it is more helpful to set out the whole subsection and keep the numbering right.

Dr. O'Donovan

The numbering was exactly the same. When I find the two major parties in the House in agreement it immediately makes me suspicious. There will be a very substantial amount of extra vehicles available. I am inclined to think, and I think the Minister will agree with me, that the people who have been covering a small area will now cover the whole country. The development will not be of people who have one or two vehicles. A limited number of people who show expertise—to use that modern word which I do not like—in their operation will gradually accumulate more business and will develop their businesses. I think the Minister will agree with that.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is our view too.

Dr. O'Donovan

May I ask the Minister, as far as his Department knows, how many of these people who will benefit by this additional increase by one——

Mr. B. Lenihan

There will be about 45,000 lorries on the road.

Dr. O'Donovan

How many of these were in existence in 1933 and paid nothing for their licences? Deputy Bruton talks about the amount. I admit people paid lots of money but they got fair notice that the thing was coming to an end. How many of them were in existence in 1933? The Minister told us there were about 100 at the moment.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is right.

Dr. O'Donovan

How many of these 100 were in existence in 1933?

Mr. B. Lenihan

As licences they were all in existence, of course, but the great majority of them have changed hands.

Dr. O'Donovan

The great majority? Since 1933?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes.

Dr. O'Donovan

It all depends, of course, on how long ago they changed hands.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I shall get exact figures for the Deputy for the Report Stage.

Dr. O'Donovan

Very good. That will be all right. Certainly, we want to reserve our right to have another look at this on Report Stage. Subject to that I shall let it go but I am really surprised at the Minister putting in all this verbiage.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Subsection (4) is the relevant one.

Dr. O'Donovan

I know. It is all subsection (4) but in (a) (ii), (iii) and (iv) a chunk of the Bill has been reprinted.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We had to change the numbering. It is as simple as that. It makes it plainer.

Mr. McLaughlin

May I ask one question. There are 100 licences to cover the 26 counties——

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is the situation at the moment.

Mr. McLaughlin

Under this Bill how many will there be to cover the 26 counties?

Mr. B. Lenihan

About 850.

Mr. McLaughlin

To cover anywhere they like, carry any type of load they like?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Anything. Any type of load, any type of commodity, up to any weight, no weight limitation, in any part of the country.

Mr. McLaughlin

Thank you.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bruton

In relation to the question in widening the scope of licences I think it would be appropriate to take a look at the conditions under which these licences are issued. There are one or two matters which may not be relevant but which I think should be looked at. There is a development in the United States of fitting devices to the exhausts of vehicles for the purpose of countering air pollution by exhaust fumes.

An Ceann Comhairle

I was looking, Deputy, into this question of pollution which you wished to raise but in view of the fact that this is purely a licensing Bill I cannot see how we can have any relevant discussion on the question of pollution.

Mr. Bruton

I feel that the Minister in issuing licences would be in a position to impose conditions on the licensees and the fitting of such devices would be an appropriate provision to make in view of the very severe pollution which can arise from such heavy vehicles passing through the centre of towns or in restricted areas.

Mr. B. Lenihan

This would be the road traffic code rather than the road transport code.

An Ceann Comhairle

This would be a matter for the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Bruton

Well I should like to get my sentiments in regard to this question on the record.

Another point is the manning of large vehicles. I hope the Minister will be in a position to ensure that large vehicles are adequately manned and that people are not working for excessively long hours, endangering themselves and others. I am not suggesting that this is happening to any great extent but I hope the Minister in issuing licences and in supervising them will ensure that neither the drivers are exploited nor is there a danger to the public resulting from under-manning particularly of large vehicles or from excessively long hours at work.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Common Market transport policy to which I hope we will be adhering shortly is in the course of discussion along these lines ensuring common safety regulations.

Dr. O'Donovan

Perhaps I could ask the Minister a question because I genuinely do not understand the meaning of subsection (b) of section 4?

An Ceann Comhairle

Could we dispose of section 3, as amended, and then we could get on to section 4?

Dr. O'Donovan

Let me say this: If the licence is not a merchandise licence—we are still talking about section 3?

An Ceann Comhairle

Section 3, as amended.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am asking the meaning of subsection (b) on page 4 in subsection (i) of section 3? What is the meaning of it? If the licence is not a merchandise (existing carrier's) licence—the "existing carrier" was a 1933 man. Is this public service vehicles?

Mr. B. Lenihan

We are back on the point which the Deputy made earlier. There are 150 odd of these fringe-type licences, the Achill Island fellows and the Valentia fellows and the newspaper people.

Dr. O'Donovan

I want to ask the Minister a specific question on this. This gives the Minister the right to issue additional such licences. Is not that so?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I have that already under the 1944 Act.

Dr. O'Donovan

It gives the Minister power. It relates to such number of vehicles as may be specified from time to time on the licence. The rest of the thing is limited in a way that this is not limited.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is not limited under the governing section of the 1944 Act. Under that Act I have authority to issue licences in exceptional circumstances. Section 115 of the 1944 Act applies. It is in order to protect such rights as I have to issue such licences under section 115, to protect that right.

Dr. O'Donovan

I will have to look at that.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".

Dr. O'Donovan

May I read out the appropriate part of this:

(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 14 (as amended by this Act) of the Principal Act, whenever it appears to the Minister that, in relation to a particular merchandise (existing carrier's) licence, the number of vehicles therein specified pursuant to the said section 14 (as so amended) does not fairly represent the normal complement of vehicles lawfully operated by the licensee under and in accordance with the terms of the licence in the period of three years ending on the 31st day of December, 1968 (being the number of vehicles so used by him with reasonable continuity or regularity), the Minister may amend the licence by increasing to such number as he may consider fair and reasonable the number of vehicles with which the licensee is authorised by that licence to carry on a merchandise road transport business, and the licence shall have effect accordingly on and after the date of the amendment.

In relation to a particular merchandise, I take it that this is partly on the same problem. In section 4 (1)—in the early part of the section—there is reference to "a particular merchandise (existing carrier's) licence"——

Mr. B. Lenihan

This is really a hardship clause. It may have been the case that on 31st December, 1968— I was using 1st January, 1969, but it is all the same—that on that date a licensee might not have had the full complement of vehicles to which he was entitled. I can keep him right under that subsection.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is it by increasing to such number as he may consider fair and reasonable——

Mr. B. Lenihan

According to the terms of the licence in the three years ended on 31st December, 1968. I would look at his licence as it operated in the three years prior to 31st December, 1968, and if he was under-utilising his licence I could, then, if I thought it right and proper, amend the licence by increasing the number of vehicles to which he was entitled. Earlier on, we were confining each such licensee to the number of vehicles he had on this date. If he was under-utilising his licence on that date and if he was, in fact, entitled to more vehicles than he was using, I would have a discretion in this matter.

Dr. O'Donovan

Instead of "by increasing to such number as may be considered fair and reasonable" why not put in "by increasing to the number in the existing licence"?

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is a weight business. Heretofore it has been on weight. From now on there will be no weight restriction.

Dr. O'Donovan

This is where the weight comes in?

Mr. B. Lenihan

The weight operated heretofore. It no longer operates. It would have operated in relation to his licence as it stood on this date. If he was not utilising his weight to the fullest extent, if I had not got this "out" clause for this type of person, an injustice could be done if he wanted to utilise his licence to the fullest extent.

Dr. O'Donovan

How were these people affected, since it was a weight business, by these huge vehicles which are now on the roads? Are the bulk of these owned by carriers?

Mr. B. Lenihan

A fair percentage of them are, yes.

Dr. O'Donovan

The existing provision has been that if a man had the right to run five five-ton lorries—and these were sizeable lorries in 1933—if he got a 20-ton lorry now, would that take up four-fifths of his right?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes, that is right. We have all sorts of additions which we are doing away with now, for trailers et cetera.

Dr. O'Donovan

A man would have to make up his mind whether he would go in for the big stuff or for the smaller stuff.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is one of the anomalies which we are getting rid of.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. O'Donovan

Would the Minister tell us something about this section? I have no doubt that the Minister has a brief on each of these sections. The Department of Industry and Commerce always provided excellent briefs. I hope the Department of Transport and Power does at least as well.

Mr. B. Lenihan

A lot better.

Dr. O'Donovan

Would the Minister explain what section 5 is about?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Subsection (1) is a transitional provision to allow for changing in the annual renewal date of merchandise licences which is being provided for in subsection (2). That is merely transitional. As licences under subsection (2) of section 3 will only be granted in substitution for licences in force immediately before the commencement of the Act, section 5, subsection (1) will include that licensees will not lose their licences if through circumstances outside their control the licence has not been renewed when the Bill comes into force.

Dr. O'Donovan

This word "licence" relates to merchandise licence?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes, correct.

Dr. O'Donovan

These are renewable each year?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes. Every year we have a look at them. If the Deputy has subsection (2) before him, he will see that it is on the same point. Most of these merchandise licences fall for renewal at mid-summer. The remainder fall to be renewed at varying dates throughout the year. For administrative convenience we feel it desirable to have a single renewal date in the autumn. Section 5 (2) provides for that. The renewal date would be 30th September. That is the date of expiry and the date of renewal. This is very desirable. At the moment there are 850 licences expiring and being renewed in my Department at varying dates in the year. This causes administrative confusion, as the Deputy will appreciate.

Subsection (3) of section 5 is a technical amendment consequential on the last subsection. It simply adapts to the requirements of the last subsection originally in the existing section 22 of the 1933 Act, that each renewal of a licence lasts for 12 months at which time the licence must again be renewed. Section 22 of the 1933 Act is being repealed under section 8 of this Bill. It tidies up the administrative procedures under which renewal of the licences is granted to applicants.

Dr. O'Donovan

There is no difficulty about an unexpired part of a licence? The charge is at present only 5s.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is right at the moment. We have another amendment on that.

Dr. O'Donovan

I appreciate that. Therefore, it is not really necessary to bother about that in this section.

Mr. B. Lenihan

No.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 is related to amendment No. 3 and perhaps the House would discuss them together.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to delete "five shillings or such other fee" and substitute "such amount".

These are amendments to section 6, subsections (2) and (3). They relate to the matter about which Deputy O'Donovan has been talking, the fee chargeable for inspection of the register of merchandise licences and for copies of entries in the register. The purpose of the amendments is to delete the references to old currency which are now no longer applicable in the context of decimalisation. The fees chargeable will be made by order and the order will be laid before the Dáil. It is much better to have more flexible phraseology to deal with the changing circumstances of the future than what is in the Bill at the moment, "five shillings or such other fee".

Dr. O'Donovan

I am afraid it is my fault but the Minister and I have been at cross purposes. These are fees for inspection.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The renewal fee is a separate matter.

Dr. O'Donovan

What is the amount?

Mr. B. Lenihan

The renewal fee is £2. This is an inspection fee.

Dr. O'Donovan

In any event it was not significant enough to have had to make special provision for it. The Minister is extending it anyway for a period?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes.

Mr. Bruton

This is an acceptable amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 5, line 27, to delete "five shillings for such other fee" and substitute "such amount".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill".

Dr. O'Donovan

Perhaps the Minister would tell us the circumstances relating to this item?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I will. I said on Second Stage that I would explain this matter in some detail during Committee Stage. It was found during the preparatory work on this measure that, on a strict interpretation of the law, the merchandise licence to which section 7 relates was no longer valid. The matter is a bit complicated but the facts are that in 1934 the licensees concerned applied for an existing carrier merchandise licence. They had been in the road freight transport business for a number of years and, if they had followed the correct procedure, the licence would have been granted without question.

The upshot was that a correct application had not been lodged before the closing date and, to get over this difficulty, the application was treated as one for a shipping company merchandise licence for which the applicant was fully qualified. A shipping licence was then issued in 1935, although the firm concerned were entitled to a full carrier merchandise licence. The firm continued to operate under this licence, the shipping licence that was granted but, due to an error, the form of licence issued was for an existing carrier licence.

Section 23 of the Road Transport Act, 1933, provides that a shipping company licence shall cease to be in force if the licensee ceases to operate as a shipping company. We had a very recent case indeed of that. In this case the licensee ceased to be a shipping company in 1945 so that the licence which was, in fact, a shipping company licence, ceased to be valid from 1945.

However, the firm continued on the basis of operating a general merchandise business and, with the passage of time, the original erroneous description did not come to light until recent years. The company believed that the licence was subject to the normal renewal provisions for existing carrier licences. This, in fact, was done on that basis. The question of remedying this situation without injustice to the company concerned was a difficult one and we sought advice on it. The advice was that, notwithstanding the description of the licensee on the face of the licence as an existing carrier, the licence was not an existing carrier licence and due to the termination of the shipping service was, in fact, invalid since 1945, although the company had been operating on the basis of carrying on a general merchandise business.

The position, therefore, was that one of the largest hauliers in the country had been operating under an invalid licence since 1945. This was the reality of the matter. Unless the situation could be remedied the business would have to be discontinued with consequent unemployment. I am satisfied that there were complete bona fides on the part of the company and, indeed, that there was an equity prescriptive right involved in that they operated all the time under an invalid licence situation that was, to put it frankly, caused in an office in my Department away back in the 1930s. The situation started then. The firm give substantial employment. They have 25 vehicles that have been operating all over Ireland but particularly in the south east. The question was how to remedy that situation and, in my view, the only way to remedy it was by the incorporation of this section. The company are being penalised to this extent: as a compromise and to give them the section, they have reduced their number of vehicles from 25 to 18.

Dr. O'Donovan

Can these be of any size at all now?

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is why I got this reduction. They can be of any size. They are one of the biggest hauliers in the country.

Dr. O'Donovan

I appreciate that when a steamship company unload their stuff they would require these enormous vehicles.

Mr. B. Lenihan

They were always unrestricted anyway as a shipping company licensee.

Dr. O'Donovan

Very good.

Mr. B. Lenihan

So this is really to cure the anomaly that has arisen due to an administrative oversight of way back.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment No. 5:—

In subsection (2) (b), page 6, line 19, after "section" to add ", subject to appeal by the licensee to the courts."

I do not claim to understand the full implications of this section but it appears to me that it allows the Minister to grant a restricted road freight licence to people who are bringing in vehicles and bringing them out again in the course of importing and exporting particular types of merchandise. Under subsection (2) (a) apparently these licences are given by order where it provides that a licence shall be deemed to be a restricted road freight licence.

As I say, I do not claim to understand the whole section but, apparently, power is vested in the Minister to give a man a licence by order—and presumably he will invest a certain amount in taking advantage of that licence— but then we have a provision in subsection (2) (b) that the Minister may by order again amend or revoke that order. He has complete discretion at any time to take a man's livelihood away possibly, by order. There is no appeal at all for the person concerned to any authority other than the Minister. The point I am making may be slightly qualified by the fact that the licences we are concerned with here are international licences and so forth, but there is a general point to be made. The Minister should not be in a position to revoke an order just like that, thereby possibly depriving a man of his livelihood. That is the reason I move this amendment.

Mr. B. Lenihan

This will only apply with regard to foreign hauliers.

Mr. Bruton

I am aware of that.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I think it is reasonable. Their own countries can look after their own hauliers, as it were. It is important that we have this power here to deal with any breaches of conventions or agreements that may exist between countries or, in an EEC situation, any breach of Common Market transport regulations. It is only right that the Minister should be able to deal with such foreign hauliers and let the other countries look after their own hauliers. I could see something in the Deputy's case if it applied to our own hauliers here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. O'Donovan

I should like the Minister to explain the section, in particular, subsections (3), (4) and (5). There are so many constructive efforts in the Bill that it is extremely difficult for a non-lawyer like myself to understand all of it.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The whole purpose of the Bill is to facilitate national road haulage and to provide for the appropriate licences.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it that the House agreed to Deputy Bruton withdrawing his amendment. There is a further amendment and we shall deal with that before we discuss the section as such.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment No. 6:

In subsection 5, page 6, line 29, to delete "at his discretion" and to add at the end of the subsection "and the fee charged shall be on the same basis for licensees in similar lines of business and shall be related to the administration costs generally incurred in the issue of such licences."

Again, my point is qualified by the fact that we are dealing with an international situation where there is an international haulage system. However, it is my opinion that subsection (5) gives the Minister far too wide discretion in relation to the fee. This subsection reads:

(5) The Minister may at his discretion charge a fee of such amount as he may determine in respect of a restricted road freight licence or a licence deemed by order under this section to be a restricted road freight licence.

Under this subsection the Minister would be completely free to charge any fee he wishes without any reference to any objective criteria laid down in the Act. He would find himself in the position of being under considerable personal pressure because these matters would be carried out in a private way—I shall not say what sort of pressure but he might be under pressure to give a licence at a particularly favourable fee to a particular licensee. At the same time, he might be giving to others, who might not be in a position to exert the same pressure, a licence at a much higher fee. I am not suggesting that this is happening but subsections like this give to the Minister far too wide a discretion and leave the whole system of government open to the charges that we so frequently hear of Ministers being subject to influence in favour of their friends. This is not a policy matter but merely a matter of fixing a fee and discretion in such matters should be circumscribed as much as possible so as to ensure, as much as anything else, that the Minister will not be embarrassed.

In this context, I consider my amendment to be a very sensible one. Although it relates to international hauliers, it still stands because they are in as much a position to exert undue influence on the Minister in particular cases. My amendment is so phrased that hauliers who do the same sort of works should be charged the same amount, roughly speaking.

The second point is that the fee be related to administration costs. On reflection, there may be a difficulty here in that we might not want to have it related to administration costs in general. Possibly, in order to exercise some form of protection in discouraging people from applying for these licences we might want to charge them more. On the other hand, of course, the Minister would have power initially to refuse a licence so, in that context, the fee would not make much difference. Also, any fees which are charged for licences should be related to administration costs and there should be no possibility of fees increasing suddenly if there was no corresponding increase in administration costs.

Therefore, the effect of this amendment in part is, first of all, to prevent discrimination as between one haulier and another and, in so far as possible, to ensure that increases in fees are not too much in excess of the rate of inflation by tying them to the administration costs involved.

Dr. O'Donovan

Without necessarily agreeing with the exact wording of Deputy Bruton's amendment, I am in full agreement with the idea behind the amendment. Any phrase such as "the Executive being allowed at its discretion" is extremely objectionable. In the world of today everything is in favour of the big fellow and there are continuous complaints, and rightly so, that the rights of individuals are being wiped out. I am not saying for a moment that the Minister or anyone in his Department intends operating this legislation inequitably but the point is that the wording is objectionable.

If one looks back on history in relation to matters of this kind, he will find it is comparatively recently that statutory instruments, rules and orders came into existence under Acts. The Act was a complete entity and to this day in the United States, each Act tends to be a complete entity. They reprint the entire Act. The result is that it is much easier for anyone to ascertain what is the law. It is not possible for anyone to ascertain this if the legislation includes such a phrase as "at the Minister's discretion". I have not all that much sympathy with international road freight hauliers and neither have the men in the road freight industry very much sympathy with them. At the same time, I agree very strongly with Deputy Bruton that the fee should not be at the discretion of the Executive. The specific fee should be laid down in the Act.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I am going to make the same point as I made in regard to Deputy Bruton's previous amendment. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that in any case where there might be discrimination against any Irish haulier while he was working on the Continent, the Minister here would be able to act properly and charge an equal fee in respect of hauliers coming in here from the country concerned. I wish to reiterate again that there is no question of this operating against Irish nationals. It is a question of enabling the Minister to charge a fee of such amount as he would determine.

Dr. O'Donovan

I did not mean that. What I had in mind was competition from foreign hauliers.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is proper that the Irish Minister for Transport and Power should be able to discriminate or operate in regard to charging a fee vis-á-vis foreign hauliers as Irish hauliers are treated in these particular countries.

Dr. O'Donovan

Why not say that in the Bill?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is commonsense to allow whoever is the Minister the flexibility to deal in this fee charging manner as befits and benefits Ireland and Irish hauliers in the economy and if we are in any way being discriminated against by some other country in regard to fees charged to Irish hauliers we should have the discretion to deal with foreign hauliers from that country as the Minister may think fit having regard to the particular way in which we are treated in that country. That is the purpose of this.

Dr. O'Donovan

Why not say it?

Mr. Bruton

I would agree with the Minister and this possibly would act as a compelling argument against the second part of my amendment which tries to relate the cost of the fee to administration costs. It is right in the light of what the Minister says that we should be in a position to discriminate against foreign hauliers if Irish hauliers are being discriminated against in a particular country but there should be some way of ensuring that in respect of two hauliers from the same country, in the same line of business, the Minister should not be in a position to charge one fee to one of them and a different fee to the other one. He should not have this discretion which is going a bit far. You could have two British hauliers here and one could be given a very high fee and the other a very low fee. Under this section the Minister is quite free to do that.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I would have some sympathy with the general line of argument in regard to our own nationals but I am certainly not going to plead in regard to non-nationals.

Mr. Bruton

I am not pleading for them at all but I am concerned that the Minister should be given this type of discretion which can subject him to pressures to which he should not be subjected to give something to one person and not to another.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The type of situation which I envisage for the exercise of this subsection would demand a degree of flexibility and it is important to have it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill".

Dr. O'Donovan

I protested about this form of drafting in regard to another Bill. There is this question of a definition within a section. We have "a licence (which shall be known, and is in this Act referred to, as a restricted road freight licence)". With all due respect this restricted road freight licence is mentioned only in this section. Of course there is a long tradition of putting in a definition section at the beginning of the Bill. You have two definitions. In section 1 you have "In this Act ‘the Minister' means the Minister for Transport and Power" and ‘The Principal Act' means the Road Transport Act, 1933" and ‘a restricted road freight licence' shall be a licence to a person authorising him to import the vehicle..." and so on. This development gives rise to a problem which is that where you have a definition in a section of an Act it could quite easily be the case that in some other section of the Act some cross-reference would occur. That has happened in this House.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I can see the Deputy's point and if this particular section was germane to the whole purpose of the Bill then what the Deputy is talking about, a cross-reference, would arise and I would agree with him, but it is very much a section that was brought into the Bill at the last moment. It was not in the original draft prepared by my Department and it was brought in on the basis of our Common Market negotiations and the necessity to incorporate our transport policy with the Common Market transport policy. In that context the section arises and there is no reference in any other section, or indeed in any other Act within the road transport code, to what the Deputy talks about here, a restricted road freight licence. It is germane to this section and nothing else.

Dr. O'Donovan

If this section was brought in having regard to our EEC negotiations all I can say is that there was no necessity whatever to bring it in because they will never come to fruition.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is another large debate.

Dr. O'Donovan

There is no question about it. The Minister made this argument and I am answering it. It is bad enough that we should have questions in this House again and again about the EEC and that we should have a long debate, which has not yet been concluded—and as I said today the matter will be over before that debate concludes—but that we should actually put in a section——

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is what you call foresight.

Dr. O'Donovan

This is what is called planning, if you like, or called forecasting.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Foresight.

Dr. O'Donovan

This particular piece of forecasting is not going to become a reality in the foreseeable future. The Minister's explanation to me was just thrown out because this is not in existence and in fact it has little or no relationship to whether we are in or out of the EEC.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is relevant to any international——

Dr. O'Donovan

I am sorry, it has no relationship to whether we are in or out of the EEC.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I agree, but it is primarily for that purpose, but it applies to any international obligation with regard to road freight transport.

Dr. O'Donovan

The way in which international transport is developing will mean that there will be enormous containers going from one country to another and it does not matter two-pence if the EEC were to go up in smoke in the morning.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It just makes the section more pertinent to the fact that we are about to enter the EEC.

Dr. O'Donovan

Of all the unlikely things that could ever happen to the Republic of Ireland the idea that it would go into the EEC is most unlikely.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We will not embark on that debate now. There will be another occasion for that.

Dr. O'Donovan

This section is a perfectly sensible section as things are but why this tripe about the EEC? Because tripe it is.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is not tripe.

Dr. O'Donovan

There has been more time wasted in this House talking about the EEC and——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that the House will have a further opportunity of talking about it shortly again.

Dr. O'Donovan

This is one of the difficulties about this House at present. "Whenever we get into the EEC"— not "if" we get in——

Mr. B. Lenihan

I grant that it is valid whether we go in or not but it is particularly valid in the context of entering the EEC. Our international transport obligations will continue to extend and expand one way or the other.

Dr. O'Donovan

If the Minister had conceded that this section was put in in a perfectly legitimate way as we exist at present I would have said "very good, that is it," but the Minister does not do that at all. He talks about "when we go into the EEC". We must have this to provide for the international transport when we get into that wonderful cosmopolis on the Continent of Europe.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Deputy is enjoying himself.

Dr. O'Donovan

Not so much but I will say that the whole campaign for joining the EEC has taken a turn for the worst. The campaign to take us into the EEC has got a nasty shock over the last two or three weeks. I assume that even Ministers read English newspapers.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill".

Dr. O'Donovan

Has the Minister any date in mind as to when he will bring this Bill into operation by order?

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is an administrative matter. We will have to prepare new licences terminable on the date we have already passed —30th September. The moment this passes through the Houses of the Oireachtas we will start preparing the licences. Existing licences will be terminable on 30th September.

Dr. O'Donovan

In fact, it will really come into operation on 1st October?

Mr. B. Lenihan

We will have the new licences before that, but they will be terminable on 30th September and thereafter renewed each year. It is an administrative matter of preparing the new licences. If the Deputy wants a time scale—the Bill should be through the Houses of the Oireachtas by March so I should say April or May.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next Stage?

Dr. O'Donovan

I would remind the Minister so that it is not forgotten and is on the record that we mentioned we wanted to have another look at the provision that was inserted about giving an additional licence.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes. I appreciate that.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 23rd February, 1971.