JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012

Agricultural Vehicles on Public Roads: Discussion with Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland

Vice Chairman

I welcome the representatives of the Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland: Mr. Michael Sheehan, chairman; Mr. Tom Murphy, director; and Ms Brigid Cunniffe, administrator. They are appearing before us to discuss possible legislation that would have an impact on the use of agricultural vehicles on public roads.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The opening statements the delegates have submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website after the meeting. I invite Mr. Murphy to make his opening contribution.

Mr. Tom Murphy

We welcome the opportunity to address the committee. We will be talking about the use of agricultural and works vehicles on public roads. Our comments will give members an indication of the impact impending legislation on the use of agricultural vehicles on the public roads will have on the agricultural contracting sector.

For 25 years Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland has been the recognised representative body for agricultural contractors. We represent contractors at local, national and European level and are committed to tackling all issues that affect the livelihood of our members.

Farming has been identified as one of the key sectors that will help Ireland to overcome the current economic recession. Agricultural contractors provide vital services for farmers, carrying out 70% of all mechanical services and over 80% of silage operations. The use of contractors is pivotal in ensuring Irish agricultural produce is competitive in an increasingly aggressive world market. Agricultural contractors already face many challenges, including fuel costs and the withdrawal of credit facilities by suppliers and banks, owing to the current economic climate; high loan repayments owing to the requirement for high priced machinery; and, above all, unfair competition by those operating in the black economy.

In the light of the unpredictability of repeat business and the seasonal nature of farming, many agricultural contractors must carry out off-farm work in order to make it viable to purchase expensive machinery. This includes work with local authorities, utility and building companies and road construction. However, the abrupt halt in road construction and the building industry had a severe impact on the businesses of numerous contractors. Many found themselves unable to meet repayments and the number of machinery repossessions rose dramatically. The restrictions of impending legislation will be the breaking point that will lead to a significant number of contractors going out of business. The effects on farming will be disastrous.

As a major stakeholder, Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland was appointed to the consultative panel when the Road Safety Authority undertook to review regulation, classification and safety issues surrounding the use of agricultural vehicles on the public highway. When the draft report was published, Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland met RSA officials to draw attention to proposed changes to legislation that would have an adverse effect on our members. We are aware that recommendations arising from the consultative process have been forwarded by the Road Safety Authority to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, for his approval. We have been informed by senior departmental officials that it is not common practice for stakeholders to be provided with the final recommendations to the Minister. However, Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland is aware that the IFA is in possession of this document and we consider that all stakeholders should be afforded equal access.

Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland is very conscious of the safety issues in the use of agricultural and work vehicles on roads and farms. As a long-standing member of the Health and Safety Authority's farm safety partnership advisory committee, we keep health and safety at the forefront and wholeheartedly support the principles within the recommendations for the new legislation. Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland has a long history of actively supporting and promoting restrictions in regard to age, licensing and weight limits for young drivers. It also supports the introduction of road worthiness testing for all vehicles using public highways and encourages the same requirements for off-road use. There are, however, a number of matters of concern for agricultural contractors.

First, I refer to the reduction of the speed limit to 40 km/h, effectively prohibiting agricultural tractors from travelling on the motorway. Tractors will only be permitted to travel on secondary roads, where they will be restricted again to a speed limit of 40 km/h or 25 mph. The condition of our secondary roads is deteriorating at an alarming rate and more importantly, there are no designated passing points for slow-moving vehicles to pull in to allow a build-up of traffic to pass. Increased numbers of tractors on secondary roads, travelling at a maximum speed of 40 km/h, will be an irritation and danger to other road users. The likelihood of accidents occurring as irate drivers attempt to overtake is obvious.

At present, some contractors use short stretches of the motorway to reach certain farm clients. The option of using the motorway is of particular concern to contractors in towns throughout Ireland, for example, Maynooth and Cashel to mention two but there are many more, where vehicles above a certain weight are banned from travelling through the town. As local authorities strive to make town centres more accessible to the local population and attractive to visitors, an increase in agricultural vehicles passing through will cause problems and dangers to other road users and pedestrians.

Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland, PAC Ireland, does not support or seek the unrestricted movement of tractors on motorways. Our recommendation is that an agreed radius from an agricultural contractor's business base be imposed, allowing access to motorways for short journeys within that area.

A second concern is the permit required for agricultural contractors using agricultural vehicles for non-agricultural use work to penalise for the advantage of using marked fuel. From a financial perspective, agricultural contracting is a high-risk business and to meet the mechanical needs of farming, contractors must invest in high-cost machinery. However, the seasonal nature of farming and the cost of machinery mean that all but a very few large contracting businesses must carry out off-farm work with their machinery to meet the costs of machinery repayments. PAC Ireland believes the proposed permit system is a blunt instrument that makes no allowances for the percentage of non-agricultural work carried out by the individual contractors. The ability to carry out such off-farm work must remain an option for contractors if they are to remain in business to provide a service to farming. It is not cost-effective for farmers to purchase the large-scale machinery used by contractors to carry out silage and other harvesting operations as well as other large-scale works. The danger is that if there is a significant reduction in the number of agricultural contractors, the effect on farming and the cost of production would be disastrous. Hauliers have long objected to agricultural contractors carrying out roadside work for local authorities, building construction sites, motorway work and other miscellaneous small works. Such objections are raised despite the impossibility of accessing such sites with conventional hauliers' vehicles, the unsuitability of ground conditions and the much greater effectiveness associated with the use of agricultural contractors for small works. PAC Ireland does not seek the unrestricted use of agricultural vehicles for non-agricultural work. An equitable system can be put in place to ensure fairness to allow agricultural contractors to carry out work that is not practical for hauliers and others to do.

At the heart of these issues is the question as to whether the farming sector needs agricultural contractors. PAC Ireland is firmly of the view that in the current competitive local and world markets, farmers' overheads must be kept to a minimum and, therefore, it is not economically viable for farmers to purchase large-scale machinery. Consequently, the answer is yes, the farming sector would be in serious trouble were agricultural contractors to go out of business because they were sidelined and their valuable contribution to farming ignored.

In recent meetings with the European contractors representative body, CEETTAR, PAC Ireland has supported the thrust for agricultural contractors to be taken into consideration in the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, negotiations, which is not the case at present. PAC Ireland already has approached the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to promote the inclusion of agricultural contractors under the umbrella of that Department, rather than being classified as a services industry.

This concludes our written submission. It all hinges on the proposed legislation that is sitting on the Minister's desk and which we cannot influence further. However, as Members of the Oireachtas, members of the joint committee have some leeway to so do, which is the reason we asked to appear before it today.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I welcome the representatives of PAC Ireland and thank them for the submission. They have raised a number of issues and I will take the last issue first, namely, the use of agricultural vehicles for local authority work. I am unsure whether the intention to restrict the use by local authorities and others of agricultural vehicles is driven by safety. I believe it to be more driven by an anxiety on the part of other sectors of the industry to try to keep such vehicles from doing the work. I note in particular that if one is working on awkward sites, carrying out small roadworks and so on in rural areas, the use of agricultural vehicles actually keeps costs down, is highly efficient, allows one access into fields and so on. It also would be fair to state that were one obliged to bring in large lorries, big dump vehicles and so on to carry out some of this work, one would find there was a significant cost factor. In any event, in many cases the most suitable vehicle in a practical sense is an agricultural vehicle because it is designed for the terrain, as local vehicles usually are involved. Consequently, I have a great deal of sympathy with PAC Ireland on that point. As Mr. Murphy noted in respect of the testing of the vehicles and so on, if I understood him correctly, PAC Ireland welcomes all those measures to ensure safety concerns are dealt with.

I am not so convinced about the motorway use. Motorways are designed for travelling on at 120 km/h and one can argue that the presence on a motorway of very slow-moving vehicles means other vehicles will come up behind them very quickly, which means people will be forced into outside lanes and so on. As the witnesses are aware, drivers who travel on the inside lane and who are not the kind of people to overtake unless they must but who are then forced to overtake a very slow-moving vehicle will move out at a slow speed into the fast lane. The issue I perceive concerns the relative speeds of vehicles travelling at the legal maximum speed of 120 km/h and other vehicles moving at 40 km/h. I cannot see how it makes any difference as to whether one is on a motorway for a short or a long stretch, as one is on a motorway either way. In this context, a point one is always told about motor accidents is the majority of them take place within a certain small radius of people's houses. Consequently, the fact the contractors would be operating within so many kilometres of their business does not answer the problem.

I take Mr. Murphy's point regarding Maynooth and the areas around Dublin in which weight restrictions apply. I accept that is a problem but in general, speaking as someone who uses motorways a considerable amount, one could argue this measure could be very deceptive for people if one expects everyone to be travelling at speeds somewhere between 80 km/h and 120 km/h. I would be interested to hear what is the independent evidence of the risk associated with having vehicles moving at 30 km/h or 40 km/h compared with vehicles travelling at 120 km/h. It is fair to say that one of the major advantages of motorways has been safety, including a reduction in accidents. I am not as convinced as other people seem to be that the reduction in the number of road deaths concerns driver training. I think there have been two major effects, the first of which is improved roads. We know that motorways are seven times safer than conventional roads.

The other effect has been the technical development of cars, in addition to people wearing seat belts. People survive car accidents now that would have claimed their lives in the 1960s and 1970s due to the technical development of cars, including the way the chassis is designed to crumple and withstand an impact. I have first-hand experience of being in a head-on accident, although I was not driving. The driver saved our lives. If it had happened 30 years ago, there would have been no chance of survival. We must, therefore, examine the significant safety issue very carefully.

I also want to hear the other side of the argument on this matter, including the statistics, before coming on board. The crucial issue for agricultural contractors is access to the right to be hired to do roadworks. This has been going on for a long time, and long before this law came in, there was pressure not to hire. In recent years, some counties have refused to hire agricultural vehicles. All it did was put up the cost and it made no difference to safety.

Mr. Michael Sheehan

In answer to Deputy Ó Cuív's question about motorways, there is a problem in certain places around the countryside - it is not all over - where there is not access from one side of a city or large town to the other side without going on a motorway. That is where we have the problems. It is not the professional agricultural contractors' association's plan to have unlimited access to motorways. We are interested in the health and safety issue. The minimum speed on a motorway is 50 km/h. However, vehicles travelling at 120 km/h coming up against a vehicle going at 50 km/h is a recipe for disaster. There are no two ways about that and we agree with that. We are conscious of the health and safety aspect of it but the biggest problem our organisation has is for our members to get access.

Limerick city is a case in point. There are by-laws there which prevent large vehicles from entering the city during the daytime. The only access from one side of Limerick to the Ennis side is around the tunnel on the motorway. There is no other way.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The tunnel is not a motorway.

Mr. Michael Sheehan

I understood it was, or that part of it was a motorway.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

No, it is not. The tunnel is not a motorway. I am very familiar with it.

Mr. Michael Sheehan

We have it in Waterford, which is an example. I know this for a fact.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The Waterford bypass is not a motorway.

Mr. Michael Sheehan

Is it not?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

No.

Mr. Michael Sheehan

There are other areas around. To be honest with the Deputy, I was under the impression that Waterford was a motorway.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

They look like motorways. I do not know why they are not motorways but technically they are not motorways. I am very familiar with the Limerick one.

Mr. Michael Sheehan

I take the Deputy's point but our members have made us aware of other areas where there is a problem in trying to get access through towns. Travelling a short distance down a motorway would solve that problem and avoid congestion in the town. That is basically what we are asking for.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Is it possible to get details of where these problems occur to see if there is any other solution? Some of these, much to my surprise, are not technically motorways.

Mr. Tom Murphy

Certain areas are not designated as motorways at the moment, but we can provide a list. We have asked the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to deal with it but it says it is an issue for local authorities, and we should approach them to reverse the restricted access through the towns. There are towns that cannot be accessed. In some cases, unless people go on one access on the motorway and not the next, they cannot get to farms where they are doing work. I do not want this to be taken as the major part of our submission because it is only a small part.

The Deputy asked for evidence of the high risk of tractors going on motorways. Tractors must be capable of doing a minimum speed of 50 km/h, but most would be doing more than that on a motorway. There is no evidence, although we have asked for this. I sit on a committee of the Health and Safety Authority with the Garda Síochána and we examine all work vehicles using our highways. They have not been able to provide me with any evidence of tractors being involved in accidents on motorways. We have many accidents with trucks going slowly and people piling into them, but we do not have anything involving tractors and trailers. I would stress the fact, however, that this is not our major plank. It is one of a number of issues, but others may be more important than this.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I agree with Mr. Murphy on the major issue he raised.

Mr. Tom Murphy

The issue we are really concerned about, and the Deputy has indicated he would have sympathy, is the non-agricultural use of machinery. Agricultural contractors are involved in purchasing exceedingly expensive machinery, mainly tractors and some trailers. We are not talking about bailers and mowers; we are talking about machinery that can be used for other purposes.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I accept that.

Mr. Tom Murphy

Over the years, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has discouraged local authorities and, in fact, has threatened them. I can produce letters which said one must not employ people unless they are this, that or the other. There has been a grey area to a certain extent, but now and again the Department sends out letters which frighten the life out of local authorities and they desist from using local contractors.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

That is right.

Mr. Tom Murphy

They are introducing a permit system to get over this problem but it is not doing this. It is using a sledge-hammer. Under the permit system one can only do it for a certain number of months of the year. In their own words, a person will be penalised for the advantage of using marked fuel, and penalised for the fact that they will have to pay for this permit irrespective of the amount of work they will do. Let us say a person is going to do €20,000 worth of work and my friend will do €200,000 worth of off-farming work, but both will pay for the same permit. We cannot get access to the final recommendations that have been made, although other organisations have them, and it will affect us more.

One of the problems is that contractors fall into no-man's-land. They are not part of agriculture; they are part of the service industry. Recently, we spoke to senior people in Brussels about including contractors in the CAP reform considerations. Putting it simply, if one loses the opportunity of having agricultural contractors - and it is getting pretty close to it because so many are leaving the business - farmers will not be able to buy expensive machinery. Or if they do, it will be sitting idle for quite some time. It will affect the production costs of our small island. Therefore, it is essential to retain the opportunity of having agricultural contractors. The only way to do that is to allow them for certain parts of the year, without restriction and within the law, to do off-farm work. That would be for local authorities and on small building sites where other big vehicles cannot be used.

Vice Chairman

Could I clarify the point Mr. Murphy made about the recommendations from the Road Safety Authority, RSA, to the Minister? In his presentation there was a suggestion that the IFA has got them. Was the IFA supplied with them officially?

Mr. Tom Murphy

The Department will say "No", they are not supplied officially. If one reads the Irish Farmers’ Journal, however, it states quite clearly it has a copy of it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

From my experience, it winds up with many documents.

Mr. Tom Murphy

We compliment it on getting it, but we would like to see it as well. We could then have come to this meeting and say what specifically will be in the legislation that is to be published. The other matter that concerns us is that, leaving the motorway out of the argument, one will be restricted to 40 km/h or 25 mph. Recently, I travelled from Athlone to Ballinasloe on the old road at 25 mph. I was not a popular person with those travelling behind me. If the limit is reduced, people will blame the farmers and agricultural contractors when stuck behind them on the roads. It is ludicrous to tie a contractor to 25 mph. More importantly, there are no designated pull-in areas on many primary and secondary roads and one cannot overtake because of single and double white lines. If there were designated areas to pull into, a contractor could let the 15 or 20 cars behind pass.

Vice Chairman

Is this reduction a recommendation of the Road Safety Authority report?

Mr. Tom Murphy

The report did not state tractors may not use a motorway. It has stated all tractors should be restricted to 40 km/h which is 25 mph. This will be contained in the new legislation later this year, if it goes through.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The technology of tractors over the past 30 years has changed dramatically in terms of safety and the ability to travel at a reasonable speed without wobbling all over the road. They are totally different vehicles from the old ones with the two large wheels on the back and the two small wheels on the front. Most of them now have four large wheels and are much steadier on the road. The old Athlone-Ballinasloe road was a national primary route. On such a road, what would the delegation consider the safe operating speed of a modern tractor?

Mr. Michael Sheehan

There has been a massive improvement in the build-quality, braking system and fuel efficiency of tractors. The modern tractor is generally designed to travel at 50 km/h. They have equal to, if not superior, braking systems to a heavy goods vehicle, HGVs. Our organisation has been promoting health and safety in our area and we have a good record on it.

If we drop the speed limit from 50 km/h to 40 km/h, we will be looking at increased costs across the board. A 20% decrease in speed will lead to greater fuel consumption because a 40 km/h tractor will be driven flat out to the last, both engine-wise and rev-wise, to get the maximum speed. Tractors designed for 50 km/h are not being driven to the last as they are more economical than a 40 km/h one because the engines are not run at high speeds. I am a contractor of 37 years' experience with modern plant and equipment. Some of my tractors are capable of 50 km/h at 1,500 rpm. That is roughly 1,000 rpm less than a 40 km/h tractor which would be run at 2,300 rpm. This leads to immediate fuel consumption savings with the 50 km/h tractor.

By having a higher speed on a tractor, less fuel is burned and, therefore, fewer emissions are pumped out. There is also a labour-saving element to the higher speed tractors in that we are able to get from A to B quicker, leading to savings in fuel as well. If we are going back to 40 km/h tractors, there will be an increase in all costs from labour to fuel consumption.

Manufacturers have put much research and development into modern tractors. While Ireland is running 50 km/h tractors, Germany is running 65 km/h tractors. I accept they may have better roads. However, we are quite satisfied with running 50 km/h tractors. As a contractor, I reckon they are a safe vehicle in the right hands.

We have also been vociferous in calling for the establishment of a tiered system for learner drivers in how they would be able to handle these vehicles. I have young nephews and nieces who have much experience in using tractors on farms. There has to be a graduated system for such drivers, however, so they can achieve decent experience on the machines before they are allowed on the road. Safety is our main concern. Air brakes on tractors are equal, if not superior, to those on HGVs. These are also connected to trailers with air brakes which make them superior to HGVs.

The Food Harvest 2020 strategy aims to increase agricultural production. Farm land is very fragmented in Ireland. It would be very hard for one farmer to put together a significant block of land in one place. For example, I have two clients, dairy farmers, who have increased their herd sizes from 100 to 250 cattle and 100 to 400 cattle. They do not have enough land around their bases for silage and fodder, so they have to import it from farms four and five miles away. Reducing the tractor speed limit to 40 km/h will have a negative cost effect on their operations. The margins in farming, as we all know, are getting tighter. This year, there have been reductions in milk prices which have resulted in tighter margins for farmers. That results in a squeeze on contractors to reduce our costs more. If we are forced to reduce to 40 km/h tractors, we will be forced to increase our costs. To be part of the Food Harvest 2020 strategy, it is incumbent on the Government to examine this proposed reduction in a practical way. We would be very upset if the tractor speed limit was reduced to 40 km/h.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank the professional agricultural contractors for their presentation. Irrespective of whether agricultural contractors access carriageways or not, the key issue, I agree, is the speed limit. If a vehicle is capable of doing 50 km/h, then there is no reason it should not travel at that speed within a reasonable area. The key to this is to deal with the Minister and not allow the speed limit be reduced.

I also agree on the call for flexibility in allowing agricultural contractors to be eligible to apply for other contracting work. Agriculture is seasonal. Individual agricultural contractors should be eligible for doing work for local authorities and in other non-agricultural areas. I do not see why that should change because it is very important that people maintain their livelihoods. There are issues with the fuel, the dye, marked fuel and so forth. I can understand the argument that it is a disadvantage, but it is something that can be worked out. It should not hinder making an argument against the contractors not getting a contract on unfair grounds. There are ways of dealing with that. I also have a question about the age of vehicles. I have not seen the legislation but are there proposals about the age of the vehicles and restricting them from travelling on certain types of road if they are outside a certain age? Is there legislation on that area?

I assume the vehicles are tested every year, similar to a national car test, NCT. What are the representatives' opinions about that and the process for licensing? These issues are constantly arising. The taxi representatives were before the committee earlier and they spoke about the costs associated with all of this. Perhaps the witnesses would explain how it works in the agriculture industry. They also mentioned a permit system in terms of dealing with local authorities and being able to access work with the local authorities and so forth. Will they elaborate more on that?

Mr. Tom Murphy

I will deal with the testing of vehicles first. I have been involved with PAC Ireland for 25 years and for at least 20 years we have been advocating road worthiness testing and certificates for agricultural machinery, initially for machinery travelling on a public highway. However, over recent years we have been asking for it per se, that is, whether it is for the public highway or on farms. Unfortunately, the agricultural sector, particularly on farms, has the highest ratio of fatalities and injuries. That is due to much of the machinery that is used, not by contractors but by farmers. Thank God, contractors have a good record but that does not take away from the fact that people are dying. Older machinery is more likely to cause accidents, for example, where brakes are not working, people get off the machinery and the machinery rolls and crushes them. We have been asking for that and it is now in the proposals. We have no problem with it.

The proposals say it will be a requirement only for non-agricultural use; it is still not being brought in across the board. It will only be for on-road use for non-agricultural purposes. The machinery must be tested on the second anniversary of registration and every two years thereafter. We have no problem with that. The testing will include lighting, brakes, steering, tyres and so forth. There is a suggestion that in five years it might be extended to all agricultural machinery but I do not envisage it happening in the foreseeable future. The age of the tractor will not be a concern in the area where we are focusing. We would welcome it immediately, irrespective of age.

Three or four years ago we did some testing of tractors and trailers and their braking capacity, when this argument was still raging as to whether they could be used and local authorities were being stopped from using them and so forth. Twelve or more inspectors from testing centres throughout the country came to Maynooth. The men bringing tractors from Meath could not go through the town. They had to go on the motorway to get to Maynooth to do the test. We spent two days there. The end result was that the test was an overwhelming success in terms of safety, stopping capacity and all the other matters that go with the safety of vehicles on the road. They had a better capacity than most heavy goods vehicles. That record is with the Department.

The permit system can be used. One could have a permit system for anything as long as it is not draconian and using a sledgehammer to deal with a single small issue. The other aspect is that one could bring in a radius basis. I do not wish to focus on motorways because it is the smallest part of the overall picture, but one could issue a permit to local contractors who can prove to somebody in authority that going on the motorway is the only way to get to the parcels of land. In other words, one must travel on one motorway, do the work and return that way because the other ways are not open to them. If that was to happen, one could introduce a permit system for that, so one would not have every Tom, Dick and Harry travelling on the motorway with their machinery. That is not happening at present, incidentally. A very small number of farmers have parcels of land that are difficult to access, and that is why they would use them. They are not using them on a fully commercial basis.

Vice Chairman

I thank Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Murphy and Ms Cunniffe for their attendance and for articulating their concerns and problems. It is now a matter for the committee to progress this. I will take suggestions from members. I propose that we send your submission to the Minister and the transcript of these proceedings to give him a full overview, and request him to take your concerns on board in any proposed legislation. Is that agreed?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

That is agreed. Presumably the report will be published and then there will be legislation.

Vice Chairman

Is it secondary legislation?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

It does not matter whether it is primary or secondary legislation, it can be brought to the committee to discuss it.

Mr. Tom Murphy

We know it is sitting on the Minister's desk. We were told initially that there could be no further alterations. We identified a number of areas that were just not practical in terms of the weights and axle distances. We had a meeting with the RSA and pointed this out again. It went back and changed it, so we have made minor changes.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Did the RSA indicate whether it would require primary or secondary legislation?

Mr. Tom Murphy

I think it is secondary.

Ms Brigid Cunniffe

It is secondary. Statutory instruments will be drawn up as a result of the Minister's recommendations.

Vice Chairman

They should probably be published before we consider them.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Statutory instruments are published and one does not usually get a chance to debate them. One can debate them but it is usually a post facto debate. Technically, the Oireachtas has 28 days to annul any secondary legislation. I believe that is the rule.

Vice Chairman

The Deputy would probably be more aware of that than me.

Mr. Tom Murphy

It is an omission on our side but the committee might not have seen the original briefing document. When we got our briefing document we were told it was highly confidential, that the Department would brief us on what was in it but that we could not go public on it. Of course, within 24 hours it was in the Irish Farmers’ Journal, so we went public with our members and told them what was happening. If it is permitted, we could give the committee that document and members could see where we are coming from in terms of some of the suggestions we have been making here. They will see that the motorway is the smallest part of the overall picture, although an important one. Deputy Ellis mentioned permits and the other uses. The non-agricultural uses are a most important issue because if one does not have that and it is too expensive to operate or to do it, one might as well ban it altogether and there will no longer be contractors.

Vice Chairman

I suggest that we ask the Minister to respond to the submission and to the transcript of the discussion today in advance of the legislation.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

It would be preferable to pre-empt the decision by having a discussion with him. If it is published as a statutory instrument, it will be difficult to change.

Mr. Michael Sheehan

One of the major issues that arises for me as a contractor is the reduction from 50 km/h to 40 km/h. In terms of costs and everything else it is essential to retain that. In the interest of emissions and health and safety, these tractors have far superior braking systems than is the case for other vehicles.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I acknowledge what Deputy Ó Cuív is arguing but the main issues arising from this meeting are the reduction of the speed limit to 40 km/h and the contractual arrangements that will be put in place. We should emphasise our serious concern that they will lead to job losses and people leaving farming altogether. We should make that point clearly. If the Minister is intent on proceeding with legislation we should at least put our concerns on the record.

Vice Chairman

We will ask him to respond to our concerns and will communicate his response to the witnesses.

Mr. Tom Murphy

I am most grateful to the committee for its assistance.

Vice Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Michael Sheehan

On behalf of the Professional Agricultural Contractors of Ireland I thank the committee for inviting us to address it.

Vice Chairman

Is there any other business? Members of the working group on the road haulage fuel laundering report are due to meet at 6 p.m. this evening.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.35 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 July2012.