This Bill, as the Minister has said, is amending a flaw which has been discovered in the 1933 Road Transport Act, and is the third Transport Bill which the Seanad has had before it in the past few months. It is right, therefore, to refer to the Bill against the background of the legislation which it amends and the experience we have had in the intervening years. There is no dispute on any side of the House as to the intentions of the Oireachtas in passing the 1933 Act. I remember, when speaking to the Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill here on 9th November, pointing to the flaw which had been discovered in the 1933 Act, and saying why I thought amending legislation should be introduced as quickly as possible.
It might be no harm if we reminded ourselves what exactly was in the Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to which I refer, because it is obvious that we have forgotten some parts of it already. That Bill provided permanent legislation for the exemptions from Section 9 of the 1933 Road Transport Act—for the carriage of milk and milk containers to and from creameries. It also allowed the Minister to continue the practice of exempting, during a specified period each year, what we commonly call the grain season, the carrying of wheat by agents of millers for reward, without having a licence plate to do so. In other words, the position is that milk and milk containers may be carried for reward, and so also may wheat during the grain season, without a licence to do so.
Another section of that same Bill amended previous legislation so as to facilitate C.I.E. in conducting experiments with light diesel units on branch lines which would otherwise be abandoned. I recall that all sides of the House joined in welcoming the Minister's success in getting C.I.E. to conduct these experiments and reconsider its attitude. I suggested at the time that the provision of this modern equipment would not be enough, unless more traffic was secured to public transport as well. I pointed in support of that to the various reports of C.I.E. and the first report of the G.N.R. Board, all of which stressed the necessity for curbing illegal haulage and transferring some of the heavy traffic from road to rail, if organised public transport were not to collapse. The Seanad at a later date showed its confidence in the future of public transport by passing the Transport Act, 1955, which, amongst other things, increased the borrowing power of C.I.E. by some £5,000,000, so as to enable that undertaking to modernise and re-equip.
The Bill before us remedies a flaw, as I said, in the 1933 Act, which, if not remedied, would quickly lead to the collapse of organised public transport in this part of the country. Not alone would it jeopardise C.I.E., but also the G.N.R., the County Donegal Railways, the Londonderry and Lough Swilly, and the 900 licensed hauliers scattered throughout the country. The opportunity is being availed of to argue that the whole basis of the 1933 Act should be fundamentally reviewed. I think it is right that we should look at this critically, but with some knowledge of the background and appreciation of the overall position, not only in relation to the agricultural community, but to the whole national position. The viewpoint which has been expressed is, understandably— and this is admitted—a partisan viewpoint, being related to the agricultural community only; but I want to suggest to the advocates of this fundamental change that they might find that it is the agricultural community who would suffer most if the whole basis of organised public transport were undermined as is suggested.
Senator Cogan made a point here to-day that the horse as a means of transport has virtually disappeared in this country and has been replaced by the tractor. Some figures which I have show that, in August, 1954, there were about 23,000 tractors in the country and 313,000 horses, 260,000 of which were engaged by or owned by the agricultural community. In other words, in spite of the assertion that the horse has virtually disappeared, he still outnumbers the tractor by 11 to one.
We are told that, as the tractor has replaced the horse, the same facilities to carry for reward should be given to the tractor as the horse had prior to 1933 and since then. I was rather young in 1933, but I do have some memories of spending a lot of time on farms, and I wonder whether people who have more knowledge of the situation would agree with my estimate of the position. That is that, prior to 1933, every farmer had either a horse and cart to transport his own goods to give him a service or, if he were on a smaller scale, he had a donkey and butt, as we used to call it down in County Kerry. In fact, it was not the general practice to any extent to carry for reward because every farmer had his own means of transport.
Has that position changed since then? If a farmer has got a tractor in the meantime, he still has his own means of carrying his own goods and he is quite free to do so. If he has not got a tractor in the meantime, I suggest he still has a horse and cart, though probably not the same horse. He still services himself by his own horse and cart. In addition, he now has the organised public transport of the State to give him additional services, plus, as I said, the 900 licensed hauliers, plus also the exemptions which we gave under the Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill some months ago of carrying for reward milk, milk containers and grain. I think that it would be very wrong that this bubble should be blown up too high altogether.
I note particularly that the representative of Fianna Fáil, namely, Deputy Lemass, who has most expert knowledge of transport and the needs and difficulties of it, does not apparently attach too much weight and has not declared so far in favour of this general assertion that the 1933 Act should be reviewed so as to release the farming community from supposed restrictions. I suggest these restrictions are supposed and, from some of the speakers here to-day, it is obvious that the restrictions are more in their own minds than in actual operation.
I referred to the 900 licensed hauliers who service the community in addition to the public transport undertaking, and it should be noted that these operators are not required to be common carriers. In other words, they have greater freedom and do not operate under such stringent conditions as public transport undertakings. In fact, they can supply a local service to the local community more adequately and more economically in many cases than the organised public transport undertakings, which have to operate under different conditions. I do not think that any of us here, in this part of the country anyway, would be so rash as to advocate that the public transport undertakings should be released from their common carrier obligations. That is of great value, not alone to the commercial people of this country, but also to the agricultural community throughout the country and the fishermen operating from our ports. It means that a service must be operated, whether there are one ton or 100 tons offering, one box of fish or 100 boxes of fish. The service must be given all the time, must operate on a schedule and must be available.
The point was made here to-day again that the tractor should be allowed to carry goods, and particular reference was made to the farmer carrying his own goods on the £8 licence fee. I think that Senator Cogan will know that the agricultural community are already getting very favourable concessions for their tractors, both in regard to taxation and the taxation of fuel. The position is that a tractor owned and operated for agricultural purposes is subject only to a 5/- per annum agricultural tax, provided it is used only within the farm or to and from a farm, unloaded, except for agricultural implements.
Then there is a heavier tax, the £8 tax to which Senator Cogan refers, and there is no restriction whatever going with that £8 per annum tax in regard to the conveyance of agricultural produce; but, of course, they are precluded from carrying for reward the same as anybody else owning a tractor or a lorry, unless they are specifically licensed to do so. As I said, the agricultural community has in addition substantial rebate of taxation on fuel.
Making a comparison, the taxation to which I refer on tractors for agricultural purposes—5/- per annum to £8 per annum—compares with the ordinary commercial rate of £21 10s. per annum, which is the very lowest, up to £45 per annum.
I do not know whether it would be pertinent to throw this point into this debate and make a comparison with the similar situation which was allowed to develop in Northern Ireland. We are aware—the Minister more than anybody else probably—of the difficulties of public transport in Northern Ireland at the present time. The advocates of this freedom, this release from supposed restrictions, might have the benefit of this argument. I make them a present of it. Under the Northern Ireland Transport Act of 1948, farmers as such are allowed to carry for reward for neighbours who live within a mile of themselves. They can carry for reward for those neighbours and we do know that is one of the reasons why public transport in Northern Ireland has got into such a terrific mess and the advocates of this release, of this freedom to the farmers to carry for reward, might have regard to the interests of the community as a whole and not their own particular sectional viewpoints.
I am suggesting to the Seanad that the very material concessions given to the agricultural community in regard to tractors is designed to encourage production in agriculture. They are designed to encourage the farmers to own and operate tractors, so that they can increase the productivity on their farms. I do not think it was ever the intention to encourage them to buy tractors so as to enter into competition with other transport concerns, that they should branch out and become licensed hauliers or unlicensed hauliers as is suggested.
I think that the difficulties which would be created by the giving of such freedom to the agricultural community would lead to a state of chaos which would be to the detriment of the farmers eventually, because what would happen is that every second farmer would be encouraged to set up his son as a haulier. That is all right while the lorry or the tractor is new. They can go hell for leather up and down, but they will quickly find out— it is the experience here and in Northern Ireland prior to 1933—that such freedom is not worth while in the end. It means that these people cut their own throats and run themselves down to the rims of their wheels, and they and the general community are the poorer in the long run.
I want to suggest very seriously that no adequate case has been made for a fundamental revision of the 1933 Act. I want to make a point that the people in Fianna Fáil who know the subject and who know the problem do not apparently favour it themselves. I want to make the point also that the people who are advocating this removal of restrictions are not aware of the freedom they at present have and are in many cases imagining restrictions which do not exist.
I have pointed to the freedom which at present exists and the concessions which are made and I do not think that it can be fairly said that the operation of the 1933 Road Transport Act places the farming community now in any worse position than they were in prior to its operation.
The farming community have adequate transport and it cannot be said that there is a fundamental need for them to be allowed to carry for reward, so as, they say, to oblige their neighbours. There are good facilities at the moment. Each farmer has his own means of transport, whether it is horse and cart or a tractor; and the horse, as I have shown, has not been wiped out of Ireland yet. They still outnumber the tractors by 11 to one.
I think that a far better case will have to be made for any easement in the 1933 Act than has already been made. The difficulty which would be created would be very severe. If the people who want such freedom are prepared to come along, at the same time, and say: "We recognise that this would greatly jeopardise transport and we are in favour of the principle of subsidising public transport", well, then, there would be more meat in what they are saying, but at the moment they do really want to have their cake and eat it. I think greater thought and more detailed study of this situation should be made before our whole experience, our background and our organised public transport here should be scrapped having decided only a few months ago to go ahead and spend many more million pounds in modernisation and re-equipment.