Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Apr 1956

Vol. 45 No. 19

Road Transport Bill, 1955—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to close a loophole in the Road Transport Acts which was disclosed by a recent decision of the Supreme Court.

The Road Transport Act, 1933, provides that, except in certain exempted areas around the principal ports, no person may carry merchandise for reward by road in a mechanically propelled vehicle unless he is the holder of a merchandise licence. It was accepted up to recently that the Act prohibited the hiring of a vehicle for the carriage of goods.

In a recent case, a lorry owner hired his lorry to a building contractor on the understanding that the owner was to keep the lorry taxed and insured and was to provide a driver. In practice he drove the lorry himself but this did not affect the legal position. The lorry was used for the haulage of sand the property of the building contractor. Both parties were prosecuted for illegal haulage. The defence pleaded that the arrangement between the defendants was a contract for the hire of the lorry and not for the transport of goods. The district justice accepted this defence. The case was brought to the High Court by means of a case stated and the High Court sustained the decision of the district justice. The Attorney-General then brought an appeal to the Supreme Court, but this was dismissed.

The loophole revealed by the Supreme Court's decision would frustrate very substantially the objects of the Road Transport Acts. Anyone who has goods for transport could now hire a vehicle for this purpose even though the vehicle owner is not the holder of a merchandise road transport licence. The vehicle could be hired for any period, long or short. A group of persons or firms could combine together to hire a lorry between them and use it freely for the transport of goods owned by each of them individually. Moreover, enforcement of the Acts would become impossible. It would be extremely difficult for the Gardaí to obtain satisfactory evidence of cases of illegal haulage, because the parties concerned would claim that the vehicle had been hired by the owner of the goods. If this position were allowed to continue a large proportion of the merchandise road transport business carried on by the public transport concerns—C.I.E., G.N.R. Board and other railway companies— and by hauliers licensed under the Road Transport Acts would pass to unlicensed hauliers. The existing organisation of public road transport would be jeopardised and the financial position of the public transport undertakings would be adversely affected. While the loophole will be closed by this Bill safeguards are provided for traders who may genuinely need to hire vehicles while their own are being repaired or overhauled.

In recommending this Bill to the House, I should like to emphasise that the Road Transport Acts were designed to secure certain objects and were framed to give effect to a clearly defined transport policy. It is now revealed that the Acts as drafted and enacted failed to give effect to the intentions underlying them. Until the recent court decision, the Acts were accepted at their face value by all interests concerned. In effect, therefore, the Bill imposes no new restriction or control on transport.

During the debate on this Bill in the Dáil a number of Deputies expressed the view that having regard to developments since the Road Transport Act, 1933, was enacted our road transport legislation should now be reviewed with a view to introducing more flexibility into local transport in rural areas. It was argued that much of the traffic carried by horse and cart in 1933 now falls to be carried by mechanical transport and that compliance with the Road Transport Acts is unnecessarily restrictive on farmers. Deputies considered that a farmer hauling his own goods locally by tractor or even by station-wagon should be able to oblige his neighbours and to make some reasonable charge for doing do.

I undertook to have this matter specially examined to see to what extent it may be possible and practicable to effect some relaxation of the Transport Acts in favour of farmers without, at the same time, prejudicing the established interests of C.I.E. and the hauliers licensed under the Road Transport Acts. This examination is proceeding but it would not be possible to take any steps in the matter in connection with the present Bill.

As Senators may be aware, a private motion on this subject has since been tabled in the Dáil.

Níl fhios agam i gceart an cóir dúinn an Bille seo a rith tríd an Seanad i láthair na huaire seo go dtí go mbeidh caoi againn ar an gceist seo ceist tráchta na mbóithre a scrúdú go hiomlán. Ní fheadar an bhfuil aon ana-dheabhadh leis seo mar Bhille. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil agus do dhealródh an scéal nach bhfuil aon ghéar-ghá leis, mar, chomh fada agus is cuimhin liom, tá an chuid is mó de bhliain caite anois ó thug an Chúirt Uachtarach an bhreith sin uathu, breith a thug buadh d'fheirmeoir áirithe maidir leis an Acht a ritheadh tríd an Oireachtas sa mbliain 1933. Ní hamhlaidh, áfach, go mbéinn i bhfábhar é d'fhágaint mar atá sé, ach gur dóigh liom ná déanfaí aon díobháil don tír ná do C.I.É. dá bhfanaimís go ceann tamaill eile go dtí go mbeidh ceist tráchta na mbóithre scrúdaithe ag an Aire an ath-uair agus is maith liom a chlos go bhfuil an t-athscrúdú san á dhéanamh agus tá súil agam nach fada go mbeidh sé de chaoi againn díospóireacht iomlán, díospóireacht níos leithne, a bheith againn ar an gceist seo.

Acht tábhachtach is ea an bun-Acht a chuireamar i bhfeidhm sa mbliain 1933 agus, tríd is tríd, d'oibrigh sé go maith, agus bhí gá leis mar Acht; ach dá fheabhas a bhíonn aon Acht, ní fhágann san ná tagann athruithe le himeacht aimsire agus go bhfaightear amach go dtarlaíonn rudaí ná raibh aon choinne leo nuair a bhítheas ag díospóireacht ar na cúrsaí a bhí i gceist an uair sin. Ní mar a chéile cúrsaí na tuaithe maidir le feirmeoireacht agus aistriú stoic agus ábhair talmhaíochta ó áit go háit sa lá atá inniu ann agus an lá a bhí ann 23 bliain ó shoin. Tá athrú mór tagaithe ar na cúrsaí sin go léir.

I must confess that I have rather varied views on the measure we are discussing. I know, of course, and I am at one with the Minister in this, that probably it would not be desirable to leave the position of transport here or any phase of it in a state of uncertainly. It is always desirable to remove a state of uncertainly, but the question arises as to whether this is the best way of dealing with that position of uncertainty.

This is what I would describe as post factum or stop-gap legislation, or whatever you like to call it, dealing with a particular situation, and I do not know whether the situation that has arisen would develop into so serious a situation as to influence us to have recourse to a stop-gap measure of this kind. It would be far better, in my opinion, if we could wait until such time as the Minister and his Department have reviewed the whole transport situation of this country in the light of the changed circumstances that have arisen here since the passing of the Road Transport Act of 1933.

The Minister may tell us that it would be too long to wait and that a certain amount of damage might be done by the time anything like a comprehensive measure was ready in his Department for introduction to the Oireachtas. I do not know whether that would be the case or not, because, as far as I can recollect, it is now the most of 12 months since the Supreme Court gave that decision in favour of a certain member of the farming community down the country. If it has been found possible to wait for the most of 12 months before even having this measure we are now discussing put through the Oireachtas, why could it not have been possible to wait a few more months, or even six months, so as to give members of the Dáil and Seanad an opportunity of reappraising the transport situation in this country?

That is a point of view I am putting before the Minister to-day. I am not, as I have said, opposed to this measure. I am one of those who believe that it is not right to leave any situation such as that which has arisen as a result of a decision of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance. The Oireachtas could deal with it, but, perhaps, the Oireachtas should deal with it in a different way from that in which they are dealing with it now. Again, we are inclined to approach this problem of public transport with our eyes always fixed on C.I.E. I suppose that, in the nature of things, that is unavoidable. It is necessary to make sure that the public transport system of the country is upheld and it is only to be expected that the country as a whole would be expected to bear that in mind.

But there sometimes arises the doubt as to whether, perhaps, the community as a whole, or certain sections of it, may be expected to make too much of a contribution towards the preservation of the public transport system of this country. The Minister himself referred to the farming community and, no doubt, it is quite right and proper to bear the interests of the farming community in mind when we are discussing this question of public transport and there are many people who believe that there should be a more flexible system of transport available to the farmers of this country than there is at the present time.

Here again a question arises. If, for instance, we left this position as it is and had not this measure before us at all to-day, and if the farmers were left to themselves to deal with the situation as their own ingenuity has dealt with it up to now, what loss would that be to the community as a whole and what loss would it be to C.I.E.?

Again, there is another aspect of this question that comes before my mind and I think it was also dealt with in the Dáil. If all sections of the community are expected to submerge their own interests to any extent from time to time for the upkeep of the public transport system of the country, how is it that there are certain sections who are entirely outside the scope of that position? We have, as somebody mentioned in the Dáil, powerful lorries plying up and down the country on behalf of Messrs. Guinness. They have nothing to do with the public transport of this country and they are being allowed to have their own system of transport. The same applies to the oil lorries here which ply up and down on the roads of the country every day. They are not brought within the scope of the public transport system of this country. They are allowed to ply entirely on their own.

I do not know whether the Minister has given any consideration to that particular aspect of the case because somebody could come along and say, and would be justified in saying: "Why should the farmers of the country in an isolated locality be compelled to fall into line with whatever is considered the most beneficial public transport system to the community as a whole when those other interests are allowed to stay outside?"

The Senator misunderstands the position. Under the Act passed in 1933—the Senator knows the Government that was in power then— anybody may buy a lorry and haul his own goods, whether as a farmer, a brewer or a petrol transporter. Anybody may haul his own goods in his own lorry. That is the position to-day and it is not proposed to interfere with that. The 1933 Act intended to create a situation in which a person who had an unlicensed lorry could not haul goods for reward. By a device of hiring the lorry, it was sought to get behind the provisions which the Legislature thought were safely inserted in the 1933 Act. That is the only simple issue sought to be corrected in this amending Bill. If a farmer wants to buy 100 lorries tomorrow to transport his own goods he may do so and it is legal for him to do so.

I understand that position, but what I am referring to is the restrictions that can and are being put on people for the sake of the public transport system. If restrictions can be imposed in one direction, why can they not be imposed in other directions? However, I will leave it at that.

I have nothing more to say on this measure, except that we hope that, in the near future, we shall have an opportunity of having a fuller discussion on the whole transport position, when, as we expect and as the Minister has told us, we may be discussing another and more comprehensive measure than that which we have here to-day.

I approve of the Bill. I must confess, however, that, probably foolishly, I am rather puzzled by Section 2. The word "hirer" is rather ambiguous. It might sometimes be used to mean the owner of the vehicle and it might sometimes be used in respect of the person who, so to speak, takes the vehicle on tender. In legal language, one generally uses the word "owner" as proprietor and "hirer" as the tenant. What rather puzzles me is that, in Section 2, it is the person who becomes, so to speak, the tenant of the lorry who is deemed to be carrying on the road transport business which I understand to be a business of hauling goods. I should have thought that it is the person who is the owner of the vehicle who would be deemed by this ingenious device to carry on the road transport business. Whichever we say, the other party would, I think, be held to be conspiring to commit the offence. I wonder if Section 2 is quite clear as to whether it is really the hirer and not the owner who ought to be deemed to be carrying on the business.

I do not think there is any opposition to the passing of this Bill through the House. Everybody must feel a considerable sympathy with those people who fought a successful action through the courts on this point and won their case. It is, nevertheless, undesirable that we should have the kind of position which would be created by the court's decision. Everybody would be hiring lorries from everybody else and it would become very difficult for the Gardaí or anybody else to know the real and actual owners. Such a system would, in all probability, create a certain amount of dishonesty and would be very undesirable.

A measure of this kind affords opportunities to members of this House to point out how unfair is the operation of the present transport system, particularly as it affects people living in rural areas. In the days when the road transport of goods was mainly carried out by horse transport, and when public transport consisted mainly of rail transport, the position was entirely different. At that time, a farmer could convey not only his own goods but the goods of his neighbour to the railway station, to a market town, to the seaport or to any other place by horse transport. Now, the farmer who has got rid of his horses and who has substituted therefor a tractor of his own is not allowed to help his neighbours in the same way.

It may be argued that a farmer could carry goods the property of his neighbour as an act of charity without pay or reward and comply with the law, but I do not think anyone would envisage such a situation, because there are very few people who have goods to be transported who are not willing and anxious to pay for the transport of these goods in some form or other. If, for example, a farmer conveys his neighbour's wheat or potatoes to the market, it is only right and proper that the neighbour, if he does not pay in cash, should recompense the farmer in some other way. Thus, it could be argued that that service was for reward.

If the Minister is investigating this matter, as he says he is, it should be examined very thoroughly and as far as possible the farmer's tractor should be placed in exactly the same position as the farmer's horse. By that, I mean that the farmer who is a bona fide farmer, not a haulage contractor, should be allowed to carry his neighbours' goods for reward with his tractor and trailer to the same extent as he would heretofore have done with his horses. It may be argued that such a concession would be abused and that, perhaps, a farmer might fit himself out with a fleet of tractors and trailers and proceed to carry goods on a very large scale for reward. It would be quite easy to safeguard the position as far as that is concerned, provided it is accepted that this concession would apply only to a bona fide farmer, that is, a person who is deriving his living mainly from agriculture. I think such a person should have a very wide freedom in the use of his tractor.

It must be remembered that the agricultural tractor has come to stay and that the horse has gone absolutely and completely, as far as Ireland is concerned. It may take a few years to eliminate the remainder, and, in a few mountainous areas, the horse may survive for a while, but, taking the country as a whole, the tractor will eventually take the place of the horse, because it is more economic and efficient. Therefore, it is in the interests of agricultural efficiency that a farmer who owns a tractor should be permitted to use it to the best possible advantage.

There will always be some small holders or others who may not be able to undertake the transport of their produce by road and may need to avail of a neighbouring farmer's tractor, and it is only right that there should be give and take in a matter of this kind, as there always was in the past in regard to horse transport by road. There is also a wider aspect of this question. The Minister may be inclined to impose restrictions and perhaps hardships on the farmer in order to sustain and support and bolster up the public transport company.

He is not doing it in this Bill, only in so far as it is stated. I have a great deal of sympathy with the case which the Senator wants to make, but there are lengths beyond which he cannot go.

I know that, but the Minister indicated as a sort of justification for getting this Bill through that he was actively considering this whole matter of meeting the just claims of those who feel that they are aggrieved by the operation of the present monopoly which safeguards the interests of C.I.E. and of licensed hauliers. In that connection, perhaps, if the Minister sees that in his endeavour to be fair and just to the farming community and to those who desire greater freedom for their tractors and lorries, he may be jeopardising the interests of C.I.E., I would ask him to consider whether it is entirely desirable that C.I.E. should continue to operate a road transport service, or whether they should be relieved of the obligation of operating such a service, and requested to confine themselves to passenger transport by road and rail and to haulage of goods wholly by rail. If it is proved that C.I.E. are not making a profit out of road transport of goods, then they might be anxious to be relieved of the obligation of carrying on that service, and it might be possible to substitute, through private enterprise, a cheaper service. I do not intend to go into that matter further than that.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister, as this matter has come up for discussion, whether he would consider defining clearly what goods a farmer, for example, may carry, using his own tractor and trailer. The farmer paying an £8 tax should be free to carry any commodity which he requires for use on his farm, or which he has to dispose of off his farm. I do not object very much to the £8 tax, provided it enables the farmer to carry every commodity which it is necessary for him to carry in order to carry on his business as a farmer.

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.

I assume that the 1933 Road Transport Act was passed principally in order to bolster up the falling traffic on rail in regard to the carriage of merchandise and to prevent as far as possible the cut-throat competition from road transport. It was naturally desirable that, if the railways were to be maintained, the transport of goods by road running parallel with a railway should be discouraged as far as possible. At that time, 20 years ago, most firms still continued to transport their goods by rail, but now, as Senators have already remarked, such firms as Messrs. Guinness and Smithwick transport the bulk of their products by road transport.

I am glad to note that the Minister states his Department are considering a more flexible position in rural areas in favour of farmers. Senator Murphy referred to the fact that in Northern Ireland farmers may transport goods for their neighbours approximately one mile, but I do not agree with the Senator's suggestion that the chaos that now arises in connection with Northern Ireland transport is due to that position. In fact, a reversion to private enterprise as far as road transport generally is concerned, is being seriously considered in Northern Ireland. The position has altered considerably in a good part of this State in connection with the transport of merchandise.

I reside in an industrial village which is 25 miles distant from the rail head from which goods are distributed. A great part of the north and west of Donegal is even further distant from any railway than the 25 miles I have mentioned. The cost of the transportation of goods by road is higher per mile than the cost of transportation by rail. Therefore, the people in those areas have to pay higher charges for the transportation of their goods than they would if there were a railway in their district. There are practically no horses and carts left in my area, due to the fact that the people are small uneconomic holders. Many of them have not even horses. They depend on a few tractors to do the work.

Senator Murphy said the donkey and cart were in Kerry in 1933. I can assure Senator Murphy that there are very few donkeys in Donegal and we never used that animal very much at any time. Once the horse went, the people depended to a great extent on tractors. These tractors can operate satisfactorily for only a short distance. I feel that agricultural produce could be transported more cheaply, more economically and more expeditiously by private enterprise. I am convinced that if the rural community had any say in the matter, they would be entirely in favour of permitting such vehicles to transport agricultural and other produce for reward for their neighbours.

We are continually hearing the cry that only by increasing our agricultural output can this State improve its economic position. We should take the opportunity which this Bill presents to do something of a practical nature for the farmer in his essential work for the future prosperity of the State. A railway company which has a complete monopoly of transport, or the carriage of merchandise for reward by road, can be responsible for a considerable wastage. In my opinion, it is responsible for freight charges being too high, particularly for the farmer who has to sell a considerable amount of his produce in the world market. We are already priced out of the world market as far as eggs, pigs and butter are concerned and, with the falling price for our cattle, any assistance we can give to the rural people to help them in their work should be given.

With regard to wastefulness, I should like to mention that I am aware that in my county, railway lorries have to travel up to 82 miles to do a single journey of 16 miles and transport cattle from one fair to another because suitable lorries with cribs for the transportation of cattle are not available any nearer. They are headquartered in Stranorlar and must go a considerable distance to pick up these cattle and return again to their base. I am also aware that Lough Swilly Railway lorries which have gone to Dublin with merchandise have had to return empty, despite the fact that the person for whom that merchandise was being brought had a return cargo to be brought back. Because the G.N.R. had a transportation monopoly in respect of part of this State, the Lough Swilly Railway lorries had to return empty from Dublin to North Donegal.

If local lorries could be employed in many of these cases, a considerable reduction in the cost of produce could be effected. For instance, the local authority is not permitted, as the Minister is aware, to employ lorries for the carriage of road material, but a railway company are entitled to employ private lorries. They deduct 10 per cent. from the amount being paid and they pay the 90 per cent. to the private lorry owner. I think, therefore, it is wrong that local authorities should be compelled to employ public transport lorries for the transportation of such material. If local or private lorries were permitted to do so, it would help to supplement the income of those private lorry owners who could do such good work for the farming community during the slack periods. I do not think it was the intention of the 1933 Act that local authorities should be restricted in that way.

I understand that recently in our county, in consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court, private lorries have been employed at £5 a day, when the railway company lorries were charging £9 a day for the same work. If a public transport company have a complete monopoly of public transport, there is always the danger of a lightning strike. The whole transport system could be paralysed and that might have a serious effect on agricultural produce of a perishable nature. For that reason, the staff and the employees of a railway company are in a privileged position. I suggest that their wages are higher in proportion to the wages of other people engaged in a comparable type of work. They are certainly much better off than those depending for an existence on the produce of the small farmer.

Do you think they should be cut down a little?

No, but I think the rural community are the backbone of the whole economy of this country and that their interests should have primary consideration. Senator Murphy also said that there are 900 licensed hauliers. Where are they situated? Are they not mostly situated in the cities and towns?

No, outside.

Of what benefit are they to the isolated rural areas? Again, I understand that transportation in Dublin City is free for a radius of 15 miles. Why not give some such zone to areas where there is no railway system, such as in those parts of the country I have mentioned?

Senator Murphy referred to the Lough Swilly Railway Company. He knows well that that is not a railway company at the moment at all. They have no railway system whatsoever. It is entirely a road system and last year paid a very substantial dividend on its profits.

I should like to add a few words to what has been said by the speakers on this side of the House. The Minister told us that the Bill was for the purpose of closing a loophole in the transport laws. I would prefer to have the transport laws with the loophole, and, in saying that, I think I express the views of the whole farming community. Agriculture needs more competition in road transport. The cheaper and more efficient road transport and transport generally that we have, the greater agricultural production will be. Everybody seems to desire that increased agricultural production should be attained and be the salvation of the country.

Senator Murphy has stated that the speakers on this side of the House put up a very weak case. In reply to that, I would say that I hope the farming community will not have any opportunity to read the speech made by Senator Murphy. I would not like a speech like his to go out to the farming community, because it would undoubtedly depress agricultural production, instead of stimulating it. The Minister referred to the 1933 position and said that the Transport Bill was brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government at that time. The position to-day is very different from what it was then. Senator Murphy gave some statistics about horses and tractors. I do not know exactly what he said, but I think he said the proportion was 11 to one. I doubt if those statistics are correct. I know from what I see, being in touch with the country, and different parts of it, every day, that the horse is completely gone. When a horse remains on a farm, he is there more as an ornament, or rather out of kindliness to the animal, than for work. The roads are steam-rolled, and horses cannot travel on them, and the production of crops by horse work is antiquated and completely gone.

The Minister referred to the fact that he was having the position examined with a view to doing something to relax the regulations so that a tractor and trailer and a jeep or station wagon could be hired by one farmer to his neighbours. I think the Minister is on the right line there and I would encourage him to develop along those lines, and, further, to realise what the position is to-day. The horse is completely gone and the tractor has taken its place. Road transport is not satisfactory from the farmer's point of view. Transport laws are a heavy burden on the farming community, and the cheaper and more efficient our road transport is the greater agricultural production will be.

Somebody mentioned strikes. I do not like to say anything that would worsen the position of the railway company. It is bad enough. I would like to see it in a very thriving way. Two or three years ago, the transport section of the railway, who were carrying a good deal of beet for the factories, went on strike in the middle of the season. The railway lorries were on strike, and were it not for the fact that there were private lorries available here, there and everywhere, the position would have been very difficult. The beet would have remained in the fields, and the factories would be paralysed and the beet growers paralysed, so that the situation is not as cheerful at all as Senator Murphy would have the House believe.

I should like to endorse everything said by some of the previous speakers, for the reason that, in rural Ireland, the backward parts of it, as Senator Walsh has pointed out, the farming community suffer from great inconvenience. Attending fairs, for instance, it is not always very easy to get public transport to come out at any hour of the night, and usually fairs are held very early because it suits the farmers to travel early and get home early. Undoubtedly the question is serious in regard to horse traffic. On my journeys from the West of Ireland to Dublin for the past couple of years, I have not come across 20 horses and carts on the road. It is impossible, practically, for horses to travel on the roads. Apart from the dangerous slippery surface of the modern road, the traffic of heavy vehicles makes it impossible to take a horse out now.

Everybody will agree that, in modern times, it would not pay, from the economic point of view, to leave a man in charge of a horse. That is borne out by the fact that merchants throughout the country, people who had horses and carts taking their stuff from the railways in years gone by, have given up the horse for the simple reason that they found it too expensive. In these times, it is too slow to have a man entirely engaged on such work. I definitely think that the Minister is on the right lines in what he has in mind, and I would urge him on in that respect with regard to tractors and trailers in the backward places. I do not see why the Dublin transport people should have a monopoly within a 15 mile radius and we should not allow the same to apply to parts of rural Ireland situated long distances from railways.

I did not think the situation in Donegal was as bad as was pictured by Senator Walsh, but definitely not alone in Donegal, but anywhere in the West of Ireland, the position is pretty bad, even for passenger service at the present time. The people say that between Dublin and Ballaghaderreen, you can only get down in the morning by train—one service. I endorse the statements made by the members of the Opposition.

I wish to refer merely to one matter which seems to affect the whole question of public transport as against private transport. Senators have been discussing at some length various aspects of the matter and the monopoly which they said C.I.E. had. I should like to refer to a statement issued on 21st January by the National Farmers' Association in connection with the Transport Bill which appeared to be hostile to the Bill. Some of their arguments did not impress me very particularly, but they stated that co-operatively owned lorries should be allowed to carry the goods of members, as otherwise small farmers would be penalised.

I am not sure whether that statement arises from a misreading of the Act, but I do say that anything in the Transport Bill which would militate against the provisions which the National Farmers' Association desire would be a bad thing. I think it will be agreed that the forward movement in farming has proceeded along cooperative lines and consequently I would ask the Minister to say whether in fact this Bill bans co-operatively owned lorries from carrying the goods of members of the association or not.

I do not agree with the statement made by Senator Meighan that it is difficult to get C.I.E. lorries to go to the fairs. I have never heard complaints in that regard and I have seen these lorries at all hours of the morning and night carrying cattle from the fairs. As far as the fishing business is concerned, the same thing occurs and I have never heard any complaints.

Bord Iascaigh Mhara have their own lorries.

I know they have. I want to say that, generally, looking at the whole position of transport, so far as private lorries are concerned, I have seen these lorries in Cork City from places as far distant as Castleisland and Cavan. They can be seen going round the various warehouses in Cork and selecting the choice goods they want to carry, leaving C.I.E. to carry the awkward goods and the non-paying traffic. That created a difficult situation for C.I.E. These private lorries are operating to a high degree and picking the best of the goods on offer for transport, and yet they are to be seen around the town all day long and they are operating without regard to trade union wages and conditions.

There should be some regulation to deal with the whole system of transport because, in the present chaotic conditions of road transport, there is great expense on everybody in maintaining the system we have in this country at present. It is unfair that that system should be allowed to develop. Most of these lorries are being operated by men who were paid high compensation when they were taken over under the original Transport Act and they have now come back as big transport operators. As far as road transport in this country is concerned, it has become chaotic and something should be done to deal with the situation.

This Bill does not deal with that.

I know it does not. Private enterprise was given its chance and it failed, and the present system that has developed will have to be dealt with.

I do not agree with Senator Hickey when he says that private enterprise has failed. The only reason why private enterprise fails is that it is being restricted and hampered by the State. I say that private enterprise never gets an opportunity of being allowed to work out its salvation and it is the only system which can work properly in the country.

This Bill is dealing with one particular issue, and that is to close a loophole which was opened in the Act by the recent decision of the Supreme Court. Between 1933 and 1955, the Transport Act was interpreted in a particular way, but, as a result of the court's decision, it was found that the accepted interpretation was not apparently in accordance with the legal interpretation. The simple purpose of this Bill is to close that loophole in the legislation created by the court decision.

The Bill does not deal with the wide prairie-like land imparted to it in the course of the discussion. It seems to me that there is really an inadequate appreciation of many of the factors which must be adverted to, if we are to have an intelligent approach to the solution to whatever transport problems there are at present.

For instance, it has been stated here by many Senators that C.I.E. has a transport monopoly. Of course, the Senators who say that are indebted to their imagination for their statements. The facts are that in 1949 there were 23,000 goods vehicles on the roads. By 1954 that figure had gone up to 37,000 and I think the present figure is over 40,000. Therefore, you have 40,000 vehicles on the roads now and every single one of these vehicles is in competition with C.I.E. Therefore, to say that C.I.E. has a monopoly, when there are more than 40,000 goods vehicles on the road, is to misstate the whole situation. C.I.E. has no monopoly in respect to road transport. Every one of those vehicles is a competitor of C.I.E., and if those vehicles were not there, C.I.E. would be getting the traffic which they are getting. If there were only half of those vehicles on the roads, then C.I.E. would be getting the corresponding portion of the traffic.

Are those other vehicles not restricted to carriage of their own goods?

The number of vehicles on the roads in 1939 was 8,000 and to-day it is 40,000. It is easy then to realise how much traffic C.I.E. has lost by reason of the fact that the number of lorries has increased from 8,000 to 40,000. Whatever complaints there may be about C.I.E., and I am sure there are many, it cannot be said that they have a monopoly. Every single one of those other lorries is carrying goods which C.I.E. would be carrying, if it had a monopoly, because the other lorries would not then be permitted to carry these goods.

Senator Kissane, I think, said, or game me the impression, that he believed that the purpose of this Bill was to help the railway companies exclusively in the matter of these goods. What he overlooked was the fact that there are over 1,000 licensed hauliers on the road, that is, people licensed to carry merchandise and who make their livelihood by doing so. They do so by getting the traffic in whatever way they can. The man who has to fight to go on existing is the licensed haulier. He has got some interest in this matter. His interests have been built up and may have been acquired by the purchase of a lorry for which he paid a substantial sum because it had a merchandise licence, and, if you are not to deal with the problem now thrown up by reason of the Supreme Court decision, you do a very grave injury to the livelihood of that man, who may well have invested his entire savings in the purchase of a lorry, because that lorry had a merchandise licence attached to it.

This Bill, therefore, merely restores the position as the Legislature intended it should be, and the architect of the 1933 Act, Deputy Lemass, supported this Bill in the Dáil, admitting there that what had now been revealed was something which the Legislature did not intend to leave as a loophole, when the 1933 Act was being passed. It has been suggested we ought to give this a run for 12 months. We can do that, of course, if we want to make up our minds that we are going to pick out the unlicensed haulier and let him have a Klondyke for the next 12 months——

He has got that already.

——and let him hire his lorry at whatever price he can get for it because of this loophole, a loophole which the Legislature did not believe was there. If we do not close this gap now, the licensed haulier is going to be injuriously affected and the public transport companies are going to be injuriously affected. I do not know whether the Seanad feels it is equitable that the licensed haulier—the man who puts his money into his licensed business in the transport field—should be injuriously affected merely because of a flaw which the Legislature never intended to be left in the legislation, and that this flaw should be availed of by the unlicensed haulier to harm the licensed man and, at the same time, to harm the public transport companies.

The Seanad may want to wash its hands of concern for the public transport companies, but it cannot do that. If the public transport companies go down, the Legislature will have to find the money, because the public transport companies cannot be allowed to go bankrupt; and, if they are going to have serious inroads made upon them to the extent that it affects their ability to pay, then the State will have to come to the aid of the public transport companies. Should it be asked to do that merely for the purpose of allowing the unlicensed haulier to make hay, while this legal sun shines on him under the recent Supreme Court decision? I do not think that is a realistic approach to the problem, and I think what we are doing here is something which, on reflection, must earn the commendation of all the Senators who are really concerned with an intelligent approach to this whole problem.

I heard with dismay some Senators advocate getting back to a free-for-all in the field of the transport of goods. I wish some of the Senators who spoke in those terms to-day would read the speech of the Minister who introduced the 1933 Act. We had free enterprise then without restriction in this field, but the position was so chaotic and conditions of employment so appalling that the Legislature felt it necessary to introduce the regulation provided by the 1933 Act. The free enterprise which was there then was something which induced the Legislature, both Dáil and Seanad, to end it, because the cut-throat competition and chaos were so bad and called for intervention by the Legislature. Is it seriously suggested now that, 23 years after that legislation was enacted to bring some kind of order into the transport industry, we have progressed so far that we want to go back to the chaotic conditions which existed prior to 1933 and to go back to them in conditions which would be a thousand times worse to-day, because at that time we were dealing with a very small number of road vehicles in the transport field? To-day, we have got to deal with a problem of over 40,000 vehicles competing with the licensed hauliers and the public transport companies.

One would imagine that C.I.E. was a kind of transport octopus from the way people spoke about competition from C.I.E. lorries to-day. The fact of the matter is that the total number of vehicles on the road is over 40,000 and the total number of lorries owned by C.I.E. is 636. The total number of all freight vehicles, including vans, trailers and everything else, is 1,072, so that, as far as the generality of the conveyance of goods by road is concerned, that is the total number of vehicles C.I.E. has on the road. There are about 1,000 licensed hauliers as well. So it is clear that, as far as the generality of freight transport is concerned, there is no serious impact by these 2,000 lorries on the 40,000 vehicles which day after day are being utilised to their maximum capacity—probably to a greater extent than C.I.E.—in the transport of goods up and down the country.

Senator Cox asked some questions on Section 2 of the Bill. This was a rather difficult section to draft so as to ensure that the purpose of the Bill was achieved, while at the same time hardships were not imposed on people whom it was not desired to catch in the section. The section provides if a person, who is not a licensed haulier, hires a lorry for the carriage of goods, the hirer shall be deemed to be carrying on a merchandise road transport business. Thus the hirer will be contravening the provisions of Section 9 of the 1933 Act. The owner will not commit an offence under this Bill in letting his vehicle for hire. It is necessary in this section to stipulate that it should be the hirer and not the owner who shall have committed an offence. Firstly, if the contract of hire is a genuine one, then the vehicle is removed from the control of the owner and he cannot fairly be held to be responsible. Secondly, it is intended that a licensed haulier shall be permitted to hire a lorry replacing his own while it is out of order, subject to the provision in the Transport Act of 1933 and the relative section of the 1944 Act. A further reason for drawing the section in this way is that it has been the practice of C.I.E. to hire lorries from other parties to deal with peak traffic and to ply them for the purpose of their business. When Senator Cox realises that it was necessary to make provision for these exemptions, I think he will see the necessity for drawing the section in the way in which it has been drawn.

Somebody raised a question of what we are doing in respect of permitting farmers to utilise tractors for the purpose of conveying goods for their neighbours. That opens up so many wide avenues that I do not propose to prejudge the issue at this stage. There are, however, a number of difficulties which must be adverted to before one can come down on one side or the other in connection with this matter. Some Senators appear to have found considerable difficulty in finding horses around the country, but the facts show that, in 1933, there were 332,000 horses used in agriculture and the statistics show that, in 1955, there was still a total of 248,000 horses being used in agriculture. Now, they must be in the country somewhere. These are the returns which we get from the Central Statistics Office and, therefore, whatever case is to be made for permitting the farmer to use his tractor in some limited way for some limited purpose, it clearly cannot be grounded on the fact that the horse has left Ireland. They still approximate to a quarter of a million. Whatever argument there is for giving farmers facilities in the use of tractors must be based on some ground other than the disappearance of the horse.

There are other matters to be considered. A farmer who operates a tractor on the road will have preferential terms in the way of a subsidised licence and he will get subsidised fuel as well. Is he to be allowed, with a subsidised licence and subsidised fuel, to carry goods for reward? The farmer is not bursting to do this, unless there is some element of reward in it. This, surely, cannot be a one-way traffic. He is not going to be loaded up every morning with his friend's produce and told to take it wherever the friend suggests. There has got to be some give and take in this matter. I take it the farmer who is going to use his tractor for this purpose is going to put out his hand to be paid. If he is going to compete for traffic with the licensed haulier or with the public transport company, is he to be allowed to do it with a subsidised licence and subsidised fuel? Is he to be allowed to do it without regard to any of the other considerations of which the licensed haulier must take serious notice and of which the public transport company must take statutory notice, before it can contemplate partaking in such traffic?

Is the subsidised fuel not only for work on the land?

But the fuel is beside the tractor. While mouse traps do not run after mice, the mice nevertheless manage to get into them very quickly and we must make sure that nobody is exposed to a temptation which his human frailty makes it impossible for him to resist.

This matter requires to be investigated to see what is the right and equitable thing to do and how we should protect those who have built up an interest in the transport business. I propose to appoint a departmental committee who will carry out an examination of the problem and then to tell the House at some later date what we have found as a result of that examination.

Would you mind my making a point to help you?

Certainly.

The point I want to make is this, that many farmhouses are a considerable distance in from the road and tractors can go in there, where lorries might not be able to go. Also they might be able to go to the far end of the farm where a lorry definitely could not go. I want the Minister to keep that in mind.

I want to assure the Senator that if any organisation concerned cares to send me a memorandum on the subject, I will personally undertake that it will receive full consideration by the committee which is to examine this matter.

One other point raised by Senator McHugh was the position of co-operative organisations. A co-operative organisation can use its own lorry for the purpose of transporting its own goods, but own lorry and own goods operate in a co-operative sense. They do not operate in the sense that an individual in a co-operative society can use his share of the lorry for the purpose of transporting his share of whatever goods may be in the co-op. A co-operative society can operate its own lorry to transport its own goods. There is no difficulty in that at all.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I should like at this stage to ask what is the nature of the inquiry that is being made into this legislation. Is it a departmental inquiry?

Will there be evidence taken?

I am only concerned with getting the maximum amount of evidence on which a decision can be based and I will be glad to receive any memoranda any organisation or Senator sends to me.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share