Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 1959

Vol. 51 No. 15

Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1959—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the standard lorry weights of licensed hauliers so as to ameliorate hardship which may be caused by the proposed new motor taxation legislation. This motor tax legislation removes the doubts which have arisen as to what constitutes the weight of a motor vehicle for taxation purposes and provides that additions to lorries, such as creels, side boards, special bodies, etc., must be included in the unladen weight of vehicles for taxation purposes.

Under road transport legislation, a licensed haulier may not operate, in the course of his licensed business, a lorry or lorries the total unladen weight of which for taxation purposes exceeds the standard lorry weight specified in his licence; the original standard lorry weight granted to a licensed haulier was the total unladen weight of any lorry or lorries used by him in his carrier business on a particular date prior to the enactment of the Road Transport Act, 1933. The Road Transport Acts, 1934 and 1935, provided for increases in the standard lorry weight to a minimum of two tons and for certain other minor additions.

Under these provisions, allowances were granted, inter alia, to meet the weight of detachable crates or creels which were used with the original vehicles prior to licensing but were not included in the standard lorry weight. Under the Transport Act, 1944, standard lorry weights were further increased subject to certain minima by 20 per cent. in the case of licences with an existing standard lorry weight of four tons or under and by 10 per cent. where the standard lorry weight was over that figure. A further general increase on the same basis of 25 per cent. and 12½ per cent. respectively was authorised in 1953.

Subsequently, further increases have been authorised to permit the use of permanent tipping gear (10 cwt.), diesel engines (5 cwt.) and creels for use with livestock (7 cwt.) As a result, a licensee who, in 1933, had a lorry of unladen weight of 1 ton, 10 cwts. or even less, can now use a lorry weighing 2 tons 15 cwts. unladen, and can have added to that figure a further 5 cwt. for a diesel engine, 10 cwt. for a permanent tipping gear and/or 7 cwt. to cover the use of a livestock creel but only in connection with the carriage of cattle.

The policy enshrined in road transport legislation has been to preserve to the railway companies and subsequently to C.I.E. the benefits of any expansion in the use of public road transport generally while protecting existing road transport businesses. The increases in standard lorry weight I have referred to were justified principally by the continued trend towards heavier lorries and the difficulty of obtaining replacement lorries of a size which would be permitted by standard lorry weights. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that despite the policy considerations the licensed hauliers have, as a result of these increases, increased very substantially their carrying capacities since 1933.

It has frequently been argued by the licensed hauliers that the weight of detachable crates, creels and other fittings had to be included with the weights of their lorries for taxation purposes and, therefore, in their standard lorry weights and ever since the '30's, they have been agitating for increases in standard lorry weights to cover the use of these articles. Certain concessions, as indicated, have already been granted for the use of cattle creels and the present level of standard lorry weights has been settled on the assumption that the weight of such additions must be included in the weight of vehicles for road tax purposes. Indeed, if this were not so, there would be no point in the representations which have been made over the years by the licensed hauliers.

In recent years, a number of licensed hauliers have challenged the official interpretation of the law relating to the weighing of vehicles for road tax purposes and have removed all additions when the lorries were being weighed for taxation purposes. They have been thus enabled to use larger lorries without exceeding, on the face of it, their standard lorry weight under the Transport Acts. The effect of the new motor taxation legislation on these cases would be to bring the unladen weight of their lorries over the standard lorry weight specified in their licences. In such cases hauliers would be unable to continue to use their present lorries and, in the absence of an increase in standard lorry weight, would either have to replace their lorries with lighter vehicles or operate them without the attachments or additions which might be essential to their business.

This was, of course, a risk they must have foreseen when they chose to anticipate an interpretation of the law favourable to themselves; it is nevertheless the case that some of them may have done so in good faith and that the new legislation may indeed cause them considerable inconvenience or even hardship. In these circumstances, the Government have decided that some further increase in standard lorry weight might be granted to help offset the impact of the new motor tax legislation.

It would be entirely inequitable to grant an increase in standard lorry weight to licensed hauliers who had, with their eyes open, excluded equipment, such as creels and sideboards, when their lorries were being weighed for taxation purposes and to deny such an increase at the same time to more prudent hauliers who, to their own detriment, abided by the long standing and more generally accepted interpretation of the law. It would mean that of two licensees who had been entitled to identical standard lorry weights ever since 1933, when licensing commenced, one would in future enjoy a greater standard lorry weight and be entitled thereby to use a larger vehicle. It is essential, therefore, that any increase provided for in this Bill should be an all-round one.

There is a wide disparity in the lorry attachments which may be used by a licensed haulier. Some hauliers may have acquired comparatively light attachments only, such as sideboards, other may have acquired creels or even special bodies or tanks affixed to their lorries. The extent to which such acquisitions may have brought about an excess on their standard lorry weight will vary considerably according to the type of the licensee's business, which may not have called for any excess in standard lorry weight.

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

The uniform all-round increase provided for in this Bill is a figure of 7 cwts. per lorry. This is a somewhat arbitrary choice but it has been selected because it is the figure which has been deemed to be sufficient to cover the use of a livestock creel with the type of lorry which comes within the standard lorry weight of 2 tons, 15 cwts., which is the standard lorry weight to which the great majority of licensed hauliers are entitled. It has been represented that this increase is not sufficient to meet the hardships imposed on carriers who may be using certain heavier equipment, particularly lift-vans and special cattle bodies which may weigh as much as 25-30 cwt. each.

It is not the object of this Bill to provide increases in standard lorry weights which would enable all hauliers irrespective of their bona fides to carry on with the lorries and equipment which they are at present using. Hauliers who have been evading the payment of the proper road tax on their vehicles, or who have been deliberately using equipment which brings the weight of their vehicles substantially above their standard lorry weights, can scarcely expect the legislature to give them a general amnesty and confirms them in the gains which they have so doubtfully made.

In all the circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the present level of standard lorry weights is intended to include the weight of additions, I am satisfied that the increase of 7 cwts. per lorry provided for in this Bill is a reasonable and indeed a generous contribution towards relieving any hardship which may be caused by the new road tax legislation. Nevertheless, I will be prepared to consider, under the provisions of Section 116 of the Transport Act, 1944, any individual cases of genuine and deserving hardship which may be brought to my attention.

I may say that I have already received representations from the hauliers engaged in furniture removal. It appears, in their case, that furniture lift-vans have never been included in the weight of their lorries for taxation purposes and were not included in the standard lorry weight of their lorries in 1933. Whether or not there has ever been any real doubt as to the law in this matter it is clear that these hauliers have been acting in good faith and could have got an increase in their standard lorry weight prior to 1944 to include the weight of lift-vans. I am, therefore, prepared in principle to authorise increases in these cases to meet the hardship which arises.

In its appearance this is a very small and insignificant measure brought before us at Christmas, as we are told for the purpose of removing doubts and doubtful gains by certain people who, it is suggested, are evading taxation. This small measure is calculated to do very much more harm to the economy than the Minister tells us. I doubt if he is so naïve, or so ill informed as to think this Bill has as its sole purpose the bringing into the ambit of taxation a small number of licensed carriers who have increased the weight of their lorries. It is my belief that every person who employs his own transport will be affected very seriously by the Bill. It is a new direct and indirect tax on the whole industry of the country, particularly the farming industry.

It is suggested that the Bill is for the purpose of stopping evasion but I believe it is a witch hunt to gain another £100,000 of taxation in a very simple way, and is brought forward just before Christmas in the hope that it will slip through unnoticed. I hope that many people on both sides of this House have their feet in Irish agriculture and, before I conclude, I am going to ask that the Minister withdraw this measure and reconsider it. I believe he has been ill-advised in introducing it and he has not in any statement, or in any information which has emanated from Government sources, made known its effects to the public.

I believe it will increase the cost of hauling beet, fodder, hay and straw. I believe it will increase the cost of transporting sheep, lambs, pigs, small cattle, water and everything that is important in rural Ireland. Any farmer who puts a water tank on his lorry during a dry summer to carry water from a pump or fountain will have the weight of that tank added to his lorry, and it is obvious that the carrying capacity of the lorry will be reduced by the weight of the tank.

Any co-operative creamery which uses tanks for the purpose of transporting milk or skimmed milk to the several milk processing factories throughout the country will bear enormously increased taxation. The meat industry which is required by regulation, in fact, by the Department of Agriculture, to transport any form of fresh meat to another factory, will bear increased taxation. That industry is diverse in its forms of production and may have to transport meat from one factory to another in insulated containers. A factory which has a lorry able to carry six tons, if a two ton container is placed on it, can only transport four tons. The weight of the container will be taxed and they carrying capacity of the lorry will be reduced.

The Senator is speaking about the Financial Resolution relating to the incidence of taxation on vehicles, with which I have no connection. He is now speaking about vehicles belonging to factories, which do not come under the ambit of the Bill at all.

It is not in the Bill.

I should like to have your direction, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, because I am not briefed and do not intend to reply to anything in regard to the incidence of taxation which has nothing to do with this Bill. A Financial Resolution was passed through the Oireachtas dealing with that matter. This simply arises in relation to the permission given to a number of people to operate their lorries under transport legislation.

Sir, this morning I visited the offices in which one registers vehicles. I was given there an instance of where a county council, which hitherto paid £78 tax, will now have to pay £126, or an increase of 60 per cent., if they put a tar tank on that lorry.

That has nothing to do with the Bill before us.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am of the opinion that the Minister is correct. This Bill appears to be a liberalisation measure, in so far as its text is concerned.

On a point of order, I understood the Minister to introduce his remarks on this Bill by linking them very closely with the provisions of the other measure.

He mentioned the appropriate road tax. He mentioned the doubtful gains. I feel I am entitled to reply to the points he made. Be that as it may, and without referring to the tax, I want to make one point; everyone will know what I mean. If the owner of a lorry, which could carry six tons before, now puts an insulated container on the lorry, then the lorry can carry only four tons.

We know what the effect of that will be. The container is weighed with the lorry.

Not necessarily.

The suggestion is that the carrying capacity is increased, but the carrying capacity is not increased in actual fact. I do not understand why this measure is brought before us in this form since we seem to have no power to object; but I do know the effect it will have. It will cause grave hardship on our economy. I should like to have a direction from the Chair as to how far I may go.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator may reply to statements made by the Minister, but the Senator may not debate the provisions of the Financial Resolution passed in the Dáil. Under the Constitution, that is a matter for the Dáil.

The Minister spoke about the weight of creels and additions. If a licensed carrier is allowed to carry only 7 cwts. increase, he will henceforth be able to avail of only half the capacity of his vehicle if he is carrying light animals, like sheep and pigs. He will therefore become compelled to charge considerably more to the farmer or merchant for whom he carries livestock. That will have an adverse effect all over the country and considerable hardship will be imposed on the livestock industry. On the floor of an ordinary lorry, one can carry 50 sheep. These 50 sheep would not be one-third the weight that vehicle could carry. If the owner wishes to carry 100 sheep, the weight will exceed 7 cwts. Therefore, it will be illegal for the owner to carry 100 sheep. Everyone knows that that will affect costs, which will be increased enormously.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Not under this measure.

The Minister referred to that. We have no opportunity of dealing with the Financial Resolution. This is the only measure brought before us. Its effects will be disastrous. I have spoken to hundreds up and down the country. This measure will affect many of our major industries. It will increase costs enormously, particularly in the livestock industry and in the meat processing industry. I want to add this note of warning. Every Senator should get a copy of the rates published. Lorries that were 1 ton before will be 2 tons now. That will be the effect of this Bill.

I should like to say at the outset that the transport situation in the country, a situation upon which this Bill will make some impact, is really in a chaotic state. I should like to preface my remarks consequently by saying that the new Ministry and the new Minister are in my opinion admirably qualified to deal with that situation. It was an act of imagination on the part of the Government to create this new Ministry of Transport and Power. The choice of the present Minister could not have been better. I am certain that he is aware of the problems and that he realises that this Bill merely tinkers with them. But it is a Bill he has to bring in in the first few months of taking office. I am confident that he cannot be happy about the whole series of transport Bills which the Government have been obliged to bring in year after year, to try to evolve a policy which will reconcile haulage by private enterprise and haulage by C.I.E.

I suggest that the 7 cwts. in this Bill are an endeavour to reconcile two irreconcilable and incompatible policies—private enterprise and public enterprise. The Minister in the Dáil went so far as to make it clear that if, for instance, we were to amend this and make it 1½ tons instead of 7 cwts. that would have the effect of allowing the small hauliers to impinge, as it were, competitively upon the field of C.I.E. Consequently the 7 cwts, is a kind of sop thrown to the smaller hauliers to keep them quiet—I do not think it has been eminently successful in that—and, at the same time, not to take too big a portion of the market away from C.I.E., under the other legislation to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks.

I do not want to go outside the terms of this Bill, but it seems to me that this Bill makes no attempt to deal with the realities of the situation—the effort, on the one hand, to save enough lucrative work for C.I.E. and, on the other hand, not to put private enterprise out of business. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to face the fact that because this Bill is so limited in its scope it will have the effect not of palliating the other legislation to which he referred, but rather of failing to palliate its effect sufficiently because it will put a large number of small hauliers right out of business.

The Minister may ask how can we put them out of business by making a concession? I do not think we ought to forget that, while he is making a concession with one hand, he is making a very considerable withdrawal with the other. He himself referred to that quite frankly in his opening remarks. My own belief is that the Minister should either put these people out of business altogether, or else let them get all the business they can. To say to them that they may only have a certain small increase in the unladen weight of their lorries is in fact to put many of them out of business. It is not giving them the kind of concession that would be necessary to allow them to continue in operation on the present basis.

These small hauliers—and the amendment here, I suggest, does not take it sufficiently into account—are labouring under a whole host of disabilities in relation to limitation of area, limitation of class of maintenance, limitation of standard unladen weight which is only slightly modified here, limitation of the transfer of a licence when it is being sold out of an area, and so on. Despite the fact that the spread of these licences throughout the country is extremely haphazard, there are some activities which have large liberties and some which have none because of past tinkering with the system. If you treat these hauliers like spancelled cattle and prevent them from moving freely in terms of free enterprise, merely to throw another seven cwts. on to what they are permitted in the weight of unladen lorries is, in fact, I suggest, to add insult to injury.

The Minister is not quite fair when he suggests that there may have been deliberate evasion—and these are the words he used here and in the Dáil— and that the provisions of the other Bill, to which I must not refer, will only hit those who have so far been guilty of evasion. That is not fair for the reason that if there was what he would be entitled to call evasion, there would be no need to change the law. It is because the law was not what the Government thought it was that certain people may have gone beyond what the Government thought they were entitled to do.

The Minister should not forget that this has been tested in the courts and they even found for the hauliers against the Attorney General. My information is that each time it has been tested—even when a C.I.E. case was tested—the court found for the hauliers. The C.I.E. case was slightly different because it had to do with a container clamped on a lorry. It seems that the clamping to the lorry had been done under a misapprehension. Therefore, I do not think it is just to say some people have been evading the law and that it serves them right if they are hit now.

I suggest that when the Minister decided—and I think he might perhaps let us into some secrets there— that seven cwts. should be the maximum referred to in the Bill, he should tell us what he had in mind. Why hit upon seven cwts.? Why not eight cwts. or 15 cwts.? What had he in mind? He himself referred to provisions that have become necessary since 1932, though it would appear on some legislation on transport that some officials in the Minister's Department have been thinking consistently in terms of 1932. The Minister has admitted that there have been some improvements in trucks and lorries since then and he himself mentioned sack-loaders, power brakes, ramps, diesel engines, and two-speed back axles which add to the weight which has been recognised, as the Minister said, in previous legislation.

It is remarkable that in every case, if my information is correct, where the additional weight has been recognised, the Government seem to be able to get hold of far lighter sandloaders, power brakes, ramps, diesel engines and two-speed back axles than, in fact, could be bought on the ordinary market. Where a cattle ramp is added, the trucks weigh something from 10 cwts. to 15 cwts. and the Government think it weighs at an absolute maximum some five cwts. or seven cwts.

I feel that the decision of the office as to what the actual increase in weight implied by such fitting to the lorry, has not been made by people who are closely in touch with the realities of the situation and was based upon a misapprehension when the decision was made that an extra seven cwts. ought to be enough at this juncture. Even the Minister and his officials do not feel too happy about that. They felt it was necessary to make provision also—or to remind us of the provisions of the 1944 Act—to enable the Minister to take special individual cases into consideration and make concessions for them.

In 1932, the two-ton lorry was fairly big but it is now extremely small and yet some 75 per cent., I am told, of the hauliers who will be affected by this Bill have, in fact, a two ton 15 cwts. limit unladen weight and to that now is to be added this very small figure of seven cwts. to take into account the fact that, as the Minister mentioned, the container will, by law, indubitably be in future weighed in. Anything else put on the lorry or added to the lorry will, in future, be deemed to be fitted to and be part of the vehicle itself.

I suggest, therefore, that the decision of the Government on this matter as expressed in this Bill is outmoded, is not sufficiently in touch with modern conditions, and is not the modern view. Yet, the tax people have to pay is quite modern enough and in fact, in the case of the five-ton or seven-ton lorry, it is nearly double the British equivalent. When the Minister considers, and asks us to consider, adding on a mere seven cwt. to this, he should bear in mind that most of these licensed hauliers are unable under existing legislation to run even the lightest of the modern Leyland trucks and even the new Dundalk truck which will be on the market will be out of their reach on that account. In other words, I do not think the addition of seven cwts. is sufficient on account of the changes in conditions.

All these people are badly in need of the adjustments offered by the Bill but the seven cwts. is far too small. A haulier in Limerick was mentioned to me whose lorry has a container which weighs three tons. In County Cork, it is common to find a container actually weighing one and three-quarter tons. In relation to those circumstances, I do not think it fair of the Minister to say that this Bill and the other Bill were brought in to remove a doubt. So far as the courts go, there was not any doubt. It is quite clear that, as the Minister said, this Bill is linked with the other Bill which will compel the lorry owner to weigh in all additional parts, containers and so on, and up to the present the courts have found that containers are not regarded as part of the weight so it is no use for the Minister to say that the hauliers know perfectly well that they are. The courts say they are not.

The Minister shook his head when I referred to the case in June, 1959, of the Attorney-General versus Glynn which was dismissed and the Attorney-General did not ask for any case to be stated. Similarly, in the Green case in 1954, the courts found for the hauliers. In view of those facts, I do not think it is sufficient for the Minister to say, as he said in the Dáil and again here today, that he has the power to deal with special hardship cases. Apart entirely from this Bill, that is a bad principle and I do not think any Minister should come to Parliament and say: “The Bill I am asking you to pass lays down a certain law but since I have absolutely discretionary powers to let people off this law, the stringency of the law is not a thing to be objected to.” I do not think that is the way to legislate. It should not be at the Minister's discretion but should be set out in the legislation and it should be the same for all.

At column 1099, volume 178 of the Dáil debates of 9th December, the Minister says:

All I can say is that I shall have to ask the House to trust my judgment in this matter.

I do not think that is good enough. I would say to the Minister: "Do not ask us to trust your judgment—legislate and let us trust the legislation," not because I distrust the Minister but because I prefer to see the principle in the Act rather than know that the principle is in the mind of the Minister.

Again, at column 1095, the Minister says:—

Similarly, the Minister has absolute discretion, in some instances, to increase the types of merchandise that can be carried in the lorries owned by licensees. In certain circumstances, if, for example, a licensed haulier has a number of commodities on his licence but some are excluded, the Minister has to decide in relation to the transport available in the area whether it is reasonable to exclude those commodities.

A little further down in the same column, he adds:

In areas where there is inadequate transport and where statutory bodies such as C.I.E. do not operate, the Minister has absolute power to decide how many licences he will give in order to provide transport in an area. He has the power to increase the weight in those circumstances, on his own discretion. There is no section in the transport legislation which determines how he can increase the weight for persons who receive licences in an area where no public transport is available. He has the discretion there. He has the choice of deciding how many licences he can reasonably give.

That occurs in the debate on this same Bill. In defence of this Bill, the Minister puts the case that he has absolute discretion in relation to some people. I cannot really believe the Minister thinks that is a good principle. I would ask how would a case of special hardship be proved? What will be the Principle upon which it will be judged? How will it be judged? By whom will it be judged? What redress will the haulier have, if his request is refused?

The Minister told the Dáil—I am sure he will repeat it here—he is confident that his officials will do this and that in every case and so on. I do not think that is good enough. I prefer to see it in the Bill.

If some hauliers are to be kept to an increase of seven cwt., all of them should be. If someone gets a special concession by pleading a case skilfully with the Minister or his officials, then I think all of them should have a right to that concession. I suggest that his defence that he can use his absolute discretion in individual cases is a defence of justice that is not evenhanded. He says at columns 1096-97 that the cases, as far as he can judge, have always been fairly dealt with and I quote:

One can read in the Department literally dozens of files relating to the discretionary powers exercised by the Minister, and see running through them a thread of reasonableness, fairness, equity, commonsense and a human approach. I do not believe any Deputy would contradict my statement.

That is a touching appeal to our faith but I do not think it is a defence of legislation. I do not think it is a defence of restrictive legislation in relation to some who might not be able to make the human approach or appeal to the commonsense of the official concerned.

I should like to quote a case of hardship dealt with recently by the Minister. It was the case of Patrick Byrne, a haulier in Carlow, licence number 386, who is a married man with 10 children. He owned one lorry which he bought in 1946. He owns four acres of land and has a small shop. I repeat that he has 10 children. He pays £25 in tax and the unladen weight of the lorry is 3½ tons, including a diesel and a lift; but for cattle he requires a livestock creel and with a livestock creel and ramp, the unladen weight is brought up to over five tons.

I have no doubt he made a very human and commonsense approach but he has been refused. I mention his name because I have permission to do so. I cannot help noticing what will happen to a person like that. I suggest that he will sell out and leave the country with his 10 children as the person did the other day whose photograph with 10 beautiful children was in one of our Sunday papers. He was going off because this country was of no use to him.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that his discretionary power will be used. I am informed by an independent source, the National Farmers Association, who gave the details of his case that the local mart requires this man and that C.I.E. cannot in practice—this is independent testimony—give the service locally that is required. Yet he has been turned down. I suggest that by reason of this, he and other people will be put out of business.

I suggested at the beginning that the Minister and his predecessor should have been prompt and either put these people right out of business, should have compensated them and replaced their service with an adequate public service or should have removed all restrictions and let them do what business they can get, but not to do what the result, or even the purpose of this Bill must be, that is, to throttle them slowly. The Department is, of course, a new one. I have no doubt it will make its own new traditions, as it were, but it has not been the practice automatically in the past to consult with the licensed hauliers. I would put it to the Minister—I think the Minister will agree with me—that in his agreeing to see deputations and accept representations and so on, he is acting in the spirit of what I am suggesting. I would put it to him that consultation with the interests involved is an excellent practice for every Minister.

I would ask the Minister whether, when they decided upon the seven cwts., the Minister or his Department consulted the people who would be directly affected by it as to whether the seven cwts. was enough or not? Was—as is the practice in Britain, for instance—a rough draft of this Bill sent to the Road Hauliers Association? Was a final draft sent? Was their opinion asked before the Minister and his Department settled upon this quite inadequate seven cwt.? In other words, it is good practice, whether or not you take the advice given, to consult those involved, those who will be directly affected and those, in fact, who are on the job and find out their opinion at least before making a decision.

My immediate hope is that this Bill will be amended and that seven cwts. will be changed into a more reasonable figure—perhaps, one ton or one and a half tons. My long-term hope is that the Minister will be coming before us soon with a comprehensive State scheme based not on balance sheet profit entries but on a determination to have a comprehensive scheme, not just piecemeal legislation, to satisfy the real transport needs of the people, big and small, in every area, even at an occasional loss to the scheme. I appeal to the Minister to grasp the nettle, as it were, and to bring before us a real national transport scheme in which he will be prepared to take over transport entirely, after fair compensation to those people who are now being throttled to death. I believe this Minister could do that and make a big success of it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the standard lorry weight. The Financial Resolution to which reference has been made already has statutory effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. I appreciate that the last Senator's speech was for a further concession.

Senator Burke said this Resolution is being rushed through before Christmas. The Minister could almost say it is in the nature of a Christmas box for the lorry owners or, as this is coming on in the New Year, is a New Year's gift. The amount of money collected by the Department under this Bill from the lorry owners will be in the region of £100,000. If this legislation is enforced, the lorry owners and carriers will be very badly hit. It will be the last straw for them as already they are overtaxed.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am sorry but this is not relevant to the Bill.

I am merely stating a fact.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Not on this Bill. The Bill to confirm the Financial Resolution will in the normal way come before the House and that will be the time to dwell on these facts.

I hope we will get an opportunity then.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will.

The scope of the debate is very confined. Surely I can refer to the Minister's opening statement? He said that on certain occasions the proposed seven cwts. might be increased. As we all know, seven cwts. is a very small amount in relation to creels or crates on a lorry. The first day the creels or crates are put on the lorry, they may weigh only seven cwts. but, after drawing a lorry-load of beet on a few wet days, they would weight nearer to a ton. The containers or crates or creels become very heavy when they are in use for some time. This Bill, when enacted, will wipe out the small lorry-owners.

I claim that the proposed figure of seven cwts. per lorry is not sufficient to meet the hardship imposed on licensed carriers. The amount should be increased to at least 20 to 30 cwts. This Bill is a retrograde step and will increase the existing financial burdens on licensed hauliers. Furthermore, it does not go far enough towards meeting them.

The licensed hauliers have had to meet the increase in the cost of living, the increases in the prices of petrol, oil, spare parts and garage services. Now they must grapple with a new imposition. As reported at column 1060, Volume 178, of the Official Report of Dáil Éireann, the Minister said:

Hauliers so affected would be unable to continue to use their present lorries and in the absence of an increase in standard lorry weight would either have to replace their lorries with lighter vehicles or operate them without the attachments or additions which might be essential to their business.

I would remind the House that many of these licensed hauliers are enterprising young farmers' sons and perhaps young garage men who had faith in their country and stayed at home instead of emigrating. They were prepared to work at home and they showed initiative. They got a few pounds together and put a deposit on a lorry. Many of them may not have paid for the lorries yet.

How does the Minister expect, in the light of what he has said in the Dáil, those people to replace their lorries with lighter vehicles? That might be all right for C.I.E. or for some concern with State backing. It is impossible for the young man who stayed at home instead of emigrating and who embarked on this business with perhaps the minimum of capital. It may sound the death knell of the promising little business of many a licensed road haulier. If you substitute 20 or 30 cwts., the Bill will go some way towards meeting them.

The day we pass this Bill may be a red letter day for private enterprise in this country. We should do all we can to encourage private enterprise. Instead, we are dealing it a blow from which it may find it hard to recover. We all know that furniture removers and livestock hauliers will be severely hit. If you raise the amount from seven cwts. to 20 or 30 cwts. you will go some way towards meeting them. We are about to put a further tax on agricultural production and industrial production.

In his concluding remarks in the Dáil on this Bill, the Minister said, as reported at Column 1063 of the Official Report, Volume 178:

Nevertheless, I will be prepared to consider under the provisions of Section 116 of the Transport Act, 1944, any individual case of genuine and deserving hardship which may be brought to my attention.

It should not be left to this Minister or to any other Minister to do that. The Bill should lay down certain rules and regulations and no individual should have the authority envisaged in this section. It is altogether wrong. We know what happened on Achill Island. Eighteen new licences were issued after a certain political meeting. It is only natural. If one man can do it, these things can happen.

I strongly resent the suggestion that it had anything to do with politics whatever. I made a very clear statement about it in the Dáil which was accepted by implication by the Opposition. I resent the Senator's remarks.

I know a little about Fianna Fáil jobbery, corruption and Tammany Hall methods.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order!

I will not be accused of them.

Perhaps not, but if the Minister mixes with people who indulged in them in the past, perhaps he is bound to become contaminated.

Senator L'Estrange should refrain from that stuff.

I have no such intention. It is well known what happens.

The Minister by now should have come to realise that there are very many experts on transport excepting the people who, from time to time, have been given the job of running public transport because strangely enough these other people do not seem to be able to make it pay. Everybody else, Deputies in the other House and Senators here, apparently know all about it. What we are dealing with here, however, in this Bill is another concession to licensed hauliers who are a very small group in the community performing generally a good service to the community but who are, I submit, a very privileged group. Those are the people, or the successors of the people, who in 1933 had their competitors bought out with the taxpayers' money and who since then have been allowed, as the privileged few in the country together with public transport, to carry goods for reward outside the exempted areas.

This Bill does not deal with lorries generally, lorries owned by farmers, traders, merchants or creameries who do their own carting. It deals with the lorries owned by these privileged few, the licensed hauliers. As the Minister and the House may know, this group of licensed hauliers are very well represented; they are a powerful and vocal group who have been successful even in converting Senator Sheehy Skeffington to advocate private enterprise to us here. That, of course, is quite a miracle and I must compliment the licensed hauliers on what they have achieved.

On a point of explanation, I think I made it quite clear that the Minister was to be encouraged to put these people out of business, to give fair compensation and take over rather than throttle them slowly.

It is the Christmas spirit with Senator Sheehy Skeffington.

The Senator is doing very well with his private enterprise merchants. I was surprised to hear the Minister telling us about the concessions given since the position was supposedly frozen by legislation in 1933. The majority of those who were then operating lorries for reward had their licence or their right to operate for reward bought out with the taxpayers' money and the remainder, a small few, the licensed hauliers, were frozen to the weight of their lorries at that time.

The Minister in his speech has given figures which, as far as I could gather, show that the licensed haulier, who had a two-ton weight which was frozen by the legislation in 1933 and whose competitors were bought out, has over the years been so successful in advocating and getting concessions that now his unladen weight can be up to 3 ton 17 cwts. In this Bill, there is provision for a further concession of seven cwts. to bring the two-ton unladen weight up to 4 tons 4 cwts. These are not the poor people who are being throttled out of existence, as Senator Sheehy Skeffington fondly imagines. These are people with a licence which can be sold, and which is very good value, if they do not want to continue operating as licensed hauliers in their area.

From what has been said by the Minister I cannot see the need for this extra concession at all because what has been happening is that up to now licensed hauliers and other owners of lorries were obliged, as we understood the legislation passed by the Oireachtas, to tax their vehicles with the equipment on the vehicles; in other words, a livestock lorry, for instance, was expected to be weighed with the creel on it. But apparently people were able to read flaws in the legislation, strip the lorries down to the boards and have them weighed without any of the equipment. That was in effect, getting around the legislation and the purpose of the Resolution adopted in the other House was to safeguard the position. The Minister in his goodness, and no doubt because of the pressure of this fairly strong and competent pressure group, has provided in this Bill a further concession of seven cwts. on the weight which, as I said, was frozen in 1933 and increased by various stages since then.

I do not know why the House should be asked to give this further concession at all. Maybe the Minister has come to regret it because he has heard so much nonsense in both Houses about it. He must think he made a mistake to give any concession at all and should have left the position alone. The Minister's whole argument was in favour of the Oireachtas agreeing to give him discretion to deal with exceptionally hard cases. That was the sense of his words but then towards the end of his speech he implied that this would be a common increase to all lorries owned by licensed hauliers, that it would be simply a matter of applying and there would be the agreed seven cwts. increase in their licence-operating weight and furthermore that the Minister would be prepared to exercise his power under the 1944 Act to give further increases to people who put a meritorious case to him.

I do not know where we are going at all in this matter. It all started in 1933 when there was a freeze and when the competitors of these people were bought out with the taxpayers' money. These people have in a sense been in a privileged position since then with licences to operate in particular areas or around the whole country in some cases. These licences can, in fact, be sold and are a very valuable asset. I think the Minister should assure us that the discretion which will be given to him under this legislation will be exercised with discretion, that it will not be an automatic increase to every licensed haulier simply because some of them, or some other people owning lorries, get around the law by stripping their lorries down to the floorboards and get away with taxation. I hope the Minister will not be persuaded by Senator Sheehy Skeffington to embark on a whole series of transport legislation as I think what is more needed now than anything else is a period of rest from all the experts so that the public transport organisation can get on with the charter given to it last year to try to put the undertaking on its feet.

Why not do the full job?

When insisting that we preserve order, the Leas-Chathaoirleach told us that this was a liberalising Bill. I agree that under the rules of this House it is a liberalising Bill. At the same time, one must consider the kind of liberalising Bill it is. We can imagine the licensed haulier as a rather hungry horse in a sparse pasture. Outside, on the other side of the road, there is a more luscious pasture. Tonight we are opening a wicket gate and later, through future motor taxation legislation, we shall take the horse out of the sparse pasture and show him the wicket gate to the lush pasture. The trouble is that the gate we are opening tonight is not big enough to let him through—because the seven cwts. is of no use—unless the unfortunate horse becomes so thin through hunger that he can get through. Unfortunately, the horse must die. Of course, we are not really talking about a horse at all.

The most desirable situation we could get in regard to haulage would be to have a good fleet of lorries owned by licensed hauliers competing with C.I.E. If this Bill brought that about, it would be commendable. The Minister would approve of it and I would approve of it. But I do not think this Bill will do that. While I may not discuss forthcoming legislation—the Financial Resolution in regard to motor taxation—it is true to say that the Minister, speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill, at column 1059 of the Dáil Debates, said:

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the announcement already made in the House that it was proposed to promote legislation to increase the standard lorry weight of licensed hauliers to ameliorate any hardship which might be caused by the proposed new motor taxation legislation.

That is the important point.

Further on, the Minister says he wants to make it quite clear that containers, creels and all those additions for the movement of goods will now be weighed with the lorry when it is being taxed or when it is being weighed for a licensed haulier's plate. Whereas prior to this the licensed haulier was allowed to bring his lorry, in the piquant words of Senator Murphy, "stripped to the floorboards", he must now bring it along with all the additions he uses in the course of trade, creels, sides and tanks. He has been deprived of the right to use these things and not have them counted in the weight of his lorry. In return, he is getting a general allowance of seven cwts. and, in addition, the frozen section of the Transport Act, 1944, which allows the Minister to deal with a hardship case, may be invoked.

I want you to envisage the pattern of public transport and the way it is moving. The first thing I notice is that C.I.E., quite properly, are using cattle containers. Am I in order in dealing with the trend of public transport?

Not the whole problem of public transport.

No, certainly not. Containers are lifted on to the lorry by a crane. The lorry goes to Dublin and the cattle are driven out on a bank. The container is then removed, dropped in the C.I.E. yard and the lorry takes back ten tons of fertilisers. That is an everyday process—cattle one way and fertilisers and bag-stuff the other way. Private hauliers are beginning to do the same. Prior to this Bill they were allowed to do it. They could have a set of three or four containers, a crane and a loading bank. They could move cattle to Dublin and take bag-stuff back or vice versa. When this Bill is passed such a container will be completely outside their ambit because it will weigh from 25 cwt. to 30 cwt.

At the moment private hauliers are operating largely on the basis of a lorry, the maximum weight of which shall not be more than 2 tons 12 cwt. At present an ordinary commercial ten-ton lorry, with the lightest type of long wheelbase body without sides, will weigh at the very maximum 3 tons 5 cwt. Therefore, these people are precluded from using the normal sort of lorry used today for the normal sort of remuneration. They have to complete with people who can use any weight or size of lorry.

The Minister says that the concessions granted were for the purpose of taking into account such things as creels, bodies and so on. I would join issue with him on that. In his opening statement he sought to clarify the position and stated that in future creels would be taken into account whereas they had not been taken into account previously. But it can be shown that, in many cases, they were taken into account. For instance, if you had a diesel engine you got 5 cwt. Was that not given to people who had creels? Other increases were given because the normal weight of the lorries they had to complete with had increased and is increasing.

While within the terms of the Rules of Order this is a liberalising measure, as far as the licensed haulier is concerned it is the exact opposite. It will curtail him in business. The trend is for ordinary lorry weights to increase. The argument might be used by the Minister that in 1933 these people were entitled to use only a lorry of 2 tons 5 cwt. and there are now in a position to use one of 2 tons 12 cwt. He might say that if they were allowed to use a lorry of 3 tons 10 cwt. or 4 tons, they would have something more valuable than they had in 1933. I contest that. My point is that, even though the cost of fuel, labour, rubber and vehicles has gone up over the past ten or 20 years, at the same time costs of moving goods have not gone up to anything like the same extent. The reason is that you now have a much more efficient vehicle. For instance, you now have people who will move grain in bulk 30 miles at 15/- per ton. You could not get it done in 1933 for 35/- per ton.

That is why the price of bread has gone down?

It could have been pig meal.

That has gone down too?

I hope the Minister will realise I do not wish to cast any aspersions by going back to the Transport Act, 1944. It is necessary to do so if the Minister tells us that the hardship clause in that Act can be invoked. The Minister will appreciate I do not intend to cause any acrimony. In discussing it he mentioned furniture vans. I can see the difficulty with regard to furniture vans and understand the Minister's anxiety to do his best for furniture removers. I know it will not in any way prejudice their case if I make a comparision. I use the Minister's words, that furniture removers, in using containers, were acting in good faith and could have got the increases in weight if they had asked for them in 1933. The Minister is absolutely correct. It is also correct to say that all over the country there are ordinary hauliers who could have got the whole 26 counties— indeed, the whole 32 counties are mentioned in legislation—in 1933, if they had asked for it, for the purpose of ordinary merchandise. Therefore it is not right to make a hard luck case for one section.

Similarly, there is the question of the type of merchandise carried. In 1933, if a man filled up an application form showing his business and the type of merchandise carried, no examination was made of his business and he was granted permission to carry the same type of merchandise in succeeding years. I have had experience in regard to some plates. People came to me about them. There was a man in the village of Clogherhead, a fishing village, who purchased a plate for the very good reason that he was prepared, at ordinary wages, to be at Clogherhead Pier and to convey fish from there to the market in Dublin at all hours of the day or night. There was no public transport concern interested in the business or, if interested, their charges would be prohibitive.

The person concerned purchased the plate. The mileage limitation was in order and he would have proceeded with the business but the snag was that the gentleman who owned the plate in 1933 had not included fish in the list of merchandise which he normally carried and the purchaser was precluded from carrying fish. Therefore, while the Minister's representations that there is a hard luck case in regard to furniture removers are merited, there is a hard luck case to be made for every haulier in the country.

I dislike legislation which gives the Minister discretion to give somebody a valuable concession which he does not give to anybody else. It is an onerous duty on any Minister to have to exercise such discretion but there are cases where a Minister has to do it, when there is no other way out. In this case, it is a clumsy solution and a better solution could have been found. I do not intend to suggest a better solution, except to say that, perhaps, a general increase of the order of 25 cwts, might have solved the problem. I think 25 cwts. was the figure the Party to which I belong considered equitable. A larger all-round increase, without invoking the hard case section of the Act of 1944, would have been better.

I do not in any way wish to cast aspersions when I say there is difficulty in deciding what is a hard luck case. There is the consideration of how the case is put, if it is put better by one person than by another. If it is put by a friend, is the Minister more inclined to believe it than if it is put by a mere acquaintance or by a person whom he does not know? I agree with certain members of the Opposition who have said that this is a bad section in legislation.

I do not want to take Senator Murphy up on details but he did mention several times that, in his opinion, licensed hauliers were in a privileged position. I do not think that any man who carried on a business legitimately and who was precluded, by legislation, from continuing to do so, except under licence, is a privileged person. I do not think that the State has the right to take away my small business and not compensate me or license me to proceed with it. In relation to an unemployed man, such a person may be privileged but whatever privilege he may have arises from the fact that he had a business in 1933. Why should he not be allowed to sell the business? It is illegal to sell a plate. One can sell a business. When plates have gone into disuse, the Department have frequently refused to allow the owner of the plate to sell the plate because he had not a business. In many cases businesses were resurrected so that the Department would allow the person to sell the plate. The argument with regard to privilege does not hold water.

Normal practice is being interfered with in this legislation. The normal practice was that a man could put a tank, creel or sides on the lorry and it was not included in weighing the lorry for licensed haulier plate purposes. In future it will count. The seven cwts. is nothing more than a sop. The industry is daily becoming more efficient. People bring loads of grain to Dublin in containers so constructed that when the grain has been delivered and allowed to run into the hopper, the back of the lorry can come down and allow ten tons of fertilisers, grain or anything else to be loaded and carried on the return journey. In view of the trend towards the use of tanks, containers and so on, seven cwt. is little more than the figure one would expect in a circus ring. It is of no practical use. It curtails the licensed haulier in his business. This may appear to be liberalism whereas it is the reverse.

Frankly, I did not understand very much about the Bill, even after reading the debates in the Dáil, but I do understand a good deal more about the implications of the Bill having listened to the debate in this House. There is one thing that did strike me about the Bill, reading it in conjunction with the Dáil debates, namely, that certain power is being vested in the Minister for Transport and Power to decide certain things. I am assuming that all these things will be perfectly correctly decided by the Minister for Transport and Power. Equally, I assume that, before the Minister makes any of these decisions, a considerable amount of investigation will be involved for the officials of his Department. That is a necessary preliminary to a proper decision on the part of the Minister under this Bill.

I have no complaint about that, either, but I want to make an observation on these two aspects of the Bill, that when we are talking about reducing taxation and reducing the cost of administration, we ought to bear in mind that when we introduce legislation which contains provisions of this kind, it is the kind of legislation which increases the cost of administration and, consequently, taxation. When the Legislature passes a Bill of this kind, there should not be the complaint of the high cost of administration. It will be found in every case that it is the Legislature, by this kind of enactment, that is bringing about the high cost of administration and of Government. When I say the Legislature, of course, that really boils down to the Government, who bring in this kind of measure.

The only other matter to which I want to refer is the statement made by the Minister both in the Dáil and in this House. I do not know if I understood the Minister correctly, but I took him to say that the maximum increase permitted in respect of creels under this Bill will apply only in respect of creels used for the purpose of hauling livestock. I have had a considerable amount of experience in the west of Ireland and I know that there is a great deal of use made of creels for hauling turf. I do not know whether this concession, this liberalisation if I might refer to it as such, will apply in respect of creels used for the hauling of turf. If not, it would seem to me that it is very proper that it should apply because a great number of people in the west of Ireland—and I am sure in the other counties where they have turf—have to employ these licensed hauliers to carry turf for them and if the effect of this kind of thing is to increase the cost of haulage, then people may very well turn over to buying coal. That is the kind of thing which is not desirable either from the point of view of the balance of payments or the volume of employment in the Irish countryside.

I think I had better go through the various observations made in the course of the debate and deal with as many points as I can. I think most Senators showed that they understood the nature of this measure. Several Senators asked how we estimated 7 cwt. as being a reasonable concession. That weight is reckoned to be the weight of a creel, which is a fairly large attachment, used in a lorry of 2 tons 15 cwt. unladen weight and this information we got from motor traders. In the definition of what we were seeking, seven cwt. would be a reasonable increase.

Next, I want to deal with the position of the licensed hauliers and to state beyond yea or nay that, of all sections of the community who were perfectly aware that vehicles should be weighed with their attachments, the licenced hauliers were most conspicuous in that respect. They have been coming to the Department to seek concessions year after year since 1933 and they have consistently and continually sought concessions on these grounds: that lorries were becoming larger, which was a reasonable ground, that there were special attachments which were normally fitted to a great many lorries, such as tipping gear, and the replacement of petrol engines by diesel engines, and that these should be included in the unladen weight. They went so far as to say that they must have substantial increases in certain allowances because they had to weigh their lorries unladen with these additions. It was made clear beyond all doubt that they were aware of this position and I cannot accept the idea that there is a large number of innocent licensed carriers who were not aware of these facts. In some cases it would have been very little use for the licensed hauliers to come to the Department seeking greater allowances wereit not for the fact that half their pleading was based on the understanding that they had to weigh their lorries unladen. I think I should make that position clear so that everybody can understand it.

Very few Senators seemed to advert to the fact that there have been increases of 40 per cent. in the basic weight allowances for lorries under 4 tons, since 1953, and 22½ per cent. for lorries with a basic weight of over 4 tons, in 1933. In addition, as I have already indicated there have been special allowances for diesel engines and tipping gear. If, in fact, you take a lorry which was 2 tons 10 cwt. in 1933 and add to it the basic weight increase, plus the diesel engine allowance, plus the seven cwt. provided for in this Bill, the increase in weight is 70 per cent., which I think is considerable. If you take the lorry which in 1933 was 1 ton 15 cwt. and make the same additions—the basic weight allowance, the diesel engine allowance and the seven cwt. provided for in this Bill—the increase is in the neighbourhood of 100 per cent., so that the licensed hauliers have really had very substantial increases.

Some of the suggestions for increased weight allowances made in the debate would increase their carrying capacity enormously. Some Senators would add 30 cwt. as the allowance to be provided for in the Bill. It would increase the carrying capacity of the 900 odd licensed hauliers covered by the Bill by some 40 per cent. I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no intention whatever of taking away from C.I.E. one pennyworth of the traffic in which they are now engaged, through any measure such as this.

I was glad to hear one Senator speak on behalf of C.I.E. Senator Murphy quite obviously was taking the part of C.I.E. in the debate. I should like to hear a few more people say something in relation to it. C.I.E. is costing the country at the moment some £3,500,000 a year and, as I said in the Dáil, that represents a distribution of taxes to the average consumer, the average individual, of 3d. in the £ on income tax, 4d. on every gallon of diesel oil and 4d. per gallon on petrol, plus 3d. on every packet of 20 cigarettes. The Transport Act of 1958 quite clearly laid it down that C.I.E. shall pay its way within five years. C.I.E. employs a very large number of people and they have a redundancy problem to be faced already.

I want to make it clear that I do not intend to worsen the position, if it can be avoided, of the licensed hauliers. While fully realising what the law is, I certainly do not intend to give an increase in carrying capacity of 40 per cent. to the licensed hauliers. That would be going against the implications of the Transport Act.

I should say that this Bill is one of a number of Bills related to transport licensing and indeed, here I may quote from the speech which I made in the Dáil Volume 178, column 1231 on the Committee Stage of this Bill. I quoted there a letter to the Irish Haulage Contractors' Association which was sent from the Minister for Industry and Commerce in October, 1938, and in the course of which he said:

While protecting the existing road transport businesses, the policy of the Legislature was to preserve to the railway companies the benefit of any expansion in the use of road transport. The Minister sees no prospect of a departure from this policy.

Some Senators have suggested that these small hauliers have already been labouring under difficulties. C.I.E. have to observe trade union regulations and their conditions of employment on a far more precise scale than in the case of licensed hauliers. Everybody in this House is fully aware of that. In so far as the licensed hauliers' financial position is concerned, the Central Statistics Office have furnished information as to how they fared since 1953. In 1953, their admitted net receipts were £255,000 and by 1958, they had risen to £387,000, an increase of 51 per cent., a far bigger increase than any decrease in the value of money would account for. No one can say, therefore, that they have not been able to maintain and improve their position in the past few years. Again, there has been no indication that the licensed hauliers were in the majority of cases not guilty of deliberate evasion when they weighed their lorries with all the attachments removed. I should like again to stress the fact that in consultation with the Department of Industry and Commerce, the position was made more than clear to them.

Some Senators seemed to suggest that recent legal decisions had definitely declared that lorries could be weighed with the attachments upon them but I think, as the House already knows, two judges disagreed with each other on that matter and there has been no specific legal decision of a positive kind with regard to the interpretation of the law, so far as the payment of taxation is concerned.

A number of Senators referred to the use of containers. Use of containers will provide me with some of the perplexing problems that I shall have to face when cases of genuine hardship, deserving cases of hardship due to a misapplication of the law, come before me. There are some containers which are taken off the lorry empty and put back on the lorry already filled, where there would be a case for action under Section 116 of the 1944 Act. There may be all sorts of difficult, in-between cases that I may have to consider and, as I said in the Dáil, I cannot be aware of them yet. Until I see the applications for increases over and about seven cwt., I shall not know what the problem is. I must wait until I receive the applications.

It is quite impossible to put the hardship cases into legislative form. Naturally, any Minister desires to escape from having to exercise personal discretion in matters of this kind. We would all like to put into legislation as much as possible of all the matters relating to the licensing of vehicles or anything else. As Senators know, it is possible to legislate so that the Minister will have as little discretion as possible but in this case it is quite impossible by legislation to cover all hardship cases particularly when we do not know their nature.

I was asked why I did not consult the Licensed Hauliers' Association and other persons in regard to the provisions of this Bill. The answer is that I wanted to make quite sure that the legislation would be passed before Christmas in order to provide this liberalisation, as Senator Donegan described it. There was no time for consultation of that kind.

Senator J.L. O'Sullivan spoke of the increase in the weight of creels as a result of moisture and referred to the beet hauliers in that connection. The increases of weight allowed in 1953, of 25 per cent. in the case of lorries under four tons and of 12½ per cent., in the case of lorries over four tons, were given partly because of observations made to the then Minister that creels became saturated with sand, mud and water and increased in weight. Increases given then were partly to allow for the factor referred to by Senator O'Sullivan.

Senator Donegan made a number of observations in regard to the position of lorry-owners who used such containers. The Senator's conception seems to be that of a very heavy lorry. The fact that larger lorries are more economic or that C.I.E. uses them does not entitle licensed hauliers to use them. Their weights were clearly restricted by law; it was intended that the situation should remain the same as in 1933 and each concession made was made with the Minister at all times wishing to preserve the position of C.I.E. as a transport carrier. It was never intended that licensed hauliers should automatically get all the increases in weight and all the privileges they might have as a result of modern methods of carriage simply because they existed. It was quite clearly intended that there should be a restraining attitude in regard to the provision for additional weight——

Surely the Minister would not suggest that hauliers should be entirely related to 1933 and that, in fact, a business which they were licensed to carry on in 1933 would never have expanded or that they would be so completely behind the times as to use the same type and weight of lorry and operate the same work to-day as they did in 1933? Surely they are entitled to the ordinary expansion that occurred in every business having anything to do with machinery?

I have indicated that they did receive very large increases in weight and allowances, but there must be some limitation——

I would not agree.

——in regard to the total weight they are entitled to. I think I have dealt with all the points that have been raised and, as I said, I shall examine every case of hardship that arises and assess whether it is a deserving case. As I have indicated in the Dáil, the Department has a splendid record of creating in every case a pattern of consistent decisions. Hardly ever has there been a controversy in the Dáil, hardly any Parliamentary Questions have been asked in this connection down through the years and I can assure the House that whatever we do will be done with a view to equity and consistency. We shall avoid all distortions in our attitude to the problems that will arise, but they will not be problems easy to solve and we must wait until we get the applications for increases over and above seven cwt. before we know the nature of the problems. If there should emerge some very difficult problem, if the pattern of transport as we see it then is different from what we imagine at the moment, I may have to come back to the Oireachtas for further legislation, but so far as we can see it at present, this Bill, with the additional seven cwt., should provide relief sufficient to enable hauliers to carry on their business.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill considered in Committee.

If we are to take the Committee Stage now, will I be allowed to propose an amendment? My intention was to propose an amendment and if it is not possible to do that, I would oppose taking the next Stage now.

I am prepared to deal with the amendment.

I do not think the House should be faced with an amendment at 11 o'clock at night.

I am quite prepared to let it stand over for a week.

Surely the only amendment possible is an increase in weight?

Has the Senator got the amendment?

Perhaps the Senator would submit the amendment.

SECTION I

I move:

In Subsection (3) of Section 1, line 25, to delete "seven hundredweight" and substitute "one ton".

I do not propose to say anything beyond what I have already said in favour of it, but I do stress the point that unless the Minister is prepared to deal comprehensively with this matter, he must deal more generously with these small people. That is the purpose of my amendment.

I approve of the amendment and think it is a reasonable compromise. If these people are to carry on their normal business, in normal competition with a public transport concern like C.I.E. which will use the heavier vehicles, the amendment is necessary. I agree with the Minister they are not entitled to any more but I argue that seven cwt. is too little.

I oppose the amendment and, considering what the Minister said in reply to the debate on Second Reading, it is clear anybody proposing an amendment like this is moving against the principle of organised public transport and the maintenance of C.I.E. as a nationalised organisation, and is advocating that a limited group of licensed hauliers should be put in a position to compete against nationalised transport.

I am not voting against organised public transport. In the first few sentences of my contribution this evening, I pointed out the healthy position we regarded as desirable was one in which we had a virile licenced hauliers business competing with a virile public transport business, and I felt there was plenty of room for both. I do not see anything funny in that. We should not want to see these people wither away for want of sunshine, and without competition, we shall not get desirable results in the public transport business. I want to see the public transport authority prosper and one of the ways to make it prosper is to give it virile competition.

Why then limit the competition to 900 licensed hauliers? Would the Senator explain that? Does he favour a free-for-all in the carriage of merchandise?

I certainly do. In 1933, it was decided in order that there should be a volume of traffic to justify a public transport authority, only those engaged in hauling would be licensed to proceed with their business. As long as new businesses are not allowed to come in, you have this small licensed section competing with public transport and I think this amendment is necessary to prevent that small section withering away.

I should like to make it clear that my purpose in proposing this amendment is to maintain equity, and to ensure justice. I believe the time will come when these people will have to be put out of business and compensated for loss of business on the basis of the present system. The present basis will be lost if we merely concede seven cwt. and it is to maintain that basis until such time as the Government and C.I.E. build up enough courage to take over the whole lot that I propose this interim measure so that these people will not be slowly put out of business but will be honourably treated.

This discussion has confused me. In view of what Senator O'Donovan said, may I ask if this change from seven cwt. to one ton refers only to creels? He mentioned a cattle creel being superimposed upon the floor of a lorry and a container subsequently being put on for the transport of carcasses and quarters of beef. It would mean that for one purpose there is a lorry with a creel to transport live cattle and the reverse, a container containing cattle which can be superimposed upon a platform. That is news to me. I thought you could not have a superimposed container for live cattle. What is the purpose of this? I want to be clear about it.

The Senator should read the section.

It is merely increasing seven cwt. to one ton.

This was one measure on which I had a very open mind. I had no direct interest in the Bill and, in fact, took very little interest in it until I read the reports of the Dáil Debates, but, having read them and listened to the discussion in this House, and having heard the Minister's reply, I think there is no case for the amendment. By adopting this amendment, the House will defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. Apart from that, I see a much wider and more serious implication. We are condemning the taxpayers to an unestimated and unpredictable bill of tremendous magnitude so far as the public transport organisation in this country is concerned, and I could not possibly support the amendment.

I think the best case against the amendment has been made by its mover, Senator Sheehy Skeffington, because he has stated he does not agree these people should exist at all and foreses a day when they should be eliminated.

They should be treated honourably.

The Senator wants to build a house knowing the foundation is not too good. Knowing it will ultimately fall, he wants it as high as possible before it does fall. Any merit the amendment may have had has been destroyed by that argument. If I had been prepared to suggest that the Minister might settle for eight or nine cwt. I am afraid I could not do that now in view of Senator Sheehy Skeffington's own argument.

May I just clear up that point in the mind of Senator O'Reilly? If we anticipate at some future juncture we shall have to pay compensation to the owner of the house, it would be more honourable for us to put the owner in such a position that dry rot will not develop in his house and reduce its value. These people should be honourably treated and honourably compensated on the basis of what they now possess. I think it is dishonourable to reduce in value what they now possess, and that is what we are doing by allowing an increase of only seven cwt. instead of a legitimate increase of one ton.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington is really advocating a socialist measure.

The result of that would be that the taxpayer would have to pay even more than he is paying now, if is should come about.

In equity, he would be so bound.

In regard to this amendment, if we increase the carrying capacity of licensed hauliers by 25 per cent., I do not see how that could enable them to carry on a healthy competition with C.I.E. It would be giving them a very considerable privilege. The seven cwt. was meant to assist them. It it as far as I can go. The seven cwt. is added to the weight specified in each haulier's licence and he can make use of the additional weight for any purpose he likes, having regard to the commodities he is licensed to carry and having regard to the area over which his licence extends. This does not relate to cattle creels specifically. I merely mentioned a cattle creel because I thought it was a rather typical example of an attachment having a weight relevant to this element of liberalisation.

Senator O'Donovan mentioned the type of cattle crate which I was discussing. Actually the type I mentioned is the creel which is not part of the lorry and which has to be moved by a crane because it is so heavy; it has to be lifted by a crane and placed on the lorry. The cattle are driven in from a loading bank and, when the cattle reach their destination, they are unloaded and the creel is taken off by another crane. Presumably the lorry then goes its way with a load of sacks, maybe, or something else.

Amendment put and declared lost.

We do not wish to have a division at this late hour.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington will be recorded as dissenting.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill".

I asked the Minister a question. He overlooked it in his reply. I asked him whether or not creels could be used for the purpose of hauling turf. The Minister indicated that this extension, or this liberalisation, was confined to creels used for the haulage of livestock.

No licences are required for carrying turf.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Mar is gnáth, ba mhaith liom Nollaig mhaith a ghuí do na Seanadóirí agus do no hoifigigh go léir. Beannachtaí ó mo chroí chugaibh.

The Seanad adjourned sine die at 11.15 p.m.

Top
Share