Vol. 40 No. 23
I move amendments 1 and 2:—
1. In page 2, lines 29, 33 and 48, to delete the word "mail-bags" where it occurs in those lines and substitute the word "mails" in each case.
2. In page 2, to delete line 51 and substitute the following:—"the word ‘mails' includes mail-bags and postal packets (other than telegrams) as defined in."
These are the terms in ordinary use.
I suggest that the definition "passenger road service" is defective. As it stands I think it could apply to an ordinary hackney car conveying passengers regularly between two precise points. It is not inconceivable that there are two people for instance making a contract with a hackney owner in Dublin to drive to Navan, Kells or Naas or some place several times a week. I suggest that the expression "passenger road service" as defined here would include such service as that. Presumably it is not the Minister's intention to include such service as that. I think also the Minister should take into account the possibility of a service where a big contract or a big work is being performed. I have in mind, for instance, recent big works in Clongowes Wood College which took a year. In that case a number of tradesmen engaged on the work had to live at a distance because there were no possibilites of getting lodgings around the college. Those people hired a bus to take them from Naas each morning for a period and they paid a fare for that service. That would come under the definition of "passenger road service." Is it the Minister's intention to include such a case or is it his intention to include the ordinary hackney car which has a contract to convey people on the public road two or three times a week? If not the definition should be amended.
The points of difference are slight. The two examples the Deputy gives would be met in the way we want to meet them under the Bill as it stands. One would want to know in regard to the hackney service whether it is a service on a contract basis or whether it is one in which separate charges are made in respect of each passenger. If it is not one in which separate charges are made in respect of each passenger, then the definition does not cover it and the Bill does not apply. If it is, the Bill does cover it and the Bill would apply. On the other hand, in the case of a building to which the Deputy refers to which the workmen travel down very regularly for a particular period, it will be a question as to whether there were separate charges made in respect of each passenger. Then it would rank as an occasional passenger road service. It would come under the Bill and it would be licensed in a particular way. If it were the case of any employer hiring a bus for the conveyance of his people, then the definition does not cover it.
I would like if the Minister would give an outline of the procedure he contemplates under "occasional passenger road service." If a football team decides to hire a bus to take them to a match in another district would the owner of the bus have to get a special licence for the purpose?
Did the team pay for the bus or did each passenger pay?
The team hired the bus.
The individual paid?
No.
Then it is not in it. It is a contract outside the Bill.
I am not clear about the Minister's reply. If I point to a case where a man conveys passengers three times weekly to Navan, or if a doctor or a solicitor has a place down there, and if on the majority of occasions a person is able to get another passenger, will such service come under this definition or will there have to be a special licence secured? I hold that as the term "passenger service" is defined here, the owner of the vehicle will have to be so licensed. With regard to the other incident I mentioned, there is the possibility that on a wet morning a number of men who cycle to work will be unable to do so, and will hire a bus. That bus would have to be specially licensed by the Minister before it could undertake to carry them. Is that the case?
In the last case that is correct.
With regard to a hackney car?
The Deputy will have to be more precise in the circumstances. I think the definition clearly means that if there is a hackney car service which is employed under contract to take one or more people to a place on certain days, then it is not inside the definition, because the essential part of the definition is that people must be carried along a specific route "for separate charges in respect of each passenger." But if, say, a doctor is carried three times a week paying each time, that would be within the definition. We want that case within it.
You want such hackney car owner to take out a special licence for that service?
Under these circumstances, which I do not think will ordinarily occur, the thing for a doctor to do would be to make a contract for a year or for six months to be taken to a certain place. That is different.
I am not clear that the definition is all right. The Minister says that between specific points or along a specified route there are separate charges. Is that the intention?
For every separate charge that applies to both things.
Is that clear?
Yes.
On behalf of Deputy J.X. Murphy I move:—
In sub-section (1), line 24, after the word "service" to insert the words "or carry for reward by road in a mechanically propelled vehicle any passenger, passengers' luggage, mailbag, or any of them."
The object of this amendment is to prohibit the carrying of passengers for reward without licence. There is no such explicit prohibition and it seems to be the intention of the Bill to have it. A person carrying passengers for reward would have to pay a revenue licence. I do not see any other way of dealing with the matter.
In so far as the requirement is that vehicles that are definitely going to be used for passenger services should be prohibited from plying for hire unless they have a licence I think the Bill meets that requirement. In so far as it is to prevent a lorry carrying passengers we think that is met by other legislation. The Road Traffic Bill, which is at present passing through this House, has a section which makes it unlawful to ply for reward, and imposes continuing penalties for each offence. In addition there is certain prohibition or what amounts to prohibition in one of the Finance Acts which sets out that if a mechanically propelled vehicle is used for carrying passengers it has to pay taxation as a passenger vehicle. That is a sufficiently heavy burden. Between the two we consider that the situation is properly met.
Supposing a lorry is taken out on Sunday on which seats have been erected for the purpose of giving employees an outing, would that be legal or illegal?
It would depend on whether they were carried for reward or not. If money passes it will be unlawful under the Road Traffic Bill when it passes. The owners would be subject under the Finance Act of 1929 to the payment of tax as if it were a passenger bus. There are two ways of getting at this question. If there is no reward the matter is different.
Under the Finance Act they pay the revenue duty; there is nothing else to prevent them.
They start off with that and rank as a passenger service and then they are caught under this Bill. They are caught in three ways. We have control of the passenger service. Anyone who sets out to become a passenger service in that way, we seize hold of, and with other Acts could prevent the occasional use, which is I think what is aimed at, of a lorry for passenger conveyance. They can be got at in that way. The tax has to be paid and after that there is the question of the Road Traffic Bill, under which the Minister can make provision with regard to seating accommodation and as to the type of vehicle. In Section 81 certain things are rendered unlawful and penalties are attached. I think the occasional use of a lorry is guarded against.
Notwithstanding what the Minister has said regarding the extent to which legislation may provide penalties under the Finance Act there has been for a considerable time very grave abuses in this respect, without as far as I know any detection or penalties being imposed. I referred to this matter on the Second Reading and I was wondering whether the Minister had in the meantime made inquiries as to the number of cases brought in the District Courts or by the Revenue Commissioners in which penalties had been imposed. I admit that the remedy is there under existing legislation but, as far as I know, there is no supervision in order to see that the existing legislation is strictly enforced. If the Minister toured the country, particularly on Sundays, he would know that to a very great extent lorries are used for the carriage of passengers and that they take away from the railway and the other carrying companies passengers that they would otherwise get. All I want is an assurance that the law as it stands will be rigidly enforced, if the amendment moved by Deputy Alton is accepted.
And if the amendment is accepted what about the enforcement of it? What extra help is there? According to the Deputy there is sufficient law in force to prevent what he wants to have prevented. The only question is that of enforcement. The Deputy wishes the amendment to be enforced by a new section.
I would feel more assured if the Minister and his Department accepted responsibility. Knowing that the responsibility for co-ordination and control of traffic was on his Department I would feel more assured if he accepted the amendment in order to see that whatever legislation is passed through this House will be strictly enforced.
The only enforcement there can be is through the Civic Guards. How am I going to control them otherwise than under previous legislation?
How many cases have come under the notice of the Minister where penalties have been enforced under the terms of the Finance Act?
I do not know, because they have not been looked up. That is no answer to the question. I have no greater force against abuses as a result of the acceptance of the amendment than I have at the moment. The situation is not to be met by a new section in the Bill; it is to be met by a better enforcement of existing laws.
Is there any objection to inserting the words of the new section? Does it weaken the section?
It brings in a new principle. It imposes a certain control of lorries. In the Bill as at the moment designed there is no control of lorries.
On behalf of Deputy J.X. Murphy I move amendment 4:—
In sub-section 3, line 41, after the word "Minister" where it first occurs to add the following:—"particulars of the services and of the routes regularly operated by the applicant during the period of twelve months prior to 31st December, 1930, and."
Amendment 6 proposes to insert a new section in order to give existing companies a chance of competing for new services and in order that they might be able to do so, it is necessary that they should have certain information. This amendment is designed to see that such information is furnished to the Minister by the interested parties.
I have no objection in a way to what is contained in the amendment except only on the point of draftsmanship. We take power to enforce this, that when there is a requisition made by the Minister, people who apply for a licence shall give all such information as the Minister may require for the consideration of such application. We think that the more general it is kept the better. If you have a specific phrase, in the interpretation of that generalities may be excluded. I would rather keep it general. I think it would be quite clear to the Deputy, where one of the points at issue is whether the service has been run regularly and efficiently for a year, that the only way to establish that point is to get information about it. We would rather keep the section as it stands.
I shall withdraw the amendment and I hope the Minister will keep the matter in mind when he is making regulations on this subject.
Certainly.
I think the date in the amendment should have been 31st September and not 31st December. It is a mistake in drafting.
I understood the amendment was being withdrawn. What we are looking for are particulars to enable us to say whether the service had been in operation for twelve months from a date in October of this year.
Do I understand that the Minister is prepared to bring in an amendment with improved wording, to give effect to the intention which Deputy Alton had in mind, on the next stage?
It is covered by the section already, but not precisely, and I do not intend to make it more precise, because if I did it would suffer from the objections which I have made, that we want general power. We do not want to have these limited by court interpretations. We want general powers to obtain all such information as we may require for the consideration of the application.
Including information of this kind?
Certainly. How can a decision otherwise be taken as to whether an efficient service was regularly run as from twelve months prior to the Act to October of this year? How can that decision be properly taken unless this information is called for? Necessarily it will be called for.
On behalf of Deputy Murphy I move amendment 5:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) No persons, save the holder of a passenger licence operating the services in the district where the traffic originated for which the occasional licence is sought shall be granted an occasional passenger licence unless the Minister is satisfied that such holder is unwilling or unable to operate the service in respect of which the occasional passenger licence is sought."
This amendment is really designed to prevent pirating. It seems reasonable that the holder of a passenger licence on a particular line should have a chance of getting an occasional licence and that the intervention of another party should not be encouraged. Of course, if the actual holder of the licence refuses this occasional service, then I think there would be a fair case for calling in another person. I think the holder of the licence should have first claim to the occasional licence.
Again I am in agreement with the policy proposed by this amendment, but I think the insertion of the amendment is unnecessary. The policy would be distinctly that people who are regularly on the route would be given the first opportunity of providing an occasional service, but if such persons were unwilling or unable to do so, I am not sure that this amendment would cover all the points that we should like to make. I would prefer general powers, so as to secure the provision of public facilities when required. Certainly, the policy would be distinctly to enable a regular operator in an area to run an occasional service where such a service is required, but if for some reason or another that person did not run the service we would rather have general power, by not having these words inserted. The words "unwilling or unable" do not seem to carry the thing far enough.
Would the Minister say what the position would be in a case where a football match was being played in a particular place? If the holder of the existing licence for service in that area could not possibly cope with the crowd, could the holder of a licence in respect of the service in some other area, obtain an occasional licence for the purpose of assisting the transportation of the crowd in this area?
Yes. We hope to operate it in this way. We give the regular operator two things. He may have stand-by buses which he can call out for the occasion, or he may hire buses from other people. Alternatively if we do not do that we can ask other people in the neighbourhood or people far away to put on sufficient service of buses for that occasion. We tie ourselves to the extent that we approach the regular operator in the first instance in the hope that he will give the necessary service either by means of his own buses or by hiring buses from other owners. If he cannot do that we go to other places.
The point I want to stress is not alone the protection of the legitimate operator, but also the convenience of the public. Even at present in some cases with unlimited competition it happens frequently that there are not adequate transport facilities for people going to large football matches or sporting events of that kind. It would be most undesirable if the occasional licence were given to one operator only and it was discovered in practice that that one operator was not able adequately to deal with the situation even though that particular situation meant a windfall for himself. It may happen that a particular operator would contend that he would be able to deal with the situation so as to get the full benefit of the traffic whereas in fact considerable public inconvenience might be occasioned by confining the occasional licence to that one operator.
We would not confine ourselves to that extent. I see the difficulty, but I do not see that it would be possible to get a sufficient number of vehicles to carry all the people who want to attend football matches on all occasions. The situation we want to safeguard here is to try to secure a sufficient number of vehicles for the peak load traffic. You cannot have everybody carried on all occasions, but you can get the nearest possible service to it by having first your regular operator and then by having power as we have here to grant occasional licences to other people for special occasions.
What Deputy Lemass appears to be thinking about is the case of the small bus owners who would not be able to provide a sufficient number of buses in certain circumstances to meet the needs of the locality on a particular occasion. A few big bus companies in the country —and the fewer there are the better —would naturally have stand-by buses up to a certain number. They would also have operating other areas buses which might not be required on that particular occasion and that is the case which we have to bear in mind in considering an amendment of this kind. I think there is a clear case, and I think the Minister is glad there is, for preferential treatment being given to the people who normally operate in a particular area against bus owners coming in from other areas who cadge the best traffic that can be got on an occasion of this kind. I am glad the Minister is prepared to give a preference to the company which operates the line normally provided that that company is prepared to meet the needs of a special occasion.
On behalf of Deputy J.X. Murphy I move amendment No. 6:—
Before Section 11 to insert a new section as follows—
"(1) Whenever an application is made for a passenger licence in respect of a passenger road service which was not being regularly operated during the period of 12 months prior to the 31st day of December, 1930, a copy of the application shall be furnished by the Minister to the holders of passenger licences in respect of passenger road services similar in whole, or in part, to the service for which the licence is sought, and also to any railway company which, in the opinion of the Minister, may be affected if the application were granted. The holders of such passenger licences, and any such railway company, shall be entitled to make representations to the Minister against the granting of the application, provided always that no such application shall be granted unless there is no holder of such passenger licences or railway company who has made a representation pursuant to this sub-section willing to operate the service in regard to which such representation has been made.
(2) In the event of there being more than one holder of such passenger licences, or railway company willing to operate such service, the Minister shall determine which licence holder or railway company shall operate the service, and may issue a passenger licence accordingly."
I think the Minister has not replied to the point which I raised on amendment No. 4. The point is that he should give an existing undertaking or railway companies a chance of competing for a new service or at least giving them proper notice when it is proposed to institute such new service. It seems only fair that they should get such a chance and that an opportunity should not be given to a new company to give a similar service in the same district and that the railway company in that district should not get, I will not say preference, but a fair warning.
Amendment No. 7 which appears in the Order Paper in my name is somewhat similar to that amendment. It was not my intention that an opportunity should be given to a railway company or any other company to bid against an applicant for a licence in respect of a new service, but that such a company or any other company operating the service should be informed of such application if in the opinion of the Minister the new service was likely to affect the services they were running there and that they should be entitled to make such representation to the effect that the new service was unnecessary in so far as it was proposing in a different way to cover the route that was covered by the existing service. I think a provision should be inserted in the Bill that would require the Minister to give notice to either the railway companies or to others likely to be affected by the Minister granting the application. My idea was to provide that such people operating existing services could make representations to that effect to the Minister if they thought their existing services would be damaged by the institution of a new service.
There are two points in this. One is a point which is made both in this amendment and the next. There is this in common, that when an application is made there should be proper notification in regard to that application given to the people who already hold a passenger licence in respect of services in the same area and that they should be entitled to make representations. There were two points, first in regard to notice and secondly in regard to making representations. The amendment also proposes that no such application shall be granted unless no holder of such passenger licence or a railway company which has made a representation is willing to operate the service in regard to which such representation has been made. The first two points are in respect of giving notice to people who are already there and allowing them to make representation.
Secondly there is the question of preventing licences being given except when the existing licence holder is not going to run a service. I meet that again in a more general way. Section 11, sub-section (3), paragraph (a) states that "in considering the grant or refusal of an application the Minister shall have regard to the following matters, that is to say (a): Whether the service in respect of which such application is made is required in the public interest having regard to the passenger road services and other forms of passenger transport available to the public." That adverts to the other service there, whether the public requirements are met and so on. We do not insist on notice and we do not precisely say that representations may be made but under the procedure we have established under the provisions of the Road Vehicles Act, the practice is that we do give notice to those we can easily discover as being already on the route and we do await representations from them, but I would hesitate to be bound in the way that these two amendments would bind me.
That would mean that applications for a licence might be granted and might be turned down afterwards in the court on the ground that somebody who would be interpreted as having a service on the route had not had notice or alternatively although notice had been given, that they were entitled to make representations. There might be a complaint made that the time was too short to enable them to make representations. Again I have the same attitude as I had previously, that the practice would be as far as giving notice and allowing representations are concerned, in the main—I do not tie myself to details—what he sets out. I do not want to get that laid down as an obligation and I do not want to have the second point precisely stated namely, "that no such application shall be granted unless there is no holder of such passenger licence or railway company who has made a representation, willing to operate the service in regard to which such representations had been made."
I think again that the policy I declared on Second Reading is very much in line with that, that the preference would be always there towards consolidation and putting the service in the hands of the people already there, the entire public service in a particular area in proper circumstances, or even the extensions where an extension might be required. I would indicate the further policy that where there was a railway-owned service, that the railway-owned service should be given the preference both towards consolidating the services in their area or in regard to extensions, but I would again dislike to have it precisely stated. The conditions will require a lot of dovetailing of services into one another. I maintain the matter should be left in a rather discretionary form, allowing the Minister to deal with the circumstances as they arise.
Would the Minister consider the advisability of having any such application, and the route published in the official gazette?
I would again object rather strongly to that, because we are told it is necessary to get consolidation of the services with the greatest possible speed. We speak of an appointed day in the Act which may be three or six months after the passing of the Act. We want to get, consistent with fair play to those already engaged in the services, consolidation arrangements made as quickly as possible. If there must be publication applicants would have to have their applications put in a much more formal way. Then you could not entertain an application in which there were some obvious errors with regard to route or otherwise. If you insist on publication in an official gazette, it will be necessary to have a more rigid form of application. As the Bill stands, it makes for much greater ease in the working of it, and I do not think there is any possibility of any injustice being done to the various interests involved.
Will the Minister indicate what steps he proposes to take to ascertain the view of the public in the areas of the proposed service? If representations are made to the Minister that an existing service is inadequate and that a new service is needed will any steps be taken by the Minister through the Civic Guard or otherwise to ascertain whether these representations are correct?
I think that would be a second stage in the programme. The first thing to do would be to get established all the areas in the country where people must get licences and who are the people to whom the licences must be given. Once you have established that you have got before your mind a picture of the country showing, perhaps, a meagre service in certain areas and a rather overwhelming service in other areas. Then there will be the stage at which we can proceed to distribute these services more evenly by agreements perhaps between the bus owners. It will be only in the first twelve months that there will be any necessity to go to the public, the Civic Guards, or prominent people in an area, to ascertain whether or not a service as then established is adequate to the needs of the community. That is a good step on. The procedure will be somewhat as the Deputy stated when that stage is reached.
Does Deputy Lemass suggest that the Civic Guards would be the proper channel to express the views of the general public in cases of this kind?
I have in mind a certain area in regard to which I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill. I would like the Minister to be as clear as possible about it at this stage. In this area there is an existing service which for five years has been adequate to the needs of the district, which is not served by rail. One of the larger bus services has come in recently and for the past month is running on that line. What is the position or suggestion in regard to the company which has been giving an adequate public service for the past five years? That is the point on which I want to hear the Minister.
The bus that has been there for a month only prior to the introduction of this measure has no standing under the Bill. It has no standing under which it can claim a licence. It is in the discretion of the Minister to give one. It then comes to the point of what will be an adequate service. That will depend on the circumstances of each application in each area. If you found an operator in a district for four or five years running at certain times of the day, say, morning and evening, and not running at midday and that some other bus made its appearance and ran a midday service and appeared to be getting a good number of passengers for that midday service, then you would have to come to the conclusion that the first service was not entirely adequate. That does not mean that the newcomer would get a licence. What you would do would be to see the man who had established himself in the area and put it to him that there seemed to be need for another service at a different time of the day and ask him if he would consider that it would be economic for him to put on that service. If he did not think so, then you would have to look for somebody else, but the policy would be to give the man who had established himself in the area the preference.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (2), page 4, line 26, to delete the words "as defined in" and substitute within the brackets the words "within the meaning of."
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (2), before paragraph (d), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) on the ground that road tax in respect of the vehicles engaged in such existing service has not been paid to the appropriate authority in Saorstát Eireann."
The section states that, subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister shall have absolute discretion to grant or to refuse an application for a passenger licence. As far as existing services are concerned the Minister using his discretion has power to refuse a licence under certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the service is not efficient. Another provision is that existing service was not a sufficient service, and a third is that the organisation and equipment is not sufficient. My amendment aims at adding to the existing section a further paragraph stating that the Minister may refuse a licence on the ground that the road tax in respect of the vehicles engaged in such existing service has not been paid to the appropriate authority in Saorstát Eireann. It might be information to a large number of Deputies that there are buses owned by an exceptionally large bus company at the present time which are using and abusing the roads in the Saorstát and who at the same time are not paying any road tax to any local authority in the Saorstát. I refer to bus companies which are owned and registered and which pay their road tax in Northern Ireland. As I pointed out such services are peculiar to Border traffic.
There is a bus service competing against the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company and against the Donegal Railway Company. There is also a bus service from Dublin to Belfast competing against the Great Northern Railway Company. As far as I am aware some of these buses are paying absolutely no tax to any local authority in the Saorstát. It is true, as the Minister may point out, that if a bus is garaged for a certain number of nights in the Saorstát it can be compelled to pay the road tax here but the proprietors understand these regulations and have succeeded in evading them. They will keep them for a certain number of hours in the Saorstát and then run them back to Northern Ireland. This is detrimentally affecting the ratepayers inasmuch as these buses are contributing nothing in the way of road tax. No contribution is coming from them to the Road Fund although they are using and abusing the roads. Consequently there is an additional charge on the ratepayers. They are also detrimentally affecting the railway companies inasmuch as they are taking the passenger traffic that should in the ordinary course of events be carried by the railway companies. It is well known and the Minister is aware of it that the railway companies have to pay for the upkeep of the permanent way and have also to pay rates.
Take as one example the Donegal Railway Company. The Donegal Railway Company has been very badly affected by these buses which are owned and which are registered and pay their road tax outside the Saorstát, namely in Derry City. Although the Donegal Railway Company paid £900 to the Donegal County Council these buses competing against it and using and abusing the roads and throwing the railway employees out of work and causing unemployment among the hackney carriage owners also, pay no rates whatever to the county council. Not alone does that apply to the Donegal Railway Company, but it applies also to a large extent to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company. It further applies to the Great Northern Railway Company. We have one firm, Catherwood and Company, who are competing against the Great Northern Railway Company and who are running buses from Belfast to Dublin. In the course of the journey they are travelling over the roads in the counties of Louth and Dublin and they are in an identical position with the buses I have referred to operating from Derry City in the County of Donegal.
The Minister in his reply may point out that there is a reciprocal arrangement in regard to the traffic going over the Border. I do not think that reciprocal arrangement is in favour of the railway companies or of the bus owners in the Saorstát and I should like to quote one specific case. We had until comparatively recently buses coming from Derry City into Donegal competing against the Donegal Railway Company over a certain route. The Donegal Railway Company, in order to cope with that unfair competition, endeavoured to inaugurate a bus service from Stranorlar into Derry. On its route it would have to go through part of Tyrone and part of Derry. The competent authority in Northern Ireland refused to allow that railway company to run buses from Stranorlar to Derry or from Strabane to Derry, as they maintained that the existing bus service was adequate. So much for the plea that there is a reciprocal arrangement.
This arrangement, as far as I can see, is detrimental to railway employees, to railway companies and to hackney carriage owners. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the amendment. I have pointed out that the railway companies are paying rates and employing a large number of people in Donegal. As far as the bus company is concerned, it is employing very few, and the majority of the employees are resident outside the Saorstát. I hold that it is in the interests of the railway companies, the ratepayers, the railway employees, and the bus employees, that the Minister should accept the amendment, because I believe it is going to be beneficial to the G.N.R. Co., the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Co., and the Donegal Railway Co., as well as to the hackney carriage owners and the ratepayers in the Saorstát.
I oppose the amendment mainly because I contest the reasons that the Deputy gave for moving it. This whole question of cross-Border buses is regulated by certain agreements which are sanctified to a certain extent by a certain international regulation, and also have been agreed to as between the two Governments. They are fair agreements. If anything, I am told by the people concerned with this road tax, that they work out more to our advantage than a breach of the agreement would leave it. The situation at present is that bus companies which ply across the Border although entitled to pay in any one of the two places, and might be made to pay in both, in fact pay on a fifty-fifty basis. I simply rely on the information I have got, that any breach of the agreement would leave us in a much worse position from the point of view of the road tax than we are. As to being detrimental to the railways, I do not see how the situation will be changed. If the bus services are warranted they are going to be run. It is only the running of the buses. not where the tax goes, that can be said to be detrimental to railway employees and to hackney carriage owners. Where the tax actually goes does not make any great difference there. It is competition that matters. If the bus services are warranted, the competition is going to be there whether the tax is paid into the Exchequer of one State or into the Exchequer of another. There are not a very big number of buses concerned in this. A number are registered and pay taxes here. I am told the arrangement is an absolutely equitable one and I do not propose to disturb it.
The Minister said that this is a fair arrangement. He says that it is an agreement between his Government and the Northern Government and he points out that it is to the advantage of the people here. I hold quite the reverse as far as the particular case I have quoted is concerned. I have already pointed out that these buses are running from Derry and competing with the Donegal Railway and the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway and using and abusing the roads and paying no taxes in the Saorstát. At the same time, when the Donegal Railway Company made an application to run a bus service in the Six Counties it was refused. I cannot see where the fair arrangement is, and I cannot see where it is to our advantage. I think that if the Minister makes inquiries he will find that the Donegal Railway Company made an application to run a bus service which was turned down by the Northern Government on the plea that the existing service was adequate, and consequently, they would not let them run a bus service. If that is a fair agreement I do not know what a fair agreement is. A further point is that for a number of years past the Dáil has voted a subsidy to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, and quite rightly so. At the same time, if there was not this Six-County competition going on, the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company would be in a much better position and might not need such a subsidy.
The Deputy has again mixed up the two things. What the Government gets from the proceeds of the tax is one thing. Whether the buses operate detrimentally to the railway company, as the Deputy puts it, is an entirely different thing. The only thing that is at stake here is the question of the tax. I do not believe it is going to lessen competition, no matter where the tax is paid. It will only mean that the arrangement will be broken. The only way there could be an effect on the competition would be if both Governments insisted on the cross-border buses paying into both Exchequers, and I doubt even if that would militate very much against the frequency of the service.
The Deputy raises another point which is not in this amendment, that certain people when they applied for permission to run a bus service in the Six Counties were refused permission on the grounds that the services there were already adequate. That has nothing to do with the tax. It depends on an entirely different set of circumstances, that is, that the Northern Government have certain regulations with regard to buses and they do not allow people on a route already served. We are going to be in that position once this Bill is passed, and there is going to be equality in that respect immediately. That has nothing to do with the amendment about the tax.
Perhaps I might get some light from the Minister on a matter I have been thinking about since the Second Reading. The Minister said he contemplated the division of the country into three zones, one the Dublin city area, another, the Great Southern Railways area, and another, the Great Northern Railway area, and that in these zones in due course road transport service would, to a very great extent, be controlled by the Dublin Tramways Company or by either of the railway companies. How does he propose to fit into that arrangement any of these bus companies operating here with their headquarters in the Six Counties? Does he contemplate ultimately excluding such people from picking up passengers in the Free State, or operating in competition with any of these services licensed by him? Presumably the Six-County companies will be required to obtain licences under the Bill from him in order to operate here. The other point I should like information on is, in which of these zones, if any, will Donegal be? What does he contemplate as the future of road transport in Donegal?
The services there will probably be in the hands of the two railway companies in future, the G.S.R or the G.N.R. The other point the Deputy raises is as to what is going to happen to cross-border buses owned by either of the two railway companies.
The reverse. Owned by Six County firms.
The Deputy answered himself then. They will have to get licences and the ordinary conditions will apply to them. Why segregate these out?
The Minister said he contemplated, for example, that in the G.N.R. area after some years, all the buses would be operated by the G.N.R. Company with some slight exceptions. Does he contemplate the exclusion of the Six-County buses operating in that area?
First of all, I want to put in a reservation to what the Deputy said. He is making my statement of policy more definite than I made it myself. I said that I thought, and I hoped, the situation would work out that way, but not immediately. It is not going to work out immediately that way. The general line of policy will be to throw transport more and more into the hands of the three companies named. That does not by any means indicate that there is no future for the bigger bus holders who can give a good service and who have been carrying on efficiently and regularly and are likely to continue to do so even under conditions of competition from the other quarter. The Deputy, however, asked me how am I going to fit these buses into the cross-Border picture. They will fit in. Some of them are one-man concerns. I should say these people would not have much chance of lasting. Some of them are "biggish" concerns and they will have a good chance of lasting if they can establish that they are running an adequate service. The future will probably be that after a bit there will be a sort of co-ordination achieved by a process of absorption as much as by a process of competition and destruction. We will facilitate that process. It is quite possible that the G.N.R. might purchase some of them. They have already purchased certain buses that ply across the Border. It is quite likely that that process will be hastened by the passage of this measure. Donegal will not fit into that at all. Donegal will have to be looked upon as an area apart. If the G.S.R. extends up that way with a bus service they naturally will be given preference. The service will probably fall into the hands, in the northern part of the county, of the railway which already has a monopoly of the bus business in the northern part of Donegal. The rest will have to be handled as the situation permits.
As the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, might I ask if he will be prepared to accept amendment 18 on the same subject?
Might I point out on that question that that amendment is only in relation to renewals of licences, not to the original grant of licences. I am going to object to it and make an argument founded upon that very point, that I do not see what good there is in giving a man, who has established his footing in an area by being there a year, a licence and then going on to say, after one year, when he comes for a renewal, that you may neglect the fact that he has been on that route and may cut him out entirely. I do not think the amendment is acceptable.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment 10 on behalf of Deputy Murphy.
In sub-section (4) (a), line 11, to delete the words and figures "31st day of October" and substitute the words "30th day of September."
Probably there may be some reason for choosing October 31st as the termination of the twelve months of continual service, but I cannot see it. Perhaps the Minister would justify it. Otherwise I would suggest that the end of the licensing quarter would be more appropriate, and for that reason 30th September is suggested in lieu of 31st October.
I do not think there is sufficient reason shown for accepting that. I prefer my own date. It is the date nearest to the introduction of the Bill. This really extends the time by another month. There is no reason from the licensing point of view that would arise.
Has the Minister made up his mind not to accept any amendments to the Bill?
I would not like to say that.
I suspect it looks like it.
I would not like to say I was disposed to accept amendments simply because they were put down.
Surely if some service thinks of coming into operation it would like to know it was fit before being compelled to pay for another quarter's licence. Would the Minister think over it?
I put this argument before the Deputy. I understood the purport was to cut out a particular service, and even if the date is changed to the 30th of September it does not achieve that object.
I can assure the Minister I have no sinister object in the amendment.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 5, at the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) A person applying for a passenger licence to commence on the appointed day shall, for the purposes of this section, be a person who carried on an existing service if he is carrying on such existing service at the date of such application and such existing service was, during the whole of the period necessary to constitute it an existing service and up to the date of such application, carried on either by such applicant or successively by persons from or through whom such applicant claims to be entitled to such service and by such applicant."—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
The aim of this amendment is that we want to establish as a person carrying on an existing service if it was carried on for a 12 months' period either by himself or by people from or through whom he acquired it. In other words, if we have an individual actually running a bus for 6 months and a person from whom he bought it running it for 6 months previously, we join these two up and make it a yearly period.
Question agreed to.
I move amendment 13:
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Whenever the Minister refuses an application for a passenger licence, he shall state the reasons for such refusal.
I propose that whenever the Minister refuses an application for a passenger licence he shall state the reasons for his refusal. In one sense this amendment is consequential on that following it, where I propose that if a person were refused he shall have the right of appeal to the Justice of the District Court. In any case, I think the applicant should be informed of the reasons for the rejection of the application. It might be that in certain cases an amendment of the application or an alteration of the proposed service would enable him to secure a licence from the Minister. The whole procedure under the Bill in which the Minister can consider the case made by the applicant and the case made by his opponent, and arrive at a decision to refuse the application without giving any reason for it is, in my opinion, unwise as well as being unfair to the parties concerned. I think that satisfaction would be much more general if a person refused a licence had a clear statement from the Minister of the reasons for the refusal.
I am taking, in the first instance, at any rate, this amendment in conjunction with the next amendment. That is I am taking 13 and 14 together because I think originally the purpose of putting this was to enable an appeal to be made.
Yes.
The Deputy outlined that policy on Second Reading. I object to any appeal and I certainly object to an appeal to the Justice of a District Court. What is the District Justice going to consider an appeal on? I refuse an application, say. Under Deputy Lemass's procedure I would state the reasons for doing that and then the person by whom the application was made might appeal against such refusal to a Justice of a District Court. Supposing it is "Refused on the grounds that this does not come within paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the sub-section," what is the District Justice going to decide? It is not a question of law, and it is not a question of fact. It is a question of policy. There are a number of District Justices in the country. It seems to me the worst possible court for this purpose, because there might be varying views of policy in their respective areas. Is it intended to have people who might be so varied in their views deciding in the end that an application turned down must be granted, when it is not a question of law, a question of fact, but is a question of policy, and are they to have a different line of policy from a member of the Government in regard to transport matters? I object to this appeal. On the other hand, if you take the amendments singly without the matter of an appeal, and simply say that whenever an application for a licence is refused, that the reason shall be stated. I do not think it would achieve very much. I do not think the amendment is worth anything without the appeal, and to that I object. If considered without an appeal, ordinarily speaking, in the course of a discussion more than by formal statement, the individual making the application will arrive at the conclusion that his application was turned down on any one of three grounds.
I would think that the procedure mainly would be: there would be an examination of the existing service; there would be certain doubts raised as to whether it was efficient having regard to the requirements of the public; whether it was sufficient with regard to the frequency of the service or in regard to daily duration of the service, or in regard to any other matter to enable him to give a good service. It will hardly ever be decided without the person being present and having heard these matters argued and without being given an opportunity under paragraph (b) of stating why a particular service which seems not sufficiently frequent was run and of establishing his case. I do not think you get any further by saying that the reasons for refusal must be given. There the Minister would be almost definitely driven into saying that the application was refused under Section 11, sub-section (2), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Unless it were something arising under (d), I do not think you would get much further. I think the amendment would be only valuable in the case of an appeal, and I object to the idea of a District Justice sitting in judgment upon transport policy in a particular area.
I have no objection to the two amendments being taken together. In fact, I stated that amendment 13 is to a large extent consequential upon 14. I do not propose that District Justices should sit in judgment upon transport policy in any particular area. I only propose that this right of appeal should be inserted in the case of persons operating an existing service, and who would be deemed to be entitled to a road service licence in respect of that service under this section, except it is refused on any of the grounds specified in the section. I also proposed the right of appeal in the case of a person holding a licence if renewal of the licence is refused on similar grounds. In these cases questions of facts do arise. There are no cases in which a licence will be refused or the renewal of a licence will be refused on general grounds of policy. There are cases where the Bill as drafted presupposes that the person will get a licence unless definite objection is raised in one or other of those subheadings, either that the service was not sufficient with due regard to the requirements of the public or that having due regard to the daily duration of the service or the frequency of the service, it did not meet the requirements of the public, or upon the grounds in paragraph (c).
The question of fact arises there and it might be possible for the holder of a licence or the operator of the service who is refused a licence to submit evidence on the part of the public on appeal—from the local clergy, the local Peace Commissioner, the local publican or the captain of the local football team—to present the view of the people, and to say that the refusal of the Minister to grant a licence had been arrived at on a misunderstanding of the facts. In such a case I think the District Justice might upset the Minister's decision and should upset the Minister's decision. As the Bill stands at present the Minister has practically despotic powers. He can say he shall or shall not operate a public service in any part of the country. He has absolute control. He could even go so far as to refuse a licence to any of the three big companies he mentioned. He could refuse a licence to the Dublin United Tramways Co. or to the Irish Omnibus Company. Power to do that is given to him under this Bill. He has declared his intention of not using his powers in that way, but the power is there. If the Dáil is disposed to give the Minister this power it should provide some means by which an appeal could lie from a decision arrived at perhaps from a misunderstanding of the facts. I bring in the Justice of the District Court because he is the judge who comes into the Traffic Act in a somewhat similar capacity. The person who gets a road passenger's licence has to get a number of other licences as well. He has to get so many licences that he is liable to get mixed up. He has to have a licence for his bus, a licence to run his bus, a licence for his driver and a licence for his conductor. In the case of these licences there is an appeal under the Traffic Act to the Justice of the District Court, and in this case also an appeal should lie from the decision of the Minister in view of the wide powers the Bill gives him in respect of these matters.
I argued before it is not a question of law, not a question of fact, and I still think that neither of these two matters can be said to arise. The District Justice will have to operate on the refusal set out in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) or all three together.
With regard to (a) if on appeal he desires to direct the Minister to grant the licence which is the subject of the refusal he has to do it because, in his opinion, such existing service is not carried on efficiently with due regard to the requirements of the public. You are going to make the District Justice judge of the requirements of the public. The second test is also the requirements of the public. Then look at the third reason as set out in paragraph (c) "on the ground that, in his opinion, the organisation and equipment at the disposal of the person making the application are not such as to enable him to carry on the proposed service in accordance with the conditions which the Minister considers should be inserted in the passenger licence to which such application relates." If the situation is going to develop, the Minister can pile up conditions that would really put it out of the power of the District Justice; it would be all artificial and bad. It is transport policy that would have to be decided. I say that even if that appeal does lie there is another section which deals with attachment of conditions. I can imagine an appeal being taken just because of the very circumstances the Deputy related—the parish priest, the captain of the local football club, the publican—would all come in and say that in their opinion this is a decent sort of appeal. It is the same sort of appeal that is put up under the Old Age Pensions Acts. It would be said this is a decent sort of person and he should get his licence. There would be a sort of ad misericordiam appeal and on that the District Justice is going to govern transport conditions in the country.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
Supposing it does happen? Supposing the District Justice does decide? He attaches conditions to the granting of a licence. If you are going to imagine that the Minister is not going to be conscientious in his duty and your point of view about transport in a particular circumstance at a particular time is peculiar, then you operate that peculiar mentality on the conditions that he is to attach to the licence once he has been made give it by the District Justice. I think we should leave this; I admit it is a discretionary power, it gives almost despotic powers to the Minister but there are ways of calling attention to the matters of the refusal of a licence. There are ways in which an abuse of the power could be brought to the notice of the public. If the amendment were passed the decision of the District Justice could be completely upset by the conditions which the Minister may at any point establish.
I would have thought that if the Deputy is going to have anybody to decide this he would have thought of somebody who would have at any rate his mind directed specially to transport matters and not to whether a man is physically fit to drive a bus—merely his physical powers. The Deputy might have thought of some body like the Railway Tribunal. But bus owners would say that the Railway Tribunal is too railway-minded and that they would have a prejudice operating one way. But I do object to the idea of a District Justice being brought in to direct transport policy in his area. That is what it amounts to.
I am not very much concerned about the form of the appeal, but I do think that there should be some appeal to some Tribunal giving a right to review the Minister's decision if the person affected by that decision believed he had been wronged in any way either through a wrong decision or through a decision arrived at from wrong information. I believe that a right should be given to him under this Bill to appeal to some Tribunal which would have the power to reverse that decision if a wrong had been done. I do not mind whether that appeal should be to the district court or to an Advisory Committee appointed under the Department, but I would like to see that power reviewed in the Bill.
It is the difficulty of getting the proper tribunal adverted to here. I was at first very much affected by the thought that there were very wide powers in the section that might very easily be abused—very wide powers to the political head of a certain Department—but when I began to consider the possibility of an Appeals Tribunal then I found myself up against it. Judicial persons would not know how to operate the Bill. It is not a Bill dealing with a question of law or fact. If there is a breach of law no matter how widely drafted the section is, it will be found that there are ordinary rights at law where the decision may come in conflict with the statute. For instance, if there was a refusal in the case of the Dublin Tramways Company that would be such a glaring abuse that an ordinary court would deal with it. But in the ordinary case of such appeals judicial people would turn away from such appeals in horror, because they would not know what they would be called on to decide upon. They would not know on what principles they were to give their decision. I left the Railway Tribunal out of consideration for other reasons, particularly because there might be a reconstitution of that Railway Tribunal, with extra members. Possibly the Deputy knows sufficient about administrative matters to know that the Minister does not decide this sort of thing on his own outlook and decides only after a particular discussion and examination being brought to bear on it with the expert information that his Department can give. That being the case one might say that an Advisory Committee is already in existence there.
I do not mean officials of the Department.
An Advisory Committee composed of outsiders. One has to think of people in some way experienced in road transport. Are they experienced in regard to transport on the railway side or on the road side? Are you to have that sort of body set up which is weighted in such way that its tendency will be anti-bus or pro-railway, such a body as would have more inclination to give or more inclination to refuse a licence? Once a man has established a footing he automatically goes on. There is no means of getting rid of him. It is difficult to get a tribunal. I am aware of the very wide powers given to the Minister in this Bill and I know these powers are liable to be abused but I think there would be sufficient public opinion to guarantee very definitely against the probability of any abuse. Certain weighty public opinion would go against the individual who abused that power. I know there is a difficulty there.
It is agreed to with reluctance.
That will not alter the section.
I am not moving amendment 14.
I move amendment 15:
In page 5, paragraph (j), line 45, to delete the words "business of road transport" and substitute the words "transport of passengers by rail, road or water, or any of them."
I want to delete these last four words and to substitute the words in the amendment. The effect of the amendment is not merely that it covers road transport, but transport of passengers by rail or by water. As originally drafted it would look as if we could only have notified to the Department arrangements made by a person applying for the licence with other road users.
I move amendment 15 (a):
To add at the end of the section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(k) the rates of wages and hours of duty of employees and agreements or arrangements in reference thereto in the working of the passenger road service to which a licence relates."
I understand, sir, that it is not permissible to move amendment 25 that stands in my name.
There are three amendments upon the Order Paper which seem to me to have more or less the same aim—amendments 16, 25 and 26. It appears to the Chair that looking at the Bill as a whole it would not be possible to accept amendment 16 or 25. I think that the point aimed at can be best got by way of an amendment to insert in Section 12 a new paragraph such as Deputy O'Connell has now moved. The Bill is a discretionary Bill and this question of rates of wages and hours of duty might be dealt with here in this way if the Committee thought fit. I take it that the decision on this amendment will cover amendments 16 and 25. They seem to me to be out of order and amendment 26 could not be moved when this has been disposed of.
Deputies on these benches endeavoured during the passage of the Road Traffic Bill to have amendments much in the line of amendments 16 and 25 moved, but it was suggested that that was a matter for the Road Transport Bill, but it is not right now in the Road Transport Bill either.
It was not the Ceann Comhairle suggested that.
In any case, it appears that this is the most appropriate way in which we can get into this Bill the conditions which we are very anxious to have inserted, so I am moving the amendment. There is set out quite a number of things which the Minister would take into account in deciding whether or not he grants a passenger licence to a particular company or applicant regarding which he is entitled to make conditions. I suggest that one of the things which he should take into account, and one of the conditions which he should lay down, should include the rate of wages and the hours of duty of employees and agreements or arrangements in reference thereto in the working of the passenger road service to which a licence relates.
I think it is most essential that the Minister should take into account, in considering whether or not a licence should be given, the conditions of service which are imposed on the employees of that particular service, and the conditions under which the men engaged on that particular service will have to work. That is not alone necessary in the interests of the employees themselves, but it is necessary also in the interests of the fare-paying passenger public. Numerous cases have from time to time been cited in this House in which men were asked to work for long periods of hours. Men who have to do that are undoubtedly not able to give efficient service. Continuing that work involves danger to the fare-paying public. Apart from that the Minister has indicated to us more than once that his policy is rather to encourage the company that is in a position to give adequate service generally to bigger companies, such as the tramways and the I.O.C. and companies of that kind. That is his declared policy. In the case of companies of that kind employees are generally speaking, given good conditions of service. Agreements are made between the employees and the companies concerned and in the main these agreements are observed. There are ways of seeing that they are to be observed. The Minister may have to consider another applicant over the same route. Naturally one of the conditions that it would be necessary to take into consideration in that case would be whether the same conditions of service would apply to the case of the new applicant as in the case of the larger company. It certainly would not be fair where there is competition between two bodies, two companies or two applicants, if some power did not lie with the Minister to see that the conditions of service were equal in each case. I think it would be a very great mistake and a very great weakness in the Bill if the Minister did not take the powers that are suggested in this amendment.
The phraseology of the Deputy's amendment makes me believe that he has not adverted to the section to which he wants to make this addition. Section 12 has nothing to do with the matter that I take into consideration before granting a licence. Under Section 11 I must grant licences in named circumstances, giving me always the right to refuse licences. In Section 11 I make up my mind whether a licence is to be granted or not. Having done that I come in under Section 12, and say that I attach certain conditions to the licence.
A licence is not granted until the conditions are laid down.
Section 11 prohibits me from granting a licence unless satisfaction were given me with regard to rates of pay and the hours of duty or agreement with regard to passenger road services. That is one thing. Merely to say that conditions might be attached to the passenger licence which it has already been decided to grant. and that these conditions may relate to any or all of the following matters— rates of pay, hours of duty—may I say, putting it from any angle, that the amendment, if I may use the word, is harmless; and if I might use another word, useless. I will go further, and say that it simply will not be effective. What conditions can the Deputy imagine me attaching to a particular licence with regard, say, to rates of wages?
What about hours of duty?
I may do that. I am agreeing with the Deputy that I might make up my mind with regard to hours of duty.
In order to carry out what you undertook at Geneva.
That is being carried out.
Would it be more appropriate under Section 11?
It would not be more appropriate. The granting or the refusing of a licence is confined to the party previously on the road and regularly working it.
Having decided that a particular type of amendment on the Order Paper was out of order, I asked Deputy O'Connell, with very little notice, to frame another type of amendment. This amendment was framed possibly without referring to the appropriate place in the Bill. There must, I presume, be a place in the Bill where such an amendment could be offered.
It can come under Section 12 but I am pointing out that it is not going to be very effective. If it were on Section 11 it could be more effective.
It would be effective in the hands of a sympathetic Minister.
Undoubtedly. The whole thing can be very effective without any amendment in the hands of a sympathetic Minister and this can be arranged without any amendment. Assuming it is moved on Section 12 my objection is that it is not going to have any effect. Supposing it is carried and I am given power to attach conditions to a licence and that I made up my mind to grant it with the conditions in relation to the rate of wages, how is that going to be done by the Minister? Minimum wages will have to be placed so low that it will certainly give a bad indication to bus proprietors as to what they may do. Supposing that there are two operators along a route and that one firm pays its drivers and conductors £4 a week and the other firm something less, £3 10s. or £3 15s. What is going to happen? The Minister will make up his mind that £3 15s. is the minimum wage. What is going to be the effect? If I were a Labour Deputy I would think that it would make the man paying £4 a week think that £3 15s. was enough. It is certainly not going to make the man who is paying £3 15s. pay £4.
What about the 25/- a week men?
Supposing there is a firm paying 25/- a week to its men along a road and that it seems to a Minister that that is fair and reasonable, if that amount is put in as the rate of wages surely it would have a very bad effect from the Deputy's angle on other bus proprietors who may be paying more. I do not think the amendment is of very great value. Clearly it does not compel the Minister to attach this condition. I think the question of compelling a Minister to attach conditions except as regards hours of duty is so difficult that no conditions will be attached. The hours of duty might be dealt with. Unless we are going to get the same rigid system of hours that holds on railways, I do not see any great difficulty of a condition being attached with regard to hours except that there will be great elasticity with regard to change in particular districts. I do not think the amendment is of any avail or effects the Deputy's purpose in any detail.
The chaos which exists in the transport industry to-day, for which the Minister is largely responsible, and about which I am sure he knows more than anyone else in the House, is due to certain causes which the Minister has made no attempt to control. If, as there appears to be, competitive transport industry by rail, road or canal, and if the Government is going to take them under control as a separate section of the transport industry, I think it is in duty bound to see that the different sections which make up the industry compete against one another under fair conditions. When we come to talk about competition and fair treatment we will have to pay some regard to the capital outlay of the competing companies, to the cost of initiating the services and the conditions under which they are operating. We know that there is no comparison whatever between the conditions under which passenger road services compete with railway companies because the same capital was not found and need not have been found for the construction of a permanent way. There is no comparison in the original cost of initiating road services when compared with railway services. I think some regard should be paid by the Minister in a Bill of this kind to conditions which make it possible for pirate road companies to carry on services which a railway company and other transport companies carry on under Christian conditions for the public. I referred to this matter on many occasions.
I am personally aware of one service in the suburbs plying for profit where the men are at present paid 10/- a week for sixteen hours a day. Does the Minister know anything about the Papal Encyclical or the conditions with which it dealt? These conditions have often been referred to when it suited some of the Minister's supporters when dealing with the wages or conditions of workers generally. I am sure the Minister will make use of the Encyclical when he speaks during the coming general election.
The coming general election is not in the Road Transport Bill.
I do not think anybody with a Christian mind, inside or outside this House, would say it is fair in present circumstances to employ a young man for sixteen hours a day and pay him 10/- a week to operate a bus service.
That matter could be raised by the Transport Union.
If the Deputy has anything to say let him say it so that it will be on record. When dealing with the matter on a previous debate on the Road Traffic Bill the Minister endeavoured to persuade the House—and I think it is only those Deputies sitting behind him that he could persuade— that unions were in existence for the purpose of enforcing or maintaining unreasonable conditions of service so far as the buses were concerned. The Minister is aware that single bus owners have been operating in this country for the last four or five years and he is aware of the extent to which they have stolen traffic from other carrying companies who have been giving reasonable conditions of service to their employees. I do not think the House could reasonably pass a measure of this kind, which purports to regulate the road transport services, so far as they apply to passenger-carrying companies, without standing for fair competition and enabling the Minister to attach to it conditions of the kind suggested. The Minister's answer to Deputy O'Connell is a mere quibble. If he is serious in what he says that a condition of the kind suggested in the amendment should be made to Section 11 instead of to Section 12 I make him a present of it. I will see that an amendment is moved in the appropriate place on the next stage provided the Minister is prepared to consider it sympathetically. A day will come, either during the lifetime of this House or certainly in the near future, when the Minister or his successor will be forced to adopt a policy which will coordinate and regulate under one Department of Government transport services which are to-day carrying on a cut-throat competition.
In giving power to the Minister to grant licences to pirate bus companies under the terms of the Bill, those who do it are merely stereotyping the old conditions which they know to exist in certain parts of the country to-day. I am sure if Deputy Anthony wanted to, and I hope he will, he could say something as he did on the previous stage of the Bill about the conditions of service which exist in some of the small companies in the City of Cork. The same remark applies to Limerick and elsewhere, and I ask Deputies not to give the very drastic powers which the Minister seeks to impose as a condition to the granting of licences unless these powers compel the Minister, as a condition of granting such licences, to see that fair and reasonable conditions of service are given to those who either drive or conduct buses in this country. If he wants to pay any regard to the Pope's appeal and to what was laid down in the recent Encyclical, let us now, when we have the opportunity, put it into a section of a Bill of this kind, and enable those transport companies, who are competing against those who are using the manhood of the country, the young men and boys, more as machines than as Christians, to pay fair and reasonable wages and grant reasonable conditions of service.
After the moving appeal which has been made I must modify my previous attitude, but I want to point out to Deputy Davin that with what he calls a sympathetic Minister, what he reads into the Pope's Encyclical can be put into the conditions attaching to a licence without this amendment. The opening words of Section 12 read:—
"Whenever the Minister grants a passenger licence he may attach to such licence such conditions as he shall think proper and shall specify
conditions in respect of all or any of the following matters."
We know what you have done before.
The Deputy should not consider it in relation to me at all, but in relation to the sympathetic Minister of whom he dreams. That man can put into the clause as it stands all that the Deputy has been talking about. If the Deputy likes to specify things further than those mentioned in the section, I put this to the Deputy. I do not see the possibility of any effective use being made of this amendment with regard to rates of wages where the Minister is going to be given power to decide rates of wages which he considers proper to attach to the conditions of a licence which he shall grant. In regard to hours of duty I do say that there is a possibility that that might not be as ineffective as the rest. I do not know what this means exactly—"agreements or arrangements in reference thereto." If that means something corresponding to what is in the Railway Act of 1924 then I think it may be of use. The Act of 1924 provides or at least establishes this sort of procedure, that there should be registered agreements that were entered into as between the unions and the companies and that where these agreements were registered they should be brought within the framework of the Act. If this amendment means the same thing it may be of use. The point about it is that where there was no agreement between employers and employees governing the rates of wages, I think it would be impossible for the Minister to determine these. The amendment will have some use in relation to the hours of duty. It may be of some use in relation to either hours or wages where these things are in particular areas covered by agreements entered into by the unions and the men. Because possibly it will have some good effect in these cases and also because it is only an extension of what was already in the clause, making explicit what is already implicit in the opening words of the clause, if the Deputy considers that it is giving an indication to the Minister of something he should attend to, I accept it for what it is worth.
I move:
In sub-section (2), page 5, line 50, to insert after the word "Act" but within the bracket, the words "and subject to any suspension under this Act."
That is a drafting amendment.
I move, on behalf of Deputy J.X. Murphy, amendment 17:—
In sub-section (1) to add at the end of paragraph (d), line 34, the following words: "provided that the Minister shall not refuse to renew an annual passenger licence on any of the grounds stated in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this sub-section, unless he is satisfied that the breach or the failure, as the case may be, was of so grave a nature or so frequent as to render his refusal to renew such licence advisable."
I assure the Minister that in this case there can hardly be any ulterior motive underlying the amendment. Certainly if there is it has escaped my notice. It seems to me a most admirable amendment, and, as such, it will appeal to the Minister. It possibly softens the severity of Section 15, and prevents a Minister, who is not as sympathetic as the present Minister, adopting a Draconian attitude and refusing a licence upon the slightest breach either of the conditions of his licence or the provisions of the Bill. For instance, we have seen charges of overcrowding brought against a company, or an inspector might discover a bus with the wrong colour on a particular route, or there may be a failure to display a time table. These are all offences under Section 15, and breaches of the conditions of the licence. I would suggest that this proposed addition to the sub-section will be an indication to those who may have to administer the Bill, that they are to do so with sympathy. After all, we may allow a licensee a single offence of not too grave a character. I consequently move this amendment.
This amendment does not limit the Minister's discretion overmuch. The Deputy has moved it in a way which shows that he wants it to be an indication to the Minister, and I accept it in that sense.
The Report Stage is being taken this evening. My trouble is that I feel that I should like to have an opportunity of reconsidering the question of instituting some appeal from the Minister's decision other than to the justice of the District Court. As it is proposed to take the Report Stage this evening that is not possible. However I should like to state my opinion that there should be some appeal. But we have got to leave it at that and to hope for the best.
May I state again that I agree with the Deputy on the principle that it would be better if there was an appeal, but there is a difficulty in arriving at what the proper tribunal should be. However, if the worst happens, we could guard against it in another way.
On the section, I should like to point out to the Minister that there is a certain conflict between Section 15 and Section 21. Section 15 states that the "Minister may refuse an application for a renewal of an annual passenger licence on one or more of the following grounds but on no other ground." Then if we turn to Section 21 we find: "When considering the grant or refusal of an application for a passenger licence or for a renewal of a passenger licence the Minister shall have regard to the extent to which the vehicles used or intended to be used on the passenger road service to which such application relates are or will be manufactured (in whole or in part) in Saorstát Eireann and also the extent to which such vehicles are or will be kept in repair by Saorstát Eireann labour." There is there an additional condition that the Minister is to take into consideration when he is considering an application, and Section 15 distinctly states that no other ground is to be taken into consideration except the four which are set out in the sub-section of the section.
Under Section 15 the Minister may refuse an application for a renewal of an annual passenger licence "on one or more of the following grounds, but on no other ground." Then certain grounds are laid down. I would point out to the Minister that while on certain routes in the Saorstát there are a large number of passenger bus services, the Minister has no power to refuse a licence or renewal of a licence on the plea that that particular service is already adequately served either by bus or railway. I think the Minister should have power along the lines of the regulations in operation in Northern Ireland, in England, Scotland and Wales, in cases where the route is sufficiently served by rail or bus, to refuse a licence on that ground. I happen to be one of those persons who believe that buses should not be allowed on routes which are already adequately served by railways.
There are two distinct points raised by the Deputies. Deputy Good called attention to Section 15, which provides that the Minister "may refuse an application for a renewal of an annual passenger licence on one or more of the following grounds, but on no other ground, that is to say," and four grounds are mentioned. Then the Deputy turns his attention to Section 21: "(1) When considering the grant or refusal of an application for a passenger licence or for a renewal of a passenger licence the Minister shall have regard to the extent to which the vehicles used or intended to be used on the passenger road service to which such application relates are or will be manufactured (in whole or in part) in Saorstát Eireann, and also to the extent to which such vehicles are or will be kept in repair by Saorstát Eireann labour. (2) Without prejudice to any power of attaching conditions to passenger licences conferred on the Minister by any other section of this Act, the Minister may attach to any passenger licence a condition requiring the use (either exclusively or to a specified extent) on the passenger road service to which such licence relates of vehicles manufactured in whole or in part in Saorstát Eireann." It may be that another method of wording might achieve the same purpose, but I do not think there is any conflict. We do not look forward to having to refuse a licence on the ground that the applicant will not get his vehicles either manufactured or repaired in the Saorstát. If he is prima facie entitled to a new licence or to a renewal and if we think that he should have his vehicle manufactured or repaired in the Saorstát we are going to attach such conditions as will achieve our purpose. The refusal is not likely to happen. If a man has established his footing on a particular route and is looking for a renewal, if it will come to the point that we are going to refuse him his licence, he will come in if he knows that onerous conditions are to be attached. We think we can achieve what we want in that way. Another method of dove-tailing the sections may be considered, but I do not think there is any conflict.
Does the Minister consider that there is anything more in Section 21 than in Section 15?
Oh, yes. Deputies have already called attention to the very wide discretion given to the Minister. If you cut out the words "on no other ground" you are increasing the general character of the powers given. I think the only semblance of conflict between Section 15 and Section 21 is that we achieve our purpose of seeing that the vehicles are manufactured in the Saorstát not by refusing a licence but by simply saying:—"We are going to impose upon you the necessity of having all your fleet manufactured and repaired in Saorstát Eireann." Deputy Cassidy's point is a different one. It is that there is no power given here to refuse a renewal on the ground that the area is already supplied with a sufficient service. Possibly not. But we are going to get that matter attended to in the main section, Section 11, dealing with the granting of licences. A renewal after all is a continuance, as the term implies, of the existing service. We have got to look at the third sub-section of Section 11.
"In considering the grant or refusal of an application for a passenger licence... the Minister shall ... have regard to the following matters, that is to say,
(a) whether the service (in the sub-section referred to as the proposed service) in respect of which such application is made is required in the public interest having regard to the passenger road service and other forms of passenger transport available to the public on or in the neighbourhood of the route of the proposed service."
We think that if a man has established his footing originally by having his service run efficiently and satisfactorily, we should not put further onerous conditions upon him. Under the policy outlined he will suffer from competitive effort. The stress of competition will drive the weaker man to the wall.
I had in mind a different set of circumstances to that which the Minister envisages. Some of the branch railway lines are closed down at the present time and the Minister may grant licences on these routes. If in later times the railway company succeeded in increasing their passenger and other traffic circumstances might arise in which the Minister may find it necessary to refuse a renewal of the licence on these grounds.
I submit that the Minister has made rather a powerful case for the appeal tribunal that Deputy Lemass pleaded for a while ago. Practically he says that while we are compelled under this Bill when it becomes an Act to grant a renewal of licences provided certain conditions are complied with, we can defeat the granting of licences by putting in certain conditions. That is the effect of his speech. I find no fault with the particular end he was aiming at in the matter of securing Saorstát manufacture as applied to the bodies of vehicles, but if it were possible that anybody could insert a stipulation that the chassis should be manufactured in the Saorstát that would be an easy way of defeating the provision which compels the Minister to grant a licence or renew a licence provided certain conditions are complied with. I do not want to attach too much importance to what the Minister says, but it is a daring implication.
I said in answer to the amendment of Deputy Lemass that an appeal under the Bill could be defeated the next day. A District Justice may reverse the Minister's decision and say that the Minister has got to give a licence. But the Minister may next day say: "Very good, I can give a licence, but here are five conditions that I attach to it," and in that way he could get completely outside the reversal by the District Justice. The Minister is given powers to attach conditions as regards manufacture. I took that out of the general section and gave it a provision by itself in order to emphasise the importance we attach to it.
I move:—
"In page 6, line 42, after the word ‘Act' to insert the words' and subject to any suspension under this Act.'"
That is a drafting amendment.
Is the Minister satisfied that he is doing justice to the unfortunate bus companies in putting in this provision: "A passenger licence shall not be transferable by the license or by operation of law to any other person"? It means, as I pointed out on the Second Reading, that a company in existence at the moment loses all its goodwill by the passing of this Bill into an Act. It becomes absolutely unsaleable, and, therefore, except in so far as it brings in a daily revenue, it is valueless with regard to a person who is not in a position to continue carrying on his business. Such a person is deprived of his only asset. If you take the case of a man who has put any capital he had into such a service as this, who has saved and borrowed and got his friends to support him in an undertaking of this kind, and who has given good service to the public for several years past, is it fair or right that we should now deprive his property of any value that it has? I think it is a very serious proposal, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say, in defence of it, why it is necessary.
I do not think that the Deputy has gone beyond the first sub-section. If he had gone to sub-section (2) he would have got his answer. He would have seen that the property had a value. That sub-section has established its value. All we are doing is to prevent his trafficking in his licence. We allow the property to pass, and we allow further that when the property does pass, the Minister may transfer the passenger licence to the person who has purchased the original property.
He may transfer.
Certainly. The best analogy I can give the Deputy is the analogy of the licensed house. In that case the property may pass and may change hands, and then an application can be made for the transfer of the licence at the next opportunity for the transfer, to the new holder. It is exactly the same thing here. We give the Minister a certain discretion with regard to it. When the Minister has the discretion right through in the case either of granting a licence or in the case of a renewal, why should he not have a discretion in the matter of the transfer?
There are precautions against a Minister being too arbitrary in the case of a person running an existing service. It is provided that he shall only refuse a renewal of the licence on certain grounds. But in the case of the section we are discussing there is no compulsion on the Minister to transfer the licence to the purchaser of an existing service, and I do not know why the Minister finds fault with the statement I have made that the service loses all its goodwill on the passing of this Bill. Surely if it is within the Minister's discretion, who would give money for a service in the hope merely that the Minister will be good enough to renew the licence?
It is the case of a new person coming in, it is the case of a new applicant, and it is entirely within the Minister's discretion whether the licence will be given or not. I do not think there is any reason why he should not have that discretion. I am going to make the Deputy do a good deal of reading to-night. Will the Deputy go on to the third sub-section: "The provisions of this Act in relation to an application for and the grant of a passenger licence shall apply, so far as applicable, in relation to applications for and grants of transfers of passenger licences"?
Surely it is the renewal provisions that should apply.
The Deputy made the case that, whereas in the case of granting a licence I am bound in certain ways, I am not bound in the case of a transfer. By this third sub-section I do carry forward the provisions applicable to an application for a licence, and the application for a transfer rests upon the application originally made for a grant, and whatever limitation there is on the discretion of the Minister in the case of the granting of the licence, that limitation also exists in the case of a transfer.
I move:—
"In sub-section (3), page 7, lines 49 and 50, to delete the words ‘payable at the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner' and substitute the words ‘collected and accounted for in such manner as shall be prescribed by the Minister with the sanction of the Minister for Finance.'"
The effect of this is to secure that the method by which the fees payable shall be collected shall be arranged by the Minister with the sanction of the Minister for Finance.
Could the Minister give us any indication of the amount of the fee which it is intended shall be fixed under this section? The fear has been expressed in some quarters that very substantial fees would be imposed which would operate automatically to exclude a number of small bus owners from applying for licences. We have had this matter of the licence fees discussed on the Traffic Bill, and we have heard that a man operating a large bus service might hold a host of licences, and that such a man has to pay a fee for every one of them. Some provisions were inserted in the Traffic Bill as to the maximum amount of the fees which might be asked for the licences to be obtained under that Bill. I should like to have some indication of the amount of the fees under this Bill.
This point has been already made by certain deputations that have come along, and I do not think that they have any great fear of the section after the explanation given. We intend to have such fees as will merely pay for the administration, and not even all that.
Will the fee operate in relation to the service? Will the Minister say that every application must be accompanied by a £5 fee, or will the fee vary in accordance with the importance of the service?
I cannot say that the procedure has been worked out yet. I think that the procedure outlined by the Deputy would be the proper one.
Does not Deputy Lemass suggest that the fee paid by the pirate bus should be smaller than that paid by the others?
If the Bill passes the pirate will be extinguished.
The Minister does not tell us whether these fees are going to be retained by the Department of Finance or whether they are going to be retained by the local authority. I may point out that, as far as the road tax is concerned, while the owners of road buses pay a road tax to the respective county councils, that goes to the Central Fund and only a percentage is returned. I suggest that the Minister would be well advised if he would allow these fees to go to the coffers of the local authority.
What expense are they at?
The expense they are at is that the owners of the buses are using and abusing the roads to a very large extent and they are creating unemployment, which puts an additional charge on the board of health. Consequently I suggest to the Minister that the local authority should retain these fees.
We intend that the local authority will not come into this at all. We do not think that any burden is put on the local authority under this and the local authority will not get any of this money.
Would the Minister tell us what he has in his mind under this section as to the use of Saorstát manufactures and labour—whether he means it or not?
Read the Tariff Commission Report on coach bodies and find out how it has been operated up to date.
Is this window dressing?
Read the Tariff Commission Report.
I believe this is window dressing, inasmuch as the Minister has already refused to accept amendment No. 9 in regard to vehicles which do not pay taxes in the Saorstát. The Minister says that there is a reciprocal arrangement in operation. If the Minister is going to stand by the arrangement and is also going to stand by Section 21, it means that he will give licences to buses which are owned and registered and pay taxes in Northern Ireland and which are not manufactured here. Is that the Minister's interpretation of the section?
I say with regard to approved routes, which is the only power I have had up to date, that on those you will find that the bodies of the buses were almost entirely manufactured in Saorstát Eireann or are becoming progressively manufactured here day by day. Buses bought originally before the application was made on an approved route are being replaced under the administration of the Department by buses manufactured here.
Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that he will not grant a licence to any company the bodies of whose buses are not built in the Saorstát?
No, I would not like to tie myself so rigidly, but the intention is given in Section 21.
I move amendment 27:
To delete the word "maximum" wherever it occurs in the section.
I would not move the amendment if the Minister had seen his way to seek powers to prescribe a scale of maximum and minimum charges. I can see certain dangers in inserting the word "maximum" without having regard to the necessity for fixing minimum fares. I should like to know why the Minister did not seek powers to frame minimum fares as well as maximum.
May I point out that under the British Road Traffic Act power is vested in a certain authority to fix minimum fares in addition to maximum fares? I suggest that if the Minister is not prepared to fix minimum fares he is going to intensify the cut-throat competition going on at present between the buses and the railway companies. I may point out that as far as Northern Ireland is concerned a certain bus company some time ago made application to the Traffic Tribunal to be allowed to ply at excursion fares. That application was opposed by the London, Midland and Scottish Company and the County Down Company, with the result that it went against the bus company because the tribunal did not want to intensify the cut-throat competition that was going on. I suggest to the Minister that for the benefit of the railway companies and the buses themselves it would be much better if he took power to fix minimum in addition to maximum fares.
That may be an interesting suggestion, but it is not the amendment. The amendment is to cut out the word "maximum" where it occurs. That means that I would prescribe, not maximum or minimum fares, but the actual fares. That is quite impossible and the Deputy knows it.
There is nothing impossible to the Minister.
Only in these circumstances could it be considered. To everybody else it is quite absurd. It is not possible to prescribe actual fares. The minimum fares point is not in the amendment. I would not care at present to take power to establish minimum fares. I do not look forward to a complete discontinuance of competition, or even of cut-throat competition, if this measure becomes law—by no means. I think that the railway companies cannot complain if they are being put on an equal footing with everybody else. They have in fact certain advantages over most people who will be operating public services in future. I may say that if there is going to be cut-throat competition, the fiercer and more intense it is the less likely is it to be prolonged.
Even if it is uneconomic.
It will be only uneconomic to those who engage in the practice. From the point of view of the public it might be quite good. If it is only for a short period, the fiercer and more intense it is the less likely it is to be prolonged.
What about the waste of capital?
That will possibly be a disadvantage to the people whose capital will be wasted. Unless I am going to operate minimum or maximum fares from the point of view of stereotyping present conditions I do not see the advantage. I am prepared to let competition have a certain amount of sway in future, having equalised the conditions under which that competition will be placed. I would not like to consider the question of minimum fares at present. When the position has cleared itself there may be a good case for it.
If this is evidence of the policy outlined in this Bill of equalised conditions under which competition can be carried on, the Minister has certainly convinced very few people in the industry. The Minister is living in a glass-house so far as transport is concerned.
On the passenger side it does.
I move amendment 31:
In line 26 to insert before the word "special" the word "Statute".
The object of the amendment is to give the Grand Canal Company the same power as the other companies will have under this section. This old-established company has been suffering certain losses as a result of competition in transport and it is thought that the words "special statute" do not give them the powers they ask for.
This section was intended to apply to the Grand Canal Company as well as to other companies. It has been represented that neither the phrase "royal charter" nor the phrase "special statute" covers the Grand Canal Company in the entirety of its operations, that part might be covered by the expression "royal charter," but that the rest would not be covered by the phrase "special statute." It is, therefore, proposed to put in the word "statute" and I am agreeing to that.
Are they going to carry passengers on the canal?
No. They are precluded from doing that but they may engage in other business.
I am rather alarmed at the prospect held out in paragraph (b) of this section:
(b) purchase the whole or any part of or any share or interest in any road transport business carried on by any other person (including any business carried on by such person which is ancillary or incidental to such road transport business) and the property and assets used in or in connection with such service or business.
Under that paragraph the railway company, for instance, can buy up about two-thirds of the garages of the country because I know that transport business is the main part of their business. In buying up the transport side they are empowered to buy up any business which is ancillary or incidental to such business. Is it desirable that the railway company, for instance, should become a monopoly to that extent?
How could they? Does the Deputy advert to the phrase in brackets "(including any business carried on by such person which is ancillary or incidental to such road transport business)"?
Take a man running a lorry or two lorries for hire who has also a public garage. It will be a legal question as to which is the main business, but take it that the railway company buys up the transport business. At the same time they could under this provision buy the garage. I do not think it is desirable that we should create a monopoly, that the railway company should go into such a big business as that. It may not be any more than a possibility, but it certainly is a very undesirable possibility. If the Minister has not considered the full effect of the provision, I suggest that he should consider it.
First of all, the clause is only permissive. It allows every company to which this Part of the Act applies to do certain things. One of them is the purchase of what? "The whole or any part of or any share or interest in any road transport business carried on by any other person." First of all, you have to have a road transport business carried on by somebody else. Then it says "(including any business carried on by such person which is ancillary or incidental to such road transport business)." The cases in which you will have the owner of a couple of lorries, which the railway company is likely to buy, owning a public garage, which is not merely for his own lorries, but for others, will occur very infrequently. Where it does occur, we allow the railway company, at its discretion, to go into that business.
There are a great many more cases than the Minister thinks, and the possible development is not desirable.
We only give them power under the Bill.
The further amendments setting out a new Part IV are entirely outside the scope of the Bill.
I am sure the Minister feels the regret that I feel that there is not an opportunity of discussing the matter.
I would like to have them voted upon.
