I move that the Bill do now pass.
Public Business. - Road Transport Bill, 1935—Fifth Stage.
I want to get some assurances from the Minister in regard to some of the provisions of this Bill. There appears to be a good deal of doubt in the minds of many persons who have sold motor lorries and persons who have bought motor lorries. A number of these persons have purchased these motor lorries on the instalment system, and many of the persons who sold the motor lorries, because of this Bill, are now in the position that they cannot get paid for them. Most of those people who purchased lorries were of a very enterprising turn of mind, and many of them are now of the opinion that, on account of the operating of certain routes, which are now being served by the railway company, they will be put out of business altogether. They have asked me to put a question direct to the Minister to find out from him how they are affected under this measure. Again, I would like if the Minister would make some inquiries into increased charges which are being made in the case of the operation of the various transport Acts. It appears that in some areas where charges were relatively moderate for the conveyance of merchandise, from one point to another, in the last month or two greatly increased prices are charged for freight for merchandise from point to point in certain areas.
All those places are not served by the railway company, that is to say, by railway coaches. The railway company may, of course, run lorries in connection with their railway services, which I believe they are doing, but there are still some remote areas not served by either the railway company or by an efficient lorry service. A number of those people are in some doubt as to their position. They do not want to run the risk of a prosecution, and they would like an assurance from the Minister on the points which I have just raised.
I should like to raise also the position in regard to beet haulage under this Bill. The farmers who grew beet for the first time last year found that the transport system afforded by the railway company was absolutely inadequate, in the first place, and was, in regard to the type of vehicle supplied, absolutely useless in the second place. There is undoubtedly——
If the Deputy will look at the Title of this Bill he will see from its content that the matter to which he is now referring is out of order on the Fifth Stage. I might inform the Deputy that amendments dealing with the matter to which he now refers were not allowed to be moved on the Report Stage. The Bill has nothing to do with the transport of beet. If a question like that were raised, other Deputies would be entitled to discuss the carriage of wheat, turf, or other commodities which would be equally irrelevant.
The special reason I am raising it is that I understand the Minister has power under this and the previous Act to refuse permission to the railway company to take over privately-owned vehicles. From experience, we find that where the railway company takes over vehicles they do not afford the same facilities to farmers, particularly in regard to the carriage of beet.
The question of the carriage of beet may not be raised.
Very well. What I am anxious to do is to urge on the Minister that, in regard to those privately-owned lorries which were used last year for the carriage of agricultural produce, he should not allow those lorries to be taken over by the railway companies, because if he does it will only lead to the complete messing up of transport——
Of beet?
I regret that the scope of the Bill does not give us room to deal fully with the particular matter, but I think that under Section 2 of the Bill we would have some scope to deal with it.
The Deputy has been told that he has not that scope on the Fifth Stage, whatever chance he might have had on the Committee Stage.
I bow to your ruling.
The best proof of submission to the ruling of the Chair is to obey.
I am only urging on the Minister that he should give particular attention to that matter in considering the transfer of licences.
Would I be in order in asking the Minister whether transport in this country has decreased during the last year, or whether the number of vehicles taken over by the railway company has been maintained, or whether it has increased? If I might put that question to the Minister I should like to hear a reply.
The Minister to conclude.
I am not quite clear as to what point Deputy Anthony is trying to elucidate when he refers to persons who might undertake the provision of transport services in particular areas only they are afraid they might be prosecuted, or to persons who have bought motor cars which they do not know whether they are entitled to use or not. No person is entitled to engage in the business of carrying merchandise for reward unless he has a licence. Any person who carries merchandise without a licence will be prosecuted.
I should like to make my point clear. I was referring to persons who had purchased cars on the hire purchase system before this Act was introduced.
Any person who was engaged in the business of carrying merchandise for reward before the Act was introduced is entitled as a right to an existing carrier's certificate and a licence, provided he applied within the period specified in the Act and altered by subsequent amending legislation. Any person who was not so carrying merchandise during the qualifying period before the passage of the Act, or who did not apply within the specified time, cannot get a licence, and consequently is not entitled to engage in that business except under special circumstances, when a licence might be issued for the carriage of a particular type of merchandise or the carriage of merchandise in a particular area where the railway companies had intimated their unwillingness to undertake that kind of business. It is true that there have been increased charges for transport since the Act came into operation. The whole purpose of the Act was to enable those increases in charges to be made, because prior to the enactment of the legislation the whole transport business in this country was uneconomic. Everybody engaged in it was making a loss. and transport services were being maintained upon a basis of remarkably low wages. By the eliminiation of uneconomic competition it became possible to charge economic rates and of course in so far as services are now being provided by the railway companies, they are, because of their nature, obliged to pay rates of wages to their workers which are generally recognised, contrary to the practice of many of those smaller independent operators who frequently paid rates very much less than the standard rates. Where those charges are unduly high there is machinery provided for their rectification—the machinery of the Railway Tribunal, which is a court constituted for that purpose, and to which any person interested in the operation of transport services has the right to appeal. The court has the authority and powers of the High Court, and nobody except it can give a decision upon those matters. Once its decision is given it is binding. The regulation of charges is not the function of the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is the function of the court of the Railway Tribunal. If there is any part of the country where transport is not being provided by anybody, then it is open to any person to apply for a licence to provide transport in that area. If the railway company indicates formally that they do not wish to provide transport in that area, then a licence can be issued to that person, which, when issued, is irrevocable.
So far as the transport of beet is concerned, if I am in order in dealing with it at all I merely want to say that no licences confined to the transportation of beet have yet been transferred to any railway company. The question of whether we will, in fact, transfer to railway companies beet transport licences has not yet been decided. It is quite possible that such licences will not be transferred for some time to come, and that persons interested in the carriage of beet and beet only will be allowed to continue in that business without interference.
Is the Minister sure he is correct in that—that in no case have the railway company been given a licence to transport beet?
The Deputy misunderstood me. The railway companies, of course, are all licensed to carry beet by road or rail. Certain persons had licences to carry beet for reward and these licences have not yet been transferred to the railway company. Very few merchandise licences have as yet been transferred, but the question as to whether these licences confined to beet will be transferred is still an open one, and it is very probable they will not be transferred until the railway company have got wider experience in the business of road transportation and are better equipped to undertake it. It must be remembered that they have only come into this business on a large scale quite recently. Last year they had to supply themselves with substantially increased equipment, but they did not succeed in time in providing the equipment that would enable them to deal with all the business that offered, particularly during the beet season.
The existing licences for the carriage of beet are mainly confined to the area around the Carlow factory. The other factories were established only last year and, of course, prior to that there was no carriage of beet in these areas. The question of issuing new licences for the carriage of beet in these areas other than to the railway companies is under consideration. Deputies may be assured that whatever transport facilities are necessary in any area will be provided. If they are not provided by the railway companies then there is power to license independent operators to provide them. The purpose of the whole scheme is to insure that in every part of the country there will be provided that type of transport which is most suitable and economic and which will best serve the needs of the area concerned, subject of course to the general intention that all that transport should be under unified control.
The Minister said that by right old licence holders were entitled to have their licences renewed under the new measure. Are they entitled to have their licence renewed for the same type of vehicle, a vehicle of the same capacity as was originally licensed?
The same capacity, the same unladen weight.
I know people who had a one-ton lorry and who bought a 30 cwt. lorry and they were badly had.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to enable them to get a lorry up to two tons without an additional licence.
Where the railway company intimate that they are able to cope with the business and the people in the locality say that they are not doing the business satisfactorily, what is to be the determining factor?
Anybody who suffers loss through the failure of the railway company has the right of action in the courts.
In cases where the railway company may be charging 30 and even 50 per cent. more than an ordinary carrier, can the Minister intervene?
I have nothing to do with the charges. That is entirely a function of the Railway Tribunal?
Can such a matter be brought before the Railway Tribunal?
It can.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.