I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 7, Part II of the Schedule, to delete paragraph 3 (a) (ii), lines 23 to 25, and substitute the following:—
(ii) for the haulage of similar goods for other persons whose only or chief occupation is farming and whose valuation does not exceed £50, or
(iii) for the haulage of similar goods for other farmers provided that such goods are not hauled for reward, or
(iv) for the haulage of milk products to and from creameries, or
(v) for the haulage of turf for consumption on a farm or other rural premises.
The amendments to Section 3 (a) of Part II of the Resolution are necessary for the purpose of adapting the motor tax code to modern conditions. The Minister has so far not attempted to do so. He has copied almost word for word the English Roads Act of 1920, which was drafted to meet English conditions in the 1920 period, and he has not seriously tried to consider present-day conditions in Ireland.
In his White Paper the Minister recognises the importance of the tractor. He says, on page 8:—
"These vehicles are tending in many areas to replace the farmer's horse and cart."
That is an incomplete statement. Tractors are also a substitute for labour which is no longer available and an alternative to the drudgery which was part and parcel of the small farmer's life.
The Minister, in Section 3 (a) (ii) and 3 (b), has attempted in a half-hearted manner to deal with this matter. He fails, however, to make available to the numberless small farmers who cannot afford a tractor the cheap and ready transport provided by the tractor and trailer. Under his scheme the rich and well-to-do farmer can bring his turf home from the bog, can bring his calves, etc., to the fair and his milk to the creamery, but the man without a tractor of his own is condemned to the old drudgery and labour.
Section 3 (a) (i) reads as follows:
"Where, apart from this paragraph, sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of Part I of this Schedule would apply to a vehicle, that sub-paragraph shall not apply to it (and sub-paragraph (d) of that paragraph shall apply to it accordingly) unless the person taking out the licence shows to the satisfaction of the licensing authority either—
(a) that his only or chief occupation is farming and that the vehicle is used only occasionally on public roads and then only—
(i) for the haulage of the produce of his farm and articles required for the farm, including the farmhouse and farm buildings, but excluding the haulage of fuel if being transported as a commodity for sale, or"
This section is probably the most non-moral section ever inserted in any Government document. It is a Government sponsored invitation to the public to evade the law. The Minister knows and every Deputy in the House knows that the haulage contemplated in the section will not and in practice cannot be done without reward. The reward may not always be cash, it may be in work or it may be in kind but to suggest that a man with a tractor should at his own expense bring home his neighbour's turf from the bog for nothing is nonsense. There is an old saying in the country that money makes the mare go.
This evasion of an unjust law may be all right until some unfortunate farmer is caught. I can well picture a half-dozen Cavan farmers up at the local District Court. What will their position be? They and each of them will have the choice of seeing their friend the tractor owner fined £100 plus other penalties or go into the witness box and take a false oath. They might even be fined themselves for aiding and abetting. I do not believe that Satan could have designed a more inviting road to lies and perjury. The Minister talks a lot about the Government's courage in facing financial facts. Will they now face the moral facts for a change?
I am aware that the Minister may say that he cannot accept my amendments as they involve a repeal of a section of the Road Transport Act. That may be so but it does not prevent him introducing such an amendment or undertaking to do so within a limited time and in the interval there is nothing to prevent the Government giving instruction to the Guards not to prosecute such infringements of the Act as may take place until the amending legislation has been passed. The economic side of it should also be stressed. If a man has a tractor and equipment together with a trailer for hire the more use he has of this equipment the cheaper he can do the job. If he has it idle for a great part of the year for the reason that he cannot use his trailer it will mean that he will have to charge all the more for using the other machinery. This is sheer economic waste taking into account the vast number of tractors and trailers in the country. How does the Minister reconcile this position with the demand made to the farmers for increased production?
I do not want to embarrass the Minister in respect of this matter. He is a man who is aware of agricultural conditions in this country. I am not anxious to press this amendment to-day if I can get a guarantee from the Minister that he will bring in some amending Bill in the near future. I can appreciate the difficulties involved in respect of the Road Transport Act and if the Minister will give me the undertaking which I seek I shall be satisfied to leave the matter over for the present.
