Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 1978

Vol. 305 No. 7

Road Transport Bill 1978: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

The first part is to provide that to engage in the haulage business one must have a licence, is that right?

Yes. The earlier part also refers to fines.

What is the difference between section 2 of the 1978 Bill and section 2 of the Road Transport Bill 1976, except for the increase in fines?

There is no other change in the first part.

(Cavan-Monaghan): What were the old fines?

Another change is that there is a tighter definition in relation to de-control of carriage for reward of newly harvested wheat, oats and barely. This was brought in at the request of the hauliers.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister explain the effect of the amendments proposed in section 2 to section 9 of the Principal Act?

In effect the section is being re-enacted except for the changes in fines and in relation to cereals.

(Cavan-Monaghan): What is the amount of the old fine? There was a multiplier fine a few years ago.

This section introduces a new fine of £250 for illegal haulage, with £500 for second or subsequent offences, and it repeals by omission a fine of £50 and a further daily fine of £5 as provided for in section 9 of the Road Transport Act 1933 which had been rendered ineffective by the continuing fall in money values. The new 9 (2) also repeals by 9 (2) (c) section 28 of the Transport Act 1958 which provides for doubling of fines to a maximum of £320. The original section provided for forfeiture of the vehicle. That provision was dropped because of the present high cost of vehicles and the forfeiture of vehicles might have the effect that cases would be simply dismissed because to proceed with the forfeiture would be out of proportion to the offence.

Because it would cost about £20,000.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Under the old section the maximum fine was £320.

That is right.

(Cavan-Monaghan): And it is now being increased to £500. If I am correct in that the Minister will agree that that is not a very drastic increase.

There is more involved than that. In the original Act the fines could be doubled up to a maximum of £320. In this case the first fine is £250 and the next is £500 for a second or subsequent offence.

(Cavan-Monaghan): But there is stops.

What was the fine for the first offence under the 1958 Act?

It was £50.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am still right, the maximum fine under the old Act was £320 and, under this Act, it is £500.

I understand that the position is that the £320 was the maximum.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Under the 1958 Act.

(Cavan-Monaghan): And £500 is the maximum under this Act. Just to get the record straight and to let us see what we are doing, as far back as 1958 the maximum fine for an offence under the Road Transport Act was £320. Now in 1978, 20 years later, the maximum fine is £500. Again, so that we may know what we are doing, I say that that is a reduction in real terms. If one compares the value of money in 1958 with that today I would be prepared to have a bet that the fines are being reduced rather than increased. If that is what the Minister intends doing that is all right but we should be clear about it and appreciate what we are doing.

Of course the question of court jurisdiction enters into this.

The question of what?

The question of court jurisdiction, the level of fines permissible——

(Cavan-Monaghan): But there is a way round that.

I would assume that under the 1958 Act the actual fines would probably be very much lower than the £320.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Indeed they were not. I have a clear recollection of the doubling-up system of fining which led then to what were regarded as extremely severe fines in the then money values. One could have been fined very large sums. Two hundred and fifty pounds in 1958 was a sizeable amount of money and so was £320. Fines of that nature were imposed on people who continued to break the law and ignore the prohibition against carrying on a merchandise business without a licence. They were fined very substantial sums in the then money value, which had the effect of putting illegal carriers out of business. I put it to the Minister that, under this Bill, the maximum fine is £500 whereas, under the 1958 one, the maximum fine was £320. In a period of 20 years that is an increase of only £180. There is no point in trying to draw a distinction, the maximum is the maximum, and the maximum in 1958 was £320 and now is £500.

The Minister said—in reply to a question by me—that the jurisdiction of the court had to be taken into account. I appreciate that, generally speaking, the ruling of the Supreme Court would seem to mean that an offence which is punishable by a fine of more than £500 is no longer regarded by the Supreme Court as a minor offence fit to be tried summarily in the District Court. The Minister knows as well as I that in regard to practically every Bill that goes through this House that is got over by providing that in regard to a conviction on indictment the fine may be far above £500, up to £1,000, or that there may be imprisonment. That means that in the case of a very serious offence—for somebody who simply thumbed his nose at the authorities, at the law and insisted on carrying on an illegal road transport business—the offender would not be tried in the District Court but would be in the Circuit Court and a suitable fine could be imposed on him. I venture to suggest that a maximum of £500— when one gets into the big business of road transport—is not really prohibitive or a serious deterrent.

I feel it is reasonable in the circumstances. If we take other factors of this Bill into consideration I feel we will have very much less illegal haulage than heretofore. It can always be reviewed if we find that the fines are not sufficiently high but, for the present, I feel that they are.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Having regard to the fact that transport is being liberalised under the Bill and that trucks up to 2½ tons are being freed it is easier for a person to get a licence to carry on his business in a legal manner, it is all the more serious for a person to ignore the law and embark on an illegal business, he should be punished and the penalty should be such as to discourage him to the extent of putting him out.

I am satisfied there will be very much less illegal haulage. I would imagine it will almost phase itself out because of the more liberal provisions of this Bill.

I agree that there will be very much less illegal haulage under this Bill. But somebody who will be hauling illegally after this Bill is passed will be flouting the law deliberately and will have to make a considerable investment in the purchase of a lorry. If one accepts Deputy Fitzpatrick's argument that the money value of the fine is less now, if one puts into the scales also the fact that under the 1958 Act there was forfeiture of the vehicle in question as well, not alone will the fine not be a deterrent but in fact the amount of money involved will be considerably less for somebody who engaged in illegal haulage.

I am satisfied that the fine is suitable. We can always review it later. I should refer to the fact that the hauliers themselves—who were the people insisting on the strengthening of the fines—did not object to the proposals in this Bill. Therefore, I take it that they are satisfied with it.

The Minister has increased the maximum fine from £50 to £500 for the first offence.

Two hundred and fifty pounds.

But do they also know that the section of the 1958 Act about the forfeiture of the lorry is gone?

They do, of course.

Could the Minister say in what circumstances the truck was forfeited?

I suppose on the decision of the judge.

There was provision for it in the 1958 Act.

There was, but I would assume that the judge would make that decision, and I could not imagine him making it too often.

I think the argument put forward by Deputies Fitzpatrick and Barry is valid. The fine should have been increased substantially. There is no point in saying there will be less illegal haulage.

Oh, there will be less illegal haulage; that is certain.

If a haulier flouts the law in the new circumstances he deserves to be fined more than £500.

Of course the Minister could not ever condone the breaking of the law. It was understandable up to now when the law was broken, because there was a very restrictive licensing system. But the fact that someone will now break the law will mean that the action is deliberate. It will not be done to make a living because there will be more lorries and the restriction on the 2½ ton lorries will be gone and so anyone who sets out to break the law will be doing so deliberately. It will not be because of lack of transport or to convenience a friend down the road or anything like that. People will go out and purchase lorries over 2½ tons and break the law, and they should be discouraged and fined. It should be obvious from the very beginning that anyone who engages in that kind of exercise will get no sympathy at all from the Government, the Department, the courts or the public. We must build up an orderly transport business with the object of reducing the cost of transport, which is far too high in relation to the cost of carrying units of goods in other countries, and so we must ensure that the illegal operator is frightened by making it prohibitive for him to engage in illegal haulage.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Under the previous legislation an offender could be fined £320 and have his vehicle forfeited. These were very heavy penalties. In this Bill the maximum fine is increased to £500 and forfeiture is done away with. This will be a temptation to the illegal haulier operating heavy load carrying vehicles. It is an indication that this House does not take a serious view of illegal haulage. It cannot be taken as anything else.

I do not accept that. I could not imagine anyone paying an enormous price for a vehicle for the simple purpose of illegal haulage. Most illegal haulage is done with vehicles which very often should not be on the road at all. A fine of £500 for the second or subsequent offence will be a sufficient deterrent, and I doubt very much that any individual would pay £20,000 or £30,000 for a vehicle for the purpose of illegal haulage.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The people who will break the law would lose the maximum fine on a couple of races. They would be prepared to gamble that on a couple of races.

I have no evidence, but I doubt very much if the forfeiture provision was ever operated.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It was hanging over their heads.

It was, but in present circumstances I think it would have the opposite effect.

The Minister said last week that this is a well-thought out Bill and that it took a considerable time to put it into perspective. The only difference between this Bill and the 1976 Bill is in the matter of fines. It is not a huge difference. Forfeiture is gone. Am I right that the inclusion of the words "newly harvested" in subsection (4) (c) is the only difference between section 3 of the 1976 Bill and this Bill?

The basic change comes later. We had a long argument here about the value of the fine in present day circumstances. The 1976 Bill provided the same fines that had been there in the 1958 Bill and this provision, to say the least, is an increase on what was proposed by the previous Government in the 1976 Bill. I am rather surprised that two Deputies who had a hand in the 1976 Bill should now be arguing so strenuously about the level of the fine when they were providing for a much lower fine, and that in circumstances where inflation is going down.

I cannot see the relevance of the last remark. The 1976 Bill did not repeal the forfeiture provision.

The Deputy knows that aspect has gone. Even when the provision was in the Bill there was never any intention to order the forfeiture of the vehicle.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Of course there was.

No district justice would have ordered the forfeiture of the vehicle.

The forfeiture provision in the 1958 Act was not repealed in the 1976 Act and I do not see why the Minister should not include it in this Bill.

The reason is because the Minister did not regard it as sensible to leave it in.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to go on record as saying the penalties in the 1976 Bill were much more severe and prohibitive. They acted as a deterrent because the courts were entitled to order the forfeiture of the vehicle. That is a well-known penalty. It appears in Customs and Excise Acts and other Acts. It is a real deterrent. It may not have been used but it was there and it could have been used. The Minister could still write in a subsection providing for prosecution on indictment in the Circuit Court and he could make the penalties as big as he likes and he will not get away with it by saying he has increased the penalties, because he has not increased them. In 1976 a reasoned amendment to the Bill was introduced but the Minister then did provide for forfeiture, and that is the important point.

For all practical purposes this Bill provides for higher penalties than were there previously. Listening to Deputies opposite one would assume that there was no illegal haulage during their term of office.

The purpose of my Bill was to cut it out.

I am certain that under the provisions of the Bill there will be less illegal haulage than previously. In those circumstances, the fines we are providing which in practice are higher than previously, are suitable.

(Cavan-Monaghan): In real terms they are lower than they were in 1958 and there is no forfeiture.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

I presume this is the section the Minister was referring to when he described this as a well thought out Bill which took him a considerable time to put in perspective.

Under the 1976 Bill it was proposed that anybody who had a licence could operate an unlimited number of vehicles on that licence but under the 1978 Bill it is proposed that anybody with an existing merchandise licence can operate six vehicles. I can see why there would be two different points of view on this matter. One is that it is urgent that we liberalise road transport here as quickly as possible and try to reduce the crazy dependance we have on own transport carrying. I understand that up to 80 per cent of goods here are carried most unprofitably by own transport and it is essential that we get to a situation where we have a strong professional body of licensed hauliers who will undertake the carriage of goods. My view was that the quicker we got to the situation where anybody who had the qualifications to get into road transport would be able to do so as easily as possible, the better it would be I also held the view that it was wrong that a licence dating back to 1933 should assume a commercial value. A licence should be an acceptance by the authority that the person holding it was a competent person to operate in the road haulage field. Instead, they were left in wills, were hidden under mattresses and passed on from uncles to nephews. The latest I heard is that they are changing hands for figures in the region of £7,000 and £8,000. A fee of £10 or £20 should be charged by the Department to cover the expenses of that Department in assessing the suitability and qualifications of the applicant for such a licence.

It is wrong that merely because a person has £7,000 or £8,000 to purchase a licence, which for historical reasons the Department have no option but to transfer to the new owner, that such a person can get into the haulage business without any qualifications. The reasoned amendment put down by Fianna Fáil when in Opposition was to the effect that the Bill did not contain any provisions to control the standards of road transport and heavy road vehicles. That was true at the time but I do not think this Bill contains anything either. When I introduced the Bill I intended getting professional and competent people into the road transport business. I wanted to make it easy for people who had the necessary qualifications to get into the business. The Minister takes a different view. He feels this should be a more gradual process than I envisaged. He provides that a licence which at present entitles one to operate one vehicle will in future entitle the holder to operate six vehicles. That is a small step in the right direction.

I do not understand how the Minister arrived at the figure six. Why not five or ten? Was the figure six plucked out of the air or was it chosen after consultation with the association which represents licensed hauliers? At the time I was preparing the previous Bill I was confused by the attitude of the licensed hauliers. The executive committee of that association issued a statement to the effect that they welcomed the Bill but the members of that executive made efforts to communicate to me that they did not approve of it because of the objections listed in the Fianna Fáil amendment. Fianna Fáil felt so strongly about that Bill that they would not give it a Second Reading. I have been a Member of this House for nine years and to the best of my recollection I only saw a reasoned amendment on an Order Paper on two occasions. One of those reasoned amendments was put down by Fianna Fáil in connection with my Bill. The party who put that amendment down must have felt that the future of the country was at stake and that this was such a serious matter that they had to refuse a Second Reading to the Bill, something that was almost unheard of. However, they have introduced, almost word for word the same Bill as I introduced.

They made a few small amendments to give the impression that they were catering for the views of those who prompted them to put down their amendment to the last Bill. The changes made are not of any substance. They could have been dealt with on Committee Stage of the other Bill. Had I been Minister I would have listened to them if they had put forward a good argument for not having an unlimited number of lorries on one licence. Why not limit that number to two, double the present figure? If that was done the number of fleets would be doubled. Multiplying the number by six will probably mean that we will have four times as many lorries on our roads. I do not think it will mean we will have six times as many lorries because not everybody will be capable of making such a huge investment. When I introduced my Bill Fianna Fáil felt that its provisions would cause further heavy congestion on an inadequate road system and would put the continuation of the railways in jeopardy. If the Minister believed that does he not think that this section will put the railways in jeopardy also? The same thing will happen now as a result of this section that Fianna Fáil expected to happen under my Bill. I find myself not arguing against my own Bill but incensed that Fianna Fáil in Opposition were so hypocritical in their attitude to this matter. They put down a reasoned amendment and, without a blush, when in Government introduced exactly the same Bill. The changes they made could have been moved during Committee Stage debate on my Bill.

One of the basic changes in the Bill relates to this point. It refers to the matter which was contained in the reasoned amendment put down by Fianna Fáil in Opposition. I agree that the basic aim is to provide a professional and competent service but my party and I were convinced that the best way of easing out the present restrictions was not to give unlimited numbers on extant licences. I could not accept that the way to deal with this matter was to substitute an unlimited number for the number I propose. I gave considerable thought to the manner of change and having examined the situation in a number of countries I decided that six was the best number.

I did of course consult with the hauliers, but, naturally, the Deputy will understand I could not discuss precise details with them because of the difficulties that would involve. I decided on the number of six because in general terms it appeared to be the number—say from six to ten—which would provide the best and most efficient and possibly the most profitable type of business and the one most likely to afford us a professional and competent type of road haulage business and would not at the same time do the damage which we believed that the sudden introduction of an unlimited type of situation, as was proposed by the Coalition, would have done. I believe this constitutes a considerable change in what was proposed by the Coalition and that the easing in of a new, liberalised system will be to the advantage of road haulage generally and will not do damage in any other area.

(Cavan-Monaghan): How many licensed hauliers are in the country? I am sure that figure is readily available.

Yes, there are over 700 in total of licensed hauliers and about 850 licences—roughly 750 hauliers entitled to hold about 850 licences.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The measure now going through the House and the approach of the Government is an outstanding example of the cynical attitude and political playacting in which Fianna Fáil indulged in Opposition and of the dishonest propaganda which they used—successfully I admit—to fool the people in the last general election. The brief history of the liberalisation of transport goes back a few years.

The Second Reading debate covered the general——

(Cavan-Monaghan): I shall be relevant. This is the section that provides for increasing the number of lorries under licence from one to six and the number of licences that any one person can hold up to 80. I respectfully suggest that I am entitled to deal with those points and deal with what we were providing and what is being provided now. For some years there was a demand for the liberalisation of road transport. My colleague, Deputy Barry, when Minister for Transport and Power, introduced the 1976 Bill which freed trucks up to two and a half tons and liberalised transport up along the line. That Bill when introduced was met by a reasoned amendment, a procedure that is very rare indeed, as Deputy Barry says. It is a device used by those opposing a Bill when they are totally and absolutely opposed to it and to the principle enshrined in it and when they are not prepared to entertain it at Second Stage or let it go through the House to any extent.

The reasoned amendment then put down by Fianna Fáil was to delete all words after "That" and substitute "Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that the provisions of the Bill will cause heavy unemployment in rail freight and road freight sections of CIE and among the employees of licensed hauliers at a time of existing high unemployment." That was the view of Fianna Fáil in Opposition. What change has come about subsequent to the general election? Has the unemployment situation changed or improved so dramatically that this objection of Fianna Fáil is no longer valid? They said then that the proposal to increase the number of licences would cause wholesale unemployment in CIE and among licensed freight hauliers.

The Minister says that he is not doing this on as large a scale as Deputy Barry proposed, but he has just told me that there are about 700 licensed hauliers in the country and each of them may, if he wishes, have 80 trucks, and if you multiply the number of licensed hauliers—if the Minister does not agree with that he may correct me.

I think the point is that there are 750 licences in the country but there would be considerably fewer licensed hauliers.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I asked the Minister the number of licensed hauliers and he said 750. As I understand the Bill, it proposes to enable each of those hauliers if he wishes to increase his total number of lorries to 80. If they do that there will be as many trucks on the road as there would have been under Deputy Barry's complete freeing provision. Fianna Fáil went on to say that the Bill contained no provision to control the standard of road transport and heavy road vehicles. Does this Bill provide for the control of the standard of road transport and heavy road vehicles?

They went on to say that the provisions of the Bill would cause further heavy congestion on an inadequate road system and put the continuation of railways in jeopardy. What has changed since the general election? Have roads suddenly become perfect and have railways become so competitive that they do not fear any competition from private enterprise or road transport? Fianna Fáil went on to say that the Bill would enable a haulier from outside the jurisdiction, by acquiring one merchandise licence, to operate an unlimited number of vehicles in the State. What is to prevent an outside operator coming here and buying a few licences to enable him to put a big number of lorries on the roads and go into competition? That was Fianna Fáil then pretending to be speaking seriously and to be putting forward a valid objection to this Bill, but in fact they were indulging in political play-acting and were not really serious.

If we were to take Fianna Fáil as serious with their reasoned amendment they would not have anything to do with Deputy Barry's Bill; it was not acceptable; it would create unemployment. It would destroy the roads, it would bring foreigners here wholesale to take over the business of road transport, it would flood the roads with unsuitable lorries and encourage low standards. That was the attitude when Deputy Barry's Bill was introduced. We would expect great things if we took them seriously. We would be expecting a complete re-think and a complete new approach, and the manifesto issued before the last general election would have encouraged us to expect a re-think, a fresh approach and a brand new Bill. There is a short paragraph on page 35 of the manifesto which says:

Fianna Fáil will establish a Transport Authority to investigate and report on the measures necessary to achieve the most efficient and economic transport system for goods and passengers having regard to the need to maintain a flexible competitive transport system—thereby ensuring the facilities necessary for industrial development through the country as a whole.

If we took that seriously we would have expected the Minister to establish some sort of high-pressure committee or commission to review the whole thing or we would have expected the think-tank to work overtime and produce something completely new, but what do we find? We find the Minister going into his Department, taking out Deputy Barry's Bill and making a few changes in it which could be made on Committee Stage in this House when it is going through. At the time I understand Deputy Barry had already decided to make some of the changes that are in the Bill on Committee Stage. We find the Minister for Tourism and Transport—who was a member of a party who were shocked by Deputy Barry's Bill, would not have anything to do with it, felt so strongly that they had to put down an amendment, wrote the special paragraph into their election manifesto, told all and sundry they were going to have a great new approach and a great re-think about transport—going to the section of his Department concerned and bringing in what is the same Bill for all practical purposes.

The Deputy is now reintroducing the Second Reading debate.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not, sir.

The Chair has allowed sufficient latitude without going into the section at all. If I permit this the same thing can be permitted on each section. I will not permit it.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I have made the points I intended to make and I am now coming to the section of this Bill which proposes to enable the Minister for Tourism and Transport to grant a licence enabling a haulier to operate six lorries where he could hitherto have operated only one. Admittedly, Deputy Barry's Bill would have enabled that man to operate far more, but why could that amendment not have been put down on Committee Stage of the previous Bill? Admittedly, the proposal here restricts the overall number of vehicles for any individual to eight, when there was no restriction in Deputy Barry's Bill, but why could that amendment not have been put down on Committee Stage of the previous Bill? Of course it could have been put down and, as I said earlier, the fines are the figures increased but not the value, and that is the effect. There is no alteration at all in this Bill that could not have been dealt with on Committee Stage.

Very few Bills go through this House without amendments, many of them brought in by the Minister in charge of the Bill following Second Stage to meet points made by the Opposition, others put down by members of the Opposition and accepted by the Minister. Many Bills are amended and improved. Why could those amendments and that improvement not have been-effected on Committee Stage of the 1976 Bill instead of going through the make-believe and fraud of pretending that the 1976 Bill was so outrageous that nothing could be done with it in this House and that the principle behind it is wrong? The Second Stage debate is only to establish the principle in a Bill. Fianna Fáil were so outraged—if you could believe them—by the 1976 Bill and so much against it that even the very principle of it was wrong. Even the very principle was so damaging to CIE and to the roads, so facilitating to foreigners who would come in here and gobble up all the business and so encouraging to people to put inferior vehicles on the road and indulge in low standards, that they could not accept the Bill or give it any hearing or consideration in this House. That is the fraud I want to expose here. Political fraud it was and political play-acting and we now see through Fianna Fáil and their true thinking. We now see that when they got away from the desire to get back into power and when they had an opportunity to consider Deputy Barry's Bill they found that there was not much wrong with it. Certainly there was nothing wrong with it that could not have been amended on Committee Stage and there was no necessity for the recent amendment that they put down.

The speech made by Deputy Fitzpatrick clearly indicates that he did not read my Bill at all or he read it in a purely superficial way. The whole case he has built up here in trying to prove that there is no difference between this Bill and the previous Bill is based on what he states here to be a fact and which is not a fact, that is, that every haulier can, if he so desires, have 80 vehicles on his hands.

(Cavan-Monaghan): No.

That is what he said.

I asked him to confirm the figures he quoted.

(Cavan-Monaghan): If we could tease out what is involved it would be a help to us.

Let the Minister explain.

Deputy Barry is well aware of what his colleague said and he is trying to tell us——

(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister tell us?

The Deputy should hear the Minister.

I am trying to get these facts.

(Cavan-Monaghan): What is the number of licensed hauliers?

750 licensed hauliers.

750 licensed hauliers.

How many licences have they between them?

850 licences.

I want to get this clear. Those 750 then would have only one licence with one lorry on it, is that right?

Yes, in most cases.

(Cavan-Monaghan): How many can they increase them to now?

They can increase them to six. The Deputy's whole argument, as will appear in the Official Report, was based on the case he was making that every licensed haulier is entitled if he so wishes to have 80 vehicles, and he multiplied that 750 × 80 and said there would not be room on the roads for the number of vehicles that could be made available. The Deputy has made his case on something which is not a fact. As I said, that clearly showed he was more intent on trying to bash this Government than to put a reasoned case on this matter. The fact is that each licensed haulier who has one vehicle on his licence will, if this Bill is passed in its present form, be entitled to six vehicles, not 80 vehicles. His whole case was similar to the arguments he was putting forward when talking about fraud on the part of this Government.

This Bill was promised by the Coalition for so long and did not see the light of day for so long that the people believed it was not going to appear at all. Eventually it did appear and was circulated, but it never came before the House. Even if a reasoned amendment had been put down by Fianna Fáil, the Government of the day had a sufficient majority to override it. For some strange reason it never had a Second Reading. I am convinced that if there had not been a change of Government this Bill would never have been discussed here. I cannot understand the reason for that unless the Coalition feared that in some way it would affect their political position.

Deputy Fitzpatrick also stated that some of the new items in the Bill would have been brought in on Committee Stage as amendments by the then Minister, Deputy Barry. If these amendments were of such importance as I believe they are, why were they not included in the original substantive Bill?

The Minister knows why.

I do. The Deputy, as Minister, would have had to concern himself with opposition to these particular areas—I am not talking about the Dáil Opposition. I had to concern myself with both oppositions but I took a decision and included them.

Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke about the amendment. There is clearly a very big difference between the right of an individual to have six vehicles on his licence as compared with an unlimited number of vehicles. It was no wonder that the licensed hauliers themselves or that CIE workers were worried about that. While we accepted that it was necessary to have liberalisation, we believed the proper type of liberalisation was a phasing in as I have done now. I am convinced that the manner in which I have done it and the number of vehicles which I have permitted on each licence overcomes a number of the problems referred to in the reasoned amendment—the one about CIE and the possibility of a haulier outside the jurisdiction buying a licence and being able to have almost a monopoly of the market.

What about quality control?

We have overcome that. If a licensed haulier buys a licence with one vehicle on it, he can only have six vehicles. That was regarded as a real danger. Whether it was or not, or whether it would ultimately have become a fact, one cannot be certain but the danger was there and licensed hauliers and CIE were perturbed about it. Therefore I decided that rather than have an unlimited number on the licence, there would be six vehicles on a licence which had one vehicle.

The second part refers to the lack of provision for controlling the standards of road transport and heavy road vehicles. Deputies are aware that since the 1976 Bill was introduced the EEC have adopted proposals for compulsory vehicle-testing applicable in general to public service vehicles and to large commercial vehicles and that this will be phased in over a number of years. That to quite an extent overcomes this problem. Deputy Barry said he did not think it was proper that a person, simply because he had sufficient money, could buy a licence irrespective of whether he was a suitable or competent person. The Deputy will be aware that the EEC directive which came into force on 1 January 1978 required new entrants to the haulage business to be professionally competent, of good repute and to have adequate financial resources. I am sure he is also aware that I appointed the Chartered Institute of Transport to operate courses and to hold examinations in professional competence. If a merchandise licence is now to be transferred from the present owner to somebody else, that person must have a certain degree of competence, and comply with the regulations as laid down in the 1978 EEC directive. That also helps to cover the situation referred to.

With regard to the road system, the number of vehicles likely to become available under the proposals as put forward by me are not going to have anything like the effect that an unlimited situation would have, but apart from that the present Minister for the Environment who is responsible for roads this year has made considerably more money available for the development and upkeep of the roads than was provided previously. In every instance in relation to the reasoned amendment, I have now shown that I have met and overcome to a considerable extent the problems identified with the Fianna Fáil Party when they were in Opposition.

As I said, there was nothing to prevent the previous Government bringing in their Bill and defeating any opposition to it with their majority in this House, but they did not do that. I cannot understand a Government which promised for years to bring in a Bill but did not do it and which finally, after a very long period, had the Bill circulated but then did not discuss it. It is obvious to me that had they remained in office this Bill would never have been discussed in this House.

What I have stated now has clearly shown that the manner in which I approached this was such as to confront the problems we saw and to overcome them to the greatest extent possible. I doubt very much if we would ever have seen this Bill discussed here if the Coalition were still in power.

The previous——

I would remind the House that we are only dealing with section 3.

You were not present when the Minister said this was the major section and would need more discussion.

I am not shortening the discussion in any way. You are entitled to discuss it.

The previous Bill was introduced by me in the spring of 1976. If the Minister remembers the circumstances of the time he will know that the Order Paper was full of proposed legislation, unlike now when it has to be dragged out of the Taoiseach. Before Christmas he was asked what legislation was pending and off the top of his head he took the Road Transport Bill and then sent the Minister scurrying away to get something on the floor of the House so that there would be a discussion after Christmas.

As I said, the previous Bill was introduced in the Spring of 1976. At that time all the quality controls the Minister is talking about were being discussed and had been agreed in principle. One point—I think it was the tachographs, or some part of the social legislation of the quality control of road haulage— was holding up the final implementation of this by the EEC. If Fianna Fáil were so concerned about the quality control of vehicles, they should have known that this was being discussed in the EEC and would become law as soon as the point dealing with the tachographs was cleared.

The Minister will remember that when the previous Bill was introduced there was a change in the composition of the previous Government—in the autumn of 1976. I left Transport and Power and became Minister for Education. A new Minister was appointed Minister for Transport and Power. Fianna Fáil should not try to make any great mystery about this. That is the reason the Bill was not brought before the House, and a tremendous amount of legislation was available for discussion, unlike now when the Fianna Fáil Government are dragging and pulling little bits out to try and keep this House going from week to week. There has never been a Government who promised so much before they came into office which they said would be done immediately. They said they would introduce legislation immediately and now, 12 months later, only two Bills have been passed by this House which were not initiated by the previous Government. One of them, strangely enough, was to increase the numbers of Parliamentary Secretaries attached to the Government and their salaries. That is the only original legislation passed during the past 12 months.

The Minister knows that the restriction is not on the number of permitted vehicles on a licence. It is a restriction but for the small haulier the greatest restriction would be in finding the necessary capital. The Minister says that the vast majority of the 750 licensed hauliers have only one lorry and each of them would need about £150,000 to extend his fleet from one lorry to six. That is the real restriction, not the number of vehicles permitted under his licence. In arriving at the figure six the Minister says that he looked at other countries in Europe. I should be glad of the Minister's assistance on this because I think there are no other countries in Europe which employ the same licensing system as ours. Perhaps the Minister would tell me the countries which are involved.

I was not referring to a licensing system; I was referring to the fact that people who had six to ten vehicles seemed to have the most effective business.

Was this the way the market fell out? Is it correct to say that when the transport system was built up, the majority of firms had between six and ten vehicles?

Not necessarily, but they were the ones which had the best returns and were the most effective.

They were the most efficient.

If that is so, it does not matter whether it is restricted to six or is unlimited because it will work out at between six and ten vehicles anyway. It might as well be unlimited. I am not arguing with the restriction because the Minister is taking two or more steps to do what I intended to do in one step. As Deputy Fitzpatrick said, there is almost dishonesty in the whole exercise. It reminds me of another matter in the Minister's Department which is even more dishonest, that is, the matter of a helicopter for the unfortunate people in the west who had to make a huge investment and whose faces were spat in when the Government changed.

It is obvious to anybody that there is no difference between the two Bills. Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke about the amendments to section 6 which I had intended to introduce. It is silly for the Minister to ask why I did not write this into the Bill. The Bill is not available for study until it is published. The Minister receives representations when it is known that he is considering legislation. He accepts some points and disregards others. When the Bill is published many people become interested and come to the Minister through the Department making points that appear valid. If the Minister is reasonable—as, of course, I was—he will be quite willing to accept those points and introduce amendments on Committee Stage. This is the normal way of doing business in this House, as the Minister should know a lot better than I do. That is how most amendments come here. The Minister may bring in amendments himself or he may accept amendments from the Opposition or from his own backbenchers at party meetings. Very few Bills remain unchanged while passing through the Oireachtas system and come out as law. With any reasonable Minister there would certainly be amendments which he would accept having listened to reasonable arguments and he himself would introduce amendments on Committee Stage.

The amendments which I had in mind are the ones which are now written into section 6. For the various changes in the exempted areas I had in mind 15, 15 and three tens. The Minister has now extended this to 20, 20 and three fifteens. That is quite reasonable and I would have done it myself on Committee Stage of the 1976 Bill. We are now establishing that the only changes in this legislation are the present section, which would have been changed on Committee Stage, and section 9, which is consequent on section 3.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister seems to make a great point of the fact that Deputy Barry proposed to create a provision by which any number of vehicles could have been licensed, while he is restricting the number to six per licence or an overall 80 per licensee. We all know that under any provision there will be only such number of vehicles as there is business. These will be expensive vehicles. People will not be able to get into this business with the investment of a small amount of capital. The Bill provides that a licensee can build up his fleet to 80. The Minister cannot deny that. Of course, the haulier must buy a number of licences but in business of that kind it will not be prohibitive for him to buy seven or eight licences. I am not objecting but I am pointing out to the Minister that there is no real difference between his Bill and Deputy Barry's. The Minister tells us that there are 750 licensees and 850 licensed vehicles. If that is so, it means that the number of licensed vehicles in the haulage business may be increased under this Bill from 850 to 4,000 or 5,000. That is the reality of the situation.

I do not know how many vehicles CIE have but it would be interesting to know the number of their haulage vehicles. Perhaps the Minister would tell us that. He is taking powers to enable existing hauliers to build up their combined fleet from 850 to about 4,500 vehicles and any individual haulier may build up his fleet to 80 vehicles. This would represent the maximum number which would go on the road anyway, and I would ask the Minister what has changed to satisfy him that this will not have an effect on CIE employment, that it will not clutter or damage the roads, that it will not prevent a number of English people coming here and acquiring vehicles far in excess of 80. There will be many legal techniques that will enable them to do that.

What is to prevent a number of companies being formed and running, for all practical purposes, the one operation? If we do not want to indulge in company law what is to prevent a number of brothers each building up a fleet to 80 and operating as individuals? I can see nothing in this Bill which changes the position in regard to the complaints Fianna Fáil had against it when they were in Opposition. There is nothing that will protect CIE employment more now than then. There is nothing more in the Bill now than there was then that will control or improve the standards of road transport.

The Minister said that more money is provided for roads now than there was then. Perhaps a larger percentage is provided, but in real terms it is not very much. It will take years for that to filter through. What change has been made in the roads in those few short months? The Fianna Fáil Party should be exposed for their performance in regard to road transport and in regard to the Road Transport Bill when it was introduced by Deputy Barry, when they put down their amendment, and in regard to their manifesto, when they promised a completely new thing authoritatively set up to look into the whole matter. In the end we got Deputy Barry's Bill with a few amendments which could have been made on Committee Stage. No amount of talk from the Minister will change that position, because those are the facts.

The Minister accused me of not reading certain sections of the Bill. I am well aware of what is in the Bill. I do not think the Minister read his own Bill, because he made fairly heavy weather out of explaining the penalty section to us. I believe he took Deputy Barry's Bill and said: "We will have to cosmetically dress this up so that it will look different and so that I will not have to come in here and eat humble pie until it comes out through my ears," as Deputy Boland said that Deputy Haughey had to do. He had to change the Bill to give him some excuse for coming in here with something different. Those are the facts.

Deputy Fitzpatrick is simply trying to retrieve the very awkward situation he placed himself in in his original speech by basing his whole argument on a false premise. I have refuted the points he made and I do not propose to go into them again.

I did not say that any Bill as published would come out the same at the other end. I took exception to the suggestion by Deputy Fitzpatrick that something the Minister is supposed to have had in mind would have come out at the Committee Stage and that the fact I had those amendments in the Bill meant there was not any original thinking on my part. I refute that.

I think what the Minister said was that if I had amendments in mind I should have put them into the Bill.

If the Deputy knew them at that specific time why not put them in?

I did not know at that time.

There is a basic difference here as I stated earlier. I have already explained where the basic difference is, and I do not propose to go any further into that particular aspect of it.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Can the Minister tell us how many vehicles CIE have at the moment?

(Cavan-Monaghan): This is the Minister who shed crocodile tears for poor CIE and their employees who would be pushed out of business by Deputy Barry's Bill which enabled the number of vehicles on the road to be increased. Now the cat is out of the bag and we find that CIE have in fact 800 vehicles for haulage purposes. The Minister will get detailed figures now. He will put 4,500 vehicles on the roads against CIE. I am not against that. He will enable the fleet of private hauliers to be built up to 4,500. How can he reconcile that with the tears he shed in the House in the form of his recent amendment for the damage this would do to CIE employment? Lots of people think that private enterprise would give a more efficient transport service. I do not quarrel with that, and I do not quarrel with this Bill, but I quarrel with the dishonesty of the Fianna Fáil Party in their handling of this Bill.

When Fianna Fáil were in Opposition they were very concerned about CIE. We now find that at the moment CIE have 800 vehicles and private enterprise have 850. Those are the facts which I got from the Minister. He will now enable private enterprise to put 4,500 vehicles on the road. He is a member of the party who said in their amendment in 1976 that Deputy Barry's proposal would cause very heavy unemployment in the rail freight and road freight sections of CIE and among the employees of licensed hauliers at a time of existing high unemployment.

I do not suppose the Minister is saying that we have no unemployment or that it has disappeared since Fianna Fáil came into power. That is the sort of dishonesty I am objecting to. That is the sort of carry-on from the Government party in the last year of the previous Dáil up to the last general election I want to expose, and the Minister will not stop me.

Deputy Fitzpatrick should not try to extricate himself from the difficult situation in which he became involved in his earlier statement by making derogatory remarks about CIE——

He said nothing of the kind.

——and the tone in which he said "poor CIE". CIE are doing an excellent job, and I will not allow the Deputy to make derogatory remarks about them as long as I am responsible for them. There is quite a considerable difference between having licences on which a haulier can have six vehicles and similar licences on which a haulier can have an unlimited number of vehicles.

(Interruptions.)

We are having a tremendous amount of repetition on this section. Deputy Barry on section 3.

Deputy Fitzpatrick made a valid point when he said that the Minister wept crocodile tears for CIE when he was in Opposition and that he now proposes to put on the road five times the number of lorries as CIE's total fleet. Then the Minister stands up and says that Deputy Fitzpatrick is being derogatory about CIE, that he will not allow anybody to be derogatory about them and he will defend CIE, who are doing a very good job. I never heard the like of such nonsense. The Minister picks a fight with himself and then accuses Deputy Fitzpatrick of coming into the middle of it.

He made another point which I failed to answer the first time. To answer the Minister on that would be nonsense because it is not real argument. He knows Deputy Fitzpatrick was not derogatory about CIE and he knows that Deputy Fitzpatrick knows as much and appreciates CIE every bit as much as the Minister does. To pretend that he was criticising them in any way is nonsense.

Earlier, the Minister said that the Minister for the Environment was providing more money this year than had ever been provided before for the improvement of roads. This is the same as the attitude towards this Bill. You dress it up and then you say it is totally different. Up to last year the roads were funded in three different ways. There was the bit that came from the rates, the bit that came from the car tax and the bit that came from central funds. The central fund contribution has, of course, increased because it has taken over the rates section on domestic houses from the local authorities, and the abolition of car tax has meant that the central fund has to pick that up as well. That is the only reason Deputy Barrett is providing more money. The roads themselves are not getting any more money but more of it is coming from the Department of the Environment. To pretend that more money is being invested in our roads in 1978 than in 1977 is nonsense.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

There is no change in this section. I think it is the same as in the 1971 Bill.

There are changes in relation to fees——

Is that subsection (4)?

——for international haulage.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Can the Minister tell us what the changes are?

They relate to section 8 (5).

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is only the definition.

Yes, sorry. Section 8 (5) of the Road Transport Act, 1971, empowers me to charge fees for restricted road freight licences or licences deemed by order to be such. These licences are issued only to foreign hauliers to enable them to import their vehicles temporarily into the State for the carriage of merchandise for reward either to or from the State. The licence does not authorise point-to-point haulage within the State.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Are our vehicles charged similar fees abroad?

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister satisfied that that will stand up to EEC regulations? Is it the position that we can charge EEC vehicles that come in here landing charges but they are not charging us?

The position is that we charge fees to our own hauliers but we do not charge foreigners. If any change were to take place we want to be in a position to charge fees.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is an enabling section. Does the Minister propose to charge fees?

If some changes take place in relation to our position vis-à-vis the foreign countries that we are entitled to go to, in those circumstances we will change.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is something that may be used or it may never be used. Is that the only difference between this Bill and Deputy Barry's Bill?

In this section.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 55 and 56, to insert the following:

(3) Whenever an order or regulation is proposed to be made under this Act a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft order has been passed by each such House.

This amendment is designed to ensure that where the Minister may, as he is taking the power to do under section 5 (2), make orders to amend or revoke any order under this section, he may also under this section make orders to exempt from the provisions of section 7 of the Road Transport Act, sections 9 and 34 of the Principal Act and sections 6 and 7 of the Road Transport Act, 1935. He may, by order, exempt people from the provisions of all those sections, that is, not individuals but classes of persons.

The Minister is taking significant powers which could affect, in their execution, the purpose of the sections in question if he were to exempt a wide range of people from them. The purpose of my amendment, which is an amendment I intend to put down in respect of any order-making power taken under any Bill by any Minister, is to ensure that such an order will have to be approved by the House before it takes effect. We have the habit of passing to the Minister the power to make orders which are, in effect, often as important as, if not more important than, this legislation without proper scrutiny of the way in which those orders take effect.

There are three ways in which an order can be made by a Minister. The way in which it is done in this Bill is the least effective way, where the Minister is simply given power to make the order. There is no obligation on him to even inform the House of the order that he is making. The second and slightly stronger provision from the point of view of parliamentary control is one whereby the Minister may make the order but must lay a copy of it on the table of the House and any Member of the House may put down a motion annulling the order, which must be taken in Government time if it is put down within 21 days of the order having originally been laid down by the Minister. In consumer terms this is what one would describe as inertia selling. If the consumer, namely the public, as represented by their legislators, objects to the order within 21 days then it must be discussed. It is a weak power, but a power which the Minister is evidently not prepared to provide for this House.

The strongest power of all in relation to orders made by the Minister is the one which I am suggesting should be incorporated in this Bill. This is one whereby—and I am quoting the amendment which puts it in exact terms: "Whenever an order or regulation is proposed to be made under this Act a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft order has been passed by each such House." This means that the Minister must obtain the approval of the Dáil for the order which he is making. The objection might be put forward that this would impose great difficulty on the Minister and that there would be delays. My experience is that delays in the drafting of orders do not occur in this House. Where an order of this nature comes before the House —and I have a recent example in mind of a technical order which this provision applied to under the friendly societies legislation—it is passed within a few minutes if it is not of a contentious nature.

If the Minister were not engaging in any contentious activity under the powers which I am proposing he would have under the section, he is unlikely to have to wait for days and days while this matter is discussed interminably. The recent example of an order under the friendly societies legislation which I have cited shows that, where it is a non-contentious matter, the House is prepared to deal with it in a non-contentious manner and put it through quickly.

The Minister may contend that there would be delays, but the delays will not occur in this House. The delays may occur in getting the order drafted by the parliamentary draftsman's office. My experience of legislation of this sort, whether it be principal or subsidiary legislation, namely orders, is that the delays do not occur in getting the matter through the House if it is non-contentious. If it is a contentious matter that is another question, and legitimately the House will delay it. If it is a non-contentious matter, the delay occurs in getting the order drafted.

I would argue that the Minister would have nothing to lose by conceding this amendment, which would give much greater democratic scrutiny to the exercise of the powers he is taking in this Bill. Therefore, I hope the Minister will see his way to accepting it. If he does not accept this amendment, I would ask him at least to accept the suggestion that the order must be laid before the House and can be annulled within 21 days. Obviously I would prefer him to accept this amendment.

What I am seeking in this provision is delegated power from the Oireachtas to deal with certain transport matters which may be settled in the course of international negotiations for the benefit of the countries concerned, which will usually be of a marginal nature in the context of the national economy.

The practical effect of the proposed amendment would not only be to refuse that power to the Minister but to place him in a position where, because of the lack of delegated authority, he could not take any effective part in international discussions on practical matters affecting the day to day operations of the haulage industry. It would create a problem for him to undertake to honour any commitment no matter what the benefit to our transport might be. In those circumstances, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Could the Minister give more information about the precise type of circumstances in which these order-making powers would be used? What sort of international agreements are in mind? What sort of exemptions are in mind?

For example, the ECMT decided some years ago that international coach tours would not require licences. We had no power to exempt. We are taking that power here. To give another example, in the event of our having a bilateral agreement with the Netherlands to exemp a particular type of traffic from licensing, we could not do that unless we had this power I am seeking. There are several other matters which are relatively marginal.

The Deputy read out section 7 of the Road Transport Act, 1933. That is a requirement to hold a passenger licence. There might be a decision by the ECMT that there was no need to hold that type of licence. In those circumstances, we would need the power to implement it here. Under the European Communities Act, the Minister may make orders to implement EEC enactments, and this is an analagous matter.

Before replying substantially to the points made by the Minister, I wonder would he confirm that this is confined to international agreements. Section 5 (1) reads:

Where an international agreement relating to international transport by road to which the State is a party, or an agreement, arrangement or resolution relating to such transport to which the Minister is a party so requires. . .

They are alternatives. It could be either an international agreement or any other agreement. For instance, the Minister could have an agreement with some private group here. He could have an agreement with CIE, and the power conferred by this section could be used in relation to such an internal private deal by the Minister, which could be one with considerable political connotations, one which was not achieved by diplomatic negotiation in international circles where there were proper checks and balances, one which was a back door agreement by the Minister with some vested interest in the transport field here. He would have the power to exempt a class of person from the provisions of the various Acts pursuant to that agreement, a private agreement, without having to seek the approval of the Dáil, or without even having to inform the Dáil that such an agreement had been entered into by him.

No. It relates solely to international transport.

I do not accept the Minister's assertion in the matter. I want to turn my attention not to the Minister's assertion but to what is contained in the Bill. It could be international transport which was being authorised by the Minister not pursuant to an international agreement but pursuant to a domestic agreement.

No. It relates to international transport.

That is not what the section says.

I do not know how it would arise in practice in any case. We are referring here to changes. As things stand at the moment, under EEC provisions I have power to make regulations. I have not got that power in relation to international transport related to ECMT. All I am doing here is taking that power. It relates purely to international transport.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

No. I now come to the main objection made by the Minister to my proposal, which was that he could not enter into effective international discussions unless he could make orders under this legislation by a back door method which did not even involve informing the Dáil about the orders he was making. To my mind that suggestion is ludicrous.

Many if not most international negotiations on EEC matters involve some changes in our law. If one is talking about negotiations on the EEC price package for farm products, if that is approved it will involve changes in our law, because it will involve changes in consumer prices and these will have to be adjusted by a household goods order under the Prices Act. Although they spring directly from and are an inevitable result of negotiations entered into and completed in Brussels by the European Council of Ministers of Agriculture, under the Prices Act those orders can be annulled by resolution within 21 days by this House.

I am not aware that the Minister for Agriculture has complained that he cannot negotiate in Brussels because of the fact that the agreement he enters into may be annulled by this House to the extent to which it affects domestic consumer prices because under the Prices Acts Members of this House have the right to table a motion seeking to annul an agreement. This does not inhibit the Minister in any way. Therefore he is making a very poor argument in opposition to the amendment.

We all know that international negotiations are entered into by the Government in good faith and that if there is involved a change in the law the Government must make the change through the legislature. This is a common feature of international agreements. It is ridiculous for the Minister, with a majority of 20, to express the fear that to inform the House of an order might mean its defeat. There is no problem in regard to his succeeding in having ratified by the House any exemption in relation to the sort of agreement we are talking about, but what is important is that there be some discussion of the agreement before it is passed here. Although the Opposition would not be able to defeat an order they should be given the opportunity of expressing their views on it. Such discussion would give the House the opportunity of ascertaining what was involved in the exercise under consideration. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve. Presumably after a brief discussion of the order it would be passed by the House. This would ensure that Deputies who might object to an order would have the opportunity of tabling a motion to annul.

I cannot see how this very limited power would inhibit the Minister in any way in respect of international negotiations. As I have pointed out, such a provision exists in respect of agricultural negotiations and I have not heard any complaint from the Minister concerned that, for instance, he cannot negotiate in Brussels in relation to food prices by reason of maximum prices orders having to be made by order under the Prices Acts. The area we are speaking of here is less contentious than agriculture, so I do not see any problem for the Minister in agreeing to our amendment.

I believe my argument to be valid. The changes that would be made are relatively minor. Already we have power in relation to the EEC countries in this respect and nobody has found anything wrong with that situation. Neither is there anything wrong in this case. I have explained what I regard would be the difficulties in relation to the amendment. Consequently, I am justified in refusing to accept it.

The Minister is experienced in the area of international negotiation, and from this experience can be illustrate how in practice there could be interference with international negotiations by reason of the existence of a power providing for the laying of an order before the House? Is he suggesting that his fear relates to the possibility of his stance in international negotiations being defeated in this House?

No. If we are to follow the Deputy's argument it seems that the sort of agreement reached would be of no consequence so long as the Minister succeeded in having it passed in the House.

Is the Minister suggesting that the position he is incorporating in this Bill is better in some way than what is contained in my amendment in so far as parliamentary control is concerned? If the Minister gets his way the result will be that these matters can be put through without being discussed here and that in addition there would be no statutory obligation on him to inform the House of what he was doing. The Minister was trying to argue that it would be impossible for him to negotiate internationally if a draft order could not be put through the House. He contends that acceptance of my amendment would tie his hands in regard to such negotiations, but I have asked him to illustrate how in practice this would happen.

When a Minister makes an order that order is published, so there is no question of an order being made secretly. If I am given the power being sought an order would be published after it had been made. What, then, is the problem.

Although the order might be publicised there would be no statutory obligation on the Minister to have the order drawn to the attention of this House. In the Order Paper for each day there is a list of documents that are laid before the Dáil. Today, for instance, we read that the Public Service (Delegation of Ministerial Functions) Order, 1978, has been statutorily laid before the Dáil.

If the section goes through in its present form the Minister will be under no obligation, although an order would be published, to make details of that order available to the

House or to have it placed in the Library for the perusal of the elected representatives who have been sent here by the people to ensure that Ministers do not abuse their functions in any way, nor would there be any obligation on the Minister to provide an opportunity for debating contentious orders. Either of the amendments I am suggesting would provide that opportunity. I wonder what the Minister has to fear from public discussion of the orders he is making under this section. Of course it would be much more convenient if orders could be made with the knowledge only of those directly involved, but the question is not one of convenience. We are considering the exercise by the Minister of delegated functions, functions conferred on him by statute.

I fail to understand the reason behind the Minister's refusal to provide for discussion of the exercise of these powers. It is very rarely that a Deputy seeks to have annulled any order laid before the House, but it is a safeguard to have provision for such a situation. It is my contention that in every case an order should be discussed, but this seems to be more than the Minister is prepared to agree to, and neither is he prepared to accept the much more modest proposal of having the order laid before the House and provision being made whereby a motion could be tabled seeking an annulment of the order. I would be happy to withdraw my amendment if the Minister would assure me that at Report Stage he would introduce an amendment to provide for the 21-day procedure. This would mean that there would be no necessity for a debate but that if anybody wished to put down a motion to annul there would be such provision. In 99 cases out of 100 there would be no such motion and no debate would be required, but the safeguard would exist. If the Minister is prepared to accept that normal and standard provision in the taking of order-making powers by the Minister under statute, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment which goes a little further.

We are dealing with relatively minor matters. I will consider either for Report Stage or the Seanad the suggestion that the order be laid on the table of the House.

(Cavan-Monaghan): And can be annulled by motion passed within 21 days?

I have to consider. Give me time to consider.

(Cavan-Monaghan) : Certainly.

I cannot accept the amendment as it is.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

In the light of the undertaking given by the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

(Cavan-Monaghan): This is a section to provide that a certificate of a chief superintendent or a superintendent acting as chief superintendent shall be admitted as evidence of certain facts until the contrary is proved. This is for the purpose of clarification. Section 7 (1) (b) says:

that on a specified date or during a specified period a vehicle plate was not on issue to a specified person from a specified vehicle plate issuing station either in respect of a specified vehicle or otherwise.

Is it obligatory on an applicant to apply for the plate in the area in which he resides or in a certain area?

I understand that there is a plate issuing station specified on the licence.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Would the Minister tell me if my interpretation of the section is correct? There is at least one and there may be more licence holders who have permission to hold up to 15 or 20 licences. I do not remember the precise number. Is it the purpose of the section to prevent them breaking them into 15 separate licences and then multiplying that by six? Can they break them down only to three because each licence must have a maximum of six in it? Is that the purpose—to prevent them taking advantage of the distribution system by breaking their licences down into 15 separate ones?

No, not exactly. Take a man who at the moment has two licences and on one of his licences he has at this given moment two vehicles and on the other he has one vehicle. That means that he could have twelve and six, which is 18. What we decided here was that within the period of one year he could divide them as he wished provided he did not go below six on either one of them.

Is it a total of 12?

No. He would have a right to a total of 12 on one and six on the other. He could have nine and nine, if that is what he would prefer. He could not have, say, one and 17.

(Cavan-Monaghan): If he as two on one and three on the other, can he have 18 then?

He would have a total then of 30—five sixes or two fifteens. Is that correct?

No. Could I go back on the example I gave? Suppose a haulier at this given moment has two licences. On one of the licences he has a right to have two vehicles and on the other he has a right to have one vehicle. Under the new circumstances, the licence with the two vehicles will entitle him to 12 and the licence with one will entitle him to six. Therefore, he is entitled to have 18 vehicles.

He cannot have three licences?

No. He cannot have more than two. He might prefer a different distribution of those, and we would consider that provided he would not be entitled to have less than six on either one of them. He could have nine and nine if he wanted to, or ten and eight.

(Cavan-Monaghan): How nine and nine?

Because he would have a total of 18.

(Cavan-Monaghan): That would be breaking the two into two separate ones and giving three?

No. He will not have more than two. It is just that, if a person would like to have the number on his licence changed, rather than have 12 and six, he could have nine and nine. I do not know if anybody will want that. We are giving one year to do it.

(Cavan-Monaghan): If he has two on one and here. Would not the reasonable thing be to allow him to increase each to six? Then he would have 12.

I admit that it is a bit complicated. Under the new circumstances, if the Bill goes through in its present form, he would be entitled to 12 on one of his licences and to six on the other. He is entitled in toto to 18 vehicles but might prefer a different distribution than 12 and six. He still will not have more than the two licences. I do not know if anybody will ask for that but we have left it open for a year so that, if a haulier so wishes, he may do so.

The practical thing to do, taking the Minister's example, if I have two licences, one with one lorry on it and the other with two lorries on it and I intend to expand my fleet to the size the Minister says is most profitable according to the inquiries he has made, that is, between six and ten, is to bulk the two licences to get 18, divide it in two, sell one and still have a nine vehicle fleet. In case someone wants to do that, the Minister is providing for it.

If he wants.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Suppose a person has five on a licence, how many could he put on? Could he put 30?

Thirty, yes.

He could have three tens, two fifteens, five sixes?

No. If he has only one licence, he cannot do anything with it; he just must take his five sixes but it does not give him another licence. I am only trying to help the person who may have two licences, three licences or four licences to rearrange the numbers on them. It is like Deputy Barry said. If I might just put it this way— suppose he thought the maximum he was likely to operate was ten, he might like to keep one licence with ten on it. If he were entitled to 18 and he has two licences, he could have ten on one and eight on the other and, as Deputy Barry says, he could sell the one with eight if he so wished. We are leaving that open for only one year.

There should be some sort of example. Somebody must have made representations about it.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Are there many people with more than one vehicle on a licence?

The figures are: 524 have one licence and one vehicle; 107 have one licence and two vehicles; 25 have one licence and three vehicles; seven have one licence and four vehicles; two have one licence and five vehicles; one has one licence and six vehicles; one has one licence and seven vehicles; one has one licence and 18 vehicles. There are further figures where people have two licences and three licences. If the Deputies wish, I will give them a copy.

(Cavan-Monaghan): These figures may be more relevant to an earlier section. If everybody availed of the full entitlement under the Bill as proposed, how many vehicles would be licensed? The number would be, apparently, more than my figure of 4,500.

The maximum was put there so that the multiple of six would not operate in the case of a person with a large number of vehicles.

That would apply to only one man.

I have a list of cases where the number of licences were two and three. The ones I have given to the Deputy are cases where persons have only one licence each irrespective of the number of vehicles, but there are instances of where hauliers have two or three licences.

There is another section catering for companies.

CIE and the Lough Swilly Railway Company are the only companies referred to.

(Cavan-Monaghan): From the information that has emerged it is apparent now that the figure of 4,500 is too low.

We cannot go back to that section.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It now appears that that is a considerable understatement and that the maximum number of vehicles being provided for is about 6,500. I do not think there is much difference between 6,500 vehicles and unlimited licensing. This is a peculiarly drafted section. Subsection (1) states that the Minister may distribute the licences as he has outlined and this provision seems to facilitate a person who has two or three licences to build up the number of vehicles he wants for his own use and if he has two licences to sell the other. I am worried whether we are facilitating the sale of licences and enabling people to make substantial profits by the sale of licences through legislation being passed here. Subsection (2) provides that an application under subsection (1) may be made only once in respect of any licence and subsection (3) provides that the section shall cease to have effect on the expiration of one year.

This seems to be a section inserted for a specific purpose and I should like the Minister to tell us if he has any particular case in mind or if any representations have been made to him in this respect. Measures have gone through the House in the past bearing the names of individuals who had made representations. I honestly do not think we should lay down general principles in a Bill like this providing that a person may multiply the number of lorries on a licence by six in one case and then, by a specific section put into the Bill, be enabled to split up the number of vehicles. The purpose appears to be to enable the licensee who holds more than one licence to arrange the licences so that he can have enough lorries under one licence for his own use and then to sell the rest. He should take his chance the same as everybody else. No small group or less than a small group should be facilitated in this way.

Deputy Fitzpatrick is reading too much into this. I will go back to my original instance. If a man is entitled to have one vehicle under one licence and two vehicles under another, he will be entitled to increase the numbers to 12 under one licence and six under another. There is nothing to prevent him selling either the 12 or the six. They are his property and he is entitled to sell ten of the vehicles if he wants to or to sell one on that basis. If he thought ten would be the number he would be able to operate, I do not see why he should not be entitled to change the allocation to ten vehicles and eight vehicles and then to sell the eight.

I should like to tell Deputy Fitzpatrick that I did not get representations about this that I can remember. My reason for having done it in this way is that I had a look at the figures in relation to people who, for example, had two licences, one with three vehicles and one with one. I decided that this meant one licence could have 18 vehicles and the other six, and that if such a man wanted to leave the licences to two sons there could be imbalance because one would get 18 and the other six. The owner of such vehicles could add the 18 and the six and divide by two, giving two twelves. There was no ulterior motive in drafting the section in this way.

Honestly, did the Minister think that out?

It would never have occurred to me.

Such a situation is a possibility. There are numerous instances where people might wish to do that, where persons might wish to change the number of vehicles under different licences. This has nothing to do with the sale of licences. At the moment if a person has two licences he can sell the two or he can sell one. In other words, he can sell the business.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I have no objection to facilitating a person who wants to dispose of his licences within his family by way of gift or that sort of thing. However, there are 524 cases where there is one licence which caters for only one lorry. There is no problem there. There are 107 cases of one licence covering two lorries. The man who has one licence and two lorries can get 12 lorries and the 25 cases with one lorry and three lorries can get 18 lorries, and so on. When we get into the higher ones I am not sure whether this is a facilitating section to enable a person to juggle about with licences which would give him enough vehicles for himself and enable him to sell one which he would not be entitled to do. If the Minister can assure me that will not be allowed to happen I will be happy, but if there is a possibility that that can happen, I am dead against it.

In the instances the Deputy has given the persons have only one licence each. The instances I have given to the Deputy are all in that category. In that case, where a person has only one licence, he cannot do anything with it. There is a problem in relation to the ones the Deputy has given.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I accept that no matter how many lorries are on one licence, the licensee can simply multiply those by six, but there are a good number in which there are a number of licences and the Minister did not give us all of them.

The Minister did not give us any of them.

There are a good number in which there are a number of licences.

Would the Minister consider incorporating under this section that where a person sells the licence out of a country that licence can be replaced? In my county we are grossly under-licensed and the bulk of the licences are owned by single people.

I am afraid that is bringing in completely new matter.

It is relevant because I can see a serious situation arising in County Kerry because we are grossly under-licensed.

The situation at the moment is that I am entitled to issue licences but I cannot accept the proposition put by the Deputy because it would create very serious problems.

What can happen if licences are sold out of County Kerry? We have only 26 licences and I can see ten or 12 of those being sold now. The small men cannot even buy the new lorries that they are licensed to buy because of their cost. What will happen then?

The fact that they are sold out of one county to another is something we cannot control.

It does not make any difference. If they sell over the border from Kerry into Limerick they can still operate into the county if they have an all-Ireland plate.

Already we are short of lorries and we cannot get them.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Deputy O'Connor's fear is that a big area of the country will be denuded of lorries.

There are a considerable number of licences in Cork, Limerick and Kerry and the work is done by these licensed hauliers in all these areas. To replace a licence sold out of a county would be a very difficult operation.

The removal of the restriction on the 2½ tons will certainly help the situation.

The lorries were sold out of Kerry before. There are licences in Cork and Limerick but in Tralee at the moment a number of people are appearing in the court for employing lorries that are not licensed because either CIE or the hauliers cannot supply them. A number of people around Fenit port got all-Ireland licences but they sold the bulk of them.

We cannot discuss this matter on this section.

I am only making a point.

The Deputy has made the point and I have given him a lot of latitude.

I appreciate and understand Deputy O'Connor's problem. The situation is that people with licences in Kerry now have a right to have six vehicles each whereas before they could have only one. As Deputy Barry mentioned, the removal of the restriction on the six ton laden weight vehicles in relation to licences will also be helpful.

I asked the Minister for some figures.

There are a lot of figures. There are, for instance, 39 people who have two licences and two vehicles.

Is that the lot?

No, there are quite a lot. I will give the Deputy the number afterwards if he wishes.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Does this cover the leasing of lorries, or has that problem yet been solved? If I were to establish a road haulage business and to lease my lorries, I would not own them and therefore I could not be licensed. Is that correct?

Only licensed hauliers, as it stands here, are entitled to lease.

This is to cater for them leasing?

Suppose, I as a licensed haulier, go to a company that rents lorries and rather than buying my own equipment I lease it from them, what happens then.

If a rental firm has a haulier licence they will be entitled to lease.

But suppose I have a haulier's licence and I have one lorry and I have a crash and I then rent a lorry to replace that while it is being repaired, I am not covered, as far as I know, under existing law. I am out of business.

If a person is a licensed haulier he can lease from a vehicle leasing firm.

Even if the lorry is not in his own name?

A licensed haulier does not have to have his own vehicle. That does not refer just to this Bill.

As far as I recall that was not the case, that this was one of the problems it was difficult to deal with in this area.

We discussed this on another occasion. As far as the licensed haulier is concerned he does not have to own his own vehicle.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The object of this is to protect bona fide rent-a-truck people who rent a truck to somebody who is carrying exempted goods or to somebody who has a licensed haulier's licence. Is that the position?

Yes, that is the position. What I am also trying to provide is that where a renting firm has a haulier's licence they can lease.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Where a renting firm has a haulier's licence their truck would be operating legally no matter who it was rented to, is that right?

Yes, but it is provided that the carriage is not carriage for reward.

That is the crux.

What I had in mind generally was this—and I think Deputy Barry touched on it—that one of the things about which we were concerned was the fact that own account people had the vast bulk of the business.

They are no problem.

No, but what I was hoping would result from this Bill— and I am sure Deputy Barry had the same thing in mind—was that many of the own account people would move over to the use of licensed hauliers. Therefore, where a renting firm has got the licence I would assume that the vast majority of those who would need them would be own account people and they are dealing with their own business anyway.

No, that is not the point.

(Cavan-Monaghan): There is really no change in this.

The person I am trying to cater for is the haulier, to simplify it, who has an accident and whose lorry is off the road. He might even start off his business by leasing rather than buying the truck. The truck is not in his own name but he is going to use it either indefinitely or for a specific period of time during which his truck is being repaired to carry goods for reward.

He is a licensed haulier himself?

He is a licensed haulier himself. He does not own the vehicle but will be carrying goods in that vehicle for reward.

There is no problem because he is a licensed haulier anyway. As I pointed out earlier, he does not have to own his vehicle.

But the Minister appeared to qualify that later by saying that he could not carry for reward.

No, that is a different situation. This is where the lessor has a merchandise licence. That is the group to which Deputy Fitzpatrick was referring. In the 1956 Act a loophole was closed in the transport legislation under which a person with no merchandise licence could nevertheless earn a living from owning a truck by hiring it to other people. Vehicle leasing or rental as an alternative to purchase was hardly known when the 1956 Act was passed. It was not the intention of the Act to prohibit that but it did. Section 9 of the Bill legalises the use of leased vehicles for the carriage of own goods where the lessor holds a merchandise licence and the leasing agreement contains provisions approved by the Minister.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Where either the lessor or the lessee holds it is legal now. Is that right?

For the lessee it is and, for the lessor, it will be provided that the leasing agreement contains provisions approved by the Minister.

(Cavan-Monaghan): A member of the public could be pardoned for walking into a breach of the law under this section when we find it so difficult to understand. Am I correct in thinking, that prior to this section, the leasing would be legal if the lessee held a road transport licence?

(Cavan-Monaghan): Now the transaction will be legal if either the lessee or lessor holds a transport licence? Is that substantially correct?

Yes, but I can lay down conditions in relation to the lessor.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is that substantially correct?

That is basically correct.

But there are hundreds of people still in operation all over the country whom the 1956 Act was meant to exclude, that is, people who own licences and rent them out.

I understand that the 1956 Act had nothing to do with that aspect. The 1956 Act was really concerned about the fact that there were quite a number of people who had trucks but who had no licence and who leased them to own account people——

(Cavan-Monaghan): And worked for them.

——or to others. In those circumstances it was not legal. The Act blocked that avenue.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Tried to.

At that time there was very little leasing done. It was not as common as it is now. That is the reason for the change here. The case Deputy Fitzpatrick has made is substantially correct.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister visualises a rent-a-truck firm acquiring quite a number of licences and then renting out the lorries.

For own account.

(Cavan-Monaghan): For own account only.

In those circumstances, yes, and, of course, hauliers can do it too.

One does not need it for own account.

What was happening prior to the 1956 Act was that people were leasing their vehicles, very often to their own account people, but they were doing it because of a loophole in the Act. That loophole was closed and stopped them doing it. If we are to try to transfer from own account to licensed haulier, or to professional hauliers, CIE included, it is necessary to make this change. The change permits vehicles to be leased now where previously the licensed haulier could not lease his vehicles; he could use them in the normal way only. Now he is entitled to do it, as will the groups referred to by Deputy Fitzpatrick, provided they get licences.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Suppose firm X is a rent-a-truck firm, holds a number of trucks but does not hold any road transport licence; if at present it hires out those trucks to a person to engage in own account haulage, it is guilty of an offence.

The user of the truck.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The lessee of the truck is guilty of an offence. The only change being made is that if firm X still has a fleet of trucks licensed under the Road Transport Acts and leases those out to individuals those individuals can use them for own account only and they will not be guilty of a breach of the Road Transport Acts, but they cannot use them to carry goods for hire or reward for other persons.

That is quite a substantial change.

It is meant to confine them to own account category.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, line 35, after "Oireachtas" to add ": provided the estimate for the year in question containing provision for those expenses has first been approved by Dáil Éireann."

This is another amendment I have put down not so much because of its specific relationship to the Bill but because I believe it should be incorporated in all legislation to achieve a greater degree of parliamentary control over the expenditure of moneys by the various Departments of State. To make clear what the amendment provides I shall read the existing section 10 which says:

The expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

And it stops there. I propose to add that the money may be paid out of funds provided by the Oireachtas, provided the Estimate for the year in question, containing provisions for these expenses, has been approved by the Dáil. In the case of expenses to be incurred under this Bill these would be incorporated in the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power for, shall we say, 1979 is considered before that year commences, in other words, during 1978. There are provisions, under the Central Fund Act of 1965, whereby Estimates for a particular year may be considered before the year commences. To my knowledge these powers under the Central Fund Act have not been exercised by any Government. What happens at present is that Estimates, if they are considered at all—and in many cases they are not —are considered during the year to which they apply.

In many cases by the time the Estimate is debated here half the money has already been spent and so the debate is meaningless in so far as half the money involved is concerned. If the debate were to take place before the year in question then the debate would be a real debate because we would be discussing policies and suggestions could be offered as to ways in which the money should be spent and the Minister could accept these suggestions if he found them worth accepting. In many cases there is no discussion at all on the Estimates. Last year the Government spent over £2,000 million and only 3 per cent of that expenditure was actually discussed on the Estimates during 1977. The remainder was not discussed at all. The Estimates were passed in a lump without any discussion. In that situation the Dáil is not performing the function it should, namely, scrutinising the way in which money is spent by the Government. My amendment would require the Estimate for Tourism and Transport for 1979 to be discussed this year and, if it were discussed, that would greatly improve the debate here and Deputies could offer ideas for the better presentation of the Estimate. I would ask the Minister to consider this amendment very favourably.

However well this amendment may sound in theory it would be utterly impracticable. In a previous amendment the Deputy sought to curtail the power of the Minister to deal with certain matters. In this it is the powers of the Oireachtas the Deputy seems to want to circumscribe. The effect of the amendment would be to suspend the implementation of an Act until such time as the particular Estimate had been passed. The Deputy suggests the discussion might take place the year before. The Deputy has had sufficient experience to know this would not be practicable. Such an approach would place an impossible burden on the conduct of Government business. The standard provision in the Bill leaves the matter in the hands of the Oireachtas. It does not derogate from the power of the Oireachtas. That is the most satisfactory situation, and I could not, therefore, accept this amendment.

The Minister says it would not be practicable to discuss the Estimates.

The Deputy will have to confine himself to the amendment. He may not deal with when all the Estimates should be taken.

The Minister says it would not be practicable for the Estimate for Tourism and Transport to be discussed in the year prior to its taking effect. I do not agree, because the Central Fund Act provides that Estimates may legally be considered in advance of the year to which they relate. Secondly, all West European Parliaments consider the Estimates in the previous year because they realise, as we apparently do not, that there is no point in talking about money already spent and pretending control over it. The Minister may argue that that would clog up the House. It would not clog if the Estimates were introduced in time and, if there was any difficulty, there is nothing to stop the setting up of Select Committees to consider the Estimates and report back to the House and nothing to stop the House then having a short plenary discussion. In that way the Estimates would go through fairly quickly. In the French Parliament they have to get the Estimates through in three months. There is intensive work by select committees and there is a proper discussion about the way in which the money will be spent. There is no proper procedure here. I appreciate that it would be difficult for the Minister to accept this amendment because other Departments are ininvolved.

I would remind the Deputy that the Estimate for Tourism and Transport is relevant but not the Estimates for other Departments.

The Estimate for Tourism and Transport is strictly relevant, and I would argue that what I suggest would be practicable if there were a will, and there should be a will if we are serious about Parliamentary control of Government expenditure.

The Deputy knows perfectly well this is not a practical proposition. If he were anxious to put forward an amendment like this one would have expected him to concern himself with the Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Act, 1965, to which he referred. A basic change like this could not be made in relation to a particular Bill emanating from a particular Department. There are other ways in which the Deputy could deal with this. There is nothing practicable in dealing with the matter in this way.

I thank the Minister for his attitude. It is not unhelpful. He is not unsympathetic. The Central Fund Act already has the provision in it but the Government will not implement that provision. That is the problem.

The Minister will also realise that there are difficulties imposed on the Opposition in introducing legislation. They are not entitled to introduce certain forms of Bills. I intend, without apology, to make these points clearly on every Bill that comes before the House. This is the first occasion I have had an opportunity of doing this, but if the Minister comes here again I am afraid he will have to listen to the same argument until such time as the Government change their practice. It is for that reason that I intend to press this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Title agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Would the Opposition agree to take it now?

I would prefer if it was put back to Wednesday next for the reason that the Minister has given an undertaking, which I welcome, to consider an amendment.

I said I was willing to consider it either on Report Stage or in the Seanad.

We would not have an opportunity of discussing it if it was introduced in the Seanad.

If the Deputy presses the matter I agree to Report Stage being taken next Wednesday.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Subject to discussion between the Whips.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26 April 1978.
Barr
Roinn