Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 May 1978

Vol. 88 No. 11

Road Transport Bill, 1978: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

A person who has a licence but who may not use that licence at the moment, and may not be intending to use it, will be able to apply for six licences which he can sell at a very high price. It is not a good situation automatically to give to somebody a ready-made asset which can be put on the market and sold at a very high price, thus increasing the cost of transport. It is wrong that people should have the option of selling a licence given to them by the State. The Minister has indicated that perhaps this is a liberalisation of the laws. I take it that the Minister sees himself introducing further measures which will remedy the whole situation. We must bear in mind that legislation which goes through the Houses of the Oireachtas is not very often any sort of a temporary measure. It takes time to introduce legislation and a lot of people have to be consulted. Much work will have to be done before another Bill will be introduced. We usually have legislation like this for too long. At this stage it would not have been amiss to introduce something more radical, something that might require a little bit more courage and might have, perhaps, annoyed some vested interest. In the interest of the economy we should have gone a little further.

The other point that arises relates to giving the opportunity to people to invest in vehicles and engage in international haulage. We must consider the very high cost of purchasing vehicles here compared with cost in the countries from which our competitors come. This has put an undue burden on the whole haulage industry. The high cost of vehicles including spare parts and so on has been unjustified. It is depressing for some people in this part of Ireland to realise that just a few miles away they can buy spare parts and new and secondhand vehicles at a fraction of the cost that they are forced to pay for them here. What I am saying is probably not entirely in order, but it is relevant to what we are discussing. In the context of international haulage, it should be realised from the beginning that we will be at this disadvantage.

Another factor was not taken into consideration in the whole calculation. We get easily enough the figures of the number of companies that have their own vehicles, the number of plates that are around and the amount of transport done by CIE but there is another big question mark. Nobody knows exactly what the situation is in the industry, because there is quite a bit of illegal haulage going on. There are quite a number of industries which, because they simply cannot afford to tie up the requirements in cash, do not have licensed hauliers available and prepared to give them the right service, and the alternative is a sort of illegal system of haulage of which nobody really knows the extent.

These people who buy lorries on the hire purchase system are probably the most efficient people in the business. I have seen young men who are manager/owner/driver, accounts departments and so on being forced to operate under the handicap of the risk of detection knowing that they are breaking the letter of the law if not the spirit of it. There are a lot of these people. People in this position should not be forced to carry on outside the law while other less deserving people get complete facilities handed to them so as to engage in the industry. When we hear figures for the amount of haulage which is being carried on by the various interests involved, those figures cannot be accurate because we just cannot know.

With regard to the fact that the smaller lorries of under 2.5 tons are being given the opportunity to operate without a licence, this is a useful idea which will have some effect for the better. The bigger lorries have come in for a lot of criticism lately, but if we look around at our factories and industries which we have built up over the past 20 years we will see that they are established in locations where only big lorries can bring goods in and out. If we had not dismantled our system of railways a lot of these industries could have been located along the railway lines, and new, bigger industries, and co-operatives as in other countries could have been built along the canals and railways which would have provided an alternative. At the moment it does not seem that we have any easy alternative. In the last few years the number of lorries and cars using the roads have increased and lorries have got bigger. The roads have not kept pace with this development. It is harder to drive on the roads today because we have tended to neglect our roads. It is obvious to anybody, particularly those who are a long way from the seaports, and in the west of Ireland, where goods have to be transported, that we must take this situation very seriously. The answer is not to take the juggernauts off the roads. We cannot do it, and if it was done we would have to replace them with a big number of smaller vehicles. Nobody has calculated that that will produce less noise or less pollution of any sort, or that they will be less of a hazard on the road. The juggernauts may be anti-social, the cars whistling past at 70 and 80 miles an hour are also anti-social, and the number of cars on the road is anti-social. Many things are anti-social, but we will have to fit the roads to carry the sort of traffic which industry requires at present.

The cost of labour and administration has become so great that there is no alternative to putting bigger loads behind single engines driven by as few people as possible. We may not like it but that is a necessity if we are to survive. We can only improve the situation by providing the sort of roads on which these vehicles can travel with the least possible obstructions. It sounds liberal and it apparently catches the ear of the media to condemn the juggernauts and so on, but that is not a solution. What we have to find is a means of transporting goods with the least possible cost, because that is what we must do if we are to compete and to save and create jobs. We must solve the problem and condemn, out of hand, vehicles that make noise. We should work towards a situation where those vehicles are as clean as possible, take up as little space as possible, and have the sort of engines that can take them up hills without holding up traffic. We have also an obligation to spend money on roads, because there are a lot of roads here where one articulated lorry can hold up 50 cars for seven or eight miles. There is no point in blaming the lorry, we must invest money that is required to enable traffic to move more freely.

There is another area which should have been looked at. I spoke about illegal haulage in the context of the ordinary industrialist who cannot afford to tie up so much cash in vehicles. He tends to employ people who are prepared to buy a lorry and haul, perhaps without a licence. This has been done more in the agricultural industry than anywhere else. In every area the co-operatives have been using agricultural vehicles because some of the work is seasonal, and tractors can do a morning's hauling of meat for the co-operative delivery and can take back a load of meal or manure and so on. In most parts of Ireland one would have to be blind not to see that a vast amount of goods are being handled in this way by part-time farmers who do this job on the side for the co-operatives. At this stage we should have cleared the road for these people. We should have legalised what is going on. Maybe they are not being prosecuted as they used to be, and they are not being checked on, but the industry requires that they be allowed to continue. They give a service that will not be given by the bigger licensed hauliers and certainly will not be given by semi-State bodies or bigger companies. They are a necessity as far as the agricultural community and the co-operatives are concerned. Under this Bill I would like to see them being cleared of the guilt under which they have operated for the past few years.

I welcome the Bill in so far as it is a certain measure of liberalisation, but it is being done in the wrong direction. We could have done a better job if we were prepared to take a little risk and show a little more courage. The situation has already done considerable damage to our economy. We have had far too many lorries going the roads empty because, for one reason or another, when goods are delivered to the city, lorries go back empty a 100 miles, or maybe 150 miles to the west of Ireland because they could not legally take this, that or the other. We should have a complete opening up of the whole haulage business. I would like to see a situation where people in the industry here could compete on equal terms with people from outside. The sooner that situation comes about the better.

We all welcome the change in legislation. Basically, we are bound to agree that after a period of 40 years without any new Bill on this subject, the type of legislation we may now get might be imperfect but it provides a framework from which to work. There are a lot of new areas to be covered. Every Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas could have a different solution to the problems as they see them. I see the Bill as contributing to the alleviation of a big national problem. We have outdated transport legislation, and as a result, both our public and our private transport are far from being competitive in the European sense. The Bill provides for both private hauliers and public transport to get themselves into a competitive position.

I live in an area where I certainly am in a position to judge what outside transport is doing to this country. I can comment fairly accurately on the type of transport and some of the reasons for the difficulties our transport system experiences. As a result of more liberalisation such as is provided in this Bill transport in Northern Ireland and in Britain has actually flourished. The private haulier has huge fleets of trucks, Northern Ireland carriers have a very substantial fleet of vehicles and are doing a very healthy business. I think the public transport and the private haulier in Northern Ireland are very, very aggressive, with modern vehicles, and they are doing a good job. In other words, transport in Northern Ireland is healthy and is soundly based while here the restrictions have left it without incentive and not a business with great attractions in which either CIE or private hauliers want to spend a great deal of effort and money.

The new legislation sets guidelines and it gives hope to those who were earning their living in the past by transport, of expanding their business and of having a more soundly based business. I am pleased that the legislation has now been introduced and, as they say, I do not expect that it will provide a complete answer because you could come back in six months' time and see where the legislation did not cover certain areas. That is to be expected. In general, I am satisfied that it does a good job. I would like to ask the Minister, and I shall be very interested in his reply, first of all about restrictions. There were no restrictions on certain goods and the Bill provides that the carriage of wheat and some farm products is not under control: I am asking the Minister now if he thought of widening this area because transport now forms a big part of the cost of any product. I could give a list, but lime, which is certainly a big item as far as the agricultural industry is concerned comes to mind first. The cost of lime at the lime quarry is very small in relation to transport costs. Some of the lime quarries or lime producing companies have their own transport and they have got licences in the past. I wonder are they affected? Will the licences that have been issued to lime quarries or lime producing companies be eligible for multiplication? If that were so, actually it would be quite a serious blow to those depending on drawing lime for part of their income and I think it would hit CIE; certainly it would hit them very severely in my county.

Most members of the Seanad who make a contribution would have, like myself, wide interests. I have basically an interest in those who are employed in CIE and public transport in County Donegal, the truck drivers, their helpers, their mechanics in the garage and those who service the vehicles, the office staff, right across the board, the whole structure of administration of public transport in county Donegal and in the North West. I am satisfied that this Bill will encourage CIE to do what they should have done a long time ago—and I make no apologies for criticising the lack of initiative as far as CIE are concerned. CIE sat back while they had plenty of money to back them up, at least they could have got the money. They sat back to let the European haulier, the British haulier and the Northern Ireland haulier come in and take the business from under their feet. It is fair to criticise CIE for having allowed this to happen. Some of the speakers on the other side of the House could have usefully recognised that the restrictions placed by the previous Government on the expansion policy and the restriction on employment by CIE contributed to the lack of initiative by CIE, because when our entry into the Common Market should have been matched by a big expansion by CIE of their road freight business, when the whole opportunity presented itself and the whole area opened up, there was certainly a very poor response from our public transport here. The results have been very devastating.

Our public transport and our private hauliers have a lot of leeway now to make up. This Bill makes a useful contribution because it recognises under many headings that there has been a lack of progress in public transport in this country. I am hopeful that a new approach will emerge after the introduction of this legislation. I also welcome the provisions under section 4 whereby the Minister now has powers to grant licences for international haulage. That strengthens the hauliers greatly in so far as it puts them on a sound competitive basis and we will no longer be depending on those that have been well equipped with 40-foot and longer vehicles with very well established container traffic. I have quite a lot of experience of this. I see factories and industrial estates; I see the awkward raw material—I am talking of rolls of steel and I could give lists of other awkward material which is difficult to draw—and CIE get the haulage from the ship to the factory of this difficult traffic and they are not equipped with containers to take the finished goods out. Some companies are even coming from Germany to collect the finished goods here. The fact that the Minister is now empowered in the Bill to grant licences for international haulage will encourage people here in the transport business to expand and to take on this side of the business as well. I am satisfied that that establishes a new footing here for the haulage industry and a new, healthy approach to the haulage of goods that are being manufactured here for export.

The Minister was also wise in freeing the small vehicle; the two-and-a-half tonner will now be free. This is very useful and it is also practical. A two-and-a-half tonner in the transport world is a very small vehicle, and no useful purpose could be served by licensing those small vehicles. It leaves a commercial sector of business that would be using small vehicles fairly free to expand—it does not place restrictions on them—and it is a useful contribution that will help industry. It will help small transport users now to base their business more solidly and ensure that they can stay in business and will not be hampered with restrictions.

I would ask the Minister to clarify one other point regarding removals. At present, we have quite a big business in removals. I am not sure that it is clearly covered here. We are now in a changing world where officials are moving from one country to the other and some are moving across the water, and this is quite a sizeable business. I would ask the Minister to clarify the position more fully in that context. There is quite a lot of illegal work going on as far as removals are concerned. To me this is the most lucrative side of the whole haulage business and it could go unnoticed.

Another part of the Bill that I welcome deals with the standard of vehicles. The Bill has to provide fairly strict standards for vehicles that are being used on the road and those of us who are driving on the road continuously see the 40-foot container vehicles travelling at very high speed. I only hope that we are in a position to implement all the restrictions that the Bill proposes because I see some of the container vehicles driven at 70 and 80 miles an hour. If any man travels from here to the north, as I do and if he is driving at 60 miles an hour in a car, he is sure to be passed out by at least a half-dozen heavy container vehicles doing anything up to 80 miles an hour. Sometimes they travel in twos and threes right up close to each other, within a hundred feet of each other at 70 miles an hour. I only hope that the Bill, with its restrictions on the type of vehicle, the condition of the vehicle and the overall restrictions that the Bill can now impose will also make provision for the implementation of these restrictions. We have a big obligation here.

The Bill provides the legislation and I only hope that we have the backup to implement it as far as the type of vehicle and its use on the roads here are concerned. It is popular to talk about the juggernauts on the road but all of us realise it is just part of increasing traffic. We do not seem to be as active as we should be or could be in regard to tests on vehicles. I have seen films recently in relation to traffic between Britain and France and I saw where in France they are waiting to do tests on the vehicles. They do fairly extensive tests. On certain days every vehicle is tested. I only hope that we here are no less vigilant in our attention to the problems that we have here.

In general I welcome the Bill. I am certain that it provides an opportunity for both public transport and the private haulier to make a better contribution towards the whole haulage industry. I can see the Bill as an improvement because—we have to face up to it—the day is gone when you meet a man who is prepared to deliver goods with an inferior type of vehicle whether it is a case of poor tyres or a poor type of vehicle which may be taxed but may not be insured. That haphazard way is gone. There is need for a very efficient transport system and the Bill encourages that. I certainly welcome it. I am sure it is not perfect but it is a good start.

I have not much to say on this Bill except that in certain respects I welcome it. The whole concept of road haulage is due to be looked at. It is important that the ideas and the ideals that imbued the minds of those who first nationalised CIE should be considered in the light of the effect this had in time on the lives of the people. The variety of standards, of occupations and of circumstances of our people is such that road haulage affects some of them to a great extent while it does not affect others except to a very small degree. The ideal for an economic road haulage system would be a service which would be immediate and economic and which would provide a reasonable standard of living for the people engaged in it as well as provide the services necessary for the people availing of it.

Looking at this Bill in that context, certain snags may arise in consequence, for instance, of multiplying by six the number of vehicles in the present ownership of a transport operator, the right it confers on the company or whatever sort of concern is involved. It appears to me that there are many people in the country who have one of two lorries on the road and it is very much a family structure, where perhaps two brothers or a brother of an owner and a brother-in-law or somebody who is closely associated with him is in a position to operate just this number of vehicles. We will have to admit that he cannot, for financial reasons or by reason of the scope that he can apply, the hiring of staff or the equipment associated with the maintenance of trucks, avail of the provision for the multiplicity of six.

That will have the effect that his wealthier colleague up the road or 50 miles away will be able to say: "Here is so-and-so down in Ballybofey or whatever the place is, and he is in a small way in this business; he is not going to multiply and we would like to avail ourselves of the opportunity of coming in on whatever share he is unable to provide and taking over that area of goods delivery or transport that he is now covering or would be likely to cover if he had the appropriate number of vehicles." These people will then start doubling or trebling or acquiring whatever number they will be able to put on the road and the small haulier will be just squeezed out. That is one of the things that you can be certain will happen. Where the economic structure is of such a standard and is a family-operated system which is not able to meet financially the challenge of the big operators I can see the small haulier pushed off the road.

There are various aspects of haulage in the country where the big haulier, if he had a monopoly or a near monopoly in an area—and he does not have to have a monopoly like CIE; he could have it in Connacht or in Leinster or in Ulster—and if somebody else has to come a long journey to provide service in that area and therefore is not able to do it economically, the other gentleman will start setting as his target the same uneconomic charge as his rival and exploiting the public by reason of the extent that he is able to control the area of operation. This is a circumstance that I think the Minister should try to avoid. If the Minister were to enable whoever had a smaller vehicle to have the right to purchase six or 12 against two and that right did not extend to anybody else, the monopoly-minded operator would not become excited to the same extent.

I had a complaint which I brought before the Minister, not the present Minister for Transport and Power but his predecessor, about goods that were sent out from an industrial firm in Cork and consigned to a trader in Granard, County Longford. They were paid for and they were sent out and they came to Dublin where they remained for more than two weeks, and other goods that the same trader bought in Dublin were allowed to remain for almost two weeks more before they were forwarded. CIE admitted that in their system of organisation they have plans to make every journey an economic journey and that in consequence of there being a small number of items in the orders of the particular trader, they have to wait until the volume of goods will enable the vehicle involved to be used economically.

If that is economy it is economy at the wrong end. It is not economy in the sense of enabling people to get the service that they should get at the time that it is reasonable for them to get it. If there was competition in that regard, the position might be improved. I do not say that CIE should be wiped off the market; I recognise that a national transport system is vital to this country, but it is also vital that people who are in a position to give an express service for certain kinds of goods, particularly perishable goods should not be forced to have them transported through CIE or through any other system where delay is detrimental and where early delivery is important to the condition of the goods and service required by the consignee and the people by whom it was consigned.

The ordinary farmer buys lime subsidised by the Department of Agriculture and the Department subsidise the transport of lime from quarries in Roscommon more than 25 or 28 miles to Granard and at the same time they transport lime from County Cavan which is only eight miles away 27 or 28 miles into south Westmeath. These are circumstances where economics seem to be cast aside and where providing lorries for haulage over a distance and collecting from the Government a sum appropriate to the distance travelled is apparently the ideal towards which the management of CIE seem to be aiming. This sort of haulage is what we will find when you have a monopoly situation. CIE had a monopoly for the transport of lime, at least when I was buying it, and they had it to the extent that if a quarry owner owned one lorry he could use that lorry for whatever he could transport in it but he could not improve that set up; he could not buy a second or a third one or could not put his own fleet of lorries into the work. That is the sort of circumstance that arises with a national monopoly. It becomes ridiculously out of step with the reasonable expectations of the people of the country.

If tomorrow somebody sets up a transport system to the extent of going to the Continent and delivering goods and coming back to Manchester or London or elsewhere and picking up containers with goods and taking them to Ireland, that person seems to be doing something that he would not be allowed to do at home. In other words, he can go into another country, collect goods, take them here and deliver them and he has a right to do that. It appears to me ridiculous that if he comes from Greenore or from Newry or elsewhere when he comes into the authority of this State, if there are goods available he should not have the right to collect them and deliver them in Dublin or in Athlone or in Galway or elsewhere. These are the sort of uneconomic structures that have this country in a very difficult situation in regard to the people's services and transport.

As far as larger lorries are concerned, we have a lot of criticism now of the juggernauts and the condition of the roads in consequence of the transport of 20, 30, 40 ton loads over them. These road conditions warrant proper and fair criticism and I think we must live with this situation. This is part of our commitment in being in the EEC, and if foreign hauliers are entitled to come here to deliver or collect goods, take them out of the country with huge vehicles requiring a road maintenance system far above the standard that we have, we are not enitled to say that Irish interests should not have the right to do the same thing. This country is in the EEC now and I think we are attaining full membership, and if we have full membership and have a full commitment I think that the circumstances associated with haulage in this country ordinarily ought to demand from the EEC authority appropriate assistance to maintain the condition of roads bearing EEC traffic. They have, at the present time, at any rate, almost a monopoly of this juggernaut-container system of haulage. They have such a high percentage of the haulage business that they are entirely responsible for the difficulties that arise as far as public authorities are concerned by way of maintaining roads, bridges and so on over which they travel.

I know that this is not a debate on roads. I know it is a debate on road transport, but, with the indulgence if it is necessary of the Chair, I might refer to an aspect that I have seen on certain roads in my county of the haulage of these deadly heavy containers from EEC countries.

The Senator will have to keep his contribution as far as roads are concerned rather short.

I asked for that indulgence. It is a serious expense on the State to maintain the thoroughfares. We have to look at whether or not our concept of road transport is the one that is going to serve the large farmer or the small farmer. We have to look at the extent to which we inconvenience him and see what immediate services we can give him. We must see if we can give such services to farmers in remote areas. We must see to it that those who are prepared to give such a service do so at an economic price. It is not economic to have a haulage vehicle carrying 15 or 20 tons of lime into a remote area. It is not economic for the State to subsidise goods so hauled. If we are to accommodate the sort of haulage required in this sector of our economy we ought to give a free hand to people with small trucks to do this haulage from points of collection nearest to them with due regard to the provision of a service for perishable goods.

It is important to bear in mind that many people in remote areas do not want public haulage. They prefer to get a neighbour who may have a lorry or somebody with a smaller vehicle who is in a position to take the goods they have to transport without great delay and at little expense. That sort of a haulier, unfortunately, has been classified as an illegal haulier. I have seen at Longford fair gardaí watching a neighbour of mine who wanted to bring home eight cattle in his lorry. It was six hours before he was able to turn the cattle down a backstreet and load them. Care had to be taken when letting them off because there were gardaí at his destination. Anybody who said at that time that the gardaí were not doing the right thing and that the Government were not enforcing the law, was liable to be put out. Later that was abandoned. A lot of other concepts associated withe the haulage of goods will have to be abandoned also. It will not be possible to continue to compel people to pay high costs for a service because a similar service is operated by CIE or by a transport system. The man next door who is in a position to give the same service has the same right to live and earn his bread here.

I agree with what Senator McGowan said. Driving to Dublin about four weeks ago I was behind three articulated trucks. They were not loaded and for that reason they were travelling at a considerable speed, up to 50 miles per hour. When they came to a certain part of the road they slowed down and travelled at between 20 or 25 miles per hour. Twenty cars, and mine, had to keep behind those vehicles for about 16 miles. Such a situation is often experienced by motorists. If there are two, and one attempts to pass them out one is putting oneself in danger. Many of the tragic accidents we read about occur when motorists try to pass out such long vehicles. Those are circumstances that one associates with everyday driving here. If we are to have a haulage system we should have it with a restriction on speed. We must also have an economic structure obtaining in relation to charge and an immediate service appropriate to all goods in any area. The Minister, before we consider the Bill on Committee Stage, should bear in mind the points raised by more intelligent speakers than I on this matter. There is no reason for having a straight-laced stereotype transport system which will be subject to some abuse. For instance, a haulier who buys six vehicles, decides to start a limited liability company and automatically sells to that company his interest in five or six of those vehicles acquires a fortune of considerabe dimension. The Minister should consider introducing some amendments on Committee Stage.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí uilig a labhair ar an mBille seo agus a d'fháiltigh roimhe. Cé go bhfuil an Bille féin gearr, tá an t-ábhar an-thábhachtach. Tá súil agam go mbeidh sé ina chuidiú sna blianta atá romhainn.

I was pleased with the number of Senators who spoke on this Bill and I should like to thank them for their contributions. Although, as I said in Irish, the Bill is a relatively short one transport itself is not an easy subject even from the relatively detached viewpoints of the legislator and the administrator.

Those who are directly involved in transport face surprisingly complex tasks and even at the level of the small firm they must possess a stock of practical knowledge in matters as far apart as principles of contract and maintenance of vehicles. There has been a tendency in the past to underrate the capabilities of our hauliers and the demands that are made on them and I am glad to have an opportunity to prepare and submit for the consideration of the Oireachtas this Bill which, as well as proposing changes in the law affecting the haulage industry, recognises its potential for performance. Senator Staunton suggested that it was much the same Bill as the 1976 Bill but it is true to say that this one is not susceptible to the criticisms which gave rise to the opposition encountered by the 1976 Bill. This is because it differs from that document in an essential respect by containing safeguards against monopolisation of the market by either a home or a foreign haulier in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the licensed hauliers who, of course, include CIE and their employees as well as the railways. It also introduces the principle of qualitative control in relation to licensing in a positive manner not provided for in the previous Bill. This will have the gradually increasing back-up of the EEC directive on vehicle testing which I mentioned in my opening statement and which will be phased in by 1 January 1983.

Senator Markey referred to the possibility of a foreign haulier coming here and buying up a number of licences to provide himself with 80 vehicles. Of course, this would be a very expensive matter because, as I have already pointed out, a licence which has only one vehicle on it at present will be entitled to only six vehicles under this Bill. Therefore, this would be a pretty expensive operation.

Senator Staunton suggested that I was critical of own account operation in my speech in the Dáil but he possibly misunderstands the situation. I accept what he says in relation to the fact that the people who are utilising own account had little alternative in the past but to have transport vehicles of their own. What I was referring to was that in itself that type of transport is bound to be inefficient because, as Senator Jago pointed out, it means transporting goods in one direction only and coming back light. This is something which would not be the case where we have a licensed haulier operating. It was only in that sense that I was critical of the efficiency of own account. The fact that we are permitting licensed hauliers to have more vehicles on their licences than they had previously should in itself help to overcome the problems which own-account operators faced in the past when, as Senator Staunton said, they had no alternative but to have their own vehicles. My attitude in this Bill is to try to have a highly efficient professional haulage industry. Its basic purpose is to encourage in so far as is possible many of the people who are presently involved in own account to engage professional hauliers so that the capital which they of necessity had to invest in the haulage in the past can be invested to much better effect in their business so as to develop it so as to produce more jobs.

Reference has also been made to the fact that I did not liberalise transport to the extent that it had been proposed to liberalise it under the previous Bill but I gave careful consideration and thought to the best way of easing out the present restrictions. I could not accept the substitution of total de-control for the present number specified. This would be just as much a rush to change as a rapid transition to a new type of control, something for which I believe we were not prepared. I looked at such experiences, as were available to me in Britain, in Northern Ireland and in other member states of the European Community as to the size of the firm likely to be most remunerative or likely to evolve in a relatively free haulage market and to use whatever knowledge might be available to set up what might be called a size-bracket within which our general hauliers can carry out their operations.

As to the optimum size of road haulage firms, studies touching on the question have taken place in the original member countries of the EEC and also in Britain. There is virtual unanimity in the view that the very small firm with one to three vehicles is likely to be the least remunerative in cash terms. This could be because the firm trying to build up would be content with lower profits or because small hauliers are willing to sacrifice some monetary reward for their independence. The indications, even though they are not conclusive, are that for all the countries mentioned the most remunerative size of firm in general is the one in the five to 20 vehicles bracket with the most successful of all probably at the lower end, that is roughly from six to ten vehicles.

For those who are a bit worried about the fact that we were liberalising and worried about the effect that this might have on the smaller type firm, the one with one or two vehicles, I should like to mention that in Northern Ireland there is a comparatively free market. Road freight haulage has been subject to qualitative control only since 1966 and after ten years of that regime only three firms in the private sector had more than 50 trucks and none had reached 80. Strange as it may seem, the dominant type of firm remained at one vehicle and that is the situation even today. In Northern Ireland the vehicle numbers on licences in 1976 were, with one vehicle only, 968 operators, while with over 50 and under 80 vehicles there were only three operators.

Senator Staunton also referred to the six metric tonne laden weight and suggested that we might have a higher weight but, of course, as other Senators mentioned, it is impossible to decide on any specific one which will satisfy everybody. We would begin to impinge possibly on the rights of others if we were to increase it beyond that level. As many Senators said, this concession will be a very useful one, particularly in rural areas. The six tonne gross vehicle weight exemption is common in the EEC countries for certain kinds of traffic. To go further than that would be encroaching on the preserves of licensed hauliers, particularly of CIE.

Senator Lanigan referred to the fact that under this Bill each haulier would get an opportunity of adopting his fleet to conditions in his area. This is true. He also mentioned mandatory fines. My advice is that the courts are never very happy about mandatory fines. I have produced a reasonable situation in relation to fines. Some Senators believe that the fines are not heavy enough. They relate this to the fact that the vehicle itself could be forfeited under previous legislation. The reality of it is that no court has ever, I think, decided that the vehicle should be seized and, certainly, in the present time when the cost of vehicles is so high it is just not real. For that reason we should not have in legislation something which is most unlikely to be used with regard to the law.

Senator West referred to the manifesto and to the transport authority. Some other Senator mentioned that we are setting up a transport consultative commission and a considerable amount of the ground work has been done in relation to it. He also suggested that we should abolish the licensing system altogether. It should be remembered that licensed hauliers—there is a considerable number of them here, including CIE—and those, excluding CIE, have been very restricted in what they could do up to now. They had no opportunity to expand. The vast majority of them had one vehicle on the licence. There was little or nothing the haulier could do to improve his business. But these are the professionals, and at this stage it would be wrong to allow a carte blanche in relation to this type of situation because, after all, licensed hauliers who have borne the brunt of the day in a very restrictive situation should be entitled at least to prove themselves. They are getting this opportunity here. I would also mention that unrestricted input into the licensed hauliers' situation would also, in all probability, have a detrimental effect on CIE.

What I have in mind is that more and more of the own-account people would see an advantage in employing the licensed haulier, and the more that this change in attitude takes place the better for CIE. At the moment we have the licensed hauliers and CIE together competing for 10 per cent of the total haulage here.

What I want to see is the own-account people change. In many instances it is not possible for own account to change the system they have, for a variety of reasons, but quite a number of them would be only too glad if they got an efficient service from the licensed hauliers or from CIE to change over. The opportunity is being given here to the licensed hauliers to do this. I will be watching carefully to see how they proceed.

The Senator also gave quite a number of figures in relation to what is happening to the amount of business acquired by the Northern hauliers as compared by the hauliers in our own area. Here again, that just underlines the fact that it is vitally essential that we should liberalise haulage. From the quotation he read I can recall the article it was taken from and, frankly, there were quite a number of inaccuracies in that article. I would like to be dealing with this on its own but, unfortunately, I cannot.

I only quoted what Dr. O'Donoghue wrote.

The Senator quoted from the article I read and I am sure he had read also.

The point is that that is what Dr. O'Donoghue said in the old days before he had been converted.

Senator Markey referred to the problem in relation to the environment. I believe that because of the Bill we will have less rather than more vehicles on the road for the reasons I have already given. Own account must almost always send two vehicles to do the job of one. Under the licensed hauliers that would change considerably. Senator McGowan referred to the situation in relation to lime and I should like to tell him that under the Bill there will be no change from the present situation.

I have dealt with most of the points raised. I did not deal with them individually because the points were raised by a number of Senators. I hope I have given generally what the Senators would regard as a reasonable reply. I should like to express my thanks to the Seanad for the manner in which they dealt with this Bill. If there are any points I have not replied to, if the Senator concerned would raise them with me afterwards I will send a written reply.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10 May, 1978.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before I call Senator West for the motion on the Adjournment, when is it proposed to sit again?

Next Wednesday, 10 May 1978.

Barr
Roinn