John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now deal with COM (2013) 195, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 and laying down, for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community, the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic. The purpose of the meeting is to hear the views of delegates from the Irish Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association of Ireland on this particular proposal. I welcome Mr. Eoin Gavin, president of the IRHA, and Mr. Jerry Kiersey, deputy vice president of that organisation.

The witnesses are informed that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to their committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Delegates are further directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I advise that any submission or opening statement the witnesses have submitted to the committee will be published on our website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Gavin to make an opening statement.

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to set out our concerns regarding the proposed modifications to Directive 96/53/EC. Our position and our lobbying, in Ireland and in Europe, has always been about the greening of commercial road transport at source, improving road safety and encouraging innovation, in order to get goods moved from A to B as efficiently and safely as possible. The current proposal goes against all these trends. It is coming from a very strong rail lobby, particularly in Austria, which is a transit country that wants to see large volumes of goods being moved on rail. Ireland, on the other hand, is a peripheral country at the edge of Europe in which 99% of our goods are moved by road. We cannot get away from that reality or alter the prominence of road as a mode of transport. We are asking the committee and the Government to do their best to work with our industry to ensure goods are moved as efficiently as possible.

Members will be familiar with the European modular system, which takes one truck unit - that is, one engine and one driver - off the road by allowing a 20 ft. truck, which is the normal distribution truck in a city or town, to have an articulated trailer linked onto its back. The equipment involved requires no large investment from the industry or manufacturing and has been used, for example, for the haulage of timber in Norway, Sweden and Finland for the past 15 or 20 years. The current proposal is to ban all such modular configurations, including in the countries in which they have operated for more than a decade. We appeal to the committee to lobby hard in support of the European modular concept. In addition, we ask members to support our call to maintain existing weight and dimension requirements within member states. We have seen in the past week how the reduction in the height threshold to 4.65 m has had implications for trade between Ireland and the United Kingdom, where the same restriction does not apply. We ask the committee to investigate in due course the impact this anomaly is having on trade between the two jurisdictions.

On the issue of aerodynamics, recent developments in the United States have seen haulage vehicles beginning to look more like aeroplanes, being narrower at the back. European legislation will not allow for that, because of the requirements regarding maximum allowable lengths and widths. In the absence of such restrictions on dimensions, there is room in the United States for experiment. We encourage the committee to lobby for greater flexibility in this regard which would allow for aerodynamic kits to be fitted either in the front or back of vehicles. It is all about greening the industry.

In regard to the enforcement of weight and dimension thresholds across different sectors, we have a major problem in this country with out-of-State operators who are failing to comply with the requirements of road traffic legislation. For instance, we had a situation in Foynes in September regarding the transport of wind turbines. We are calling on the committee to conduct a full investigation, without delay, into illegal haulage practices by out-of-State operators. We have written to the Chairman on this matter and are appealing again today for his support.

My colleague, Mr. Kiersey, vice president of Irish Road Haulage Association will comment on alternative fuels and related issues.

Mr. Jerry Kiersey:

In 2005 and 2006, the then Minister for Transport, Mr. Noel Dempsey, introduced MOTR 1 and MOTR 2, respectively. These were motor oil tax relief schemes which meant that a farmer could grow and produce rapeseed oil which hauliers could use to run their trucks. In the following years, we converted the majority of our trucks to run on rapeseed oil. In fact, astounding as it sounds, we were getting 90% of our fuel from Irish fields. Rapeseed was a very beneficial product for the farmer and for the land on which it was grown, bringing all types of environmental benefits such as a reduction in the need for fertiliser and an increase in the subsequent crop yield. Rapeseed is grown as a break crop, in the same way as potatoes or sugar beet, but its great advantage is that it increases the subsequent cereal yield by a minium of 10%.

We spent in the region of €300,000 converting all our lorries to run on rapeseed oil. The problem arose when as part of a subsequent Government, the Green Party pulled the plug on the relief scheme. Farmers were now obliged to levy excise duty on the product, which made it unattractive to us. As a consequence, the creators of the kits we had on our trucks went broke, as did the people who installed them. We eventually had to take them off because we were having technical problems and could no longer, in any case, secure a supply of oil. There is documented evidence that rapeseed oil has been produced in this country for more than 200 years, having been used in flax mills in Donegal and Derry. We ignore it to our cost because it is a wonderful product. I ask the committee to examine this issue.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for outlining their concerns on the implications of the proposal. I now invite questions from members, beginning with Deputy Timmy Dooley.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives of the Irish Road Haulage Association and thank them for their ongoing communications with the committee. That type of engagement is very helpful to us in our work.

Here is an example of a specific directive from Europe which - as should have been the case in many instances in the past - we are dealing with by engaging in discussions with the industry in advance of a decision being taken.

I take the point in respect of the height restriction and I am aware of the concerns many people harbour in this regard. I am of the view that the horse has bolted and that this matter is unlikely to be revisited. As legislators, however, we can play a real and meaningful role in arguing the case on behalf of Irish industry and, in particular, the road haulage sector. The committee must take on board the views of the Irish Road Haulage Association and those of the group which is due to make the next presentation and try to arrive at a comprehensive position in respect of this matter. The committee should - and more than likely will - prepare a report and then seek to get the Government on board. If necessary, we should interact with the transport committee of the European Parliament in order to promote Ireland's position. I read the document presented by our guests and it seems ridiculous that we might be obliged to put in place the same measures as those which Austria and Germany, as a result of the nature of their rail networks, wish to implement.

On previous occasions we discussed the issue of investment in rail networks across Europe with rail operators. The European Commission has a particular vision in this regard. It is clear that we will have to be given derogations in respect of investment in our rail infrastructure because we do not have the same demand or level of usage as some of our European counterparts. It is for this reason that I believe we can make a case in respect of the necessity for a derogation that would meet the needs of our guests. I have no doubt the committee will be doing that in due course. I thank our guests for their presentation.

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

I appreciate the Deputy's support. As already stated, it is all about greening the industry. There is a great deal of scaremongering taking place in respect of mega-trucks and super-trucks. However, what is proposed would involve connecting the equivalent of an articulated trailer, at 45 ft. in length, and a rigid trailer, at 20 ft. in length. The prime example in this regard is a cattle truck and what is proposed would probably only be 10 ft. longer than that. What would be involved, therefore, would not be a super or mega item of equipment. These vehicles are already operating on our roads. All that we are discussing here is having one engine and one driver. It is a very good concept and it would involve using the existing equipment. It would be a shame if a lobby which has nothing to do with Irish interests put a stop to this in Europe.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegation. One of the more positive outcomes from the joint committee's deliberations related to the fuel rebate. As the previous speaker indicated, if there is a level of engagement from the outset then results can be achieved. Of all the member states of the EU, Ireland is probably one of the most dependent on road haulage for the transportation of goods. In that context, the views of the industry must be heeded.

I and a number of local and foreign road hauliers who are properly licensed and who operate in my constituency are extremely concerned about the illegal activities detected there. I urge the committee to take on board Mr. Gavin's suggestion with regard to investigating what happened at the port of Foynes during the summer which led to its being blocked. The commercial reality for the import and export business at Foynes is one issue but people are uncomfortable about what happened there during the summer. Representatives from Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the Road Safety Authority, the port company and the haulage companies and anyone else with an interest in this matter should be brought before the committee in order that we might discover what exactly happened and ensure that there will be no recurrence.

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

I thank Deputy O'Donovan for is support in respect of the issue relating to Foynes, on which we have been engaged in ongoing talks with the Department, the Road Safety Authority and the Garda. It is a major problem. Some 46% of trucks which come into Dublin Port every morning are out-of-State or foreign vehicles. Their owners or operators contribute zero to our road network and they also contribute zero in terms of PAYE or PRSI. However, best of all, they will be able to claim the fuel rebate. We have a national haulage fleet of 4,000 vehicles and these are predominantly owned by family businesses. Those businesses are struggling to survive. Next April we will be paying £10 in the North of Ireland. The reason that there was illegal haulage at Foynes on the part of Northern Irish, UK and Scottish operators is because they do not want to register here as hauliers as a result of the fact that road tax is too expensive and the level of enforcement is too high. If they remain both out-of-State and legal operators, they will not be subject to either enforcement or road tax. Again, a big wedge is being driven between legitimate Irish hauliers and out-of-State operators. We would really appreciate it if the committee could see fit to instigating an investigation into this entire matter.

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for attending. The height restriction of 4.65 m has already been imposed and signs advertising this fact have been erected throughout the city. The authorities in the North and in the UK have a derogation in this regard at present. Are we seeking to obtain a further derogation in respect of the restriction, despite the fact hat it has been imposed? Has the height restriction had an immediate effect in terms of the members of the Irish Road Haulage Association? It seems very unfair that other countries are not subject to the restrictions relating to weights and dimensions which are contained in the proposed directive. What has been the impact of this on our guests' members? I am not clear on the position with regard to traffic coming here from Europe. If a different rule applies in another country, can operators from that jurisdiction still drive their vehicles here despite the fact that they may not meet the relevant criteria?

The maximum height relating to the Dublin Port tunnel is 4.65 m. When the tunnel was being built, there was an element of controversy in this regard and some people stated that the height restriction was somewhat low. This restriction has had an effect on members of the Irish Road Haulage Association since the tunnel was completed. If I am not mistaken, the association advised at the time that a higher restriction should have applied. I recall receiving representations on the matter when I was a councillor and I am sure Deputy Seán Kenny did too.

Mr. Jerry Kiersey:

In regard to the question on out-of-State hauliers, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are our biggest trading partners on the land Border. There will be no enforcement in respect of Northern Ireland hauliers, who will continue to bring their trailers into this jurisdiction. They have hundreds of such trailers. The position with regard to UK traffic will be slightly different as a result of the height restriction relating to the Dublin Port tunnel. Trailers that are over the height will be obvious because they will not be able to drive through the tunnel. The transport committee of InterTradeIreland - an organisation established on foot of the Good Friday Agreement - produced a report in 2005 which recommended that there be no height restriction other than that which existed in the Republic of Ireland at the time. In other words, it stated that the restriction here should match that which obtains in Northern Ireland.

Without that, it was going to damage the competitive position of the whole of Ireland, North and South, not only the Republic of Ireland.

However, be that as it may, the port tunnel project went ahead and the we ended up with a height limit 4.65 m and we live with the consequences of that. Our motorway system was built with the same height limit that applies to the British system, which is 5.35 m. Therefore, lorries have never hit bridges on the motorway system. As a haulier I have never hit a bridge. The people who have hit bridges tend to be those carrying cranes and other high machinery on the back of lorries. Those bridges were all built before the invention of the internal combustion engine. None of those bridges is to be found on the motorways. Bridges on the motorway system do not get hit by these high cube trucks and, if they did, they would be in pieces. People do not hit bridges as a matter of course. I do not know if that fully answers the Deputy's question.

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call Deputy Kenny, I want to bring our focus back to the proposal we are here to discuss, namely Directive 96/53/EC, which relates to the dimensions of vehicles. I understand it relates more the length of vehicles and that it will not affect the height of vehicles. Is that correct?

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

The European modular system, as I explained, is a truck and trailer. The Chairman is correct that the proposal relates more to the length than to the height of vehicles.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Gavin saying that this proposal will have an impact on competition and that it will affect his association's members?

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

The height aspect arises in that Europe is proposing a one-size-fits-all model. That is very good if one is living in the centre Germany where one has access-----

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mobile telephone interference affects the recording of the proceedings.

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

-----to a rail network for transporting one's goods. Passengers also have access to it or to the bus network. It is important that the European model is preserved and the concept is brought forward because it also preserves the national arrangements. For example, the UK has no height limit, France has a height limit of 4.25 m., the Nordic countries have their own limits and Ireland has height limit of 4.65 m. Therefore, from that point of view it is important to preserve the model. Those in Europe are speaking about the European modular system and the length of vehicles but it is important that Directive 96/53 does not impose restrictions on our current arrangements as well, and that is the fear.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the aspect on which we need to bring influence to bear. I want to get a sense of the concerns-----

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

It is twofold.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----about this and what effect it will have. Are Ireland's roads designed to cater for the types of trucks that would use them if this proposal was to go ahead?

Mr. Jerry Kiersey:

The issue is that Siim Kallas, the Transport Commissioner, sought to bring in a system, which has existed in the Nordic countries for the past 15 or 20 years, into the whole of Europe. The Dutch supported it and the Benelux countries, in general, supported it. However, he provoked Members of the European Parliament into total opposition to it because he had not followed due process, as they saw it. According to them, he bypassed the Parliament. The consequence of that is that a committee has come together and its rapporteur, Jörge Leichtfried, an Austrian, has sought now, because of Commissioner Kallas's mistake, to roll the whole process back. For instance, the Nordic countries have had an agreement for 15 years or more whereby these lorries can move between those states but Jörge Leichtfried is proposing it is illegal for states, irrespective of whether they have bilateral agreements in place, to allow certain trucks that exceed the European norms to cross borders, and that will affect Ireland, North and South. The driver of a lorry transporting cattle, as in the example given by Mr. Eoin Gavin, travelling from, say, Wexford to Belfast will have to stop at the Border where we have no border crossing. That is the outcome of what Jörge Leichtfried is proposing. He is seeing this proposal entirely through Austrian eyes rather than from the perspective of the whole of Europe. There are islands in Europe but he does not seem to acknowledge that fact.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The consequences of this proposal would be that trucks would have stop at the Border because they would be legal in Northern Ireland and they would be illegal in the South.

Mr. Jerry Kiersey:

They would be legal here. They are legal in both jurisdictions. In the Nordic countries the lorries are currently legal in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, and those countries all have bilateral agreements in place whereby these trucks can travel between those countries. If Jörge Leichtfried gets his way on this report - this is because of what Commissioner Siim Kallas has done according to Jörge Leichtfried - those lorries will have to stop at the borders discharge their cargos and load them onto other lorries. They will not be allowed to travel across borders even if there are bilateral agreements in place between those countries.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am getting clarification on this. Does Article 4 not allow cross-border travel between two member states?

Mr. Jerry Kiersey:

I agree with the Chairman but under this proposition it will be stopped. Mr. Leichtfried wishes to pull it back to a European norm.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just a little confused on the technicalities of this.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are all confused.

Mr. Jerry Kiersey:

It is complicated.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will come back to it. I want to bring in Deputy Kenny.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives of the Irish Road Haulage Association to the meeting. I welcome their frank and forthright comments particularly on the question of over-height vehicles. I represent a Dublin north city constituency. As the use of the port tunnel is restricted to only vehicles under 4.65 m high, vehicles over that height have to travel along Alfie Byrne Road, up the Malahide Road and along Collins Avenue and Griffith Avenue through high density residential areas. That has always been a source of annoyance and fear among the residents of that area. The ban which came into effect last Friday is welcomed by my constituents and I would be pleased if it were to remain in place and there was full compliance with it.

Reference was made to vehicles striking bridges. Some vehicles over the height limit of 4.65 m have struck bridges, particularly along the DART line which runs through my constituency. The DART service has been out of action during morning peak hours at times following a vehicle striking a bridge, and that was another argument for restricting the height of vehicles because of the danger posed. I accept Mr. Kiersey's point that these bridges were built during the Victorian era. Much of our infrastructure was also built around that time. There is a concern about the risk to public transport in Dublin if a vehicle damages a bridge and such damage also happens in other parts of the country. However, this city has a high density of population. Such risk is a concern and that is the reason over-height vehicles were a major concern.

Mr. Gavin mentioned the question of 20 ft. trucks with articulated trailers. Having cycled around this city for a long time, I am aware that the sight of such trucks instill fear in any cyclist. A 20 ft. truck passes out a cyclist and suddenly he or she sees the articulated trailer being pulled behind it. Quite a number of cyclists have been killed in those circumstances. That is the reason a ban on heavy goods vehicles, HGVs, was introduced in Dublin between the two canals, and the Garda enforce that ban. Anybody who wants to operate outside that ban must get a permit from Dublin City Council. The ban was introduced on the basis of safety concerns about cyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Statistics have shown that since it was introduced the number of fatal accidents in the city has dropped considerably. That is a credit to the road hauliers who have complied with the ban.

As Mr. Gavin said, this is all about road safety, greening our transport network while accepting that the haulage industry plays a vital road in the economy. As an island nation, our freight is not transported by rail, rather it is all transported by road. Unfortunately, the container terminal in Dublin Port was built on the south side of the port some years back. The rail head is on the north side of the port and somebody made the decision in respect of that. It removed the possibility of transporting many containers by rail because the container terminal was on the south side of the port. That meant that some trucks have to travel around the city and over the toll bridge and I believe they were exempt from having to pay the toll because of that.

Mr. Gavin raised some interesting questions about illegal haulage. It would be a matter of concern if some hauliers were operating illegally. Was Mr. Gavin referring to hauliers in Northern Ireland who transport goods form the North to Dublin Port? There is a good deal of cross-Border trade. He mentioned Foynes Port where it was said that some haulage operators were operating illegally.

I would like to know more about that because it would be of concern if the genuine compliant haulage operator were being undercut by someone operating illegally.

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

On Deputy Kenny's last point, what is happening is out-of-State operators, be they from the UK, Northern Ireland, Holland or Germany, are operating within the Twenty-six Counties without an Irish haulage licence. One needs a haulage licence to move goods from A to B in Ireland. These companies have licences to move goods in their own countries or to move goods from one country to another, for example, Ireland to Germany or Germany to Ireland but they do not have a licence to move within Ireland which is very important. We would appreciate if the committee would further investigate the matter because it is happening in Dublin Port every day of the week. Foynes was a very clean-cut example. We knew where the loads were coming from and going to. Hundreds of trucks go in and out of the port every day in Dublin and they are operating illegally. We are the only jurisdiction in Europe that is tolerating such activity. It is called breach of cabotage. If I as an Irish haulier bring a load to Germany I can pick up a load in Berlin and bring it to Frankfurt and I could pick up a load in Frankfurt and bring it to Cologne but I must then pick up a load in Cologne and bring it to Ireland or the UK. I cannot operate my base in Germany for obvious social reasons such as employment law, costs reasons and road tax. None of those parameters are being adhered to in this country. The Road Safety Authority chose not to enforce the law in that regard. We call on the committee to carry out a full investigation as to why that is the case.

In terms of the comments on the European modular system, of course a 25 m vehicle in Dublin city will not be possible. Because of the HGV ban one cannot drive in the city now anyway. What we are looking at is such lorries being used on the motorway network and the national routes. If one takes the examples of Marks & Spencer or big stores on Grafton Street, they need deliveries every morning for the people of the city. If it is decided to ban vehicles completely out of the city one is talking about 15 to 20 transit vans being required to bring produce with the attendant pollution and carbon footprint. One could also ask how many vans are involved in accidents with cyclists. There must be realistic goals and there cannot be scaremongering. Every road user must be respected and they must all work together. Efficiencies can be achieved by improved technologies. We seek the committee’s support on the introduction of new technologies and not an insistence on sticking to the model that has been in operation in Europe since 1950. That would not be right.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think any members of the committee are indicating so I will call Deputy Healy-Rae. We must be out of the room by noon and we have still to meet the Freight Transport Association of Ireland. I urge Deputy Healy-Rae and Deputy Naughten to confine their remarks to questions if possible.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank you for your indulgence, Chairman. The reason I wish to attend the meeting is that I have a particular interest in all of these matters because of the constituency I represent. Some of the changes that have been made already, such as the 4.65 m restriction in height will affect the farming industry in my county to a great extent because much fodder is brought in and the fact that the height of a trailer of bales must be reduced will increase the cost of transport. In terms of forestry, I have specific questions about Directive 96/53/EC. I refer to counties such as Kerry and Donegal and other places where, for example, timber must be transported from awkward places. Trailers are left outside and filled first and one has to go back and forth in order to make up a load. The impression I get in terms of what is emerging from Europe in regard to transport is that the shoe that fits the foot of Europe does not necessarily fit our foot. I am most concerned about the issue.

A number of years ago, in their infinite wisdom, politicians decided to do away with our rural rail network. That was a bad decision to make at the time and we are paying the price for it ever since. It is only the good work of the Irish Road Haulage Association and its members that has made up for it. I am concerned about the effect of lobbying by people around Europe who have an excellent rail network. Everyone has to bat for their own corner. In County Kerry every animal must be loaded onto a lorry in order to be transported. The Chairman referred to what will happen at borders. We could not tolerate a situation where animals would have to be unloaded and loaded again at borders. I am concerned about the implications of what is being discussed at present. I am not a member of the committee but I wish to express my strong concern and to offer my assistance to the Irish Road Haulage Association because it does invaluable work in ensuring that everything keeps moving around the country. It is important that the association is vibrant, hard working and on top of its game because it is required more than ever before. Leadership by the association is also required more than ever before to ensure that we will not be forgotten by decisions taken in Europe that would have a detrimental effect on the way we carry on our business, be it farming or retail. We must be vigilant about what is going on because the height restriction of 4.65 m will have a detrimental effect on my constituency.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I ask for further clarification from Mr. Kiersey? He can correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that while the COM as proposed would still allow for cross-border trade, the agenda that is being pushed by the European Parliament and its committee is to restrict it at the border. Am I correct in that regard?

Mr. Jerry Kiersey:

Yes.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is where the differentiation is in this regard, and what the Parliament is actually pushing but it all has implications for the COM. Mr. Kiersey can again correct me if I am wrong but the change will have considerable implications for the transport of bulky goods such as those connected with agriculture and forestry, as outlined by my colleague, Deputy Healy-Rae. Does that not have major implications for the live export of cattle from this country, in particular to the UK? We already have a significant problem in the UK with the Common Market in terms of live cattle because of the difficulty of killing them in the UK. If a transportation restriction is put on top of that, will it not compound the problem with the Common Market in terms of live exports of cattle?

I accept the witnesses do not want to get into detail on the height restriction of 4.65 m but I wish to ask a specific question about it. The restriction has implications for the entire haulage industry, in particular for agriculture in terms of the transport of hay and straw because when one puts a third row of bales on a truck it will be over the threshold. One must reduce the capacity of the vehicle by one third. I presume what a lot of hauliers will consider is attaching a trailer to make up the difference. Will that not have implications if what is being proposed is then replicated or transcribed into regulations in this country in the future? Do we not have to examine the industry not just from the perspective of the overall industry but the implications it has for particular sectors?

You will be aware, Chairman, of McHale’s in County Mayo. Their baler produces a bale that is approximately 6 in. bigger than the standard 4 ft. bale. That makes financial sense as it reduces the amount of plastic that must be used on the bales. There are implications for the transport of such bales. The producers of bales in the southern part of the country will not buy or use McHale balers because of the difficulty in transporting them. That has implications for manufacturing jobs in this country. Mr. Kiersey gave an example earlier. There are unintended consequences of decisions made in the transport sector that have implications on the viability of agriculture in terms of live exports but also for manufacturing jobs in the west if such a measure is implemented, enforced and has an impact on the day-to-day work of agriculture in particular.

With regard to the use of the tachograph, there is a derogation in agriculture for the transport of animals from marts. Would that get around the height restriction difficulties in some sectors in the transport of hay, silage and straw but also regarding the live export of animals? Is that a potential solution in respect of this issue-----

Mr. Jerry Kiersey:

No.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and if not, why not?

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

I thank the Deputies for their comments. Deputy Healy-Rae asked about the impact on his constituency. It would mean more truck movements, the cost of tonnes per kilometre would increase and fewer tonnes would be going on each vehicle, whether it be the timber or agriculture industry.

To respond to Deputy Naughten's comments, in terms of the weanling trade out of the west to France and Spain, all those vehicles are extra long and extra high. If this one shoe fits all European proposal is brought forward, it will have a detrimental effect on our live export trade. It would mean that at the first stop, the border of Rosslare Port, animals would have to be unloaded and put onto the lower trucks, which is crazy.

People need to think outside the box on this issue. We are very dependent on road transport here. Therefore, we must do what is best for road transport. Some of the other countries in Europe are not as dependent on road transport. Even though 80% of goods move across Europe on trucks, 20% move across Europe using alternative modes. The systems in Europe should complement each other. The train works with the truck, the canal works with the train and with the truck but that is not referred to in this report. What is happening is that one strong lobby group is putting its foot down on stopping innovation and the greening of the transport sector in general. It has implications for everybody from County Kerry to the north of Finland. What it means is more trucks on the road and more fumes. There will be a driver shortage in 2020. Our average truck driver age is 50, therefore, we must try to combat this measure. The goods will still have to move. Consumerism is increasing. A common sense approach must be taken on this, which will affect many different areas.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of clarification, I ask Mr. Gavin to reiterate what he has just said about the live export trade. That message, which is vitally important, should go from this room to the entire country because many people are not aware of it. It is a vitally important issue. It is important to the Chairman also, as is all the work he does here, but any decision made that will be in any way detrimental or that will put an extra cost on the export of our cattle and sheep-----

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would close it down.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----could be more important to discuss here than the issue under consideration. I would like Mr. Gavin to reiterate what he said and be clear about it because it is an important message to send out.

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

Irish live cattle exports, whether to France, Italy or Spain, currently move on the backs of our members, Irish road hauliers, through the port of Rosslare because the Celtic Link ferry is the only ferry that will take them. We cannot transit the United Kingdom with them. They leave the port of Rosslare for the port of Cherbourg every Wednesday and Saturday. Those vehicles are extra long. They are truck and trailer, and they are extra high. They are over 4 m high for the double and treble decks. In terms of someone exporting 100 weanlings today, if the rapporteur had his way in standardising the vehicle size to a standard 4 m by 13.6 m application, we would be talking about 20% fewer animals on that truck.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Gavin said that would be if the rapporteur had his way but that is not the COM proposal.

Mr. Eoin Gavin:

That is correct. Therefore, we have to nip this in the bud.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What we have to decide on, and we will make our decisions after we meet both groups, is the COM proposal. There is no doubt the other issues will have to be addressed by the committee but I want to make sure that everybody is clear on what is required.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to be on the ball, Chairman.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on the ball but to be on the ball I need to get everybody in so at this stage-----

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chairman, is it correct that it is possible for us to make an observation that we do not want this provision to form part of the COM proposal as part of our yellow card? We can do that in regard to our commentary.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Deputy repeat that?

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we decide to issue a yellow card in regard to this issue, is it not within the jurisdiction of the committee to make a recommendation that what is being proposed by the rapporteur would not form part of the final COM proposal?

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I would imagine that is within our remit.

Mr. Jerry Kiersey:

That is the reason we are here, namely, to get the committee to take that stance.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Gavin and Mr. Kiersey for attending and giving the association's views on the Commission proposal. It is an important function when we are teasing out these proposals that we hear the views of the people on the ground. I thank the witnesses for their presentation on that. We will consider our position on the Commission proposal after we have heard from the Freight Transport Association Ireland. We will suspend the meeting for one minute to allow the next witnesses to come in.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now hear the views of the Freight Transport Association Ireland, FTAI, on COM (2013) 195, an EU legislative proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic. As agreed at last week’s meeting, following consideration of the letter submitted by the FTAI on the ending on 1 November 2013 of the derogation on the height of trucks provided for in SI 366 of 2008, we will also hear from the FTAI in regard to its proposal for the introduction of a permit system which would allow for trucks greater than 4.65 m in height to continue to operate on Irish roads.

On behalf of the committee I would like to welcome Mr. Aidan Flynn, Mr. Tom Wilson, Mr. Peter Scallan and Mr. Huw Jenkins of the Freight Transport Association of Ireland. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also wish to advise you that any submission or opening statements you have submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website after this meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call on Mr. Flynn to make the opening statement.

Mr. Aidan Flynn:

The Freight Transport Association of Ireland, FTAI, thanks the committee for its invitation to present to it on this important matter. The FTAI is a not-for-profit membership trade association for the Irish freight and logistics industry and covers all aspects of private and public freight transport, passenger transport and logistics supply chain including road, rail, sea and air.

Directive 96/53/EC governs the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles in circulation throughout the EU.

Current proposals amending the directive would affect the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic, as well as the maximum authorised weights in international traffic. The FTAI supports the proposed amendments to Directive 96/53/EC in so far as they encourage the use of hybrid and multi-fuel vehicles, encourage the manufacture of more aerodynamic and fuel-efficient vehicles and encourage the manufacture of vehicles that are safer from a pedestrian, cyclist and driver perspective and which improve overall road safety. The FTAI opposes any amendment to Article 4 that would prohibit the free circulation across borders between two consenting states of vehicles outside the dimensions laid down in Annex I to Directive 96/53/EC.

As members are aware, in Ireland SI 366 of 2008 was signed into effect on 1 November 2008. It specified that a maximum vehicle height of 4.65 m would apply to all vehicles from 1 November 2013, thereby allowing existing vehicles in excess of that height to wash out of the system. Companies using what are known as high cube vehicles are mostly, but not solely, involved in the inter-depot movement of laundry, medical supplies, hanging garments, white goods, car transport, pre-packed fresh and frozen meals, horticulture, furniture, DIY, electrical, information technology and electronic goods, toys and paper products. The removal of vehicles in excess of 4.65 m from the roads will increase the total number of vehicle movements, in some cases very substantially, and this increase will adversely affect those urban areas through which HGVs already circulate. The beneficiaries of the removal of these high vehicles are those in three small areas around the Dublin Port tunnel, Limerick and Jack Lynch tunnels, though the latter two are not residential areas. However, those who will suffer even more following the removal of high vehicles are everywhere on the motorway network and in the regional towns. In the case of car transport, vehicle movements will increase by approximately 35%, while in the case of laundry, the effect will be up to 68% in increased movements.

However, the FTAI acknowledges the requirement to legislate for maximum vehicle heights and dimensions and supports a maximum standard vehicle height of 4.65 m. We consider the most logical way to accommodate these two positions is to legislate for a controlled permit regime for operators of high vehicles on fixed routes, similar to the abnormal loads regime that currently exists among local authorities. As the abnormal loads regime is highly variable between local authorities, this requires standardisation. The FTAI recommends consideration of the electronic service delivery for abnormal loads, ESDAL, system currently used in the UK.

In consideration of the current proposals included in Directive 96/53/EC, the potential exists to mitigate the effect of reducing vehicle height by adopting longer heavier vehicles under the European modular system. However, this will not provide an adequate solution for the loss of cubic capacity resulting from the removal of trailers over 4.65 m. Based on National Road Authority, NRA, traffic count statistics that are publically available on its website, the busiest junctions on the M50 are between Finglas and Parkwest southbound between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m., and this is reversed in the evenings northbound between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. Based on current HGV volumes, there typically are between 350 and 500 movements per hour during those periods. On the basis that approximately 20% of current movements take place using HGVs in excess of 4.65 m and assuming displacement of these will result in an additional 40% of vehicle movements - both these estimates are conservative - this will increase peak hourly volumes on the north-west section of the M50 to between 374 and 540 movements per hour. The FTAI recommends that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport should facilitate the introduction of a controlled and limited permit regime to allow the use of vehicles in excess of 4.65 m in height on a defined route and use basis.

As for the proposed amendment to Directive 96/53/EC, the FTAI wishes to make the following points. The most serious proposed amendment to the directive is that to Article 4, which would prohibit cross-border transport between member states of vehicles which deviated from the dimensions laid down in Annex I. Specifically, this would prohibit the cross-border movement of vehicles in excess of 4 m in height. The 4 m vehicle height is standard among European cross-border road transport operations, where access to tunnels with a standard 4 m height restriction is required. Depending on the fleet of the specific operator, this measure would affect up to 90% of the semi-trailers in use in the Irish fleet and would have major cost implications for cross-border operations and for seaborne freight across the Irish Sea. The increase in articulated vehicle movements through the Dublin Port tunnel, DPT, and onto the M50 would be substantial and would seriously congest the M50 southbound following inbound ferry dockings. Different EU geographies require differing logistical solutions. Central European networks will require a different modal mix to Ireland. The original proposed amendments to the directive permitted cross-border movements of vehicles outside the dimensions laid down in Annex I. However, the Leichtfried proposal is most unwelcome, is highly damaging from both an import and export viewpoint and must be robustly opposed. The FTAI has suggested a more appropriate text for this amendment.

The FTAI is broadly satisfied with proposals which accommodate the use of alternative fuels. It is in favour of the unrestricted circulation of 45 ft. containers throughout the Union and therefore, this proposal should be clarified in that respect. We accept the reduction in dimensions of maximum permitted rearward aerodynamic extensions to 500 mm; this reflects the reality of current vehicle design and construction limitations. This matter is rightly one for the consideration of the EC technical group. We strongly support the certification of aerodynamic extensions within the type approval process. Certification would mean that devices would need to actually work and so would prevent manufacturers flooding the market place with devices which may not. We strongly support such modifications to vehicles that improve visibility for drivers. We support the manufacturing of such modifications to vehicles that improve vehicle safety. The FTAI also gives a qualified welcome to the introduction of onboard weighing devices to vehicles of categories N2 and N3. However, we would need to see the details of such proposals and to consult our members on them. The proposal to apply the increase in maximum authorised mass generally to all multi-fuel vehicles, rather than to particular sectors, is welcomed.

I thank members and will be happy to take questions.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Flynn. Am I correct in summarising his presentation by stating the FTAI has many of the concerns raised at the previous presentation but that the issue of the permit particularly affects a number of the FTAI's members?

Mr. Tom Wilson:

If I may respond, the FTAI has been in dialogue with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and in particular with its Minister, Deputy Varadkar for the past three years in the knowledge that this regulation, SI 366 of 2008, was coming through on 1 November 2013. We explained to the Minister the huge impact this would have on trade in Ireland, the possibility of companies relocating into the North of Ireland, as well as other factors, some of which already have been mentioned already. Basically, the Minister asked why were we were talking about this. Our response was that in 2008 or whenever this law was created, things were good. We then went into a period of severe austerity and those people were obliged to do things more efficiently, more cleverly and more economically and we still are in that position today. We still are recovering from the downturn in the economy and consequently, we stated the appropriate solution for this was that these vehicles would only travel on primary routes from the port or from the North down, using the motorway network on which, as members have heard, the bridge clearance is 5.3 m.

In addition, as an Irish solution to this problem, we suggested the Minister would allow these vehicles to continue to operate under a special permit scheme that was quite different to the existing abnormal loads permit scheme, which is completely unsuited for this solution. The point is that in allowing this to happen, we would continue to recover from the economic position, would continue to save jobs in Ireland and most certainly would help to keep our carbon footprint low. We must be mindful of the fact that come 2020, every European country, including Ireland, must reduce its carbon footprint by approximately 80% and if one considers the most recent air quality figures for the greater Dublin area, we are very close to having infraction proceedings placed on us. Were we to proceed with this measure that restricts the 20% of vehicular movements that at present are undertaken in vehicles of more than 4.64 m, we would be worsening the air quality for all those people in north Dublin. We very much hope the Minister will agree to allow these vehicles to continue under a special permit arrangement.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At this stage, I will allow Deputy Seán Kenny to contribute.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We appear to be trying to reopen the debate about the 4.65 m height. We had that debate previously when the Dublin Port tunnel was being finalised. I was chairman of Dublin City Council's transport strategic policy committee at the time and I remember there was a great deal of consultation. The city council, after that consultation, agreed on the height. I note the Department and then Minister for Transport also agreed on that height, and that set the parameter for over-height vehicles in the State. As was stated, many years notice was given to the transport sector that it would have to make other arrangements to deal with that.

Mr. Wilson is suggesting that a special permit system be introduced to get around the restriction. He spoke of three small areas in Dublin. I represent one of those constituencies and those living there would not regard it as a small area. The over-height vehicles come from the port up Alfie Byrne Road, onto the Malahide Road and, maybe, along the N32 to get onto the M50, traversing the full length of the Malahide Road. That is not a small area. Alternatively, they use Collins Avenue and Griffith Avenue to get to the west. These residents have lived with that problem for many years and now it is no longer permissible, and the road haulage sector will have to comply with that. The sector has had many years notice of this and I accept it has a problem.

Mr. Wilson spoke of the vehicles being washed out. He stated that those vehicles licensed under the new permit system would travel by a defined route. He did not specify that defined route and I want to know what defined route he has in mind.

He did not mention bridge strikes, which happen in the city now and again - but, thankfully, not frequently - and often have an effect on the DART commuter service, sometimes knocking out the service for a couple of hours, perhaps during morning peak time. That has always been an argument against over-height vehicles.

I take the point that much of this infrastructure was built during Victorian times when we did not have the type of vehicles we have now, but in cities, particularly in high-density residential areas, residents do not want to see over-height vehicles coming up through their streets. The port tunnel has been built and there is the heavy goods vehicle strategy banning HGVs between the canals except where they have a special permit, yet the sector is now arguing for another permit system. That raises many serious questions. I thought we had resolved the matter and that compliance with the new heights would be a fact of life, and I think we are now talking about changing that.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been in place since 1 November. Obviously, we are getting into the nitty-gritty of the matter. Perhaps Mr. Scallan wants to respond.

Mr. Peter Scallan:

I thank Deputy Seán Kenny for his comments. My company is based in Wexford and employs 430 staff in Ballinasloe, Carlow, Dublin and Cork, but the majority are in Wexford. We are a rurally based company in an area with employment difficulties. We have been employing people there for nearly 90 years and we hope to continue to do so. It is increasingly difficult to be an employer in rural areas when one sees regulations such as this that tend to favour those operating in a city, where there is a natural infrastructure of motorways. Many of our goods travel across the country. Regulations that were brought in because of the Dublin Port tunnel are affecting our ability to transfer goods from the south east to the north west.

In our 17 years of operating double-deck vehicles, we have never had a bridge strike. Having spoken to the operators of the bridges, including Irish Rail, I am aware that bridge strikes arise almost exclusively from construction machinery that is not properly loaded or ad hoc loads. They do not arise from double-deck trailers or high cube trailers such as those operated by my company. Our routes are run like bus routes. It is the same route every day. There are only three routes: Wexford to Ballinasloe, Wexford to Cork, and Wexford to Tallaght. For all of those, national primary routes are used, with many of our vehicles travelling at night, and the loads are then broken down into smaller distributions. Because of the Dublin Port tunnel, however, we can no longer ship our goods under these efficient systems. We will increase our carbon footprint by 40%, we will increase our emissions by 40% and we will increase our road footprint by slightly more. With return trips, those living in Enniscorthy must put up with our trucks making 4,000 crossings of Enniscorthy bridge every year. Because of the restriction of 4.65 m, those 4,000 crossings will increase to 6,500.

Mr. Huw Jenkins:

I thank the committee for allowing me to attend today. I represent Dealz. The residents about whom Deputy Seán Kenny spoke who, quite rightly, have concerns about the welfare of the citizens in that area will see a significantly increased volume of traffic in comparison to which the possibly 2 cm or 3 cm of extra height we are talking about pales into insignificance. We may well be talking about concerns among his residents about the volume of traffic, not the height of the vehicles, going through those areas.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to see if there is some consensus. Mr. Scallan states that a permit system that would enable his company to transport its goods would not affect the situation of which Deputy Seán Kenny spoke. In other words, there is a solution that will not change anything.

Mr. Peter Scallan:

We accepted the blanket 4.65 m restriction, but there are companies - my company is merely an example - that are running regular scheduled routes with compliance and with well-trained drivers that are not causing bridge strikes, that are not operating in an irresponsible manner and that respect the social environment, and we wish to continue to operate in that way.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue of bridge strikes seems to be something that keeps arising. How much data are there on the number of bridge strikes that such vehicles have caused? I am merely trying to get a handle on it. It seems to be coming back to bridge strikes. Much evidence seems to be based on that. I want to try to ascertain what analysis there is about the bridge strikes.

Mr. Peter Scallan:

I do not have specific figures on bridge strikes. This is anecdotal evidence, based on conversations with the owners of the bridges, that the bridge strikes are caused by ad hoc loads such as construction machinery and scrap. They are not coming from scheduled high cube or double-deck trailers. Under the protocols operated by companies such as mine and those of my colleagues, the drivers are trained, the routes are mapped out and there is a protocol, if there is a temporary diversion, whereby the truck pulls in to the side of the road instead of adhering to a temporary diversion. That is why our companies have zero bridge strikes.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I received an e-mail from Irish Rail which disputes the fact that the bridge strikes are ad hoc occurrences involving, for example, some builder with a crane. I can get Irish Rail's statistics and look at them again, but it states it is not merely an ad hoc occurrence that happens because of a crane or something like that, and that there is more to it than that. I accept that Mr. Scallan's company is thorough about it and is not involved in that. Thankfully, it does not happen too frequently, but it does happen.

To get back to the permit system, at present there is a permit system which is enforced by Dublin City Council and the Garda. There is a joint policing committee in the north-central area of the city. It held a meeting last month which was taken up with this question of the enforcement.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that one must get a series of permits along the way, for example, from Wexford to Ballinasloe. Am I correct in that interpretation, and that this increases the amount of administration required?

Mr. Peter Scallan:

That is correct. There are seven permits required because it involves transiting seven counties. In some of those counties, one can get an annual permit for €300 or €400. Waterford is another example. There, it costs €117,000 per annum because the system is based on individual permits.

It is €300 through Offaly whereas it is €117,000 through Waterford to do the same job. There is no consistency with the permits. The paperwork is different for every county and the fees are different essentially for the same job.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The suggestion is that the permit system should be regularised.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should be made consistent throughout all counties.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Travelling through a high density residential area is totally different from travelling from Wexford to Ballinasloe so we are not comparing like with like. One would have to have a system for a high density residential area and another for cross-country travel. Most towns have a bypass now so there is not as much traffic going through them as there was heretofore.

I was making a point on the north-central area of Dublin city. We had a meeting last month with the Garda chief superintendent. He was emphatic that as and from 1 November, the permits would not be allowed and that the 4.65 m height would have to apply. There is a long-standing notice to that effect given to the entire haulage industry. The day has now arrived and people are trying to change the system.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The points have been well made.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Scallan put across very well the difficulty with the restriction to 4.65 m. It is all well and good and will not make a huge difference if one has an extra few trucks going to Tallaght or Cork in that there is a pretty decent road infrastructure. Sadly, however, from Wexford to Ballinasloe there is a glorified cart-track; it is nothing more than that. To put at least 40% more vehicles on that road is nothing short of appalling. It is putting lives and communities at risk and is placing an additional cost on an industry that is under great pressure already. The road in question brings motorists across three of the major rail routes, namely the Dublin–Cork, Dublin–Limerick and Dublin–Galway lines. Surely, therefore, there could be a compromise. I accept Deputy Kenny's point that we should not have heavy goods vehicles going through residential areas, except in very rare and exceptional circumstances involving an oversized load that must be carried on a rare occasion. The current permit system deals with that.

Let us consider point-to-point delivery, not just in regard to the haulage business but also in regard to the issue that has now been raised. Bales of hay are now much bigger, which has implications. Hauliers carrying them did not realise the implications until the provision actually kicked in. Had the restriction been in place earlier this year, it would have imposed a huge additional financial burden on farmers, irrespective of the implications for jobs.

With regard to implications for jobs, I have two questions, one of which is on the export contracts for goods that are slightly oversized. An example arises in the Chairman's constituency. McHale balers produce a bale slightly bigger than the standard size. McHale employs 500 people and has an annual turnover of €55 million, and it operates in 40 countries. The measure has implications not only for the purchase of McHale balers but also for the export of the company's product. These implications have not been fully considered.

Reducing the capacity of vehicles by 20% in regard to the weanling trade from the west to continental Europe would undermine the viability of that trade. It would decimate agriculture west of the River Shannon. There are major implications. As Mr. Jerry Kiersey mentioned earlier, there are unintended consequences that have not been thought through. We need to issue a yellow card, at a minimum, and highlight our concerns to ensure that the proposal as currently drafted is implemented and that there will not be any tinkering with regard to Article 4 and some of the other issues regarding height.

Mr. Huw Jenkins:

Deputy Naughten talked about practical implications. I am representing Dealz, the retailer. In the past two years, we have invested over €8.2 million in this country and we intend to invest more. The impact of what was done last Friday with the legislation is costing me approximately €25,000 to €30,000 per week. That will absolutely determine where we open stores next. We desperately want to increase our employment. We employ over 750 people in this country and want and intend to increase this to 1,000 by the end of the financial year. We believe we do a good job. We are serving 30 million customers per week and want to continue to do that. The measure will have a direct impact on where we go next.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Flynn, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Scallan and Mr. Jenkins for attending and giving their views on COM (2013) 195. We will take their views on board when deciding on what course of action to take. I thank them for explaining the detail on the dilemma faced by the Freight Transport Association of Ireland's members who use trucks higher than 4.65 m.

We will now go into private session where we must now decide on our next action and make a recommendation to the Minister, who will make the ultimate decision. I thank the delegates for their presentations.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now resume in public session to deal with COM (2013) 195, which is an EU legislative proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996, laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic. Does the committee agree that we will proceed on the basis decided, that is, that we will write seeking clarification concerning Article 4 of the proposal? Agreed.

If there is no other business, we will now adjourn the meeting until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 when we will meet representatives of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. Is that agreed? Agreed.