asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that considerable apprehension has been created by his action in North Mayo under the Emergency Powers (Mechanically Propelled Vehicles) (Scheduled Areas) Order, 1942; and whether he will undertake that there is no present intention to restrict the right of mercantile firms and individuals to operate their own motor transport for the transport of their own goods after the present emergency has passed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - North Mayo Motor Transport.
I would refer the Deputy to my statement in Dáil Eireann on 15th October, 1942, in which I made it clear that the scheduled area scheme has been devised to cope with circumstances created by the emergency and does not represent any decision in the matter of post-war transport policy.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, is he in a position now to give the House a specific undertaking that there is no present intention to restrict the right of mercantile firms and individuals to operate their own motor transport for the transport of their own goods after the present emergency has passed?
I will refer the Deputy to the statement I made on the 15th October last. I would not be prepared to give the Deputy a "yes" or "no" answer to his question. The statement I made then concerning the emergency scheme in operation in North Mayo is that it is designed to deal with the emergency only. The general problem of public transport after the war must be dealt with by whatever Government is then in power.
My question was whether there is a present intention to restrict the rights of mercantile firms and individuals to operate their own motor transport for the transport of their own goods after the emergency. Has the Government in mind any proposal to prevent citizens doing that? Surely the Minister can tell us that?
I decline to answer that question. I will refer the Deputy to the report of the Transport Tribunal.
I am not asking what they decided.
This Government, or any Government that is in office when the war is over, must have regard to the report of that tribunal, and must make its decisions in the light of the circumstances that will then exist, together with the recommendations of the tribunal.
I should like to point out that there were two reports, but whatever the tribunal may report, surely there can be no intention on the part of any sane Government to prohibit a man from carrying his own goods, or constrain him to deal with a monopoly created by that Government?
There is no such decision implied in the Government's action to deal with conditions arising out of the emergency. The Deputy must not put the matter further than that, because he will not get an answer.
Am I to take it that the Minister has not made up his mind?
I have made it quite clear that the post-war policy must be formulated in the light of the circumstances then existing.
And a decision to prohibit a citizen from carrying his own goods is envisaged?
The Deputy must not try to trap me into making a statement of that kind. I did not make any such statement. I am not prepared to tie the hands of this or any other Government in relation to post-war policy.
But you leave that course open?
The Deputy is not trying to be honest.
I am trying to be honest.