asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will state the number of applications for new merchandise licences received from Achill Island and the Corraun peninsula in the year 1959, and the dates of these applications; the number granted, the date of grants and the basis of selection of the successful applicants; the reason for the granting of these licences and the necessity for them, having regard to the facilities there available; whether at the date of granting these licences prosecutions were pending against all or any of the successful applicants; and whether he is aware that the livelihood of existing hauliers has been jeopardised, and, if so, whether he will consider the revocation of all or some of those licences.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Achill Island Merchandise Licences.
26.
The answers to the Deputy's queries are as follows:
(a)In the year 1959 to date, seventeen applications for new merchandise licences were received from persons resident in Achill Island and Corraun Peninsula. The applications were received on various dates from 4th February to 10th September, 1959.
(b)Licences were granted to all applicants—eight in number— whose applications were received prior to 20th April, 1959, the date on which it was decided to grant additional licences in the area.
(c)The licences were granted, in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 of the Transport Act, 1944, on the grounds that the existing road transport facilities in the area were inadequate. C.I.E. are not interested in local transport within this area. Prior to 1959, there was only one licensed haulier in the Achill area and there was no other licensed haulier within 30 miles. His licence was confined to the carriage of turf, fish, seaweed, lime and limestone in Achill Island and was granted in 1940 because of the inadequacy of transport facilities in the area. He was not an "existing carrier" within the meaning of the Road Transport Act 1933. He had no entitlement to his licence by virtue of having carried on a road merchandise business prior to the introduction of licensing. On the grounds of inadequacy of transport, he was granted a new licence on 8th January, 1959, entitling him to carry all classes of merchandise. This did not, however, confer on him a prescriptive right to a monopoly of transport in this area.
The eight additional licences are confined to the carriage of stone, sand, gravel, seaweed, building materials, manures and agricultural produce in the area of Achill Island and Corraun Peninsula.
The number of prosecutions which were pending against the successful applicants at the date the licences were granted is a matter for the Minister for Justice.
Does the Minister agree that there were prosecutions pending against some or against any of the successful applicants at the time of the granting of the licences?
That is a matter for the Minister for Justice.
Does the Minister not know of his own knowledge that there were prosecutions, in fact, pending against some of these applicants at the time his Department granted the licences to them?
In actual fact, even if there were, there is no statutory provision preventing these people from receiving licences. As the Deputy knows, prior to the granting of this particular licence in 1939, the position was that there had been no arrangements made under the Transport Act for the provision of transport licences in the area.
Does the Minister not agree that on the whole his answer reveals a state of affairs that is contrary to the whole spirit of the Transport Acts? The use of one section to prevent the operation of another in a court of justice at that time is certainly contrary to the spirit of the Act and the spirit of justice. Does the Minister not agree with that?
The Deputy has a complete misconception of the situation in regard to transport.
The Deputy is not under any misconception. Arising out of the Minister's reply, any misconception there might be must be on the side of the Minister and the public as a result of the Minister's action.