Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Apr 2009

Vol. 680 No. 3

Adjournment Debate.

Haulage Licensing.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing us to raise this issue on the Adjournment. We are of the view that there is a need for the Minister to review the circumstances surrounding the granting of an international haulage licence to a convicted drug dealer and also that this licence should be revoked with immediate effect.

This extraordinary case has been bubbling up for a number of years but it has recently begun to come to the boil. Many aspects of the case relate to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, there are some which relate to the Department of Transport. The latter took the major decision to grant Kieran Boylan, a notorious drug dealer with convictions in Britain and Ireland, a licence to conduct his business as a haulage contractor. This matter was brought to the attention of the Department of Transport in 2003 and 2008 — on both occasions a licence was granted — by which time the gentleman in question had been convicted in respect of attempting to supply €750,000 worth of heroine and cocaine that was seized in the docklands area of my constituency. On 31 July 2008 a nolle prosequi was entered by the Attorney General in very strange circumstances. Having been granted a licence in September 2008, the same gentleman applied to have the name which appears on it changed into the Irish form. This all took place despite the fact that there were clear breaches of the rules and guidelines surrounding the granting of international haulage licences.

As everyone is aware, Mr. Boylan's convictions are of the most serious kind. Cocaine and heroine have caused a great deal of destruction among the communities of my constituency and that of the Minister of State, Deputy Curran. To grant an international haulage licence to someone convicted of the crime of supplying drugs could only compound the problem. It is extraordinary that such a licence was granted without the most stringent examination being carried out in the first instance.

The Minister appeared to indicate that accurate information was not provided. He must provide the House with a full explanation with regard to what exactly transpired in this case. What were the circumstances in which the licence was initially granted and then renewed and transferred into the Irish version of the gentleman's name? What information did the Garda provide in respect of this matter? Was the Department misled? If so, why was that the case and who was responsible? The Minister must get to the bottom of this matter.

Pending the outcome of the full inquiry, the Minister has at his disposal sufficient prima facie evidence — in the form of his admission to the Department in respect of his convictions — that the man in question is not a suitable person to hold an international haulage licence. As a result, that licence should be revoked forthwith.

This is an important, serious and disturbing case, at the heart of which lies the failure of the Government and the Departments of Transport and Justice, Equality and Law Reform to do their job. The Government, through those Departments, has failed to protect the public. As Deputy Costello stated, drugs destroy families and communities. It is unforgivable that Ministers failed to ensure adequate protocols were in place to check the records of those applying for international haulage licences for evidence of criminal convictions. The Government failed utterly to carry out such checks and also to protect the public. As a consequence, the drugs that were imported to this country via our ports — on lorries and by other means — will destroy many lives in the communities in which we live. The Government has utterly failed with regard to its duty of care in this regard.

The litany of circumstances and situations relating to this case is unbelievable. For example, how can an applicant for an international haulage licence conceal the fact that he served a nine-month sentence in England in 2001 or that he had a conviction for dangerous driving in respect of which he had been disqualified from driving for two years? How could this individual be granted an international haulage licence before the end of his two-year driving ban? This man did not disclose that he had an existing conviction for dangerous driving. However, the authorities failed to uncover the relevant information in that regard. How in the name of God did he obtain the licence?

Why are applications for haulage licences not automatically referred to the Garda for its approval? Why was this man's licence not withdrawn by the Department of Transport in 2004 when, following a complaint, his previous convictions — including that relating to dangerous driving — came to light? The regulations are clear in this regard and state that such an offence will result in an automatic disqualification. The Department knew the position but did not disqualify this man and he continued to drive and carry out his business. Who is protecting this individual?

Good repute checks were carried out in respect of this man in 2006 and 2007. We have not been informed with regard to why these checks were carried out. The report we received does not comment on this aspect of the matter. Why did the Garda not respond to the Department in respect of the check carried out in 2006? How can such a failure to respond be acceptable? This gentleman is a convicted drug dealer who was sentenced in the Central Criminal Court in 2006 to five years in prison, with two years suspended. In such circumstances, how was it possible for him to renew his international road haulage licence in 2008?

The regulations to which I referred earlier clearly indicate that any person who has been charged with an indictable offence is not fit to hold an international haulage licence. However, such a licence was issued. This man had a conviction for dangerous driving but was still granted a licence. He had been convicted of an indictable offence but the Department gave him a licence and then did not revoke it.

I agree with the points raised by Deputies Costello and O'Dowd. It appears the documentation released by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, leaves no doubt that members of the Garda Síochána misled officials of his Department regarding the granting of a licence to the individual in question. Equally disturbing is the ease with which the officials of the Department of Transport accepted the unsatisfactory answers provided by the Garda and granted the licence.

There is a cover-up in respect of this matter. Information had to be dragged out of the Garda at every turn regarding the man in question. There are inexplicable time lapses on the file relating to this matter and these must be addressed. In addition, a number of issues were not dealt with in the course of the application. Certain aspects of the case stink. We are seeking that answers be provided. We do not want inquiries or the issue to be fudged. The Minister for Transport was asked about this matter on Friday last and has still not made a decision in respect of it. Having regard to the facts already on file, I am of the view there is sufficient evidence to warrant the revocation of this man's licence with immediate effect.

What telephone conversations or meetings took place between members of the Garda Síochána and officials of the Department of Transport? Why was reference not made on the man's file to the serious charges relating to events at Dublin Port? The man in question served a total of seven and a half years in prison in Britain but this did not appear to be relevant. In addition, he passed a good repute test administered by the Department of Transport. The Minister for Transport stated that at no stage in the past had any prosecutions been taken against him in respect of his livelihood as a professional road transport operator. Would Deputy O'Dowd's point regarding the conviction for dangerous driving not be fundamental in that regard? At no stage in the past did the gardaí raise or link in any correspondence issues relating to his good repute as a professional road transport operator. A drug dealer passes a test of good repute? Then the fudge comes, that the constitutional right to earn a livelihood could not be taken away lightly. It has not been taken away at all, the opposite has happened, this man has been facilitated in what he has been proven to do in the international road haulage business having regard to his convictions.

Aspects of this are incredible and explanations must be provided by the Government. Ministerial responsibility must be seen to take effect and the licence must be revoked immediately.

A road haulage operator's licence is granted under section 2 of the Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006 and entitles the holder to carry on a road haulage business for hire or reward. Further statutory regulations govern various details regarding the application process. An international licence enables the holder to carry goods for hire and reward throughout Ireland and the European Union.

The core criteria for the grant of a road haulage operator's licence are contained in the European Communities (Merchandise Road Transport) Regulations 1991. These state that the applicant must satisfy the criteria of sound financial standing, good repute, and professional competence. Regulation 7 of these regulations sets down the considerations to be taken into account when determining whether an applicant for a road haulage licence is of "good repute". These regulations also have a list of "relevant offences" outlined in the first schedule that are to be taken into account when deciding whether an applicant satisfies the requirements on good repute.

An application was received from the individual in question for an international road haulage operator's licence on 12 May 2008. The applicant indicated that he had one conviction on 15 February 2006 under section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act for an offence committed on 2 December 2003, for which he was sentenced to five years imprisonment with the last two years suspended. Section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 relates to the possession of controlled drugs for unlawful sale or supply. On inspection of all the accompanying documentation, all other aspects of the application, including accounts relating to financial standing, tax clearance certificate and accompanying documents and affidavits, were found to be in order.

When determining an application for a road haulage operator licence, regard shall be taken as to whether the applicant has relevant convictions in the immediate five year period preceding the application. On foot of the applicant's self declaration of his conviction in his application form, the Garda was requested to undertake a good repute check on 12 May 2008 on this individual. In addition, further clarification was sought from the Garda in June and again in July and August 2008 on foot of the responses received from it. On 30 July 2008, the Garda advised that no evidence was given at his trial that the applicant's haulage company was involved in the commission of the offences for which he was convicted, and that he had not come under notice for breaches of road transport legislation.

Arising from some press reports in August about the applicant, it was unclear to the Department whether there were other charges pending or if some charges previously mentioned had been struck out. Accordingly, the officials wrote again to the Garda Síochána in August asking it to indicate the Garda's view about the applicant's good repute and his suitability to be granted a licence.

In the response received at the end of August, the Garda indicated that the applicant had been charged with breaches of sections 3, 15, 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 in the Circuit Criminal Court 29 on 15 February 2006. The judge sentenced him to five years' imprisonment on each charge backdated to 20 September 2005, with sentences to run concurrently. The response also said that the judge suspended the final two years of the sentence on condition that the individual in question entered a bond to keep the peace for a period of two years from the date of his release. The Garda made no comment on whether it regarded the applicant to be a person of good repute or not.

Following consideration of all the issues involved, a decision was then made by officials in the Department to grant the licence on the basis that there were insufficient grounds to refuse it and the Garda had not made any comment on the question of good repute. The decision took into account the criteria outlined in the regulations and the Garda responses to requests in that regard, as well as the wider issues surrounding the applicant's constitutional right to earn a livelihood, a right that could not be taken away lightly. The fact that the applicant had already served his sentence for the conviction on record, and that he had no further convictions since then, was also taken into account. In addition, the Garda had confirmed on 30 July 2008 that it had not taken prosecutions against the applicant related to his livelihood as a professional road transport operator.

Accordingly, the applicant was granted his international road haulage operator's licence on 4 September 2008. The licence is valid for five years.

The House will be aware that there has been some other media publicity in recent days concerning the individual in question. Those matters are the subject of separate reviews by the appropriate authorities, including the Garda Ombudsman Commission. I should, however, add that the Minister for Transport is reviewing the legislation and criteria in this area, because the legal and constitutional issues in this area have proven to be difficult and complex and also arise in other licensing areas, such as taxi driver licensing. Also, in some cases the deciding authority is the relevant Department, Minister or other licensing authority while in other cases it is the Garda, for example in the case of taxi driving licences or intoxicating liquor licences.

Issues around the criteria for establishing good repute here have also arisen in other member states. The European Union is in the process of updating and consolidating the existing European legislation governing this area and this is nearing completion. This includes provisions regarding the establishment of an EU wide network of electronic databases which will include conviction information on every licensed operator. Member states will have clear rules allowing them to take convictions in other EU member states into account. The European Commission will be tasked with an examination of what constitutes relevant convictions and what weight will be apportioned to different types of convictions when deciding to award or revoke licences. When these new EU regulations are finalised, the appropriate legislation to implement them will be introduced.

The Minister for Transport is currently in the process of reviewing all aspects of the decision to award this licence to the individual in question. He has already received a preliminary report on this matter and a full report is being prepared for him. The Minister has referred this matter to the Attorney General for advice regarding the legal issues involved. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to make any further comment on this matter at this moment in time.

Community Support for Older People.

I represent a rural constituency where many people live in isolated areas and this scheme allowed them to have the peace of mind and feeling of security brought about by having a monitored alarm system. Their relatives were also reassured by the scheme. I do not understand, therefore, why the scheme is being suspended. I hope the Minister will be true to his word when he says it will be reinstated in September.

This signifies a further erosion of services, particularly for older people. Tonight we debated the loss of the Christmas bonus for pensioners and we all remember the fiasco of the medical cards for the over 70s. Now many older people who live independently in isolated areas no longer feel safe as a result of the loss of this scheme.

It also gives a certain degree of comfort to people who might embark on robberies in rural areas. People are now storing money at home and older people have always had a tendency to do so. The reduction in home help hours means there are fewer callers to people in rural areas, so the lack of monitored alarms will have an effect. In the Fermoy area of my constituency of Cork East, 51 monitored alarms were distributed since January. A further 28 older people were on the waiting list. They will now have to pay approximately €300 from their pension to get an alarm.

According to Irish Rural Link, Muintir na Tire and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the scheme costs approximately €3 million but €2.4 million of that is recouped through VAT paid to the Exchequer. It is a worthwhile scheme and I ask the Minister to reinstate it.

I am pleased I submitted my Adjournment matter to the Ceann Comhairle in sufficient time and I thank him for accepting it tonight.

I have an idea of what is happening on this matter, not from the Minister but I added two and two — it made 22, not four — when I became aware of various things that were taking place. I hope the Minister will review this issue and that when he decides to reinstate the scheme, which I hope he will, he will have taken account of the great deal of information which will have been given to him to demonstrate that there are many better ways of implementing the scheme. In my opinion, the scheme should always be in the hands of voluntary groups such as Muintir na Tire or Irish Rural Link, which is based in Moate, or Helplink South, a wonderful voluntary organisation supplying huge numbers of people with monitors through its very dedicated staff.

I am aware that details have emerged which are not helpful for the people who most need these aids. As Deputy Sherlock said, it is a wonderful scheme. While I live in the town of Athlone much of my constituency is rural. When I visit the house of a person who lives alone I always notice when they are wearing the chain and disc around their neck. Thankfully, the person will be able to ring somebody if they require help. The professional way in which the alarms are monitored and responded to is amazing. It gives great ease and comfort to older people. Undoubtedly, it is a very good scheme. I am sure the Minister, in his thorough and calm way, has decided in the review to put a stop to what is not right in the scheme and to encourage the correct way of doing things.

All schemes when they are started have a good basis for getting off the ground. Everybody is delighted and encouraging but as time passes various matters impinge upon the scheme, which is not good for the scheme's recipients. I wish the Minister good luck in the review, but I hope he will tell us that the scheme will be restarted in a proper, monitored and structured way.

There is widespread anger at the decision to suspend funding for the scheme of community support for older people. This scheme has been used successfully to provide enhanced security and peace of mind for older people in their homes. It is especially important for older people living alone in rural Ireland but it is by no means confined to rural areas.

Like many Deputies I have received representations from within my constituency and outside it. As one correspondent states, the decision will "impact greatly on the lives of older and vulnerable people". Attacks on older people in their homes, ranging from intrusion to assault, not only cause terror to the victims but spread fear across the older population throughout the country. Even a break-in where nothing is taken and where the older person does not encounter the intruder, is extremely traumatic. The older person's feeling of security in his or her own home has been shattered, in many cases never to be restored again.

This scheme provided practical support with the installation of security alarms, door and window locks, security lighting and smoke alarms. Community alert groups carried out much of this work, with a network that reached across the State. Of course, no devices fitted in a home can substitute for neighbours, friends and care workers regularly calling and ensuring that the older person has the social support he or she needs. However, with this cut the Government appears to be saying that the security of older people is not a priority given that the cut will produce very paltry so-called savings.

This cut cannot be seen in isolation. It comes on top of the cut in home help hours and the totally inadequate provision of health and personal social services to older people in the community. The Government claims to be encouraging older people to remain in their homes, as most of them earnestly wish to do, but it is cutting the essential supports to enable them to do so. Sadly, many more will be driven into institutional care at far greater cost to the State. I join my colleagues in making a cross-party appeal to the Minister to restore this scheme at the earliest opportunity.

I thank the Deputies for raising this matter. I am particularly pleased, personally, to have the opportunity to address this debate this evening. I had responsibility for this matter before today and I am pleased to have responsibility for it again.

We neglected to say we are happy the Minister has been reappointed.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to be back in this position.

My Department has operated the scheme of community support for older people since mid-2002, when the Department was first established. The scheme, as originally devised in 1996, was based on the simple concept of helping people active in their communities to maintain contact with older people in their neighbourhood. Grants are not paid to individuals but to community organisations working with the older person. This approach has helped over the years to ensure that broader community support for older people was stimulated and allowed volunteers and staff of community organisations to maintain contacts with the older person.

Since my Department took over the scheme, in excess of €22 million has been awarded to community and voluntary organisations. Our estimates suggest that some 60,000 older people have been direct beneficiaries, either by being supplied with a monitored alarm, sometimes referred to as the "pendant alarm" or "panic button", or one of the other security items for their homes. The Department reviewed the scheme in 2004 and made a number of innovations in response to the concerns raised at that time. The scheme was developed to allow for window locks, the installation of door locks and chains and the cost of providing for sensor exterior lighting to be covered by it. Further innovations have been introduced since then, including a grant in respect of smoke alarms. Funding is now provided for carbon monoxide detectors, where they are supplied as part of other smoke detection devices.

One of the key recommendations of the 2004 review was that a standard individual grant be paid. This grant is now fixed at €300 per installation for the monitored alarm and lower amounts for the other equipment available. This approach has helped to ensure that community groups get good value for money and that commercial suppliers are obliged to provide quality equipment at a reasonable price, given that these products vary little in their design or service.

I am happy that the current level of grant ensures that recipients of the alarm are not required to make any contribution to the cost of the supply or installation of the equipment. The only costs falling to the older person or their family members are the annual monitoring costs. I have been told that the costs of the annual monitoring charge can vary from as low as €50 per annum to a high of over €100. This is an area in which I would support greater competition. People need to shop around for the best value available.

The changes introduced in 2004 have meant that the demand for grants has grown to unsustainable levels. From 2002 to 2006, the average annual expenditure on the scheme was approximately €2.4 million. The average expenditure for 2007 and 2008 reached over €4 million, an increase of two thirds. This, Deputies will agree, is clearly a position that could not be sustained, even in better times.

I am also concerned that the changes introduced to the scheme in recent years have meant it is no longer targeting real and genuine need among older people. As a result, the scheme was suspended in early April. This was done with a view to affording my Department the opportunity to review its operation over the next few months and re-launching it later in the year with tighter terms and conditions. This was done specifically in the context of meeting the real need among older people.

Yesterday, I met with representatives of Age Action Ireland, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Muintir na Tire, Irish Rural Link and the Senior Citizen Parliament to discuss the suspension of the scheme and some concerns about how it currently operates. Arising from those discussions, I have agreed with them a process that will set the broad parameters for a review of the scheme and for the necessary consultation to be undertaken as part of it. I am hopeful that the review process can begin in May and be completed by mid-September. The bodies have agreed to participate in the review process and to work with my officials regarding concerns they have with the operation of the scheme.

I assure the Deputies that all applications received up to the suspension of the scheme will be processed and approved, as appropriate, in line with the current eligibility criteria. Funding will be made available to eligible groups in the coming weeks. Deputy Sherlock said there were delays and spoke about the concerns that would cause for older people. Traditionally, this scheme was advertised once each year and if one missed the cut-off date, one had to wait another 12 months. We changed that recently and there is now a continuous application process.

We cleared all applications on hand up to the end of December last. The allocation last year was approximately €4.3 million, so there is no big or substantial overhang. More than €1 million worth of applications have come in this year. Some have been paid and some are still pending. All of the applications that were received early this year will be dealt with. I wish to make it clear that even with the review period, we are still dealing with the issue in a much more timely and efficient manner than under the procedure that existed previously, whereby one could apply only once a year. We do not have a six or 12 months overhang as we cleared everything up to the end of December. The applications that arrived in the earlier part of this year, prior to the suspension of the scheme, will be dealt with in the normal way. We are not accepting new applications during the review period.

In addition, it is important to note that the suspension of the scheme in no way affects those who already have received a monitored alarm device. Finally, I reiterate my commitment to this scheme and the security it has offered to the many older people using the alarms. I hope to re-launch it later in the year, in September, once the review is completed.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 April 2009.
Top
Share