Amendments Nos. 1, 13, 14, 30, 31, 43 and 44 are drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are cognate and all amendments may be discussed together by agreement.
Taxi Regulation Bill 2003: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 29, to delete "with" and substitute "within".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
On a point of order, may we have a list of the amendment groupings? I have not yet received a copy.
On the same point, it would be helpful if we had the list.
The list is available and is being circulated.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) In addition to its principal function set out in subsection (1), the Commission shall have the function of making recommendations to the Minister as to steps to be taken in respect of the position of persons who have experienced hardship by reason of the deregulation of the small public service vehicle market.”.
It is unsatisfactory to deal with legislation in this manner. Only this morning did we receive a copy of the amendments in the order in which they are being taken. All of us who are involved with the transport portfolio were at a transport committee meeting this morning from 9.30 a.m., which has only just finished. It is difficult to do our business if we are not given adequate notice of amendments and their groupings.
Amendment No. 3 proposes to insert "to review the payment structure of the Taxi Hardship Panel" because it is necessary to ensure that the payments by the hardship panel, inadequate as they are, are not forgotten about in the context of the future of the taxi industry. We have already seen attempts by the Minister to completely overlook the strong report of the EU petitions committee, which was extremely damning of the payments proposed by the hardship panel. It advised the Minister to consult the transport committee, to revisit the payment schedules and come up with new proposals. It also made it clear that the manner in which the payments were to be made, as proposed by the hardship panel, was not satisfactory and that the Minister should approach these cases of personal and severe financial hardship on a case by case basis.
Unfortunately, the Minister made it clear to the transport committee that he has no intention of paying heed to the recommendations of the petitions committee. There is no question that there is a large number of cases in which people invested in taxi plates and are now lumbered with a significant debt. They are finding it difficult to make a living because of the huge increase in the numbers of taxis and virtually impossible to meet the repayments on their large loans. This applies particularly to people who bought plates in the years immediately preceding the overnight deregulation. Some of them have debts of €100,000 and are making repayments of in excess of €900 per month. It is impossible for families such as these to survive. There are enormous financial and personal pressures on many such taxi drivers. What the Minister proposes in respect of the hardship payments is totally inadequate to deal with those very real cases of hardship.
Another category of people depended on the income from a taxi plate for their pension, including older taxi plate holders and widows in particular. In these cases, the proposals of the hardship panel are completely inadequate. It is crazy that, if a person has a minor pension or any other income, he or she is precluded from making a claim for payment.
The offer of €6,000, or even €12,000 or €15,000 at the top of the range, is cold comfort to people who find themselves in this situation because of overnight deregulation. Where once they had an asset that was worth €100,000, its value was wiped out overnight and the asset is essentially worthless. The levels of payment proposed go nowhere towards alleviating the personal financial hardship these people are now suffering. I am disappointed the Minister has taken such a cavalier approach to the report of the petitions committee. It is completely unsatisfactory.
There is deep anger among members of FAIR because of the manner in which the Minister has treated that organisation. The meetings he and his officials have had with FAIR have been completely unsatisfactory and members have found that they must bypass the Minister for Transport because he has let them down so severely, and they have recently approached the Taoiseach.
It is ironic and shameful, given that Ireland will hold the EU Presidency in the early months of next year, that the Government ignores recommendations of a major body of the European Parliament. This irony has not been lost on the women of FAIR and they fully intend to take their protests to the streets during Ireland's Presidency if the matter is not resolved before then.
This amendment proposes to give a specific role to the commissioner to do what the petitions committee has recommended, to review the payment structure of the taxi hardship panel. It is an important task for the new person who will, hopefully, take up office over the next few months. It is appropriate that we pay due regard to the recommendations of the petitions committee and revisit the payments because they are inadequate. This should be a key responsibility of the commissioner.
I support this amendment to review the payment structure of the taxi hardship panel. Many taxi drivers have been affected by the overnight deregulation of the business. I know two taxi drivers in Clare who paid in excess of €150,000 for taxi plates and they are experiencing terrible hardship. They invested €100,000 or more because they thought they were buying into a good business and suddenly their assets became almost worthless. Some of these people are paying back loans of in the region of €100,000, on a worthless asset, over a 20 year period. In regard to the payments proposed by the Minister under the taxi hardship panel dealing with claims, the payments which have been mentioned are quite small, given that the European Parliament Petitions Committee found that the Government had a moral and political responsibility to provide redress to families who had to bear some financial loss in this situation.
The European Parliament Petitions Committee is very powerful. It does not visit Ireland very often, but visited two months ago to address two issues. One concerned the Taxi Hardship Panel.
I urge the Minister to reconsider and to provide the funding necessary for people who have been severely affected. I am talking of widows, for example, who leased their taxi plates to provide them with income, and of elderly retired taxi drivers who did the same. Such people have been badly affected. In order to protect them, this amendment should be incorporated into the Bill. We cannot simply forget about them. We need to be a voice for them.
Would the Minister outline what exactly the European Parliament Petitions Committee recommended? My understanding is it made three key recommendations. In a sense, we are dealing with one of them in this House, the appointment of the Taxi Commissioner. If I am correct in assuming there were just two other main recommendations, would the Minister outline his views on these?
I support the amendment tabled by my colleague Deputy Shortall on the hardship imposed on the taxi drivers arising from the unplanned implementation of deregulation. The cost and the value of taxi licences have fallen from perhaps €100,000 to €6,300 currently. Many people entered freely into an agreement to purchase licences on the basis of commitments given and following discussions with public servants, who said clearly that there was a planned approach in operation. They said there was a points system in the allocation of additional taxi plates.
Two people in particular who were told of a planned approach are representative of hundreds in this regard. This approach was a very positive change to the situation that existed up to 1999. Up to then, commitments had been given by Fianna Fáil councillors in Dublin Corporation to the taxi licence owners that they would be protected. They were told deregulation would not take place and to put their trust in the councillors. In the 1997 general election we had nothing but posters of "Ivor the Great", urging people to support Ivor Callely and to support Fianna Fáil councillors, who would supposedly then stand by the people.
A complete about-turn was then made. People were told, following discussions, that there would be a planned approach and that it would be three years before one's turn would come to be allocated a taxi licence. When people asked what they should do in the meantime, they were told that since they would be in the running for a licence within three years, they should buy taxi plates as people would normally do, in the marketplace. Many people did that, paying £80,000 at the time for the taxi plate, in some cases remortgaging their homes to raise the money. Even now, people are facing repayments on loans of up to €120,000.
The issue was brought to the European Parliament Petitions Committee, which appointed a fact finding delegation which visited Ireland and met the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, and his officials. The Minister gave a specific commitment that he would meet the Joint Committee on Transport to discuss the points made by FAIR and by the committee itself. The Minister cannot say that it is only the Opposition which is pursuing this issue. The Minister's committee members said that the compensation money being offered is totally inadequate. The committee urged that further consideration be given to provide redress to the families involved. There was a clear understanding that the Minister would act with the committee to try to deal with the situation.
There is hardship out there for many taxi drivers, male and female, and their families. What is being proposed as a mechanism to deal with hardship is totally inadequate. It is my understanding, and that of many of the people affected, that the Taxi Hardship Panel was told in broad terms by the Minister of a ballpark figure for compensation, which it was to use as best it could. Speaking for the people I represent, the sum is totally inadequate.
The Minister and the Government have mechanisms for redress when it suits them. They can look after their friends in high places, people of influence, people who perhaps have supported Fianna Fáil, when these people come forward with their concerns. That is politics, and if people come forward with a concern, an inequality, one hopes the Minister of the day will respond. There is a cry from the heart from FAIR, from the people involved in the taxi business. They are asking the Minister to respond in a favourable manner. We are not talking about taking money from a bottomless pit and throwing it at people. There are hundreds of people currently in a pathetic condition who need the Minister's support. I trust the Minister will accept the amendment and deal with the situation in a properly planned manner.
I thank Deputy Shortall for tabling this amendment and I thank Deputies Naughten and Breen for tabling theirs too. Both of these amendments provide that the Commission for Taxi Regulation will be given a specific role in the proposed structure for making payments to individual taxi licence holders who may have suffered extreme personal hardship arising from loss of income as a direct result of the liberalisation of the taxi market.
The House will be aware that the Government established a panel to report in general terms on the nature and extent of any such hardship. The Government has accepted the panel's report and has approved implementation of its recommendations on a phased basis. I intend to put arrangements in place very shortly to facilitate the submission of applications for payments under this scheme and to make payments at an early date. I have explained to all the groups representing taxi operators and to FAIR that I will proceed with the implementation of the scheme as quickly as possible.
I accept that there is genuine hardship. I have met FAIR on two occasions and I know its members have had other meetings. I have great admiration for their determination and understand their case. I would like to continue to work with them in future to see how we can progress this as best we can.
Three people were selected to spend six months examining the issue, Kevin Bonnar, the former Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Bill Attlee, the former leader of SIPTU, and Ann O'Riordan of Microsoft. They spent six months on the project at the end of which they brought forward a report to Cabinet. They were given no instructions, formally or informally. They were given an open mandate to assess hardship and to come forward with some solutions. They came forward with a report, which I placed before Government, which approved it and instructed me to proceed with making payments as quickly as possible.
I do not doubt that Deputy Shortall means well in tabling the amendment but I must point out the result were I to accept it. The amendment states that the regulator, when appointed, should examine the situation and make recommendations to me. With the best will in the world and moving as quickly as possible to get the Bill through the Houses, to advertise for the regulator, get the Civil Service Commission to interview all the applicants, appoint the regulator, establish the office and have the system up and running, I cannot see payments being made on foot of a regulator's recommendations for perhaps two years.
I would like to make payments immediately because there is hardship. I have said to FAIR that we will keep a close eye on the situation in terms of the number of applications received and will continue to talk to the group as payments are made to see what is possible within the report accepted by the Government. The Deputy should not press the amendment because to accept it would result in it not doing what she intends. I accept her bona fides in wanting to improve the payments but the amendment could have the opposite result.
I do not know who the regulator will be because the Civil Service Commission will appoint him or her. Who knows what view he or she will take. He or she may take a stricter view than the committee comprising Kevin Bonnar, Bill Attlee and Ann O'Riordan. That proposal would come to Government and we would be on the merry-go-round again. The amendment could have the opposite effect to what Deputy Shortall intended. If it is included in the Bill, it will certainly make payments impossible for a long time.
The petitions committee about which Deputy Seán Ryan inquired made a number of recommendations. It asked the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and the Minister to review the situation, that urgent provision be made for redress for families on a case by case basis and that the regulator be appointed without delay. The third recommendation is our business today. Regarding the first recommendation, I know the Committee on Transport has done that and I continue to have discussions with FAIR and other interest groups about how we will go forward.
Regarding redress on a case by case basis, I am finalising negotiations with a group called ADM which already works for a number of Departments and makes grant payments under a wide range of headings. Assuming I can conclude these negotiations within days, ADM will set about receiving forms and moving as quickly as possible to make payments. It will also on my instructions keep a close eye on what is possible on a case by case basis within the context of the report and the categories we have. We will also keep a close eye on the situation and continue to meet and talk to the interested parties because this is the best way forward.
Were I to accept the amendment, which requires the regulator to be appointed and him or her to examine the situation and make proposals to the Minister on which I would make a decision, it would set us back a long time with no guarantee that a regulator would take a different view than people of the standing I have mentioned, Kevin Bonnar and Bill Attlee.
The Minister is twisting my words and intentions. He knows perfectly well that I have already suggested to him that he make interim payments based on the hardship panel's report because people are suffering hardship and need alleviation in the short-term. We should proceed with those interim payments and then ask the commissioner to review the position and make recommendations on further assistance that needs to be provided.
The Minister is being quite disingenuous about taxi drivers. He speaks of his admiration for the FAIR group and says he understands its case. What does that mean? If he understood its case, he would do something about it. Does he accept that it has a strong case? That is what he implies when he says he understands its case. He is the person in a position to do something about it. He can review the situation and heed the recommendations of the petitions committee. It is in his hands, so he should stop making these meaningless statements that he understands FAIR's case if he is not prepared to do anything about it.
I fully intend to press this amendment because what the Minister proposes is inadequate. The Committee on Transport spoke with Kevin Bonnar who was unable to support his recommendations. It is quite clear the figures were plucked out of the sky. He could not put to us the basis on which he and his colleagues had come up with the figures. When we put individual cases of extreme hardship to him, he had nothing with which to respond. He and his colleagues had set these figures. They appear to have been given some ballpark figure within which to work and then divided that amount among the number of applicants. That appeared to be the approach taken. There was no realistic assessment of the extent of hardship people had suffered.
The Minister said he would keep a close eye on the matter, but that means nothing. He knows perfectly well that he plans to make the payments and close the book on the matter in the hope that that will be the end of it. Promising to keep a close eye offers nothing to the people concerned which is precisely why, in addition to making these interim payments, we should specify that the commissioner has a specific role in the ongoing review of the hardship these people suffer and should make recommendations to the Minister. That is why I intend to press this amendment.
Deputy Shortall makes a valid point and I endorse her comments. We want the interim payments to be made and the level and extent of the payments that would then be paid to taxi drivers reviewed. If the Minister has a difficulty with amendment No. 2, there is an alternative in amendment No. 3. The principle behind both is to ensure that the situation is reviewed.
I will give the Minister an example of what is involved. A level of payment is provided for those of pensionable age but anyone in receipt of an old age pension is not eligible for it. The only way a former taxi driver would not be in receipt of a contributory old age pension would be if he or she had worked in the black market and had not paid tax and PRSI or if he or she was exempt from paying PRSI because his or her level of income was below the threshold. If that is the case there is no real loss of income but they will be compensated. The contents of the hardship panel report do not tally with the reality. The Department of Finance treated a licence as an asset regarding capital gains and inheritance tax. One arm of the State believes it is an asset while another, the Department of Transport, believes it is not and that there should not be compensation. Someone is right because the Government cannot be in a win-win situation. It is a disappointment that the Minister is ignoring the recommendation of the European Parliament petitions committee.
The estimated level of compensation would be €16 million but the budget set aside in the current year is only €2 million. If that is the case, will only part payments be made or will that be the total of payments made to those who have experienced hardship?
There is no reason the advisory council, when it is established, or the regulator, when he or she is appointed, cannot make recommendations to me if they chose to do so or if they wanted to comment on the progress, management or structure of the payments. I would have no difficulty with their making recommendations in the middle of this process, I would take them on board as far as possible.
In case there is any misunderstanding, I have had no communication from Kevin Bonnar, Bill Attley and Ann O'Riordan to say they do not stand over their report, they support it fully. I do know how satisfied individual members of the committee were with the quality of answers but most of us who appear before committees probably do not meet the high standards that committee members would like. I have heard no suggestions that the three people involved do not stand over the official report that was supplied to and accepted by the Government.
The €2 million is the budget for the year and it does not rule out, if we could get through the process more rapidly, my securing additional funding this year to make payments if that is required.
Is there a slush fund in the Department of Finance if necessary?
I did not say it is in the Department of Finance but if we get through the process more rapidly I would have little difficulty in meeting the proposed payments.
I am happy to work with FAIR and everyone else so I do not need lectures from Deputy Shortall about sympathy – I am entitled to express it if I wish and I do not need my bona fides challenged in that way. I am dealing with the situation as best I can and I have sympathy.
I have worked hard with the taxi drivers to introduce the Taxi Regulation Bill and worked hard with the industry to help modernise it. I understand that after deregulation the industry was a jungle and I am constantly meeting its representatives to discuss all the issues in the Bill – the most recent meeting with the unions involved was three days ago – because I want to move forward as best I can. We have shared objectives across the board and even on this issue I am happy to continue discussions to see how to proceed. That is all I can do.
I can only deal with what is written in the amendments in black and white, it does not mention interim payments, it states that the regulator should be given the power to make recommendations in regard to payments and that would delay the entire process unacceptably. It does not stop the regulator making recommendations when he or she takes office. For that reason I cannot see any point in accepting the amendment.
Not for that reason.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Boyle, Dan.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Connaughton, Paul.Costello, Joe.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gormley, John.Harkin, Marian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Kehoe, Paul.McCormack, Padraic. |
McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Keeffe, Jim.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin. |
Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat. Carty, John. |
Níl–continued
|
Cassidy, Donie.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cregan, John.Dempsey, Tony.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Fox, Mildred.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James. |
McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Power, Peter.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Durkan; Níl, Deputies Hanafin and Fleming.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, subsection (2), between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(a) to review the payment structure of the Taxi Hardship Panel,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
We now come to amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 23, 24 and 41 are related and will be taken together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 9, subsection (2), before line 1, to insert the following:
"(c) to promote access to small public service vehicles by persons with disabilities and to make recommendations to the Minister and the Minister for Finance in that regard, in particular recommendations regarding favourable tax treatment of accessible vehicles,”.
We need to specify in the legislation the importance of ensuring accessibility in the taxi industry. Too often in the past, lip service was paid to accessibility. While there may have been intentions to ensure that all taxis would be wheelchair accessible, the reality in recent years has been that the number of wheelchair accessible taxis has declined because many drivers entering the business and using such taxis found it uneconomic to continue and pulled out to seek employment elsewhere. There are fewer wheelchair accessible taxis now than there were prior to deregulation.
We need to put up in lights that this area is one of the main responsibilities of the commissioner. We must learn from the experience of other countries where it is accepted that it is not commercially viable to invest in a fully accessible vehicle and ply one's trade on the roads. Without intervention, one finds that the numbers do not stack up and drivers opt to leave the business. For this reason, it is important to examine the mechanisms employed in other countries to encourage wider use of wheelchair accessible vehicles.
The experience abroad has been that many Governments decided to treat the need to ensure wide access to public transport, including taxis, as a priority and put their money where their mouth was, so to speak, by introducing various schemes to encourage the provision of accessible vehicles. These have included offering tax relief and, in several countries, operating a system in which vehicle registration tax and value added tax are waived in respect of wheelchair accessible taxis. This area needs to be closely examined and responsibility for doing so should rest with the commissioner.
I understand there are no clear specifications for wheelchair accessible taxis. We tend to regard so-called people carriers as wheelchair accessible, which is not the case as they are not supplied with ramps. In addition, some of the ramps used in dedicated vehicles are not suitable for the kind of wheelchairs introduced in recent years. We need precise specifications for wheelchair accessible taxis and the type, size and width of ramps. The matter should be examined by the commissioner and laid down in regulations. It is for this reason I put down the amendment.
As a number of amendments are being taken together, I presume I may speak to amendment No. 8 in my name. I agree with the previous Deputy that clarity is needed on this issue. I was amazed and disappointed that the Minister, in his Second Stage speech, failed to address the commitment given by the previous Government on this issue. I remind him that when deregulation of the taxi market was being introduced, the then Minister with responsibility for transport made a clear commitment on behalf of the Government that from the end of 2003 a process would begin whereby all taxis in the Dublin area would be wheelchair accessible. Is this commitment, which I am sure was not given lightly, still valid?
While I admit the process will not start immediately or be completed overnight – it may take several years – nevertheless, the Government made a clear commitment to initiate it by the end of the year. This is not an impossibility. The system operates in Belfast as well as in London and across the United Kingdom.
My view on introducing a provision requiring all taxis to be wheelchair accessible is open to challenge. Although such a requirement would not be appropriate for rural markets where the economics and nature of journeys are different, in a market such as Dublin, in addition to having significant benefits for people confined to wheelchairs or with other mobility impairments, it would provide a boon to full-time taxi drivers.
The use of purpose-built vehicles, the only way to achieve complete accessibility, would impose higher initial costs for taxi drivers, but would, in the long run, remove part-time drivers and cowboys from the industry. If the number of taxi drivers continues to increase and we fail to introduce an entry requirement, we will have no full-time professional taxi drivers left. The entry requirement should be a willingness to purchase purpose-built vehicles, which are safer for drivers and passengers, carry more passengers and are more comfortable and suitable as public transport vehicles.
I agree with Deputy Shortall's comment that the Government needs to give tax breaks for such vehicles in recognition that they are proper public transport vehicles, either by waiving VRT or providing other incentives to encourage their use.
Regardless of what the Minister may say, if we fail to live up to the Government commitment towards full wheelchair accessibility, the current position, in which it is next to impossible for a person in a wheelchair to order a taxi or hail one on the street, will continue. Last week, during a protest in front of the Oireachtas, a Government backbench Deputy witnessed a taxi, supposedly a wheelchair accessible vehicle, stopping to pick up a fare and driving off having realised the intending passenger was a wheelchair user. This practice is widespread in Dublin.
The Minister has an opportunity to instruct the regulator to move towards 100% accessibility. I realise the regulator will not be able to do this on a national basis, which is the reason my proposal to ensure the highest possible level of accessibility for people with a disability included the caveat, "having regard to the urban or rural nature of the relevant local authority area". Will the Minister clarify whether the commitment given by the Government when deregulation was introduced was just one of the many broken promises it made during its previous term of office or one which it intends to live up to?
I have chosen to speak on the issue of wheelchair accessibility, which everyone favours, because it is the subject of conversation among taxi drivers and others. Deputy Shortall asked for clarity, which is important. If one talks to drivers, they will say the problem lies in the cost of wheelchair accessible vehicles. In the current circumstances, in which a significant increase in the number of additional plates and drivers has led to a decline in incomes in the industry, it is difficult for taxi drivers to afford wheelchair accessible vehicles.
Accessibility is an important issue and I am interested in the Minister's views on it. While all of us are in favour of it, at the same time, it will be difficult to ask drivers to buy accessible cars given current market conditions. It is a matter of economics.
I support the comments of the previous speakers. The cost factor is the main problem for most taxi drivers. The position is far from satisfactory. In my area, for instance, not one wheelchair accessible taxi operates from Shannon Airport, an international airport and gateway for US and continental flights. There is not one wheelchair accessible taxi operating out of the airport and this is a pity. I recently saw a wheelchair accessible taxi outside a house in Ennis that had a first aid sign on it. The business is obviously uneconomic and unsatisfactory.
I agree with previous speakers in saying the regulator will have to tackle this. This is an appropriate time to discuss this given that the Special Olympics are currently running. The Government needs to look at waiving VRT or giving some tax break to wheelchair accessible taxis. I support the amendments.
I fully support the amendment and hope the Minister will be proactive and positive on it rather than saying that it is up to the commission or advisory council to make recommendations. A strong line must be taken by the Minister to do something about this anomaly.
There is a perception that deregulation has worked. The increase in the number of taxis has been positive for people waiting on taxi ranks. The Minister will be well aware of the negative effects of deregulation. There are always losers as well as winners in deregulation. There is not the slightest doubt the section of the population losing out from this deregulation is people with disabilities. In a planned approach to the provision prior to deregulation, there was a specific commitment to have wheelchair accessible taxis. It was well known that there was to be a certain number of taxis and it was going to be increased. Deregulation was supposed to solve all the problems. There was a specific commitment that all taxis would be wheelchair accessible. What has happened since then? Drivers are looking at the cost of purchasing wheelchair accessible taxis and, post deregulation, there is no compulsion or attraction for them do so and people with disabilities are losing out.
Something has to be done. A structure has to be put in place to ensure the percentage is increased and there is reasonable access for people with disabilities. We can deal with this if the Minister takes on board the principle and spirit of this amendment. I would be disappointed if he were to say that while he is in favour of it and sees the merits in it, that it up to the commission where there is a role for the advisory council and for those that look after people with disabilities. The Minister is at the helm and he must keep the ball rolling. The only way to do this is to put incentives in place; Deputy Shortall has outlined the incentives. I look forward to a positive outcome for this amendment.
I support the amendments. At the time of deregulation there was an opportunity to address this area but, for whatever reason, this was not done. If one talks to hospital staff one will hear of the problems they have in trying to find a wheelchair accessible taxi to bring someone home from hospital. A friend who had a stroke had to wait for five hours for a taxi home; even wheelchair accessible taxis would not take him. There is a problem regarding wheelchair accessible taxis that will not take people in wheelchairs because of the delay in putting a ramp down and allowing the person to board, or for whatever reason.
We need to encourage more taxi drivers to have wheelchair accessible taxis. The proposals regarding changes in the tax treatments for such taxis have merit. If one goes to a disability conference one will hear of the same problems. In this day and age people should not have to wait for hours for a basic service like transport. There are already problems with buses – surely there is some way in which we can overcome the problems with taxis. We have it within our ambit to make changes and I appeal to the Minister to support the amendments.
It is appropriate, as suggested by Deputies Shortall and Eamon Ryan, that the overall objective established by the Oireachtas for the commission should make specific reference to the need for that office to promote access to small public service vehicles by persons with disabilities. This theme is supported by the inclusion of section 34 that contains specific provisions allowing the commission to regulate to facilitate access. For this reason, I support the first element of Deputy Shortall's amendment. I propose to include an appropriate amendment to the Bill to facilitate this issue, namely, amendment No. 6. I suggest this amendment should meet the general thrust of Deputy Shortall's and Deputy Eamon Ryan's proposals. Given the broad powers invested in the commission in section 34 in respect of standards, I do not believe it is appropriate to engage in the more prescriptive approach adopted in Deputy Eamon Ryan's amendment.
However, I have some difficulty in accepting the second element of Deputy Shortall's proposed amendment No. 4. In the first instance, the Bill provides the commission with many opportunities to express its view on issues pertaining to its functions. Second, the council is being given a broad role in its presentation of advice to both the Minister and the commission. There are clear structures in place for both the commission and the council to offer advice on any issue that would affect the licensing and operation of small public service vehicles. I also refer the Deputy to a proposal I am presenting to the committee regarding complaints. This makes specific reference to hires. I ask Deputies to consider what I am saying in the context of accepting the spirit and wording of the first part of Deputy Shortall's amendment.
Section 34 (2)(f)(i) establishes a clear and precise requirement on the commission to promulgate standards that address the needs of people with disabilities generally. The paragraph already includes a specific reference to wheelchair users. While I accept the bona fides of the Deputies, I do not see the additional wording as offering any particular value.
I have some sympathy with Deputy Eamon Ryan's amendment No. 41 that relates to section 39. However, the section provides a broad empowerment for the commission to regulate for the acceptance of a hire. The section should not provide for the kind of prescriptive provision suggested in the amendment. Like everyone in this House, I am aware that we need to do much more in this area. The current legal requirements on the acceptance of a hire do not incorporate a provision regarding hires initiated through the contact of a radio company. I present that as one area where the commission will be in a position to apply new requirements because of the broad powers vested in the office through this section.
The total number of wheelchair accessible taxis nationally at 21 November 2000 was 840. At the end of March 2003, it had increased to 1,188. While the percentage of taxis that are wheelchair accessible has fallen, the overall number of such taxis has increased. Both Deputy Shortall and I are correct in our assertions in that regard.
Deputy Eoin Ryan inquired about An Agreed Programme for Government. The programme states:
We will work in a fair and equitable way to ensure taxi supply matches demand. We will continue the process of making taxis wheelchair accessible. We will appoint a national regulator for the future regulation of licensing standards and the quality of service.
There should be no difference between us on this issue. The provision of 100% access to taxis by people with disabilities should not even be negotiable. We must deliver on it. The taxi council will take office, probably within the next two to three weeks while a regulator will take office shortly. On their appointment, I propose to charge them, as their first task, to look at this issue, to hold discussions with the disability groups and chart the road forward. Everybody in a wheelchair must have access to a taxi. The council is very representative. Its nominees are drawn from interest groups, including taxi bodies, consumer and tourism groups, the Garda Síochána and so on. They will be in a good position to decide on how best to give effect to this requirement.
The Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, Deputy Eoin Ryan, referred to some of the practical difficulties, which we should not ignore. However, we must see if they can be addressed. Deputy Shortall referred to purpose built vehicles and I would like to see us reach that stage. However, I should not second guess the structure being put in place with the broad agreement of the House. It is robust in scope and includes a taxi council, representative of all interests, and an independent regulator. They will both have a clear mandate from me to first deal with disability on the basis that everyone in a wheelchair must have access to a taxi. While we should urge them to proceed on this basis as quickly as possible, we should not be too prescriptive.
I agree with the first clause of amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Shortall and in view of this, I have introduced amendment No. 6. The Bill should include a specific provision that the regulator's job is to promote access to small public service vehicles by persons with disabilities. I have used the same wording as in amendment No. 4. The second part of the Deputy's amendment seeks to provide that the regulator shall make recommendations to the Minister and the Minister for Finance on issues including the taxation treatment of accessible vehicles. This is a policy issue and it is inappropriate to provide for it by way of amendment.
The taxi council will be strongly led – I have already identified a strong chairperson who I believe will be universally accepted – and I have every reason to believe that the council and a strong regulator will be well able to put whatever proposals they wish on these issues to me or the Minister for Finance. If they consider that a certain tax treatment is required, I would expect them to make a relevant proposal to the Minister for Finance. It does not strengthen the case to enshrine it in legislation and it makes it more difficult for me to accept the amendment, even though I fully support its spirit. I would ask Deputy Shortall to consider my acceptance of the first part, but not the second.
I thank the Minister for taking on board the points I have made. I will withdraw my amendment in favour of amendment No. 6 in his name.
Amendment No. 6 provides for functions that should have been provided for in the first instance. Nevertheless, I appreciate the Minister's decision to proceed on that basis. I disagree that amendment No. 8 in my name is overly prescriptive. It sets out the level of prescription required and, in this regard, I am concerned that amendment No. 6 and other such amendments, which simply provide for the promotion of access, may not be adequate.
I welcome the Minister's assertion that 100% accessibility to taxis by people with disabilities is something we all wish to achieve and that it will be the first item on the agenda of the council and the commission. This is a tricky issue because circumstances differ around the country and there are different ways of achieving this objective. This is why I do not wish to be totally prescriptive in calling for it to be achieved overnight.
The Government has made a commitment that this process will have started in the Dublin area by the end of this year. Dublin is probably the one city in the country in which it would be easiest to introduce a 100% requirement for wheelchair accessibility. Section 10 provides that the Minister can issue policy directives. Will he confirm if it is his intention, if necessary, to issue a policy direction to the council or commissioner to achieve the Government's commitment. Will he wait for the council to report back or should he send the issue directly to the commissioner?
I would not shrink from issuing a policy directive to the regulator or the council – in this case the regulator – if that was required. Given that both bodies will be established within a couple of weeks, we should let them proceed. It is the clear policy of the Government that every person in a wheelchair must be able to access taxis and I am prepared to allow them to decide how best to proceed. Provided this basic principle is adhered to, a number of models can be applied. I would like to see them proceed as quickly as possible. I will consider whether it is appropriate to give a policy direction, although I probably will not need to. Section 9 will ensure that the regulator must proceed on this basis because the law will impose a requirement in that regard. However, I will give further consideration to the Deputy's concerns.
The second part of amendment No. 8 deals with the setting of environmental standards regarding fuel consumption and air emission by taxi vehicles. I was a member of the strategic policy council on Dublin City Council for a number of years where the air quality issue in the city centre was a cause of major concern. The Minister will be aware that the air quality outside the House, around College Green and the city centre area, especially in Westmoreland Street, is consistently above the levels recommended by European standards. This is especially the case in respect of diesel emissions, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide and small particulate matter. We are effectively killing people in the city centre every day by not controlling the air quality.
I recall debates in the city council with the director of traffic, who maintained that the only possible solution would be to regulate vehicles that are extensively used in the city centre in terms of air quality emissions. This means that the only way to solve the problem and stop killing people with existing levels of air pollution is to regulate the bus fleet, the taxi fleet and other vehicles – including those belonging to the city council – which regularly use the city centre. That is the only way to begin to get a handle on the severe air pollution problem in Dublin city centre. I am sure there are other places around the country where it is equally a problem. It is remarkable that in setting out the regulations a taxi commissioner can apply we are not providing that he may regulate the emissions from a vehicle. If the Minister wishes, he can accept one section of my amendment. If we fail to take this opportunity we will have to return to the matter in a number of years to amend the legislation. Our persistent breaching of European air quality regulations in central urban areas will not be permitted to continue unchecked. Europe will insist that we begin to get our act together which is why I hope the Minister will accept the relevant part of this amendment.
The Minister referred to amendment No. 41 which is in my name and seeks to amend section 39. I did not quite understand the Minister's arguments in this regard. The problem I seek to address will become less difficult as we achieve a high level of accessibility, but that will take a number of years. In the meantime, we need to put in place a mechanism to address current needs. The Minister mentioned that there are 1,188 wheelchair accessible vehicles in the city, but I can assure him the vast majority of those are not being used as wheelchair vehicles. The Minister says my amendment is too prescriptive, but I beg to differ. It is a serious problem that a tiny fraction of the supposed 1,188 wheelchair accessible vehicles are used for the purpose intended. My amendment is a very valuable tool in the interim to improve the day-to-day scenario before the introduction of 100% accessibility. Without a prescriptive approach, nothing will improve in the next three to four years for persons like the one mentioned by Deputy Crowe who had to wait five hours at a hospital to get a taxi home. I disagree with the Minister. The amendment is not prescriptive, rather it is a useful interim measure prior to the introduction of 100% accessibility.
I understand the Deputy's desire to make specific provision in the Bill to achieve environmental objectives and standards for small public service vehicles. It is not necessary or appropriate to introduce express statements on environmental matters in this Bill as there are strong mechanisms in place under the road traffic code to ensure that small public service vehicles operate to the highest environmental standards. The Minister for Transport is empowered under section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 to apply standards for the construction, equipment and use of vehicles. In section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 2002, the Minister is given specific power to make regulations across a very broad expanse of legal structures which apply to traffic for the express purpose of the protection of the environment and the reduction or elimination of damage to it by vehicles. It is a requirement for the registration of all new motor vehicles that they conform to the emission limit values set out in EU directives. These broad powers are strong and exist in law to provide the basis for the introduction of any provision which would lead to the application of any measures necessary to address the environmental issue in this regard.
I would prefer if the environmental aspect of motor vehicles could be dealt with in a holistic and co-ordinated manner under existing provisions rather than to single out the taxi industry in particular. The inevitable result of such a step would be the application of specific environmental measures to road haulage and bus operators. That is not the correct way to approach this matter. Such an approach could be counter-productive in the long run and might lead to inconsistent and poorer practices. I have no difficulty with the spirit of Deputy Eamon Ryan's amendments, but to select a particular industry rather than to make provisions across the board under very strong existing legislation could be counter-productive. I would prefer to deal with the issue under existing legislation rather than take the regulator to the centre of decision making in this area. The regulator can take a view, as can the council, and may make recommendations to apply some of the sections outlined to the taxi industry. I share the Deputy's broad intent and the spirit of what he wishes to provide, but given the three or four areas in the legislation to which I have referred, mechanisms exist already to achieve his goals. We should make provisions across the board rather than single out taxis. Were we to do so, it could immediately lead to high additional costs for them.
The reason to treat them differently is that they are different. These are vehicles which are on the road for 12 hours a day, seven days a week. They are used in the city centre extensively and are very different to the family saloon – or should be – which sits at home for most of the week and is taken to work or out occasionally. The solution to the problem can only come when we recognise that the vehicles which are used in the city centre most extensively have a special role in solving the problem. That is the intent of my amendment.
I would like to hear the Minister's response to my latter point. We need an interim solution while we move towards 100% accessibility in Dublin. If the Minister does not intend to accept my amendment to require those with wheelchair accessible vehicles to carry disabled passengers, what measure does he propose to introduce to alleviate the severe difficulties experienced by persons in wheelchairs in finding cabs? He is not willing to accept what he describes as a prescriptive amendment.
I hate it to seem as though I continue to retreat to the point, which is simply the reality, that the council will meet shortly and the regulator will soon be in place. It is best to let them work out the way in which we can give effect to the overall objective of ensuring that every single person in the country has access to a taxi. I do not propose to introduce an interim measure in this regard. The industry knows my wishes, the wishes of the Government and the wishes of the Dáil in this respect and I expect it to move in the desired direction as rapidly as possible. The industry knows broadly where this process is leading. The correct solution is to introduce the measures outlined. The first job we will give the regulator and the council will be to deal with the issue of wheelchair accessible taxis.
I referred earlier to the Road Traffic Act 2002 which gives very strong legislative backing to whatever action the Minister wishes to take to secure environmentally friendly vehicles. The section which makes the provisions is just over one year old. It lays down that regulations can be made regarding the construction of vehicles, the provision of the fittings of vehicles and their use on vehicles, equipment and the restriction of, or prohibition on, the use of specified fuels or additives to fuels in engines or specified engines of vehicles generally or in specific places or at specified times. Regulations may also be made in respect of the carriage on vehicles on public roads, or specified public roads, of specified goods, the adaptation and modification of the engines of vehicles and the restriction and prohibition of the use of vehicles in specified places. Speed limits are also covered.
It is quite clear that only 18 months ago the Minister was provided with specific powers to insist on environmentally friendly vehicles and those provisions should be used across the board. It is my intention to discover how we can do that.
I apologise for intruding on the time of other Deputies, but this is a hugely important issue. I am slightly concerned at the Minister's last statement on the accessibility issue, that the industry knows this is coming and will accept changes. In achieving this 100% accessibility, can the Minister say whether it will be done through the greater introduction of purpose-built wheelchair accessible vehicles or by continuing the system we have had over recent years of converting vehicles which were designed for other use? Does the Minister have an opinion on what direction should be taken in that regard?
If there is clarity on this subject, the Opposition can withdraw its amendments and support the Minister in moving towards his objective. Is the Minister unequivocally stating that the commitment given when deregulation occurred, that we would work towards 100% wheelchair accessibility in the Dublin market, will be pursued and fulfilled? If the council and the industry do not move in that direction, will the Minister be willing to stand by that policy commitment?
My policy commitment is that everybody in this country who is confined to a wheelchair will have access to a taxi. If that policy is not being implemented or aggressively delivered, I will consider a policy direction to make that happen.
The Government gave a commitment that all taxis in the Dublin market would be wheelchair accessible. That is different from saying that all people will have access to a taxi. If 10% of the vehicle fleet is wheelchair accessible, the Minister could argue that there is access to a taxi. People might have to wait two hours for a taxi or they might not have the same rights as the rest of the public in terms of access but they do have access. The commitment was that we will move towards 100% accessibility in the Dublin fleet, where it is perfectly feasible. Will that commitment, which was given at the time of deregulation, be pursued by the Minister using the regulations we are now putting in place?
We should take the advice of the disability groups and the disability council, listen carefully to their requirements and see how we can deliver on them rather than be too prescriptive at this point, given the imminence of the council and regulator. The commitment in the programme for Government is that we will continue the process of making taxis wheelchair accessible. I believe we should approach this matter from the point of view of the individual who is confined to a wheelchair and ensure there is a full taxi service available to that person. I will ask the council immediately to set about finding a way of achieving that. If I am more prescriptive than that, it would be unreasonable and unfair to the council, the regulator and the disability groups. The disability groups are represented on the council and they would like to discuss this issue urgently, within weeks, to see how we can ensure that every person in this situation has full access. I do not wish to be more prescriptive because it would be wrong at this time.
The Minister should acknowledge that the Government is moving away from the commitment given by the then Minister of State, former Deputy Bobby Molloy, that all vehicles in the Dublin market from the end of 2003 would be 100% accessible. The Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil do not intend to fulfil this commitment. I am sure the commitment was not given lightly and that the Minister did not just turn up in the House and say: "I have an idea, let us throw in 100% accessibility." However, the Government is no longer willing to implement its commitment.
I cannot let the Deputy away with that because it is not the case. I repeat for the fourteenth time that the Deputy wants to be prescriptive—
I am just using the Government's words.
The Deputy wants to be prescriptive in how to move this forward and he wants to be political about it. We should not play politics with this subject. We should listen to the disability council, the disability groups and the taxi council, which will have disability representatives, and hear what they tell us about how best to deliver on the promise that every person in a wheelchair in this country will have full access to taxis. If it turns out to be the way the Deputy is advocating, that is fine and we will take that route and make sure it happens. If they have better ideas and quicker, more sensible solutions, we should follow those rather than try to re-fight an old election campaign.
I want to move forward on this and the only people I am prepared to listen to are the disability council and the disability groups. We will see what their needs are and deliver on them. My pledge is that nobody in this country in a wheelchair will be denied full access to a taxi. The Deputy should leave it to the incoming council to work out how to deliver on that pledge in a practical way, given that all the interests are represented on the council, rather than hand down a one-size-fits-all solution from this House.
I will happily withdraw my amendments on that understanding. We are not playing party politics with it. It is a subject about which many people feel strongly. I will be watching that the Minister follows up on this matter in terms of policy directions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, subsection (2)(d), lines 4 and 5, after “services” to insert “(including fares)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 9, subsection (2), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(h) to promote access to small public service vehicles by persons with disabilities,”.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 25, 29 and 46 are related to amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 7, 25, 29 and 46 can be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, subsection (2), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
(i) to establish a 24 hour free phone line to report complaints,
(j) to introduce a central taxi monitoring and booking system with a single taxi contact phone number and electronic identification of the nearest available taxi.”.
These amendments are reasonable. They provide for the establishment of a 24 hour freefone line to report complaints and the introduction of a central taxi monitoring and booking system. The number of taxis has increased in Dublin in recent years from about 3,000 to 10,000 so there will be more complaints. There were 540 complaints in 2001 and so far this year there have been over 200. The number has increased considerably with the increase in the number of taxis on the road.
Overcharging by taxi drivers is probably the most common complaint. The condition of vehicles is another subject of complaint. The committee on transport also discussed this. I hope the Minister will consider what type of vehicle should be used. Obviously, there are many old, rundown vehicles on the road and this is not acceptable to the customer who is paying for the service. There also have been a number of assaults involving taxi drivers – they amount to about 17%.
There are problems, and a 24 hour telephone helpline would improve the situation. Deputy Shortall told the transport committee some time ago that she tried to ring the telephone number currently being used but she got no reply. This is a serious situation. Many complaints go unreported. In some vehicles the taxi drivers' identification – I know they carry a badge as well – which is on the dashboard, it is torn and worn. Most passengers sit in the back seat so if there is a complaint the person is probably frustrated by the incident and does not get a chance to report it because the taxi driver is gone. These numbers should be displayed on the inside and, if necessary, on the outside of the car. Many of the complaints about assaults or whatever happen at night and it is important that the identification of the taxi is clear and that people can see what is happening.
With regard to overcharging I have used taxis regularly to travel to Heuston Station or to Dublin Airport at times when there is no traffic hold up. There is a suspicion that there is widespread overcharging in the business. It is important that the public has access to a phone number at which it can make complaints. On the introduction of a central taxi monitoring system using a single taxi contact phone number with electronic identification, if one calls a taxi company one does not know whether the company has one, nine or 90 vehicles. One company could have vehicles waiting around the corner, yet another company would have to bring a vehicle from further away to go to the customer. It is important to have a co-ordinated system. This will reduce the waiting time for taxis. I urge that the regulator look at these important issues, given the volume of taxis now on the streets and the way the system operates. That is why I have tabled this amendment today.
I welcome amendment No. 46 in the name of the Minister and I thank him for taking on board many of the comments that were made by Members on Second Stage.
My concern about amendment No. 25, which is included in this grouping, was that we should be slightly more prescriptive in terms of getting the best quality service. Radio controlling is a complicated business and difficult to regulate, but the commissioner should have the possibility of using the technology that is becoming available in terms of satellite positioning to co-ordinate the radio control services in use so that a caller accesses the vehicle that is closest, or the largest pool of vehicles that can be drawn on to provide such services. I do not want to be prescriptive in terms of how the commissioner might do that but I encourage the commissioner along those lines so that we do not have a myriad radio control companies from which it is impossible to get a taxi at busy times. In other words, we can make the best use of the resources that we have.
I thank Deputy Shortall for her comments on my amendment No. 46. I introduced it as a direct result of her amendments and comments on Second Stage in this regard. Putting a complaints procedure in legislation is a good idea because it is one way of ensuring that standards are increased, for example, with complaints about the condition and cleanliness of the vehicle, conduct and behaviour of a driver in overcharging fares and other matters connected with the hiring of the vehicle. The commission shall publish details of that procedure, which covers what Deputy Shortall wanted.
In regard to the proposal in the amendment in the names of Deputies Breen and Naughten, my amendment covers their point – we have worded it very carefully with good legal advice. They are specific about establishing a 24 hour free phone line. That can be done, but the Government amendment states that the commission would put in place a procedure to consider complaints from members of the public. Let it figure out whether there should be a 24 hour or 23 hour line, a fax number, an e-mail address or whatever. I would not be specific in that regard. I assure the Deputy that I will bring his amendment to its attention and I am sure that it will take up the suggestion inherent in it.
In regard to the GPS proposal from Deputy Ryan, I share his enthusiasm for the deployment of satellite communications and directional equipment by small public service vehicle operators. Perhaps it is not appropriate to put it in this way because in many respects it is a commercial issue. We have provided in section 48 for the regulator to encourage different services for different operators and I am sure that he or she would encourage them in this direction. The development of radio support services for small public service vehicle operations should also be promoted within the industry. As I said under section 48 of the Bill, I envisage the commission pursuing the promotion of the provision of these services through the grant of the service qualification certificate. I am fairly certain that it will go in this direction. There is a commercial element and in any case the regulator is empowered to encourage the industry in this direction in section 48.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 9, subsection (3), line 19, to delete "Part" and substitute "Act".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 10, subsection (7) , line 39, to delete "2" and substitute "3".
In my young and ideological days and in the young and idealist days of the Green Party we had a provision that one would hold a particular office for two terms and move on after that. We as a party have moved on since then. It would be a pity to lose a commissioner who might have extensive experience after two terms when allowing a third term would be more appropriate. That was the intent in my amendment.
The present provision proposes that the regulator would be allowed two terms of office, of five years each. To push that up to 15 years is not the right way to go because to leave somebody in a central role like that for a long period does not allow for changeover in ideas and fresh approaches. Ten years is a long time to be in charge of an industry. This does not mean that the person will have ten years. He or she will have five years, with the possibility of a second five. If the Deputy thinks about it he will consider that having somebody, no matter how good, for 15 years does not allow for fresh thinking and new approaches. The extra five years does not add to the legislation. Ten years is a long time and that it is unnecessary to change it to 15.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendment No. 11 stands in the name of Deputy Shortall. Amendment No. 50 is related, and it is proposed to take the two together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 11, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following subsection:
"(10) Where the Commission consists of 2 or more members, at least one shall be a woman and one shall be a man.".
The purpose of these two amendments it to achieve gender balance. That should be our aim, and not just as an aspiration, for we must make it explicit in legislation. We are all signed up – or say that we are – to achieving a 40% gender balance, and the place to start should be in public bodies. The two proposals relate to the commission, where the maximum number of commissioners will eventually be three, and also to the council. It is only good practice, and the Government should be leading the way in respect of ensuring that there is gender balance. If one looks at the customers using taxis, one will see that the vast majority are women. An increasing number of taxi drivers are also women. It is good practice, and I hope that the Minister might support the thrust of the amendment.
I have no problem with the principle. The problem is the legal situation, since the Deputy's amendment asks that, where the commission consists of two or more members, at least one should be a woman and one a man. I hope that it will work out that way. We gave some thought to how we might appoint the regulator and concluded that the proper way to make the appointment was through the Civil Service Commission. I listened to what the Deputy said about that on Second Stage. There was a view that another way to appoint the regulator would be through an interview or board mechanism outside the Civil Service Commission, since one could argue that people who would exercise a considerable amount of power under the legislation should be better known publicly and should have different criteria and broader considerations applied to them than those which the Civil Service Commission would apply. However, having reflected on that and what the Deputy said on Second Stage, I concluded that the correct course was to appoint the person through the Civil Service Commission.
The newspaper advertisement for that will not be allowed to specify gender, for I would be called to the High Court within hours if I attempted something of that sort. The legislation provides for three commissioners, but I have no proposal to appoint more than one person. I sense no wish anywhere for more than one at the moment. My difficulty is having to advertise for each position as it comes up and not being able to specify the gender. I must see what the Civil Service Commission turns up. In so far as one is allowed, I encourage the commission through this debate to take account of the fact that all of us in this House support the principle and wish behind what the Deputy is saying. That is the difficulty. If I accept the amendment, it is impossible for me to apply it, for I would then have to advertise. If the first two people appointed were men, I would have to advertise for a female member. I cannot do that, for I cannot specify gender when seeking to make appointments to public positions.
What about the council?
I listened again to what was said on the council, and when I announce it, the Deputy will see that there is a strong gender balance. I have made a specific attempt to achieve that.
Will the Minister accept my amendment?
It is unnecessary. When the Deputy sees the composition, she will see that we are making specific arrangements for strong gender balance close to the percentage which she names in the amendment.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
I will not press amendment No. 11, but I would like the Minister to go a little further regarding the council. If the intention is to have 40% representation of women, we should be explicit about that in the legislation. While the Minister is giving an undertaking today that he will achieve 40% representation on the council, there is no guarantee that a future Minister will be as enlightened as he claims to be. It is therefore important that we specify that. Six members represent just under 40%, and I feel that is a fair percentage.
I have no difficulty with 40% representation for women, but I am concerned about reconciling it with Government policy. The amendment as it is worded specifies six members, but that is less than 40%.
We cannot deal in half persons or fractions.
There is a certain conflict there. The Deputy is also aware that the proposed council is to have 17 members. Six and six make 12, so that is another area that must be considered. I do not think that it is necessary. I have no problem with the principle. I am advised that, in the context of all our policies that we have at least 40%, this falls short, and I am determined that the council will broadly—
Change it to seven, then.
—meet the requirements in any case. The council will broadly reflect what the Deputy has suggested in this amendment, and I believe that future Ministers will take exactly the same view, namely, that they will have to do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14 agreed to.
Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
While I have no amendment proposed, I would like to ask the Minister about the staffing of the commission. Will it be fully staffed and resourced, given the fact that, in the 2003 Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance said that 5,000 civil servants would be laid off over the next few years?
I intend that the commission will be staffed. The commission itself will determine the number, grading, remuneration and other conditions of service of staff, with the consent of the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Finance, so we will certainly try to ensure that it has an adequate number of staff. The Deputy will be aware that the Government has already committed itself to tightening up numbers in the public service, and it will not be easy to provide the number of staff required for it overall. I will certainly ensure that the commissioner has enough access to staff, facilities and resources to enable him or her to do the job.
The Minister is a little vague on that. He talks about resources being limited. If the commission is not fully staffed and resourced, then how can he expect it to do a good job, considering the problems that exist in what he calls "the jungle"? How many staff does he consider necessary to deal with the complaints and assist the commissioner in his or her role?
The most specific figure which I can give the Deputy is our present calculation that we will need about 14 individuals to assist the work of the commission. That is an initial figure, and we will see how it goes from there. I am not saying that we can provide all those staff initially, but that is our present estimate of what is required to make the office run smoothly.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 13, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) A Commissioner who contravenes subsection (1) shall be removed from the Commission and be deemed ineligible to sit on the Commission in future.”.
I have also tabled an amendment to section 54, but the arguments are essentially the same, one dealing with the taxi commission and the other with the commission's advisory council. The legislation before us makes it clear that members of the commission are not allowed to disclose confidential information obtained by it in the course of the performance of their duties without the authorisation of the commission or as might be otherwise provided for by the law.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.