Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jun 2003

Vol. 569 No. 5

Taxi Regulation Bill 2003: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages. SECTION 21.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 12:
In page 13, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) A Commissioner who contravenessubsection (1) shall be removed from the Commission and be deemed ineligible to sit on the Commission in future.”.
–(Deputy Crowe).

I was making the point before the break that a great deal of personal information from applicants has to go through the commissioner. My amendment would strengthen the punishment to be incurred by those who decide to ignore the requirement to keep the information confidential. The amendment speaks for itself.

We have read this Bill from back to front and I am sure the Deputy has also done so. I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment on the basis that it is not necessary because section 16(2) specifically includes a provision under which the Minister has the power to order the removal of a commissioner from office for behavioural reasons. Section 21 also provides that where a member of the commission or a member of its staff is convicted of an offence relating to the disclosure of information, that person is liable to a fine not exceeding €3,000. The focus of this proposed amendment is that where such a disclosure involves a member of the commission he or she would be removed from the commission. I appreciate the Deputy was anxious to strengthen the Bill but the matter is already covered. I see no reason to accept the amendment as the fine is already provided for. We are both in agreement that any person who leaks information from the commission or from the advisory council will be subject to such a fine.

I accept the Minister has the necessary power and on that basis I will withdraw the amendment. The amendment was intended to strengthen the Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 15, subsection (6)(c), line 34, after “of” to insert “a”.

This is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 24.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 16, subsection (8)(c), line 32, after “of” to insert “a”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 17, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) At least once during the five year term of each local authority the Commission shall report to the relevant strategic policy committee of that authority to outline its system, procedures and practices employed for the regulation of the taxi service in the relevant area.".

Yesterday, on Committee Stage, we finalised the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 which is taking a huge section of powers away from the local councils around the country. In the Taxi Regulation Bill, we are also taking much of the responsibility away from local authorities. Regardless of one's view on whether they were handling their brief well or badly, it is important to ensure that the new commissioner keeps in contact with and reports to local authorities around the country and particularly to the strategic policy committees who will have a particular interest in this area. I regret the Bill does not provide for such connection back to the local authorities. While we are all encouraging people to get involved in local authority elections and to run for various parties I genuinely fear what those councils will do given the diminution of powers which is occurring. I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendment recognising that it is important that the commission relates to local authorities, elected representatives and other representatives on the strategic policy committees.

While I have not tabled an amendment I will comment on section 25 which provides that the chairman of the commission must appear before Dáil committees. I hope this provision will not allow the Minister to abdicate his responsibility to answer parliamentary questions in the House. If so, it will get to a stage where the House will become a glorified talking shop where nobody will be accountable. A frequent reply from the Ceann Comhairle's office is that the Minister has no official responsibility to the House for this matter. This is a common practice in respect of many parliamentary questions being tabled. I look forward to tabling an amendment to clarify the position in order to have accountability to the House and that all organisations funded would be through the Department of Finance.

What is being established here is a national body and, therefore, its boundaries will extend beyond the limitations of local authorities. I take the point that we should involve the local authorities. Where a national body is concerned Deputies are of the opinion that it should have a role in this area. Being a national body, the commission's task is to report the Houses of the Oireachtas and to the Minister. In developing a new licensing and operational regime for taxis and other small public service vehicles the commission is specifically empowered to adopt measures that can be applied in particular areas, in liaison and communication with the local authorities. The commission will have the overall authority because it is a national body. This does not mean it cannot be in touch with local authorities or that the local authorities cannot put forward proposals that deal specifically with their area.

Deputy Breen has tabled a later amendment in regard to the commission being accountable to the House. While the commission, which is an independent body, will be able to appear before a committee of the Oireachtas, parliamentary questions on policy will be taken by the Minister in the House.

I take the point that this is a national body. I do not wish to change that or to make it a local body. From my experience on a committee instituting policy, I know that if no provision is made for the local authority to call on the commission to come in to discuss matters of significant importance, the tendency would be to act on the basis of favour. That would be unfair to and inappropriate for the local authorities in question. What is the role of the strategic policy committees on transport in local authority areas if they do not have some connection to national bodies in order that they can question, make representations and give the local picture? It would be appropriate to include them in the consultation process that the commission should have with the various State authorities. This would not take from its independence but would recognise the seemingly diminishing role of local authorities.

The Bill does not state that the commission should not engage with the local authorities but it must have the authority to pursue its own goals. The Bill specifically requires the commission to consult the local authorities on the exercise of certain of its functions. Where the commission makes a proposal which it intends to pursue, the Bill ensures that it must consult with local authorities to determine how the proposal affects them. Local authorities differ, particularly in rural as opposed to urban areas. In those specific areas, the commission is obliged under this legislation to consult with the local authorities. Such issues could be raised in committee or, as part of policy, be raised in the House.

At present, the Bill takes into consideration liaison between the commission and local authorities and the ability of local authorities to put forward proposals. However, the commission will have the ultimate say. It is a national body and, for that reason, we must give the body the authority to bring forward proposals.

The Bill already provides for what the Deputy proposes. Other amendments regarding accountability should probably have been grouped with it. There is an overlap between the local authority and the commission. However, as a national body, the commission must have overall authority.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 25 agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 18, subsection (2)(c), line 17, after “Oireachtas” to insert “within 3 months of being presented them”.

I support and endorse the reasoning behind the amendment proposed by Deputies Breen and Naughten. The House will note that I have proposed a slightly altered text to that proposed by the Deputies to provide that the reports must be presented within three months of being presented to the Minister.

I thank the Minister for conceding this point and will withdraw my amendment in favour of amendment No. 17.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 18, subsection (3)(a), line 21, after “functions” to insert “, including decisions taken following the receipt of advice from the Council,”.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide a vehicle through which the commission can report to the Minister on its actions, following receipt of advice from the council. This will ensure that the outcome of the advice given by the council to the commission will be made available to the Minister and will form part of the report laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 18, subsection (5), line 32, after "request" to insert "including information to furnish a parliamentary reply".

This amendment relates to what I said earlier in regard to allowing parliamentary questions to be answered by the Minister in the Dáil. The Minister of State said that ultimately the Minister will be accountable for the commission. When we ask questions about roads, the Minister says that the NRA is accountable and we do not want to see a similar situation arising in regard to the commission. I hope the Minister will include this provision in the Bill.

As I have already pointed out, the Minister is responsible for policy and Oireachtas committees have the authority to call the commission before them to answer questions. The Minister for Transport, as a sponsoring Minister for this legislation, retains overall control of the legislative framework within which the provisions of this Bill will be pursued. The Minister is therefore directly answerable to this House on matters of overall policy.

Acceptance of this amendment could give rise to the engagement of operational issues in the parliamentary questions process. In the debate on Second Stage Opposition Members acknowledged that this Bill places a clear degree of accountability on the commission to the Oireachtas. I consider that the lines of responsibility between the commission and the Minister have been established in a proper format and therefore ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment. The Deputy will be able to ask parliamentary questions and there will be no deflection from that.

If the Minister is in charge of policy and will answer parliamentary questions, I will withdraw the amendment.

As Deputy Breen said, the concern here is the same as pertains to the roads area. Essentially, we can ask few questions. We believe some major issues are not just local operational issues but public policy issues in terms of investment and effect, but these are often deemed operational and deferred and the Minister says he has no responsibility for them. The real key is where the line between policy and operational issues is drawn. If the Minister is narrow in terms of drawing policy as purely what is set out in the legislation, it may mean that he answers very few real questions in this area. I am concerned about that.

There is a difference. While representatives of the NRA appear before committees, they are not required to do so. This commission is required to appear before a committee of the House if this is deemed necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 18, subsection (2), line 38, after "Communities" to insert ", local authority,".

I am reluctant to continue the same debate we had earlier. Our experience of Committee Stage and Report Stage is that it is only likely the Minister will accept an amendment when he tables his own amendment. Given that the Minister of State does not have an amendment to that effect, I am unlikely to get it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 30 agreed to.
Sections 31 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 34.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 9, subsection (2)(e), to delete lines 35 and 36.

This concerns the duration of a licence, which is not stated in the Bill. Rather, the intention is to allow the commission decide the duration of the licences and to draw up regulations to that effect. This is expressed in sections 34(2)(e)(i) and (vii). In our view, this is not satisfactory. The duration of a licence should be expressed in the Bill and should not be prescribed by regulations. I suggest a renewal period of two years.

The condition that a small public service vehicle must be insured has been applied since the 1963 Public Service Vehicle Regulations were introduced. The current regulations applying to the licensing of small public service vehicles specify that the vehicle must be insured to provide the service, in respect of which the vehicle is to be licensed. This requirement reflects the fact that insurance companies may apply different loadings to each category of small public service vehicle. The purpose of this paragraph is to allow the commission to continue to ensure through its regulations, that the insurance of a small public service vehicle is of a type that will cover both the driver and passengers in the event of an accident. I cannot support an amendment that would see the basis for this requirement being removed.

Two years is a reasonable period to have inserted in the Bill.

I was responding to amendment No. 22.

Does that relate to subsection (2)(e)?

I was speaking on section 34(4). I apologise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 20, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) A licence shall not be granted under subsection (1) to a person in respect of a public service vehicle unless the person is the holder of a licence under that subsection entitling the person to drive a public service vehicle.”.

The purpose of this amendment is to close the loophole that currently exists whereby the local authority issues a taxi plate and the carriage office issues the PSV licence. There is no connection between the two. One can apply for a taxi plate without being the holder of a PSV licence. There is potential for abuse because the loop is not closed. It is not right that a person holding a plate is not also a PSV licence holder. It is difficult to maintain control over the standard of driver and vehicle unless that connection is made.

Is the Deputy suggesting that the plate holder should be the holder of a PSV licence for stand purposes?

While I appreciate the Deputy's point, I am concerned that its intended focus is too narrow. I cannot accede to this amendment because it would mean that when a person who operates and drives a small public service vehicle retires or dies, their next of kin could not continue to operate the vehicle unless he or she was the holder of the licence to drive a small public service vehicle. In some instances, it might not be possible for that person to obtain such a licence and, as a result, the income from the operation of the small public service vehicle would cease.

There is also a significant corporate involvement in certain aspects of the operation of small public service vehicles. I refer in particular to the large funeral undertaking concerns and the large limousine operators. Were this amendment to be accepted, those operations could be compromised by the fact that the company principals might not be the holders of the relevant driver licence.

I accept that point and fully concede it. However, does the Minister of State accept that there is a difficulty in terms of keeping tabs on the calibre of people who own taxi plates? The local authority which issues the plates has no way of ensuring that the person who operates that plate is of good character. There is a need to tie this matter up.

Is the Deputy suggesting that there is no reason to question the calibre of people who own PSV licences? Is a person who has an ordinary licence of better character than the person who has a PSV licence? I am not fully au fait with the point the Deputy is trying to make. I understand where she is coming from, in that she feels there would be a better calibre of driver. I accept that. However, I cannot understand how that has anything to do with the character of the person.

The local authority issues a plate to a person, yet it has no idea who will actually operate it. There is no link made between the owner of the plate and who actually drives it with a PSV licence. There is a need for whoever is purchasing the plate to name the PSV holder who will be operating under that plate.

I do not think that is possible.

Why not? It should not be the case that the local authority can give out any number of plates, there being no further check in respect of the people who will operate the plate. It could be done on the basis of named PSV drivers who would operate under a particular plate. At the moment, there is a gap between the owner of the taxi plate and the person who drives under that plate.

The section and the legislation in general deals with the type of people who will operate taxi plates in future. People with criminal convictions will be automatically disqualified from holding these licences. Even people who currently hold licences will be dealt with retrospectively. There are amendments to the Bill which deal with those specific areas. I cannot accede to the amendment on the basis that one needs both licences to operate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 20, subsection (3)(a), line 44, after “Commission” to insert “where a copy of such an assessment will be made available to the applicant”.

An applicant for a licence should be allowed to see a Garda assessment made of his or her fitness where that assessment has an impact on the determination of the licence application. It could be that the information the Garda provides to the commission is wrong, either through accidents, false intelligence or malice. It might be easily corrected for the benefit of all concerned. It is in the interests of fairness that, if a person's career is being blocked for whatever reason, including false information, the person involved should have a say in it.

There is an appeal system involved for the person who is disqualified and that person can go to the courts. The purpose of subsection (3)(a) is to empower the commission to establish general requirements and conditions for the assessment of applicants. It does not relate to the actual assessment of an individual applicant.

I must point out that any decision to refuse a licence will be the subject of a comprehensive appeal system provided for in section 35. That system incorporates a provision through which an applicant must be informed of the reason for the potential refusal of the application and may request that a review be undertaken by the licensing authority in advance of its making that decision. Even at that stage, it is open to the applicant to go to the courts to appeal that.

As it is 2.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House today, I must put the following question: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Transport for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections not disposed of, the sections are hereby agreed to in committee, the Title is hereby agreed to in committee and the Bill, as amended, is, accordingly, reported to the House, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share