Taxi Regulation Bill 2003: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 9, subsection (2), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following new paragraphs:
"(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,”.
My amendment is simple. Section 9 sets out the principal functions of the commission. Will the Minister ensure these powers include the 24 hour free telephone line to report complaints? This may exist in theory but it is not practice. I am also seeking that identification be clearly visible both inside and outside the vehicle. At present it is difficult to see the identification cards on dashboards in most taxis. A case could be made to have the identification card on the back seat of the taxi where most people on their own travel.
There is also the issue of centralised taxi monitoring and a booking system to avoid the scenario of people having to wait for hours. At present we do not know whether a taxi firm has 100 or ten taxis. We do not know how many are occupied, where they are, if one is readily available to collect a person or if the taxi has to finish another run first. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment and to accept it.
The vast majority of taxis are affiliated to companies and have radios with them. The amendment is unworkable. While they might be affiliated to companies they are individual businesses. A number of companies have monitoring systems where their computerised system shows where each taxi is located, when it is available and so on.
Fine Gael proposed this amendment in the Dáil and, as a result, we inserted a new section 51. As Senator Brady pointed out, this is not a matter for the commission which is an independent body. There are 32 taxi meter areas in Ireland. The GPS is working in all these areas and if the taxi people want to use it, it is up to them. It is a commercially sensitive area. It is not for the commission to get into commercially sensitive matters but to regulate the area.
We agreed to the inclusion of section 51 as result of a request from the Senator's colleagues in the other House. The procedure agreed provides specifically for the making of complaints in respect of the condition and cleanliness of a vehicle, the conduct and behaviour of a driver, overcharging and matters relating to hiring generally. This is provided for in the new section which was inserted as a result of an amendment proposed by the Senator's colleagues in the other House. It is not a function of the commission to provide back-up to the taxi people, who have an excellent GPS. The function of the commission is to regulate and the complaints procedure is set out in section 51.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Unfortunately, my colleagues and I omitted to table an amendment on Committee Stage but we have tabled two amendments on Report Stage, to which I wish to refer as they apply to this section. One of the amendments which was tabled in the other House last week asked that the commission would 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.
The second amendment, which was tabled by Fine Gael, sought to review the payment structure of the taxi hardship panel. This is not an issue that should be forgotten. The fact that it is omitted from the legislation means it is left to chance whether the Minister and the Government will revisit the issue of hardship payments. The EU petitions committee produced a damning report regarding the payments proposed by the hardship panel and advised the Minister to revisit the issue. I mention these amendments now in order that I may put them on Report Stage.
We have taken on the Labour Party amendments. It is not usual to take on amendments on Report Stage but I have agreed that in view of today's business I will take them at a later Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 9, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
10.(1) The Minister shall establish a register of accessible vehicles.
(2) Every State funded hospital and school requiring the use of an accessible vehicle, shall in the first instance seek the availability of a vehicle on the Register maintained in subsection (1).”.
The amendment requires the establishment of a register of accessible vehicles and the guarantee of a certain amount of work for people who have gone to the bother of having their taxis converted, at huge cost, to being wheelchair friendly, through school runs or transporting patients to hospitals.
I have spoken to some taxi drivers who, in hindsight, regret having converted their taxis, because they have not got the thanks they deserve for doing so, nor have they made money from the conversion. On a typical day a passenger waiting to be picked up will more than likely opt for the non-wheelchair friendly taxi. That may be because they are afraid of using a taxi which might be needed by somebody with a wheelchair. One way of getting around this difficulty would be to guarantee people who convert their taxis that they would get some work from the State. This is worth looking at and has been done in other countries.
I support this amendment. In the Dáil last week the Government included an amendment regarding the promotion of accessible taxis, but more could be done. A suggestion was made that there should be tax breaks. The acceptance of this amendment would recognise that people have to go to some expense to make taxis accessible.
I agree that we should do everything possible for people who have made their taxis accessible, at great cost. I urge Senators to do what they can within their own health board or hospital areas to encourage them to use these taxis. We amended section 9 to provide that the commission would pursue the policy of making all taxis accessible. However we cannot include this amendment in primary legislation.
If we passed this amendment it would create difficulties, particularly in areas outside Dublin such as Letterkenny, Galway, Carlow and Kilkenny. Imagine the difficulty a hospital would have in an area that does not have a large number of accessible taxis. The hospital would have to say it could not get a person a taxi because of its policy to use only accessible taxis. In Letterkenny only ten out of 100 taxis are wheelchair accessible. The number accessible in Galway is 42 out of 361, in Killarney seven out of 71, in Cork 32 out of 647, in Athlone three out of 78, in Carlow six out of 44 and in Kilkenny four out of 95.
While I understand the reasoning behind the Senator's amendment, unfortunately primary legislation is not the place for it. However, I urge the Senators to encourage their local authorities to promote the use of accessible taxis the owners of which have gone a long way in changing their taxis. It is hoped that in the future all taxis will be accessible. For the reasons I have mentioned, if this amendment was put in the legislation it would do a disservice to specific areas.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 10 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
In the budget last December the Minister for Finance announced a cap on recruitment in the public service. We ask the Minister of State to clarify the exact level of resources and staffing the commission will get, in light of the statement of the Minister for Finance that there will be a cap on recruitment. We are concerned that there might only be a skeleton service.
I will come back to the Senator on this. Section 18(1)(a) enables the commission to 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. This is a matter for the relevant Ministers at Estimates time.
With all due respect, the commission can only work within its budget. If it is not given the money in the first place, a problem may arise. I accept the Minister of State's comment and look forward to a decent allocation being made in the Estimates.
This matter should be dealt with by the relevant Minister and the Minister for Finance at the appropriate time, the Estimates.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
We are concerned at the Government trend to engage huge numbers of consultants, on whom it is over reliant at times, on every matter. We would prefer to see action being taken rather than to see beautiful reports, which are over time and over budget, being put on the shelf. I hope that will not happen in this case.
A legacy and fault of almost all past Governments, local authorities and statutory bodies is that they rely too much on consultants' reports. We have many good people employed in local authorities and Departments and should rely on their ability and common sense instead of consultants' reports which have cost a lot over the last number of decades.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
I am concerned, and my colleagues who hold the transport brief will agree with me, that there seems to be a lack of accountability in this area. We are not allowed to ask the Minister questions about roads or Luas, rather we are told to ask the NRA or the Railway Procurement Agency respectively. Extra layers of bureaucracy seem to be put in front of us all the time. We are concerned that the Minister will not want to answer questions on this issue but will instead abdicate his role and put pressure on the chairperson of this new commission, who will then appear before the Oireachtas committee. I would appreciate any comments the Minister of State could make in order to clarify the situation and ensure that the new commission is accountable and that Members of both Houses can access information at any time. Unfortunately, there seems to be a general trend for Ministers to become less and less accountable, a situation which probably suits them.
The Senator has referred to this issue in an amendment on section 29 to which I was going to respond at that stage. I ask that this section be accepted and will respond to the Senator on section 29.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 26 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 18, subsection (2)(c), line 22, after “Oireachtas” to insert “within 3 months”.
I will not repeat myself. The issue here is one of accountability and the fact that, as parliamentarians, we should be able to get answers from the relevant agencies. Unfortunately, this is not forthcoming at times.
We have accepted the principle of the Senator's amendment in the Dáil. Section 29(2)(c) now provides that the annual report and accounts must be presented to the Oireachtas within three months of being presented to the Minister.
Amendment No. 4 refers to Members losing their ability to make representations and Ministers not being accountable to the House. As I said to the Dáil, it has been agreed by the Government and the Opposition that we set up the commission as an independent body. As a consequence of that, the reasons the commission makes decisions to refuse licences cannot be the subject of questions to the Minister in the Dáil. The Minister is, however, responsible for all matters of policy and will be answerable in the Dáil by way of parliamentary questions from any Member. However, the commission is an independent body and cannot be brought to task by a Senator or Deputy as to why a person did or did not obtain a taxi licence. It must have that degree of independence. The commission will be responsible to any committee of the House, normally the transport committee.
The substance of amendment No. 4 was the subject of detailed debate in the Lower House. As I pointed out on that occasion, the Bill establishes clear lines of responsibility for both the Minister and the commission in terms of their respective areas of responsibility to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister for Transport retains overall control of the legislative framework within which the provisions of this Bill will be broadly pursued and he or she is answerable to the Oireachtas in regard to such matters. Accepting this amendment would mean that operational matters and decisions which must, of necessity, be determined by the commission would be the subject of detailed questioning in the Houses. The Bill provides in clear terms that the commission is required to report to the committees of the Houses as required.
The provisions in the Bill on accountability and the response to the debate in the Lower House led the sponsoring Deputy to withdraw that amendment. One cannot have an independent body being asked why a person did not get a licence on every occasion. The reasons may be personal and it might be to the benefit of the applicant that this information should not be disclosed. That is why I ask the Senator to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 29 agreed to.
Sections 30 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."
The Fine Gael Party is concerned about the exact timeframe for the appointment of the new regulator. The autumn has been mentioned, which includes three months. Therefore, we are unsure as to whether that will be August or 31 October. It is important that we have a deadline to meet. We do not have a great history of meeting deadlines, therefore it is important we have something to aim for rather than leaving it too vague. The reality of having the regulator in place is long overdue.
My officials inform me that the advertisements for the position of regulator will be placed in the newspapers this week. The process will take some months because the applications must be dealt with in some detail for such an important position. The first steps are being taken next week. On that basis, autumn is a reasonable date to expect the appointment of the regulator.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 34.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 19, subsection (2)(e)(vii), to delete lines 41 and 42.
Our main difficulty with this section is that there is no defined period for a person to hold a licence. We feel that should be included in the Bill. Unless a licence is being revoked or suspended, a period of two years may be appropriate.
There is also an issue about power being taken away from local authorities. Is that the case? It seems so on reading the section. The Garda, local authorities and the carriage office are in charge at present but there is concern that the local authorities' control will be diminished.
The substance of amendment No. 5 was discussed in the Dáil and it was agreed that it would be withdrawn. I reiterate that a small public service vehicle must be insured.
The Senator was referring to licences when he spoke after moving amendment No. 5. However, the amendment has to do with insurance. The Senator seeks to provide in amendment No. 6 as follows:
A licence granted after the commencement of this Part shall be in force for such period stated in the licence being not more than 2 years from the granting thereof.
The driving licence lasts five years and that was agreed with the Garda Síochána and taxi drivers some years ago. The commission can determine the length for which a driving licence should be held. The vehicle licence lasts for one year. They are two separate matters.
The Senator suggests the vehicle licence should last for two years, but that cannot be done because there is the matter of the national car test under which these vehicles are inspected every year. It would not be workable. Passing the test is a condition for obtaining the vehicle licence. I cannot accept that the duration should be more than one year because agreeing such designated periods is a matter for the commission, the Garda and taxi drivers, not for legislation. It should be left to the parties involved to make changes to the current regime of one year for vehicle licences and five years for driving licences.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Section 34 agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 22, to delete lines 46 to 49, in page 23, to delete lines 1 to 43 and in page 24 to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:
"36.–(1) Where a person being the applicant for or the holder of a licence is–
(a) convicted on indictment of any offence, or
(b) convicted summarily of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment,
the person is disqualified for holding a licence, and, accordingly, where the person is the holder of a licence, the licence stands revoked.
(2) Where a person being the applicant for or the holder of a licence is convicted summarily of an offence and where a fine only is imposed by the Courts, the person is disqualified for holding a licence for a period of 12 months, and, accordingly, where the person is the holder of a licence, the licence stands revoked for a period of 12 months.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), after the period of–
(a) 10 years in the case of being convicted on indictment of any offence, or
(b) 5 years in the case of being convicted summarily of an offence,”.
We are concerned about the vagueness of the term "criminal background". It is very vague and could include a multitude of possibilities. It should be more clearly defined. Our amendment seeks to tighten up this area.
The section makes it clear that it relates to a person who is convicted of a range of specified offences. The changes suggested by Senator Browne will not reinforce that in any way.
Senator Browne said the section was too vague. It specifically indicates the type of offences which will prohibit people from holding a licence. The Senator's amendment is vague in that it provides as follows:
a person being the applicant for or the holder of a licence is–
(a) convicted on indictment of any offence, or
(b) convicted summarily of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment,
the person is disqualified for holding a licence, and, accordingly, where the person is the holder of a licence, the licence stands revoked.
We have specifically stated the areas which prohibit a person from being granted a licence.
There are people who have committed offences against agricultural regulations or waste management legislation, such as a farmer convicted of inadvertently polluting a stream, who, were we to accept Senator Browne's amendment, would be banned from holding a licence. I do not imagine that is what the Senator wants. We all want to ensure that holders of taxi licences are fit to deal with the public. I imagine that is the motivation behind the Senator's amendment. That is not to say that a person convicted of an offence under waste management legislation, such as polluting a stream, is not fit to deal with people.
The importance of this section has been the subject of a significant number of comments by many contributors to the debates on the Bill. It provides the basis for granting to users of small public service vehicles a significantly increased level of assurance as to their safety by the removal from the operation of such vehicles of those who have been convicted of one of a range of serious offences. It represents a balance between the needs of the public and the rights of the operators and drivers to pursue their chosen livelihood. It is by necessity a fine balance and one arrived at after detailed consideration. Central to that balance is the fact that the section specifically refers to a range of offences, the commission of which would cast immediate doubt on the fitness of the convicted person to be engaged in the service.
To widen the scope of the section to encompass all offences, which the Senator is attempting to do, would represent an undue prohibition on such persons – I gave examples of farmers or others inadvertently committing other offences not listed in the section. I consider that the section as proposed addresses the correct range of offences. We cannot include all offences because some do not relate to people being suitable to deal with members of the public.
Will the Minister of State clarify the position of prisoners released under the Good Friday Agreement? Do I take it that their record will not be used against them? Will it even be taken into account?
The answer to that is "no". The public wants people who can drive safely and to have confidence in them to do that. Offences are listed in the Bill which would prohibit a person obtaining a licence, but they do not deal specifically with people released under the Good Friday Agreement. The offences listed in the Bill, whenever they were committed, continue to be offences and to prohibit a person from holding a licence.
In promoting a safer environment for the users of small public service vehicles, there is a need for the clarity evident in this section. I have purposely provided for such clarity to the extent that the section will have immediate and full effect. That is not to say that the application of the disqualification provisions is absolute.
The section provides a clear and reasonable system of access to the courts for those engaged in the delivery of small public service vehicle operations. They can go to the courts. It is open to all people, regardless of whether they were released under the Good Friday Agreement. It is up to them. They have access to the courts like all others. This is provided in a definitive manner in section 36(3) and, for that reason, the section contains no provision for direct exemption from its application.
Question, "That the words and figures proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 25, between lines 2 and 3 to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) procures or attempts to procure a licence,”.
This ties in with the earlier point that we would have concerns about the background of some drivers and how the new commission intends to regulate this in its new role.
It has already been dealt with in the Bill. While I accept there is merit in the proposal, I remind the House that the Bill provides through section 38 for the establishment of a comprehensive register of licences by the commission and for the continuation of the existing registers held by the Garda and local authorities. Any attempt by such a person to obtain a licence will necessitate all these checks. The checks already exist in the register held by local authorities and the Garda and the commission will have its own checks. There is an abundance of checking mechanisms at the disposal of the commission and they will quickly establish if a person has been disqualified under the provisions of the section.
At present it does not apply to people from another jurisdiction but, in due course, with increased co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda, records will be available and will overlap. No disqualified person from another jurisdiction will be able to come here to obtain an licence.
Will it be an offence to obtain a licence by deceit?
Yes. If it is found that a person has obtained a licence by deceit, that will be taken into consideration and the commission will have the power to revoke the licence. That provision already exists in the road haulage sector, where a licence is obtained under three headings, one of which is repute. If a person does not give the full facts and his or her repute is not of the optimum, it can be revoked. The Minister also has the power to revoke the licence.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 25, subsection (1), line 4, after "A licence shall not be granted" to insert "or re-issued".
We looked up "grant" in the Oxford English Dictionary and the definition of the word incorporates the words "re-issue" and "renewal". The reference to the granting of a licence in this section incorporates the renewal of a licence, by definition.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is amendment No. 9 being pressed?
I bow to the superior knowledge of the Minister of State.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 37 agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
