Vol. 173 No. 16
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"(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.”.
I wish to discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. Is that in order?
As the amendments are related, they may be discussed together.
The reason I have tabled these amendments is that it is important, as I noted on previous Stages, that the issue of the hardship caused to a number of taxi drivers and their families as a result of the deregulation of the taxi market is redressed and the matter revisited by the Government. The matter should not be overlooked. Many Members, including Deputies of the other House, have noted that the payments made to compensate for the hardship incurred was inadequate in many cases. It is wrong that people operating in a regulated environment should suffer financial loss of such proportions due to an act of the Government without being compensated sufficiently. The Committee on Petitions of the European Union confirmed that the payments in this case were inadequate and asked that the issue be revisited. I am aware the Minister of State will not accept the amendments. I ask the Government to re-examine the matter.
I second the amendment. This time last year I did not, as a member of the general public, have much sympathy for taxi drivers. Now, as a Member of the House who has had the benefit of sitting on the Joint Committee on Transport for a year and having met the families involved and, in particular, the association, FAIR, an impressive group which has lobbied hard and successfully highlighted its case, I have a much greater understanding for the families concerned.
The taxi hardship panel made a recommendation on this issue. The Fine Gael Party regards the criteria it used in the selection process as questionable. We also disagree with the level of compensation it recommended, as it does not mirror the significant hardship being experienced by the families in question. Ultimately, it issued a recommendation and the Minister remains free to take a different view and increase the compensation levels, if he so wishes.
This matter has been ongoing for three years. Senators will agree it is time for action. Members of the Joint Committee on Transport from all sides, including the Government parties, were unanimous that the level of compensation being offered was not adequate. I ask the Minister of State to address this aspect and increase the amount of compensation available. Families are in hardship as a result of the overnight deregulation, which, in hindsight, was badly thought through.
As it is now 5.50 p.m., and in accordance with the Order of Business, which has been twice amended, I must put the following question: "That amendment No. 1 be negatived, that the Bill be received for final consideration and that the Bill do now pass".
On a point of order, is there any possibility that the Minister of State might reply to the points raised by Senator Browne?
No, the question has been put.
Would it be possible to allow the Minister of State to respond to the points raised?
Has the Minister of State anything to add?
Am I permitted to respond to the amendment?
No. The Minister of State may make additional remarks.
I thank Senators for their contributions to this open and fair debate. It is clear that all sides of the House recognise the need for a new and enhanced legislative basis for the licensing and operation of taxis, hackneys and limousines. As the responsible Minister of State, Bobby Molloy introduced deregulation which resulted in the liberalisation of the taxi industry. We are grateful for his efforts. I understand he is unwell at present and, on behalf of the House, I take this opportunity to wish him well and hope his health improves.
