Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 2013

Vol. 221 No. 8

Taxi Regulation Bill 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House.

Section 13 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 24a:
In page 17, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
14.—(1) The applicant for a licence, with the application, or the holder of a licence, during its operation, may nominate in writing to the Authority a person as his or her representative who may apply to the Authority to continue to operate the licence in the event of his or her death.
(2) In the event of the death of the holder of a licence, his or her nominated representative may, within 3 months of the death of the holder, make an application to the Authority to continue to operate the licence until its expiry.
(3) The provisions of this Act apply to an application made under subsection (1) and if the application is granted the nominated representative becomes the holder of the licence until its expiry and may apply to the Authority for its renewal upon its expiry.
(4) In this section—
“licence” means a licence other than a licence to drive a small public service vehicle;
“nominated representative” means the person nominated by the applicant for, or the holder of, a licence, for the purposes of continuing to operate the licence in the event of death of the licence holder.”.

Section 13, concerning the transfer of SPSV licence, does not provide for an exemption to be made concerning a consequent revocation of an SPSV upon the death of an SPSV licenceholder. Therefore, in the event of the death of an SPSV licenceholder, as a consequence of section 13, the SPSV licence would stand revoked.

As indicated previously in this House and in other areas, I have been reflecting on this matter. This new section will enable the continuity of the SPSV business in the event of the death of an SPSV licenceholder. Under the new section, a licence applicant or holder would be able to nominate their representative to the NTA. Upon the death of the licenceholder, the nominated representative can, within three months, apply to continue to operate the licence until expiry and to apply for the licence renewal thereafter.

SECTION 14

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 17, subsection (1)(a), line 28, to delete “section 44” and substitute “section 43”.

This is a minor amendment to correct a drafting error.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 19, subsection (1), line 41, after “the” to insert “quality”.

This amendment seeks to allay fears that this is not the reintroduction of quantity licensing by other devices. It is important for it to be seen that this is not the reintroduction of the system which was overturned by the High Court in four decisions; the notable one was in 2000. We already have evidence that this is the way the Department is thinking and working.

SI 250 of 2010 raised the entry barrier of capital costs by between 65% and 91% by requiring new entrants but not the incumbents to have wheelchair-accessible vehicles. In addition, the variable costs added 27% to the fuel. The Department really must prove to Members that it is not trying to restore the value of licences. It has already done so as in the editions of the Evening Herald published last night and last Thursday night, more than 30 plates appeared for sale. The decision of the High Court was that one would not have such a restoration. Given that what is happening in this Bill is being interpreted as the reintroduction of quantity licensing and not the retention and development of quality licensing, there is a market for such pieces of paper, with 30 of them being advertised in the Evening Herald every night. One man last night had seven or eight of them for sale. This leads to the position that obtained previously in which licences have a value, the holders of those licences protect that value and successfully lobby a fairly compliant Department, such as the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, to stop new entry as they did in 2010 with the aforementioned statutory instrument. It is very important at this point to clarify whether the Minister of State is, as I believe, introducing quantity licensing to contravene a High Court decision. The Minister of State should allay fears in this regard by stating this refers only to quality licensing. The previous system led to troubles and difficulties that everyone encountered. There was a highly successful deregulation, which was widely commented on in the Goodbody report as having generated approximately €780 million worth of time savings each year. We are in danger of sleep-walking back to the previous system unless this amendment is accepted.

I wish to add a word of support for Senator Barrett. Everyone remembers what happened previously and no one wishes to see steps taken back in that direction. It appears as though the substitution of the word "quality" in this case will solve the issue. I hope the Minister of State will confirm that Senator Barrett's concerns are not valid.

I cannot agree to amendment No. 26. This amendment would see section 16 set out that the function of the National Transport Authority is "to develop, operate and maintain a regulatory framework for the quality licensing and regulation of... standards". There is a fundamental question as to the meaning of the phrase, "quality licensing and regulation" in legal or any other terms. The Senator should note this is also the opinion I have received from the Attorney General. Consequently, there is an issue in this regard and for this reason, I will not accept the amendment.

I thank the Minister of State and should have welcomed him to the House as I fumbled through some papers. While I accept what the Minister of State has said, I greatly regret it because the picture every economist in the country can see is an attempt being made by the licenceholders who occupied buildings and closed off the airport. Moreover, the Department has caved in to give them what they wanted, namely, the restoration of the value of the plates. I gave the Minister his chance but no economist outside the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport believed this was not what he was doing and he now has confirmed it. Quality licensing means one does not restrict the number of people in the industry. I am surprised the Department has no definition of it, as it was given to it in the four court decisions. Another problem with this Bill is the regulatory impact assessment was completed approximately six weeks late and was never submitted to Members but was published on the Department's website. As it refers to neither the Goodbody report nor to the four court decisions, I believe the Department is making this up as it goes along. It is the old anti-competitive emphasis the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has always had, whereby it has kept people out of competition at airports and so on and this constitutes giving into the wrong kind of forces.

I will certainly refer this debate to the troika because we are supposed to reducing the cost of sheltered sector services in Ireland but this measure is creating the scarcity rents that now are being advertised every night in the Evening Herald and the Minister of State, either advertently or inadvertently, is supporting that. It is a sad day that this has happened at a time when we are trying to make the economy more competitive. I support the Minister of State's quality licensing but he is not willing to support the amendment on it. He is, alas, unveiled in his true colours as trying to restore the pre-2000 position in contravention of the four High Court decisions. It will cost someone a large amount of money and there is a queue in the Supreme Court but I have no doubt but that what is being attempted here today will be overturned in the courts because the Minister today is attempting to overturn four court decisions that were made before him. He is giving in to the pressure of incumbents, and already has, in making life so difficult for new entrants by imposing on them a vehicle cost that is 65% to 91% greater than that for incumbents, as well as a variable cost that is 27% higher than the incumbents. This is the kind of discrimination that directly contradicts Mr. Justice Roderick Murphy's judgment that people have a right to enter a sector for which they have the skills and training and the public has the right to the services of such persons. He also added that given that most of those who were being protected back in 2000 - before he overturned that which the Minister of State is attempting to reintroduce - were citizens of this State and that in a Single Market, most of those who were being kept out were from other jurisdictions, we probably were contravening European law as well. It certainly contravenes economic common sense.

I have drawn the attention of the House to what economists think of this Bill and what lawyers think of this Bill and will discuss this further. I believe it to be the role of the University Senators to bring their wisdom and that of their colleagues to this Chamber in order that the Legislature is not treated to a Minister seeking to overturn High Court decisions in the interests of people who occupy buildings and block off the airport, because that is what I perceive the legislation to be doing. That is the only explanation there is because I have gone through each of the Minister of State's objections and the reasons he did not like the new entrants and they are baseless. According to the Goodbody report, there is 96% approval on the part of public opinion for the emergence of so many new entrants into the sector. It is a sad day for Irish economic policy and in general that quantity licensing will be unveiled in all its ugliness in the rejection of this amendment.

Briefly, as previously stated in this House on numerous occasions, there is nothing in this Bill that provides for quantity restrictions. As the Senator has already stated, the courts already have decided on that issue and nothing in this Bill changes that. Apart from that, as I already have explained to the Senator, from a legal wording point of view, the wording as suggested in the amendments is not acceptable.

Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 26.

  • Barrett, Sean D.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • O'Sullivan, Ned.
  • Power, Averil.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • van Turnhout, Jillian.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • Zappone, Katherine.

Níl

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Brennan, Terry.
  • Burke, Colm.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Comiskey, Michael.
  • Conway, Martin.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • D'Arcy, Jim.
  • Harte, Jimmy.
  • Hayden, Aideen.
  • Healy Eames, Fidelma.
  • Henry, Imelda.
  • Higgins, Lorraine.
  • Keane, Cáit.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Landy, Denis.
  • Moloney, Marie.
  • Moran, Mary.
  • Mulcahy, Tony.
  • Mullins, Michael.
  • O'Keeffe, Susan.
  • O'Neill, Pat.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Sean D. Barrett and Feargal Quinn; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 21, subsection (1)(a)(ii), line 2, to delete ", markings or colour of the vehicle".

I am not as inflexible on this amendment as I was on the last. Part-timers in this industry perform a valuable function because the business is so heavily skewed between Thursdays and Saturdays. The contrary view is that a taxi should have all sorts of decorations on it in case people get into one by mistake. There is not much evidence that ever happened, the roof sign was enough. I just wanted to make that point, I will not press the amendment. The role of part-timers is crucial unless we want to have people sitting around from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesday and Wednesdays when there is not enough business.

The subparagraph in section 17 to which the amendment refers is necessary to enable the NTA to make SPSV regulations concerning the markings or colour of vehicles. This is necessary if we want to move in the future to greater conformity in SPSVs. The provision is a restatement of a similar provision under section 34(2) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 concerning the internal and external signage or colour of the vehicle. This allowed the NTA to regulate for the current taxi branding that was introduced in January this year. The aim of the branding is to make taxis more identifiable and to promote greater professionalism in the industry. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment.

I chaired the taxi review, as was appropriate, and consumer representatives took part and this issue was among those they raised. I held a particular view but we had to come to an arrangement with the industry. The branding that we see now on cars that have renewed their licence is the compromise that was reached with the industry itself. We reached a fair compromise. This allows for flexibility in the future in this area.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 21, subsection (1)(a), to delete lines 37 to 39.

This relates to the concern we have expressed in these debates of area licensing being reintroduced. The section states "the areas or locations where the drivers of small public service vehicles may carry on activities of operating small public service vehicles;". Perhaps the Minister of State may come back to this on Report Stage. Does it refer to where the cab rank is located or does it refer to areas of operation?

The Minister of State said previously that in his experience in Tipperary, taxi deregulation had been unsuccessful, there was a shortage and there may be a need to reintroduce area licensing. We did some homework and the Minister of State is right in that Tipperary and Monaghan are the two counties where taxi deregulation had the least impact. If he was in Limerick or any of the other counties in the State, instead of there being 394 SPSVs, there would be more than 600 small public service vehicles. The population per taxi in Tipperary is 4,028 and there are plenty of counties where the figure is half that. I do not know why deregulation did not work in Tipperary. Perhaps people in Ballina get a taxi from Killaloe. In the rest of the State, except Monaghan, deregulation was an astonishing success with all the benefits that Goodbody found. If area licensing in this section refers to the location of the ranks, that is fine, but if it refers to a reintroduction of limits on where taxis can operate, I would oppose it.

There could be doubt about the meaning of this. I understood it to mean ranks but that might not be the case. The Minister of State was concerned when talking about quality and quantity that there might be a doubt as to what the words mean. Certainly there is doubt here and I would like it dispelled. Are we talking about the rank where people queue or the whole area?

It means where they can ply for hire and the ranks where they can do that. The subparagraph the Senator wants to delete supports the current licensing system whereby areas of operation where an SPSV driver can stand or ply for hire must be applied for and specified on the licence, subject to completion of the relevant area knowledge test. Once the area of operation has been established through this process, the SPSV driver is restricted to operation in the areas for which he or she is licensed. Subject to having the appropriate area knowledge, certified SPSV drivers can apply to operate in all 26 counties in the State. This is particularly important for SPSV drivers who operate in regions near county borders, as the Senator mentioned, where there is more than one area of operation.

During 2012, there were only 114 PSV drivers who sat the area knowledge test to get licensed to operate in another county. This may change. The number of people who want to add another area of operation to their driver's licence is relatively low to date. There is a vast difference between the current licensing system that specifies the areas of operation of the SPSV driver compared with the restricted licensing practices under local authorities in the past, to which the Senator has referred. We have moved on.

The specification of areas on the licence and roof sign were introduced in response to industry representatives, the taxi advisory committee and the Garda Síochána. This system makes it easier for customers and enforcement officers to check if a particular SPSV driver is licensed to operate in a county or area. This provision under section 17 is necessary so the NTA can continue to issue licences in response to the areas or locations where drivers of SPSVs choose to operate. This is linked to the area knowledge requirement, which is at the heart of the provision of an effective and efficient SPSV industry in which consumers can have confidence. I cannot accept the amendment.

Again the Minister of State confirms my fears. When the Commission for Taxi Regulation was set up, it was to do the job nationally and remove the local authorities from the picture. We are now reintroducing local licences and once again these will be sold on the market in areas where there is a scarcity. I will not press the amendment but this is another defect in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 21, subsection (1)(a)(xiv), line 47, after “restricting” to insert “or prohibiting”.

This is a minor drafting amendment to insert text. The amendment makes no change to the substance of section 17.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 22, subsection (1)(b), to delete lines 15 and 16 and substitute the following:
"(iii) the standards relating to any equipment carried in the vehicle, including requirements in relation to evidence of verification of taximeters or taximeter systems in accordance with regulations made under the Metrology Act 1996;".

This is an important amendment that enables the NTA to make regulations concerning the standard of equipment in vehicles and on evidence on verification of taxi meters and taxi meter systems in line with regulations under the Metrology Act 1996. Legal advice obtained a couple of years ago identified difficulties in the NTA prosecuting for meter verification issues.

The advice was to the effect that because verification is a complex process, it may be necessary to have a legal Legal Metrology Service inspector involved in each prosecution. This amendment will provide for a straightforward prosecution for not having the correct meter verification seal on the meter to be pursued by the National Transport Authority without having to rely on a joint prosecution.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31a:
In page 23, subsection (1)(g), lines 2 to 4, to delete all words from and including “by” in line 2 down to and including “vehicle” in line 4.

This is purely a technical amendment introduced on the advice of the advisory council. The amendment simplifies the text under subsection (1)(g) and clarifies the intention of paragraph (3), which allows the National Transport Authority to make small public service vehicle regulations concerning the operation, rental, possession or control of a small public service vehicle.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 23, subsection (1)(i), line 8, to delete “conduct,” and substitute “conduct and”.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the flexibility required in the taxi industry. It is unduly restrictive to introduce laws about the deportment and dress of drivers. What action will be taken if it is a warm day and a taxi driver is wearing a t-shirt or football shirt? This provision is unnecessary given the low level of consumer complaints in the taxi industry. I understand approximately 600 complaints have been made in respect of 80 million journeys whereas, as we noted during our previous debate, many more complaints are made to the Ombudsman about the conduct of public servants in general. We must recognise that part-time taxi drivers and those who travel into other areas are providing a flexible transport service. This has generated benefits worth €780 million and we must be careful not to erode them. The incumbents will try to create obstacles for those they do not want in the industry and some of these obstacles strike me as unnecessary. While the provision is unnecessarily intrusive, I do not propose to press the amendment.

I cannot agree to amendments Nos. 32 and 33. The specific provision under section 17 to which the amendments refer enables the National Transport Authority to make regulations concerning the standard of conduct, general behaviour, deportment or dress of persons operating small public service vehicles. This is a restatement and clarification of the existing provision under section 34(6) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2003, providing that the authority can specify conditions and requirements of small public service vehicle drivers concerning their dress code. The provisions of section 17 are necessary measures to promote standards of professionalism in the industry and for this reason, I cannot accept the amendments. As with all of the powers conferred on the National Transport Authority, it is incumbent on the authority to ensure this power is exercised in a reasonable and fair manner.

The National Transport Authority worked closely with Fáilte Ireland to produce a course for taxi drivers on the basis that they are the first point of contact for people arriving through the various airports. A number of taxi drivers have willingly participated in this course. While the provision is needed, the National Transport Authority must also act in a reasonable manner in enforcing it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 23, lines 31 to 38, to delete subsection (2).

The amendment proposes to delete subsection (2), which provides that the National Transport Authority, in making regulations under the section, may set different requirements and conditions in relation to the operation of different categories of small public service vehicles and their drivers, dispatch operators and other persons booking services for small public service vehicles, for different circumstances, and for different counties or areas in the State. This returns me to my comment that this legislation is an example of bureaucracy going over the top in unpicking a decision of the courts that was found in the Goodbody report to be highly beneficial. The provision allowing the NTA to set different requirements and conditions for different categories of vehicle and so forth is a bureaucrat's charter, which also confirms that it is intended to reintroduce area licensing for different regions or counties. As I stated, the current provisions proved to be a major success in 24 of the 26 counties, although for reasons we have not been able to figure out, counties Tipperary and Monaghan had problems in this regard. Unfortunately, the Minister of State comes from one of the two counties where problems occurred.

I accept economic success when it occurs. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the National Transport Authority do not have a great record in regulation because they always protect incumbents and act in an anti-competitive manner. This subsection provides them with a bible and I am unhappy with it for that reason. We have started to move backwards since the High Court decision and this section is another example of this trend. I tabled the amendment because the subsection is not necessary. If we have 24 successes out of a possible 26, that is a pretty good national batting average.

We have been over this ground a few times and I cannot agree to amendment No. 34. Subsection (2) is necessary to enable the National Transport Authority to differentiate small public service vehicle regulations between different categories of vehicle and drivers and the special operators, for different circumstances, and in different areas and counties of the State. There is good reason to maintain and build on the regulatory requirements in place for the categorisation of services, namely, taxis, hackneys, limousine services, etc. For example, there would be an outcry if all hackneys had to meet the requirements of taxis in terms of signage and metering equipment. On the other hand, it would be a retrograde step to remove the pro-consumer requirements for taxi services. The National Transport Authority may be required to make regulations, if needed, to deal with matters such as drivers operating in the voluntary sector or proposals for rural hackney services, which I hope to progress in the coming months, as well as for the identification of driving hour restrictions or other different circumstances.

Similarly, the National Transport Authority regulation concerning the display of signage relating to different areas of small public service vehicle operation relies on the ability to regulate for different areas or counties. This provision in section 17 is a restatement of section 39(3) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2003, with the exception of the introduction of a clause to include different requirements for different categories of dispatch operators and other booking services. There is good reason for the authority to regulate the area of small public service vehicle dispatch and booking services, particularly in terms of ensuring a reliable and high standard of service to consumers.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I regret I will not press it because the Bill is going down the wrong road.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 34a:
In page 23, subsection (4), line 44, after “section” to insert the following:
“, which is stated in the regulations to be a penal provision,”.

This is a purely technical amendment introduced on the advice of the advisory council. It provides that the National Transport Authority must specify in the small public service vehicle regulations that are made under section 17 which of the regulations are penal provisions, that is, provisions whereby failure to comply with or contravention of the regulation is an offence under subsection 17(4).

Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 24, lines 36 to 43 and in page 25, lines 1 to 10, to delete subsections (6) to (8).

It is proposed to turn what started out as a code of practice into a legal offence in this provision. While codes of practice are useful to try to raise standards, this provision provides for the imposition of penalties for some offences which appear to be trivial, to say the least. That is my difficulty with the section.

The Bill provides that subsection (7) will apply "in proceedings for an offence under this Act where there was a relevant code of practice in effect at the time of the commission of the alleged offence". This provision appears to criminalise breaches of a code of practice. While I approve of codes of practice, they work because they persuade rather than legally oblige people to adopt certain practices.

The provisions in subsections (6) to (8) of section 18 provide that compliance, or not, with the code of practice established or adopted by the National Transport Authority can be admissible as evidence in court proceedings for an offence where there was a relevant code of practice in effect. While the provision is not binding on the court, it does allow for the possibility of consideration of such evidence. It is a question of the spirit of the legislation rather than a legally binding measure. I will reflect on the amendment for Report Stage.

I thank the Minister of State.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.

We usually acknowledge invitees of Members in the Visitors Gallery. In this instance, I acknowledge the presence of a group from Golden, the village of the assistant clerk. I am sure she is delighted to see some familiar faces.

SECTION 19
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 25, lines 35 to 37, to delete subsection (7) and substitute the following:
“(7) A person shall not act as a dispatch operator or provide booking services for small public service vehicles where such services require a licence under regulations made by the Authority unless that person holds a licence in that regard.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20

Amendments Nos. 38 and 38a, on the additional list, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Government amendment No. 38:
In page 27, lines 1 to 3, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
“(3) The driver of a taxi when hired for a journey, shall not complete the journey, unless otherwise requested by the passenger, other than by taking—
(a) the shortest route, where practicable, or
(b) with the consent of the passenger, the most convenient route.”.

Amendment No. 38 is a minor textual amendment aimed at providing greater legal precision. The principle of the provision is completely unchanged.

Amendment No. 38a is a technical amendment tabled on the advice of the advisory council. Section 20 of the Bill deals with obligations on SPSV drivers towards passengers. The inserted text provides for a degree of latitude to be exercised with regard to the application of the offences under subsection 20(4), whereby a taxi driver may have reasonable cause not to comply with subsections 20(2) or 20(3), that is, concerning refusal to carry a passenger or not taking the shortest or most convenient route. This is a common sense provision.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 38a:
In page 27, subsection (4), line 4, after “comply” to insert “, without reasonable cause,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21

Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 27, subsection (3)(a)(i), line 17, to delete "and".

This is designed to strengthen consumer representation. I ask that, in addition to the bodies that the Minister must consult - the advisory committee and the Legal Metrology Service - the National Consumer Council have a say. My concern about the Bill in general is that it is definitely pro-producer and ignores substantial benefits to consumers.

On the review group, I am disappointed that it appears the Competition Authority went with the majority. As a consumer, I felt very let down. Perhaps the chairman was too persuasive. It is useful in all regulation to have consumer representation. In that spirit, I hope the Minister of State accepts my amendment. I hope there are consumer representatives who speak up. The danger is regulatory capture whereby the producers take over entirely the regulation of the sector in their interest. Consumers are disparate and never spend very much of their income on any one commodity. Producers get all their income from the commodity and achieve regulatory capture, not only in Ireland but also in a large number of other jurisdictions. I do not know whether the National Consumer Agency would be able to resist that trend, but a consumer voice is very necessary in this area.

I accept the spirit of what the Senator is saying but do not believe this proposal is necessary. Subsection 21(3) provides for consultation with the advisory committee on maximum fares. Section 56 requires that at least two members of the Taxi Advisory Committee shall be from organisations that, in the opinion of the Minister, represent the interest of consumers. That covers it. The National Consumer Agency, the National Disability Authority and the Competition Authority are represented on the committee at present. They were under review and it was noted that they conducted their affairs very diligently and satisfactorily. They put across their views quite strongly in many cases, although not because of strong chairmanship. Hence the branding one sees on cars around the city of Dublin and the rest of the country today.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25
Government amendment No. 40a.
In page 32, lines 15 to 20, to delete subsection (6) and substitute the following:
“(6) A passenger or an intending passenger in a small public service vehicle who contravenes subsection (1) or (3) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class C fine.”.

This is a technical amendment, tabled on the advice of the advisory council. Section 25 of the Bill deals with the regulation of passengers in SPSVs. The amendment removes paragraph (b) of the offences under section 25(6) concerning compliance with subsection 25(2). The offence, as it relates to paragraph (b) of the latter subsection, creates an overlap with an offence already under section 21(9) for non-payment of a fare. The remaining matters in paragraph (a) of subsection 25(2) alone concerning compliance with the code of passenger conduct or a reasonable request of a driver would not warrant maintaining the offence under paragraph (b) of subsection 25(6). In other words, we need to deal with duplication in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 33, subsection (2)(b)(i), line 18, after “person” where it secondly occurs to insert “, from the date of conviction,”.

This is a minor amendment to provide clarification. The principle of section 26 is not changed by this amendment. Simply, the amendment implies that the mandatory disqualification of a person in respect of which subsection 2(b)(i) applies under section 26 of the Bill, that is, where a fine only or a suspended sentence are imposed, is from the date of conviction. This is in line with the commencement of disqualification in the case of all other categories of persons specified under section 26(2). It is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 35, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:

“(13) Where an application is made by the person referred to in subsection (11) to the appropriate court, the appropriate court in making any determination whether to refuse the application, shall have regard to the terms and objectives of the Good Friday Agreement, namely, the reintegration of prisoners into the community in the area of employment.”.

This amendment is designed to ensure no former political prisoner released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement's early release scheme will be prevented from earning a living as a taxi driver. As the Minister of State is aware, there has been a significant body of work done since 1998 to ensure prisoners on release could be assisted by the State and their representative bodies to reintegrate into community life. Central to that was reintegration into the labour market. Barring former political prisoners from working in the taxi industry would not only undermine much of that good work but would also be contrary to the spirit and letter of the Good Friday Agreement.

The Agreement states, "The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities, re-training and/or re-skilling, and further education". This paragraph places a legally binding obligation on the Irish Government on the issue of employment opportunities. In the High Court of Justice of Northern Ireland, a successful challenge was brought by a former political prisoner on the basis that the licensing authority failed to consider the express rights of prisoners as set out in the Belfast Agreement. The judgment in that case was that the Agreement contemplates that mechanisms would be put in place for the accelerated release of prisoners, and that those prisoners who benefited from that programme would be reintegrated into the community. It appears, therefore, that particular attention should be paid to the fact that a prisoner released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 has been judged not to be a danger to the public.

In Britain, following a Fair Employment Tribunal judgment in McConkey and Marks v. the Simon Community, the British Government carried out a review of whether to amend the Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. The documentation states: "...to reflect those changed circumstances [in light of the Good Friday Agreement] and not least to reflect the terms of the said Agreement with its reference to the introduction of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community in the area of employment". If the British Government is willing to meet its obligation under the Good Friday Agreement, it is necessary that the Irish Government do the same. If we automatically exclude former political prisoners of certain categories, as in the case in this Bill, it could controvert the Agreement.

I ask the Minister of State to accept this amendment, which seeks only to provide that the court "...shall have regard to the terms and objectives of the Good Friday Agreement...".

I support Senator Reilly's amendment. One of the first pieces of work I did in this area was on the colour coding of taxis in west Belfast, Derry and north Belfast, which worked extremely well. It is an excellent service, of high frequency and operational for many hours. There are lessons for us in it being possible to do this in Northern Ireland, in the context as eloquently described by Senator Reilly. It took us a long time to learn the lessons of the provision in those areas of high frequency, lengthy public transport services in difficult circumstances. Proven expertise exists in the marketplace. I note from recent opinion polls that the services provided are extremely popular in the neighbourhoods in which they operate.

I thank the Senators for their contributions. The point at issue in this legislation is the safety of passengers, who are in a vulnerable position, while in a taxi. Due to the restriction that this places on persons to participate in the industry, the grounds for mandatory disqualification is, for legal reasons, narrowly defined. It is not possible in legislation to seek to further define instances wherein there may be mitigating circumstances that justify the non-compliance of the disqualification. For this reason the Taxi Regulation Bill makes specific provision for an appeal to the courts in relation to mandatory disqualification. Exceptions are possible where the courts determine they are appropriate. The courts are positioned to make that type of judgment. It is clearly stated in section 26(10) that in determining whether to grant or refuse such an application, the court can have regard to any matter that it considers relevant. As such, there is adequate provision in the Bill to address the concerns raised by the Senators. I will not be accepting the amendment as I do not believe it is necessary.

Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 35.

  • Barrett, Sean D.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Norris, David.
  • Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • Reilly, Kathryn.
  • Zappone, Katherine.

Níl

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Brennan, Terry.
  • Burke, Colm.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Comiskey, Michael.
  • Conway, Martin.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • D'Arcy, Jim.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Harte, Jimmy.
  • Hayden, Aideen.
  • Healy Eames, Fidelma.
  • Henry, Imelda.
  • Higgins, Lorraine.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Landy, Denis.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Moloney, Marie.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Moran, Mary.
  • Mulcahy, Tony.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Mullins, Michael.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • O'Keeffe, Susan.
  • O'Neill, Pat.
  • O'Sullivan, Ned.
  • Power, Averil.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • van Turnhout, Jillian.
  • Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Kathryn Reilly; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 36, subsection (1), line 41, after “section 26(3)” to insert the following:
“or such other offences as the Minister may specify in regulations”.

Applicants or licence holders are required under section 27 to declare to the licensing authorities their convictions for any of the offences set out in the Schedule or those listed in section 26 (3), which relates to serious road traffic offences. This amendment provides that the Minister may specify in regulations other offences which must be notified to the licensing authorities for the purposes of the suitability assessment of all licenceholders and applicants provided for under section 10. These could include summary conviction of the specified offences in the Schedule to the Bill or other offences relating to the activities of the person in respect of providing SPSV services or driving an SPSV. This section relates only to the obligation to make a declaration to the licensing authorities. The licensing authorities are, of course, not limited to this information in assessing the suitability of persons to hold licences. Some examples of relevant convictions which might be of concern in this area would be involvement in organised crime, drug trafficking and so on.

I am aware of a man who came home from abroad who was a taxi driver while living abroad. He got a licence in this country but was subsequently convicted of a crime. When he was convicted, it was discovered he had committed the same offence in another jurisdiction, namely England. He filled out the necessary application to the licensing authority in this country but did not state that he had a previous conviction in another jurisdiction. I am concerned about the checks, if any, that are carried out on people who have lived in other jurisdictions, whether in Northern Ireland, Great Britain, the United States or elsewhere, to ensure that such people have no previous convictions.

The Senator has raised a very important question. The licensing authorities, in the processing of applications, ask for information on previous convictions, as the Senator has stated. The authorities will use all available means to check with other jurisdictions for information on offences that would affect their decision to grant licences. The simple answer is that the authorities will use all available means.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 38, line 6, to delete “section 7(5) or (6)” and substitute “section 7(5) or (7)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31

I will not be moving amendments Nos. 46 or 48, as they relate to section 11, which I intend to amend on Report Stage. However, I will reintroduce the substance of amendment No. 46 along with the amendment to section 11 on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 46 not moved.
Government amendment No. 47:
In page 40, line 9, column 2, to delete "Section 7(6)" and substitute "Section 7 (7)"
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 49:
In page 40, to delete lines 13 to 17 and substitute the following:
"

6

Section 17(4)(a)

4

7

Section 17(4)(b)

1

2

Section 31(1) provides for demerits to be endorsed on driver licence records held by the National Transport Authority, NTA, where the alleged offender makes a payment pursuant to a notice for a fixed charge offence issued by the Garda or a fixed payment notice issued by the NTA. Amendment No. 49 relates to the demerits to be applied in respect of offences arising under the small public service vehicle, SPSV, regulations made by the NTA under section 17. This amendment provides that no demerits are applied for substantial breaches of regulations made by the NTA under section 17. This is appropriate, as fixed payment penalties are not expected to be applied for such breaches. Rather, they should be prosecuted before the courts, which would, on conviction, result in the imposition of demerits. For non-substantial breaches, there is no change to the Bill, which provides for one demerit where a fixed penalty is made and two demerits on conviction.

I am reflecting on all of these issues as they relate to demerits. Further amendments may be tabled on Report Stage. In the near future, I will also consult various taxi groups and the Irish Taxi Council.

Amendment No. 50 concerns the demerits to be applied for offences under section 19(5) or (6). These offences relate to the prohibition on the provision of SPSV vehicles' services without appropriate vehicle and driver licences. This proposal is intended to reflect the fact that such serious offences are not appropriate for fixed payment penalties, but should be prosecuted before the courts. The number of demerits on conviction is reduced from five to four.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 50:
In page 40, to delete line 18 and substitute the following:
"

7

Section 19(5) or (6)

4

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 51:
In page 40, line 23, column 4, to delete "5" and substitute "4"

These are technical amendments and provide for the reduction in the number of demerits from five to four, including upon conviction of an offence under sections 23(4) and 27(2), respectively, in line with other specified demerit offences. Those offences relate to the restrictions on the use of the word "taxi" and the failure to provide accurate information to the licensing authority with regard to offences.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 52:
In page 40, line 24, column 4, to delete "5" and substitute "4"
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 32 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 37
Government amendment No. 52a:
In page 44, subsection (1), lines 37 and 38, to delete "has reasonable grounds for believing" and substitute "is satisfied".

This is a technical amendment on the advice of the advisory council. Section 37 provides for the prohibition on the use of unroadworthy or defective vehicles as SPSVs. This amendment allows for a more precisely worded legal expression of the degree of discretion to be exercised by an authorised person in finding an SPSV to be unroadworthy, defective or non-compliant with the standards concerning the use or operation of the vehicle as an SPSV.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 53:
In page 45, subsection (1), line 4, before "reward" to insert "hire or".

This is a minor textural amendment and does not change the principle of section 37, which relates to the prohibition on the use of unroadworthy or defective vehicles as SPSVs.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 38 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 44

Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 54:
In page 48, subsection (1), lines 28 and 29, to delete all words from and including "under" on line 28 down to and including "50(5)" on line 29 and substitute the following:
"under section 7(5) or (7), 8(7), 9(4), 17(4)(b), 20(1) or (4), 21(7) or (9), 22(9) or (10), 23(4), 25(6), 27(2), 33(3), 39(1) in respect of a contravention of section 37, 50(5) or 52(3).".

These are technical amendments that provide for a greater number of offences under the Bill to be specified as fixed payment offences under section 44. This will increase the on-street capability of enforcement officers and increase efficiency through a reduction in the number of prosecutions in the courts.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 55:
In page 49, subsection (3), lines 17 and 18, to delete all words from and including "section" in line 17 down to and including "50(5)" in line 18 and substitute "a provision referred to in subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
Section 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46
Government amendment No. 56:
In page 50, subsection (6)(d), line 34, to delete "draw upon".

This amendment addresses a typographical error. The words "draw upon" are clearly out of place and undermine the meaning of the sentence in which they appear.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 47 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 55

Amendments Nos. 57 to 59, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 58 is an alternative to amendment No. 57. The amendments may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 57:
In page 53, lines 23 to 25, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) The integrated implementation plan under section 13 of the Act of 2008 shall comprise actions to be taken by the Authority with regard to the small public service vehicle industry.".

These amendments are necessary to ensure that the objectives of the authority under section 16 for the regulation of the taxi sector are included in the strategic planning processes already provided for under section 13 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008. The Bill makes reference to the authority's strategic transport plan, which it is required to produce under section 12 of the 2008 Act. However, the actions that the authority is required to undertake in respect of SPSVs is more appropriate for inclusion in the integrated implementation plan that the authority is required to produce under section 13 of the Act.

I cannot agree to amendment No. 58. It is inappropriate, in that it limits the regulation of the SPSV sector to competitive regulation. The opinion of our legal advice is that this term does not have adequate legal precision. One person's view of competitive regulation might differ markedly from another's.

I note the Minister of State's comments. The thrust of the Bill is anti-competitive. The thrust of the way in which the NTA was set up was anti-competitive. When the then Senator, Deputy Paschal Donohoe tried to raise a number of issues in this House, the debate was guillotined. The then President, Mary McAleese, was required to sign the legislation at short notice.

We allocated every penny of subsidy to a single company owned by the Department. There was no competition for the routes. All of the investment grants went to a single company. There was no competitive tendering for public services. This followed on from the Swords Express case in which the learned High Court judge, Mr. Justice Bryan McMahon, found that the Department of Transport had doubly discriminated - against the applicant, Swords Express, and in favour of CIE. The benefits of taxi deregulation are now being whittled away under this Bill.

The Department will be colonised and captured by producers. It will not devise competitive solutions unless the Parliament insists that it does. These solutions should be discussed. In Saturday's edition of The Irish Times it was reported that the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform had found that €30 million had been wasted on railway projects in the Dublin area by agencies under the aegis of the Minister of State's Department. It also found that €227 million of the money spent to date would be lost if projects did not go ahead.

I am trying to instil market discipline in the Department. It is ignoring the benefits. It has ignored the Goodbody report and High Court judgments throughout the Bill.

I was told that there was a consumer-oriented review group but apart from the Minister of State and the vice chairman, there were four producers, 11 people from the public sector, nobody from the private sector and a retired member of the Consumers' Association of Ireland. It seems the only issue on which the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport believes in competition is in opposing the Ryanair takeover of Aer Lingus. With everything else, issues must be nailed down and brought to court by the likes of Mr. Pat Nestor, who sought to open up the Dublin to Galway route. It is essential for the Parliament to make this Department work not in the interest of the bodies under its aegis but in the interests of the wider consumer.

This committee certainly did not achieve that and I am glad to clarify its membership. Competition is in the interest of the consumer and it relates to the economies that the troika is telling us to achieve. This will not happen unless the people in Parliament want it to happen, which is why I have tabled the amendment. The Department will drift into its old ways of wasting money, as Mr. Robert Watt stated at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts last week, which will prevent competition. It is a most important amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 58 not moved.
Government amendment No. 59:
In page 53, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Section 13(2) of the Act of 2008 is amended by inserting after paragraph (c) the following:
“(ca) actions to be taken relating to the objectives of the Authority under section 16(2) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013,”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 56

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 54, subsection (4)(i), line 30, after “matters.” to insert the following:

"These shall include representatives of the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency.".

This is an attempt to have the consumer listened to in the debate in order that successful economic policies cannot be overturned by people who do not want competition or by committees heavily biased in favour of extra bureaucracy and incumbents at the expense of competition. It is necessary for the Competition Authority to take an interest in the area and I am disappointed it has not heretofore. The consumer must be professionally represented because the last time a former chair of the Consumer Association of Ireland was meant to be the consumers' representative, he was heavily outnumbered. That has happened and it will continue with this Bill. It has the producers' fingerprints all over it from beginning to end. With this section, I am trying to achieve, belatedly, some say for the consumer in what is going on.

This amendment is unnecessary. Section 56 requires that at least two members of the taxi advisory committee shall be from organisations which, in the opinion of the Minister, represent the interests of consumers. The Consumers' Association of Ireland, the National Disability Authority and the Competition Authority are all represented on the committee.

The Senator has referred to the committee, which I will chair, saying it did not do its job. I resent that as an unfair statement. It is unfair to the representative of the Consumers' Association of Ireland who is on the committee and who has worked for many years for the organisation. The Competition Authority has also been represented and that member made some very valuable points.

Consumer interests in this area cross a wide spectrum of issues, many of which have not got to the floor of this House in the last number of sessions. I assure the Senator that through this legislation and the regulations coming from the National Transport Authority, there has never been as big a focus on the consumer as there is with the work that started with the committee and which is continuing through regulations and this legislation.

Is the amendment being pressed?

No, although I will have comments on Report Stage, as the consumer is being ignored. The entire Bill is anti-competitive, and the more we go through it, the more obvious that becomes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 56 agreed to.
Section 57 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 61:
In page 57, before section 58, to insert the following new section:
"PART 9
AMENDMENT OF PART 2 OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT REGULATION ACT 2009
58.—The Public Transport Regulation Act 2009 is amended—
(a) in section 19—
(i) by substituting for subsection (2) the following:
“(2) (a) Where the Authority proposes to revoke a licence in accordance with subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d), it shall give notice of its intention to the licence holder and shall invite the holder to make written submissions to it within 21 days or such further period as the Authority allows. The Authority shall consider any representations duly made before deciding to revoke the licence.
(b) Where having considered submissions under paragraph (a), the Authority decides that the licence should be revoked, it shall advise the holder in writing that the evocation shall have effect—
(ii) by substituting for subsection (5) the following:
“(5) A person who continues to provide a public bus passenger service in respect of which a licence has been revoked under this section and the revocation has taken effect commits an offence.”,
(b) in section 22(1)(a), by inserting “where an application has been refused” after “transfer of a licence”, and
(c) in section 24—
(i) by substituting for subsection (1) the following:
“(1) A person who commits an offence under section 6(2) or 19(5) is liable—
(ii) in subsection (3), by inserting “summarily” after “prosecuted”.”.

I understand the Minister of State does not wish to press this amendment.

I told people in the bus industry about this as they had not been told. It is a surprise that one would seek to change the regulation of the bus industry under a taxi Bill and people in the bus industry had not been notified of this by the Department.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 58

Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 62:
In page 57, to delete lines 41 to 43 and substitute the following:
“ “(c) an offence—
(i) under section 17(4)(b) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 in respect of such contraventions of regulations made under that section, or
(ii) under such other provisions of Part 3 of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013,
as may be declared in regulations made by the Minister to be a fixed charge offence,”,”.

Amendment No. 62 provides for the insertion into section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 of fixed payment offences under section 17 of the Bill and as otherwise prescribed in regulations by the Minister under the Taxi Regulation Bill so that these fixed payment offences can be enforced by members of An Garda Síochána.

Amendment No. 63 allows 11 specific fixed payment small public service vehicles, SPSV, offences to be administered by members of An Garda Síochána in the short term in line with action 21 of the Taxi Regulation Review Report 2011. This non-textual amendment will give legal effect for the transition of the 11 SPSV fixed payment offences into the Garda fixed payment systems by means of reference to section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The temporary amendments will cease to have effect upon commencement of section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, whereby section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 will be repealed and replaced by section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 2010. It is envisaged that subject to agreement between An Garda Síochána and the National Transport Authority, NTA, in future more SPSV fixed payment offences under the Bill can be identified as being suitable for enforcement by both NTA officers and the Garda. The amendment in section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 will enable this.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 63:
In page 58, after line 31, to insert the following subsections:
“(2) Section 103 (inserted by section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 as amended by section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 2006) of the Act of 1961 applies to an offence —
(a) under section 17(4)(b) in respect of such contraventions of SPSV regulations, or
(b) under such other provisions of Part 3,
as may be declared in regulations made by the Minister to be a fixed charge offence for the purpose of that section.
(3) A fixed charge notice served under section 103 of the Act of 1961 relating to an offence declared under subsection (2) of this section to be a fixed charge offence (within the meaning of section 103 of the Act of 1961) and which is a demerit offence shall contain a statement to the effect that if the person on whom it is served makes the appropriate payment specified in subsection (7) of section 103 of the Act of 1961 in accordance with that subsection or is convicted of the offence, different specified numbers of demerits will be endorsed on the SPSV licence record of the person.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) stand repealed on the commencement of paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 49 of the Act of 2010.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
TITLE
Amendment No. 64 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."

As I stated earlier, if the bus industry is to be affected by a taxi Bill, we should inform representatives of the bus industry. There are issues to be sorted out in that respect.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 5 March 2013.
Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.
Top
Share