Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 2013

Vol. 226 No. 12

Taxi Regulation Bill 2012: [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil] Report and Final Stages

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kelly, to the House. This is a Seanad Bill that has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 118, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question, "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister of State may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. For Senators' convenience, I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. The Minister of State will deal separately with the subject matter of each related group of amendments. I have also circulated the proposed grouping to the House. A Senator may only contribute once on each grouping.

Senator Barrett and others have tabled a number of amendments that arise from the changes made to the Bill by the Dáil. In view of the number of amendments and to avoid repetition of debate, I propose that amendments made by the Dáil and related amendments tabled by Senator Barrett will be debated together in related groups. Decisions on the amendments tabled by Senator Barrett will be taken when discussion of all groups of amendments has concluded. I remind Senators that the only matters that may be discussed are the subject matter of each grouping of amendments made by the Dáil and amendments tabled that arise out of the amendments made by the Dáil.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

I call on the Minister of State to address the subject matter of the amendments in group No. 1.

It is a dark morning.

It is good to be back in the House. I am delighted to have commenced the Bill in this House, as we have held some good debates.

The most substantive of this group of amendments is amendment No. 20, relating to the revocation of licences where there is a change of control of the company holding the licence. While the transfer of a small public service vehicle, SPSV, licence is prohibited under section 14, this restriction is capable of being circumvented where the licence is held in the name of a company rather than an individual by transfer of ownership of the company. Some 929 SPSV licences and just under 23,000 vehicle licences are held by companies, representing some 4%. Provision for the grant of further licences to companies is contained in section 9(7). All applicants for licences are required to meet the suitability requirements set out in section 10, subsection (2)(e) of which contains specific measures relating to the suitability of members of companies.

The two key policy principles underlying the prohibition of transfers are that a licence should not have a value, an idea that I fundamentally believe in, and that a licence should determine a person's suitability to carry out a function. However, where a company that holds a taxi licence is sold, there is a potential to realise a value relating to that licence and there is a possibility of entering the taxi business without the suitability checks envisaged in section 10.

This amendment provides that, upon a change in control of a company that holds a licence, that is, where the person in control of the company changes or there is a change of half or more of its shareholding in one or more transactions, the SPSV licence stands revoked. The exception is where the change in control is as a result of death. Therefore, this new provision ensures parity between all SPSV licenceholders in terms of the prohibition on transferable licences whether a licence is held by a company or an individual.

Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment. Amendment No. 3 is a consequential drafting amendment. Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, inclusive, and 46 to 51, inclusive, are less substantive or drafting amendments. I ask the Senators to support these amendments.

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for originally introducing the Bill in this House. We engaged in a number of very good debates on the relevant issues on previous occasions. I welcome to the Gallery the next generation of transport economists. Perhaps the Minister of State and I might have a word with them after this debate.

Those to whom the Senator refers should know that he and I get on very well. We are very fond of one another.

I thank the Minister of State. I will not be opposing the amendments in this group. However, where they are not issued in sufficient quantities, licences acquire a value. As the Minister of State is aware, licences are worth $1 million in New York and $400,000 in Boston. I understand that the former President and Prime Minister of France, Mr. Jacques Chirac, tried and failed to deregulate the taxi industry in Paris. Taxi people are pretty good at achieving regulatory capture over the authorities. Once this occurs, licences obtain a value. While I appreciate the Minister of State's efforts to ensure that they should not have such a value, I am of the view that the solution to this problem would be to reconsider the statutory instrument introduced in 2010. Professor Paul Gorecki and others have indicated that the latter has had a substantial impact in the context of establishing barriers to new entry.

I share the Minister of State's concerns that licences should not have value. Much of the wisdom of Members and that of the officials from the Department will have to be dedicated to ensuring that they will not acquire value. Licences were worth €130,000 in the past and the courts, quite rightly, ruled against that. I wish the Minister of State success in ensuring that licences will not acquire value. I am concerned that once they become scarce, lawyers will start selling people pens and licences. The pen will be worth €129,000 and the licence will be worth the balance. Lawyers are pretty good at doing that. I commend the Minister of State on attempting to reduce the size of the market in this regard to the greatest degree possible.

On the transfer of licences to companies, section 15 deals with the circumstances in which a licence can be transferred following the death of the holder. The Minister of State may not be in favour of it but what is the position with regard to inheritance? If a father and son are operating a taxi company together and if the father, who owns the licence, wants to retire, he is not entitled to transfer that licence to his son. Perhaps the Minister of State might comment on this matter.

I thank Senators for their comments. These provisions are designed to ensure that a standard will be established and that licences will have no value. I am sure everyone agrees that the scenarios which existed in this area in the past were completely ridiculous. The provisions in question will ensure that applications for licences will be judged on the basis of the suitability of the individuals involved. The amendments in this group will ensure that the provision will apply to companies as well as individual licence holders. The latter comprise the majority of those who possess taxi licences and concerns were expressed with regard to the existence of a loophole in respect of companies. Those concerns have been addressed.

We engaged in a fairly detailed discussion with the associations that represent taxi drivers - particularly the taxi committee - and they argued, quite convincingly, that upon death there should be an exemption with regard to the transfer of licences. I accepted their argument but I am not willing to put in place further exemptions. This is a regulatory process and taxi drivers should be obliged to undergo that process and an inspection in order to obtain their licences in the first instance. Any additional exemptions would affect the rigidity of the system. While I take on board what Senator O'Neill says - others have made the same point previously - unfortunately I am not in a position to make a change in this regard.

Group No. 2 comprises amendments Nos. 2, 4 to 7, inclusive, 15 to 19, inclusive, 30, 31, 33 and 41 to 45, inclusive. I call on the Minister of State to address the subject matter of these amendments.

These are purely technical drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, relate to the general provisions of section 3 concerning the making of regulations and orders that must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, which will have the option to pass a resolution annulling a regulation or order. These are drafting amendments which involve many cross-references in order to ensure that the provisions of section 3 will apply in respect of all relevant provisions under which the licensing authority or the Minister will have powers to make regulations and orders. Amendment No. 6 relates to section 6, which provides for the Minister to transfer licensing responsibilities from the Garda Síochána to the NTA. An order under section 6 will now be subject to the requirement in section 3 and will, therefore, have to be laid before the Houses.

Amendments Nos. 15 to 19, inclusive, provide greater clarity concerning the process and procedure for decisions of the licensing authority to refuse to grant an application or to suspend or revoke a licence and for appeals and representations under section 13. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure legal clarity. Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 30 to 33, inclusive, and 41 to 45, inclusive, provide minor clarifications and are drafting amendments.

Group No. 3 comprises amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, 14, 32 and 34 and Seanad Report Stage amendment No. 11.

Amendment No. 8 provides that the authority can specify in regulations under section 7 the period within which a renewal application must to be made before the licence expires. Amendment No. 10, which relates to section 9, provides that the licensing authority can determine the documentation, information and fees that constitute a complete application. The authority can also refuse to grant an application for renewal if such documentation, information or fees are not submitted within the prescribed period. This is a necessary provision that addresses the problem of incomplete licence renewal applications, which can result in a licence continuing in force for a number of months until the licensing authority can successfully pursue the licence holder for the necessary accompanying documentation, information or fees.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 are minor drafting amendments. Amendment No. 12 clarifies that an application under section 9(14) means an application that is complete with documentation, information and fees. Amendment No. 13 provides for the definitions of the terms "appropriate fee" and "tax clearance certificate" which are required under the section. Collectively, these measures are intended to ensure that the licensing regime is operated in a fair and coherent manner.

Amendment No. 14 arises from action 3 of the taxi regulation review report 2011 and is designed to ensure, in the case of part-time drivers, improved compliance with working time legislation. This issue came under the spotlight in the "Prime Time Investigates" programme in May 2011 - of which Senators are well aware - whereby part-time SPSV drivers were found to be engaged in other employment, namely, driving public service vehicles and were driving excessively long hours at a risk to the safety of passengers, themselves and other road users. While the policy principle underpinning the section concerning regulation of SPSV drivers' hours for the purpose of passenger and road safety is sound, I am informed by advisory counsel from the Attorney General's office that some aspects of section 11, as passed by this House, could depending on how it is interpreted and applied, give rise to legal challenge concerning a person's rights. Amendment No. 14 will provide for an obligation on the part of a licence applicant or holder, in the case of all other employments and in respect of other employment which involves the driving of a vehicle, to inform or show evidence to the authority that his or her employer has been notified. I am assured by advisory counsel that such a provision will not raise any difficulties in terms of constitutional rights or rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is entirely reasonable that the Oireachtas can require that an employer, where the other occupation involves driving, be aware of the fact that an employee may be driving a taxi so that the employer in question can be satisfied that the employee is capable of safely discharging any driving activities connected with his or her employment.

The section 11 provisions relate to the NTA powers under section 19 to make SPSV regulations concerning the period of time for which a driver may drive an SPSV - which applies to both whole-time and part-time taxi drivers - and the intervals of rest between driving an SPSV after having driven a vehicle in the course of other employment. In addition, under subjection 11(4) it will be an offence to fail to provide to the licensing authority the information concerning other occupations that is required under section 11. Amendment No. 32 is technical in nature. It will facilitate the inclusion of the proposed offence under subsection 11(4) under the demerit scheme in Part 5. Subsection 11(4) relates to the contravention of the requirement to inform the licensing authority of information in respect of another occupation as required under the proposed section 11. Amendment 34 is also a technical amendment which provides for the inclusion of the proposed offence under subsection 11(4) in the demerit table in section 33.

I am sure Senators will agree that we have taken on board the advice provided by the advisory council in respect of this issue. We also took on board comments made in this House.

I welcome the Minister of State's comments. On the previous occasion on which the House debated this matter, we were concerned with ensuring that the rights of part-time workers would be protected.

In respect of both the Goodbody and the Gorecki reports, part-timer drivers fulfil a very important role in an industry that is heavily peaked at weekends. We were more pro-part-timers than the original version of the Bill. I am glad the Minister of State has accommodated that. I may have been one of the people who objected to the version passed by the Seanad. Part-time work is a feature and part-time workers have their rights. They perform a very valuable role and that role is protected in human rights legislation and European legislation. I will not be moving my amendments and I welcome what the Minister of State has said here this afternoon.

Does the Minister of State wish to respond or is he happy with that?

I thank the Senator for his comments. As I said previously, we took on board the advice of the advisory council. We must always do that. When we discussed this issue again, we took on board comments made in this House as well.

We will now move on to amendments Nos. 25 to 29 and Seanad Report Stage amendment No. 24 in group No. 4, which relate to prohibition on providing, offering or advertising SPSV services without a licence.

Amendment No. 25 provides in section 21(1) for the exclusion from the prohibition on operating without an SPSV licence under section 21 for a person driving or using a bus and a person driving or using a mechanically propelled vehicle under the proposed new Part 7, namely, a community car service or other non-taxi service specified under that Part. Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 are drafting amendments.

Amendment No. 29 inserts a new provision in section 26 making it an offence to promote, offer or advertise an unlicensed SPSV. This issue was raised with me by a number of Members. The NTA has received a substantial number of complaints in respect of persons offering unlicensed vehicles for booking online, in newspapers and publications and at venues such as wedding fairs. This is a source of very significant frustration for licensed operators in these market sectors who operate fully licensed vehicles. In particular, in the case of wedding cars, such cars are displayed at wedding fairs and bookings for them taken on the day of the fair. However, at the time of booking, the vehicle is not licensed. If operators are unlicensed, the NTA enforcement officers have no rights to examine their records and see what bookings they have taken. Up until they provide the service, they have done nothing illegal. This makes it virtually impossible to enforce the matter. Without knowing what bookings were taken, the NTA enforcement officers cannot know where and when the service will be operated in order to confirm the contravention - notwithstanding the practical issues with stopping wedding or funeral vehicles which would obviously be an issue given the occasion. On a policy level, this practice of being permitted to advertise while unlicensed and take booking for services which are, in general, regulated from a public safety perspective, is encouraging unlicensed activities and is detrimental to the operation of the regulatory system. It is a purely practical amendment and I would ask for that to be supported.

Does Senator Barrett wish to comment on group No. 4?

The purpose of my amendment, Seanad Report Stage amendment No. 4, is to ensure that the authority ensures that passengers do not face a shortage of licensed public service vehicles thus reducing the potential market for unlicensed operators. It goes back to the earlier point that regulatory capture does take place. We put up bans on new entrants because the incumbents are always more powerful than new entrants. One creates a market for the outsiders. There has been a blanket ban on new entry to this sector since 2010. Should it not be part of the brief for the authority with advice from people like the Minister of State to note that tourism is starting to increase and that consumer expenditure is growing? We have taken about 5,000 taxis out of the business since 2010. I know the Minister of State does not want the licence value to increase either. The longer we delay the prospect of new entry, the greater the demand for unlicensed people who say they can make money from this business because there are never any taxis in location X, Y and Z and who will try to get into it. I am concerned the 2010 statutory instrument which was not debated in the House, which is still in force, makes incumbents high-cost and ignores the services for customers. This is why the court cases were won in the first instance in 2000. How can we ensure that there is no market for the unlicensed operators the Minister of State is trying to keep out? How can we stop pressures from incumbents to keep banning new entrants? In Paul Gorecki's latest article, he states that he is seriously concerned about that. He wonders whether there was ever excess supply. The longer the Minister of State delays this decision, the more the licences acquire a value so people stay in the industry hoping they will be able to sell the licence.

My amendment deals with how we facilitate new entrants and I would be very interested to hear about when we can expect new licences to be issued again and how can we ensure there is an adequate supply to prevent the licence value increasing, which the Minister of State is against, and to prevent the growth of unlicensed operators, which the Minister of State is also against?

Does the Minister of State wish to respond?

We have been around the houses on this one a few times. I understand Senator Barrett's thought process and views on this. Obviously, I do not agree with his opinions on it. I will not accept this specific amendment to section 26. I am not sure if this is the right place to even put it. The proposed amendment seeks to impose an obligation on the NTA to ensure that there is no shortage of licensed services. According to this logic, if 20,000 people were looking for a taxi on a Saturday night in Dublin, there should be 20,000 vehicles. I am not sure this is practical. In fact, I know it is not. It is not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill which provides for qualitative regulation of the small public service vehicle industry with free market entry to persons who meet the required standards.

There are no quantitative controls. I know we have debated this around the houses on a number of occasions. The NTA cannot ensure that there will not be a shortage of services but the operation of market forces should ensure that any instances of either undersupply or oversupply are corrected. The NTA is subject under section 19 of the Bill to a general obligation "to promote the provision and maintenance of quality services by small public service vehicles and their drivers". The NTA is examining the possible introduction of a rural hackney licence as a means of responding to instances where services are not being provided. Indeed, there is market failure in rural Ireland. Where I live in Tipperary, there is market failure. We do not have the required provision of taxis. It is as simple as that. We are trying to address that market failure in this Bill.

I will not be accepting the amendment. The specific area under which it has been moved is probably not the area I would have thought it would have been moved under as the issues being addressed are slightly different. I hope Senators would accept the Dáil amendments in this section because they are quite practical in nature, particularly in respect of unlicensed vehicles.

Is group No. 4 agreed?

Is SI 250/200 now dead? The Minister of State said the authority does not impose any quantitative limits. Is the statutory instrument now finished? If the authority will take all qualified applicants, I am very pleased but this is the statutory instrument that stops it from doing so now.

We have been down the road on this before. The Senator is fully aware that new applicants come under the wheelchair accessible vehicles, WAV, licensing process. Anyone can apply for a licence under that. We have specific issues relating to that area which virtually everyone in this House agrees needs to be addressed. That is the process by which we are doing so.

I do not want to let Senator Barrett in as on Committee Stage, but I will allow him to briefly tease that issue out.

If the Minster of State insists that they must have wheelchair accessible vehicles, that involves a capital cost that is 71% more than that for the incumbents and running costs that are about 23% more than those for incumbents so it is a barrier to entry, which I am trying to prevent.

I regret that we have not made progress on the removal of barriers to entry. Paul Gorecki correctly pointed out in the latest issue of The Economic and Social Review that we are reinventing problems that existed previously. The requirement to pay 71% more than the incumbent for a vehicle constitutes a hefty barrier to entry. I want open competition. I realise I have not persuaded the Minister of State but I must make my point nonetheless.

I am not sure if it is appropriate to speak on the issue of enforcement now or to wait for the next group of amendments. Am I correct to say the Bill provides that an unauthorised person may inspect a vehicle but he or she is not entitled to stop it? Will the Minister of State consider introducing amendments at a later stage in this regard given that the Garda has enough to do without enforcing taxi regulations? We could give appropriate powers to authorised people and appoint more of them.

As we are on the Final Stages of the Bill, I will not be introducing further amendments but I will show some latitude, even at this late stage, to address Senators' concerns. I, too, have concerns about the cost of entry in respect of wheelchair accessible taxis but I am addressing that issue separately. The legislation makes provision to help me in that regard but the issue of specifications must be addressed because vehicles are too costly. I am also considering other measures that can allow a package to be put together to reduce the cost of entry to a fraction of the figure set out by Senator Barrett. Ultimately, however, we need to facilitate a significant increase in the number of wheelchair accessible taxis. It is unacceptable that we do not have enough wheelchair accessible taxis. I recently appointed a young man with special requirements for wheelchair taxis to the wheelchair taxi advisory group. He is a fascinating and excellent young man and, along with other groups, he was a strong motivator in persuading me to address this issue. I assure the Senator that the issue is being addressed separately from a regulatory point of view. We are investigating measures to deal with the current high costs which, as he rightly points out, constitute a barrier to entry.

In regard to enforcement, this Bill provides significantly greater powers of enforcement to the Garda and others. Vehicles can be inspected thoroughly in different locations and authorised persons will be able to work closely with the Garda in a number of areas. It also makes provision for increasing the number of enforcement officers, which will ensure the regulations in the Bill are enforced. I am determined to ensure that the regulations are enforced subsequent to this Bill being enacted.

Group No. 5 comprises amendments Nos. 35 to 40, inclusive, relating to duties of authorised persons.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 39 aim to ensure that records are among the items that can be secured for future inspection by an authorised person under subsections (4)(a) and (3)(e). Amendments Nos. 36 and 39 give greater clarity regarding the role and functions of a Garda or authorised person accompanied by a Garda in stopping and inspecting an SPS vehicle or a vehicle purporting to be such.

Amendment No. 39 provides for the replacement of section 39 on seizure and detention of vehicles and equipment. The amended subsections (1) and (4) set out more precisely what constitutes a contravention of the prohibition on the use of vehicles under section 39 for which a vehicle and its signage can be seized and detained. These include: where the vehicle is not roadworthy, defective or unfit for the carriage of persons; where there is no approved policy of insurance; where the vehicle is not licensed; or where the vehicle is carrying SPS signage which is forged or does not relate to the vehicle. The amendment will enable the NTA to seize the roof sign and the tamper proofed disks when it finds a vehicle operating without a licence. The powers currently provided under an amendment to section (43)(6) of the Taxi Regulation Act 2003, as inserted by Schedule 1 to the Public Transportation Act 2009, are infrequently invoked by the NTA. To ensure proportionality in the treatment of persons under the section, provision has been made in the amendment for a procedure whereby a person can apply to a judge or the District Court to have his or her vehicle or items returned. The amendment also provides a process whereby the authority can dispose of seized vehicles or items and the costs associated with this. I ask Senators to support these amendments as they have previously been well received.

We will now discuss group No. 6, amendments relating to fixed payments of offences and payments of fixed amounts and service of summonses. This group comprises amendments Nos. 52 to 58, inclusive.

Amendment No. 52 is a technical amendment to provide for the inclusion of offences under the proposed subsections (11)(4) and (16)(4) on fixed payment offences under section 46. Subsection 11(4) relates to the contravention of the requirement under section 11 to inform the licensing authority of information relating to another occupation. Subsection 16(4) relates to the contravention of the requirement under section 15 to notify the licensing authority of a change of address.

Amendment No. 53 is a technical amendment providing for the inclusion of the offence under the proposed subsection 26(2) as a specified fixed payment offence under section 46. Subsection 26(2) relates to the contravention of the prohibition on promoting, offering or advertising unlicensed SPSV services. Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are drafting amendments to clarify that a licence holder has 28 days commencing on the service of a fixed payment notice within which he or she must make a fixed payment under section 46. Amendment No. 56 provides for a second payment period in the case where a person has not made a fixed payment within 28 days of the service of a fixed payment notice under section 46. The second payment period is a further 28 days and incurs a payment that is 50% greater than the prescribed initial fixed payment amount. The advantage of the second payment option is that the enforcement of offences can be dealt with outside the courts system. The amendment will bring the SPSV fixed payment system into line with the fixed charge system administered by the Garda under the road traffic legislation.

Amendment No. 57 is a technical amendment to clarify the different levels of fixed payments that can be specified in regulations by the authority, particularly in regard to contraventions of SPSV regulations under subsection 19(4)(b). Amendment No. 58 inserts a new section 47 to the Bill. The new section provides that where a person is served with a summons for an offence specified under section 46(1), a notice shall be issued with the summons allowing a further period of seven days within which a fixed payment can be made. The payment will be double the amount specified in the original fixed payment notice. The effective third fixed payment option mirrors the provision under section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 with regard to fixed charge offences for contraventions of road traffic legislation. It is envisaged that the proposed provision will commence at such time as the third payment option comes into effect under the road traffic legislation. The purpose is to avoid bringing matters before the courts where it is more appropriate to settle them elsewhere. This facilitates greater clarity regarding SPSV offences that are in future to be specified as fixed payment offences under section 46 as fixed charge offences to be enforced by the Garda as provided under section 61.

Group No. 7 comprises amendments Nos. 59 to 59, inclusive, and Seanad Report Stage amendment No. 25, relating to community transport services and other exceptions from SPSV licensing requirements.

Amendments Nos. 59 to 69 constitute a new Part of the Bill to provide for the application and grant of exemptions from the prohibition on the operation of an SPSV service without a licence under section 21. This will remove any ambiguity concerning the continued operation of services such as community transport service and other non-taxi services in the context of the licensing requirements under the Bill.

This issue has been raised with me by virtually every corner of the political spectrum in the country.

Chapter 1 provides for the process of application and grant of the exemption by the authority. The criteria for the grant of an exemption are set out in Chapter 1. For example, community transport services are differentiated by their operation on a not-for-profit basis. Many such services are operated under the rural transport programme, which is administered by the National Transport Authority, NTA, under my guidance.

Chapter 2 provides for the exemption of other non-taxi services from the small public service vehicle, SPSV, regulations, as specified in regulations by the NTA setting out the conditions for the grant of such an exemption. The chapter sets out the conditions under which such exemptions can be made, those being, the vehicle is not being used in the course of carrying on a business and the driver is in receipt of no reward or gain or is not operating the vehicle under a contract of employment for the carriage of the person who owns or is in possession of the vehicle, for example, chauffeur services.

Chapter 3 provides for the administration of the exemptions, including a process of representation and appeal with regard to decisions of the NTA concerning exemptions for fees, a register of exemptions and for the power of authorised persons to enforce the exemptions so as to ensure that the holder of the exemption is operating services in accordance with the exemption, as granted by the NTA, and its terms and conditions. This proposal has been welcomed by everyone who has contributed to this debate. The issue needed to be addressed, particularly in respect of community car and transport services in rural Ireland.

I welcome the Minister of State's remarks on those services. My amendment No. 25 would relax restrictions on the Minister regarding the period of time and the area within which the vehicle may be operated in providing the service. I would leave it to local community groups. I made my two suggestions to the Minister of State. I wish the scheme well. If flexibility is necessary, I will support that measure.

I thank Senator Barrett for his comments. I will not accept the amendments, but I appreciate his remarks on this matter. This is a commonsensical amendment. We must have the capacity to ensure that these services are regulated properly. This issue should have been addressed many years ago. I wanted to do so. Every Member has a great affinity with many of the services that are being offered, but some changes to the regulations are necessary. This measure provides for that.

Group No. 8 is on the preparation and review of the integrated implementation plan regarding the SPSV industry, the subject matter of amendment No. 70.

This is purely a drafting amendment to remove a reference to section 12 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008, which is not relevant to the considerations of the taxi advisory committee under section 59.

Group No. 9 comprises amendments relating to public service contracts and the extension of power of authority to the whole of the State, the subject matters of amendments Nos. 71 and 72 and Seanad Report Stage amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and 31 to 34, inclusive.

Amendment No. 71 provides for the NTA to grant a public service contract for the provision of public transport services by direct award to transport operators other than State transport companies. This is with a view to the granting of such contracts by way of direct award for the provision of transport services under the rural transport programme. It is necessary and is linked with a conversation that we held previously. A number of operators under the rural transport scheme provide services using their own vehicles rather than on a contracted basis. Amendment No. 71 ensures that there is legal certainly for the basis on which these payments are made. This is necessary to provide a secure legal framework for the existing arrangements under the rural transport programme and does not change the status quo for direct award contracts with the State transport companies.

Specifically, the proposed new Part amends the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 to extend the definition of "public passenger transport service" to include ancillary transport services, those being, passenger transport services of general economic interest provided to the public on a non-discriminatory and continuous basis that are neither rail passenger services nor public bus services, and for "public transport operator" to include a person providing public passenger bus services in accordance with a licence under the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009.

The amendments to sections 48 and 52 of the 2008 Act relate to the direct award of contracts for public transport services to include transport services other than those already provided for by the State bus and rail companies in accordance with EU Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007.

Amendment No. 72 provides for a new section 44A to be inserted in the 2008 Act. This new section will empower the authority to invest in bus infrastructure and cycling facilities in the State and to engage in concessions, joint ventures or public-private partnerships for this purpose. This is to facilitate new bus routes that may be provided under directly awarded public service contracts, for example, rural transport passenger services, as well as to facilitate other transport provision such as cycling facilities. The section also amends sections 57, 62, 66 and 73 of the 2008 Act to make adjustments that are consequential on the new section 44A in terms of giving new powers to the NTA outside the greater Dublin area.

There are serious concerns among economists about this section. There should have been separate legislation for buses. The fact that they appear on page 60 of the Taxi Regulation Bill demeans what we are doing. This is a major issue as far as economists are concerned. The end of page 69 and page 70 refer to the exclusive rights of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, respectively. This indicates anti-competitive behaviour. I gather that Compecon, the group of economists who deal with competition issues, have sent a submission to the NTA within the past week. If we pass this provision, it may negatise the consultation in which the economists and the NTA are engaged.

This would be a major anti-competitive measure. "Direct award contract" is shorthand for no competitive tendering. The current contracts run out in November 2014. They were introduced in rushed circumstances by the Minister of State's predecessor in a guillotined Bill that former President McAleese was given no time to sign. Deals were done on 1 December on this exclusive basis.

We are trying to build a competitive economy. There are shoals of economic evidence to the effect that competitive tendering is better than exclusive contracts and that direct award contracts merely reinforce monopolies. These are such major issues that there should have been a separate bus Bill. I may have tried the Minister of State's patience during our discussions on taxis, but how we configure the bus business is too major an issue to try to get through in our last five or six minutes on a taxi Bill. I gather that the NTA would need to advertise in the Official Journal within one month to open this area up to competition, but we are shutting off that possibility until 2016 or even later.

I am concerned by how this matter has arisen as part of a taxi Bill and by the anti-competitive implications of exclusive rights and direct award contracts. I do not know whether the Competition Authority or the National Competitiveness Council, NCC, examined this proposal. We should not go this way when planning the bus business for the years ahead. Is this to be policy for five years or will there be competitive tendering? I gather that an EY report to the NTA was in favour of competitive tendering, yet the NTA replied that it did not have the staff to operate a competitive tendering system.

I recall how the Department and Bus Éireann were in court for many days against Mr. Pat Nestor, who wanted to run a bus service between Galway and Dublin.

Happily, he was successful. When there was a monopoly, there was only one service per day on this route, via Mullingar. There are currently 59 services operating in each direction on that route. I would be seriously concerned if monopolists were to be afforded protection in legislation.

The NTA has stated that it has limited time and staff resources to prepare and undertake a large tendering process. It favours direct award contracts. During the recent debate on the abolition of the Seanad, some people, not including the Minister of State, Deputy Kelly, criticised this House in terms of its rubber-stamping of legislation. This is a request for a rubber stamp. The direct contracts expire in 2014 and must be advertised in the Official Journal in November 2013. This is what should happen. EU regulation 1370/2007 requires that prior to the launch of an invitation to tender procedure, a notice must be placed in the Official Journal. Ernst & Young has stated that competitive tendering would provide better value for money for taxpayers and lead to improved quality of services, which has been the case in regard to services between Dublin and Galway. We must question these exclusive rights in the context of the type of competitive economy we are all trying to create.

The Minister of State might explain the reason it was necessary to include the bus provision in the Taxi Regulation Bill 2012, which we all recently harmoniously agreed to. He might also explain the reason we continue to be attached to exclusive rights and direct award contracts in light of what we are trying to do in terms of developing the economy, increasing employment and improving the quality of public transport.

I do not understand this. Debate on this legislation in the Seanad was lengthy and included a substantial number of amendments in relation to taxis. Following completion of the Seanad debate on the Bill it was then returned to the Dáil. The Bill has now been returned to the Seanad with an additional provision, which has nothing to do with taxis. Senator Barrett has outlined the situation very well, in particular in terms of his description of what happened between Dublin and Galway. I can recall when only one bus service operated between Dublin and Galway. There is now a selection of bus services on that route. This is a reminder of the benefits of competitive tendering.

I do not understand the reason for the inclusion of the word "exclusive". Senator Barrett has explained the benefits of having a bus service in terms of every other aspect of what we are doing. Why not include airlines? I am sure that like me all Senators remember the time when only two airlines, one British and one Irish, operated between Dublin and London and no competition was permitted. Competition in this area was subsequently introduced, leading to the reduction from £290 to, in some cases, €5 in the cost of a flight from Dublin to London. I do not understand the reason for the inclusion of bus services in taxi legislation. I also do not understand from where the idea of not having competitive tendering has come. It is against everything we stand for. It is akin to soviet Russia when the State ran everything. Let us ensure we do not go in that direction. If this step is necessary, it should have been done openly and argued for under bus transport legislation.

I thank Senators for their contributions. Senator Quinn's reference to Russia was interesting. I was involved in a trade mission to Moscow last week, where there are great possibilities for us. Russia has learned from its history. From a capacity and trade viewpoint, Ireland needs to look towards Russia, which is only four hours away. It would be fantastic if direct flights between both countries were available.

Senator Barrett referred earlier to the rubber-stamping of legislation. I am not seeking a rubber-stamping of this legislation by the Seanad. I purposely introduced this Bill in the Seanad. I am proud to have been first elected as a Member of this House. I have engaged as much as possible on this Bill. I do not propose to accept the amendments proposed. I have set out the rationale for the Dáil amendments to the Bill, which are narrowly based. The proposals put forward by Senators would undermine that process. It is important to remember that this legislation is primarily a taxi Bill, although not exclusively so. Some further legislative changes that are necessary and appropriate in relation to wider public transport matters are included. It is not unusual to include provisions such as those proposed into a Bill of this type. One only gets a certain amount of time in each House within which to do so.

It is not appropriate at this stage of the process to seek to develop the scope of the Bill to encapsulate any other significant new policy changes resulting from the acceptance of amendments. Regulation of the bus market is being considered separately, led by me. New intentions in this space will be announced before the end of this year. It is an area that needs to be looked at from the bottom up. I am pro-public service obligation. I do not believe current public service obligations meet our requirements. By its very nature public transport is not necessarily profit making. However, we must set public service obligation routes for a modern Ireland. Ireland has changed considerably in a short space of time.

It is important I emphasise a couple of points at this stage. We need to secure a firm legal framework for the existing arrangements in respect of the rural transport programme. This is the reason for the inclusion of the provision at issue. Previous Governments proposed the abolition of the rural transport programme, for which I bear responsibility. As somebody who is pro-rural Ireland, I do not accept this. However, we need to change it and I am in the process of doing so. I have published a report on the matter. It is proposed to consolidate the groups operating in this area. To move forward and ensure flexibility in this area we need to make the changes proposed in this Bill. This is not only about direct award. Many of the services that will be operated under the rural transport programme will be tendered. We need flexibility to enable the changeover. Many rural transport operators own their buses and some services are, in the main, accessibility orientated. Senators and Deputies from all parties, including Ministers, are passionate about this issue. I need the legislative backup to proceed in creating a better coming together of rural transport services and other services, including school transport services which does not come directly within my remit.

This Bill also extends the powers of the NTA outside the greater Dublin area in terms of infrastructural changes for cycling. The NTA does a great deal of work in the area of cycling and motorcycling, which often requires investment in areas outside the GDA. It is critical there is joined-up thinking in this area. While I take on board Senators' queries, there is an honest reason for the inclusion at this stage of the provision concerned in the Bill.

As stated by Compecon: "This raises the question of why the NTA has allowed a situation to develop where competitively tendered contracts cannot be introduced upon expiry of the existing direct award contracts." In this regard the NTA quotes a lack of staff and so on. I believe this provision is regressive. I support the Minister of State's proposals in regard to the rural transport programme. However, the proposed provision defends the rights to exclusivity of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. Dublin Bus definitely does not service rural areas. If Bus Éireann were servicing the routes, the Minister of State would not have had to introduce this initiative. The Minister of State will recall that we supported his proposals on the integration of school transport in communities during the times when children are at school and after they have been brought home.

This idea of the Minister of State's was endorsed by the House. It is not, however, what I see before me. According to Compecon, the National Transport Authority consultation paper and associated documents provide no economic evidence to support the conclusion that the continued adequacy of a public bus service can only be guaranteed by entering into new direct award contracts with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The Minister of State and the National Transport Authority are not shopping around. The Compecon report also notes that NTA monitoring of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann performance gives rise to perverse incentives and states a more independent monitoring regime should be introduced.

The bureaucracy fought in the courts with two sets of lawyers, one for the Department and a second for Bus Éireann, against what developed on the Dublin to Galway bus route. They should come out with their hands up and admit there are now 59 buses running daily on the route whereas only one bus was running on it when they sought to prevent competition. I fear that this anti-competitive mentality is still alive in the section of the Department with responsibility for bus services.

Arguably, the intention of the Legislature was to have services put out to tender unless direct contract awards were the only means by which the continuation of services could be guaranteed. This appears to be assumed rather than proven. Nowhere in the consultation paper or any of the documents is there any economic evidence to support the finding that the continued adequacy of bus services can only be guaranteed by entering into such direct service award contracts. Ernst & Young, which was working for the National Transport Authority, stated competitive tendering would provide better value for money for taxpayers.

I do not know what we can do at this stage given the necessity to publish a note in the Official Journal next month. Failure to give one year's notice when such contracts run out results in one being stuck with them. These contracts are not being subjected to proper assessment, to use the words of those who have examined them from the competition point of view. The consultation period of the NTA is still open as the document was submitted to the authority on 11 October. This means that while a consultation is being held outside the House, we who are inside the House are being asked to endorse direct award contracts and exclusive rights. There is a contradiction here in that the whole system needs to be assessed because it is not working and the Minister of State wants to achieve value for money.

I humbly and respectfully submit that direct award contracts have a case to answer against competitive tendering. I am not sure the National Transport Authority has advised the Minister properly on the reason it has opted out of competitive tendering and is sticking with direct award contracts, especially in light of the concerns expressed by the economists who have examined the issue. They are worried that this is what tends to happen in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Producers are all-powerful and, until the Minister of State's appointment, consumers tended not to get much of a look in. We, in this House, represent consumers. We have a model that is working well, including, for example, the service between Dundalk and Dublin operated by the Matthews company, the service between Waterford and Dublin provided by J.J. Kavanagh and Sons and the new bus service between Dublin and Limerick. How much evidence must we produce to show these services work? We have run up against a Department and permanent government which is committed to direct award contracts. Those companies that have performed successfully as far as customers are concerned have come up against exclusive rights. I do not know what we can do at this stage.

It is wrong to have this measure come before us given the Minister of State's intention to do something else. The success on our roads, particularly since the motorways were built, shows that a significant business could be developed in the area of bus transport. I do not understand the urgency with which this measure was produced. I appreciate the Department does not receive a sufficient number of slots in the Oireachtas and has appended this provision to the Bill for this reason. Why is the measure urgent, especially given that it could cause damage until 2016, when none of us may be here? To shut off competitive tendering on the basis that we must place advertisements in the Official Journal in a matter of weeks would be an important decision.

I have been as honest as I can be on this issue. We can have a broader debate but, as the Senator acknowledged, a timing issue makes the introduction of this measure necessary. We are approaching a pivotal period in respect of the provision of rural transport services. That is, by and large, the motivation for this measure. The broader issue, namely, contracts with Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, is completely separate. While I accept the provisions as regards the requirements and powers of the National Transport Authority and Minister are restated, this measure is to address specific issues. A separate process is under way to address bus contracts, about which Senators are well aware. These are separate issues.

Group No. 10 comprises amendments related to the Metrology Act 1996, the subject matter of amendments Nos. 73 and 74.

Amendment No. 73 extends the definition of the word "user" under section 2 of the Metrology Act 1996 to include the holder of a small public service vehicle licence to drive or in respect of a vehicle in which a taxi meter is installed or the unlicensed operator of a mechanically propelled vehicle in which a taxi meter system is installed in a public place for the carriage of persons for reward. This amendment will ensure greater accountability by operators of taxis with regard to contravention of the rules applying to taxi meters under the Metrology Act 1996 and the responsibilities to ensure the taxi meter is verified in accordance with the requirements under section 14 of that Act.

Amendment No. 74 is a purely technical amendment to make reference in the Bill's Long Title to the proposed amendments in section 2 of the Metrology Act 1996 and the Dublin Transportation Authority Act 2008.

That concludes our discussion of the groups. There is a total of 34 amendments, some of which are out of order and some of which have been dealt with. For this reason, no further debate will be permitted. If any Senator, I refer specifically to Senator Barrett, wishes to formally move an amendment and have it seconded in order that it can be pressed, he or she may do so. Unfortunately, I cannot allow further debate. Amendment No. 1 arises from amendments made by the Dáil and has been discussed with Group No. 9. Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Amendment No. 2 arises from amendments made by the Dáil and has been discussed with Group No. 9. Is the amendment being pressed?

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, line 10, after “2008” to insert the following:

“to confer exclusive rights on Dublin Bus, and Bus Éireann and to allow the National Transport Authority to enter into direct award contracts without competitive tendering for the provision of public transport services with Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Irish Rail ”.

I propose to press the amendment in view of what is taking place in the bus business.

I second the amendment.

Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 32.

  • Barrett, Sean D.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • O'Brien, Darragh.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • O'Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • Power, Averil.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • van Turnhout, Jillian.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Brennan, Terry.
  • Burke, Colm.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Coghlan, Eamonn.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Comiskey, Michael.
  • Conway, Martin.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • D'Arcy, Jim.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Gilroy, John.
  • Harte, Jimmy.
  • Hayden, Aideen.
  • Henry, Imelda.
  • Higgins, Lorraine.
  • Keane, Cáit.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Landy, Denis.
  • Moloney, Marie.
  • Moran, Mary.
  • Mulcahy, Tony.
  • Mullins, Michael.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Noone, Catherine.
  • O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
  • O'Keeffe, Susan.
  • O'Neill, Pat.
  • Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
  • Reilly, Kathryn.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Sean D. Barrett and Feargal Quinn; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 3 has already been discussed under group No. 9. Is the amendment being pressed?

No. We have had long discussions on the Bill and the importance of buses. The House has been most considerate. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach as well. We will not push the amendments. They have been discussed and the Minister of State has taken the points on board. I intend to withdraw all the amendments. We have made our points about the industry and the need for a competitive bus business and the Minister of State has noted them. I will not be pressing any of the amendments.

Senator Barrett, are you withdrawing all your amendments?

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 4, to 10, inclusive, are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 11, inclusive, not moved.

Amendments Nos. 12 to 23, inclusive, are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 12 to 25, inclusive, not moved.

Amendments Nos. 26 to 30, inclusive, are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 26 to 34, inclusive, not moved.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m and resumed at 3.35 p.m.
Top
Share