Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Dec 2000

Vol. 527 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Government Policy on Taxi Licences: Motion.

Ms O. Mitchell

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, recognising the obligation of the Government to implement the judgment of the High Court that taxi numbers can no longer be restricted, deplores the attempt by the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Willie O'Dea, to undermine the High Court judgment and his ministerial colleague by calling on taxi drivers to resist both the decision of the courts and Government policy, and calls on the Taoiseach to remove Minister of State O'Dea from office.

I wish to share time with Deputy Owen. In the time available to me I would like to deal with the consequences of the actions of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, as well as suggesting a possible solution to the current impasse.

Mr. Flanagan

On a point of order, is the Tánaiste taking the debate on behalf of the Government?

Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Ms Harney)

The Minister for Education and Science is taking the debate.

Mr. Flanagan

Is he here?

Ms Harney

I am sure he will be.

Mr. Flanagan

Do we know where he is?

Ms Harney

I am sure he will be here. I apologise for his absence. It is just 7 o'clock.

Ms O. Mitchell

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has maintained that the Dublin solution to the taxi problem is not the correct solution for the rest of the country. I wonder how his non-taxi driving constituents respond to the proposition that a cartel is acceptable and beneficial in Limerick but not in Dublin. The reality is that a cartel, by its nature, is always bad for the consumer – whether in Limerick, Galway, Cork or Dublin – just as it is always good for the members of the cartel. Its sole purpose is to restrict supply and thereby increase the price so the consumer has a lesser service for which he or she pays more.

The evidence of this, if such evidence was needed, is the cost of taxi plates, which I understand were trading in Limerick at £60,000 to £70,000 each. One has to ask why? Of itself, a plate has no intrinsic value. Its value comes from a derived demand for a taxi service, a demand which in Limerick, Dublin and elsewhere was either not being met or was being suppressed through excessive prices, or both.

The cost of the taxi service to the public, inexplicably over the past few weeks, has been completely lost in the debate. I suppose it is understandable that a public desperate for a service has not always counted the cost of it, but the reality is that we have all paid more than necessary. This upward pressure on prices has been exacerbated by the practice of cosying out, whereby cosies paid an average £1,200 a month to the plate owner even before they began to earn a penny for themselves.

Furthermore, many cosies operated in almost feudal conditions of servitude with no security of tenure, and were often forced to collude in tax evasion with the plate owner. I doubt whether the people of Limerick really want what the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, is promising to sustain for them – an inadequate service at a higher price, provided through slave labour. Nevertheless, Deputy O'Dea did what he and many of his colleagues have always done, he told his audience what they wanted to hear. What he forgot, however, was that while this may have worked well in the past as a way of deceiving the public, in an era of mass communications, one can no longer segment an audience by giving them different messages and hoping to get away with it. Eventually, the first group will hear what is being promised to the second.

That a junior Minister of the Government should diminish all politicians by publicly engaging in this particularly despicable form of deception and manipulation of public opinion is beyond comment. That he compounded his offence by offering as an excuse that he did not know he was being recorded, was pathetic. It was merely further proof of his belief that provided he was not found out, it was an acceptable way of doing business. What defies comprehension altogether, however, is that our Taoiseach, the leader of our Government, found absolutely nothing wrong in all of this. He found it perfectly acceptable that one of his Ministers should deliberately and calculatingly set out to undermine a decision of another Minister, which was backed by a High Court judgment. We have all been left wondering who speaks for the Government on this issue, and whether the Government's position is the same as that of the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. Weeks later, we are still wondering because the Taoiseach has not moved decisively and asked for Deputy O'Dea's resignation, thus demonstrating to everybody that he fully supports the position of Deputy Molloy and that the latter has full Government backing. The fact that the Taoiseach has not done so, suggests to me and to many others that he agrees with Deputy O'Dea's view that the Government's decision was, to quote Deputy O'Dea, "disastrous and unworkable", that "there were impertinent people in Government" who had been known to change their minds before, and that all that was required now was to keep up the pressure.

Do the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil still think they can have it both ways, that they can be both Government and Opposition, and that they can speak out of both sides of their mouths at once? Can it be that, even yet, Fianna Fáil is so in thrall to the taxi lobby that it continues, in the face of public wrath and a High Court judgment, to try to appease them? We have a glad-handing, back-slapping, hand-shaking Taoiseach who avoids hard decisions like the plague, but on this occasion the old nod and wink approach will not work. The public demands clear leadership on the taxi issue. They are sick to the back teeth of queuing, inconvenience, disruption, danger, bully boy tactics, intimidation and threats. They want to know whose side the Taoiseach is on. For as long as Deputy O'Dea remains a junior Minister, the public will continue to believe the Taoiseach puts their interests behind that of a small, vocal minority who for a long time have been joined at the hip with Fianna Fáil, to their mutual benefit and at the expense of the common good.

We are now witnessing this Government's third failed attempt to address the taxi shortage. The Progressive Democrats have not covered themselves in glory, despite the fact that they are trying to rescue something from it now. It was ironic to witness a party which prided itself on being the party of competition and free enterprise, adopting a "plate for plate" solution which could only reinforce and strengthen the power of the existing cartel. Worse than that, however, was the fact that when this solution had failed – it was always doomed to fail and we told the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, last year it would fail – and during the entire year the matter was before the courts, Deputy Molloy gave not a moment's thought to how he would organise, administer and regulate for an alternative solution. The mayhem on the streets is a direct result of the lack of planning and clarity the Minister has displayed in dealing with this issue.

The response of the taxi industry is totally out of proportion to the effect of deregulation. Had the Minister given any time to understanding how the existing industry operates, much of the confrontation we have witnessed could have been avoided and the public would not have been deprived of a taxi service at this critical time of year.

Basic to finding a solution which gives the public a service and which also affords the affected taxi owners a slightly softer landing, is an understanding of the disparate nature of the industry and the varying aspirations of its members. The taxi-hackney industries, which are inextricably bound together, consist of driver-plate owners, non-driving plate owners, multiple plate owners, cosies, wheelchair plate owners, hackney drivers and booking companies. All of these have special, different interests and the new arrangements proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, impact on them all in different ways. Consequently, the reaction of all those groups in recent weeks has been violent, angry and most of all confused. Their demands, whatever they are, have been very poorly articulated. Their pronouncements have varied from expressions of resentment that hackneys should now get "cheap" plates, as they regard them, and demands for compensation from the public purse, to a reversal of the deregulation decision and the abandonment of the wheelchair accessibility requirement. For the first time in the five years that I have been talking to taximen about this issue, they have called for an increase in standards in the industry. Curiously, there have also been calls to bring forward, from 2003 to 2001, the wheelchair accessibility requirement. In short, there is general confusion because they do not seem to know what they want, although they seem to be focusing on opposition to the deregulation of taxi numbers. Deregulation, however, is precisely the solution around which the general public have united in support. Having suffered delays, inconvenience and the danger of a woefully inadequate taxi service for years, the public can no longer be ignored.

Besides depriving the public of a service, restricting the number of taxis also created a climate where abuse and misuse could prosper until eventually the only thing that was important to the members of that industry was protecting the capital value of the taxi plate. That was much more important than the service they were supposed to provide. Their public service licences gave them the considerable benefit of a sole right to ply the streets for trade in an expanding economy, but that was not enough for them. Assuring taxi drivers that there is more than enough business to keep them fully employed and that this will grow when members of the public become accustomed to the idea that there will be a taxi service available to them as and when they need it is of little consolation to them now when their main concerns are their asset, pension and security.

The real opposition and much of the vitriol comes from the owners of the original 2,000 licences in Dublin. The fundamental difference between these plates and the newer wheelchair accessible plates issued in the past three years is that the plate can be passed from car to car with the result that even when the owner of the licence is at home in bed, the cosy is out earning money for him or her. If he or she is a multiple plate holder, he or she can have several dozen cosies earning an income for him or her. A wheelchair accessible plate is only issued in respect of a specific car. As such, it will only be used during the hours in which the plate owner or members of his or her family can drive it and earn an income.

The attraction of the older plates is the non-owner driver income. That is what this whole war is about and what has made them so valuable and resulted in their owners resorting to every form of pressure and intimidation to maintain their value. If the Minister of State was to separate that market from the newer deregulated market for wheelchair accessible taxis, he may find that opposition would drop away and we may have a taxi service before Christmas and a better service in the future. Those who have purchased wheelchair accessible taxis do not depend on cosies in the same way; they have become more of a family business in order to make maximum usage of the plate. That is as it should be.

The wheelchair requirement should come into play after one year, rather than three. There should be a clear statement from the Minister of State, preferably today, that conversion must take place after one year in respect of all new licences issued during the coming year. The only reason I support a one year delay is to allow the Minister of State time to revise the specifications for wheelchair accessible taxis which are entirely inappropriate to many forms of disability. Despite the fact that the Department delayed the issue of wheelchair accessible taxi licences for almost one year, it has got the specifications completely and utterly wrong. In concentrating on wheelchair use, it has excluded many other forms of disability. Elderly persons, in particular, find it almost impossible to climb into them given the height of the floor. A revision of the specifications is, therefore, absolutely essential.

Removing the wheelchair requirement in respect of the existing 2,000 licences in Dublin would ensure they would always have a greater value than a wheelchair accessible taxi licence. While wheelchair accessible taxis would rapidly account for the majority of taxis, the licences would not and should not have any resale value. It would still be possible, however, for the owners of the 2,000 existing licences to continue the practice of hiring out the plate to cosies. The reality is that there will be always be people who will not be able to afford or will choose not to purchase a wheelchair accessible taxi, the cost of which is considerable, starting from about £22,000, excluding conversion costs. The fact that the licence cannot be switched from car to car means that the taxi is on the road all of the time and will, as a consequence, have to be replaced more regularly.

This practice would maintain the income of all the hard luck cases about which we have heard on the airwaves recently, those who have been deprived of a pension, lost a nest egg or had to retire due to bad health or widows who have had to continue paying the mortgage. Undoubtedly, as more and more taxis come on stream in a deregulated market, the resale value of the original licences would gradually diminish. That is as it should be. It is not a desirable practice as it sustains the cosy system, but it would not diminish overnight, which is the greatest fear of the existing licence holders.

I readily accept that this would not be the ideal solution, but it would have the merit of dealing with hardship cases of widows and pensioners. The biggest advantage would be that it would obviate the need for the payment of compensation from the public purse. I need hardly remind the Minister of State that there is no support for the payment of compensation from the public purse to those who have worked hard over many years to maintain a monopoly and a cartel. It would go against the grain to compensate them for the loss of profits.

I exclude from this those who purchased wheelchair accessible taxi licences in recent years for £15,000. This must be repaid. They should have to pay no more than the cost of future wheelchair accessible taxi licence. The money will have to be repaid by the Government which insisted on this price being put on the taxi licences. It should not be repaid by local authorities. Neither I nor any other member of a local authority could possibly tell our constituents that their local charges have to be increased in order to repay taxi owners the amount paid for licences because of a decision made by the Government.

I would not favour a complete lack of standards in the segment of the market filled by the original 2,000 licences. An effort should be made within the next week to improve the regulations to improve, even on a gradual basis, the standard of car used. For instance, no car should be more than five years old. Ideally, we should move towards a single, identifiable car, of which a capital city could be proud, not some of the clapped out cars which we see around the city.

The details of the system apart, dividing the taxi market in two, drawing a line in the sand between the old market and the new, would offer a way forward, should the Minister of State care to take it up. This solution would have been offered to him had he not jumped in with a quick fix gimmick this time last year. It is an indictment of the Minister of State that he had no interest in the industry until he thought public anger was such that he should do something. He came up with a solution to which he had given absolutely no thought.

One way or another, whatever solution the Government chooses, it cannot allow the current situation to continue. It raises serious questions about the strength of our democracy when the Garda Síochána has to admit publicly that it is not in a position to maintain law and order in the face of threats of violence from a small group of people, as happened when Aer Rianta suggested that it would move to allow hackneys to pick up passengers at the airport where there is now no service available for the many people who use it, including elderly, disabled and business people. What sort of message does this send to visitors and emigrants returning home for Christmas? What is happening not just to our airport, but also to our entire city is completely and utterly unacceptable. It is criminal that pubs, clubs and shops are denuded of people at this critical time of year for the economy.

There is palpable public outrage that a small group of self-employed persons seem to be running the country. Not only are they dictating what the Government can and cannot do, they are intimidating the Garda Síochána to the point where it can no longer guarantee public safety, if the diktats of taxi licence holders are thwarted in any way. Today when students sought to barricade themselves into the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the Garda Síochána was not so intimidated; the students were quickly removed. One wonders whether it is one law for the friends of Fianna Fáil in the taxi industry and another for everybody else.

It is time the Government started governing and defended our democracy by vindicating the rights of the majority, rather than continuing to succumb to the rule of the mob. It cannot stand by indefinitely watching the message that might is right being communicated not just to taxi drivers, but to all the groups which may in the future seek to have their grievances resolved by threatening street mayhem, violence and intimidation. There have been explicit and implicit threats of violence in recent weeks if additional taxi licences are issued and similar threats if hackneys are allowed to provide a service at the airport; in other words, if existing drivers cannot provide a service under current conditions, they will not allow anybody else to do so. This has been their position all along, only now they are becoming more militant.

This is an insupportable position for a Government to tolerate. It was frightening two mornings ago to hear on the radio that, according to the Garda Síochána, decisions legitimately made in the public interest cannot be defended by the forces of law and order. The Government can no longer allow our economy to be jeopardised and the public to be subjected to continuing inconvenience, disruption and danger at a time of year when demand for taxis is at its greatest. The issues of public safety and taxis are inextricably linked on the streets of Dublin. If the Garda cannot provide protection for people who want to acquire taxi licences and for hackneys giving a taxi service at the airport, how can we expect them to protect the many young people who go into the city every night, particularly at this time of the year? It is an indictment of this country that this cannot be done.

We have the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, to thank for much of this disruption. He and others like him continue to give false comfort to taxi owners. If the taxi owners did not believe they had the support of many members of the Government, they would not be so ready to forego income. Only the promise of a greater prize in the long run is worth that. The Taoiseach's response must be to seek Deputy O'Dea's resignation. The taxi issue apart, how can any Taoiseach allow one of his Ministers to preach anarchy, incite opposition to a decision of his Government, shirk collective Government responsibility and still retain credibility as a leader and a person who makes decisions in the public interest and sticks by them?

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, who has not bothered to attend this debate tonight, has let all politicians down by his two faced performance. He has deceived his constituents, disgraced his Government and has not even represented the interests of Limerick taxi drivers. If he supported them, believed their case was just and that the Government got the High Court decision wrong, he would have resigned in protest. He has not done that and now he should be forced out.

Mrs. Owen

We are most impressed by the huge volume of support in the House for the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea. Where are the full benches of Fianna Fáil Members anxious to help the Minister of State fight this motion? The Minister, Deputy Woods, has been sent to the debate. He is the senior Minister and is embarrassed by the Minister of State's actions. He has been sent to the House because he is the only Member who can be ordered to be present to support a man who was described by our late colleague, Jim Kemmy, as Mighty Mouse in Limerick and Mickey Mouse in the Dáil. No truer words were ever spoken.

This motion expresses our lack of confidence in a man who is lily livered, disloyal, does not know how to behave as a Government Minister and has left little or no mark on his ministry. I do not know why the Taoiseach, who suffers from chronic indecisiveness, has left him in his job. How could any Taoiseach countenance a Minister of State, knowingly and viciously, going behind the back of a coalition partner and being so disloyal by urging and inciting the taxi men and women of Limerick to keep fighting: "Keep fighting and keep digging lads, we will get the Progressive Democrats out". It was reminiscent, as was reported in one newspaper article, of the Albert Reynolds "temporary little arrangement" speech.

Here was the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, doing the same thing. The attitude was: "If we push hard enough, the Minister, Deputy Harney will give in. Has she not given in to us before, bitten the bullet and stayed around no matter what dirt is thrown up about Fianna Fáil? We will try it once more so keep going lads". This week the Government launched a document which contained the following line: "Leinster House itself would become more inviting and more accessible to the public". The Minister of State who is the subject of this motion takes a lion's share of the blame for the disgraceful picketing of this House and the closure of the roads so that Members had difficulty getting in to exercise their democratic vote. How dare he, an elected Member, behave in that way to other Members of the House and, more importantly, to his political party?

This man has a column in the Sunday Independent although I am mystified how he still has permission to write it as a Minister of State. Heretofore, if people who had columns in other organs of the media either stood for election or got elected, they were asked to step away from doing something which gave them a high profile. It is a mystery to me and many others, first, how the Minister of State continues to write this column every Sunday and, second, that he finds the time. Is the Minister for Education and Science not giving him enough work? Is there nothing he can occupy this man with to stop him undermining the Government? What on earth is his role? It is rather like a question on “Who wants to be a millionaire”– can anybody name anything the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has delivered for the country? Can anybody name what previous ministry of State he held?

We are aware he is the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science but that is all we know. The Taoiseach made promises to the House about the Youth Services Bill, which is within the remit of the Minister of State. He promised it would be ready before Christmas, not Christmas 2000 but Christmas 1997. The Bill appeared before Christmas 2000, three years late. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, could have spent his time more productively working on that legislation, meeting youth organisations and preparing a Bill that would confirm their role and ensure they were properly funded and resourced. He would have been better employed doing that than acting in a treasonous manner against his Government colleagues and the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy.

I heard Deputy Molloy on the radio trying to imply that the conversations he had with Deputy O'Dea were grossly exaggerated in the newspapers. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Woods, will tell us what Deputy Molloy and Deputy O'Dea discussed when they met. Deputy O'Dea's statements have remained uncorrected and unchecked. We heard that senior members of the Fianna Fáil Party called on Deputy O'Dea. Why not the Taoiseach? This is more chronic indecisiveness. These were the same emissaries the Taoiseach sent to deal with Deputy Foley, Deputy Ellis and Deputy Burke. Why does he not confront somebody in whom he had sufficient confidence to appoint him Minister of State? Why did he not tell him to shut up or get out of his job? Deputy O'Dea has let the Government down.

Let us look at school transport, another area within the remit of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea. Does he even know he is responsible for school transport? I assume he will arrive to the House at some stage to defend himself. On the other hand he might shrink away in a Mickey Mouse fashion so nobody can remind him of how ineffective he is. He is effective when he goes behind the scenes to damage another Minister and when he tells taxi drivers to come to Dublin and threaten the seat of democracy. He is responsible for some of the anarchy we saw outside Leinster House and for the potential danger to women and children who were at the front of that picket line.

Does the Minister of State know he is in charge of school transport? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House he has taken the Minister of State's responsibilities from him. A report was prepared on the school transport system nearly three years ago by the education committee of this House but no action was taken. School buses are ancient, leaking and creaking. Bus drivers are trying to provide a service with antiquated equipment. One of the main recommendations of the report was that the buses be provided with mobile phones or a radio network system to ensure that if one bus broke down another bus could pick up the children after finishing its school run. This was not provided. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, failed again. He did not care.

He issued a White Paper on adult education. We have yet to see any delivery on it aside, perhaps, from some extra money for the groups dealing with adult literacy. He does not appear to realise that he is a Minister of State in the Government. He thinks he is just Willie O'Dea, franchised under the Fianna Fáil franchise. He takes the franchise and wears it like a badge, like McDonald's where one can buy the franchise. He puts on the Fianna Fáil vest and then runs his own business independently. He is a member of the Minister's party and I do not understand why the Minister does not take action against him. He is probably afraid to because today another Minister of State is in dire trouble. If that continues, the Taoiseach will have to get rid of a number of Ministers.

The same Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, wrote in a recent article in the Sunday Independent that it is time to get away from parish pump politics and to be statesmen. This mighty mouse, or Mickey Mouse wants us all to be states men, and women, I assume, as well. What does he do? When he is caught on tape at a meeting, he expresses amazement and says he did not realise he was being taped. If he had a chance, he would probably have tried to withdraw what he said. He did not have the guts then to stand by it. He has not said a single word since to publicly indicate that he supports the Government. We have a strangely worded amendment by the Government to the motion which states that Minister of State, Willie O'Dea, has reaffirmed his support for the Government. When did he affirm it? He has reaffirmed it as if somehow or other, Ministers of State can get up each morning and decide that today they will affirm Government policy but tomorrow they will not bother. They bought into the system and are members of Fianna Fáil. I do not know how the Minister can let down his great party by allowing this man to continue in the role he is playing, having let down the Government so badly. It is a disgrace.

One has to ask what the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, is adding to this Government. One also has to ask what the Taoiseach is doing about people who are as disloyal as Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea? The Taoiseach would not even stand up in this House and say he had met the Minister of State and told him either that he was gone or after one more transgression like this he would be gone.

Picture the situation when Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, was in Fianna Fáil in opposition. He voted against his party on the Barrington Hospital issue which led the late Jim Kemmy to talk about him as mighty mouse in the constituency. He was expelled from the party for that. How bigger his transgression as a Minister of State and how additional to his transgression is the fact that he was doing this to a partner in Government, a party with whom the Taoiseach said he was working well and with whom the Minister, Deputy Harney, said she was working well. I can guarantee if the Minister, Deputy Harney, was the Taoiseach today, Deputy O'Dea would not still be a Minister of State, going by her fighting words. However, the Minister, Deputy Harney, will come to the House and vote for this amendment. She wants to stay there. She is stuck like glue to Fianna Fáil for some inexplicable reason. She will not walk away in this instance.

The Taoiseach said there will be no going back on the decision made by the Government. If there is even the slightest going back on it, it will be clear to the Minister, Deputy Harney, I hope, that she and her Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, mean nothing in the Government and that they are easily sacrificed. There is some deep suspicion among the public. I keep getting asked about the stranglehold the taxi industry has on Fianna Fáil. There is the "northside five" or "northside six" depending on whether the Taoiseach is willing to be linked to the "northside five" and there is the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, down in Limerick. What do they have over Fianna Fáil that when Fianna Fáil, in Government a few years ago, tried to open up the taxi industry, the taxi people were able with the majority on Dublin Corporation to prevent extra plates reaching the public? The county councils were given the power to set up taxi ranks in Fingal, Dún Laoghaire and South Dublin. None was set up because every time they went to do something, there were enough people behind the scenes to get at the Fianna Fáil members of the council to stop them making progress. Reports were published, there were more discussions and the Taoiseach set up his forum because that would take it away from the poor old councillors in case they dirtied their hands with it. It was placed with the Taoiseach's Department on a forum basis. What came out of the forum was a decision that did not stand up. Who examined that decision? As Deputy Mitchell said over and over again, how did the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, announce something that would not stand up to a court challenge? What was happening in that taxi forum? Were they all meeting and deciding when they would have the taxi party or when they would have their outing to Bray or somewhere else at the seaside? What were they doing in that taxi forum that the one decision the Minister came up with was challenged and lost in court? It does not augur well even for this decision that has been made now. Fine Gael supports the deregulation of the taxi service.

While criticising Deputy Callely and other backbench Fianna Fáilers who are undermining Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, in a subterfuge way, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, is a qualified legal person who advocated the breaking of a High Court decision. He was not going to do it himself but he was advocating to other people to act illegally. The terms he used were "to keep up the pressure" and "to maintain pressure to have the deregulation policy reversed". This was in direct contravention to a High Court decision. This man is a qualified barrister to the best of my knowledge. He may also be an accountant. It is very hard to know at times what he is. Perhaps he is just a part-time journalist for the Sunday Independent. He certainly is not an effective acting Minister of State. There is nobody on the Fianna Fáil benches saying “we love Willie, come back Willie, all is forgiven”. There is nobody here to defend him except the Minister.

He was advocating the breaking of the law and, if for no other reason, he should have been expelled from this position as a Minister of State. There is no doubt that if Deputy Bruton had been Taoiseach and one of his Ministers had done something similar, he or she would not have lasted the 24 hours. It is a disgrace that the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, is still in Government and managing to keep his head down.

One also has to ask whether the traditional support of Fianna Fáil is still there for the taxi lobby. I have no problem if the Minister can find a way, as Deputy Mitchell said, to make sure that people who bought the £15,000 wheelchair accessible taxi licences are not dramatically disadvantaged by this deregulation. There are a small number of other people, such as widows, who are dependent on the income from taxis. It is a disgrace that the Government made the announcement about deregulation without having worked out how those people were to be handled and how they would receive compensation for their spending. Some airy-fairy notion about tax rebates was put forward. The fact that the whole package was not made and announced at the same time has inflamed and added to the difficulties and it has led to some disgraceful interviews with some of the taxi people, particularly those we heard one morning saying they would never take a person with a wheelchair as a fare, that it was a nuisance on a wet day and so on. How dare they say that? They are providing a public service, they have licences issued under the public system and they are obliged to give a public service. They obtained their licences because they agreed to have vehicles that were adapted to take wheelchairs.

We have a complete mess – chronic indecisiveness by the Taoiseach with offshore statements from Zagreb. The taxi statement came from Zagreb, other statements came from other far-flung places. The Taoiseach cannot be questioned about Deputy O'Dea from Zagreb. The Fianna Fáil spin machine has gone into overdrive to make sure any backlash on this decision will hit the Progressive Democrats and that Fianna Fáil will sail off into the west or over to Mexico or wherever they can find refuge and Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, will quietly reduce himself in notoriety for a week or two, until he finds something else on which he will have to reaffirm his support for Government policy. The Minister for Education and Science will be a disgrace if he allows that man to remain working for him, given the manner in which he has treated the Government, the Fianna Fáil Party and his Government colleague. I hope the Minister will inform us in his reply that he has had enough of Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and that, at the very least, he will be moved from his Department.

Minister for Education and Science (Dr. Woods)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"fully supports the initiatives taken by the Minister of State Deputy Molloy in relation to the taxi industry, namely the making of new orders for the industry and supports his efforts to provide a better service for the travelling public;

calls on the Government to continue the implementation of the regulations over the coming weeks and notes that Minister of State Deputy O'Dea has reaffirmed his support for Government policy on all matters including the Government's policy in relation to taxis; and

further notes the Government's commitment to a process of dialogue with existing licence holders and its readiness to provide special tax allowances and an administrative scheme in relation to certain licence fees by way of mitigation for appropriate cases."

I have been deeply concerned at the position of widows and others who could suffer particular hardship as a result of this issue; the amendment shows that the Government is in agreement with the Opposition on that point.

This Government has been concerned to improve the quality and availability of taxi services to the public in Dublin and other urban areas. A background to this concern was the fail ure of the previous Government to make any impact on the chronic taxi deficit in Dublin. No new taxi licences were issued in Dublin under the previous Government. Between 1997 and 1999, some 750 new wheelchair accessible taxi licences were granted by Dublin Corporation. While this limited increase in taxi supply was welcome, the present Government determined in late 1999 that a much greater supply of taxis was needed in Dublin to meet public demand. That is why we developed our radical initiative for the issue of 3,100 new Dublin taxi licences. This initiative was followed up by new regulations made by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, in January of this year.

Members will be aware that these regulations were struck down by the High Court in a judgment which was finalised on 14 November. In that judgment, the High Court made it clear that limitation of taxi licences in the interest of existing licence holders cannot be contemplated. The outcome of the court case called for a modified policy approach to the issues involved but the direction and resolve of the Government's proposed reforms has not altered.

In light of the High Court judgment, the Government determined that it would not be reasonable or desirable to maintain quantitative controls on taxi licences such as have operated for more than 20 years. Accordingly, the new regulations do not place or authorise any restriction on the number of new taxi licences which will be granted by local licensing authorities. These changes apply not just to Dublin but also to taxi services operating in all other taximeter areas.

The regulations provide, in accordance with EU requirements, for more frequent and systematic testing of taxis and other public service vehicles. This function is to be discharged annually rather than biannually in future by National Car Testing Services Ltd. and for a transitional period, vehicle testing by Garda public service vehicle inspectors, including the Dublin Carriage Office, will continue in parallel with NCTS testing.

By 1 January 2002, taxis must be fitted with taximeters which are capable of printing automatic receipts. The new regulations also validate the operation of taxi sharing from taxi stands designated by local authorities for this purpose. All of these new provisions, together with the continuation of existing requirements for public service vehicle driver licensing and insurance, are designed to ensure an improved quantity and quality of service to customers in the new situation. The Government looks forward to a rapid improvement in taxi services under the new arrangements. In addition, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, intends to consult extensively with representatives of consumer groups, people with disabilities and taxi service providers in order to develop further quality improvements in taxi services in the medium term.

There is a continuing need to promote and give an incentive for the provision of wheelchair accessible taxis. It is also desirable to ensure that new applications for taxi licences are bona fide for the purpose of providing public service. With these considerations in mind, the regulations fix the fee for the grant of the new taxi licence at £5,000 and for new wheelchair accessible taxi licences at £100.

It is not practicable to maintain a universal requirement of wheelchair accessibility in the short-term given that early and rapid progress is needed to respond to customer demand for taxis. However, Deputy Molloy has put on record his intention that the process of making all taxi vehicles wheelchair accessible will commence from the end of 2003. Taxi service providers should gear themselves to this requirement. The Government calls on taxi service providers to respond positively to the challenges and opportunities which will be offered by the new business environment which the regulations will establish.

We acknowledge that the adjustments which have been necessitated will be difficult for many existing taxi operators. However, we are confident that with appropriate organisation and marketing, these operators and others can achieve good results given the present urgent and buoyant demand for enhanced taxi services.

In view of the many changes which are now taking place, certain recent holders of wheelchair accessible taxi licences will be in a position of having paid much higher licence fees to local authorities than those which will now obtain. The Minister intends to consult local authorities and taxi representative bodies with a view to developing an administrative scheme to address this situation. In addition, the Minister for Finance will consider a provision to allow tax relief over a number of years for any actual capital loss incurred by existing taxi licence holders by reference to the sum paid for the licence. The details will be published in the Finance Bill, 2001.

As the capital of a rapidly expanding economy, Dublin has seen increasing demand for mobility in all modes of travel. The volume of traffic passing through Dublin Airport has more than doubled since 1993, reaching almost 13 million in 1999. There are now in the region of 122 hotels in Dublin compared to 88 in 1995 and tourism has become a major industry in the Dublin region. The present inadequate supply of taxis in Dublin risks harming the capital's reputation in the eyes of international business people and other visitors and would also remain a source of extreme frustration for the city's residents. The continuance of this situation is insupportable.

We are confident this important Government initiative will benefit the public and the Dublin taxi industry alike. The Dublin taxi market, like many other sectors of Dublin's economy, is capable of significant and sustained growth. As such, it can well support a larger service-driven industry to the mutual benefit of all concerned.

The Government has acted decisively to ensure a high quality taxi service for customers in Dublin and other urban taximeter areas. We hope our actions will receive the support of all Members of the House. The Government's initiative has elicited different responses from the taxi industry. On the one hand, thousands of expressions of interest in new taxi licences have been made to local authorities and some 900 completed application forms had been returned by yesterday to Dublin Corporation alone. The corporation has made in the region of 750 conditional offers of new licences. On the other hand, taxi groups representing existing service providers have withdrawn their services in Dublin and some other areas. Some groups have mounted legal challenges to the new regulations.

The Government is firmly committed to implementing the proposed new taxi regime which enjoys wide political and public support. Subject to this, we are anxious to progress a number of mitigating measures for the benefit of existing taxi licence holders and to consult further with the taxi groups in formulating detailed provisions in this regard. We are also ready to work with taxi service providers and others to develop further quality improvements for taxi services in the medium term.

During discussions already conducted by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, both sides accepted the importance of continuing the process of dialogue on issues relating to the new taxi regime. When the current High Court cases are determined – we hope this will happen very shortly – we hope the pace and progress of discussions with taxi interests can be intensified and will produce good results.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has been very effective in the Department of Education and Science, dealing with adult education, youth affairs and school transport. I would now like to outline some of his achievements in the field of adult education.

For a long time, as a necessary response to our demographic profile, investment in education in Ireland has been concentrated on initial education for young people, resulting in the adult education sector being classified by many as the Cinderella of education. At a time when lifelong learning is increasingly moving centre stage throughout the OECD in terms of social inclusion and employment policies, the adult education sector is the last area of mass education in Ireland which remains to be developed. The first important step in developing this area was taken by the Government with the appointment in 1997 of Deputy O'Dea as the first ever Minister of State with responsibility for adult education.

Shortly afterwards, the OECD international adult literacy survey results for Ireland were published, showing that about 25% of the Irish adult population were found to score at the lowest literacy level. This percentage was the highest in any of the countries surveyed at the time, except for Poland. Only about 10% in the Netherlands scored at level one, while in Sweden the figure was 6%.

The survey showed early school leavers, older adults and unemployed people as being most at risk of literacy difficulties, with participation in adult education and training being least likely for those with the poorest skills.

At that time the overall budget for adult literacy development in Ireland was £850,000, and 85% of provision was taught by volunteers, with a maximum provision of two hours tuition per week. The Minister of State took immediate steps to increase investment in this area on a phased basis. Provision in 2000 is £7.825 million, with a further £960,000 for programme development. He also took a number of important steps to ensure that the increase in funds would be used in a strategic way to increase access to literacy help for those in need, to promote improved public awareness and integrated links with other agencies and to improve the quality and relevance of the service.

As a result of the Minister of State's work and the extra funds he obtained, participation in the adult literacy service has increased from 5,000 to 13,000; awareness and outreach strategies have been strengthened; and referral networks have been developed and expanded, linking key actors such as FÁS, the local employment service, area partnerships, welfare and health interests, the Garda and probation services, schools, youth service and community groups. These networks are designed to promote awareness of the service and to provide a structured mechanism for the identification of area needs and the referral of those in need to the service. Flexibility of timing of provision, a continuum from one-to-one voluntary tuition to tuition in small groups, with the option of national certification, and innovation is also being encouraged. Family literacy programmes and special tuition for migrant groups, Travellers and those with special needs are also being expanded. FÁS and community employment joint literacy programmes are being expanded to all regions, with 30 now in operation. A national referral directory on adult literacy services has been published and disseminated.

Funds have been provided by the Minister for a television programme, "Read Write Now", which is broadcast by RTE 1. It consists of 12 half hour programmes which are shown at 11 p.m. on Tuesday night and repeated the next day. This is supplemented by a national freephone helpline manned by trained literacy tutors, organised by the National Adult Literacy Agency, and learner workbooks and resource packs. It is planned to develop videos of the series for distribution free to adult literacy schemes, public libraries and video outlets. The programme has been watched by an average of 172,000 adults each week since its inception. The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, can point to the highest ratings ever for an educational programme in Ireland. Use of television allows those with literacy difficulties to learn in the privacy of their own homes as well as promoting awareness of where to go for help and encour aging them to join a more formal programme. It has also been agreed in principle with RTE and NALA to develop a follow-on radio series with more basic and intensive levels of tuition for broadcast on national radio in the new year.

These developments, increasing access to literacy help for adults, have been accompanied by a major drive to enhance the quality and professionalism of the adult literacy service through nationally accredited staff development programmes and the development of a quality framework in line with best practice internationally.

The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, established an interdepartmental group on literacy for the unemployed to develop an integrated response to addressing the literacy needs of unemployed people and "to jointly develop measures in consultation with the appropriate statutory agencies and expert groups, and report back to the Cabinet committee, including estimated costs and available funding". The group includes representatives of the Departments of Education and Science, Social, Community and Family Affairs and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, FÁS, vocational education committees, the National Adult Literacy Agency and the local employment service. The group has submitted an interim report to Government recommending targets and timescales for an expansion of funding for the adult literacy service; an increase in provision of foundation and level one courses; and expansion of FÁS community employment literacy programmes and the removal of certain financial barriers.

The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, is pursuing all these issues in the context of the White Paper on Adult Education and the national development plan. The work of the group is continuing. The national development plan provides for an investment of £73.6 million in the coming years in this critical area and will be supplemented by a £1 billion investment under the back to education initiative, providing for an expansion of part-time Youthreach, PLC and VTOS options. This will be important in providing flexible progression pathways, particularly at foundation level, to enable adults to move from the literacy service into modular part-time programmes. The budget is expected to increase by a further £1.772 million in 2001.

Under the national development plan, in addition to the adult literacy investment already mentioned, £35 million over the period 2000-06 has also been provided for the development of adult educational guidance and programme support measures. The need is recognised not only to expand adult education programmes, but also to develop support services so that adults can gain optimum benefit from a return to education which is relevant to their needs. The funds are to provide a service covering a spectrum of needs ranging from initial outreach, particularly in the fields of literacy and basic education, vocational information, guidance and orientation, advice in dealing with learning fears as well as counselling and access to expert services where necessary. To progress matters a multi-agency working group was established in association with the National Centre for Guidance in Education and other relevant interests to oversee the development. Phase 1 has begun with 11 projects in 2000. There will be expansion to further areas in 2001. Therefore, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has been particularly busy and active in this area.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has been very active also on the policy front. In 1998 the first ever Green Paper, "Adult Education in an Era of Lifelong Learning", was published. This was followed by a comprehensive consultation process which gave rise to a level of debate and discussion that was unprecedented in the sphere of adult education. Various organisations convened seminars and focus groups, the Department of Education and Science held six regional seminars, there was a national invitation process for written submissions and over 70 individual meetings were held by the Department with national level education and training organisations, Departments, research, manpower, industrial development agencies and community and voluntary sector organisations. The consultation process culminated with a national forum on adult education in Dublin Castle in September 1999. The Minister of State took part in many of these consultation processes.

Feedback from the process informed the development of the White Paper, "Adult Education: Learning for Life", which was launched by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, in August 2000. This is the first ever White Paper on adult education in the history of the State and it set out a comprehensive strategy for the future development of the sector as a major element in promoting a continuum of lifelong learning.

The paper sets out the central role of adult education in promoting competitiveness and employment, in addressing poverty and disadvantage, in promoting personal development and enrichment, in supporting participative democracy and in strengthening individuals, families and communities. It provides an over-arching framework for the development of an integrated education and training system, bringing together the policies of a range of Departments and agencies in the context of a co-ordinated approach. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has played a vital role in promoting inter-departmental co-operation in this area, where the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities is an integral and central element of education, training, employment, welfare, health, information society, justice, equality, local urban and rural development, and arts and cultural policies. The White Paper sets out a major strategy for growth in this area, enhancing access from literacy to advanced levels, building support services such as guidance and child care, supporting "adult friendly" models of delivery flexibility and responsiveness, promoting quality and innovation, addressing the needs of mar ginalised groups, supporting the expansion of community education models and partnerships with the statutory sector, and setting out structures for a co-ordinated – inter-agency approach at national and local levels.

An Action Programme for the Millennium, the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and the yearly national employment action plans all contain commitments to the promotion of lifelong learning, and the issue moved centre stage in the national development plan and in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. In the knowledge society, a well developed education and training system and a workforce which is adaptable and willing to learn new skills are both necessities. Research throughout the world has demonstrated the central influence of education on life chances, and in recent years, there has been a growing realisation that education must be lifelong if we are to have an inclusive and democratic society which can adapt successfully to meet new challenges. In addition, we know that increasing children's participation and benefit from education is heavily dependent on also enabling parents to support their children's learning. Globalisation, increased competition, new technology, demographic change, a continuing need to upskill the workforce, more leisure time and an emphasis on social and cultural development are all converging factors which make it an imperative to invest systematically in adult education. This Government recognised the need for development in this area in appointing Deputy O'Dea as the first Minister of State for adult education.

The value of that decision has been proved in the achievements of the sector since then – in adult literacy incorporating multi-media approaches, developing guidance and child care promoting equality, flexibility, access and quality supports, in securing major investment under the national development plan, and in the development of a co-ordinated integrated strategic policy framework which sets out a blueprint to underpin the future development of the sector. He has secured a commitment to partnership of all – Government, education and training providers, business, trade unions, communities, voluntary organisations, individuals – to meet the challenge of bringing the concept of lifelong learning to reality.

In short, the achievements of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, in this area have been outstanding in so short a time. These developments did not occur overnight. They required much planning, dialogue and interaction with key stakeholders, dedication and insight, and a willingness to work in partnership towards achieving a professional policy, a systematic approach and a high quality service. The Minister of State has been to the forefront in leading these developments.

Mrs. Owen

Is the Minister sharing his time with anybody else?

Dr. Woods

I wish to refer briefly to the area of youth affairs and to outline to the House the major achievements of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, in this area.

Mrs. Owen

The Bill was promised three years ago.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy suggested he had done nothing, that he was no great value but the reality is the opposite. He has done a tremendous amount of work and has been a beaver behind the scenes as is clear from the output. He is very much appreciated by those organisations. I have met a number of them, not as many as he because he is working in that area continuously, and they certainly have a great appreciation for the work he is doing.

There is a provision in the national development plan for an expenditure of more than £166 million on youth services during the seven-year period of the plan. This is further evidence of the importance attached to this provision. The development so far illustrates very clearly the commitment of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and the Government to significant additional funding in that area. These figures include provision for the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund. The purpose of this fund is to develop youth facilities, including sport and recreational facilities, and services in disadvantaged areas where a significant drug problem exists or has potential to develop. The fund was set up with a view to attracting young people in those areas who are at risk of becoming involved in drugs, into more health and productive pursuits. All will agree this is a very worthwhile scheme, which is funded through my Department, and which aims to tackle the drug problem that exists in certain identified areas.

In April 2000, the Youth Work Bill, 2000, was published. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, introduced the Second Stage of the Bill in Dáil Éireann on 23 November 2000. The purpose of this is to provide a statutory framework for the provision of youth work programmes and services.

Mrs. Owen

It was promised in October 1997.

Dr. Woods

The Bill details the youth work functions of the Minister and of the vocational education committees. It provides for a three-year youth work development plan for each vocational education committee area. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has put in an enormous amount of work into that area and I am conscious of that. The Bill was put forward after detailed discussions between the Minister of State and his officials with the various organisations and interest groups. Those discussions were very satisfactory.

Also, at the Minister's request, guidelines in relation to child protection in the youth work area have been produced by the national youth work advisory committee and it is the Minister of State's intention that a comprehensive training programme will be made available for youth workers and volunteers. He is also involved with the youth information centres. On the international scene, the Minister and his officials are very much involved in the meetings, consultations, etc. that are taking place in regard to the production of an EU White Paper on youth policy in the latter part of 2001.

Mrs. Owen

Did he write this script himself?

Dr. Woods

The Minister held a major youth conference in this connection in Dublin on 1 July 2000. His work in this area is greatly appreciated by the National Youth Council of Ireland, representatives of which attended a subsequent seminar in Paris under the French Presidency.

I have outlined some of the achievements of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, since he assumed responsibility for youth affairs. It is clear he has done a tremendous amount since assuming responsibility in this area.

Mrs. Owen

The Minister has avoided his disloyalty.

Dr. Woods

Certainly from my point of view as Minister I have found—

Mrs. Owen

What about transport?

Dr. Woods

I do not have time to deal with transport. He has done a great deal of work on the school transport services. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, was particularly concerned that pupils with special needs should be able to attend a school appropriate to their particular needs. There has been an increase of more than 100 transport services catering for pupils with special needs since he took office. It is clear that from school transport to youth affairs to adult education, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has been innovative and dynamic and has given unstinting energy and commitment to the improvement of public services for the community in his sphere of activity. He has been highly industrious, highly motivated, very energetic and has made it clear—

Mrs. Owen

What about the taxis? The Minister has not mentioned them.

Dr. Woods

I did at the outset. I do not know whether the Deputy had left the Chamber at that time. I have a quote where he did say on radio that his personal view was that he was not keen on deregulation. At the same time he said in the same interview that he accepted the Government's decision in that regard and that he would completely abide by that decision. I urge Deputies on both sides to give their support to this worthwhile, energetic Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea.

Ms McManus

I wish to share my time with Deputies Joe Higgins, Gormley and Gilmore.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Browne,

Carlow-Kilkenny): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms McManus

This motion should be about much more than an act of disloyalty on the part of one Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, directed against his Government colleagues with one eye, no doubt, directed towards trying to inflict some political damage on his coalition colleagues, the Progressive Democrats.

Nobody who has followed the colourful political career of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, with even a casual degree of interest, will have been surprised that he regarded the prospect of some marginal constituency advantage accruing to him to be much more important than any principle of collective Government responsibility.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has built much of his political career on acting the big man in Limerick and keeping his head well down in Dublin. My late colleague, Jim Kemmy, probably summed up his approach best when he described him as acting like mighty mouse in Limerick and behaving like a church mouse in Dublin.

It is ironic that his disloyalty is directed on this occasion primarily against the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, who knows a thing or two about running with the hare and hunting with the hounds and distancing himself from Government decisions that might be unpopular with his constituents. During the course of the rod angling dispute, Deputy Molloy, then a full member of the Cabinet, had no problem standing shoulder to shoulder with the anglers of Galway west while dutifully trooping through the lobbies to support the Government position in the Dáil.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has defended himself by saying that when he described the proposals of the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, as disastrous and when he encouraged the taxi drivers of Limerick "to keep the pressure on" he did not know he was being recorded. Is this to suggest that it would have been all right if he had not been recorded? Part of the reason that politics is held in low regard is because so many politicians tend to say one thing in private and another in public.

I doubt if anyone, including the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, expected his duplicitous behaviour would lead to an immediate rebuke from his party leader. That is not the Taoiseach's style. When confronted with dissent and disloyalty, the Taoiseach's inclination is to turn the other way and look for another photo-opportunity. One can hardly expect high standards from a Taoiseach who appointed Ray Burke to the key position of Minister for Foreign Affairs and presided over the appointment of Deputy Ellis to the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Foley to the Committee of Public Accounts and Deputy Lawlor to the Members' interests committee, which includes, among its responsibilities, the job of monitoring ethical standards among Deputies.

The Taoiseach has turned a blind eye to far more serious offences than the constituency opportunism of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea. His refusal to take any action against the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy O'Keeffe, who failed to disclose that he stood to benefit from the defeat of the Labour Party's Private Members' motion in the Dáil on Wednesday last, seeking a total ban on the feeding of meat and bone meal to any animals, prior to speaking on the motion and voting twice against it, is just the latest example of a Taoiseach who is content to lead from behind. The Taoiseach's failure to take any action in regard to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, or even to acknowledge the seriousness of the matter, renders his words at the weekend about ethics and standards in politics totally meaningless.

This debate is about much more than the sins of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea. The more important issue has been the mishandling by the Government of the whole taxi issue. Let me make it clear. The Labour Party supports the lifting of quantitative restrictions on taxi numbers. We made that clear in our immediate response to the announcement by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, on 21 November, but the incompetent and inept manner in which this has been done has led to the first general taxi strike in the history of the State.

For the past few Christmases the people of Dublin and most other cities have had to endure a serious taxi shortage. They have endured the past two weeks without a taxi service and now they face the prospect of an entire Christmas period without taxis. The Government that promised an improved taxi service has left us with no taxi service. This has resulted in major inconvenience for the travelling public at the very time of year when people are most likely to want to stay out late socialising.

The withdrawal of taxis also had very serious consequences for commercial life not only in Dublin but in all major urban areas. Shops have reported that takings are down. Restaurants – at a time when they would normally do record business – have reported vacant tables. Nightclubs are reported to have laid off staff.

The persistent refusal of the taxi organisations over recent years to agree to any proposals to increase taxi numbers to a level that would realistically be capable of meeting the demand has lost them many friends. The tactics of the taxi drivers since the dispute began seems designed to simply further alienate the public. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that many taxi drivers and their families are facing the prospect of a Christmas with no income.

A major element souring the atmosphere around this issue has been the absolute sense of betrayal that many taxi drivers feel at the way in which they were used and ultimately discarded by Fianna Fáil. The taxi fleet in Dublin provided what was, in effect, a transport wing of the Fianna Fáil election campaign during the 1997 general election. Many of us remember seeing taxi after taxi driving around covered with Fianna Fáil posters and stickers. Many of us also remember in the same election campaign the newspaper photographs of the Taoiseach happily posing with dozens of taxi drivers wearing T-shirts carrying the legend "taxi drivers for zero tolerance".

Mrs. Owen

Where is that now?

Ms McManus

The taxi drivers believed that if Fianna Fáil was returned to power its cosy cartel would be protected. Their confidence would have been reinforced by the fact that the programme agreed by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, An Action Programme for the Millennium, did not make a single reference to the taxi problem in Dublin or anywhere else.

Taxi drivers are not the first group to find that Fianna Fáil will betray one when political expediency demands it. The Progressive Democrats, having endured the worst year since their formation in 1985, had to be seen to win some sort of political victory. The taxi drivers who had done so much to put the taxi drivers' friend, Deputy Bertie Ahern, into the position he now holds were abandoned. Is it any wonder they feel angry and betrayed?

This dispute will have to be settled by discussion and negotiation at some stage. It is better that this should be done now, rather than at the end of a long dispute that would be costly for everyone. It is far better that it should be done through a process of negotiation rather than being left to the courts. Discussion and negotiation are the way to go.

Taxi drivers have lost the battle on any numerical limitation and they need to acknowledge that. With no limit on the number of licences to be issued, there is a strong case for a significant improvement in the qualitative standards that should be applied. Setting a higher standard in terms of the quality of service to be provided by taxis will achieve a number of objectives. It will benefit serious, professional, full-time taxi drivers. It will discourage the entry of cowboys who will see an opportunity to make a quick buck by providing a low quality service at peak times. It will also benefit the consumers who will be confident that the taxi drivers who pick them up on the street or at a rank are of good character, that the car is clean and mechanically safe and sound, and that the driver is capable of getting the passenger to his or her destination in the most effective and economic way possible.

Up to this, it seems that the principal hurdle to getting to operate a taxi has been to get the money to buy a licence. There appears to have been little checking of the character of applicants. Many people will recall the sense of shock experi enced when it was disclosed that the man convicted in the X case was driving a taxi. That was a shock in terms of the parental response when people were thinking their teenage daughters might have been driven home at night by the man convicted of such offences.

Many people will also have been carried in taxis whose drivers did not seem to have a very sound knowledge of the area in which they were operating. Again there is an issue of poor maintenance and the mechanical condition of the vehicles. These are areas where there is an opportunity to introduce proper regulation in a deregulated market to secure better standards and to do things properly.

It is also true that we have all been forced to depend to a great extent on taxis because of the generally poor standard of our public transport system. Increasing the numbers of taxis may provide the Progressive Democrats with the political, albeit temporary, comfort blanket, but it will not on its own, provide an adequate public transport service for the public.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I thank Deputy McManus for sharing her time. I oppose the Government's amendment to the motion. If the Fine Gael motion is put to a vote, I will vote in favour of it. I deplore the fact that in view of the absolute chaos in the taxi industry at present, this Fine Gael motion confines itself to the opportunistic stance of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea. Unfortunately, Fine Gael has nothing useful to say as a way out of the present impasse.

Ms O. Mitchell

Obviously the Deputy missed our speeches earlier.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): The Deputy will be happy to hear I listened to every word. Fine Gael is at one with the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil on a scorched earth policy of deregulation not just for taxis but for many other public services. I am taken by the stunning popularity of Deputy O'Dea in the Fianna Fáil ranks.

Mr. Gormley

There is one more than there was a minute ago.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Deputy O'Dea should look on those empty rows of seats with some trepidation. They look innocuous enough as inanimate objects but he should regard them as hiding daggers pointed at his back. That is not because he is an opportunistic politician, as he has shown, not because he was speaking out of the two sides of his mouth at once, which he was, but because he was caught doing it, which is the unforgivable sin in Fianna Fáil.

I stand for more taxis on the streets of Dublin in particular but not for the way in which this has been handled. Outright overnight deregulation is not the way this should be done. Extra taxis can be provided in Dublin to provide a service for all our people while at the same time allowing those providing that service to have a decent living. There are many modern systems of global positioning and so on which could help with an A-1 taxi service in Dublin while allowing drivers and one car owners to provide decent services. I do not, of course, carry any spear for the speculators who bought up dozens of taxi plates in some cases. They abused cosies and exploited the situation and I do not speak for them.

Deregulation, as provided for here and as supported by all the main right wing parties, is not in the interests of the public. Neither is it the real issue in many ways. The political key here is to create an economic regime where every publicly owned service is privatised and left to the speculator and the profiteer. Dublin Bus is next in the sights, then Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta – any public industry that can be taken over by opportunistic privateers who will then cherrypick for profits while leaving the service obligation to the public purse. That is the real agenda – to deregulate and to privatise.

The campaign of vilification and outright smear against all taxi drivers in this controversy is disgusting in the extreme. Sections of the media have disgraced themselves with the distortions, slanders and smears they have directed against all those involved in the taxi sector. Incidents during the march of the drivers and their families have been exaggerated out of all proportion. Unfortunate incidents occur on the fields of play of hurling, rugby and soccer every week and occasionally someone may get their jaw broken in disgusting scenes but every member of the GAA club, soccer club or rugby club is not thereby vilified as a thug or gangster, which is what is happening with taxi drivers. There is a sinister campaign here and those politicians who have joined in it should be brought to account. Ordinary people have been dragooned in some cases because of the resentment of the inability of the Government, primarily, to provide a decent service over the years.

The campaign of vilification has been to hide the real facts of the matter. The disgraceful state of Dublin's public transport system is one of the main issues that is being hidden. It is outrageous that tens of thousands of mainly young people are brought into the city centre on Friday and Saturday nights and at 12 o'clock they are virtually abandoned, save by a very limited service, and then the taxi drivers are blamed because these people cannot be cleared instantly off the streets.

The Progressive Democrats have used this issue quite cynically to raise their tattered flag after a year in which they have been covered by mud while performing their role as mudguard for Fianna Fáil. They saw an opportunity and have gone for it most unscrupulously. There is a solution – an adequate number of taxis in Dublin and a proper, rational approach to allow everyone to make a decent living by providing a service – but it is not outright deregulation. However, will we now see corporations buying limousines, putting taxi plates on them and using the public transport lanes to impress foreign visitors? There should be just compensation not for speculators but for the single owners who perhaps invested redundancy money or mortgaged their homes in view of the situation the Government stood over. The Government would not have changed the rules overnight for a multinational company in that way and innocent people trying their best to provide for their families should not be treated that way either.

Mr. Gormley

I was somewhat surprised when I saw this motion because there are far more deserving cases for no confidence than Deputy O'Dea. I think immediately of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. One need only look at the OECD report on the appalling state of the Irish environment or the millennium report of the Environmental Protection Agency, which shows unprecedented levels of air and water pollution in Ireland. The EU Commission is now taking us to court because of our terrible environmental record and we cannot even comply with the Kyoto Protocol, yet our Minister goes to The Hague and preaches to others. He is a far more deserving case.

Deputy O'Dea can be accused of cynical opportunism but that should not be surprising, he is a member of Fianna Fáil. This is the party that has been described by the Minister for Foreign Affairs as a pragmatic party of the centre, which is a wonderful description. They are unapologetically populist and always have been. This is the "all things to all men" party, the "whatever you're having yourself" party and the "speaking out of both sides of your mouth" party. That is the Fianna Fáil party and it always has been. It was built on the motto, "I have my principles and if you don't like them, I have others." Deputy O'Dea was pandering to his local electorate. He knows, and others will agree, that this is primarily a Dublin problem. It does not affect Limerick, Cork or Galway to the same extent, where there seems to be an adequate taxi services. He knew it was a Dublin issue.

The taxi people have obviously put their faith in Fianna Fáil and have been kicked in the teeth, as Deputy McManus said. They have been abandoned when it was politically expedient to do so. The Progressive Democrats have made this an issue. They see it as their political lifeline and have been quite cynical in their approach. If one looks at the history of this issue, neither party has anything to be proud of. In the programme for Government there was no mention of dealing with the taxi problem. The taxi people felt they had their men in, that the Taoiseach was their friend and that he would look after them. There was a slight change when the programme was renegotiated, as there was then a promise of 3,000 taxi plates to be given out to existing licence holders. That was the fatal mistake. It was put forward by Dr. John Fingleton, for whom I have a lot of admiration. He proposed this before being appointed to the Competition Authority but it was a mistake, because clearly it discriminated against the hackney owners and the cosies. The cosies are the people who are being exploited in many cases by those who own taxi plates. We were told by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, that he had received legal advice and that this was the route to take. Who gave that legal advice? I as a lay person could have told the Minister of State that this was discrimination, yet he proceeded down this road. The result was inevitable – we were told this was not possible, that he could not act in this way and the result is that we have a judgment which states that he cannot confine the numbers of taxi plates.

Debate adjourned.