I apologise for the absence of the Chairman of the joint committee, Deputy Eoin Ryan, who is attending a meeting in Brussels. I draw attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. I also remind members of long - standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name, in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Chief Superintendent McCarthy to commence his presentation. I understand he is aware of the time factor.
Public Service Vehicle Licences: Presentations.
Yes, Chairman, I am. The Garda presentation will deal with the procedure. Inspector Brogan will outline the procedure in relation to the PSE regulations.
Is a synopsis of the presentation available? I believe the letter of invitation requested that this be submitted. Is that correct?
My understanding is that we were to bring sufficient copies to this meeting today.
That was an alternative. It would facilitate the committee, as we already discussed in private session, if all groups would make their submissions available seven days in advance.
Inspector Declan Brogan
The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, under the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicle) Regulations 1995, is responsible for the issue of small public service vehicle licences. The Commissioner devolves his power to the authorised officer, that is, the chief superintendent and the superintendent. In the case of the Dublin metropolitan region, this refers to the chief superintendent and superintendent attached to the regional traffic division. The role of this authorised officer deals with the processing of small public service vehicle licences, including private and public licences, that is, hackneys and taxis; the testing of applicants on their knowledge of the taxi meter area and public service vehicle regulations, the licensing of large public service vehicles; the investigation of complaints against public service vehicle licence holders; and ensuring the applicant for a small public service vehicle licence is a fit and proper person within the meaning of Statutory Instrument 191 of 1963.
In 2000, the year deregulation was introduced, 11,550 licences were issued. In 2001, 5,300 PSV licences were issued, while for 2002 the figure was 2,650. The average figure for new licences is around 2,600 issued per annum. In 2005, when all five year licences will become due for renewal, in excess of 20,000 renewals of public service vehicle licences will be processed.
How do we deal with applications? The established procedure for applicants for a public service vehicle licence is, first, to fill out form PSV 15 at their local Garda station. The applicant must be the holder of a full EU driver's licence. He must pay €12 to the motor taxation office, for which he must receive a receipt. He must obtain three photographs and complete the relevant form, namely, PSV 15. On receipt of an application at the local Garda station, gardaí carry out checks on the applicant's character and criminal record. The local superintendent will then make recommendations on the suitability of the applicant, after which the application is forwarded to the authorised officer who processes it. Subject to passing the test, the applicant is required to pay €3 to the local tax office and present the receipt at the Carriage Office, where he will be issued with a five year licence.
The traffic department in Dublin carries out a test on the applicant's knowledge of the taxi meter area and the public service vehicle regulations. All applicants are required to have a good knowledge of both areas and undergo a test consisting of 100 questions selected from a database of approximately 700 questions. The applicant must obtain a score of 70% to pass the examination.
The issue of applications from persons with previous convictions is controversial.
With all due respect, the brief we have been handed does not contain much of the information Inspector Brogan is supplying. It is an abbreviated version.
Inspector Brogan
That is correct.
We asked for a full submission and this was made clear in the letter sent by the clerk, which asked that a submission be either sent to the committee or that the delegation bring it with them. It is unfair to the committee, the members of the public present and everyone else involved in the meeting to supply an abbreviated version of the submission. The Garda was asked for a full submission. Does Inspector Brogan have copies of the document from which he is reading?
Inspector Brogan
I can make copies available.
With the permission of the clerk, I ask that he does so immediately.
Inspector Brogan
We are conscious of the time constraints on our presentation.
While I too am conscious of the time, I am also conscious that members of the committee have been supplied with an abbreviated version of the submission whereas we asked for a full submission. I will ask one of the assistant clerks to make copies of Inspector Brogan's document. It is obvious that certain people did not read the letter sent by the clerk.
Inspector Brogan
We will be in a position to send the submission by e-mail.
The meeting will be over by then. The submission should have been supplied either before the meeting or handed out when the delegation arrived.
There was some confusion about our attendance before the committee caused by the planned appearance of the Assistant Commissioner before the committee next week. I was first made aware that a separate presentation was to be made to the committee this morning the evening before yesterday. I apologise for the confusion which was caused by the scheduled appearance before the committee next week of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner.
The other meeting will discuss a completely different matter, namely, road safety.
That is correct. We were informed the evening before yesterday that we would be required before this committee this morning.
It is not fair that the delegation should have to accept criticism for the action of its superiors, who should answer for the awkward position in which the witnesses find themselves.
I am explaining our position.
I accept that.
We are spending a long time on this issue. Senators have to attend the Seanad shortly. I detect a note of antagonism between the Chairman and the members of the Garda which does not——
That is not the case.
It is how I feel. The Chairman's attitude does not reflect my feelings nor the feelings of many others present.
Senator Norris, with all due respect, I have more respect for the Garda than many other people because I constantly deal with the force. Nevertheless, established protocols are in place for committees which should be adhered to. If the Chief Superintendent finds himself in an awkward position due to the failure of his superiors to notify him of this meeting until the day before yesterday, it is not fair that he should accept responsibility for being unable to provide the committee with that which was requested. I stated already I accept his apology for his inability to do so because of the short notice he received from his superiors.
The problem lay in confusion surrounding this meeting and another next week.
I suggest we discuss this matter in private session after the meeting and communicate directly with the Garda Commissioner.
I agree. We will allow Inspector Brogan to proceed.
Inspector Brogan
In relation to the examination, 3,153 people sat the test in 2002. The pass rate was 73% and the percentage of applicants who failed was 27%.
As I stated, there is considerable controversy surrounding the issue of applicants with previous convictions. Where an applicant has a previous conviction which is considered a minor offence and would not be considered to affect his suitability to hold a licence, he is allowed to sit the test. The inspector in charge of the Carriage Office interviews all applicants who are found to have convictions which are not considered minor offences. The application is assessed and the authorised officer makes the decision as to the suitability of the applicant as a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
In the event that an applicant is considered for refusal, the person is invited for interview by the authorised officer and afforded the opportunity to make representations as to the reason he should be granted a licence. After the interview the applicant is given further time to make representations. The authorised officer then issues a letter refusing to grant the licence, which is delivered to the applicant by hand or registered post. The majority of applicants who are refused a licence by the authorised officer appeal the decision to the District Court.
In relation to the revocation of licence, the same procedure as outlined regarding applicants with convictions for serious offences is applied where a holder of a public service vehicle licence is considered no longer to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. This could arise for a variety of reasons, for instance, the licence holder may have committed or been involved in a serious crime.
The figures on complaints received by the Carriage Office in recent years are as follows: 300 in 1999; 220 in 2000; 509 in 2001; 540 in 2002; and 217 to date in 2003. The indications are that the number of complaints may level out this year. What type of complaints do we deal with? Complaints can be broken down into various categories. The majority, 40%, of complaints received by the authorised officer relate to over-charging while a further 17% relate to abusive behaviour. The figures for other categories are outlined in the document. Certain procedures are in place for dealing with complaints. A number of cases have already been prosecuted. In other instances people were cautioned and a certain number of cases were dealt with externally by stations outside the traffic department. Some cases are still under investigation.
I call on Mr. Tommie Gorman, the president of the National Taxi Drivers Union to make his presentation.
Mr. Tommie Gorman
Good morning. Our presentation will be made by Mr. Vincent Kearns.
Mr. Vincent Kearns
The National Taxi Drivers Union is a relatively new union. It was formed in September 1995 and is Ireland's largest union solely representing taxi drivers. We have branches in Cork, Galway and Limerick. Our aim is to improve the working conditions of our members and to set standards which will make the taxi operator proud to provide a service to the public and also allow him to be a good ambassador for his city and country. We have affiliations to groups such as chambers of commerce and the Dublin City Centre Business Association. We represent our members at local, national and international level. We are members of the International Road Transport Union and the Taxicab, Limousine & and Paratransit Association of America. We have been represented on the Taoiseach's taxi forum. We are always willing to move forward with any organisation or body that will help us to improve our overall service, while at the same time looking after the livelihoods of those within the business.
Pre-deregulation, there was a total of 2,722 taxis, the majority of which had two drivers. The second driver was known as the cosy. Today there are almost 9,800 taxis, the majority of which are single operators. This is not conducive to a good service because there is no continuity of service over a 24-hour period.
In 1991 the Department of the Environment carried out an interdepartmental study into the taxi industry throughout the UK. The study came down in favour of regulation and this system continued until 21 November 2000. Taxi deregulation was brought in overnight in 2000 by the then Minister of State, Mr. Bobby Molloy. No impact study had been carried out. No account was taken of the impact it would have on the income of those who had borrowed by way of remortgaging, or on retired taxi drivers and widows. Many of these people have now been left in limbo. Although the hardship panel report was produced last September none of the classes deemed eligible for payment has yet received a cent.
While the overall number of taxis has trebled, we estimate that up to 3,000 taxi drivers operate on a part-time basis. We believe that this should be stopped as the majority of them are in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act. People in full-time employment are driving taxis for 30 or 40 hours per week in addition to their full-time job. In many cases they are putting the travelling public at risk, yet there has been no enforcement of the law in this regard.
A detailed study on taxi deregulation was carried out by Dr. Paul Dempsey, professor of transportation law in Denver University. He highlighted the inadequacy of deregulation in the manner in which it was introduced both in America and here. In the 23 US cities in which deregulation was introduced, 19 have since reintroduced regulation.
Deregulation, however, has worked in some countries. In Sweden, for example, Stockholm, which has a similar population to Dublin, was deregulated 12 years ago. Some problems were encountered at the start and the system was tweaked. It has a quality, reliable, efficient taxi service and that is the line which we would like to see the Government take.
A study is currently being carried out by the Institute for Transport Economics in Norway of 13 European cities. Ireland is emerging as the worst example of how to introduce liberalisation or deregulation.
We would like to see strict entry criteria for new entrants to the business. We would like agreement to be reached on the exclusion of certain categories of people such as those with convictions for offences against the person. We would like to see a training programme which would include disability awareness training. We would also like to see the introduction of a customer charter as well as a driver's charter. All applicants should have a reasonable level of knowledge of the English language and training should include a practical driving test.
We would like to see an improvement on the current standards for vehicles; once the car has four doors it is deemed eligible. We have seen Corsas, Micras and Yarises operating as taxis; these are not suitable as taxis and they should not be on the road. A minimum engine size should be specified as well as a minimum interior and boot space.
We would also like to see the licensing of taxi companies so that we have credible people running them. The issue of wheelchair accessible taxis is thorny and still has not been addressed even though the first wheelchair taxi was introduced in 1992. We would like to see a small working group set up which would include the Irish Wheelchair Association, the disability authorities, the relevant Departments and the taxi industry.
The NTDU welcomes the opportunity to work in partnership in an effort to provide a service equivalent to international standards.
We will now hear from Mr. Larry Kelly of SIPTU and Mr. Gerry Brennan. Who is going to make the presentation?
Mr. Gerry Brennan
Good morning, Chairman. I will make the presentation.
Mr. Brennan has five minutes.
Mr. Brennan
I thank the Chairman for his invitation to the meeting. As specified in the letter, I chose the option of presenting the submission this morning. I wish to draw the committee's attention to the fact that this submission was originally submitted to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on 29 April last year. I ask the committee to investigate why nothing specified in the submission has been worked on or produced. It is a lengthy submission and I will only go through the preamble this morning.
The current regime is unarguably cumbersome, fragmented and unnecessarily slow. The requirements for both vehicle and driver can be provided in a more efficient and cost effective manner. A combined service to provide a concentration of requirements under one roof is both feasible and practical. We have had consultations with the NCTS and concur with it that a streamlining of service through its centres is the most advantageous route for development. A collaborative examination of those requirements for both driver and vehicle that may be provided should be carried out as part of the development plan for the taxi industry. We propose that all relevant parties enter into this process as soon as possible.
The deregulation-liberalisation of entry into the taxi industry has seen an increase of circa 300% in vehicles plying for hire in the Dublin area alone. This has not been addressed by matching development in the provision of rank spaces or basic facilities for our members. The resulting chaos on ranks is evident and must be resolved. While the best efforts of all responsible parties are being applied, the resolutions to the problems are extremely slow. The frustrations of our members are understandable. Taxi drivers are being penalised under the law for trying to provide a public service. The impossibility to access ranks only serves to further congest our already gridlocked city. It is not within the remit or control of our members to provide the solutions for these problems, they should therefore not be penalised under the law but assisted in the delivery of a safe, efficient service.
The very distinct role which taxis play as a clearly defined section of the public transport system must be realised. The concessions given to the public transport system, that is, bus, train and Luas, are quite significant. The levels of research, expertise and funding provided for the development of the public transport system are conspicuous by their non-application to the taxi industry. There is no reasonable argument to support this lack of application to the vital service delivered by the taxi industry. SIPTU requires a reappraisal of this situation. Appendix 1 gives greater qualified information in relation to this aspect - estimate of weekly break-even for Dublin taxi drivers.
The provision of the best possible service is hugely dependent on the proper development of infrastructure. It is our belief that this can only be achieved through collaboration between all relevant parties. We therefore suggest the establishment of a working party to examine current practices and how best to improve the delivery of a safe, reliable service with due consideration to worker participation. The development of, for example, communications systems must be done not only from the perspective of the customer or the companies but, more importantly, to the benefit of drivers, without whose input of labour and investment there would be no service. Worker participation is a vital element of the development of the best possible service.
In regard to the standards to be applied to taxis, the stated policy that, by the end of 2003, the process of making all taxi vehicles wheelchair accessible can only be dealt with against the background of the deregulation/liberalisation of the taxi industry. As a direct result of liberalisation, the financial and economic standing of pre-liberalisation families has been dealt a very severe blow. I draw the committee's attention to appendix 2 - survey into post-deregulation economic effect on pre-deregulation families and incumbents as well as the submission to the taxi hardship panel and the SIPTU analysis of deregulation/liberalisation of the taxi industry. There is more than sufficient irrefutable evidence of the economic inability of these families to supply these vehicles under the present criteria. Even those drivers who have entered post-liberalisation could not afford to supply these vehicles.
Of equal importance is the element of training and risk assessment. I draw the committee's attention to appendix 3 - risk assessment/taxi passenger handling. We currently have members who, by virtue of disability or age, would not be able to carry out these duties. Provision must be made for these people.
We support the notion of a comprehensive assessment of requirements pertaining to the granting of SPSV driving licences. Since liberalisation, many problems have manifested themselves. The removal of an economic surety - pre-deregulation cost of entry averaged £80,000 - has led to a minimal requirement for entry under the current regime. The processes and personal checks carried out by the carriage officers have been undermined by the courts whereby a person's right to work has seen the refusal of applications by carriage officers for what they deem to be legitimate reasons overturned by the courts.
Reregulation is an absolute necessity at this juncture. The right to work should not become the right to abuse by unscrupulous characters. The good character of the vast majority of taxi drivers must be protected. This in turn assures the customer of a safe quality service. A working paper has been submitted - please see appendix 4.
A code of practice should be developed alongside a customer charter. The safety and join protection of taxi drivers is a very real issue which to date has not been tackled effectively. On a weekly basis our members are exposed to many dangers which go unreported, apart from the everyday dangers of working in the transport industry. I draw members' attention to appendix 5 ^ the first ITF taxi workers conference. Our members are exposed to increased stress levels caused by lack of application of recognised health and safety strategies and basic security technology.
We refute pre-liberalisation claims of the substantial existence of cartels. However, the new regime allows for this area to develop as in other major international cities. Evidence proves that drivers in such circumstances suffer greatly at the benefit of company owners. As a trade union, our primary concern is for the welfare, safety and remuneration of our members. We are determined that the industry should not be allowed to develop in such a way that drivers could be undermined.
Historically the taxi industry and consequently taxi drivers have been passed from one determining authority to another. This has caused serious problems to the development of this industry. A serious lack of continuity in planning and diametrically opposed political views pertaining to those in control of the industry have resulted in the current chaos. It is our contention that, as part of the public transport system, the taxi industry has been disregarded completely. The introduction of a regulator would be a positive move.
It is not enough that the views of interested parties be sought and received but that those parties be fully involved in a collaborative process to achieve the best possible end result. I request the establishment of a working party to examine and develop all facets or proposals pertaining to our members. This document is more than a year old and we have had absolutely nothing on its development and it still pertains to this meeting today.
I thank the gentlemen who came here this morning to address us on this serious issue. It is obvious that taxi regulation is required.
I wish to ask the superintendent and the inspector about the training which is required. It is obvious that the training which is in place at the moment is not sufficient. The Irish Times reported some time ago that 129 attacks were made on members of the public travelling in taxis and that one in five taxi drivers had a criminal record. When drivers appeal a decision not to grant a licence to the District Court, what percentage of Garda decisions is overturned? It is obvious that we need a regulator with statutory powers in place.
I accept the views expressed regarding standards. It is important that drivers have training, standards and a knowledge of the city. Identification of taxi drivers should be displayed in the back of cars in order that the public can report any incidents. Such ID is displayed in the fronts of cars at present but not in the back. Perhaps a 24 hour freephone number could be made available for people to report any incidents. This is not just a Dublin problem; it affects every city and town which has taxis. There is a problem with taxi ranks and standards should be put in place. Some taxi drivers have come into my office to say they have been accused of something they did not do. It works both ways. It is important that the statutory regulator is appointed immediately with powers to implement the proposals.
I welcome the three groups before the committee and thank them for their presentations.
There is no doubt that significant problems have arisen in the taxi industry over the past few years as a result of the overnight liberalisation and the complete lack of any kind of regulation in the area. It is unfortunate that we have had to wait so long for any kind of proper regulation in the area, which has led to a great deal of public concern about the safety of the industry and has undermined the track record that industry had built up. I note from the schedule for the Dáil next week, that next Friday there is to be a debate on the promised Taxi Regulator Bill. I assume it will be published early next week and we must welcome that fact.
There is a missing link in the representatives before us this morning, which is the local authority - in particular, Dublin City Council. While the Carriage Office can explain the procedure for granting PSV licences, it is the granting of the taxi plate that is also an important aspect of this and the link between the Carriage Office and the city council. Will one of the gardaí confirm that one does not need to have a PSV licence to apply for a plate? Can I or anyone else buy any number of taxi plates without a PSV licence and let it out to the person who is driving? There is a clear loophole here which needs to be closed. The person getting the plate should be the licence holder because the situation as it is leaves room for huge abuse.
I would like to ask the Garda representatives about their complaints procedure. The anecdotal evidence is that there is a great deal of public concern about safety and many people have been in touch with us as politicians complaining about falling standards, difficulties in dealing with some taxi drivers, overcharging and sometimes aggressive and abusive behaviour, all of which have arisen since deregulation. I was surprised to see there has not been a significant increase in the number of complaints. Perhaps somebody could explain the complaints procedure to us. Recently it has been brought to my attention that the two telephone numbers circulated for the complaints office are never answered. Yesterday afternoon I tried both numbers. I rang each of them at least a dozen times throughout yesterday afternoon but neither was answered. I question the veracity of the figures being used here if the telephones for complaints are not being manned.
I have a number of questions to ask the drivers' representatives about the proposals for improved services. First, what has been the experience in other countries in respect of part-time drivers? There have certainly been many complaints about large numbers of taxis being parked in the car parks of factories in town all day and driven as taxis at night. How is that dealt with in other countries? What are the proposals in respect of vehicle standards? In other countries where the system works, is there state support for improving the standard of the vehicle by way of refund on VRT or VAT? The number of wheelchair accessible taxis has actually dropped because of drivers with people carriers going out of business and the expense of maintaining those cars. What specific proposals are there for improving this?
I welcome the three groups. Their presentations were good; they have put forward their cases, particularly on the taxi side of things. The groups are obviously trying to figure out where they are coming from in terms of presentations. The documents are quite detailed and they are certainly useful for us, but it would be no harm for us to see some specific points on what the groups are seeking for the future. I recognise the huge benefits deregulation has brought to the general public. There are more taxis on the road and it is easier to catch one. That has been hugely important for a growing city, certainly in terms of dealing with congestion. I have sympathy for some of the hardship cases within the taxi sector; we had some people in last week to talk about this and it certainly needs to be investigated.
A point that has been bandied about in the media over the last few days is that one in five taxi drivers comes from the criminal fraternity. What is the basis for this claim? I have not seen anything to substantiate it. Perhaps the inspector and chief superintendent could give us some guidelines. I have used taxis a lot over the years and I have often had rows with taxi drivers over certain things, including politics, but by and large they provide a very good service.
How many members does the organisation represent? Does it now represent the entire taxi driver population or is there another union for the later arrivals to the business? Is it fair to say that some of these people are part-timers who do not get involved?
I welcome the delegations and thank them for their presentations. Deputy Breen went straight to the first question I was going to ask, which is very important: when applicants who are refused licences appeal to the district courts, what proportion - if possible, how many - of these decisions are overturned? It could be very demoralising for the police. I agree with my colleagues in that I use taxis frequently and have had an almost uniformly good experience. While we are dealing with the question of attacks by taxi drivers on their passengers, we ought to bear in mind the considerable number of attacks by members of the public on taxi drivers. Every time I come from the airport I hear about people getting whacked. It happens in particular areas and at particular times. There seems to be a substantial difference between day and night.
The committee should push for the appointment of a taxi regulator. It is extraordinary that this has not happened; provision should have been made for it. I also have considerable sympathy with people who have been caught by the precipitate deregulation as taxi plate owners and I am aware of the situations of widows and retired people. The committee should consider these issues in some detail.
As Deputy Shortall said, it is staggering that according to the submission by Mr. Kearns the number of wheelchair accessible taxis has gone from 800 before deregulation to a current total of 13. That is catastrophic - there is definitely something wrong in the system. We are letting down the disabled. I was also intrigued to hear about a Swedish report in which the deregulation process in Dublin is cited as the worst. I would like more information about that; presumably there is a meaty paragraph or two. It would be helpful not just to know that it was the worst - that is something with which one can score political points - but why it was the worst. What were the factors that made it the worst and how can we amend them? Finally, I must apologise as I have to leave in about a minute for the Order of Business in the Seanad. I do not mean any discourtesy.
Senator Norris and Deputy Breen mentioned difficulties with refusals by the Garda to issue licences being overturned in the District Court. How can we address this in future? Mr. Kearns mentioned that in America there was reregulation after deregulation. What was the experience subsequently? Were there grave difficulties involved?
I have one question for the Garda representatives and one for the taxi owners. With regard to complaints, only 24 prosecutions were carried out in 2002. A total of 233 cautions were given. Under what headings were the prosecutions taken? For what were the 233 cautions? A number of them were unsustainable; we all accept that unsustainable attempts are made. However, if there is a serious offence the person responsible should be prosecuted. I am not saying this to get at taxi drivers, but there should have been more than 24 prosecutions.
How does the union feel about mandatory wheelchair access? It has been suggested that all licences being issued and renewed should be for wheelchair accessible vehicles. I know it is expensive but as things are, a disabled person could end up sitting on the pavement waiting for a wheelchair accessible taxi for hours on end. Is there any prospect of the taxi drivers' groups initiating a system whereby a dedicated phone number could be used to call for wheelchair accessible taxis?
Inspector Brogan
I will deal with the questions in reverse order. The majority of prosecutions relate to unlicensed vehicles and overcharging. To sustain a prosecution for overcharging one needs a witness and many people are not prepared to go to court in order to sustain a prosecution. The number given is not the total number of prosecutions; it is the number of prosecutions due to complaints. We also have gardaí working in the area of enforcement for small public service vehicles. I can furnish those figures as well.
You might supply them for the benefit of the committeee.
Inspector Brogan
They run into well over 1,000 prosecutions.
You can forward them to the clerk. If anybody wants to forward any documentation regarding queries they cannot answer today they can send them to the clerk.
Inspector Brogan
We have never said that we had any difficulty with any of the decisions of the District Court. For instance, when we refuse somebody he or she can appeal to the District Court. I have been in court about three times with case refusals in the last month and the court upheld two of those cases. I do not have a breakdown of the exact figures or percentage that the court upholds.
Does Inspector Brogan have any idea of an approximate percentage over the past year?
When Inspector Brogan is replying to the other queries he might send us a breakdown of those figures. That might speed up the process.
He says here he can give a rough idea. He says two out of three in the last month, in his own case. On a rough estimate, do half get through on appeal?
Inspector Brogan
I do not think so.
Deputy, we have asked him to give us the relevant information and we have less than 15 minutes left to try to get through the rest of the points.
Inspector Brogan
When the Commissioner is licensing a small public service vehicle he has to take natural justice and fair procedure into account. It would not be fair to refuse a licence to someone who had a minor conviction five or ten years ago. We have to follow legal guidelines. We cannot refuse everyone who has a previous conviction. The last time we did this about one in seven people had convictions and a small percentage of them would have had serious convictions, and most of them we would refuse.
Regarding the telephone numbers and the difficulty of getting through to the Carriage Office, we have eight lines which operate on a hunting system so that if one does not answer another will. Thousands of calls go into the Carriage Office every day and we have three or four people answering phones full time on queries relating to property, to complaints, to inquiries about PSV licences, etc. We can give you the number of calls, which are available from our provider.
Are the numbers circulated to the public for complaints general numbers for the Carriage Office or are they dedicated numbers?
Inspector Brogan
There are six or seven different numbers in the Carriage Office and if one is not answered they hunt on to other lines.
That is most unsatisfactory. I made in excess of 20 calls yesterday and not one was answered.
Deputy, we have to finish in ten minutes and the other two groups have the right to reply to the queries put to them.
Inspector Brogan
To deal with a complaint we need to have it in writing because if we want to prosecute we have to have the name and address of the person. When someobody makes a complaint we first have to take a statement in relation to the complaint. We cannot follow through with many complaints because people do not have the taxi roof number or they have no idea of the identity of the person about whom they are complaining. We have email as well as phone lines and everyone knows our address. We deal with every complaint that comes to us and respond to each complainant.
The other question related to PSV licensing and Dublin City Council. One does not need to have a plate to obtain a PSV licence.
And vice versa?
Inspector Brogan
Yes.
Mr. Kearns
Taking the questions in reverse order and dealing first with mandatory wheelchair access, in a survey of best practice throughout Europe, London, which has 100% compliance with wheelchair accessible taxis, did not rate top for service to people with disabilities. The best practice was in Scandinavia where 10% of the fleet is wheelchair accessible and there is an onus on local and central government to provide a certain level of work for them. The public authorities do this by giving them hospital runs, day care centre runs and special needs school runs. It then becomes a viable option. With that 10% available, the taxi fleet can easily cope with the demands. In London, the use of taxis by people with special needs is prohibitive because of the cost of the service. In Scandinavia the government subsidises the user and the provider, giving the provider grants and there is no VRT. That study was carried out jointly by the European Committee of Ministers of Transport and the International Road Transport Union, of which we are members, and it is available.
In response to Senator Browne, on the experience since reregulation in the US, some of the states reregulated within 18 months of deregulation. Currently Romania is in the process of regulating the taxi service because of the impact that deregulation has had on tourism.
In answer to Senator Norris regarding the 13 wheelchair accessible taxis, of the original 800 taxis, 787 of those licences have ceased to operate because it was no longer viable for them, and in a deregulated market they chose to drive a saloon type vehicle which has lower overheads. If you buy this vehicle for a member of your family or for your own use, you get VRT and VAT exemption. A taxi driver gets neither. Senator Dooley asked about our membership: we have 4,300 members. The part-timers are not allowed to become members of the National Taxi Drivers Union. We represent full-time taxi drivers and estimate there are approximately 3,000 part-time taxi drivers.
In response to Deputy Shortall's questions, enforcement of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 would guarantee a safer service for the travelling public and give the taxi driver who wants to enter the business on a full-time basis the possibility of earning a reasonable living. It would also deal with health and safety issues. Through our membership of the International Road Transport Union we are currently working on minimum standards and entry criteria across Europe. We hope that this will be agreed within the coming two years. In Holland the taxi driver pays approximately €60,000 for a new Mercedes and within three months the driver gets €20,000 back, once it is used as a taxi. This raises standards and helps tourism.
The issue of improvements to wheelchair accessibility must be addressed. The vehicles currently operating are not suitable and cannot take most wheelchairs. For instance, many motorised wheelchairs are three-wheelers. All the wheelchair accessible taxis have two ramps so there is nowhere for the middle wheel. The regulations say that one must be able to enter and exit by two doors, yet an ambulance can be entered and exited only by the rear door. The standards are not acceptable and the qualification for wheelchair accessible taxis should be re-examined. Deputy Breen mentioned the working time Act. We believe the enforcement of that Act will benefit everybody.
Mr. Brennan
To answer Deputy Shortall's query about the part-time workers, we do not have a problem with them. Some of our members are part-time workers but we prefer to clearly define people as double-jobbers. Section 33 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which is effectively EU health and safety legislation, states that no worker shall work for an employer and/or another employer for in excess of 48 hours. We have identified what we deem to be a loophole in this whereby someone who is in full-time employment, working 40 hours or up to the maximum of 48 hours, can then fly in the face of the health and safety specifications of this Act and drive a taxi for a further 30 to 40 hours. There are figures in this document - I exhort members of the committee to read them - that prove the break even costs of running a taxi require someone to work more than 25 hours, which would take him or her far over the required number. The responsibility for this, as I have highlighted to the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, lies with her Department. I have written to her in that regard, and I hope we will have a response. I believe we need an amendment to the Act which states that someone in full-time employment should not be able to drive a taxi by virtue of a licence provided by a Department, since this undermines the health and safety of drivers, other road users and passengers.
Regarding Senator Dooley's request for more definitive information about membership, currently the three unions, SIPTU, the NTDU and the Irish Taxi Drivers' Federation, are working together. We have come up with a common policy. Collectively I imagine that we represent close to 7,000 of the full-time taxi drivers in the Dublin area and throughout the country. I suggest that Senator Dooley read our submission, which is a year old. I find it incredible that absolutely nothing has been done on foot of the consultation paper we were asked to submit.
Senator Norris asked about attacks on drivers. Once again, that is in the year old submission. Some of our drivers are constantly being attacked. That generally goes unreported, and the reason lies with the taxi driver himself. The attacks tend to happen more at night. The drivers hide them from their wives and families because they do not want them worrying about their going out the following evening. That issue must be addressed and proper health and safety regulations introduced to cover it. The provision of affordable methods of protection for taxi drivers must be examined.
Senator Ryan mentioned dedicated wheelchair vehicle provision. I find it interesting that when, back in 1997, we had the provision of wheelchair accessible taxis, there was absolutely no requirement for those taxis to be contactable by those who required the service. It should have been laid down that taxis providing the service should have either a radio or a telephone number to contact. In fact, many of them simply operated independently on the streets and could not be contacted by those who required the service. I also suggest that the provision of this service should not be a requirement for taxi drivers because the cost incurred is prohibitive. There are a number of companies in operation - one springs to mind, Vantastic. This operation has received grants to the tune of almost £1 million from this Government. The current Taoiseach was present at its opening. Companies of that nature, which offer a dedicated service, should be developed further. As I said, this company has received grants of almost £1 million and it should be developed on that basis.
I have just one final question. How many members do you have in the SIPTU taxi branch?
Mr. Brennan
At the moment we have 1,874.
Where are they based? Are they all in Dublin?
Mr. Brennan
No, we have members in Cork, Galway and other areas around the country.
How many attacks on drivers do you estimate take place in a year, including those that are not reported?
Mr. Brennan
It is very hard to define because the drivers themselves hide this. Members may remember a very horrific case where a member of ours was attacked quite savagely. He was bitten, and his flesh torn from him. On a subsequent occasion, that man contacted me as a member and reported a further attack and requested that I not highlight it or tell his family or anyone else. He simply wanted somebody to talk to.
Perhaps the last statement should not be recorded, as it might identify the individual again.
Mr. Brennan
I did not refer to any individual by name.
No, but there was a previous innuendo. We have run out of time, but on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Chief Superintendent McCarthy, Inspector Brogan, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Kearns, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Brennan for coming in today. We have clarified several questions which we wanted answered. I want to express our appreciation for your full co-operation.
Chief Superintendent McCarthy, we are sorry you were short-changed with regard to the amount of time you had to prepare your submission.
The joint committee adjourned at 10.45 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 17 June 2003.