Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Taxi Regulations

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 19 February 2013

Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Ceisteanna (102)

Dessie Ellis

Ceist:

102. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the discussions he has had with the Department of Justice and Equality and experts on the Good Friday Agreement over the course of the drafting of the Taxi Regulation Bill in view of the devastating effect its measures may have on former political prisoners related to the conflict on this island; the reason for not including any recognition of the terms of the agreement on relation to reintegration of former prisoners into the jobs market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8964/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (9 píosaí cainte)

The Taxi Regulation Bill 2012, published last December, is a major step in the process of implementing the recommendations of the taxi regulation review report published earlier last year.  In line with the recommendations of the review report, the Bill restates and strengthens the proportionality of the existing legislative provision for mandatory disqualification of persons convicted of serious criminal offences from operating in the industry. The provisions of the Bill will ensure those with convictions on indictment for the most serious of violent crimes will be excluded from the industry. The specification of offences to which mandatory disqualification applies is based on the principle of ensuring the welfare and the safety of passengers, particularly in situations where a passenger is travelling alone in a taxi.  Because of the serious consequences of mandatory disqualification it can only be applied in narrowly defined circumstances relating to very serious crimes.

Furthermore there are inbuilt safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the effect is not disproportionate. Specifically, there is a right of appeal under which the appropriate court can review a range of matters pertinent to the suitability of the appellant to be a taxi driver. 

The Bill was the subject of consultation with Government Departments including the Department of Justice and Equality prior to its publication in December of last year. In addition, there was a representative of that Department on the taxi regulation review group. During the course of preparation of the review group report on the Bill the issue of the Good Friday Agreement did not receive any special attention.

I do not consider that it would be appropriate to include any particular reference to that agreement in the Bill.  The question of whether any measures relating to former prisoners should be provided for in law in arising from the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement is one that extends beyond the specific issue of taxi licences. The Minister for Justice and Equality recently introduced the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012 which has been passed by the Seanad and is now to come before this House. That Bill provides a more appropriate context for consideration of issues arising from the Good Friday Agreement. To my knowledge, however, no amendments relating to the Good Friday Agreement were proposed in the Seanad. 

In any event, I am satisfied that the provisions of the Taxi Regulation Bill are fair and balanced.  Under the appeal procedure provided for in the Bill,  the courts can determine if there are mitigating circumstances such that mandatory disqualification should not apply in a particular case.  

The courts are the best placed to make the kinds of judgments required which would have to be assessed on a case by case individual basis.

I thank the Minister of State. New taxi regulations could result in the disqualification or suspension of drivers who have convictions relating to the conflict between republicans and the British State on this island. It is recognised that this conflict was a special circumstance and that those who received convictions in the course of the conflict should not be treated as common criminals. There are, currently, drivers who were convicted of offences covered by Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill who have been operating licences without any issue for years. These convictions were directly related to their involvement in the conflict and this is recognised in a number of international agreements signed by the State, including the Good Friday Agreement.

Legislation retrospectively affecting an individual's rights, which in this case would be to disqualify a licensed taxi driver who may have relied on these rights by investing in his taxi or leaving another job to become a taxi driver, would be disproportionate and repugnant to the Constitution.

Deputy, please ask a question.

In any consideration of an individual's constitutional rights, such as the right to a livelihood or ownership of property, the doctrine of proportionality would apply. In the case of Cox v. Ireland, the Supreme Court considered section 34 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 which provides that a State employee who is convicted of a scheduled offence in the Special Criminal Court shall forfeit pension, superannuation allowance and gratuity earned for service done before the conviction. The Supreme Court determined that while the State was entitled to take into consideration the public interest of peace and order, section 34 was disproportionate as it bore no relation to any question of public peace.

Deputy, I would like to call you again for a second question, but you are using your time. This is Question Time.

I will come back and ask a number of questions.

Has the Minister of State looked at the Bill properly? Sinn Féin have sought legal advice and we believe it is unconstitutional. What legal proofing did the Minister do of the Bill? The Minister of State mentioned the Department of Justice and Equality. The Government signed the Good Friday Agreement but the Bill puts disproportionate pressure on families who are affected by the agreement. This should be taken into account in any consideration of offences.

I thank Deputy Ellis, who has raised this issue on previous occasions. The Bill is proportionate. I have suggested to the Deputy previously that he raise the issue in the context of other legislation. He asks if we have rigorously checked the legality of the Bill. Of course we have. The Attorney General went through the legislation and is satisfied with its drafting, the manner in which it has been presented and, in particular, its proportionality.

I also point out that the Department of Justice and Equality was represented on the taxi review committee that made the provisions that are now being enacted.

Simply put, we must get to the stage where we are confident that anyone driving a taxi should be allowed to be behind the wheel of a taxi. Everyone would agree with that and I certainly believe it. We acknowledge the majority of taxi drivers are hardworking, decent, honourable people but it is amazing the number of people who have come to me to say they cannot understand how someone with a serious conviction could be allowed to get a licence. That is not acceptable. They should not be allowed to get a licence. I do not care if they claim to be reformed after any serious conviction, a person cannot and should not have a licence to drive a taxi if he has a conviction for murder, terrorism or serious sexual crime. It is as simple as that and the House should support that fully.

The Government signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, an internationally recognised agreement, where people who took part in the conflict would be treated in a certain way. That should be binding. This is putting serious pressure on people who have been in the taxi industry for many years.

The fact the Minister of State is looking at this retrospectively is the problem. I understand the point about serious convictions but we are talking about a certain section of people and we have moved forward. What is the Minister of State trying to do? Does he want to turn the clock back and throw people out on the streets after they have signed up to an agreement, many of them doing so at great personal risk? On the basis of the Minister of State's remarks, I would not be in this House because I was involved in the conflict. There have been others, including in the Labour Party, in the same boat. It is unfair and I will give the Minister of State the legal advice I received on this.

I have plenty of correspondence on this issue and will take any more the Deputy wants to send me. I stand over the reason for the retrospective nature of these provisions. There are people driving taxis in this country who should not be behind the wheel of a taxi. It is simple as that and needs no further explanation. That is why the legislation must be retrospective. No one in this House with a loved one would be happy for him or her to get into a taxi driven by someone with a serious conviction, be it for murder, terrorism or sexual assault. I want to put an end to that and I want the support of the House while doing so. This cannot continue.

Barr
Roinn