Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Creegan and thank him for his presentation.

I have no intention of repeating the points raised by Deputy Dooley. In common with most Members of the Oireachtas, I would acknowledge the benefits of a taxi industry review. Some of it is good and some of it, as outlined, has not been entirely favourable. The principle behind it was much needed. Whether one is a consumer, taxi driver or legislator, there is no objection to that principle.

I wish to focus to the overall taxi industry. I favour the position held by full-time taxi drivers. I take the view that one of the curses of the taxi industry in the past has been its part-time element, a view which is sometimes unpopular with people judging by the mail that some of us have received. Some of the review's recommendations are good and were needed, such as those regarding working hours and I do not need to list them.

The two principal aims of the review were to make the industry better for the consumer which I agree with, and to make it a better industry for taxi drivers. However, it falls down in one area. The economy has changed so much and a lot of people invested in the taxi business during the Celtic tiger years when none of us walked anywhere, we could all afford taxis and taxi drivers made a few bob. At the same time the industry was saturated with a high volume of cars. The industry has completely changed because we are no longer in the same economic situation. One of the pitfalls of the review is that it does not focus and has not gone as far as it could have to protect and make a better life for the people who work full-time in the industry. First, we should take that matter into consideration whether it is Mr. Creegan in his role as director, or ourselves as legislators. Second, the forthcoming legislation should do as much as possible to protect and make life more bearable for anyone who engages in the industry on a full-time basis. Deputy Dooley outlined some of the frustrations experienced by full-time taxi drivers. He is right about them and I agree with him that we must examine these matters.

As I stated in my submission, I do not agree with prohibiting taxi drivers from advertising. I take the director's point about distractions but I can give him a list of distractions that are on the back of buses and other things that are more of a distraction to drivers than a neon sign on the back of a taxi but I shall not go there.

I am not quite convinced about the small vehicle wheelchair issue. The director cited the situation in the UK for such a vehicle and the fact that there is input from the local authorities in Britain regarding licences. My understanding of the matter - the director will correct me if I am wrong - is that it is not a free for all for anyone who wishes to buy a small vehicle because there is a quota. Perhaps that is not the right word to use. Not everybody can buy such a vehicle. We are making a mistake by opening up the sector and allowing everybody and anybody who has the financial resources to buy one of these licences here. It will be a mistake to do it that way. Perhaps the director is more familiar with the UK legislation. From my limited knowledge, the UK has a much better way of policing this new type of licence that may be introduced and protecting full-time taxi drivers who are engaged in the industry.