Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Bill provides for a number of technical amendments to five existing statutes. It does not involve any substantive regulatory changes and has no financial implications. As the Minister knows, there are five main proposals in the Bill introducing miscellaneous technical amendments to current legislation. While we welcome the technical amendments, we have some concerns relating to specific aspects of legislation and policy that the Bill touches upon. The first concerns bus rapid transit, BRT, the second concerns the new taxi regulations and the third concerns the provisions relating to the hit-and-run offences.

The first section is perhaps the most substantive in terms of regulatory changes. It introduces an amendment to the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 to enable the NTA to develop road-based public transport infrastructure, in particular BRT. It is understood that this is required to allow the NTA to develop BRT on public roads developed since the establishment of the NTA. While Fianna Fáil and I welcome the development of and public transport structure which has been sorely lacking in recent years, I would like the Minister to commit that bus rapid transport, which now seems to be the preferred option, especially the airport link, will not ultimately become a replacement for a more long-term solution.

Fianna Fáil and I recognise the substantial requirement to invest in infrastructure and the necessity for the Government to carry out what is effectively a loaves-and-fishes miracle with moneys that are available but it is important that the Government have a long-term strategic investment plan. As moneys become available, key priorities should be identified and the Government should not invest in the short term to meet a need that has long-term implications such that it would not be in a position to deal with the increased demand at a later stage.

While we welcome BRT as a short-term solution to link Dublin airport and the city rest of the country, it should be considered, at the very best, a distant second best to a heavy rail link to the airport. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the cost of this. At present, Dublin is one of the few capital cities in Europe without a rail link to its main airport.

Fianna Fáil believes a railway link connecting Dublin Airport to the city centre and other urban centres is the only viable long-term solution providing for connectivity to this international gateway. In the short-term, we believe the proposed BRT connection is an acceptable interim solution. Despite the importance of transport infrastructure to the economy, the Government has persisted in its strategy of not putting in place the funding that is necessary, notwithstanding the difficulty in gaining access to the funding needed. Funding announced in budget 2015 is only a tiny fraction of what is needed to make progress on many of the schemes.

In terms of the choice between a heavy rail link and a light rail link to the airport, the Minister has indicated previously that he favours the light rail option, which consists of the Luas north via Glasnevin and Cabra. While this option might have the benefit of providing a slightly less costly means of connecting the airport to north Dublin and the city centre, and has the incidental benefit of running through the Minister's constituency, it is questionable whether the light rail option will have enough capacity in the longer term to service such a large and growing population. It is for that reason that I would be more interested in seeing the option of BRT in the short term. If one opts for light rail, it is very hard to move to heavy rail later because of the investment already put in place.

In addition, there are questions, recognised by the NTA, over the fact that the low-speed Luas will take quite a long time to travel from the city centre to Dublin Airport, never mind the 25 km to Swords. It takes at least an hour currently to travel to Tallaght on the Luas red Line. While it is very welcome in resolving a public transport need in the area, it is not an effective means of conveying people from end to end. It is clear that the travel times between Swords and the airport or the city centre and the airport would not be acceptable and that the transport option would not compete effectively with existing modes, namely, the standard bus or taxi. When the Minister is deciding on which rail link option to recommend, I hope he will consider both the limited capacity and slow journey times of his preferred light rail option by comparison with the capacity and journey times of the heavy rail option, such as the proposed metro north.

The second part of the Bill introduces technical amendments to the Taxi Regulation Act 2013 that were absent from the original Bill. For instance, it defines a "licence" as "a licence to drive a small public service vehicle for the carriage of persons for reward". As these are mainly technical amendments to the Taxi Regulation Act passed last year, we support these provisions. The great majority of taxi drivers provide a very high-quality, professional service. However, anything we can do to protect both the professional taxi drivers and the public they serve from unregulated elements in the industry should certainly be considered and implemented in legislation. We need to do everything we can to ensure we have a properly regulated, professional taxi industry. In particular, it should be seen as a full-time profession, not a go-to sector for part-time operators or fly-by-nights without proper qualifications.

It should allow those who decide to take part in the profession to make a meaningful existence, carry on their business and raise a family the same as anyone else in a profession. This Bill puts existing regulations on a statutory footing, ensuring that taxi licence applications must be accompanied by a written declaration stating that the applicant has not been convicted of an offence, that the vehicle is roadworthy, that penalty points have been recorded on the licence and that the driver holds a tax clearance certificate.

These are reasonable provisions with which the majority of taxi drivers are already in compliance.

While competition in the taxi industry, as in any industry, is essential to ensure an efficient level of service for the consumer, the taxi business should be a full-time operation and taxi drivers should expect to be able to make a decent and honourable living from it. The former Minister, Noel Dempsey, tried to address this matter through conditions dealing with the qualitative nature of the taxi business and putting certain regulations in place that make it difficult for those I would term "fly-by-nights" or part-time workers who cherry-pick the work at busy periods such as at weekends or when certain events are held. The industry requires a coherent system of regulation to ensure the existence and maintenance of fair competition rather than free-for-all competition, which disadvantages professional taxi drivers.

There are some areas where the new taxi regulations could be strengthened. First, there may be a necessity to improve the complaints procedure and strengthen guidelines which recommend appropriate behaviour within taxis. According to the latest National Transport Authority figures, almost 1,000 complaints were made against taxi drivers last year but the NTA took no further action in three out of every five cases. I know some of these cases may be spurious because certain taxi drivers have indicated to me that there are others who seek to make spurious complaints because of the way the complaints procedure is structured. If it is the case that the reason for taking no action in the majority of cases was due to a lack of substance on the part of the complaints, that is obviously a legitimate decision by the NTA. However, if it is the case that such complaints are not being investigated due to lack of powers or inadequate level of resources on the part of the NTA, it is a potential issue the Minister might address in due course. Driver behaviour was the most common complaint, making up nearly half the 952 complaints received in 2014. Even if many of these complaints against driver behaviour are cases of mixed-up signals, such a large number of complaints suggests there is a potential problem here which may have to be addressed in new regulations. I would like to see greater powers on the part of the NTA to investigate such complaints, notwithstanding the fact we must ensure compliant taxi drivers are not forced into the complaints procedure in respect of spurious complaints. It would also be sensible to put in place an awareness campaign to publicise the fact that such a complaints procedure is in place in order that the genuine consumer who wishes to report poor behaviour by a taxi driver is aware of the procedure, can make complaints in an open and transparent way and can expect an outcome. That is in the best interests of the consumer and the majority of taxi drivers. In my experience, there are very high standards among taxi drivers in this country who are often more professional than their counterparts in other countries where I have used taxis. A very small minority is not up to the standard one would expect.

There is also scope to put in place new guidelines for appropriate behaviour, which can guide a complaints procedure and can be communicated as part of the licensing. For example, Rape Crisis Network Ireland and the National Women's Council of Ireland have called for the NTA to require taxi drivers to complete training and commit to a code of conduct before a small public service vehicle, SPSV, licence is granted to cut down on instances of women feeling unsafe or threatened in taxis. These are sensible proposals and could be incorporated into the taxi licensing process without much cost or effort. Ultimately, such licensing provisions are to the benefit of the great majority of decent taxi drivers on whom they are unlikely to have any material impact.

I also believe that the current regulations do not do much to offer adequate protection to taxi drivers. The Taxi Regulation Act incorporates a strange information-sharing provision which has meant that information provided by taxis to the NTA in the register of licences for SPSVs has to be made publicly available. Under these new provisions, all that is required to obtain the home address of a driver is the name or licence number of the driver, the taxi roof sign number or even the car registration and a fee of €25. It is difficult to see what valid public safety reason there is for taxi drivers to have their home addresses revealed to the public. This seems like a classic case of overkill by the former Minister's regulations. Such senseless open access to personal details and home addresses could potentially put in jeopardy both the privacy and the safety of drivers in jeopardy.

While at the time of consultation, the former Minister and others paid lip service to the hard work and important public service of taxi drivers, little has been done since then to increase the physical safety of drivers in their cabs. For instance, taxi representative organisations have repeatedly called for stricter sentencing for assaults on taxi drivers following a series of violent attacks, which seem to have increased in recent years. This is probably understandable considering there is a belief that many taxi drivers carry large amounts of money. It is not the case because many taxi drivers are struggling to make a living but to petty criminals who might be addicted to drugs, a relatively small amount of cash is a substantial gain. In this context, taxi drivers are seen as a soft touch. There is an issue around the use of credit cards in taxis. I know that the NTA has consulted the industry and an effort is being made to find a point at which the use of a credit card kicks in. That limit has yet to be defined but I would have thought anything above €15 would be an appropriate point for a taxi driver to facilitate the use of a credit card. I also believe that all taxis for hire at our airports should be in a position to accept credit cards. Many tourists arriving in this State, particularly those from outside the eurozone or even the UK, might not have the local currency available and it is right and appropriate that any taxi plying its trade, especially at our international airports, must be in a position to accept credit cards as part of that service.

A number of violent assaults were perpetrated against drivers last year. While there are no Garda statistics collected on the number of taxi drivers who are assaulted, Tiomanaí Tacsaí na hÉireann, TTNE, has said publicly that it is concerned and that drivers have witnessed a spike in attacks over recent months. These include violent attacks taxi drivers involving knives and bottles and taxi drivers being punched, kicked and bitten. It stands to reason that to prevent such violent assaults, there should be tougher sentences for persons convicted of offences against taxi drivers and an effort made to ensure there is greater use of electronic funds rather than cash within taxis. Drivers are providing service to the public in a particularly intimate, high-risk situation and require greater legislative protection against the threat of assault. Given the lack of physical separation of taxi drivers from their cab in this country, which physical separation is the case in the UK, there should be specific offences introduced to discourage offences against taxi drivers who are especially vulnerable to such attacks.

Part 3 introduces a technical amendment to the Road Traffic Act 2014, inserting an amendment relating to disqualification for persons indicted for hit and run. We welcome this technical change which provides legislative clarity to the earlier Act. Fianna Fáil's own Road Traffic Bill 2013 provided the impetus behind the introduction of this Act. It sought to crack down on hit-and-run drivers by introducing tougher penalties and extending the power of arrest of the Garda. Under Fianna Fáil's proposed Road Traffic Bill 2013, it would have been an indictable offence for anyone to leave the scene of an accident resulting in injury. The offence would have carried a punishment of up to ten years' imprisonment and-or a fine of up to €5,000.

While at the time we welcomed the Government's acceptance of our key recommendations on tougher sentences for persons convicted of hit-and-run offences, we were disappointed with its refusal to grant additional powers to the Garda to test individuals suspected of a hit and run for alcohol intoxication for up to 24 hours, citing legal investigation barriers. While the Minister accepted the broad thrust of our Bill, he did not include all of it in his Bill. In particular, he omitted the provision to expand the period for which drivers could be tested for alcohol from four to 24 hours. This is a point we urge the Government to reconsider as the law incentivises persons involved in a traffic accident to flee the scene of an accident to avoid being tested for alcohol intoxication. In not accepting this provision in our Bill, the Minister said that for a driver to be arrested for drink driving, they have to be breathalysed while they are in their vehicle. However, the situation obviously creates an incentive for the drivers of these vehicles to flee the scene of the offence so as not to be found to be intoxicated.

The Minister should reconsider the benefits of this provision from the Fianna Fáil Road Traffic Bill 2013. He should extend the power of the Garda Síochána to test for alcohol or drugs up to 24 hours. He should also provide that in the case of persons arrested on suspicion of a hit and run offence the results of a breathalyser test can be considered admissible evidence in court.

Fianna Fáil will support the Bill and we look forward to adjudicating on any amendments the Minister seeks to bring forward.

See this speech in context