Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their contributions and will endeavour to respond to points in as much detail as I can.

I really enjoy coming to this House where it is good form to tease out and debate issues. I have attended on the subject of taxis in general as some months ago there were statements on the issue. Much of the commentary has been on the regulatory side, as were many of the points today. I will not go into as much detail now as before but will hit on a few points. This debate is more about the legislation. Having been in this role for the past 22 months I know that if there is one industry we could stay talking about it is the taxi industry and its regulations. One could not put two taxi drivers into a room and expect them to agree about any form of regulation so when one widens the subject one will certainly not get agreement.

The Taxi Regulation Bill is the single most important piece of legislation in this regard and is a milestone for the industry. Let us remember this legislation was prepared in conjunction with a complete overhaul of all the regulations in the industry. A serious volume of regulations is being introduced this month. Senators will have seen all the new signage and changes in signage which is the first phase and intended to make the industry more professional. There are changes in regard to information provision, licensing and control of the rental industry - the latter of which is paramount to the success of the industry because it had gone far out of control. The legislation is in parallel with the new regulations.

There is a great amount of qualitative, rather than quantitative, changes that will clean up the industry in a positive way. Speaking as a former tourism executive I note that a course is being run by Fáilte Ireland for taxi drivers who operate from the airports, in regard to customer servicing and dealing with tourists coming into the country. It is a small thing but will make another contribution. Taxi drivers who do this course will get an acknowledgement for doing so. There are many changes taking place in an incremental way that have been needed for a long time.

This is a very open and transparent process. I have had many meetings with industry representatives. I have chaired the taxi review committee; there is also a taxi committee and a standards steering group. I have taken in both oral and written submissions and have met many of the groups. The NTA had a consultative phase in regard to standards. I ask Senators to trust me when I say we get ongoing representations to my office on a daily basis - there are hundreds of such representations. If I do not get to look at some of them I will hear them on Joe Duffy's "Liveline" from week to week. There is a great deal of commentary. I was left to digest all of this during the past year or so before introducing this legislation, which I believe is fair. I worked with the NTA to bring about the regulatory changes that will work in tandem with the legislation.

I will refer now to Senators' comments. Senator O'Sullivan asked why the legislation was not introduced before now. I could throw the question back at Members. The Bill should have been introduced before now. To be fair, some of the legislation was introduced, albeit in a different version, in the Bill of 2003 but there are questions as to why that Bill was not enacted. There were issues about the types of drivers and the mandatory disqualifications. Perhaps the previous Administration did not believe the legislation was rigorous enough. I have improved it making it much more vigorous in a court of law and have given the necessary powers to gardaí that they requested.

I have met on numerous occasions with the Commissioner and other gardaí, in particular the Garda representatives on the review committee. I am not personally in favour of capping the volume of licences. Such a policy is legally questionable and has never, as such, been on the agenda.

I wish to debunk an idea about the knowledge test and entry to the industry. We have a problem. The tests required to become a taxi driver are rigorous and I would be surprised if any Senator could pass such a test were I to impose one in relation to the area which he or she is from. He or she would have to know where each bank and sports centre was located in a county and how to get there within a prescribed period of time. The pass rate is low. The problem is that many drivers obtained licences in the period before the test was put in place. Those drivers have not been subject to the rigorous evaluation that is now required. It is very difficult as a matter of law to withdraw a licence from a person who obtained it under a pre-existing procedure. There are measures in place, however, to deal with circumstances in which licence holders are subject to demerits or convictions. It is an historical situation which I inherited. I wanted to ensure that the tests are rigorous, which they are, but there was a lacuna previously which it is not easy to address.

Taxi plates should not have a monetary value. A driving licence should not have a monetary value or be transferable. It was a mistake to allow a situation develop where there was a resale value for taxi plates. Where a plate has a monetary value it causes a range of difficulties. The issue is whether a person is a suitable, qualified person who meets the regulatory requirements to drive a taxi. It may be that an exceptional circumstance exists where a licence holder passes away whereby provision would be made to allow a once-off transfer to a family member.

I agree with the speaker who referred to taxi stands in respect of which there is scope for improvement. We are working with local authorities on off-peak loading bays and other measures. It is an issue, particularly in large urban areas. I agree with all Senators who referred to rural areas. As with all rural areas, there are too few taxi licence holders in Portroe where I am from. We are considering a rural hackney licence in respect of which the key issue of insurance falls to be resolved. I thank Senators O'Sullivan and Mooney for their support for the Bill, which is very much appreciated. I thank them for their encouragement on branding and other changes we have made in the industry recently.

To respond to Senator Pat O'Neill, there will not be any overlap between the penalty points applicable to a driving licence and a taxi licence. It would not be appropriate. He asked about the rental market. While the renting out of licences is one of the most significant regulatory issues which requires to be dealt with, the problem can be overstated. While I share some of Senator Barrett's sentiments in that regard and disagree fundamentally with others, it is a fact that the process under which licences could be rented out was too loose. Now we have to rent out the package. There is a need for a rental market where cars have been crashed or on foot of certain other reasons. Where a car is rented out, there is a responsibility not just for the vehicle but for the equipment, signage and insurance and for notifying the NTA that the person driving the car is qualified. It is a huge step in the right direction.

I thank my colleague, Senator Susan O'Keeffe, for her positive contributions. I am very supportive of full and part-time taxi drivers. I have a particular empathy for those trying to make a full-time living from taxi driving and they need to be supported. The Senator spoke about the information being provided by drivers and how that system will operate to allow us to ensure that a driver is who he or she says he or she is. The implementation of the system is imminent. I expect there to be mobile phone applications whereby a customer can check the number of a taxi online to ensure that the driver is the person authorised to drive the taxi. If the picture displayed by the application does not match the person behind the wheel, you will not stay in the car. It is for this reason that those working in the industry will have to update their information in real time so that we can ensure that those driving vehicles are the right people.

It is proposed that licence holders who are the subject of a number of complaints on their area knowledge shall resit the test. I have had the experience referred to by many Members of having to approach a number of taxis before a driver knew the destination I wished to travel to. Senator Barrett spoke about the low number of complaints and I have worked with the NTA to ensure that the procedure for making complaints is improved and made more accessible. Many people do not bother to complain because it is not easy. The complaints procedure should be moved online and made available,inter alia, by way of mobile technology. There will be substantial improvements in enforcement. The Bill will allow the NTA to deploy more enforcement officers to ensure that the legislative provisions and regulations are enforced to the required level.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe referred to drivers working long hours. We have considered everything in this area. While it is not practical to place tachometers on taxis, there is a provision whereby an SPSV licence applicant must notify his or her employers of such application. It is an important step. It is a difficult area to manage. The Organisation of Working Time Act applies where an employer knows a person who is working 39 hours a week is also working weekends as a taxi driver. This is a qualitative measure which will deal with some of those who should not be working in the industry given the nature of their other work.

Senator Barrett raised a number of regulatory issues. The Goodbody report has not been forgotten. I agree with the Senator on some of the comments on new entrants. We cannot paint everyone with the same brush. I disagree fundamentally with the Senator on the issue of double jeopardy and agree with Senator Norris. I do not know how many people would agree with a convicted rapist driving a taxi. I abhor the idea that a member of my family could get into a taxi with such a person. It is not acceptable and we must introduce legislation to ensure it does not happen. Such legislation must be rigorous enough to stand up in court. Fundamental to the Bill is the need to ensure that people convicted of very serious crimes of murder, manslaughter, rape, terrorism, torture, trafficking and various other sexual offences cannot drive taxis. Whether the effect is retrospective or prospective, they should not be allowed to drive taxis. Those who have committed serious burglary, firearms, assault, threat, coercion, harassment, violent disorder or criminal damage offences may have their licences suspended, refused or revoked depending on the length of any sentence imposed.

Those who have been sentenced to seven years in prison will lose their licences for five years; those who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of between five and seven years can lose their licences for up to three years; those whose sentences were two to three years in prison can lose their licences for two years, and where their sentence was two years in prison, they will lose their licences for 18 months. This measure has to be proportionate, as, legally, it must be rigorous. That is why it is being done in this manner.

Unfortunately, there have been cases in which the Garda declared it did not consider a person was a fit and proper person to a drive, yet that person received his or her licence back because he or she had to earn a living. If unsavoury characters pose a clear and present danger, the Garda will apply to ensure they will not get their licences back. Those with driving convictions, for example, persons caught for drink driving or dangerous driving offences, will be put off the road for an extra three to five years, which is appropriate, given that it is a motoring offence.

As regards proportionality, it is also important to ensure there is a 12 month period during which people can appeal. The powers of the Garda have been strengthened in order that in court it it will now be in a more powerful position to identify the individuals who should not be behind the wheel of a taxi and can be more confident that it will be on a sound legal footing to ensure the individuals concerned will not receive a licence.

Senator Sean D. Barrett has said there has not been much fraud activity. That was an initial outlay. I have spoken to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, and it will be done in a more rigorous way in the future. I have seen data to justify the argument that there is a much higher rate of fraud. I expect that through this qualitative process we will be able to deal with many of those who are behaving fraudulently. It is outrageous to ask where we are going to stop in preventing people from entering the industry. It is crazy to compare preventing somebody from working in agriculture with preventing a person from being behind the wheel of taxi driving members of the public. They are not similar and I ask the Senator to reflect on this. We are discussing people who will be prevented from receiving a licence to drive a taxi with individuals in the back who could my loved ones or those of the Senator or anyone else. If the people concerned have serious convictions, they should look for work in other industries. They should not be behind the wheel of a taxi offering a public service.

I applaud Senator Martin Conway's common-sense comments. I have addressed Senator Paschal Mooney's comments too.

On the question of branding, I know that Senator Mooney is very strong on the issue of tourism and there will be other issues I will consider to try to improve the connectivity between the industry and the tourism sector.

The issue raised by Senator Rónán Mullen in respect of an individual taxi driver relates to the updating of information. If he gives me the name of the individual, I will look into the matter. In the future a taxi owner will have to update the information available on who is behind the wheel of a car.

I disagree with Senator Kathryn Reilly that the Bill has not been introduced quickly enough. It has literally been a whirlwind trip to ensure the regulations have been changed and the legislation brought forward. We have worked very closely with the Attorney General in bringing it forward. Anybody who fits the definitions included in the Bill and has the criminal convictions I outlined will be dealt with in the same manner. It is not illegal to have two jobs. I respect the spirit of what has been said about somebody who is a public servant also working in the taxi industry. The enforcement of qualitative measures and regulatory changes to ensure people adhere to the regulations and the question of whether it will be worth people's while to do so if they have other jobs are important. It is not, nor should it be, illegal to have two jobs.

I thank Senators David Norris and Feargal Quinn for their contributions. I think I have dealt with the issues they raised. As far as I am aware, it is necessary to have a first aid kit in the vehicle. I have to admit, however, that I need to find out the exact specifics in that regard.

I again thank Senators for their contributions and look forward to taking the Bill on Committee Stage.