Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 9, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

?(d) the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 (Grant of Taxi Licences) (Amendment) Regulations 2010;?.

Section 4 listed a number of laws to be repealed such as section 84 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. I have added, because it is draconian and probably unconstitutional, that we should also repeal SI 250 of 2010. Professor Paul K. Gorecki of the ESRI has pointed out that the statutory instrument is a prohibition on new entry when what the industry requested was a moratorium. I have discussed it with my legal colleagues in Trinity College Dublin and elsewhere who said that the attempt to overturn a High Court decision using a statutory instrument or legislation raised serious problems. The High Court decided in a judgment by Mr. Justice Roderick Murphy, and upheld by Mr. Justice Paul Carney in a judicial review, that one has the right to enter a sector which one has the skills and training for and the public has the right to the services of such persons. There were also two judgments on these issues made by Mr. Justice Declan Costello and Mr. Justice Hugh Geoghegan.

There was an attempt in 2010 to subvert that by stopping new entrants which, to the economist, are a vital part of an industry. When one bans new entrants then industries become fat and the pieces of paper, otherwise called a taxi licence, acquire value and could be worth ¤100,000 or more. They are worth $1 million in New York because the authorities do not let enough people join. Economically one should not ban new entrants. However, it is the law to ban them because the courts have decided. The Government never repealed the decisions made by the two judges in the High Court, in the first instance, and on judicial review to the Supreme Court. A measure like SI 250 of 2010 must be repealed by the House. I do not know how it ever got here in the first instance except that statutory instruments are printed in large bundles and are not discussed by the House. Now we have a chance to discuss the statutory instrument.

It should be repealed on the basis that Members know what the courts have said. On the last day, the Minister to his credit stated that he would wish to cap the numbers but that it cannot be done because it would be against the law. That statutory instrument should be taken away from the law as quickly as possible. If not, someone can challenge it in the High Court but it would be much better were Members to do so here. I note the Minister wishes to repeal the Act of 2003. This statutory instrument was purported to be a development of the 2003 Act. I will be delighted if it falls automatically but if not, I wish to make sure that it does.