Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

When the Minister of State rejected the earlier amendment on SI 250 of 2010, which was using a qualitative argument to restrict new entrants by confining them to 1% of the market, he showed his true colours. We sought an undertaking that this would not happen again. The industry is now organised to keep new entrants out. In tabling this amendment, we sought an undertaking that would not happen. That is what the High Court intended. The Minister of State and his officials are here every day. Parliament is not here every day. That is why we sought this undertaking. We are not getting it, and I regret that.

The Minister of State's arguments have all been heard before. Are the people satisfied? They are. There were 377 complaints to the regulator, which is one tenth of the number of citizens who wrote to the Ombudsman complaining about public servants. As a percentage of 70 million or 80 million taxi journeys, that number is minuscule.

The Government has built up a problem which requires a response, allegedly on behalf of quality licensing. It will not be worth a hill of beans in the end. Bernard Feeney of Goodbody Economic Consultants looked at the issue of safety. The insurance rate for taxis, per vehicle mile, is the same as for other vehicles. The Aunt Sally arguments from the NTA about the need for regulation do not compare with the ¤780 million worth of time savings benefits and the ¤250 million worth of jobs created as a result of opening up the market. I wish official Ireland would accept that it has been a success and stop messing with it. That is all we ask in the amendment.

Sometimes we get economic policy right. I agree with the Minister of State that many of our economic policies are wrong. In fact, I wonder why some of the provisions against people operating taxis do not apply to bankers.