Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

With regret, I must press the amendment. We have tried in all of our debates on this issue to move the Minister of State away from restrictions on quantities. The policy was a major success, as is well documented. The incumbent licence holders wanted to restore a scarcity value for licences and they did this through a statutory instrument, not by way of debate in this House or by appealing a court decision they had lost. I recommend that the Minister of State read Paul Gorecki's ESRI papers on this issue. He is right in saying this is the back door method through which the Government has reintroduced limits on quantities, about which there is no doubt.

The Minister of State has imposed a barrier to entry, with the result that applicants must take the route of applying for a licence for a wheelchair accessible vehicle. Paul Gorecki estimates that this adds 91% to the cost of a vehicle and 27% to running costs. Whether the Minister of State likes it or whether he wants to admit it, it is obvious that this is what Statutory Instrument No. 250/2010 does. Licences are already acquiring a scarcity value and are on sale in the Evening Herald every night. This is what we are trying to prevent. The Minister of State's predecessor was so good at restricting entry to the taxi business that the cost of licences increased to over €100,000, just for a piece of paper. The Minister of State is restoring us to that position by confining entry. He knows the cost disadvantage he is imposing and has deliberately set out to do this. He has tried to say he is concerned about licensing to ensure quality, but this proves he is concerned with quantity in licensing because he will not allow new entrants in, unless they incur an additional capital cost of 91% and running costs of 27%. He knows he is protecting incumbents safely and that this goes against the decision of the High Court, that people have a right to enter this sector and that the public has a right to avail of the services offered by such persons.

I am pushing these amendments and the Bill falls. A man pretending to be interested in licensing to ensure quality at the first fence has confirmed to us that he is really interested in quantities in licensing and seeking to restore us to the ridiculous state the industry was in before the courts intervened in 2000. I commend the courts for their intervention, which was a splendid decision in economic terms. However, the problem was that licence holders never accepted the decision and neither did many civil servants because the change was introduced by the courts before they had thought of it. It is the tradition of the Department with responsibility for transport and the NTA to always obstruct competition, as is manifest in this instance, as we need new entrants.

This decision affects the running of the taxi labour market, as pointed out by Dan O'Brien. There is mass unemployment among those aged under 25 and 35 years, but the Minister is saying they cannot enter the taxi business with parity of conditions with incumbents. This sector added about 20,000 jobs in the years after deregulation. Shutting off a sector by placing a huge financial imposition on new entrants is unacceptable in economic terms. Therefore, I strongly push the amendment. The way proposed is the wrong way to go. It is in the anti-competitive tradition of the Department with responsibility for transport which always takes the wrong option. That tradition is followed in the Bill, as it was in Statutory Instrument No. 250/2010. It reversed a policy which had been a huge success. I do not know why it wrote out the Goodbody report or why it pretends this statutory instrument is not in place. It is not referred to at all in the report of the taxi review group.

The consequences of the banning of entrants would be extremely serious. I strongly oppose it because it would involve a restoration of 1930s-style economics.