Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 12, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:"(3) In making regulations under this section the Authority shall not take into consideration the short-term or long-term economic viability of the licence applicant or the short-term or long-term economic viability of any other licence holder.".

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly, back to the House. The purpose of amendment No. 17 is to allay fears that the legislation is going in the wrong direction and represents a case of regulatory capture by the licence holders over the Department. I remember the Minister saying the industry was full of tax evaders and social welfare fraud. The task force of the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, found one person with a forged driving licence. We were told the industry was the subject of serious consumer dissatisfaction. In 2001, there were 601 consumer complaints, which number was down to 175 by 2010. As we said to the Minister on Committee Stage, that are far fewer complaints by many factors than the number of complaints to the Ombudsman about governance in general in the State. The number of offences was down from 117 to 33 over the same period, with the application of the Probation Act going from nine cases to zero. Fines fell from €84,000 to €14,000.

Listening to the evidence of the Minister of State, it appears that what is going on here is the reintroduction of quantity licences. Nothing that has happened in the debate has reassured us on that. The legislation is highly protectionist in nature. It happens. Producers in most sectors are far more powerful than consumers. The consumer benefits have been ignored in any analysis which has taken place and the regulatory impact assessment appeared six weeks after the Bill was published. The Department was making it up as it went along and never attempted seriously a regulatory impact assessment. This as a sheltered sector of the economy which has achieved control over the Department, which is a situation that is not unique.

The formula we propose for the amendment is taken from the IMF-troika agreement on opening up the market for general practitioners in the State as provided for in the Health (Provision of General Practitioner Services) Act 2012. This will undoubtedly go to law and the assurances of the Minister will amount to nothing unless he changes the Bill to show the troika that this is not another sheltered sector which has the Government doing its bidding and that we will not take into account the long or short-term financial viability of the licence applicant or the impact on other people in the industry. The proposed provision is taken straight from what the Government has already agreed under the 2012 Act. I certainly require an assurance that we can have a quality-only market and that the Minister and National Transport Authority will not take into account the factors which we have listed, including short-term or long-term economic viability of the licence applicant, or short-term or long-term economic viability of any other licence holder. One is entitled to enter a sector in which one does not eventually make money.

The Government should not walk itself into an impasse whereby it guarantees the income of self-employed people during a recession. It cannot be done. That was the purpose of SI 250 of 2010 and it had that impact. The thinking behind the statutory instrument permeates the Bill and requires us to move the amendment to show that this is about quality licensing, not quantity licensing or protectionism. Protectionism is in every syllable of the Bill.

That is why we had to table the amendment. It brings a sheltered sector service, which has achieved regulatory capture, into the overall attempt to recover the economy. We have too many sheltered sector activities and they damage national competitiveness. The formula was used in previous occasions and we have adapted it to apply to this sector. No sector should be able to have new entrants excluded on the basis that incumbents are not making enough money; it is called the market. Even though there is a deep recession in the country, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and its agencies are encouraging new entrants and entrepreneurs. We need the assurance there will be that facility in the sector, as there was when the number of vehicles doubled between 2000 and 2008 and the number of drivers increased in similar proportions. It worked well and the allegations made against it are disproved in a paper presented by the regulator, Ms Kathleen Doyle, in Lisbon on 13 July 2010.

Everything in the Bill confirms it is an exercise in protectionism and we want that excluded. The licence holders have had far too much power and the consumer interest and competitiveness interest have been neglected. Consumers need reassurance and I am happy to propose the amendment.