Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The unions are not endeared to me at the moment so I do not think Senator Quinn's suggestion is accurate. The comparison he made is not relevant to the industry we are discussing. I will not accept amendments Nos. 17 and 22. There is no justification for the proposed inclusions. I am not clear on the intention of the Senator. The regulatory framework provided for in the Bill is clearly oriented towards maintaining appropriate quality standards in the industry in terms of suitability and expertise of persons to become SPSV drivers and providing for appropriate vehicle standards. There is no provision relating to assessment of economic viability.

I cannot accept the proposal with regard to non-discrimination. In an industry such as this, the imposition of regulatory change may well require discriminatory treatment where there are new requirements of incumbents and where there is change. This is a common feature of regulatory systems where incumbents retain grandfather rights while new entrants are required to meet the standards over time. This is being done with new licences in respect of wheelchair accessible vehicles. It also arises in the context of more demanding area knowledge requirements, where there has been change over time.

With regard to amendment No. 31 to section 15, the prohibition of transfers is precisely aimed at ensuring the SPSV licences relate to a person's suitability to hold the licence and do not have a monetary value. This is in line with action No. 14 of the taxi regulation review report. As such, the possibility that funding will be diverted into the purchase of licenses does not arise.