Sir, - As a former taxi regulator (now retired), I have been following the trials and tribulations of Dublin's taxi industry for last couple of years and with great interest. For this industry, there are no geographic boundaries, similar problems and situations replicate themselves worldwide.
The issues of licence values and regulatory fees have a common background in common law which seems to be overlooked in the political rhetoric emerging from all sides.
Quite simply, a taxicab business licence is not an asset and cannot ever become an asset. In common law, it is nothing more than official government authority to operate a taxicab for hire for a fixed period of time, at end of which there is automatic expiry, with no guarantee of continuance, no guarantee it will not be revoked for cause, and no guarantee that the regulatory environment will not change one day.
The physical piece of paper, or tin plate, or whatever a licence holder acquires as each licence year commences, is simply evidence that an appropriate fee has been paid in return for companion regulatory action. Such evidence for collateral purposes is a high risk investment for it is absolutely not an asset. It is extremely unfortunate that many licence holders paid out exorbitant sums of money in good faith, without first doing their homework to determine the security of their investment. That a taxicab business licence is not an asset is not and never has been a secret.
All economists are aware that any time a regulatory authority limits the number of licences, without simultaneously prohibiting transfer, those licences will immediately begin to acquire an unofficial value on the street. It is regrettable that the regulatory authority back in antiquity did not prohibit transfers simultaneous with imposition of the limit. The anguish felt by many today would never have emerged.
Also in common law is a fundamental requirement that regulatory fees must bear a reasonable relationship to the true cost of the administration and regulatory actions behind that fee. The amount of fee can be set by regulatory action, but the type of fees must have a permissive basis in legislation. A fee cannot be used as a vehicle solely for revenue generation, that is solely a legislative authority. Any regulatory authority setting a fee must be prepared to defend that fee in understandable terms relative to the activities and actions behind it, else it may well fail a court challenge.
Regulatory authorities worldwide, not just Dublin, have often found themselves in great difficulty trying to unravel the oversight and inattention of their ancestors. Almost any attempt to "fix" the situation today will most likely have the effect of extinguishing something perceived to be an asset. This is hugely unfortunate, but no mystery. An intangible "authority" to do something cannot ever become an asset. - Yours, etc.,
Terry Smythe, Taxi-l Founder and Moderator, Winnipeg, Canada.
Sir, - I fail to see the logic in Michael D. Higgins's assertion that part-time taxi drivers who only "take out their cars when demand is greatest" will lead to "a Third World option in transport". Surely, this is the best possible result of deregulation. A part-time fleet of taxis which emerge only at peak times such as weekend nights will serve to reduce waiting times whilst ensuring that those who make a full-time living in the industry will still have ample business at all other times. Who knows, perhaps the economics students of the future will be presented with the taxi industry as an example of a perfectly elastic market. - Yours, etc.,
John Berry, Custom House Harbour, Dublin 1.