Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill, like many citizens who have been the victims of rogue clampers and a process which has been seen generally to be rather frustrating to deal with and often too rigid in application. In particular, I commend the process by which the Bill has been developed. It began at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications as the work of a cross-party group for the most part and such a process is to be encouraged.

Clamping is and has been a major thorn in the sides of many workers and residents of larger towns and cities for many years. When legislating in this way, we should always be willing to go back to basics and ask, whatever about the best way to administer clamping, whether clamping is the best available option. It is an imperfect tool that can be used with a wide range of measures to avoid parking congestion and the problems, big and small, that can arise as a result.

On the face of it, clamping can seem to be a bizarre measure, since it involves immobilising a vehicle to promote a more free-flowing and fluid parking environment. However, it has clearly been shown to be an effective deterrent against irresponsible and illegal parking. It is effective, therefore, for several reasons. It works by prompting a fear in motorists not only of a fine but also of the nuisance, frustration and embarrassment caused in being clamped. This double effect works to deter those of modest means, as well as those for whom a small fine would cause no concern. The effectiveness of causing this fear of inconvenience requires clamping to be administered in a way which is fair and seen to be so. This makes the regulation of the system under which cars are clamped central to its success as a deterrent, as well as its longevity as one people will tolerate. Ordinary people must be satisfied that they are not at risk of having their vehicles clamped if they follow the rules and avoid, as much as possible, causing disruption to the flow of traffic or risk to safety. Under this system there is a genuine need for fines and clampers to operate effectively when people act irresponsibly. This arises in most cases when a car is clamped, but we should bear in mind that clamping is not always the best option, even in some of the cases I have cited, since it could potentially increase or prolong risks caused by irresponsible parking.

Furthermore, we should bear in mind that mistakes are not only made by motorists but also by clampers. Therefore, it is important to have a process by which those who believe their vehicles have been wrongly clamped can appeal a fine and seek recovery of costs incurred. I appreciate the inclusion of a two-stage appeals process and know that this will be welcomed by the driving public. Where a private company has been found to have unfairly clamped a car, a local authority should be able to fine it for the disruption caused. This would serve to deter such clamping in the future.

These issues bring into question the fundamental problem of clamping being administered by a private company because profit will always be the motivator. While profit may be best made by providing the best service for the contractor, since the local authority is the contractor, this might not always be the path chosen by the clamping company. It may see revenue from fines as a motivator or take the view that meeting quotas in respect of clamping or fines is more important than administering the system laid down by regulations effectively. Local authorities should be directly responsible for clamping and fines, as they are best placed to run a clamping system that is fair and in the best interests of the community.

The clamping sector is potentially a lucrative market for those who put profit above procedure. In Dublin city last year a total of 56,601 clamps were placed on cars. This is equivalent to approximately 155 per day and represents an increase on the 2013 figures. A total of €4.2 million was made from clamping fines alone last year, six times more than the amount collected in the city in parking fees. This illustrates the importance of providing proper parking facilities for motorists. Clampers should operate within a culture that does not encourage clamping for its own sake or financial gain. The only merit of the practice is discouraging drivers from parking illegally. In some cases it may be better not to clamp a car, despite an infringement, in the interests of allowing traffic to flow as freely as possible.

There should be a campaign to raise the level of public awareness of the type of parking that will result in clamping. Where offences are most common, signage explaining the potential for offending should be posted. There is confusion among the public about where and when a vehicle can be clamped. Thankfully, the Bill brings clarity in formulating clear regulations for public and private property and lands.

The measures included in the Bill to tackle the problem of rogue clampers are important. They will help us to create a driver culture in which motorists will expect fair but firm treatment in parking.

I understand the arguments in favour of the operation of clamping at hospitals, but the practice should be considered with great care. Clamping is only useful when it does not increase or potentially increase the level of disruption or risk, but that is very much a possibility in a hospital setting. Clamping should not be allowed to impede the use of hospitals by emergency services where a vehicle that should be removed is clamped.

A long-term patient who has a car clamped should be given some recognition. Although an infringement cannot be ignored, certain conditions may be recognised as relevant or "complicating" to a case. I will seek to amend this at a later stage.

It is important to set maximum and minimum charges for both public and private clamping in order to end the private practice, particularly among management companies, of setting their own clamping fees. I welcome new rules with regard to signage and the clarity given to both private and public clampers. The exemption of emergency services vehicles gives greater clarity for those performing essential duties. Proper training and best practice with regard to interacting with people in a tense atmosphere should be provided as a matter of course.

I reiterate my belief that clamping should be outlawed in hospital environments. Other means should be employed to manage parking because people have been caught up in emergency situations only to come out and find that their cars have been clamped or their parking ticket has run out. I have seen that happening at Connolly Hospital in Blanchardstown and found it very upsetting. The appeals mechanisms are welcome and the inclusion of an independent appeals officer after the first port of call for an appeal has been exhausted is very welcome.

I welcome the Bill and commend the process by which it was developed. I would encourage the Minister to use such a process more often and to urge his Cabinet colleagues to do the same. The Minister has stated that he hopes to continue to develop legislation in this way, which I welcome. I also wish to thank the Oireachtas committee and officials from the Department for their work on the Bill. This has been a very good example of how the Opposition can operate alongside departmental officials and the Government in delivering what I believe is a reasonably good Bill.

See this speech in context