Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Deputies for the points they have made on the Bill this afternoon. I might begin with the issue Deputy Durkan raised as it was a common theme of colleagues' submissions; that is the issue of perceived unfair clamping. Deputy Durkan appears to have been the victim of such a practice that I am made to wonder whether it was a political opponent that was behind the clamping. For the time being, we will rule that out as a possibility.

Everyone raised the issue of clamping in circumstances which people consider to be very unfair. Deputies gave examples of being clamped only a minute after the parking was due to expire. I would like Deputy Durkan to be aware of section 9 of the Bill which I hope addresses the points that colleagues have raised. Section 9 provides for what are referred to at times as "grace periods". Section 9 provides that the National Transport Authority may make clamping regulations and one of the specific issues it can look at will be periods of time in which clamps have been applied or periods of time when a vehicle may be relocated. Under the section, the NTA will be given the ability to make regulations and to provide for consistency in relation to how matters like that can be dealt with so that people feel they will be treated fairly. If people are not treated fairly, they will have recourse to an independent clamping appeals officer, which the Bill also provides for. I wanted to directly answer the question put by Deputy Durkan as it is an issue that has been raised by many Members this afternoon.

I acknowledge the broad support for the Bill. I acknowledge also the fact that this is a Bill that came out of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications. One can see the effect of that in the way in which people have responded to the Bill this afternoon. While not everybody supports it fully, most people on balance do. There is a very good understanding of what the Bill seeks to achieve and the methods it employs in that regard. Deputy Ellis put the very fair point to me about whether this is something I want to continue. I absolutely do. When I was in the Seanad before Christmas on the earlier part of the Bill, I took amendments from Senators which have improved the legislation. If amendments come forward here from any side of the House that will do the same, I will definitely accept them. I note, however, that it will not be possible for me to do so in respect of some of the issues some Members have raised and propose to deal with by tabling amendments. In other areas where amendments are proposed which improve the Bill, I will certainly take them.

In relation to other Bills in respect of which I would also like to take this approach, I note the legislation we will bring forward later in the year on drug driving tests and strengthening the law on driving while intoxicated with drugs. It is a new area of road safety policy that will definitely merit debate and consultation within the House as well as greater use of the committee system than other Bills necessarily require. That is certainly legislation on which I will take everybody's input to ensure that we have the strongest law possible in the area.

I will go through the different points Deputies have raised this afternoon and respond to them briefly.

Deputy Timmy Dooley acknowledged the consultation which had taken place on the Bill, consultation I have acknowledged. His main point was about the need to find a way to balance the rights and responsibilities of everybody who had been clamped or who clamped. The Bill seeks to do this. He also said we needed to be very careful not to overburden the sector with regulations or to create agencies the sole job of which would be to implement regulations. I inferred from this that he meant that sometimes doing this created a momentum that was disproportionate in dealing with the issue. That is a fair point. In the Bill we have taken the approach of using an existing body, the National Transport Authority, to try to ensure this will not happen. We have also decided to examine the regulation of clamping activity as opposed to a registration approach, on which Deputy David Stanton touched. This will strike the balance to which Deputy Timmy Dooley referred.

Deputy Dessie Ellis was one of the first to agree with something in the Bill which other Deputies went on to acknowledge, namely, the appeals process. Like many Deputies, my car has been clamped - at least twice as far as I remember. On both occasions I went through the appeals process, which can be very frustrating, to put it mildly. Although we debate very important legislation in the House, the consequences are not always directly and immediately apparent to the people we represent. A practical consequence of the Bill will be the appointment of a clamping appeals officer in the NTA who will provide a consistent appeals process by which citizens will be able to raise cases in which they have been unfairly treated. While this is not to say everybody who goes through the appeals process will be happy with the outcome, there will be an improved process.

Deputy Dessie Ellis has said we must ensure we do not encourage clamping for its own sake, which is a fair point. He also raised the issue of the amount of money some local authorities, mainly Dublin City Council, raised from clamping. The figure was placed in the public domain recently, as Deputy Bernard J. Durkan pointed out. An interesting perspective on the figure is the fact that Dublin City Council pays a very significant amount of money, €6.1 million per annum, for the operation of parking enforcement services. Given that the income generated in 2013 was €4.3 million, the cost to the council of running the service outweighs the revenue generated from it, showing that the council sees clamping as an instrument of parking regulation, rather than as a profit making activity. The figures debunk the point which we may be able to debate further on Committee Stage.

From Deputy Clare Daly’s comments on the Bill, one would think nobody's vehicle was ever clamped because he or she had parked on a double yellow line or in an illegal manner. I might be able to exchange views with the Deputy as the Bill passes through the Dáil. Her language suggested it was a case of extortion and a stealth charge. While I acknowledge that there are practices that must be tackled and issues raised - that is why I have brought forward the Bill which we want to have implemented - the primary objective of clamping is to deal with illegal parking.

Deputy Clare Daly also made a point about the lack of investment in public transport. Just before Christmas I brought forward a Supplementary Estimate to invest €101 million in public transport, which included over €50 million for the modernising of the bus fleet for Bus Éireann and Dublin bus. I also point to the Government’s ability to fund, at desperately difficult times, initiatives such as the Luas cross city line, on which there will be an additional 10 million journeys in public transport when it becomes operational in 2017.

Recently published figures showed that Irish Rail had carried 1 million more passengers last year than in the previous year. This week Dublin Bus announced it was to hire more bus drivers. While I would be the first to acknowledge that we need to make much progress in public transport, despite the great difficulties the country and the Government have faced, we have done all we can to support public transport and there are plans in place to improve it in the future. Deputy Clare Daly argued that clamping was in place to deliver revenue to local authorities. However, when we implemented the local property tax to try to generate additional legitimate revenue for local authorities, she opposed it.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger and other Deputies emphasised what happened at hospitals, an issue on which perhaps we might touch when we discuss amendments to the Bill. She also raised the issue of private management companies, a major issue in Dublin 15, a part of the city I know very well. It is also an issue in parts of my constituency and I would like to discuss the point more with the Deputy on Committee Stage because she made the point that people were not able to relax inside their homes in some areas in which vehicles were subject to clamping by private management companies. However, clamping can and should take place only where there is illegal parking. Therefore, if people's vehicles are parked on their private property or legally on public property in a housing estate or elsewhere, they should not be clamped. I want to hear more evidence from the Deputy to understand whether the Bill could address the point.

Deputy Catherine Murphy said we needed to examine how we regulated the use of private space for parking. This should be done through the planning process. When planning permission is granted for new buildings or developments, the amount of parking space involved is examined by the local authority or An Bord Pleanála. Other parking spaces that might be available in a town or village are subject to the planning process. It is unfair to say there is no regulation of space for parking purposes because the issue should be dealt with through the planning process. The Deputy said we needed to examine how we regulated clamping, but it is the objective of the Bill to give the NTA the power to do this. She also said she supported much of what was in the Bill. If there are other areas in which she believes the Bill could be strengthened, I will be very happy to examine them on Committee Stage.

Deputy Frank Feighan raised the issue of hospitals and supported the appeals process. It will be a major improvement that will be delivered through the Bill.

Deputy James Bannon touched on the issue of road clamping, an issue about which he felt strongly and which the Bill seeks to address. He also referred to the consequences of the lack of signage and the difficulties it could create for commuters and others who were parking their cars. I agree entirely and the issue is specifically identified in the Bill as one that will be regulated.

I also acknowledge he has raised with me many times the need for sensible speed limits outside major towns and has raised with me, on behalf of his constituents, the issue of national car test, NCT, centres. This is a matter of which I am aware and on which I have responded to him.

I thank Deputy Seán Kenny for being broadly supportive of the Bill. He touched on some issues he thought the Bill would address and approved of the process through which I have gone to get to this point. Deputy Heydon noted that under this Bill, limits will be put in place in respect of clamping fees that people might face. I again revert to a point I made earlier, namely, this is an example of legislation that should have a practical and tangible effect on issues that inconvenience people as the Bill will introduce limits to make sure that people do not find themselves in a position where they are subject to charges and fines that are unfair and disproportionate. Deputy Lawlor also made the point about the need for consistency in respect of how people are treated nationally. This is why I am giving such a level of power to the National Transport Authority to deal with this issue.

Deputy Stanton raised a number of issues on which I would like to touch. He raised an issue regarding signage that was covered by an earlier contribution and again, this is a matter that will be tackled explicitly in this Bill. Having been involved in this issue within my own constituency - as the Deputy is aware, it covers much of Dublin city centre - I have seen that many of the issues raised with me refer back either to signage that is not in place at all or to signage that is present but which lacks the requisite level of detail on it. When this happens, the person who is clamped can fairly claim he or she was not aware of the limits. For example, the person may not have been aware the limits were applying on particular days or at particular times. This is something the Bill should address.

The Deputy then raised a point with me on the kinds of people for whom an exemption might apply. This may be an issue to which Members may return because under section 13 of the Bill as proposed, it prevents clamping of the following vehicles: an ambulance, a fire brigade vehicle, any vehicle used by a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces in respect of his or her duties and a vehicle that could be used by the Garda for other purposes, as well as the issue raised by the Deputy when a disabled person's parking permit is in place. These are the areas that currently prohibit clamping. I believe the issue raised by the Deputy regarding parking in places that are designated for drivers with disabilities would be covered within section 13 of the Bill but perhaps the Deputy might look at this again. If he believes the provision could be strengthened, that can be considered. As for the issue concerning doctors who are using a parking space in the course of their duties, how it might be provided for in the Bill must be considered somewhat more carefully. One factor that allows one to deal with the other duties I have just listed is the fact that many of those people have a specific vehicle that can be identified clearly. Perhaps this is a matter that can be considered on the latter Stages of the Bill. The Deputy then made the point that clamping should be used as a last resort and I completely agree with him. I hope that one consequence of the enactment of this Bill will be that this genuinely will happen. Moreover, when clamping does happen, it will be far better regulated than has been the case in the past.

Deputy Durkan made those points to which I responded at the outset and again raised the issue of how unfairly people can believe they are being treated when they are being clamped. I reiterate my hope that this Bill, when implemented, will go a long way towards addressing the issues raised by Deputies.

See this speech in context