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

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I will begin where Deputy Murphy finished. She urged that this Bill be focused on parking policy. She correctly said this Bill does not take the approach of dealing with parking policy. It deals with the regulation of clamping, which is something that has not happened before in such a strong and national manner as this Bill proposes. I will use the Deputy's example of clamping on large match days or around sporting events to show why we are not dealing with parking policy itself. If we were to take the approach in this Bill of trying to regulate parking policy, this Bill would have to deal with the specifics of events like that.

Do we believe there are any circumstances in which clamping is allowed? I do. I believe there are other circumstances in which clamping should not be allowed and other sanctions or criteria should be used to deal with illegal parking. The reason this Bill does not get into the realm of trying to dictate parking policy is precisely that there are so many different situations and so many needs all over the country regarding parking, which could have the potential for clamping. If I were looking to do that, I would then be dealing with charges from members of the Opposition that I am trying to take power away from the people who best know how that power should be wielded, namely, local authorities or statutory bodies which look after property they own. If I were looking to deal with parking policy, the claim would be made against me that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and myself were removing power from local authorities, for example. Local authorities are the bodies best placed to develop policy for their areas. It is because of the different nuances and local needs to which parking policy must respond that this Bill looks at the regulation of the activity of clamping, while recognising the right of other parties, such as statutory bodies and local authorities, to determine what is the best policy for parking in their areas, and charging the National Transport Authority with playing a role in the regulation of clamping that takes place as a consequence of the failure of motorists or clampers to take cognisance of the parking policy in that area.

The amendments proposed by Deputies Coppinger, Murphy and Higgins seek to make it an offence to clamp a vehicle for the purposes of recovering an unpaid debt or charge and within multi-unit developments to make it an offence under the Multi-Units Development Act 2011 for an owners' management company to clamp a car unless it is operating as a clamping operator under the terms of this Bill. They also seek to prohibit the clamping of vehicles in residential developments other than to facilitate the free flow of traffic and the clamping of vehicles in hospital and health facilities that belong to patients or people visiting patients. As I said on different stages of the Bill, and a moment ago, this Bill is not about parking policy itself, for the reasons I have outlined. It is not about where clamping should or should not be carried out, whether on the public road, in hospital car parks, in residential areas, or anywhere else. This decision was made from the outset of the Bill. This Bill seeks to deal with the activity of clamping if used as a means of parking control. For this reason, it is beyond the scope of this Bill to legislate for practices within the property management sector. In the case of hospitals and health facilities, while I would prefer clamping not be used and that alternative means of parking control were used, I must also accept that it is the right of the individuals and organisations running those hospitals to decide how they deal with parking needs on their own property. Deputy Coppinger used the example of James Connolly Hospital, with which I am familiar. It is adjacent to the National Sports Campus and other areas of employment.

See this speech in context