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

Thank you, Acting Chairman.

I thank all Senators for the contributions they have made on the Bill and the general issues of parking and transport policy. I will begin by emphasising briefly some of the main points in the Bill and will then respond to some of the points made by Senators.

The first key part of the Bill that will improve the current situation is its focus on the activity of clamping. Second, the Bill includes broad terms of reference for the lands on which clamping will be regulated. I will come back to a particular question that Senator David Norris asked in that regard. The third point which is very important concerns the appeals process laid down. It is a two tier appeals process. Capping will be provided for in place of the charges people may face unless the National Transport Authority, NTA, decides to issue its own regulations on the level of charges.

There are four features of the Bill that will greatly improve the current situation. This was recognised by all Senators in the contributions they made. I will now address some of the questions put to me by Senators in the course of their contributions.

To begin with Senator Paschal Mooney, I agree with the point he made in the early part of his contribution where he noted that the issue of signage was crucial. This is a key point. If people do not know that they are parking in an area in which their vehicle might be clamped and do not understand the time limits within which they can park and the conditions imposed on them, much of what is within the Bill will not be as effective as it needs to be. It is important that signage be clear and that people, when parking, understand what will happen if they park at a time or in a space that they are not meant to.

The Senator expressed disappointment that the Bill did not play a guiding role on parking policy. Other Senators also touched on this point. The reason is that the Bill covers a variety of landowners. Public land falls mainly within the remit of local authorities, unless it is owned by some of the agencies referred to in the Bill, for example, CIE or the Railway Procurement Agency. These bodies will determine parking policy on their lands. Private land is also included. Senator Sean D. Barrett summed up very well the private land to which we were referring - open private land, land in private ownership which most of the time is accessible to the public. The person who owns the land - whether they are an apartment complex owner or a shopping centre owner - has rights that we have to recognise in the Bill. That is why it does not set out to form parking policy, because of the variety of owners and pieces of land the Bill covers and the need to respect the rights of these owners when putting together clamping legislation.

I come to the third point made by Senator Paschal Mooney which was also touched on by Senator Pat O'Neill concerning what would happen when the NTA played its role under the legislation, for example, where it set a code of practice or a proposed charge for the clamping or towing away of a vehicle. The Senator queried what role the public or Members of the Oireachtas would play in this regard. There will be periods of public consultation prior to the introduction of the proposed charge and code of practice. During these periods there will be an opportunity for the Oireachtas or a committee of the Oireachtas to have its input. I hope that will happen, given their roles in the drafting of this legislation.

On the question Senator Pat O'Neill put regarding the length of time involved, I understand he is referring to a situation where a person pays for parking in a particular area and the parking period comes to an end. He queries if there will be a grace period. That is exactly the kind of issue that demonstrates why there is a need for a code of practice to be developed and issued by the NTA. For example, Dublin City Council has a particular view of grace periods after parking periods come to an end. It would be helpful if it was consistent and broadly understood. I would like to see the NTA play a role in that regard by developing and issuing an industry code of practice.

Regarding a notice of towing, Senator Pat O'Neill asks what is to happen after a clamping company has removed a vehicle. The company is required to notify the Garda. On the Senator's particular question as to what will happen to a driver when he or she returns and finds that his or her car is gone, this is the kind of issue in which I hope the NTA will play a role. I hope it will lay out a consistent code of practice across the country and make clear the responsibilities of private companies that remove such a vehicle.

The point on which Senator Sean D. Barrett concluded his contribution is one that guides the Bill. He spoke about the need to balance the competing interests of someone who owned a car and broader society in ensuring public access is not reduced and the rights of private property owners. These are balanced with the responsibilities private clamping operators should discharge. That, in essence, is what the Bill seeks to address. It aims to be proportionate in recognising the size of the industry. Senator David Norris touched on this point. It is estimated that there are six to eight companies involved in most of the clamping which takes place on private land. That is why the issue of active registration was not pursued. Given the number of companies involved in clamping, the same objective could be achieved by focusing on clamping. By focusing on it, it was possible to address some of the public's concerns, which have been referred to by Senators and of which I am aware.

On the point about illegal parking in the past, I had an opportunity to look at the summary of the Oireachtas committee's report compiled after its hearings. One of the early contributions was made by business associations which pointed out how difficult it used to be to find parking because of the level of illegal parking. One of the contributors to the process offered Merrion Square as an example. That is why there are such restrictions on where a person can park. We need to ensure private clamping operators are monitoring in a way that is lawful and regulated. The Bill seeks to do this.

Senator Sean D. Barrett put a particular question to me on whether costs should come down. The Senator compared current costs to the default costs to come into operation should the NTA not play its role under the Bill. That is the answer to the Senator's question. If the NTA does not put in place a different set of charges, the default charges included in the Bill will come into operation. Clearly, power is being afforded to the NTA to play this role and the matter will be subject to a period of public consultation. The NTA will then put in place the charges it believes are appropriate.

Senator Marie Moloney touched on the signage issue, on which Senator Paschal Mooney also made a point. I agree with Senator Marie Moloney who also pointed to the importance of the appeals procedure. I went through the appeals procedure, on which other Senators touched.

There is a need for that to be properly understood and fairly implemented. We are also looking to strike a balance, so that when private companies put the appeals process in place and do it well, this is recognised by the Bill, but in those cases where applicants do not feel they have been treated fairly, the National Transport Authority will be able to play a role.

Senator O'Neill asked a question about where cars go when they are towed. This is an area that the National Transport Authority could look at in relation to the powers that it will then have, but I should emphasise that under current practice the Garda is required to be notified. Senator Reilly, who broadly supported the Bill, emphasised the need for consistent regulation across the country, with which I would agree. She also pointed out that powers for carrying out clamping or fining exist in order to prevent the free flow of traffic from being interrupted, and that when people are parking their cars they need to know that if they do not park legally, or if they stay for longer than they should, they will face sanction. I believe that at the first stage the sanction should always be a fine rather than a clamp. The question of where that clamp is going to be used is the reason we need better regulation, and that is where this Bill comes in.

Senator Mullins supported the Bill and made the point that it was overdue, as was also stated by other Senators during the contribution. He acknowledged the fact that the two-tier process could play a helpful role for appeals in terms of allaying the concerns that many people have. He also raised a point in relation to the maximum release charge. I touched on that with Senator Barrett but would like to emphasise again that the Bill puts in place default charges that could be superseded by the National Transport Authority were it to decide to issue a new charge, which would then be subject to public consultation, as I said when dealing with Senator Mooney's question.

Senator Norris referred to the rush of capitalism to my head. I should point out that we are bringing in a Bill that seeks to regulate those very forces of capitalism in a way that recognises all of the legitimate concerns that people have raised over many years with the aim of making regulation possible. Senator Norris asked why this was not being done by local authorities across the country. One of the interesting points that emerged for me while I was getting ready for this debate, which was picked up on by Senator O'Neill, was the fact that the only local authority that still engages directly in clamping is Dublin City Council. It is interesting to see that the majority of clamping that takes place in the country takes place on private property, as Senator O'Neill pointed out. That is why we need an approach such as this. Most of that clamping takes place in open private spaces, as Senator Barrett mentioned, such as outside office areas and shopping centres, apartment complexes----