Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 14, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:“(2) In prescribing the maximum charges the NTA shall take into account the costs of wrongly parked vehicles at parking places.”.

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Leas-Chathaoirleach. I also welcome the Minister with whom I used to discuss many transport issues in days of yore in the economics department of Trinity College. It would be hard to believe then that out of 20 amendments the Minister would have tabled 11 to my nine amendments. I think people then would have said, "Let us send for the D'Unbelieveables". I noted the Minister's presentation at the meeting of the transport committee earlier. He said that when he presented this Bill on Second Stage he chose to come here even though his alternative engagement was a meeting of the European Council of ministers of transport. His loyalty to this House and priorities are very welcome.
Let me turn to my amendment. We had a very good discussion on clamping on Second Stage and there are contrasting views about it. On the one hand it is viewed as a menace, a nuisance, a threat to the future of transport as we know it and that it ruins people's weekends and so on. On the other hand, clamping is essential. If one allows completely uncontrolled parking cities will not be able to operate. That is why we are trying to steer a middle course here.
During the week somebody put it to me that clamping cures people because once it happens one makes sure to never again park in a place where one can be clamped. It has a deterrent value. In the discussions leading up to the presentation of this Bill I thought that clamping was pro-clamper but anti-driver. However, I did not recognise the cost to businesses and cities if people parked wherever they like and it is for this reason that we must steer the middle course.
Amendment No. 4 states that in prescribing the maximum charges the National Transport Authority, the designated body by the Minister in the Bill, shall take into account the costs of wrongly parked vehicles at parking places. We found that the main problem is public car parks having uncontrolled access. I have been told that off-street car parking, where people pay on the way out, do not become involved in clamping in the main. Therefore, we have to deal with what is already controlled on streets which are in the main operated by Dublin City Council. Many other cities appear to no longer use clamping. The Minister mentioned that the rest of the parking facilities concern people who have hotels, shopping centres, hospitals and schools.
People are annoyed at the level of charges. In the Bill there is a penalty of €100 and it will cost €50 for retrieval in cases where a vehicle is towed away. However, both penalties represent minuscule amounts compared with the damage caused to a business. Let us remember that the property is theirs. Let us also remember that it is their private property to which we as members of the public have access. It is intended that the parking outside hotels and shops will be availed of by people who want to do business in them. What if that space is blocked by people who have to be clamped? The real cost is not removing the clamp. The real cost is that business in those shopping centres becomes impossible to conduct if commuters going somewhere else avail of parking.
I ask that the National Transport Authority, in setting the cost to be imposed on wrongly parked vehicles, takes into account that the space is on private property and on land that is intended to promote the businesses which have paid for the property and that unlawful and wrongful parking in this regard should be taken into account.

This cost probably is far more than the fines of €100 and €50 envisaged in this provision, as clogging up an entire shopping area could do serious damage to the businesses whose property it is. That is the purpose of amendment No. 4, namely, that the cost of illegal parking does not pertain to operating the clamping but to the damage it does to the hotels, schools and hospitals. Some serious examples were provided when the Minister was here on the last day of people who block access of ambulances at hospitals. This would be a serious case that would merit a charge that was much greater than €50 or €100.
The second amendment the Acting Chairman has asked me to take together with amendment No. 4 is amendment No. 10. This amendment proposes to insert on page 16, between lines 15 and 16, a proposal to take account of "complaints from property owners in respect of the costs to them of wrongfully parked vehicles". The provision concerned pertains to the complaints procedure and my comment in this regard is it reminds me of when I used to do a certain amount of such work within the university where, when complaints arose, the rule always was audi alteram partem, that is, hear the other side. If people who have been clamped have a right to complain to the National Transport Authority, NTA, in law, do those who lose out also have a right to be heard as otherwise, one will get a completely one-sided case? Of course people are cross, annoyed and so on but the Minister might consider this new section 17(6) on Report Stage, whereby this complaints procedure is made open to both sides in addition. As matters stand, the procedure is one-sided and perhaps the Minister might like to review this before the next Stage.
The final amendment I have been asked to discuss is amendment No. 12. It proposes to amend section 21, which provides for the hearing of appeals. I have made the case that the procedures should take account of those who lose out because of the unlawful parking. Section 21 provides that the "NTA may prescribe procedures for hearing and determining appeals". It decides the form in which the appeal will be lodged, on the fees and on the making of submissions, whether oral or written, to the clamping appeals officer. It also prescribes procedures on requests for further information by the clamping appeals officer and examination by the clamping appeals officer of the appellant, that is, the person who feels aggrieved, and any other person. While "any other person" might include the person on whose property the parking infringement is alleged to have taken place, it seems strange to leave that discretionary and this is why I have included this provision. As I said earlier, it is on the principle of audi alteram partem. Perhaps these amendments might be considered before Report Stage.
In summary, do the charges reflect the cost? Is it the right of those who have paid for this land in their shopping centre or hotel to be heard? While an annoyed person will of course approach the clamping body and feel extremely cross and so on, there are two sides to the argument. Are the costs reflected adequately in the level of penalties? I should state that while the costs in Dublin City Council are €80 for declamping and €160 for tow-away, I believe that on top of that, it loses approximately a further €20. If the private sector is unable to recoup the cost of illegal parking on its land, will it lose out in equity in this regard? The goal is to try to get people to stay for two or three hours and then to leave. However, if they stay there all day on other people's property, are they covered? I note some of the charges envisaged in the Bill are less than those being imposed by Dublin City Council, which is losing money on it. Consequently, would all this add up as a proper deterrent for unlawfully or wrongfully parked vehicles?