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

I thank the Senator for the amendments he has tabled. To give some context, as the Senator is aware, he has tabled nine amendments to this Bill in total. I believe three later amendments in particular contain proposals and thinking that will improve the Bill. I will revert to those particular three amendments on Report Stage, with the Senator's consent, to ascertain how they can be incorporated, albeit perhaps with new and different language, to better achieve the objectives the Senator seeks to deliver. One guiding point underpinning the Senator's amendments - and to which he referred a moment ago in his contribution - is the concept of trying to achieve a better degree of symmetry between the three parties that are involved in all of this. There is the person whose vehicle has been clamped, the person who or the organisation that is doing the clamping and then the third party, namely, the individual, business or community that is suffering a cost or incurring an opportunity cost due to a vehicle being illegally parked and being therefore the subject of clamping. My understanding of the amendments tabled by the Senator is that he seeks to achieve a greater degree of balance within the Bill to ensure that the views and needs of those three parties are recognised in a better way. As I indicated, I believe that within some of the other amendments the Senator has tabled and to which we will turn in a moment, there are provisions and ideas that, when incorporated into the Bill, will make it better.

While I do not propose to accept the particular amendments under discussion, I wish to explain the reason to the Senator and to take him through my thinking in this regard. These amendments pertain to sections 14, 17 and 21 and seek to recognise parties who suffer due to an illegally-parked vehicle being in their facilities. The Senator seeks to amend the Bill to ensure that their needs are better recognised. However, my response regarding such needs is that if one considers the process established within this Bill, the NTA itself will have the ability to specify the level of clamping fee. It also will have the ability, if it chooses to use it, to establish a code of practice regarding any part of this industry. Moreover, for the fee to be advanced by the NTA, it must advertise in a newspaper, must place it on its website and it must be subject to a period of public consultation at the end of which the authority then will make its determination as to what will be that fee. My concern regarding the incorporation of these amendments into the Bill is there may be other issues or views that the other parts of the triangle to which I referred - the person who is clamped, the clamper and the business or community within which the clamping takes place - wish to advance within the consultation process. My concern regarding the Senator's proposals, which is why I will not accept them, is they would specify one matter in particular that might be raised with the NTA in advance of the authority putting in place a process for maximum charges. In the legislation as drafted at present, I do not wish to be prescriptive about stating which particular issue should be considered by the NTA during the consultation process. This is a matter I want it to consider, after which I want all other parties to have an opportunity to have an input therein. My view of the Senator's amendments is they raise issues that would be dealt with better within the consultation process.

With the powers I am giving the NTA it will be in a better place to handle the matters the Senator raises.