I am getting puzzled here. I do not want to mention Deputy Tunney's case. It is sub judice, he is appealing and bringing it further so I do not want to comment on it. We have an extraordinary situation. We had here some weeks ago Deputy Haughey saying he did not think any laws would be any good, we were better off without them. We had Deputy Lemass saying the driving test is not any good—it was not saying any lives—that it was a waste of time introducing the driving test. We now have a situation in which people fined for parking are saying “this is wrong, it is wrong that people should be harassed”.
I want to make it very clear that the Bill only deals with people who break the law, minor or major, minor offences where they parked where they should not have. At normal times people can get caught and it is more than likely that they will be dealt with in a reasonable way. There are major offences where they obstruct traffic and cause endless chaos because of the fact that they park indiscriminately just because they do not care two damns about anybody but themselves. People who do not park carefully, who do not pay their tax, or do not display their tax discs usually because they have not paid it, are not committing a minor offence in my book. I think someone who does that is committing a very serious offence, and because of that we have decided to introduce new parking attendants.
What do we get? We find it is suggested that not alone is it wrong to bring these people in, because in theory they are supposed to be interfering with the gardaí and they adopt police duties, which they do not, but also that the people who already observe parking regulations are wrong. A number of Deputies have said that existing parking attendants are doing a great job. We also had the opposite point of view.
I must repeat that it is only right that the people we are trying to harass, if you like the word, those who deliberately break the law and do it consistently should be dealt with and for that reason we are introducing this system. It applies in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere. We are now suggesting it should apply anywhere it is needed.
Deputy Faulkner made a suggestion as to how the money should be allocated. If we did not have the section in the way it is and a local authority consulted with the Commissioner who said: "You do not need traffic wardens in your area at all" and if the local authority went ahead and appointed the traffic wardens, is it suggested that the State should meet the bill and pay for those people even though they are not needed? The point in putting it in this way is to ensure that if that happens the local authority in making such an appointment are aware that it will cost the ratepayers more money.
If it is agreed that they are needed and there is a loss, there is the right to give compensation from the State funds to local authorities. I am sorry Deputy Callanan is not here because there is one point he is missing—may be I did not explain it clearly enough— local authorities do not have to appoint traffic wardens but if they wish to they may, in consultation with the Garda Commissioner. If they do not wish to, they do not have to. This is very important. The Bill visualises that any surplus in the service would be applied to road or traffic purposes in the area. I ask Deputy Faulkner to take note of this because it specifies "in the area". This is common procedure in operation at present in respect of surplus funds which accrue on parking fees. To put the excess income into the Road Fund may mean that local road or traffic projects would be denied immediate benefit coming from income derived in the area. There would be no guarantee that moneys put into the road fund by a local authority from excess on warden service would go back to that same local authority.
I want to encourage maximum local responsibility and freedom in local matters. One final point is the question that has kept recurring here. It is the suggestion that somebody will say to the traffic warden: "You shall not have your wages next week unless you go out and catch a large number of motorists." Firstly, that is a very bad reflection on the local authorities; secondly, the suggestion that it will be done is ridiculous in view of the fact that nobody can be caught except those who break the law; and, thirdly, the person who gets a ticket has the right to go to court and, therefore, cannot be imposed upon. So, under those three headings, there is not the slightest trouble at all.
We have achieved what Deputy Faulkner thinks should be achieved in the way in which we phrased this. If the local authority need traffic wardens, consult the Garda Commissioner, appoint traffic wardens and make money on their efforts, this money goes into the local fund. If they lose money they can apply to the State and they may have it reapportioned. If they apply to the Garda Commissioner and he says: "No, we do not think you can do it. The gardaí are doing an adequate job there and we do not require traffic wardens." That is all right but if they go ahead and appoint traffic wardens and lose money, they must know what that will cost them. Without that provision there could be no grant towards areas where traffic wardens were needed but where money was lost because of the expense involved. The fears that have been expressed here are not reasonable ones and we should let the section go through as it is.