We will resume the debate on section 2, amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 6 is related, so we will discuss amendments Nos. 3 and 6 together. Deputy Ring was in possession of the floor before we adjourned. Does Deputy Olivia Mitchell wish to take up the debate?
NEW SECTIONS.
I wish to press for a vote on this issue. We have already discussed the matter and Deputy Ferris has tabled a similar amendment.
I would not like to think that anything I said earlier would amount to an accusation that Members were misusing the committee system. The correction made by Deputy Olivia Mitchell that Members were not using it properly is probably more accurate and reflects what I was trying to say. There is nothing to stop members of committees ordering their business so that agencies such as the NRA or the RSA appear before them more than once or twice a year. That is entirely permissible. The legislation provides for those bodies to respond to reasonable requests from the committee.
The debate we have had underlines the point I made earlier. I went to the bother of examining a number of the recently disallowed parliamentary questions for the Department of Transport and the Marine. I will not mention Deputies by name but the questions came from all sides of the House, so I am not making a party political point. One disallowed question referred to the position regarding the progress on the development of the second stage of the N26. Others referred to the Bandon bypass, the village of Claregalway, the construction of the Slane bypass, the land acquisitions under Transport 21 and so forth. There were a whole range of questions about specific operational matters for the National Roads Authority. With all due respect to the Deputies, I do not think that is a very productive use of parliamentary time, when a Minister can be held accountable for the policies that underline the operations. I simply wish to make that point, while not wanting to be belligerent on the issue.
However, the point made by Deputies Mitchell, Ferris and Shortall regarding a lack of information on these issues is valid and one which I take very seriously. Deputy Shortall was correct when she made the point that I have not been on the Opposition side of the House for quite some time and I hope I never am again.
The Deputy will be.
Hope springs eternal.
However, if I was on that side of the House again, I would like to be as effective as I possibly could be, which is the right of every Member of the House. Members of the House, including the three main Opposition spokespersons, have indicated strongly that the current NRA system with an Oireachtas liaison unit is not working. If a parliamentary question was the first device to try to elicit this information, it was a waste of time. However, Deputy Olivia Mitchell's point is that people have been putting this question to the NRA over a long period and have found it difficult to get the information. If parliamentary questions are being tabled as a result of frustration having failed to obtain rudimentary information from the NRA, we certainly have a problem for which I have some responsibility and accountability to the House.
It is not just the NRA.
No, but I am also taking into account what all the Deputies said. I do not want the NRA to become the whipping boy because other agencies may be concerned also, not just those within my Department's remit.
Absolutely.
I take responsibility for the agencies under my Department's aegis. I will not accept the amendments because they will not serve a useful purpose. In the light of what Deputies said, however, I will take seriously their comments about obtaining the information they need to do their job. I will take up this matter with the agencies concerned under my Department's aegis to ensure queries from Members of the House will be responded to quickly and efficiently. These Civil Service agencies provide a public service. As public representatives, Members of the House who pose questions are entitled to timely responses. I will try to put that system in place.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
2.—The Minister shall be politically accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas for the activities and actions of the following authorities and shall be obliged to answer parliamentary questions relating to same, namely—
(a) the proposed Dublin Transport Authority,
(b) the National Roads Authority, and
(c) the Road Safety Authority.”.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.—(1) Section 57 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (3), by substituting for paragraph (e) the following:
"(e) specify the manner and method of the charging of and collection of tolls,
(f) specify such other information as the road authority making the scheme considers appropriate or the Minister prescribes by regulations.“.
(2) In any toll scheme, the Minister and the Department of Transport shall ensure that any electronic system represents value for money and shall comprise—
(a) the maximum possible functionality, and
(b) at least two functions.”.
This amendment relates to the use of electronic tolling and the potential functionality of the camera system that underpins it. It seems ludicrous that the taxpayer will pay for the installation of a hugely expensive electronic tolling system involving cameras, gantries, collection systems, administrative systems and back-up and enforcement systems. This will all be hugely expensive. The installation will cost over €200 million and the cost of annual administration will be enormous, though the figure is unknown at this point.
If we are putting this huge, costly system in place, why is it only being used to ensure the collection of a couple of euro from each car paying the toll? Why not utilise it to its maximum potential and allow it to be used for other policing purposes such as checking speeding, tracking stolen cars and tracking criminals? This area has huge potential for policing which the system will not capitalise on. The recent cocaine haul in west Cork illustrates a possible use of the system. It also illustrates the importance of being able to record and photograph all car registrations, including those of foreign-registered vehicles, and use this information. Although vehicles will be photographed under the proposed system, information on foreign-registered vehicles will be discarded immediately because it is not recognised by our vehicle registration system.
The House is due to discuss the transmission of information to the Department of Homeland Security in the United States. It is proposed that Ireland submit to this body information we do not collect for our own purposes. This does not make sense when one considers that the reason the information is collected is to safeguard law-abiding citizens.
The electronic tolling and camera systems I referred to on Second Stage will not deliver value for money unless we maximise the potential of our investment in them. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment as it would allow the system being introduced on the M50 and, I presume, in many other areas at some stage to be used for purposes other than collecting a single toll at a single point.
The Minister did not respond to a question I asked about disabled drivers. Is it planned to address the anomaly I identified in a previous debate, whereby disabled drivers who have not had alterations carried out on their car must pay a toll? A classic example is the requirement that a person who has lost the use of one limb and displays a disabled sticker on his or her standard, automatic car pay a toll at the tolling booth.
Deputy Mitchell did not outline what other functions she envisaged for the system. Perhaps she will do so if the opportunity arises. She may have in mind the retention of records on car registration numbers. The M50 is subject to intensive video surveillance and live cameras are placed along its entire length. The traffic authorities and the Garda Síochána have access to this footage. Perhaps I or the National Roads Authority have overlooked another specific function the Deputy may have in mind.
I assure the Deputy that the procurement of the electronic system will be subject to considerable financial scrutiny. The Department, the National Roads Authority, the Comptroller and Auditor General and others must be satisfied that it represents value for money and will provide the maximum possible functionality. As the body responsible for detailed decision making in respect of this type of project, the National Roads Authority is required to take all these matters into account. In discharging its responsibilities the authority is subject to the investment appraisal guidelines and rules set down by the Department of Finance specifically to ensure stringent and uniform value for money and other investment criteria are observed, as is the case across the public service. The National Roads Authority assures me, and regularly assured my predecessor, that all its projects comply with these criteria, as will the project under discussion.
The NRA is also subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. In addition, the Departments of Transport and Finance, in a process of mutual consultation, institute a series of specific audits of projects for compliance with all aspects of the finance guidelines, covering areas such as public procurement, investment appraisal and value for money.
If we were to adopt the approach the Deputy proposes, we would depart from the uniform, consistent arrangements in place for investment appraisal and monitoring across the public service. While I have no difficulty with the intent of the amendment or the principle underpinning it, they are fully catered for in the legislation as it stands and in the systems currently in place to appraise every project in Transport 21 and all projects across Government on the basis of value for money and functionality.
To clarify the issue, the additional functions I had in mind were in the area of policing. I am not sure the Minister is correct in his belief that the system can be used for policing functions as I do not believe a system established specifically for tolling purposes can be used for such purposes.
I tabled the amendment in response to discussions I had with representatives of companies which had tendered for the contract to provide the speed camera and tolling systems. All of them indicated that the brief for the camera system was too limited and the full potential of the system was not being fully utilised in the contract. For example, the brief did not include software which would have given considerable added value to the expensive infrastructure being put in place.
Forgive me, a Cheann Comhairle, if I am not fully familiar with the procedures of the House. I propose to frame my question differently. Will the Minister accept an amendment to address the problem of disabled drivers being required to pay toll charges if their car has not been altered? Individuals whose cars have not been altered are every bit as disabled as others. They simply have a different type of disability. It is grossly unfair to require people who are burdened with a disability to pay tolls. I ask the Minister to address this issue.
Deputies must speak to the subject of the amendment under discussion. Deputy Reilly may not, therefore, raise material extraneous to Deputy Mitchell's amendment.
I do not wish to be discourteous to the Deputy. As he indicated, he is new in the House and unfamiliar with its procedures. I assure him that, in the context of the move to barrier-free tolling, the National Roads Authority intends to examine all the by-laws on tolling, including those relating to disabled drivers. I will convey the Deputy's views on the matter to the NRA. It is clear, however, that significant problems would arise if one were to exempt people who do not have a specially adapted car or are not officially registered as disabled.
The persons in question are registered with the Irish Wheelchair Association and other bodies and are in a position to receive medical certificates from recognised medical experts.
Does the Minister consider this a policy or an operational matter? I consider it a policy issue.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, line 32, to delete "in the State".
As discussed, the system in place does not provide any means of dealing with foreign registered cars or non-national drivers who cannot be traced if they drive through a toll gantry, an issue that also arises with regard to speeding fines. The Minister stated it would be his intention, as far as possible, to pursue persons who lived outside the State and that in time, he hoped, there would be an EU-wide agreement, whereby there would be an exchange of information on driver files. In the short term I hope we would have an arrangement with Northern Ireland in this regard. For that reason, I suggest we remove the phrase "in the State" from section 4(3)(b) which would leave it open to us to use these provisions where there was agreement between North and South or at EU level. I do not see why we should have to revisit the matter. It would not take from the provisions of the Bill as intended and would make sense to do it at this point.
As the Deputy notes, the amendment would remove the words "in the State" from the provision. However, this is an important technical provision in the Bill. I am told it was subject to considerable research and consultation by the office of the Parliamentary Counsel to ensure the wording was precisely in line with the terminology used in a range of other finance, customs and road traffic legislation.
The intention of the provision is straightforward, namely, to ensure that where a vehicle is not registered in the State, it is the person who has possession of the vehicle who will be liable to pay the toll. I understand this was a very complex provision to draft and I am advised that the preservation of consistency with other legislation covering the issue of legal ownership and responsibility for vehicles is essential if the provision is to achieve its objective. In those circumstances and in the light of the very strong legal advice we received in drafting the Bill, I am unable to accept the amendment.
I accept that response.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, lines 5 and 6, to delete all words from and including "or" in line 5 down to and including "both" in line 6.
The amendment refers to subsection (11) which reads: "A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both". This applies to a person failing to pay a toll tax such as a worker on his or her way to work in the morning who may have to pay a fine of €5,000 or serve six months in prison. This is very harsh, particularly as the person is paying what is an additional tax.
The earlier subsection (5)(b) reads: “In any proceedings for the recovery of a toll it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that the defendant received the notice under this paragraph to which the proceedings relate and that payment of the toll has not been made”. Therefore, the onus of proof is on the defendant, which goes against natural justice in that the onus of proof should always be on the State or the authorities pursuing the matter. The Minister should reconsider this draconian and excessive measure.
It may be all the things the Deputy suggests but it is there for a purpose, namely, to ensure people do not devise ways and means of getting away with the non-payment of tolls. The vast majority will pay their tolls and will do so if not willingly, then because they must. For a long time we in this country tolerated the many who did not obey the laws like the rest of us and who got away with tax and various other offences. Our level of tolerance for such behaviour has diminished greatly in society, which is positive. One of the ways of ensuring everybody pays his or her fair share when barrier-free tolling is introduced is to ensure those who do not pay will suffer a penalty. Section 4 establishes a charge, known as a default charge, that a motorist will incur for not paying a toll on time. The level of the charge will be set in toll by-laws which will be drawn up by the National Roads Authority following public consultation. It is not possible to state how much that charge will be as research has yet to be undertaken by the NRA. However, the practical application of the charge is likely to be similar to the current parking fines system.
A motorist will have a chance to pay the charge within a specified period from the date he or she receives the toll default notice. If he or she fails to pay within the allotted time, the charge will increase by a multiple of the original charge. If the charge is still unpaid after a further period of time, court proceedings may be initiated for recovery of the toll and related charges as a simple contract debt. Following summary conviction, this provision allows the court to impose a fine of up to €5,000. This is an upper limit and while such a fine may never be imposed, it is a normal figure to apply to such a conviction. The provision also allows for a term of imprisonment of up to six months. While that provision is included in the Bill, I doubt if it will be used often. It will only apply after a person has had three chances to settle what is a lawful debt. Criminal prosecution is very much a last resort. Every effort will be made to ensure people will have the chance to comply fully with the terms of the Bill and the vast majority will try to do so. However, it is necessary to have the stick of criminal prosecution to make it clear we are serious about enforcing the barrier-free tolling regime.
From recollection, the congestion charge in London was approximately stg£8 per day. If it was not paid within 24 hours, it increased to stg£24. While the system may have changed since I saw it in operation, at the time it operated in such a way that once a driver entered the congestion area, he or she used a mobile phone or telephone to register as having entered. If he or she did not do this within 24 hours, the charge automatically became stg£24.
The vast majority will pay the toll. Those who do not do so the first time will have a second and third chance. If they do not pay at that stage, I would not have huge sympathy for them.
What will happen if, say, my car is stolen and somebody goes through a barrier? What will be open to me in terms of defending myself, having not been directly involved in abusing the law in the payment of a toll?
Why do we always talk of imprisonment? Surely in a case like this a community service order would be more appropriate. If one wanted to keep punishment within the road network, many forms of community service could be used such as the cleaning of roads, the clearing of weeds and so on. The idea that we must always build into legislation this maximum of six months imprisonment is ridiculous in this day and age, particularly when our prisons, as the Ceann Comhairle will know from his days as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, are packed with people who perhaps have not paid their television licence fee and so on. Prisons should be used to deal with serious crime. I accept, however, that if one does not pay one's due toll some punishment must be imposed. Surely it is more appropriate to have community service orders. What is the position on someone defending himself or herself who did not know what happened when his or her car was stolen?
Under section 4(3)(c) a person can use that defence provided he or she has informed the Garda or the Garda is otherwise aware that the car was stolen.
The question of community service might be a matter for the discretion of the court but I am not sure. While it is always useful to have the threat of prison I agree with the Deputy that the options of community service and fines should be included in legislation.
It should be embedded in the legislation. We automatically opt for imprisonment instead of asking in some cases for community service. I appreciate that the Minister is new in the Department and did not have the opportunity of considering this on the initiation of the Bill. The penalty is simply copied from every other Bill.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 involve a charge on the Exchequer and are ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 10, line 38, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Section 47 (1) of the Roads Act 1993 sets out four types of road scheme which a roads authority can make: a motorway scheme, a busway scheme, a protected road scheme and a protected road scheme amending a protected road scheme approved under section 49. The word "may" is used where the Deputy wishes to delete it to reflect the fact that several types of scheme can be made. Were I to accept the Deputy's amendment it would render the provision inoperable because it would mean that all four schemes would have to be made in every case which would defeat the Deputy's purpose. In respect of all other subsections of section 47 the word "shall" is used in reference to the steps to be taken once the type of scheme has been decided. The legislation is detailed, prescriptive and specific which reflects the Deputy's intention. "Shall" cannot be inserted at the beginning, however, because the type of scheme must be decided first.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 21 are cognate and will be taken together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 11, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(ii) indicating the website address at which a copy of the scheme and of the map referred to in it may be obtained,".
This relates to public consultation and the same principles could apply to any public consultation in which any public body engages. It also entails notifying people of proposed new by-laws. The Government should use the potential of the web to its maximum. It should be standard practice that any document going to public consultation should be published on the web as a matter of course.
I assure theDeputythat it is not in the Bill because it is a matter of course in respect of road schemes, particularly in the National Roads Authority. The Road Traffic Act 1994 provides for the publication of notices in newspapers where a road scheme is proposed for submission to An Bord Pleanála; in the case of the proposed amendment to the Roads Act 1993 or where it is proposed to make new by-laws; and in the case of a proposed amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1994. The notices specify where a copy of the draft scheme or by-laws may be inspected and it is open to the road authority to include details of website access in the newspaper notices. That is common practice now and it is not necessary, as proposed by the Deputy, to insert an express requirement to specify a website mode of access for inspection of the appropriate documents. Roads authorities make widespread use of the Internet for this and many other purposes. The amendment is not deemed necessary.
This should happen as a matter of routine and while some agencies may use the web widely not all do. I do not see the difficulty in putting this into the legislation. While I take the Minister's word for it, presumably he will accept my returning to him in the next few months with details of agencies under his aegis that do not use the web in that manner.
In that case I can make a policy direction to them to do it.
Good.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, are out of order as they involve a charge on the Exchequer.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 15, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"54C.—Where any person is obstructing or interfering with access from a public road to a service area, or fails to leave the service area having been requested to do so where the person is occupying the service area in such a manner as to interfere with the amenities thereof, a member of the Garda Siochána may without warrant remove the person or any thing belonging or appearing to belong to the person from the service area.".
This amendment aims to create an offence of obstructing access to service areas. Similar principles underpin further amendments in respect of areas used by the public, such as thoroughfares that are open to the public but are privately owned. Clarity is needed in the enforcement of the law in these areas, for example, if someone were to park in such a way as obstructed access to a service area or to engage in any other kind of anti-social activity in those areas. It is necessary to create a new offence because the gardaí seem to be uncertain of their powers in respect of public areas that are privately owned. These are new areas and the uncertainty needs to be dealt with.
As this is my first time to speak in the House I wish to thank the people of Donegal North-East for putting their confidence in me and giving me this opportunity to represent them.
I agree with Deputy Shortall's amendment. There are many grey areas around this issue. One example is where patients travelling from Letterkenny General Hospital to Dublin have to stop at a service area. What type of service area will this be? Will it be the responsibility of the Government or of the private operator to maintain it and ensure it is accessible on a 24-7 basis?
The only service area on that road which is in proximity to Letterkenny is at Ardee. To follow up on Deputy Shortall's points, what plans does the Minister have to ensure communication with the Northern Ireland authorities? Taking into consideration the fact that this road is neither a road nor a dual-carriageway, a fact of which all of us in the north west are well aware, what plans have been made for a public private partnership around, for example, Monaghan and Carrickmacross? Ardee is certainly not equidistant from Malin Head and Dublin so, for a person driving a lorry from Malin Head, it is not the right location for the only service areaen route. Has the Minister held negotiations with the Northern Ireland authorities? I belatedly congratulate the Minister on his new position but what plans does he have for ongoing negotiation and co-operation with the Northern Ireland authorities to ensure there is joined-up thinking on the road infrastructure between the north west and the capital?
What guarantees can the Minister give the House regarding the commitments made by the then Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and the Taoiseach a few weeks prior to the general election that there would be a high standard dual-carriageway or motorway infrastructure linking Letterkenny and Dublin? What timeframe will there be for that project? What negotiations have taken place among the local authorities in Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry and between his Department and Stormont?
The amendment as proposed by Deputy Shortall provides for powers to be given to members of the Garda Síochána to remove without warrant a person or things obstructing a service area. The amendment is not necessary because sections 71 and 72 of the 1993 Act provide extensive powers, not just to gardaí, but to officers of local authorities to remove obstructions on public roads. The placing of such obstructions is an offence under section 71(1) of that Act and service areas are part of the public road network under the 1993 Act. The Deputy's intention is already catered for.
In addition to the powers for gardaí and authorised officers of local authorities, gardaí have, under separate legislation, powers in connection with the maintenance of public order. I am also advised that the powers of gardaí in respect of service areas under this Act should not differ from the generality of powers conferred under the Roads Act 1993 as regards the obstruction of public roads. In order to be consistent, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 22 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 15, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Section 2(1) of the Principal Act is amended in the definition of "public road" by the addition after that definition of "and for the purposes of any provision regarding offences or regarding regulation of road traffic or parking also includes such other roads designated by a local authority for the purposes of this Act, being roads within housing estates that have not been taken in charge by the local authority.".
I raised these issues on a number of occasions last year with the then Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, which he undertook to consider for the purposes of a Bill he had promised for the end of the year, but which he did not produce. I ask the Minister to accept these amendments, or at least the principles they contain, because they are issues which arise on a regular basis, have arisen increasingly in recent times and cause a lot of difficulty at community level.
They relate to the powers of gardaí and local authorities in the context of the designation of roads. Amendment No. 18 refers to situations where estates have not yet been taken in charge. This is a significant issue around the country where, for one reason or another, several hundred estates have not been taken in charge, such as where a developer does not satisfactorily complete the work or moves onto another housing estate. Members of local authorities are asked regularly to commence or speed up the process of taking estates in charge.
My concern is over speed limits and parking restrictions. I have seen situations in my own constituency where the developer might put single or double yellow lines in an estate but, while they act as a deterrent, they are not enforceable by gardaí because they are not public but private roads, as the estate has not yet been taken in charge. Equally, gardaí in such estates are not able to enforce speed limits. This only came to light last year from various parliamentary questions I had tabled but it is a potentially very dangerous situation and is an accident waiting to happen. Gardaí are powerless to do anything about people breaking the speed limit, and we are all aware of the problems about which people contact us regarding people, often young, inexperienced drivers, whizzing around housing estates with no regard for speed limits.
Speed limits do not apply to housing estates which have not been taken in charge and there is no way of restricting parking by the use of yellow lines because they are not enforceable in law. The purpose of the amendment is to deal with this very real issue. I am not sure the point has been fully grasped by the officials who have replied to my parliamentary questions but it is very serious and must be addressed as soon as possible. I suggest that a local authority be given the power to designate roads or estates as public roads for the purposes of enforcement of speed limits and parking restrictions. It does not mean such estates would be taken in charge there and then, but that they could be designated as public roads, because at the moment they are public places but not public roads.
I also wish to raise a problem that has arisen several times in my constituency and I am sure it applies in many other urban areas. It relates to rows of neighbourhood shops with a footpath to the front. Sometimes the footpath is very wide and the practice develops whereby people, such as those from the businesses themselves, park on the footpaths. Gardaí have no power to deal with such parking where the footpaths are privately owned. I have researched this in some detail recently and very often the business people own the footpath, or part of the footpath, which are private landings taking up a substantial section of the footpath to the front of their businesses. Alternatively, a diffirent person may own the footpaths, as the piece of land might be part of a trust dating back many years. One section of the footpath could be owned by several different people, companies or trusts. They are essentially privately owned and the Garda cannot enforce parking restrictions on those footpaths.
Many of these footpaths are often badly maintained and I have many examples in my constituency of potholed footpaths. They are broken up and pose a danger to pedestrians, but local authorities have no way of dealing with them. The public think the local authority is responsible when the paths are not maintained, but the paths are privately owned. The local authority has no way of compelling the owners of these footpaths to maintain them properly.
This issue could be addressed properly in this Bill. Local authorities should have the power to oblige the private owners of footpaths, which are public thoroughfares, in this regard. Local authorities need a mechanism for dealing with this issue and they should have the authority to require the owners of these areas to maintain them properly. Where the owners do not do so, the authorities should have the powers to carry out the repairs and to bill the owners. This is a sensible way of dealing with this growing issue but there is no legislation to enable local authorities to do anything about it. At the moment we wait until there are a number of accidents and people take cases to court. In one part of my constituency, five people have already suffered serious injuries on a section of a footpath with a very bad hole. All five are suing the owners, but this has been going on for five or six years. Meanwhile, members of the public are in a very dangerous situation and the local authority is powerless to do anything about it.
Deputy Stagg wants to speak about my third amendment, which is about the over-restrictive nature of the guidelines set down for local authorities when introducing parking schemes. It is currently not possible for local authorities to designate a parking area for residents only, or for any other category of user. We are increasingly seeing the phenomenon in urban areas where people park their cars all day in a residential area near a bus stop or railway station. It is very difficult for local authorities to deal with that issue. They can only introduce disc parking, which makes parking available for the public but charges residents if they need an annual permit. That costs about €130 every two years in the Dublin area. More and more residents are forced to resort to this measure but there is no way of introducing restrictions which allow only residents to park in the area without opening it up to everyone else who needs to use it. Greater flexibility needs to be given to local authorities to introduce localised parking schemes which are suited to a particular local area.
We discussed this issue with the Minister's predecessor on a number of occasions. Like myself, he thought the existing legislation was adequate, but the departmental officials did not think so. They thought there might be a constitutional issue if the area was restricted to residents only. The matter was referred to the Attorney General, who got back to the Department on the matter.
Amendment No. 22 would give local authorities the powers they need to do what needs to be done on the main street in Celbridge. The council wishes to implement a pay-parking management scheme on that street. However, when this happens people who park there all day will simply move from the main street into the adjoining residential areas. That creates havoc because they are gone all day and they park illegally across gates and on footpaths. We would need a special police force to deal with this issue alone. For example, there are 18 gardaí in Celbridge, six of whom are on duty at any one time. They would need to be employed full time to control this problem since the council has not got the power to do so. The amendment would deal with this problem adequately, as it would give the power to the council to specify categories of people who would be allowed to park. In this case, only residents would be allowed to park and a sign would be put up to that effect.
Officials in the Department felt that it might be unconstitutional to specify a category of person who could park in such an area. However, councils can specify parking places for handicapped people only, so I do not see why they cannot do it for others as well. Given the fact that the Minister's predecessor promised that this problem would be dealt with in this Bill, I ask that he look favourably on this amendment. It would provide a way for local authorities to deal with a very real problem. The Minister should take some time to look at the issue before he finalises the Bill.
Part of the problem is that many of the old methods of controlling parking are out of date because of the increase in the number and type of vehicles, as well as the width of roads. The area of Newtownsmith on the Sandycove-Glasthule front is a case in point. If people park there during the day, it can cause havoc due to the width of the road. Double yellow lines were put on the road to stop people parking there, but the unfortunate residents have no place to park their cars. They have to go half a mile away to park. I recently received a letter from a constituent who was forced to park in a car park, where the car was broken into. We need some new thinking in dealing with this issue. We need a single yellow line or a disc that indicates that no parking is allowed during certain hours. Greater flexibility could be allowed for off-peak periods.
As it is now 5 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Schedule and Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Given that the Minister did not have a chance to respond on those three important and pressing amendments, I wonder if he will send me a note on the three issues in question.
Yes.
Is the question agreed? We cannot debate the matter further because we have to abide by the order of the House.
As the debate was significantly truncated, I would appreciate a response.
I understand.
