Amendment No. 21 is cognate to amendment No. 20 and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 7, subsection (2) (a) (i), lines 39 to 40, to delete "the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974" and substitute "the Roads Act, 1993".
These amendments simply update the references in section 7 (2) (a) (i) and (ii) from the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974, to the current legislation in this area, the Roads Act, 1993. This is purely a clarification.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 7, subsection (2) (a) (ii), line 45, and in page 8, line 1, to delete "the Local Government (Roads and Motorways) Act, 1974" and substitute "the Roads Act, 1993".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 8, subsection (2) between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(e) the provision of trading places for disabled persons,".
This amendment was discussed with amendment No. 8.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 8, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) When making by-laws under subsection (2) (d), a local authority may have regard to the facilities and services provided by it to persons engaged in casual trading.".
I am seeking to link the setting of fees charged by local authorities for casual trading licences to the facilities and services provided by the local authorities to people engaged in casual trading. The effect of this would be to encourage local authorities to provide more facilities and services than are currently available to casual traders, who, by and large, are exposed to inclement working conditions even at the best of times.
I support the Minister's amendment. I was recently involved in a controversy with my local authority, which provides no services to street traders apart from sending a worker out to paint a square on the street and telling the trader to operate from that location. The local authority has carried this to a ludicrous degree; not only are the traders charged for permits, licences, storage, etc., they are now being assessed for rates on the basis they have a property available to them, namely the square on the roadway.
This relates to the Moore Street stallholders, who are not provided with cover from the elements. When I questioned the corporation on this matter the only justification provided was that it swept the street. The only service even Dublin Corporation acknowledges it provides to the most established traditional street traders in the country is sweeping the street a couple of times a week. I hope the Minister's amendment will spur local authorities to provide proper services and facilities for street traders and I support it for that reason.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 8, lines 30 to 36, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
"(5) Before making by-laws under this section (other than by-laws under subsection (2) (d), a local authority shall—
(a) publish notice of the proposed by-laws in at least two newspapers circulating in the area to which the proposed by-laws relate—
(i) indicating the times at which, the period (being not less than one month) during which and the place (being a place within their functional area) where a copy of the proposed by-laws may be inspected, and
(ii) stating that the local authority will consider any submissions in relation to the proposed bye-laws which are submitted to the authority in writing by any person within 2 weeks after the end of the period referred to in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.
(6) A person may, within 2 weeks after the end of the period for inspection of the proposed by-laws, make submissions in writing to the local authority in relation to proposed by-laws and the local authority shall, before deciding whether to make the by-laws, take into consideration any submissions duly made to it and not withdrawn.".
This amendment repeats the text in section 7 (5) with the additional requirement on local authorities to consider any submissions received regarding proposed bye-laws. The present text does not place any obligation on local authorities to consider submissions from any interested person. This amendment strengthens the procedure for making by-laws from the point of view of interested persons.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 8, subsection (6) (a), line 37, after "by-laws" to insert "(other than by-laws under subsection (2) (d))".
These amendments have been recommended by the parliamentary draftsman for the purpose of improving clarity. They have no other significance.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 9, subsection (9), line 9, after "casual trading" to insert "(other than by-laws under subsection (2) (d))".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 9, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsection:
"(11) Nothing in this section shall interfere with the continuation of existing casual trading areas.".
I moved this amendment to express a concern that anything in this Bill might interfere with existing casual trading areas. Will the Minister outline the position? When this Bill is enacted what will be the implications for existing casual trading areas?
I do not propose that the Bill should continue existing designated casual areas indefinitely because it represents a whole new system of regulating casual trading by the local authorities with new provisions relating to designation under by-laws. It would not be appropriate, therefore, that casual trading areas designated under the 1980 Act which is being repealed, would necessarily stand alongside the designations made under this new Act. This would inevitably give rise to confusion and uncertainty from the point of view of transparency and efficient enforcement and regulation. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept this amendment.
I understand what the Minister said. However, what are the implications for Moore Street, which is a casual trading area, for example? When this Bill becomes law will Moore Street cease to be a casual trading area until such time as the local authority redesignates it?
The existing situation remains extant until the local authorities make the new designations, which they are required to do, as soon as it practicable, after this Bill is enacted. I could not anticipate any situation whereby the Dublin City Council would not address the traditional casual trading areas in Dublin. It may, for example, decide to designate additional positions. I presume that, in so far as one can be certain about anything in this business, it would at least designate the existing traditional trading pitches. We could not have a dual system running in parallel — either this Act or the 1980 Act is in vogue. The 1980 Act is effectively repealed, the new Act applies and it is a matter for the local authorities, including Dublin Corporation, to act on that.
That does not fully answer my question. I agree with the Minister that it is likely Dublin Corporation will move immediately. It has been monitoring the progress of this Bill and has been involved in discussions with the Department on the Bill. I am sure that it will move to redesignate Moore Street and other casual trading areas. However, is it open to any commercial business or individual to challenge that in the normal way? That is the difficulty which I foresee.
I support the right of a local authority to designate trading areas. One of the problems with this Bill is that it has been dominated by the problem of the Molly Malones. Everyone supports the Molly Malone casual traders in Dublin who have not been the offending people. Perhaps there should have been a separate section in the Bill to cover Dublin as the main difficulty is in rural Ireland where people trade in competition with legitimate traders putting their livelihoods at risk. The Moore Street problem is upsetting the structure of the Bill and we are losing the thrust of what the Bill was originally intended for.
It will be worthless if the local authorities do not have the right to designate areas. I fully understand what goes on in Moore Street where people sell bars of chocolate, sticks of rock, wrapping paper and so on. However, the problem is with the casual trading of heavy goods which has wrecked the trade of many hardware shops in rural Ireland. The Bill will be so watered down by the time that it is passed that it will not be effective and then there will be calls for amending legislation. The Minister is correct to allow local authorities the right to designate trading areas.
I travelled last week to Wexford and I saw people trading there. I saw a trading site north of Gorey which was well managed and everything was in order except for illegal parking on the road. However, I also saw illegal trading on undesignated sites which are not entitled to be designated because they would be dangerous to public safety and so on. In towns such as Mitchelstown and Mallow, in my constituency, there are traditional trading areas with charters and so on dating back over hundreds of years. However, many new trading areas have been established and the local authority must have the right to close those down and designate other areas.
I am not sure I fully understand the point being made by my colleague. However, I think he is referring to undesignated casual trading areas throughout the country. I want to make it clear that my amendment relates solely to legal, traditional casual trading areas. I took Moore Street as the best known example but there are many areas which have been designated by the local authority and which now will seemingly have to be redesignated. That leaves it open to commercial or other interests, such as developers, to oppose the designation of areas which have already been designated by local authorities and to take them to court.
I know Dublin Corporation expressed surprise at this aspect of the Bill when it was first produced and I presume it is still apprehensive about it. It would not be difficult for the corporation to go through this whole procedure again in relation to existing areas. The difficulty is that it leaves it open to third parties to object to areas that have been designated. I share the view that the local authority must designate any area but the Bill should not interfere with existing traditional, legitimate, legal designated casual trading areas. I will press my amendment for that reason.
I support the Minister in what he is trying to achieve because in the spirit of this he says he is giving general power and flexibility to local authorities with regard to by-laws. I recognise from where Deputy Gregory is coming with regard to the continuation of the existing casual trading areas. It would be very difficult to enshrine the spirit of what he is saying in legislation at this stage because as we all know, circumstances change. In County Limerick we also have traditional casual trading areas. As public representatives who are also members of a local authority we would articulate our views forcefully on an issue like this if we were unhappy that the local authority was implementing changes to an existing casual trading area.
I would leave it to the discretion of local authorities to come up with by-laws which apply to that specific area. They would recognise the needs of those areas. I fully support the spirit of what the Minister is doing.
The contributions we have just heard give an accurate representation of the difficulty in constucting legislation that deals with circumstances as diverse as in the constituencies Deputy O'Keeffe and Deputy Finucane represent on the one hand and which Deputy Gregory represents on the other. There is a very particular situation in Dublin, especially in Moore Street. On the other hand, Counties Cork and Limerick have large urban areas as well as very large rural areas. It is difficult to frame legislation that would give Deputy Gregory the exemption he is seeking. In fairness to him, his amendment does not specify existing designated or legal casual trading areas, but I know that is his intent. However, if one were to enshrine that in the Bill then any existing casual trading area would be exempt. More importantly, it would undermine the thrust of the legislation that it is best for the local authority in Drogheda, Youghal or Rathkeale to decide on the most appropriate arrangements in respect of casual trading in a particular area.
The specific answer to Deputy Gregory's question is that — yes, of course — it may be challenged but that is not necessarily a factor. We have just agreed an amendment, of which everybody in Committee sees the merit, that would provide people with the opportunity to appeal to the members of the local authority in respect of the bye-laws about to be passed. In other words, the local authority is now obliged to hear submissions on this point. It does not mean that a local authority has to agree with them, but if one is an interested party one is entitled to make a submission and the local authority is obliged to hear it. That is as it should be and is in accord with the principal of local democracy. It does not seek to do any more than that.
Chip vans have caused a public nuisance on many new housing estates which have been plagued with them especially if there is a carnival or a match in a nearby park. The chip vans' noisy generators keep children awake all night. Many local authorities have received complaints about this but have little power to intervene. If there was a designated area for them to trade in they could be prevented from parking in undesignated areas. This Bill is aimed at protecting citizens from those types of people.
In the past, market days were part of the structure of rural towns and there was always a designated area for them. In Fermoy, for example, potatoes, fish and fowl could be sold on market days in a certain street or square. All those traditional areas have gone and have been replaced in the past five or six years by a new type of chip van trader. These chaps have created the necessity for this Bill, not the unfortunates in Moore Street who are trying to survive by selling bars of chocolate or Christmas bunting and wrapping paper. The man with the chip van is a fly-by-night trader who upsets the whole town or village by parking indiscriminately wherever he likes. He does not care about anyone else and there is no law to stop him. Local authorities need power to designate chip van trading areas in certain streets. I accept the Minister's amendment. He is correct in giving that right to the local authority.
If the Minister wants my amendment to be absolutely clear and specific in referring to existing legally designated casual trading areas it would simply involve the addition of two words. Obviously, what I meant by existing casual trading areas in the context of this Bill was precisely that; existing legal ones. However, it would appear that the Minister is not prepared to accept that so, because this has such implications in Dublin in particular, I will have to press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 10, subsection (5) (a), line 41, to delete "extinguishment of a market". This is no more than a tidying up amendment recommended by the parliamentary draftsman's office. It has no policy consequence or significance.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Section 9 (5) (a) states.
A person who is aggrieved by a proposal of a local authority to extinguish a market right may, within a period of 21 days beginning on the date of compliance by the local authority concerned with subsection (4) (a) (ii) in relation to the extinguishment of a market right, appeal to the District Court. . . .
Can the Minister elaborate on that? Is that the case whether it is a patent right, a market right or a charter?
It seeks to give the right to an aggrieved person to make such an appeal within a specified length of time.
I am concerned because we have had much discussion about charters and patents. Would that come into that area?
Where there is a market right it gives a person who is aggrieved a period of 21 days to appeal to the District Court. That court may approve, either as they stand or subject to conditions, the local authority's proposals. As an authority's appeal is reduced to the District Court an additional leave to appeal to the Circuit Court is being allowed by either side in the interests of fairness. The local authorities have requested that they should be allowed to appeal. I would not say it is on a par with a patent or copyright but the extinguishment of a market right is a pretty serious matter. That is the intention. The District Court would hear the arguments and adjudicate on the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.