JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT debate -
Tuesday, 31 Jan 2012

Regulation of Vehicle Clamping Industry: Discussion

Chairman

The programme for Government contains a commitment to regulate the vehicle clamping industry and this committee has a unique opportunity to participate and contribute at a very early stage in the legislative process to shape the final heads of the Bill. We will meet a number of stakeholders in the next three weeks and following our deliberations we will make a report to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, with recommendations for legislation in the area.

Before commencing the meeting I thank the delegates for coming before the committee this afternoon. This is a new departure in how legislation is designed in the Houses. Previously, the Minister would draft the heads of the Bill, which would subsequently be published and enter Second Stage in the Dáil or Seanad. We are bringing the issue to the committee first for a broader discussion and the recommendations will go to the Department. Following on from the committee's examination of the subject, the minutes of the committee will go to the Department at which time the heads of the Bill will be designed. I thank the delegates for attending and assisting us in the initial stage of developing and exploring legislation in the area.

From the County and City Managers Association, CCMA, I welcome Mr. Michael Walsh, Waterford city manager and chairman of the CCMA land use and transportation committee, Mr. Michael Phillips, director of traffic and city engineer, Dublin City Council, and Mr. Brian Riddick, parking enforcement officer, Dublin City Council. I also welcome Mr. Dan Buggy, assistant city manager and Ms Lisa Horgan, senior staff officer, transportation and mobility division. Thank you very much for your attendance this afternoon.

I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2) (l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and they continue to do so they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or any official either by name, or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Walsh to address the committee.

Mr. Michael Walsh

I apologise as the committee may receive two presentations. It is not that we do not talk to Cork City Council but we understood that it was invited independently.

I will take a couple of minutes to give an overview. My expertise in this area is limited in that we do not have direct clamping operations in Waterford. I will hand over to Mr. Phillips from Dublin City Council and Mr. Brian Riddick, the parking and enforcement officer, is available as well. They will have detailed knowledge.

Generally, the CCMA view on the issue is that as the ultimate instrument of deterrence in terms of public areas it is something we would wish to retain. In simple terms there are two separate issues. One is clamping on public roads and the other is clamping on non-public roads. In real terms they are very different beasts, if I could use that language, because it is evident from the paper we submitted that there is a degree of regulation and a statutory basis for it on public roads. Existing local authorities which do it are operating under the current regulations. There is always a certain degree of public opprobrium attaching to this activity but, nonetheless, from a statutory and administrative perspective the system is working reasonably well.

Private sector clamping is very different. Regulatory tools in that area are non-existent in some respects and it very much depends on common law. We need regulation in that context. In theory, at the moment there is nothing to stop anyone charging any amount as long as they put up signs in a private property, for example, that has public access to it or in a public property that is a non-public road. The codes of practice and the other elements that need to go with that are not provided for in existing legislation. In many respects it depends on common law arrangements which may or may not be consumer related. In other words, if there is a paid parking provision, for example, it may help to have some protections around consumer law. If clamping operates in a private residential area open to the public that does not have paid parking with it, then the protections may be limited or non-existent.

Our broad view is as simple as that; the existing provisions can be tightened up. We have some points to make in terms of public roads. The use of instruments for immobilising vehicles is reasonably good in that area. The private sector area is not as good and needs to be significantly regulated and tightened up.

Even though we have had only a short timeframe in terms of discourse on the subject, the collective view of the CCMA is that we would probably not wish to be involved in the regulation of this area. A number of issues arise, foremost of which is the probable conflict between being an operator of parking as we are on public roads and a regulator. Our general view is that we do not wish to be in that position.

I will hand over to Mr. Phillips to speak on some of the specific questions asked in the correspondence from the committee.

Mr. Michael Phillips

I will divide my contribution into two parts; public and private parking. In the existing legislation, for instance, the clamping fee has been fixed since 1998 at €80. What we would like to see is the creation of a band with a lower and upper limit. We have suggested €110 to €160. That would give a wide range of freedom depending on the locality in the town or the county. Council members in each town could pick the figure they would like.

Where there are mobile sale units on the roads, if they are parked up for a short period we have no power to tow them away or clamp them. We can ban them because the advertising is prohibited but we do not have the power to tow them away. We would like to see that addressed in new legislation. Similarly, when someone interferes with clamps or breaks them off, we do not have any authority to clamp their cars unless we see them parked illegally in another location and then we can tow the car away and hold it until the person pays for a new clamp or whatever fine has been imposed. We would like to see that area tightened up.

With regard to the current legislation people might like to think that we have a free reign on the city and that we like clamping. I reassure them that this is not the case. In the city we see it as a way to provide for the efficient movement of traffic and transport. We do not want people coming in and taking up slots as would happen if it was free all day. People who work in shops could park there all day. We believe in public transport. At the same time we can monitor the turnover of cars in parking spaces. The car shopper is essential in the city. Retailers tell us that a car shopper spends three times more than a person travelling on public transport. It is crucial for us as a municipal authority to keep retailers on board. We try to strike a balance. We fix the fees on that basis.

On private parking I have given a list about the licensing of clamping operators, which we would see as absolutely crucial and then who is the regulator or the authority. As the Waterford city manager said, we would not like to see the local authority in the role of regulator. It could fit in with one of the existing regulators if need be. The mechanism for setting clamping fees is the permit system and the appeals system. The appeals system is crucial because one must have an internal system within the company and then an independent external system so that people feel they at least get a fair hearing and that the system is seen to be fair.

Another element is to have penalties for operators and landlords if they do not do it right. The fees and rates we charge in the city go before our transport strategic policy committee, SPC, and council members under parking by-laws for approval. Public representatives are involved and, generally speaking, we are not seen as being unreasonable.

In terms of the licensing system, what should be regulated? The operators need to be regulated and the areas in which they work defined. These are crucial matters. As has been stated, they might comprise private roads and free carparks, yet people do not want others to park there all day. There might also be barrier-controlled carparks. These issues need to be teased out.

Questions arise on the licensing of operations. For example, should the period be two or three years and should the fee charged be fixed or dependent on the size of each operation?

From other industries, we know that standards and codes of practice are essential. I am referring to companies as well as to their sites, in that they must be safe for the public to use, there must be proper and legible signage and planning permission must be granted. During the recession a number of derelict sites have been flattened to be used as carparks. One must ask about the legality of this.

I mentioned the appeals process. This is an important issue, if the public is to buy into a scheme. The economic viability of any city or large urban area in which parking fees and clamping are required depends on achieving a balance between the needs of the economy and people visiting the area.

Ms Lisa Horgan

I thank the Chairman for giving us this opportunity to address the joint committee. I will provide an overview of Cork City Council's experience. It operates a differentiated restrictive pricing policy, the objective of which is to support the economy and the city's residents and act as a demand management measure. Public parking provision is controlled by the on-street designation of spaces, direct provision and the planning framework. Private provision is controlled by parking standards through the planning permission process. On public parking provision, there are approximately 8,500 on-street spaces, 3,500 off-street spaces and 940 park and ride spaces.

Recently we have been reviewing parking operations. Our aim is to ensure we provide a convenient parking choice to meet the differing needs of users of the service. The issues we are addressing are the enforcement methods to be deployed, the measurement of the turnover of spaces and the promotion of parking choices in the city. Our previous enforcement regime's priorities were to ensure public safety, enhance mobility, facilitate economic activity and public transport and ensure a turnover of spaces. We used to have three means of enforcement: fixed charge penalty notices issued by our warden service, clamping and towing.

Clamping was first introduced in Cork in 2001 and the services have been provided under contract. The most recent contract expired at the start of January. The contractor operated under the control of a parking operations manager employed by Cork City Council in areas assigned by him or her. Much of the time, the contractor's activity was in response to complaints or observations received from businesses, residents, representative associations and city councillors. The contract cost just over €1 million per year, with an average income of approximately €750,000 per year.

Under the previous regime, controls on clamping were based on the type of contract used. The contract specified the hours and days of operation and the number of vehicles and personnel required to provide the service. An operations co-ordinator provided by the contractor had overall daily responsibility for the operation of the service and submitted incident reports and weekly activity reports. All vehicles for clamping were selected strictly in accordance with the guidelines and policies of Cork City Council. The contractor was also responsible for supplying proof that vehicles were illegally parked. This mainly took the form of photographs. All personnel employed under the contract were subject to Garda vetting prior to their appointment as authorised persons by the council. All personnel were required to be uniformed and carry identification at all times. The release fee charged needed to be the statutory release fee of €80. The contractor was obliged to issue receipts for all transactions and lodge the funds with the council. In the event of a release fee being paid, the contractor was obliged to declamp vehicles within one hour of receiving payment. We received detailed monthly reports which were required to be submitted within three days of the end of the month. All appeals were assessed by the council and the contractor was obliged to supply any information required on such an assessment and the activities at the time of the appeal. We also had independent access to the contractor's system to see the recorded photographs and notes on an incident.

Since the start of the year there have been some changes. While our policy and enforcement priorities have not changed, we now have two means of enforcement: FCPNs and a tow-away relocation service. This change is based on the enforcement resources being balanced against best practice and the standards for optimum occupancy of on-street spaces. Since it is important that there be an ongoing review of the service's costs and benefits, with effect from 5 January, our operation has involved FCPNs issued by wardens and a tow-away relocation service. In late 2011 we commenced the measurement of the turnover of spaces, a process that will continue on an ongoing basis this year to allow us to measure the effectiveness of the new regime.

Chairman

Before we commence the questioning, I will address a number of issues. The programme for Government sets out that legislation will be introduced in this field. Mr. Phillips or Mr. Walsh indicated the difficulty in respect of private property, in that there is no governing legislation. As such, it is an interpretative field.

The delegations have made separate presentations because Cork City Council has made the decision not to continue its clamping regime. Mr. Buggy might wish to clarify the position.

Mr. Dan Buggy

We did not make a decision not to operate clamping, rather the contract expired. Currently, we are considering iterations that would give us the best bang for our buck in terms of the occupancy of spaces. That is the key issue. We will move ahead with FCPNs and a tow-away service in different areas, including working with the Garda to have cars returned. We may revert to clamping, but we do not know.

Chairman

At present there is no clamping operation in Cork.

Mr. Dan Buggy

By virtue of the fact that the contract expired; it was not due to a policy change.

Chairman

We can clarify the position through a later question, but I will ask another before opening up the floor to members.

According to the delegates' observations, the clamping regime to date has been a hybrid one. For example, a local authority might operate a disc or metering system. This has to do with a road being a public highway rather than a private highway. The authority operates a tariff system for parking on public highways and engages a private company to marshal and oversee compliance. According to Cork City Council's figures, the most frequent offence by a country mile is non-payment of the tariff. The number of people parking on bus lanes, in loading areas and so on is small.

Where would a regulator be best placed? The delegates have indicated that something along the lines of the Taxi Regulator would be appropriate. Given that the service is farmed out, is there any substance to the allegation that companies engaged in clamping operations can be overzealous in their behaviour towards motorists on the street? Do clamping trucks drive around the parts of the city in which they can normally catch motorists because of poor signage? When the clamping regime was in operation in Cork city and other regions, was there a clear signage system in place to identify areas in which motorists could be clamped or was it the case that motorists could have their cars clamped and traffic wardens could fine them in abundance? Is it the delegates' view that if Cork City Council were to revert to a clamping regime, or other local authorities were to apply such a regime, that the clamping companies would be required to be licensed? As it stands, there is no licensing in the sector.

Mr. Brian Riddick

In regard to licensing, our contractor is not licensed and I do not necessarily see where licensing would fit in regard to clamping on the public roads. Our contractor operates in a legislative environment and the oversight is done on a daily basis by me, as parking enforcement officer; by Mr. Michael Phillips, as director of traffic; by the city manager; by members of the traffic and transportation strategic policy committee; and by members of the city council in general. That is how we continue to see the regulation of clamping on public roads.

In regard to signage, clamping can only validly take place where there is adequate signage indicating the restrictions that apply on a particular portion of road. We do not having any signs indicating that clamping is in operation in the city, but it is very well known that such is the case.

Mr. Michael Phillips

Enforcement is very strictly effected on the main arteries in and out of the city, particularly at peak traffic times. From 4 p.m. onward we monitor the main arteries out of the city in case somebody decides to park a van or car on the quays, for example, thus blocking a bus lane. We carefully patrol those areas to ensure the main arteries are kept open.

Chairman

Would a car that is blocking a main artery be clamped?

Mr. Michael Phillips

No, we would lift it out and park it on a nearby street.

Chairman

Tow-aways are a separate issue.

Mr. Michael Phillips

They are done by the same operator. A vehicle that is illegally parked in an off street will be clamped, but the same vehicle would be lifted from a main artery and moved on to an adjoining street.

Ms Lisa Horgan

In general, in more serious cases where a vehicle represents a danger or is creating an obstruction, a tow-away is used. On the other hand, the clamping regime is generally employed in respect of lesser offences. Our experience in Cork City Council was that the operators were given very strict guidelines in the case of each offence under the regulations in terms of what signs and markings were required and what Cork City Council's policy was on it. Some would be deemed towing offences and others clamping offences. That was the method of control we used in terms of the activities on the street.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank the delegates for their presentation. It is important to get the balance right in these matters. It can be very off-putting and confusing for motorists travelling into cities with which they are unfamiliar to take on board all of the various parking restrictions that are in operation. I have encountered that, unfortunately, and had my car clamped as a consequence. An issue that is particularly problematic is the regimes in operation in some private estates where management companies are in charge of parking. In some cases it is not very clear that particular housing units have designated parking spaces, for instance, and that private clamping companies are in operation. I agree that legislation is required to deal with these matters. These companies should be properly licensed and must be above board in everything they do.

The delegates referred to two different fines. The notion of a lesser fine and a greater fine certainly makes sense and would be fairer. We have seen cases where genuine mistakes are made where, for instance, there is inadequate signage. There should be enough flexibility within the system to accommodate genuine errors of judgment. It is important that photographs are taken to verify claims in this regard, and provision should be made for that in the legislation.

The delegates indicated that vehicles are more likely to be towed, rather than clamped, where they are causing an obstruction on carriageways and main junctions. I am not sure whether it is envisaged that the proposed legislation will deal with tow-aways.

Chairman

We could make a recommendation in that regard.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

That would be a good idea. It is equally as important that there be regulation in regard to towing.

In regard to the collection of fees, is there a good record in terms of payment? What is the follow-up where payment is not made? Is there any history of people going to jail following a failure to pay?

Chairman

Is the Deputy talking about a failure to pay fines as opposed to the clamping fee?

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I am talking about the clamping fee. Is there a history of people going to jail or is that likely to happen in the future? I certainly hope not.

In the case of temporary traffic relief measures such as Operation Freeflow, which is operated by Dublin City Council at Christmas - although not last Christmas - do problems arise when people get used to being able to park in a particular location for a certain period of time? Will there be some flexibility where, for example, there is a violation a day or two after Operation Freeflow has ceased?

I welcome the plans to put legislation in place. There must be a proper oversight and regulatory mechanism so that we can assess how the system is operating.

Mr. Michael Phillips

Payment must be made up front or the clamp will not be removed. That is the great advantage of it; we can secure 100% payment. Under the previous system, where a parking ticket was written, we had to get the courts to sit at night and people were aware there was a 30% to 40% chance they would not be prosecuted within the six-month time limit. Motorists were prepared to risk double parking or not paying into the parking meter and so on. We have turned that situation around overnight.

We have an external appeals officer who monitors our procedures and produces an annual report. This gives members of the public a reassurance that there is somebody who will listen to them. The appeals officer presents the annual report to the councillors at the traffic and transportation strategic policy committee.

In regard to Operation Freeflow, which is run in conjunction with the Garda, we try to give very good advance notice of when it is commencing and ending. Motorists who have seen a little leniency will know it is only temporary. Moreover, our responsibilities under Operation Freeflow are more to do with contracting, ensuring we are not digging holes in main streets and so on.

Mr. Michael Walsh

As we have mentioned, tow-aways are used for extreme cases. The reality is that the ordinary enforcement system in terms of traffic wardens, fines and so on is very cumbersome, as are the legalities attaching to it. It can be extremely frustrating. Serving notices and all of the procedural issues yield distinct difficulties and are administratively very cumbersome. In Waterford we have chosen not to go the clamping route at the moment, but we do not rule it out for the future. It is as an instrument that is available to us. Decisions are made relative to the amount of traffic movement and the degree of parking availability and so on.

On the flexibility issue, there are particular problems to consider. All politicians and the public want flexibility on parking, which creates a difficulty for the local authorities. Illegal parking is either an offence or it is not. From the point of view of managing enforcement personnel or, in this instance, contracted companies there can be no distinction. While in the public domain this is not popular, it is the reality. Everyone must be dealt with in the same way. One offence cannot necessarily be compared with another, unless such is legally defined in law. This is the dilemma for every local authority and member of the public. From an operational point of view, it is not possible to differentiate between offences.

Mr. Brian Riddick

As stated by Mr. Walsh, we cannot differentiate on the day. However, Dublin City Council operates a robust two-stage appeals process which allows for review of the full circumstances of an incident. Often the independent appeals officer, while denying an appeal on the basis that a car was correctly clamped, will grant a full or partial refund of the clamp release fee. There is flexibility in the system which allows for a more round view of all the circumstances obtaining at the time of an incident.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

When legislating in this area it must be borne in mind that regulation of car parking will be predominantly in respect of cities and, increasingly, suburban towns and large towns in rural counties. One size does not always fit all and there may well be a need for some tolerance in terms of the proposals we make.

In terms of public buy-in, while I accept that we cannot put up signs everywhere, the reason for clamping of a vehicle on a public road is not always obvious to people. For example, parking adjacent to a continuous white line or in a loading bay. People running businesses may not be aware that they can only park a commercial vehicle in a loading bay. Ongoing public information in regard to the rationale for clamping helps buy-in.

I accept there is a major difference between clamping on public roads by local authority officers and clamping by contracted companies, which is what has prompted the Government to address this issue in the programme for Government. Some of what has been happening is this area has been very unfair. For example, clamping of a vehicle in respect of which a person paid for 15 minutes parking but returned one minute late. That is not an unusual situation.

In my constituency of north Kildare a number of clamping agencies, operating on behalf of five or six landowners, are charging different fees for parking and applying different penalties in respect of parking offences, which is unfair on the public. People do not carry around copies of every set of by-laws and as such there needs to be a tie-up between charges and penalties for public off-street parking and private off-street parking. The regime in any given town must be clear. In a situation where one size does not fit all, adequate signage and clear guidelines must be in place to assist motorists.

It has been suggested that the declamping fee be increased to €110 to €160. Just because the current fee of €80 has not increased since 1998, does not mean it should. People now have less income and €80 is a severe penalty. I recall being told by a man who was complaining bitterly to me about being fined €40, which is the fixed charge in law, for being five minutes over his parking time, that €40 would have bought his daughter a pair of shoes. We need to think the way the people are thinking in terms of €40 as a fixed penalty and €80 in respect of declamping being sizeable penalties. While there may be in place a graduated scale of penalties in respect of a range of offences, we must be tolerant in this regard. I agree that there is potential for conflict between local authorities and contract companies involved in this area. The institutional arrangements in this regard should not be in conflict.

I have highlighted at previous meetings of this committee the situation that pertains in the North in respect of fixed notice penalties, namely, persons who pay the charge within a short period receive a 50% discount, which assists in reducing administration costs. This has been brought to the Minister's attention. It is hoped it will emerge as an option in legislation, although I accept it would have to tie-in with local authority by-laws and could not apply to private operators. The only solution open to private companies in respect of illegal parking is clamping. While notices to the effect that a person may appeal are displayed in private car parks - I have a number of photographs of such signs - I am not aware of one successful appeal in this regard. There must be oversight of the private sector appeals system to ensure it is an appeal in the real sense of the word. I acknowledge that the local authority appeals system is adequate. People are often not satisfied with the outcome of an appeal but that is another matter.

It is important that private operators comply with the same standards as public operators in terms of distance of marking, safe access in and out, disability provision and so on. While I am sure all operators are required to meet the same planning conditions, I am not too sure all private operators do. It is often assumed, where planning permission has been obtained in respect of a shop, that the planning permission applies also to the car park, which is not often the case.

Mr. Michael Walsh

I take Deputy Catherine Murphy's point on public knowledge of the rules about parking near a continuous white line or in a loading bay and other such regulations; however, they are part of the rules of the road and anybody capable of doing the driving test should know them.

Equally, we are constantly challenged in local authorities about staff being able to use their discretion when a person is a minute over the parking time paid for. We must acknowledge - I do not know if this is peculiar to the Irish character - that as a society, we are not compliant in this context. Enforcement of parking rules is necessary, in which respect the local authorities have a difficulty in dealing with the lack of compliance. We require a functioning traffic system that will keep the road network free and have parking spaces available when they should be. Ultimately, it is about managing a finite resource in urban areas. In every urban area there are issues with parking, from Dublin city to towns of reasonable size. Enforcing the parking laws, even where a person is one minute over time, causes public opprobrium. Were we to acknowledge publicly that we would allow five or six minutes leeway, it would then become a problem, as the public mindset would adapt to that change. Ultimately, the only way is to be concise because once people understand fully that the rules will be enforced and administered in a concise way, they will operate accordingly. Nobody must be non-compliant in this regard. There is no reason to incur a parking fine, particularly in recessionary times, as generally there are more parking spaces available than in the years of the Celtic tiger. We want to ensure there is an incentive to comply with the regulations and for compliance to work in any aspect of life, the rules must be concise. If they become inconcise, people will take a chance and taking that chance leads to further fines.

Chairman

I wish to tighten some of Deputy Catherine Murphy's comments. If legislation is introduced, even if it is nuanced, it will not distinguish between private and public property. Clamping companies operate in all sectors and one cannot legislate for one and disregard another.

Mr. Walsh has stated the number of parking spaces in urban areas is finite. If so, one must have a definite appeals process in place. The idea that a local authority can have an appeals process or none is not tenable.

Clamping companies operate on some private residential estates, in retail parks and shopping centres. Would Mr. Walsh consider a proposal that in the future in respect of applications for planning permission for the development of retail parks or housing estates in which it is proposed to operate a clamping regime, the granting of permission should be subject to conditions of compliance under a number of headings? For instance, it would be subject to the condition that the clamping company be licensed, that it have in place a clear and measurable appeals process which, more importantly, would stand up to examination? From my experience of dealing with private clamping companies, when Mr. Joe Public contacts a company, he receives no response and that it is only when an Oireachtas Member chases up the issue on his behalf that he will receive one. I have found that if I contact a member of the local authority traffic division, I might achieve some traction with the clamping company, but if I deal with the company on its own, I have no hope in hell. If a vehicle is not clamped on public property or a road, as a private individual, I do not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the company concerned to give me my money back. As chairman of the City and County Managers Association's land use and transportation committee,doesMr. Walsh see how county managers, as managers of local authorities with responsibility for planning matters, could incorporate conditions to be applied to clamping regimes operated on private property as part of the planning process?

Mr. Michael Walsh

Wearing my planning hat, as chairman of the land use and transportation committee, my inclination is that I would not mix the two. We all accept that there is a need to regulate the operation in the private sector, but to my mind we must deal with two elements, first, the clamping regime operators and, second, the landholder or landowner. It must be decided if a permit is required to operate a clamping company and, second, who should issue the permit. The Chairman asked whether the issuing of a such a permit should form part of the planning process. My inclination is that no, it should not form part of the planning process, but I say this advisedly, without having had time to give the matter decent consideration. However, my instinct is that enforcement of such a condition would be unwieldy. In the normal process somebody makes a complaint and the local authority serves a notice. One is obliged to have concise timelines- - - - -

Chairman

Let me cite as an example a shopping centre which has gone through the planning process and is obliged to provide a designated number of car parking spaces. If the company is to operate a service or contract an operator to clamp vehicles, it should be obliged to have signage of an appropriate size at a number of locations informing customers. That is a planning function. That is not a regulatory issue, rather it is a planning function. Can Mr. Walsh see an argument coming from that quarter?

Mr. Michael Walsh

I can see the argument being made in the context of signage, but when one stretches it forward into the appeals process, I would be worried about enforceability in terms of the timescales attached to the enforcement process. Under the existing procedures for dealing with planning appeals, I think a licence or permit must be under threat to have a reasonable enforcement mechanism that works. In ordinary circumstances would the matter be so urgent that one should be able to walk into the court in the morning? I do not think one could justify this. Inherently, the planning enforcement regime requires the service of notices and service of notice procedures need to be enforceable, evidence based, not arguable, whereas under regulations, in some respects, one can make judgments on opinions. That is just my instinct. Perhaps some of my colleagues might like to comment.

Mr. Michael Phillips

Let me take the Chairman's example of a shopping centre. We have been promoting the use of public transport for a number of years. If it was decided to turn one lane on the road in front of the shopping centre into a quality bus corridor, the car park would suddenly become attractive for people in which to park their car all day and take the bus into town. We have a follow-on problem and steps must be taken to regulate the issue. It is crucial that there be a separate system for regulating the operator and the owner of the carpark. We must be fair. It will be appreciated that shopkeepers must try to make a living and that if people park their car all day in the carpark, they will lose business. I can also appreciate the comments made on the impact of the recession. The public are very quick to pick up on the rate charged, or if it is a fine with which they can live. One must try to impose a slight pain in order that a person will think twice about parking there. What we have found during the recession is that the number using public transport has decreased by double digits, 10% or more. However, the number of cars coming into the city has only gone down by 1% to 2%. This shows that people have switched from public transport to using their car. They must be finding places in the urban areas where they can park for €5 a day. We must have a sustainable means of transport. There is only a fringe connection with private clampers, but it is an important issue.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I can see a validity to not mixing the planning system and a regulatory system in respect of a licence or permit holder. I take the Chairman's point about signage because that is a critical component to this. It will be necessary to have a notification process, perhaps when a planning application is made, whereby the regulator would have to be notified of such an application to ensure a linkage with the person who would enforce the other side in order that it would not escape notice. This leaves a route for people who are opening spaces and not seeking planning permission that an unauthorised development can be notified and they can see the process that goes through.

Mr. Dan Buggy

The remedies under the planning Act would be very severe and would close a business down because he has not got a parking right. One can begin to see the difficulty. On the issue raised by Deputy Murphy, we need to promote parking and ramp up the system in place to ensure space turnover. That will bring about an understanding that one cannot operate without an element of clamping. I will take a very simple thing. Some people who can afford it will play Russian roulette in the city and can afford to get caught ten times in a year and can afford to pay ten fines and have parking outside the office door. That person has to be dealt with the same as congestion cars in London. The guys who can afford to pay will go in, while the guys who cannot afford to pay cannot get in. Therefore, there must be equity in the system and it must be maintained. The clamping system will simply maintain that equity and the towing system also helps to maintain that equity.

Deputy Seán Kenny

My question is to the Dublin City Council representatives. It is true to say that the clamping operator tends to operate mainly in the city centre and business districts. There was a reference to supermarkets. There is a commuter parking problem in the suburbs, particularly on the DART line in my constituency at Raheny, Howth Junction and Harmonstown. As there are no park and ride facilities and no car park nearby, the commuter will find a space in a housing estate as close as he or she can get to the train station. They will park on double yellow lines, on corners, at the end of a cul-de-sac and double park in cul-de-sacs. This causes frustration for residents in these estates. It is very difficult to get the clamping operator to come out but once or twice it has come out to Howth Junction. However, it would want to be on their schedule. While it is important in the city centre that all the clearways and bus lanes are kept free of parking, there is a different problem in the suburbs. The issue was touched on by one of the representatives who said the number of people using public transport has decreased slightly. That may account for people taking their cars to the nearest DART station. There is a need for the clamping operator to concentrate on those areas.

The parking appeals office in Dublin City Council tends to be quite lenient. According to the reports I have seen, the majority of the appeals were successful. That may not be a bad thing but, as Mr. Walsh said, we are not a compliant society. That is something of which we have to take note.

In regard to the private clamping operators in private estates, I agree that there is a need for legislation. What is happening in some estates, particularly in the northern fringe where there are apartment developments which have not been taken in charge because the planning permission does not require it but there is a management company which runs the entire estate, is that residents often get into disputes with the management company as they consider they are not getting a good service. Sometimes they do not pay or stop paying their management fee. In retaliation, the management company will hire a clamping operator to clamp the cars of those who are not paying the management fee. That can be a difficult situation to resolve. However, it highlights the fact that there is a need for a regulator of private parking operators and of the codes of practice to be used. The current situation is unsatisfactory.

Chairman

Has the Deputy a question?

Deputy Seán Kenny

The question was whether a clamping operator would move into the housing estates close to DART stations.

Chairman

Where the pickings are less rich.

Deputy Seán Kenny

There is a need for it. The people who live in those estates are-----

Chairman

Is the Deputy proposing that if there are clamping regimes, the monitoring of areas be varied?

Deputy Seán Kenny

I accept that the city centre business area would be the prime area. Those who live in housing estates close to train stations have to put up with much inconvenience. The regulator should visit those areas frequently.

Mr. Dan Buggy

I see that as the one area on which the public and public representatives will come back to us and say that the residents are discommoded by irregular parking. That issue will have to be dealt with.

Mr. Brian Riddick

On the issue of parking in residential areas, Dublin City Council has two types of residential areas. One has residential parking schemes in operation and other areas have no parking controls other than the normal parking regulations, such as that people do not park on corners and dangerously on footpaths. As Deputy Kenny mentioned, priority is given to the city centre and the main arterial routes, but we also patrol residential areas where there are parking controls and we will, on request, go into residential areas without parking controls where we become aware of particular problems, and we will enforce breaches of the parking regulations if we come across them.

Chairman

That would be a person who is parked near a school.

Mr. Brian Riddick

Yes, or on the footpath or blocking a gateway or at a junction. On the issue of appeals, there may be a perception that we are an easy touch in respect of this matter but that is not borne out by the figures.

Chairman

I would take the nudge from Deputy Kenny, from my experience in Dublin.

Mr. Brian Riddick

I was looking at the figures for last year. We have a two-stage appeals process. Last year we had more than 2,500 appeals. That number has to be taken in the context of approximately 58,000 parking enforcement events in the city last year. That is a minute amount of parking enforcement events that were appealed by the victims. The overwhelming majority of people accepted that the sanction was fair and just. Of the 2,500 appeals, 1,900 were refused at first stage. Of those, approximately 530 appealed to the second stage, the independent parking appeals officer. While more than 50% of the appeals were formally declined, the parking appeals officer would have recommended, because of the circumstances that obtained, either a 50% or a 100% refund of the clamp release fee. People might see from those figures that they got their money back but it does not necessarily mean that the appeal was found to be fully valid.

Deputy Brian Walsh

I thank the representatives for appearing before the committee and for their presentations. I agree with Deputy Dessie Ellis and others who said the legislation is being introduced to provide for private clamping operators in private estates but it is not necessarily casting doubts on the integrity of the systems that operate within local authorities. However, it is interesting to learn that Cork City Council appears to have suspended its clamping regime and Mr. Michael Walsh also mentioned that Waterford City Council does not clamp. Galway abandoned clamping as a method for dealing with parking offences in 2005. At the time, the officials there raised a big furore and suggested revenue from on-street parking would fall off alarmingly and the absence of the incentive posed by the clamper would cause people to risk parking without paying. However, the figures Cork City Council has prepared for members indicate that in the ten months to the end of October, 53% of the clamps applied were in respect of people who had not paid a parking fee, that is, where no parking disc was displayed. Clearly, clamping has not acted as a disincentive to people to avoid paying fees. I suspect Cork City Council will find, if it gives this suspension some time, it will not have such a massive fall-off in income from parking fees on foot of its decision, temporary or otherwise, regarding clampers.

It is also interesting to note that Cork's revenue from clamping was €715,000, as opposed to a contract cost of more than €1 million. Consequently, Cork is operating a clamping contract, as did Galway, at a considerable loss to the taxpayer and the local authority. As for the lost opportunity for fines, while I acknowledge the point made on the difficulty of collecting fines and so on, surely some proportion of fines would be paid. Deputy Catherine Murphy's suggestion about offering an incentive to people to pay early certainly should be considered. Cork is losing out in this regard and I am uncertain whether the overall administrative burden is factored into the contract cost of €1 million. I refer to the appeal mechanism, the cost of holding appeals and so on and the administrative burden that places on councils.

I have never really agreed with clamping in areas such as clearways and spaces reserved for wheelchairs or when people park on footpaths. Clamping in such cases does not actually solve the problem or make available those places. While the finite number of spaces in urban areas was mentioned, clamping does not change that. I refer to the experience in Cork, Waterford and Galway and Mr. Michael Walsh might be able to answer the question in respect of local authorities nationwide as to whether this is a trend towards which there is movement. Do many urban local authorities still engage in clamping? Perhaps this is something that should be considered.

I believe Mr. Michael Phillips mentioned there was difficulty in collecting fines through the system but that some measures were introduced which, in Mr. Phillips's words, resolved the issue overnight. What was done in Dublin that solved-----

Mr. Michael Phillips

That was the introduction of clamping. It was cash upfront.

Deputy Brian Walsh

Okay. I do not know whether Mr. Phillips has figures to hand regarding the cost of the contract versus the revenue in Dublin but is that city's clamping contract being operated at a profit at present?

Mr. Michael Phillips

The clamping contract costs Dublin City Council approximately €7 million per year. We take in approximately €4.6 million in fines but our parking revenue is approximately €25 million as a result. The main reason is that we wish to ensure there is a certain turnover of cars at the parking meters. We want people to turn over every two or three hours to enable those who wish to come to town for a meeting to so do. We now have introduced a parking system in which one does not actually put money in meters but can pay over the telephone. We have in place a tag system that enables one to do it on the telephone and if one is in a meeting, one can get the parking time extended and so on. The whole idea is to encourage business and to help business flow. It is not a source of revenue, in that we can reduce the fees and at times we run measures to reduce fees. However, we know, and this was one of the previous problems, that when we reduce fees to a certain level, people who come into work in the city will feed the meters. They will come out of their offices and feed the meters if the price drops to a sufficiently low level. Consequently, we must try to keep the fees at a level whereby it is uneconomical for the commuter working in town to do this and who will take public transport in consequence but that it still is attractive for someone to come in and carry out some business or do some shopping. In addition, the objective is to ensure a parking space is available when one does come into town.

Mr. Michael Walsh

On the issue, I can confirm there is no headlong rush to clamping in the vast majority of local authorities. To the best of my knowledge, there are no proposals, other than in Dublin and Limerick at present, for example. The simple reality is there is a balance in respect of the instruments. It depends on the amount of parking available and the amount of private parking available. In addition, in terms of scale, the traffic issues are desperately relevant in this context in Cork and Dublin and possibly in Galway at certain times. In many instances, parking enforcement is about getting people to be compliant in respect of how they park, but equally the traffic issues relating to that are critical. The issues of people creating obstructions or of parking in ways that ultimately impede traffic flow are critical. Mr. Phillips referred to Operation Freeflow in Dublin, for example. A single car in the wrong place on a route can do more damage in respect of operational flow than can another 500 vehicles over a couple of hours. It is about this balance and the only point being made by the County and City Managers Association, CCMA, is that we wish to retain it as an instrument. I am not aware of any other local authority that wishes to go down this route at present but it is an instrument, where needed. Dublin and Cork have made that judgment in their own time. It is a matter for each local authority, and in a way, this is where I envisage the democratic function coming back and interacting with it.

Deputy Brian Walsh

Did Mr. Michael Walsh state that Dublin and Limerick are the only two local authority areas in which clamping is taking place at present?

Mr. Michael Walsh

No, Dublin and Cork are doing so at present.

Deputy Brian Walsh

As Cork is no longer clamping, Dublin is the only area in the country in which clamping is in operation.

Mr. Michael Walsh

That I am aware of on public roads.

Chairman

I refer to an observation made by Mr. Michael Walsh. Has the CCMA considered drawing a distinction between tow-away and clamping services? From a legislative perspective, while they both are punitive measures with regard to erratic or poor driving behaviour, the consequences for each differ. If one considers the figures from Cork City Council with regard to bus lane tariffs, bus parking, bus stops, disabled bays, parking on double yellow lines and similar areas, surely it would make more sense to operate a tow-away service than a clamping service? For example, surely parking in a disabled bay in the morning should warrant being towed away or the imposition of a fine?

Ms Lisa Horgan

To clarify, such offences primarily are dealt with by means of a tow-away. For example, in circumstances in which a traffic warden came across a vehicle parked in a disabled bay and was unable to get the tow truck there in time, he or she could then call in a clamper to reflect the fact that it would be regarded as being a more serious offence then someone who merely parked over their allocated time in a disc parking zone.

Chairman

When both were being operated by Cork City Council, was there a preference such that in cases of bus stops, disabled bays or-----

Ms Lisa Horgan

That was covered in the guidelines issued to the contractors.

Chairman

What were the guidelines?

Ms Lisa Horgan

They included a list of each of the offences. Some, which had an impact on safety or mobility, were prioritised for being towed away.

Mr. Michael Walsh

I make the point, and the representatives from Dublin may also wish to comment, that we use tow-away as an option. In our circumstance, it is no less punitive from the perspective of the public. We tow to a pound and those affected are obliged to carry the full cost of recovery from that pound. I understand the practice in Dublin is slightly different.

Deputy Gerald Nash

This has been an extremely useful discussion. The reason the joint committee is talking about this proposed legislation is because a public appetite exists for it. Nothing drives people more bonkers than the prospect of being clamped and then being obliged to deal with individuals from a private clamping company whose demeanour in general has been high-handed and dismissive. I speak from personal experience and that of those whom I represent. If any industry requires legislation, it is this industry, certainly as it pertains to the private sector.

Mr. Michael Walsh referred to how, by and large, local authorities did not wish to get involved in the business of regulation and I can understand the reasons for this. That said, the opportunities for licensing and regulation arising from any new regime pertaining from clamping could represent a revenue stream for local authorities. I am sure the local authority sector will be mindful of this, given it is rare enough for opportunities to arise for local authorities to generate additional revenue streams. I would appreciate it if the witnesses could elaborate on where they see the local authority system fitting into a new licensing regime that may come into operation when the legislation is enacted.

Is cash accepted by clampers, particularly in Dublin, or can one only use a credit or debit card? Currently, access to such cards is difficult for many people and cash should be considered if the facility is not available now. It is frustrating enough to be clamped without having to need a card in a difficult situation.

Ms Hogan referred to the fact that the general standard is a one hour release on receipt of the fee. How realistic is that? Is that target always met or are there issues around that? She also mentioned that the contract has expired in Cork and clamping has been discontinued for the time being. What can the committee deduce from that? Was the system not cost-effective for the city council or has the council made a policy not to remain involved in the clamping of vehicles? I am attracted to the notion of providing for vehicle clamping in planning regulations. There may be scope in this regard which needs to be teased out. There could be opportunities, for example, to include reference to the potential for car clamping in the context of development levy schemes. It might be a positive way to deal with that.

I am concerned about the operation of estate management companies. We have experienced a proliferation of such companies over recent years. How many are in operation in the realms of insolvency? Many estate management companies in gated communities and apartment complexes do not operate clamping regimes. When new regulations are introduced, these companies may be minded to take the view that the introduction of car clamping on the sites for which they have responsibility could represent a cash cow. What are the views of the witnesses on that? I am on public record for a long number of years as stating that the regulatory regime governing these companies is deficient and that they have taken on a life of their own. More apartment complexes and so on will bring in clamping systems when the new legislation is enacted.

Mr. Michael Walsh

In terms of the local authority role, I would like to take time and correspond separately with the committee on the planning issue because that needs teasing out. I will explain the rationale about our original point on being regulator and operator. If, for example, there is a private car park with public car parking on the street outside it, in general, the courts take the view that this is operator regulating operator. Historically, this is one the great dilemmas we have had, such as, for example, in the waste management area where we were both operator and regulator. Our initial instinct is not to get into that space again because it leaves it unenforceable. Whatever measures there are in terms of licensing permits and so on, enforceability is the question that has to be at the back of all that. How does one effectively enforce and administer that enforcement system? I would like to have time to think about that. I take the point about the interface between the planning system and the overall putting in place of systems. That relates to estate management companies as well in some respects because there is some provision within the planning system for them in that they may even be conditioned in a planning permission where there are common areas and so on. I would like to hold counsel on that a little and correspond separately, if I may.

Ms Lisa Horgan

I will respond to the Deputy's queries regarding Cork City Council. We never had an issue with people not being declamped on time as far as I am aware. With regard to the new regime we have now, the enforcement, much like Dublin's position, was never about generating revenue; it was more to enforce our enforcement priorities. We would look at its measurement of turnover of spaces and we have taken a snapshot of the situation under the old regime. We will continue to monitor measurement of turnover of spaces during the year. If we find it has had a detrimental effect on turnover, I would imagine we will come under external pressure to review our policy anyway because, in many cases, pay parking controls are introduced in suburban areas at the request of residents because of the commuter parking issue. It is not that we want to extend our area of control. People say they need regulation because they cannot get parking near their homes. If it impacts on people's quality of life and on businesses, obviously they will be quick to let us know their position.

Mr. Brian Riddick

With regard to the Deputy's query about payment of clamp release fees in Dublin city, when people ring to make payment, we normally ask for a debit or credit card. However, if they do not have a card, they can go to a number of shops strategically located around the city with cash to buy a declamp voucher and they can then ring the details into the clamping company and that will work as a payment.

Senator Denis Landy

I welcome the CCMA representatives. I will begin near home. Mr. Walsh is Waterford city manager and I am from Carrick-on-Suir, just up the road. Waterford has an excellent traffic system, including parking and electronic signage, etc., particularly along the quays. I hope he does not consider clamping because it is not necessary. I worked on Broad Street in the city for ten years and it is a changed place. The council is trying to attract people into the city. It is well served with parking spaces, especially along the quays, and I hope clamping does not become part and parcel of the way the city operates.

In my experience as a public representative for almost 25 years, people do not mind paying if they are in the wrong, but not in a situation where people pull into a loading bay and the markings have been erased by the weather and so on and they do not realise they are breaking the law. What is the association's position on ensuring road markings are maintained? Is there a legislative requirement or does the engineer conduct a six-monthly study of these markings? It is a major problem throughout the country. I have an issue with people parking in disabled parking bays. I am infuriated when I see this happen. However, in some towns and cities these spaces are coloured in blue, for example, and the paint fades. People are still given tickets when they unknowingly park in these spaces, and that is a problem.

Mr. Phillips stated that Dublin City Council takes in €25 million from parking fees annually. Will he break that figure down? How much would be generated if clamping was not in operation?

I would also like to ask about the issue of self-regulation. The system is self-regulated at the moment. When a ticket is put on one's car and it is clamped, one has to pay the local authority for the breach. Can the witnesses give us a little more detail about the appeals system? I recently helped a person to submit an appeal. She was given a ticket after she brought her sick husband to hospital. There was a disabled parking badge on their car. As all of the spaces designated for disabled drivers were taken up, she parked in the next available space. Her husband was admitted into intensive care through the accident and emergency department. In the circumstances, it was to be expected that she completely forgot about the car. When she came out two hours later, it had been clamped. The only avenue open to me as a public representative was to write to the company operating the car parking system. The company was quite understanding of the circumstances in question.

How do the witnesses feel about the situation at the moment? If new legislation is to be introduced, how do they think we should legislate for a third party appeal system to be operated? How should we provide for room to appeal?

I would like to ask about another aspect of illegal parking. Do the witnesses think one or two penalty points should be incurred by those who park illegally? There is a certain number of compulsive illegal parkers in every community and city. I could nearly name some of them in Waterford city because I am quite friendly with some of the councillors there. Some people want to park illegally. They have money and they do not care. They are willing to throw money at traffic wardens or into City Hall. Should consideration be given to amending the legislation to allow penalty points to be given to such people?

Deputy Terence Flanagan

I apologise for being late. I was not present when Cork City Council was discussed. I understand that since 1 January 2012, clampers have been removed from their policing role in Cork city. What effect has that had on the city to date? When will that policy be reviewed by the city council?

Ms Lisa Horgan

We cannot comment yet on the effect of that move because the new regime has only been in place for a month.

Deputy Terence Flanagan

Yes.

Ms Lisa Horgan

We engaged in on-street measurement of the turnover of spaces under the old regime and we intend to take a similar snapshot in the same area in February. That will reveal whether the change has had an impact. We will continue to survey the turnover of spaces during the year. I suppose we are in an unknown position at the moment.

Deputy Terence Flanagan

Sure.

Ms Lisa Horgan

We do not yet know what the impact of the removal of clamping will be.

Chairman

Has Cork City Council returned to a ticket-based system of fines?

Ms Lisa Horgan

We have always issued tickets.

Chairman

They were not displayed on the windscreens of cars after they had been issued.

Ms Lisa Horgan

An information notice was placed on each vehicle in respect of which an offence had been committed. The actual fine was issued by post a number of days later.

Chairman

Is that regime in place now?

Ms Lisa Horgan

That regime has always been in place. It was supplemented by towing and clamping. At present, the traffic wardens issue tickets and a tow-away or relocation service is used for more serious offences - for example, if somebody is causing an obstruction or is parked on a footpath.

Senator Denis Landy

Is a by-law of the local authority required before clamping can be introduced? Can local authority officials make an executive decision? How is it done? Perhaps that can be clarified when the rest of the questions are being answered.

Mr. Michael Walsh

I will respond to a couple of the questions that were asked, including those regarding signage and road marking. The signage, in general terms, is the statutory red and white parking signage. There are a couple of exceptions, such as the road markings designating spaces for disabled drivers. It is becoming more difficult to find the resources to maintain signs and road markings.

The vast majority of local authority appeals systems are pretty fair, in general terms. I am not for a minute suggesting they are all perfect. If there is genuine evidence of ambiguity - to put it in those terms - the system deals with it fairly. We will emphasise that the appeals process is an absolutely critical part of our parking regime. It is a control on the operation and practice of that regime. That is how I would put it.

I would not like today's meeting to result in a rumour that clamping is being considered in Waterford. I do not foresee that it will be introduced in the immediate future. We do not think there is a link between penalty points and parking offences. All enforcement is a matter of striking a balance between the penalty and the propensity to break the law.

Senator Denis Landy

Does Mr. Walsh agree that a person who drives into a space that is designated for disabled drivers, without being entitled to do so, is breaking the law in the same way as someone who speaks on a mobile phone while driving along a country road?

Mr. Michael Walsh

Perhaps there are degrees of offence. I do not disagree with the Senator in that regard. We would be of the view that routine parking offences should not be aligned with the penalty points system.

Senator Denis Landy

Okay.

Mr. Michael Walsh

I think that covers it.

Mr. Michael Phillips

Dublin City Council has an ongoing programme of renewal of its lines and signs. We are always looking at what needs to be renewed. We have to replace our signs when they are stolen, for example. Wear and tear can take care of road markings. We have an ongoing programme of renewal in that respect. Our clamping operators will not clamp a car unless they are satisfied that the signage in the area is clear and unambiguous. They can make mistakes, however. In general, they will not clamp a car if there is any ambiguity about the signage. We have a two-stage appeals system for a person who is dissatisfied with the clamping of his or her car. In the first instance, he or she can write to the parking appeals contractor with which he or she interfaced. That appeal is dealt with by a member of the contractor's staff who was not involved in the decision to clamp the vehicle. If the motorist is dissatisfied with the result of that appeal, he or she can write to the council's independent parking appeals officer, who will review the situation as if it were a first appeal. The officer will make a decision based on all the circumstances of the case. He will probably take a wider view of the circumstances of the case than the parking appeals contractor did during the first stage of the appeals process. Very few people express dissatisfaction with the final decision of the parking appeals officer. While some people will never be satisfied, most people who have been through the appeals process feel they have been listened to and have received a fair crack of the whip.

Mr. Dan Buggy

I assure Deputy Terence Flanagan that we have not abandoned clamping. In most cases, the biggest problem is the promotion of the parking regime that applies. People come to town for different reasons. Some people come to town for an hour, two hours or three hours. When we are promoting our car parking regime to them, we have to emphasise that they can choose between park and ride facilities, off-street car parking and on-street car parking. It should be clear to them which parking option best suits the business they have to do. If one makes the wrong choice and keeps making that choice, it should be possible for one to remedy that position. That is where we are coming from. We are ramping up our approach to ascertain what works and what needs to work. That should make it much easier for us to sell our parking regime. The final package should be very saleable. It should be agreed by the traders, the council and those doing business in the city centre that this is what is required. The type of business that is done in the city centre should dictate the type of parking regime that is in place. The "pay and stay" approach that has been adopted in Dublin is being replicated in high-rise car parks in Cork. There is no differentiation. We have to differentiate between the types of business we have and the regimes we have. Then we must ensure we have the turnover of space and give the customer a choice. When people make choices then we ensure, for the general public's sake, that all their choices are respected.

Chairman

Without question the uniform position of all of the councils is they want to encourage people to go to the high street and city centre. During my time on a city council one surprising figure showed that people believe that everyone wants on-street parking but there have been peak times during the year when the city council's carparks were not full. There are plenty of parking spaces in cities but if the demand is on the street then it is an insatiable position of want.

Deputy Terence Flanagan

What feedback has there been? I know it is only the end of January but have there been many complaints from the public or councillors? When does Cork City Council expect to carry out a review again?

Mr. Dan Buggy

The feedback we get now is semi-euphoria because people believe the problem has gone away. Over the next while its impact must be taken on board. In other words, we must see what the impact will be. People in residential areas and attending college will ask us to get the programme back in place because we cannot operate in hotspot areas. The traders will see that they will need to do the same as well. A lot of people who work in city centre shops want to park their cars outside the door where they work, which creates a difficulty. Once that starts to happen then another iteration must arise. In order to bring about a sensible solution, and I think that will include clamping, we must look at our cost base and whether it is costing us too much to run the FCPNs. We may have to abandon it and move on to something that is more summary in the way it happens but more effective in the results derived. They are the iterations that we are looking at. The question is how we sell it.

Deputy Terence Flanagan

Does the city council see it providing the service? Why is there a need for an outside contractor?

Mr. Dan Buggy

We may have to examine that option.

Senator Denis Landy

Is it difficult to gauge revenue?

Mr. Michael Phillips

If I remember correctly, when it was introduced in 1988 or 1989, the revenue was about 5%. If we are taking in €25 million now it would be reduced to between €5 million and €7 million due to illegal parking. If tickets are issued to cars then the courts and the council's law department become involved. As I said earlier, we had to get the courts to operate at night and there was a 30% chance that six months would elapse before we dealt with a ticket. A betting man could take the chance that if he had accumulated 20 tickets he would only be caught for two or three. It is in our nature to take a gamble occasionally. By introducing the system we improved access to the city for a lot of people and businesses.

Senator Denis Landy

Was it necessary to introduce a by-law?

Mr. Michael Phillips

We have our own parking by-laws.

Senator Denis Landy

No. Is there a specific by-law on clamping? Does the city council need to introduce a specific by-law?

Mr. Michael Phillips

No, I do not think so.

Senator Denis Landy

Can a city council decide, at executive level, to introduce clamping?

Mr. Michael Phillips

Yes.

Senator Denis Landy

Without a decision being made by members.

Mr. Michael Phillips

If we are changing anything we would, out of courtesy-----

Senator Denis Landy

Where does the power lie? Is it with the executive or the elected members?

Mr. Michael Phillips

The power lies with the executive.

Chairman

Does the issuing of a contract to a private contractor lie with the executive as well?

Mr. Michael Phillips

Yes.

Chairman

That concludes our discussion. I thank Mr. Walsh, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Riddick, Mr. Buggy and Ms Horgan for assisting us in our deliberations. This has been a very informative discussion. They have helped to inform our recommendations to the Minister over the coming weeks. We thank them for attending. We will meet a number of parties in the coming weeks. The delegation can forward comments on any outstanding items they wished to comment on this evening. I understand Mr. Walsh will forward a specific comment to us on the planning aspect. The delegation can observe our proceedings and the committee would be very happy to receive a further submission on same.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m. until 10.40 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 February 2012.