Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I welcome Derek, Stephen, Councillor John O'Kane and Alderman Arnold Hatch. I do not know who is leading off.

Mr Derek McCallan (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): As always, a member will lead off, Chair.

Alderman Arnold Hatch (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): I will lead off.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Thank you. I will give you about 10 minutes to make your presentation, and then we will open up the meeting to questions. I am sure that you heard much of what has been said today anyway.

Alderman Hatch: Absolutely. Thank you very much for listening to feedback from the 11 new councils. We listened with interested to what Mid and East Antrim District Council had to do, and I understand that Belfast City Council and other councils will probably meet you again.

In general, the councils are very happy with the transfer of off-street car parking, and we hope that that is a first step. As a local government association, we initially wanted to deal with all the car parking, but that is off the agenda at the present time. However, it would have made a lot of sense when you start looking at the car parking regime, car park attendants and all of that. We know that the legislation is brief, so we will be brief as well to allow time for questions.

It has become apparent that councils have several major concerns about car parks, and I will explore those with you in the next few minutes. We know that specific councils have specific problems, although, off the record, I wish that we had a multistorey car park in the ABC council area.

Mr Dallat: You are on the record.

Alderman Hatch: Well, there is a small one in Armagh with two levels.

The Bill provides for the transfer: end of story — nothing more, nothing less. However, it is clear that the Department, quite rightly, wishes to retain responsibility for issuing regulations regarding off-street parking as and when necessary. No doubt, the Department will wish to consult with councils before issuing any such regulations. It will be a bit late in the day if regulations are put in place and we have not been consulted as a representative body, so we re-emphasise the point that, before the regulations are finalised, the Department should consult with us.

We respectfully suggest that the consultation should be mandatory, as far as the regulations are concerned. We are entering a new era of partnership between local and central government, and, as was stated by the Minister of the Environment earlier this month when he launched the partnership panel, the new partnership in this Bill was to symbolise that, and the Department must seek the views of councils before issuing regulations.

The Bill as presented does not contain any conditions attaching to the transfer. NILGA strongly agrees with that approach.

As you will be aware, the Department wishes to retain one car park in Belfast as it may play a part in a future regeneration scheme. It is, of course, possible that other parks might be in strategically important areas where councils may also see future opportunities for appropriate development. You discussed that in the previous presentation. However, being highly responsible bodies, councils well recognise the importance of adequate parking spaces for our cities, towns, villages and rural or tourist areas. Councils would not in any way seek to dispose of a car park without full consideration of the impact of any loss of spaces, and, indeed, would seek to identify alternative provision prior to the disposal or redevelopment of an existing car park.

I will now hand over to Councillor O'Kane, who will deal with another issue.

Councillor John O' Kane (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I wish to convey the significant concerns that councils have about car parks, although we welcome the transfer. Some of the concerns that we heard this morning are common to all councils.

By way of context, the previous Executive agreed a number of fundamental principles regarding the transfer of functions to district councils. Those were reiterated this morning. They were that functions should be fit for purpose, sufficiently resourced and rates-neutral at the point of transfer.

First is the fitness for purpose issue. Councillors are rightly exercised about the fitness for purpose of the assets that will transfer from your Department. They are expressing strong concerns that some car parks will need significant amounts of money expended to bring them up to an acceptable standard. A number of the new councils have had detailed work carried out by experts to assess the fitness for purpose of the car parks to transfer. Surveys have been completed, showing that many car parks are not up to a satisfactory standard at present. We contend that such sums should be invested by the Department prior to March 2015 to make them fully fit for purpose at the date of transfer or that the budgetary transfer should incorporate additional sums to cover councils' shortfalls and expenditure on essential work.

For instance, DSD is taking the latter approach by proposing to provide Belfast City Council with an appropriate annual transfer to cover necessary works over a period of years to Lagan Weir, even though the initial maintenance for that asset will be quite small. There should be no distinction between Departments and no deviation from those principles.

There are lots of issues, and you heard some of them this morning. I understand that this Committee is going to Fermanagh on 25 and 26 November. You are very welcome to come down. I am sure that MLA Seán Lynch will show you around. Do bring your wellingtons, especially to one of the car parks that you are going to visit, because it is liable to flooding. If you have any recipe for dealing with Japanese knotweed, bring it with you. Thank you very much.

Mr Stephen Reid (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): Chair, I will just introduce myself. I am happy to be here on behalf of the NILGA delegation, but I am chief executive of North Down and Ards District Council. I want to raise with the Committee the concerns raised by many councils in regard to the condition of the car parks that are due to be transferred to them. Over recent months, and since the specific car parks to be transferred have been identified, concerns have been raised across all councils. It is understood that the Department proposes to transfer the car parks in their current condition, with only a total of £100,000 for maintenance. That would be spread across 360 car parks transferring to 11 councils.

As you have heard this morning, councils have been undertaking condition surveys of the car parks in order to establish whether the proposed funds will be sufficient. By way of example, I will explain the outcome of the survey completed in North Down and Ards District Council. It is proposed that 42 car parks will transfer to that council. Those car parks have all been inspected by qualified officials and compared to the standards expected for council car parks already in ownership. Just to give you an indication of the level of work, I give the Committee a copy of the survey report of the 42 car parks for North Down and Ards.

Many of the issues relate to inadequacies in overhead barriers, boundary walls, a need to resurface, kerb repairs, relining, landscaping, clear indication of disabled parking bays and so forth.

The cost estimates for North Down and Ards were based on work that is required over the next four years to bring them up to an acceptable standard. The total costs are estimated at £457,000, whilst the average cost per car park per annum is £2,700. With regard to the point that was raised earlier for North Down and Ards, of the 23 pay-and-display car parks, the cost is £144,000, and the cost for 19 no-charge car parks is £313,000. There is a significant difference there.

By way of comparison, Lisburn and Castlereagh District Council estimate that works on the 12 car parks that are transferring to it will cost an average of £2,000 per car park per annum for the next four years. A further comparison is noted in information that was provided from Causeway Coast and Glens District Council this morning, which has identified four of the 36 car parks that are transferring to it as being in particularly poor condition. It estimates that the budget expenditure required simply for the first four over the next three years would be £122,000.

So, you see the significant concern. As other colleagues have said this morning, all 11 councils are attempting to complete the survey as quickly as possible. I can advise that NILGA presented the condition report for North Down and Ards to the Minister. He and his officials have received it. We await a response. I will pass on to Derek McCallan.

Mr McCallan: Chair, I am very conscious of your time and the fact that a lot of things have been said already. With regard to one particular issue, we are keen to explore whether the Roads Service charter — building on a point that was made by one of your Committee members earlier regarding indemnification — will be transferred. If the totality of the assets and liabilities are being transferred, we feel that the totality of the indemnification could as well, because of existing and unforeseen circumstances relating to the car parks.

To conclude my own brief comment, I also feel that, regardless of the Department, bearing in mind that this is about DRD legislation and the transfer of off-street car parking, in the financial year 2015-16, unless we collectively with the partnership panel and central and local government develop a new burdens doctrine — in other words, provide a means by which you can accurately, with knowledge, assess the impact of the transfer from a Department to a council or vice versa — we will be assessing both good and bad impact retrospectively. Our office-bearer would like to conclude.

Alderman Hatch: Thank you, Derek. I will conclude by saying that we thank you for giving us your time this morning to address the Committee and would be happy to address questions, but I would like to reiterate that, when car parks were transferred from the old local councils to DRD in 1978, they were transferred unfettered. All that we are asking for is that they be transferred back unfettered, bearing in mind the principles that Derek outlined earlier, with the commitment to transferring the appropriate budgets for maintenance, insurance claims and support costs and, as was very clearly highlighted this morning, with no restrictions.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Thank you. Your last comment pokes me slightly. In 1978, they were transferred unfettered. Did councils then transfer money with them to bring them up to condition? Did they transfer insurance with them at that time? Was it like for like? I see you nodding, Derek. Do you want to answer that?

Mr McCallan: That protection was put into the legislation. Unfortunately, despite the grey hairs, I was not around in 1978, but I believe that that was the case. I think that we are in a situation in which, as one of the previous witnesses said, whether it is exactly like for like, it is really about developing a partnership in which everyone is treated fairly.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I appreciate that. I think that it should be fair. The other thing is — I think that Arnold or Councillor O'Kane mentioned it — that we are drawing a parallel with the Lagan Weir. The difference between the Lagan Weir and car parks is, obviously, that the weir does not actually earn an income; car parks do. You can understand why DSD is basically transferring a liability with the weir and would have to give some sort of cost to look after it, whereas a car park is an opportunity. Stephen, can I ask you a question, because I do not have the figures here? You talked about North Down and Ards, I think.

Mr Reid: It was North Down and Ards District Council, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): You said that it was £400,000.

Mr Reid: It was £457,000.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): What is the net income from car parks in North Down?

Mr Reid: I think that it is around £700,000, but, as I said, the split is that £144,000 will come to the 23 paid car parks, which require less to be spent on them, and the free, no-charge car parks, which are actually in worse condition, will need £313,000.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): To be honest, I am just playing devil's advocate, here. If you take the £700,000, by spending the £457,000 you will bring them up to a very high standard. You were here when representatives of Mid and East Antrim District Council were here earlier. They were talking about a condition survey of, I think, 15-year-old car parks. They indicated that £1·5 million needed to be spent on Springwell Street car park, but it brings in an annual income of £242,000 and has done so for the past 15 years, even since the report. So, the ability to bring in a huge income will not be diminished by not spending money. Do you accept that?

Mr Reid: Chair, our view is that we understood that this would have been a situation for the Department to have dealt with prior to the car parks being transferred. I accept the point that you are making, but, equally, the Department has benefited from that income for many years. This is not a deterioration of these car parks in the past year: this has been neglect, in our opinion, particularly when we look at some of the non-pay-and-display car parks. Certainly, our officials could not give any assurance that claims would not arise from the conditions of these car parks currently. One wonders why the councils should be asked to carry that burden. Of course, it can be facilitated from some of the revenue, but that is being passed over at this point. One would wonder why the Department has not taken its obligation up to this point.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): That is more the question than why the Department would provide the finances now. Because it was mentioned that according to a 15-year-old survey, a car park in Ballymena needed £1·5 million, I have to say that it actually makes me question the validity of the report. If the condition of that car park is so bad, you would actually wonder how it could function for 15 years after the report was initially conducted.

Derek, can I ask you a question before I open it up to the floor? You made an interesting point about the transfer of insurance. You are like me: you have grey hair. I am not sure how long you have been in NILGA. A couple of years ago, that transfer was explored with local government with regard to the winter gritting programme. I think that it was well thrashed out at that time that the insurance or liability could not transfer to council at that stage. The public would have been well behind local government to have that happen. How do you think there will be any difference between then and now?

Mr McCallan: I do not have any working knowledge of that, although I was around at the time of the gritting. I was aware of one particular instance when the indemnification issue caused particular concern in Banbridge because of the fact that it did not transfer the same. My point with regard to the Roads Service charter is that what we are trying to suggest is that if there are ways to explore how a fair and adequate compensation insurance liability can be developed, we need to do it. I take your point fully about the gritting, Chair. The issue of its transfer has not be completed successfully. So, it has not gone away. We have been lucky and blessed with perhaps not too difficult sustained periods of inclement weather. Whilst I respect the fact that there was a lot of discussion and interpretation of it, it has not been fully bottomed out.

I think that with regard to the two things coming together today, with 30 days to go until your deadline, which you may extend, and 134 days to go before the actual transfer, in whatever time we have left, we need to fully and completely bottom that out. With regard to the work that we have done, Chair, I will undertake to provide a very brief synopsis of where we are on that because I think that we need to contemporize all of these opportunities and problems. That is what the political partnership panel will do symbolically from 2 December. I see no difference here.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Derek, in your position as chief executive of NILGA, which is a very responsible position in local government, you would not surely expect to win that part of the argument with regard to the indemnification from DRD to councils.

Surely you understand and appreciate that there would be another difficulty. I am definitely not here to be a cheerleader for the Department — definitely not. However, surely you do not believe that the Department could do that, given that you are giving responsibility to a council to look after that? There could be a degree of complacency in maintaining and looking after the car parks to keep them to a high standard. How would you expect another Department to come in and insure it for you?

Mr McCallan: It is positive that there has been a small number of existing claims. However, I make the point that, in the case of car parks, the people who are parking there do not know that they actually are. It is not about winning; it is about exploring fully to enable that the transfer is generally and genuinely fit for purpose. Your point is well made. I am not here to explore victories; I am here to explore the extent to which we can work in direct political and practical partnership with our Road Service colleagues to protect and sustain those services for the public we commonly serve.

Mr Lynch: I know that you are against the proposed amendment. Is that right?

Alderman Hatch: Yes.

Mr McCallan: We feel that the restrictions are not good for the transfer. Having had the evidence provided from the other three contributors, we are saying what they are saying.

Mr Lynch: That is basically it.

Mr Dallat: You obviously represent the whole of Northern Ireland. I am sure that, across the North, there are street light not working at the minute and potholes not filled, and there is a crisis on the Belfast to Derry railway. Would you prioritise giving money to local councils to take over car parks against that kind of background?

Alderman Hatch: From the point of view of an elected member, we will have the responsibility for car parks, so that is what we are concentrating on. I realise that there are austerity measures in the bigger picture. However, as a representative body, why should we not advocate for our members?

Mr Dallat: Absolutely. I agree totally with that. I was a councillor too for 33 years during that war of attrition when they could not agree who gritted the footpaths and who gritted the roads. Is this just a continuation of that philosophy? Is it a them-and-us situation?

Alderman Hatch: We certainly do not want to have a them-and-us situation. NILGA fought for the setting up of the partnership panel where the relevant Departments will be called in to work in partnership with local government. We want to continue in that atmosphere rather than always fighting against that.

Mr Dallat: I am glad to hear that.

Mr McCallan: To add to that point, the Programme for Government target outlined that the transfer of any powers, however small or relatively unimportant in the scheme of things, should be fit for purpose and rates-neutral at the point of transfer. All we are saying is that sufficient deployment of resources to make good a positive, constructive approach, rather than a lamenting, negative approach, should be undertaken.

Mr Dallat: You must be aware that, across the 11 councils, there are probably some areas where there is very little to transfer, because the money was not invested in car parks.

Mr McCallan: Yes. In concurring with the comments made by Mr Dallat, we also have to accept that councils' financial resilience in terms of their turnover, their expenditure and their ability to deal with the unforeseen is actually less, unlike all Departments. Therefore, it is a collective. It is very important that we make sure that councils, in receiving whatever they are getting, are actually financially sustainable and financially resilient, otherwise it affects Joe and Jane Public, whom we all represent in our constituency role as elected members.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I thank Derek and his team. I think that there is no point in us going over some of the other ground that we covered previously. I do not entirely disagree with the neutrality of all of this, but I think that we will disagree on some of the numbers. I think that John's point summed it up. There is austerity, and there is an expectation on you as well. If you look at the sums, you will see that if you were going out to buy a car park today and trying to make it work, it would be much more difficult. The fact is that you are being given it, and, yes, a wee bit of money might have to be spent; however, I think that it will be difficult for the Committee to support some of the numbers that we are hearing.

I am looking forward to our trip to Fermanagh, because I have heard rumours of the puddles already. If something is totally unsafe, then that is a different scenario. We listened to Mid and East Antrim here today. To be honest, a survey was done 15 years ago about a functioning car park, which is still bringing in £250,000 a year. Spending millions of pounds fixing car parks while half the country will have no street lights by the end of the winter does not bear thinking about.

Thank you, once again. We will try to work together.