Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I welcome Kevin O'Gara and Jonathan Glendinning, who are representing Fermanagh and Omagh District Council. I ask you to limit your presentation to 10 minutes or so, but, if it is less than that, we do not mind. This is a good opportunity for us to put questions, because there has been a general theme coming from many of the councils, so I ask that you limit your presentation to 10 minutes, or 15 minutes at most.

Mr Kevin O'Gara (Fermanagh and Omagh District Council): Chairman and members of the Committee, on behalf of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, I thank you for giving us the opportunity to make an oral presentation. Brendan Hegarty sends his apologies to the Committee for not being able to be here this morning.

I have a number of slides. It is said that a picture paints a thousand words, so I will quickly go through the slides and then take you through a paper. Copies of the slides and the presentation are available to the Committee.

The council welcomes the transfer of car parking but requires that car parks be fit for purpose and that sufficient resources be available to ensure that they are cost-neutral at the point of transfer. The first slide lists the 40 car parks —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Kevin, sorry, but if I can just stop you there. We are having difficulty hearing you, so can you come closer to the microphone and get Jonathan to change the slides? Sorry about that.

Mr O'Gara: Sorry, Chairman.

The first slide shows the 40 car parks that are being transferred. We reviewed them to identify areas in which we have concerns about ongoing maintenance and upkeep. Car parks are a critical part of the infrastructure of our towns and villages. It is important that they are of an acceptable standard when they transfer to councils.

We identified issues with car parks regarding surface quality, white lining and fencing. We have particular issues with Japanese knotweed at quite a number of our sites, and that will have to be addressed. There are also issues with overall maintenance and upkeep that we feel need to be addressed as part of the process.

The next slide gives you an idea of some of the concerns, particularly around worn-out white lining. I thank the Committee members who last night visited a number of sites. It was evident that the quality of some of them was less than we would expect at the point of transfer. The car park in Quay Lane, Enniskillen, is of the standard that we would like to achieve.

Parking enforcement is difficult without adequate white lining. We also have issues with disabled car-parking signage and markings that need to be rectified. The next slide is of a car park in Foundry Lane, Omagh, and clearly shows the absence of effective white lining.

There are issues with encroachment. The next slide shows a gated area. All the car parks are going to transfer to the councils, but we are not aware of whether such areas are authorised. That is one of the issues that the councils feel needs to be addressed when the title maps are transferred so that we know exactly what we are getting and the potential difficulties.

The next slide shows an area in Castle Park, Enniskillen, that some Committee members had an opportunity to look at last night. Thankfully, it was not just as wet last night as it is in the photograph. On the left-hand side is the main entrance to the Translink bus depot, and there are obviously major problems associated with flooding at the access there. In the back is the Fermanagh Lakeland Forum area, where, again, there is major blockage with flooding.

The flooded area shows part of Castle Park car park, which is to be transferred. Where the car is seen driving is classified as a road, so everything from those couple of red cars backwards will be classified as a road. The car parking on the right-hand side is to be classified as on-street car parking, whereas the remainder of the car parking in the area is to be classified as off-street. We feel that that will pose major problems for Transport NI and the councils.

There are issues with poor marking, subsidence, differential settlement and poor-quality surfacing, which need to be upgraded as part of the overall transfer. Japanese knotweed is prevalent in a number of sites. That has to be dug out at great expense and deep-buried or treated annually for five to six years to try to eradicate it.

On the costs issue, we have identified that an immediate cash injection of £58,000 is required to bring the car parks up to an acceptable standard. The council carried out a survey of the costs for resurfacing over a period, and it is estimated that it would cost in the region of £55,000 a year compared with the Department's proposal of £17,000. No provision has been made for the transfer of funding for gully cleaning, salting, insurance and lighting. There is a proposal to put the lighting on to separate meters, which, we feel, will be an additional unnecessary burden and not a good use of public money. In addition, the costs for upgrading the Castle Park site, improving the drainage and raising the road level are in the region of £70,000. I showed you that slide earlier.

Other issues that we feel are important are the lack of information on encroachment, which I touched on briefly before, the legal issues with the lack of documentation and drawings, and a number of legal issues associated with joint ownership of land. There is an issue with new car parks and who will be responsible for them into the future. I do not intend to spend time on it, but that is the basis on which some of the figures have been calculated to build up the overall costs required for the transfer of the ground.

I will take you very quickly through the paper. The council welcomes the transfer of off-street parking to councils but requires it to be cost-neutral at the point of transfer. However, the council has identified several areas that require attention in the 40 car parks that are being transferred. It strongly believes that the car parks need to be transferred with no restrictions, conditions or statutory charges on the land. The council sees the regeneration of its towns and villages as a key part of its future regeneration. It will ensure that future regeneration is adequately serviced by car parking in order to see the area prosper. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure full inclusion in and consultation on any further discussions on future charging for off-street car parking and on-street car parking. The council wishes to liaise closely with Transport NI on any future transport and traffic management across the region. The council will ask whether it will be covered for the development of future off-street car parking, particularly about who will be responsible, about the costs of sites that have been identified, and about problems in the past that have not been dealt with, such as in Tempo and Dromore.

The council has identified issues of legal title that need to be resolved, as well as cases of encroachment. We ask for those to be quantified so that the council knows exactly what has been transferred to it. Transport Northern Ireland has a 30-year rule on possessionary title, and local government has only a 12-year rule. Therefore, Transport NI will need to resolve the encroachment issues before transfer. It is in a far stronger position than councils to do that. A number of the car parks that will be transferring will have an annual rent. That burden will ultimately fall to the council in the future.

As I outlined, there are issues with Castle Park causing major flooding problems at approaches to the Translink depot. The council is anxious to have details on the legal title or the claims history associated with the car parks, as that will ultimately transfer to councils, and the liability will transfer with that. The council also feels that consideration needs to be given to salting, gritting, gully cleaning, street lighting, maintenance and electricity, which have not been considered up to date.

We have been provided with historical figures on the income generation for a number of years, but DRD introduced the £1 charge for five hours, and we feel that that will have a major, detrimental effect on the income generation for the running of the car parks. We have requested figures to identify what sort of impact that is having, but we have yet to receive the. We feel that it is important that we have those figures in order to see the impact.

There will be an impact on the councils from car parking fees. We feel that councils could be adversely disadvantaged by the reduction in the £1 charge for five hours. Therefore, we feel that there could be a cost increase to the ratepayers, and we feel that that needs to be addressed.

Estimated collection of parking charge notice (PCN) income for subsequent years is not clear. The allowance figures quoted for the collection of PCN income seem to be lower than the council would anticipate, considering the cross-border nature of the new council. It is reasonable to consider that the collection of PCN income will be more difficult than in other neighbouring councils. We have identified lighting, boundary issues, fencing, surface problems and white lines as issues that need to be resolved.

In broad terms, the car parking that we viewed yesterday, which was the subject of the slide on flooding, will require immediate expenditure of £70,000 to ensure that vehicles can access the Lakeland Forum, the Translink bus depot and the car park at Castle Park. In addition, further costs of £58,000 are required to carry out necessary repairs to bring the car parks up to an acceptable standard at the point of transfer.

A 20-year programme has been drawn up and costed, and it is in the region of £1·17 million. Over that period, funding was available to allow two car parks to be upgraded at an annual cost to the council of £55,000. That concludes the presentation. We are happy to answer any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Thanks, Kevin. You said that you have concerns about the car parks. Did you raise those concerns in the consultation on the Bill?

Mr O'Gara: The council has raised concerns in the past through its chief executive.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): The reason that I am asking you that is that it is our understanding that it was not raised formally in the consultation process, and it is late to start tabling some of those concerns now. Do you not feel that it would have been better to do it at an earlier stage as opposed to leaving it until late in the day?

Mr O'Gara: I am taking up post with effect from next Monday. Therefore, I do not have the background on what has been done in the past, but my understanding is that it has been raised as a potential issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): When was the picture taken of the flooding?

Mr Jonathan Glendinning (Fermanagh & Omagh District Council): Last week.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): You talked about how DRD suggested that there will be separation between the public road and the off-street parking. When were you officially told that that was the case?

Mr O'Gara: Yesterday.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Yesterday was the first time that you were made aware of that.

Mr O'Gara: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I appreciate that the flooding is not good, but, in the section you are looking at, surely the Translink depot is on the left-hand side of the car park. Will that not be a public road and will it not still be the responsibility of DRD to maintain that section?

Mr O'Gara: We were of the understanding that it was all transferring over until the scenario came about whereby half of that road plus the right-hand side of were going to be retained for car parking.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I should say at the outset that I apologise for not being there last night, but business ran slightly later than expected. Is that the access road to the Translink depot?

Mr O'Gara: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): It is difficult to see an opportunity for that section to be transferred, given that it would still be an access road for someone else. I am unsure as to why —

Mr O'Gara: It floods what we would have perceived as being the public road but also into what we perceived was going to be transferred to —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I appreciate the point that you are making, but the section that would be the public road appears to be where the deep end of the flooding is. I assume that most of the problems come from there, which would still be the responsibility of DRD. How did you get the costings of what to put right, given that control of a large section of that will be retained by DRD?

Mr O'Gara: I am sorry, but I missed the start of that.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): You cited £55,000 as the annual cost —

Mr O'Gara: No, £70,000 is the estimate for —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Does that include fixing the public road or is that just for the car park section?

Mr Glendinning: That is the entirety of the area.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): You are being very generous by doing DRD's work for it.

Mr Glendinning: The costings were done on the basis that the whole car park would transfer. It was only yesterday that we heard that possibly some of it might not, and we have not had that fully clarified yet.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I have said many times that many of us come from local government and want to see the control transferred to there. Do you have any plans to dispose of any the car parks for redevelopment or regeneration?

Mr Glendinning: No. Nothing has been established as yet or will be until we can determine what car parks are transferring and what condition titles are in. We also need to establish whether there are conditions attached to transfers. Nothing has been discussed about the regenerative effect of the car parks.

Mr O'Gara: There are no plans to dispose of any car parks, and we have not considered it. The only reason that the council is anxious that the transfer does not come with any restrictions on it is that, obviously, as regeneration happens and as projects come forward, car parking is a key part of that ultimate regeneration. We will give a guarantee that any regeneration that happens in the future will have more than adequate car parking to allow it to prosper and be successful.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): What is your understanding of the condition that the Committee was considering?

Mr O'Gara: My understanding was that there was potentially a possibility that it would come with restrictions on the transfer. I know that that that has been discussed but I am not sure what the final outcome was.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I suppose that there is no final outcome. I will leave it at that,

Mr Lynch: I know the car park that you are talking about quite well. I was not there last night, as the Assembly sat late, but there are huge issues there. At what point would you not accept the car park transfer? Are you saying that all of the work will have to be done before you will accept transfer?

Mr O'Gara: What we are saying is that we feel that car parks are an important asset for the area and that it is important and in everyone's interest that they be kept to a proper standard. We feel that the sorts of costs that we have outlined are necessary to bring them up to and keep them at an acceptable standard.

Mr Lynch: Give us an example of the legal issues. Is Castle Park an example of the legal issues around ownership and entitlement?

Mr O'Gara: That is one of the issues. We are aware that there are encroachments and some issues around legal title. To date, we have received no title maps that we could effectively do an analysis of, but we are aware that there are issues. We will seek at the earliest possible time to see proper, legal title maps with a full listing of all potential encroachments or challenges to ownership.

We are kind of in a vacuum: we know that there are issues, but we just do not know the extent of them. We will certainly seek that information as soon as possible.

Mr Lynch: It seems to me — it is coming up in a number of meetings, Chair — that a lot of information and stuff has still to be sorted out between the Department and the councils, and a lot of information is not forthcoming from the Department. Other councils have also expressed that. It seems that this is going to be a long, drawn-out process.

Mr Hussey: Kevin knows me of old, God help him, so I will try to be fairly reasonable with him. Was there not a suggestion, at one time, that part of Johnston Park car park in Omagh would be redeveloped within a hotel complex? Was there not a planning application for that that included part of the car park?

Mr O'Gara: Part of Johnston Park would have been part of the old Royal Arms area.

Mr Hussey: Not that part. That part is specific. That is owned by the property owner. But there was a planning application that included part of Johnston Park car park.

Mr O'Gara: There could be developers' concepts coming forward in future, and there probably have been in the past, but there is none on the table at the minute, that I am aware of, that is live and being taken forward. I think the thinking is that you would not want to restrict unnecessarily potential regeneration in an area but you certainly will be protecting the overall car park provision because without that, no development would be successful or prosper.

Mr Hussey: My own view was that, if the council had no conditions and decided to do away with the car park, it would be obliged to replace it with a similar size car park. You made reference to the £1 charge for five hours that applies in certain areas. You know as well as I do — it is a pity that there are no councillors here — that many councillors called for cheaper car parking and free car parking on certain days. Is it still the will of the council that, should they be given such authority, that is what they are going to do; they will set the rates themselves?

Mr O'Gara: That is an area that needs further discussion. I, personally, do not think it is acceptable not to have charges. Charges are necessary to regulate a space. A space can turn over five, 10 or 20 cars in a day. If it is free or at a relatively low cost, the danger is that one car will sit all day. For an area to be successful, you need as much turnover as possible in every car park. A range of options need to be analysed and considered.

Mr Hussey: You mentioned that when the car parks are taken over, there is the lighting and various other bits and pieces. When the council develops a piece of land and put lights on it, it is responsible for the lights, so why would you expect DRD to retain responsibility for lights once car parks go into public ownership through the council?

Mr O'Gara: The proposal, as I understand it, is that every car park will be separately rewired and metered. I think there is a much easier way to do a headcount of street lights in a particular car park. In those 40 car parks, you could quickly decide that there are 200 street lights and do a pro rata charging, which would save you thousands and thousands of pounds redeveloping every one of them, digging them up and putting in separate meter control points. I agree with you that the charge would need to transfer to the councils, but there is an easier and certainly much cheaper way of achieving that.

Mr Hussey: My final question, Chair, which you will be glad to hear, relates to Enniskillen and the photographs that you showed of the flooding. It is a pity that we do not have one that does not show floods, so that we could compare one against the other. Is that not in a floodplain? Does that area not always flood?

Mr Glendinning: The area is not on the floodplain, but, unfortunately, it is prone to flooding simply because it really relies on the levels of the lake at the time of rainfall. The levels of the lough are basically right around the Fermanagh Lakeland Forum. The water does not seem to get away because of the actual road level. There is almost a hollow in the road level where the gullies are, and then it just cannot get away quick enough. If there is any heavy downpour at all, it tends to flood. Because of the levels of the lough, it takes a long time for it to dissipate as well.

Mr Hussey: So, it has been a long-term issue.

Mr Glendinning: It has been a long-term issue. It has not yet been resolved.

Chair, can I just come back on one other point about car parking fees? I know that our chief executive, Brendan Hegarty, had mentioned that he feels that there is a bit of concern about the actual incomes historically with regard to the fees that have been charged. Our understanding is that there is a reduction on the allocation on transfer, given the historical costs. For example, if Fermanagh and Omagh's joint income is £800,000, that is almost the reduction in the grant coming across from the fees generated, but, in other council areas, specifically neighbouring council areas, the income is significantly less and therefore the block reduction in grant is less. We basically have to get some clarification around that. It is certainly something that the chief executive has raised concerns about with us.

Mr Hussey: Did the chief executive then put that in any written response to the consultation?

Mr Glendinning: I need to double-check that, but I think that it did come back through a public consultation response. I will certainly come back and clarify that.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Can I get back to that? I apologise that we are looking at this while you were speaking, but we are trying to get that information pulled up. Can you just repeat what you said about the £800,000 from your understanding?

Mr Glendinning: I am sort of working on figures that we have speculated here. If the income is £800,000 —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Surely you have a copy of those figures.

Mr Glendinning: We have not got a full copy of all of the figures. We have a copy of the Fermanagh and Omagh 2013-14 figures. That is what we have based this on. We have not sought figures across any other council.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry: why are other councils relevant?

Mr Glendinning: The thinking is that obviously the fee income for Fermanagh and Omagh is a lot more than other councils, the block reduction in the allocation of funding coming across will be significantly higher.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry: I am interested in this. If we look at what I assume you have been given, the figures for each of the councils, we are looking at a car parks asset value of £3·5 million. We are looking at a net value of around £800,000 of an income. I have to say that I struggle with that. I have come from local government, and I am very supportive, but I struggle with how councils even assume that there should be another gift or that the gift horse should keep coming. What would the council plan to do with the £800,000 that is coming?

Mr Glendinning: Obviously, Chair, you can see that if that is reduced, then it becomes a cost to the council.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): But how will it be reduced?

Mr O'Gara: Sorry: could I just clarify that? We probably do need some level of clarification. Let us just say, for simplicity, that if £800,000 is generated from car parking and, say, planning comes over with a price of £1 million, it is our understanding that, as the other functions transfer over, that £1 million will be reduced by the income that is generated from car parks. We have certainly asked that question. That is the information that we have been given. Now, if that is not the case, I think that we are talking —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): We will clarify that, but it does not sit with me that that will be the case. Given that planning, as it stands, is supposed to be —

Mr O'Gara: I just picked planning as one example. It could be any of the transferring functions.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): And we have two different Departments, of course, as well. I am curious as to why DRD would be subsiding DOE. If DOE is transferring a particular function to local government, I would need to be convinced, because, given some of Minister Kennedy's recent statements about how tight he is getting it, I do not think he would be so liberal with his money as to actually subsidise Minister Durkan. I do not know whether your thinking on that is entirely right. That is why I would like to drill into it. It seems that councils may be coming half prepared for some of this. If we look at the raw figures here, we see that you are getting a £3·5 million asset. You have the opportunity to earn, after a cost, approximately £800,000. Is there confusion there in that the councils do not actually know what is coming across at all between that and DOE or —

Mr O'Gara: I think the £800,000 is the figure. It is in that general region — slightly up but probably down year by year.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, you have got £800,000. What are Fermanagh's plans for £800,000?

Mr O'Gara: Well, I would seek the Committee's clarification. All that I can say is that our understanding is that if there is £800,000 coming, that will be reduced over the other transferring functions. If that is not the case, I apologise, but that is what we have been led to believe.

Mr McAleer: Some of the themes that we are picking up today, we have picked up with other councils. It is one of the reasons that I am glad that the Committee decided to carry out such fact-finding. I am guessing that the information that you have presented here today has come from the independent inspections that you have carried out. I take it that you have conveyed the findings of your inspection to Transport NI?

Mr Glendinning: Not as yet, no. Obviously, we wanted to discuss them first with the Committee before we released them. We are working on the assumption that car parks are coming across. To use the example of Castle Park, when the surveys were done, the assumption was it was coming across in totality. Obviously, as of yesterday, that has now changed. I am sure that there are other shared car parks. There are different aspects to it. We cannot really release those figures until we are absolutely sure, but we needed to start somewhere to have a discussion around what is coming to us and to try to prepare for it. That was the idea behind getting the independent survey done.

Mr McAleer: Have you been in negotiation with the Department around all this? How satisfied do you feel with the response that you are getting with regard to sharing information? I am picking up from you that there is a lack of clarity.

Mr O'Gara: We have certainly been seeking clarity and communicating with them to try to get all the transfer maps, the legal title maps, encroachment data and statistics. It is very slowly coming through to us. In fact, it is not, actually; we are still awaiting clarity on all of them.

Mr McAleer: That is obviously something that we, as the Committee, need to press the Department to resolve. You are not the first council to raise the exact same issues with us.

Mr O'Gara: It is major asset. It is coming over. We need to know exactly what is coming: the good points, the bad points and everything. Obviously, we are not privy to some of that information. We know that there are issues there, but we just do not know the extent of them.

Mr McAleer: I should declare an interest as a ratepayer.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Kevin, another thing strikes me on the back of what Declan said. I am not picking on you on this one. Are you the person who was negotiating with the Department? If not, who is?

Mr O'Gara: The chief executive has been negotiating with the Department. I am effectively only taking up post next Monday. I have come on to this relatively recently. I know that there have been some ongoing discussions with the Department.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, you have been somewhat thrown in at the deep end?

Mr O'Gara: I would not just say that, but —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Whilst we can criticise the Department, and I have absolutely no hesitation in doing so, I suppose that it would have been much more appropriate if the chief executive had been here to address some of these issues of what he has been told, what he has not been told and to give us a bit of a timeline. I do see you being thrown in at the deep end, because I do not think that you are best placed to answer some of the questions. You can put out certain allegations about what your understanding is, but I think that the chief executive might have been better placed to speak to us if he was the person doing the negotiations.

With regard to your response to Ross, when you said that you would be obliged to provide car parking spaces if you were to dispose of those in regenerating, why then are councils so precious? The Committee would suggest that spaces should be replaced either by a more efficient car parking arrangement or another location which is convenient to one that has been disposed of. So, whilst you accept that you should be obliged, what is the problem with having a condition just in case you feel that you should not be obliged?

Mr O'Gara: I suppose that the feeling from the councils is that they want to regenerate, and, as part of the regeneration, car parking will be a key part of the overall aim.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Yes, but you are citing an obligation, and our clause is affirming that obligation. We are not preventing regeneration; we are basically saying that you should provide spaces in an adjacent area or a more efficient method of parking. We are trying to ensure that parking is maintained in an area. We are not saying anything more than that. All councils seem to be precious about having this without any conditions, but, if they accept that there is an obligation for them to do something, I am yet to be convinced why councils are so reluctant to support that condition being placed in the Bill. Can you convince me?

Mr O'Gara: I think that councils will act in a responsible way in developing their area, and your point is reaffirming that.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Kevin, I did not say that they would not be responsible. I want you to convince me why it would be a bad idea for the Committee to build in the protection in the form of a clause that reinforces that obligation. If you can find a form of words to convince me, that is fine.

Mr O'Gara: With the wording that you are using, I do not see that — I am only speaking personally — as a particular problem, because I think that that is the way the council will be thinking and that will be the attitude of the council.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): That is very useful.

Mr Dallat: I was in the car parks last night and got foundered. It was helpful, and it shapes the questions that I will ask. I do not want to use this analogy, but if I was going to buy a second-hand car, I would go round and kick the tyres, point out the scrapes and say, "All that is wrong". That is what I saw last night. I saw the potholes and the white lines that were not in place, and I have reflected overnight on what the chances of this succeeding are.

Finally, I feel that I am shooting the messenger, because you are not even in position yet. Where is your chief executive this morning?

Mr O'Gara: I am an officer of Omagh District Council, and I have been appointed to the position as of next week. I think that I can certainly speak about the Omagh end and the Fermanagh end, and Johnny is here to represent Fermanagh. It is a major asset that is transferring over. The council is mindful of taking it in a state that is acceptable and protecting that asset, and I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that we look to the overall future of car parking in the area and to keep a clear standard that is acceptable and try to bring it up to that standard. I do not think that that is an unreasonable position for the council to take.

Mr Dallat: I think that it is a perfectly reasonable debate to have. I think back to the play parks. Imagine if somebody had to take those over before they were all upgraded. They were hopelessly out of date. They did not comply with standards. There is probably an avalanche of compensation claims that could arise. I was looking at DRD's compensation bill from the last 10 years yesterday; it is absolutely horrendous. I saw street lights last night that have been reversed into and are not in great condition. Why was all that not out in the open before now, given that it is only a few weeks before the Bill might be passed?

Mr O'Gara: As the process has gone on, more and more research has been done by each council, and part of the issue is getting the information to clarify what exactly is transferring. Take the example from yesterday: we thought that a car park was coming to us in its entirety, to discover yesterday that it was not.

Mr Dallat: On that very point, I have no idea how that can be resolved. A road runs through a car park, and if you attempt to divide it and put a wall up, you would totally ruin both road and car park. Under what circumstances would you take the British Legion car park over?

Mr O'Gara: Personally, my view is that the car park should revert, all or nothing. I do not know if Jonathan agrees with me or not.

Mr Glendinning: I think that is the view of the council as well.

Mr O'Gara: But you have an artificial line up the middle that is dividing it.

Mr Dallat: I am going home a long distance with depression, because I see problems emerging now. Cooperation, partnership and working together might be the key to it, but if we carry on the second-hand-car-sales strategy, it is not going to work.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): The only thing is, defending the second-hand-car salesmen —

Mr Glendinning: Declare an interest.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I declare an interest in that, of course. Of course, they would not give you a car, they would sell you it, but they would not give you earning potential with it. The analogy is not the best.

Mr Dallat: No, it is not.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I am not trying to be flippant when I say that —

Mr Dallat: You are right.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): What we need to be careful about — and I think many people are losing sight of it — is that there is a great earning potential, on one hand, in terms of an income generated for councils. There is another opportunity for regenerating our towns. I think the Minister made a — are you listening, Ross?

Mr Hussey: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I think the Minister made a very good decision in reducing the car parking charges. I think he listened to local government, of course, when he made that decision, but that has now given the power to local government to make those decisions. So, it is not like getting a gift. It is getting a gift that can regenerate our towns and be an income generator as well.

Mr Dallat: Can I come back just very briefly? I concur entirely with what you are saying. You represent big towns like Enniskillen and Omagh, but you also represent smaller towns. There is enormous opportunity there to use car parking as a regeneration tool by offering, for example, free car parking. But all I have heard is money bags. Car parking is not just about money, I suggest. It is an enormous tool that, for the first time, is going into the hands of local councils and that you can use in many ways. It may well be a charge on the rates to offer some kind of hope to the smaller towns that find it extremely difficult to survive against the big ones.

Mr Hussey: Did we ever get an answer to your question about where the chief executive is?

Mr Dallat: No, I did not ask the question to embarrass anybody.

Mr Glendinning: We just received an apology. I cannot confirm what meeting he had to go to.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I am not setting out to embarrass anyone either, John.

Mr Dallat: It will intrigue me for the rest of the day: what was more important this morning than this?

Mr Hussey: My understanding was that we came here early to suit the chief executive.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I will just go back to something here, members. I feel that these gentlemen have been thrown in at the deep end somewhat on this one. We talked about the consultation and how you responded. I have a copy of the response. I will read it into the record because I think it is useful. It will not take very long. It states:

I do not want to read the response to the Committee into the record, but it had five paragraphs. To me that says an awful lot, even about the fact that Mr Hegarty is not here today to answer some of the questions about how the presentation was to be put to the Committee today and in relation to the concerns that the council has. To me, that sums it up.

We have criticised the Department, and I am sure it will be in for a lot more criticism before we are finished, but the consultation documentation and all of those concerns that Fermanagh had were summed up in one sentence:

I will let members draw their own conclusions on that. We can cite DRD's lack of response in a timely nature, but there was nothing pressing in that response. Do you want to say anything about that? Maybe I am putting you on the spot with that, Kevin.

Mr O'Gara: When you get down to the detail is when you discover all the issues. I was not privy to that shadow council meeting when it was discussed, but as I said at the start of my presentation, the council broadly welcomes the transfer. Really, from there on, the question is how the transfer is going to happen. We need to have the information to make a judgement call and to be able to deal up. The devil is in the detail, and the detail needs to be tidied up.

The council is broadly happy with the transfer. We are not saying that we are not, but we certainly feel that we need the maps and the land transfer details; we need to know about encroachments; and we need to know whether there are any issues associated with them. Beyond that, once we have that information, we can effectively go forward. We need all of that information to take the process forward.

The overall costings are not excessive. We have been asked to estimate of the costings for what it would take to upgrade and bring these car parks up to an acceptable standard. This is what we feel it would take to bring them to an acceptable standard. Car parking is an important issue for the region. We want to take the matter forward and progress it to a successful conclusion.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I will finish on this, Kevin. I know that John always picks on used car salesmen, but, I wish that, in my time, that I had had more Brendan Hegartys. They would not need to know about the mileage, the service history or anything else; they would just tell me that they were broadly content with the deal. That is just what this looks like. You present the item, and Brendan sends a letter to say that he is broadly content. So the knowledge of the car does not matter. It does not matter how many miles it has done, whether the tyres are nearly done, whether it has a service history or whether it has even got an engine, he is broadly content. I think that the very fact that he is not here today speaks volumes. That is not your fault, Kevin, nor yours, Jonathan. Thank you for the presentation. The points that you have put forward will be considered.

I will bring in the departmental officials to answer a couple of queries, briefly. Members, we will just ask a few questions about some of the points that have been made because there is a theme here. The officials will be coming back again, so any other questions we can hold, but I really want to get my head around this top-slicing.

Mr Terry Deehan (Department for Regional Development): I will try to answer as much as I can, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): There is no point in me framing the question; you heard what has been said. If you can give us an answer to that, we may be able to understand exactly where this is going.

Mr Deehan: All the car parks transferring in all council areas generate a surplus. That is the first point. After all the costs — costs for resurfacing, costs for liability claims, rates and rent — are taken in, they all generate a surplus.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Is that collectively rather than individually?

Mr Deehan: In each individual council, a surplus is generated —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I am sorry for cutting across you, but I want to get this right. I do not have the figures here for how many car parks are transferring. Some of those car parks in the Fermanagh and Omagh district will run at a loss, but collectively, they bring in a surplus.

Mr Deehan: In each council area, yes. The overall financial arrangements of transfer of all functions are the responsibility of DFP. We have not been informed how that will take place. That is DFP's responsibility. The functions transferring from DRD generate a surplus. How DFP will roll that together in the full transfer for all functions is its responsibility. We have not been informed exactly how that will work.

It is accepted, however, that what the council representatives said is quite correct. If there is a surplus, no budget will transfer.

If there is a surplus for one function, that will net off against the budgets transferring for the other functions.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Even in different Departments?

Mr Deehan: In different Departments. The Deloitte report, on due diligence, which was commissioned by councils makes the point that:

It went on to say:

That is our understanding of what DFP is going to do, but it is fully DFP's responsibility.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I have to say that this is worrying for me as well now. DFP is saying, if we take the Fermanagh example of £800,000, that if the DOE or some other Department comes in and there is a cost of £200,000, then, effectively, they will get nothing for that and it will come out of their £800,000 surplus.

Mr Deehan: That is how we understand it. If you think about it; if DFP were not doing this, it would not be rates neutral because it would be a windfall from the DRD. It would be a surplus for all councils.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I do not know how you can describe it like that because we have all been at pains to say how good it would be for councils to control the costs for each of their car parks.

The difficulty with this is that you are restricting the council, because, from what you are telling me now, Terry, it seems that the model you have chosen is based on the projected costs you are seeing at the moment. Going back to Fermanagh and the £800,000; if they alter that cost, reduce it, or create free car parking, you will still be working on the basis of the £800,000. If, for example, Fermanagh tries to do free parking during a particular period, that will come off their surplus. It is also going to be taken off before the Department makes a calculation on the transfer of any other powers.

Mr Deehan: To make it clear, this is not the model that we have chosen; it is the DFP model, as we understand it. We have explained to councils the benefit from the transfer of functions for that particular council. In the case of Omagh and Fermanagh, it is £800,000, but if they want to make all their car parks free, that would be the cost of doing that.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I assume that the model you are looking at is £800,000. If another Department transfers a function, the cost of that function is taken off the £800,000, if the charges stay as they are, but you are effectively tying the hands of the councils because, if they decide to do free car parking, that will come at a cost to the ratepayer as opposed to anything else.

Mr Deehan: I should not be defending DFP's model, but I do not think that the intention is to tie the hands of the councils, but it would be about starting at a neutral point. Do not forget that we have projected that car parking income increases by around 5% on average.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I have been assured that councils have the figures that we have. Are those based on the £1 car parking charge, or on historical figures?

Mr Deehan: They are based on historical figures. The £1 for five hours started as a pilot in 2013 for only the Christmas period. This is the first year that it has been running for longer than that. It has been running for six months this year.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): When will you be in possession of the figures that will include the effect of the £1 charge?

Mr Deehan: The most recent updated figures are based on the 2013-14 financial year. They will include the impact of the £1 for five hours.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, the figures that we have for Fermanagh —

Mr Deehan: They are being updated. Those figures were from July, and they are being updated again.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): When?

Mr Deehan: They have been sent out to councils this week.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): When will we get them?

Mr Deehan: You should probably have those, along with the DALO response, tomorrow or at some stage this week.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Are the figures dropping or increasing?

Mr Deehan: Because we have added additional costs, where councils have pointed out bad debt provision to us, for example, the benefits are, generally, down by less than 6% or 7% overall.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Deputy Chair, we will stay on this finance topic, and then we will bring officials back.

Mr Lynch: Chair, I want to touch on the example of Castle Park. You saw the flooding. There are huge issues with that. There are also legal issues. One half is owned by —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Seán, we can come back to that. We will stick to the broad theme of top-slicing, because another council will be coming in.

Mr Lynch: OK.

Mr Dallat: I am going back to my previous depressive mode. The figures are out of date. There is bashed-up street lighting; there are no white lines; there are no documents to prove ownership; you have only squatter's rights in the —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I think we will need to come back to that, John. We are talking purely about top-slicing at the moment. You will get a chance to put that to the Department later.

Mr Dallat: OK. The question I would like to ask is this: is it realistic to expect councils to inherit what is essentially, in comparison, a house that has been left in a state of disrepair by a bad tenant who expects the next person to come in and sort it out?

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): That is a similar issue. We will come back to that.

Mr Hussey: I have a question about top-slicing. I am now confused.com. It comes back to the issue of this being cost-neutral. Councils are preparing for this and are expecting £800,000 income, which they are not going to get. I honestly think we need a DFP official here as well. What guidance are you being given to advise councils? Obviously, Fermanagh and Omagh District Council representatives are sitting here with the idea that they will see £800,000. We are getting close to this being finished, but we cannot finish it. Even we are not sure what the top-slicing is going to be.

Mr Deehan: As I said, it is DFP's responsibility.

Mr Hussey: What guidelines are you being given by DFP? Is it sending you an email telling you what the figure is? What guidance is DFP giving you?

Mr Deehan: We have not seen any guidance or figures from DFP.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I have no issue with DFP or whoever; I do not wish to criticise them. This is not the right Committee for that, and I do not know how we would do that. It is your Minister who is driving this. Your Minister is aware of the arrangements with the Executive, the Finance Minister or otherwise.

Councils have been saying this, but we were not picking up on it. I am glad that we brought you forward. I can understand why councils are getting concerned about top-slicing. I saw this as a good thing because councils would get control and it would be an income-generator, but it is not. Today, we are learning that councils are going to pay for additional services but are going to generate the income to pay for those themselves with something that looked like a gift.

Mr Deehan: It is cost neutral —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): No, it is not, Terry —

Mr Deehan: — for all transfers of all functions —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): No, it is not. It is £800,000, based on the figures you gave us. We do not even have the new figures in relation to the £1 charges, which have been in for almost a year, I think.

Mr Deehan: Six months.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Six months. So, we have the £1 charge, which is going to reduce the amount of income. Today, however, we are hearing that if another Department transfers some of its functions, the cost will be netted out of the surplus.

We were praising this and thinking that it was a wonderful idea, because councils would have control. If they reduced the £800,000 by creating the opportunity to make car parking free, then that was coming out of their £800,000, but it is not. If all the other functions cost £800,000, it is cost neutral, but, if they decide to do something with this gift, the other functions will become a cost to them, because they will have no control over car parking. This is taking the model in the way that you have framed it, with the charges as they were before the £1 charge came in.. Yes, it is cost neutral today, but, once other functions come across, it will not be cost neutral.

Mr Hussey: Could we ask, Chair —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Let Terry answer that first.

Mr Deehan: We quantified the amount for the £1-for-five-hours scheme. It is not significant over all car parks. It is not a significant amount in terms of the reduction. We are not here to defend the DFP model. It does not preclude councils from reducing costs or increasing revenue. They would retain any benefits from that. The idea is that it starts them off on a level playing field for all functions.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Terry, come on.

Mr Deehan: Otherwise, this would be a function that would be generating income to councils.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): There is no flexibility. Many of us around the table thought that this was a flexible opportunity for councils to have control over something. That flexibility has been removed by the fact that you are going to top-slice something for other Departments.

Mr Deehan: The flexibility would apply if councils reduced costs. Those savings would go directly into their own pocket. If they increase revenue, that will go into their own pockets.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Did you reduce costs?

Mr Deehan: We have reduced costs enormously. We have reduced costs by £3 million from the last contract.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Is there much meat left on that?

Mr Deehan: There is, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, Minister Kennedy is going for the soft touch by way of street lights, gully-emptying and white-line marking, and you are telling me that there is still more fat on the car parks. That is very interesting. I am interested in you saying that. I think we will leave it at that, Ross, unless you are going to talk about top-slicing.

Mr Hussey: I will be very quick. Apparently, the councils have been written to. So, there must be records somewhere. In the interim, could the officials make a phone call and come back to us with those figures today? If the councils have been written to, there will be a copy on file. Can we know the figures?

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry?

Mr Hussey: We were told earlier that the councils were written to this week. Therefore the figures are available. Could a phone call be made and, maybe, we could be given the figures?

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Could you get those emailed? The Clerk could pick them up.

Mr Deehan: Yes, certainly. I have a copy of the most recent figures with me.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): We will get a photocopy of those, Terry. We will leave it at that.