Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

To follow on from the points made, the changeover took place in 2007 and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine took over responsibility. Rossaveal provides an example of an area where there was no transition period and where the previous administration was not in charge. It was entirely within the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. No parking fees were imposed there in 2008 or 2009. Then the Department decided to carry out an upgrade in 2011 at a cost of €340,000. There had been ample time at that stage for the Department to have put all the mechanisms in place in terms of auditing and decision making. The upgrade took place and 276 car parking spaces were installed. The estimated or projected annual income was €580,000 but the amount that actually accrued in 2012 and 2013 was €11,000. How in God's name could there be such a variance between the projected and actual dividend on the back of the expenditure of €340,000? How was the decision made? It is hardly sufficient to say that someone subsequently provided another car park down the road. One must have a business plan and that plan must carefully look at all the options and possibilities, both the downside and the upside. It seems that in this particular case, there was no business plan. What did the audit unit do in response to the request from the Comptroller and Auditor General for information on the matter? It does not seem to have provided any details to his office. I am raising this example because it is at the heart of the Department's administration and responsibility. The decision to do the upgrade was made in 2011. Prior to 2011 no funds accrued from the car park.

Simultaneously, the State was obliged to invest €56.2 million in Exchequer funding in the six centres. That amount constitutes some 75% of the total cost of running the centres and capital expenditure. Obviously, there was a huge degree of negligence and laxity in terms of the manner in which the centres collected dues and under-billed fees which should have been properly declared and invoiced in the first instance, dealt with undeclared funding which should have been fully declared and did not impose the statutory requirement relating to fees which should have been imposed. The Department made the decision in respect of this matter and there does not appear to be any paper trail whatsoever which would indicate how said decision was made, what was the business plan, how the protected income was arrived at or what was happening in the vicinity.

As the Chairman stated, the committee should be supplied with a full statement on this matter. However, I am of the view that we should also be provided with an explanation now as to how the Department could have had oversight and supervision in respect of this matter and the decision-making process relating to it and yet achieved such a poor return from it.