Debate contribution: On-street Parking Charges in Lisburn

Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .

MLA
Ms Liz Kimmins
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
11 November 2025
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Adjournment
Heading
On-street Parking Charges in Lisburn
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5349855

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank Robbie Butler for securing the Adjournment debate. It may come as a surprise to Members that I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about car parking. I have raised the issue for many years. I work extremely closely with businesses, particularly those in my constituency, and I have done so consistently throughout my time not just as an MLA but as a councillor. I have also worked in the health centre in Lisburn, and I have told some of my Lagan Valley colleagues that I too have fallen foul of the wardens, having come out of my work as a social worker to find a lovely ticket on my windscreen. I have a note in front of me, but I will probably go way off it, because everything that has been said this evening is absolutely where my head is and where it has been for some time. I tried to research how controlled parking zones came in. They were introduced in 2008 at the request of local businesses, because there was significant parking congestion at that time, particularly in Belfast, Lisburn and Newry. A consultation process took place, and other procedures had to be followed. Controlled parking zones were then introduced in an effort to support businesses. Up until the early 2010s, they worked well. Since then, however, we have seen dramatic changes in our town centres and in the ways in which people shop. We are now very much in a space in which people do not have the same incentives to go into our town centres. The nature of how we shop has changed, because we have moved online or to out-of-town options, which, given the busy lives that we all lead, can seem more attractive to many people. Our "Town centre first" approach has been strong across the North. We have to look at the changes that have occurred over the years. My constituency colleague Mr McNulty was vociferous in his advocacy of the removal of parking charges or of one hour of free parking. I am delighted that he has been able to find the quotes, because, unlike some, I am consistent in what I say. Back in 2021, when I raised it with his colleague, the then SDLP Minister for Infrastructure, I asked for a trial of one hour of free parking in response to the ask from local businesses. That trial never came in the time that she was in post; in fact, I did not get the support of my constituency colleague for that demand. I will quote him. When I raised it with the Minister on one of many occasions, all of which are on the record, the Member said, in asking a supplementary question, that he welcomed the:

"road map for the resolution of this matter."

— four years later, we have not seen that road map —

"Parking is an issue for some traders and businesses, but there are other issues."— [Official Report (Hansard), 22 November 2021, p34, col 1].

When you checked my quote, you should have checked your own.

They did not. I did that myself. I am not being facetious when I say that, when I commit to something, I absolutely commit to it. I listen to businesses and have been doing so for a long time. When I came into my post nine months ago, I asked for a meeting with officials at the first opportunity to look at the available options. It is not as straightforward as lifting the regulations tomorrow. There is a legislative process. I have gone back and forward — my officials will attest to this — to look at what we can do. We also have to strike a balance, and some Members have articulated that well today. I know from my conversations with businesses in recent weeks that they do not want a free-for-all either, because that is not conducive to keeping trade moving.

No. I am not saying that anyone is saying that. We need to look at how we can test the change. I am looking at that. I said that there were no plans because I do not have a plan at present. We are working through options because we want to find the best way of testing the change so that we can reflect in it the needs of businesses and shoppers and other people who want to come into our town centres. My office, like Mr McNulty's, is on one of the main streets in Newry. We get — Cathal will attest to this from the times that he comes in for meetings — a lot of people in our office who probably come straight from their car to see whether we can help them appeal a ticket. That has been happening for many years. I am acutely aware of the real concerns for businesses and traders at a time when they have suffered blow after blow, from being hit with COVID to the cost-of-living crisis and the growth of online shopping and out-of-town retail. That has all had an impact. I want to look at that, but I want to do so sensibly so that we can test it. I am looking at something that we could do over the festive period. The point about the difference between Belfast and Lisburn and Newry is very pertinent. Belfast has the Glider and other public transport options, so, generally, people do not even want to travel in by car because they like that flexibility. There is good public transport, and we recently introduced late-night transport, so there are many more options. For people in the likes of Lisburn and Newry, however, that is not always the case. We do not want people to feel under pressure. Members can disagree with me on this point if they feel that it is wrong, but most people do not mind paying for parking. It is more about the pressure of having to rush back to your car if there is a £45 or, indeed, a £90 fine.

I have a lot to get through, and I want to finish, because I am tight for time. I am acutely aware that we need to do something. I have some options to look at, and we are going back and forth on them. We will try to do something around the Christmas period if possible. It would obviously be something that does not require us to change legislation, because that is a lengthy process. It is important to reflect on why the charges came into place. There was a need for them, but we are now in a different space, and I recognise the need to review how beneficial they are. I will reflect on some of the questions that were asked. Paul Givan raised the abuse of blue badges. I agree that it is difficult to police that. Traffic attendants are trained to identify the misuse of a blue badge, and they take enforcement measures where they are able to; in fact, there is a full-time traffic attendant in Belfast who deals specifically with the fraudulent use of blue badges. I recognise that it is difficult to challenge someone about that. However, if an individual is using it in place of the badge-owner, who is not with them, the owner's photograph is on the badge, so I imagine that that is the key to determining what is going on. The new contract for the app started on 1 November. People can use it to buy time, rather than having the app running indefinitely and overpaying because they forget to switch it off. Hopefully, that will be beneficial, but there is a balance to be struck.

I have already said — very quickly.

That is a good suggestion. It is something that we can take away. I am keen to have an initiative during the festive period, and I am working out what that would look like. We are restricted by the time frames and what can be done without legislation. If I am able to do so, I intend to take something forward that will allow us to test flexibility around parking. We need to see whether it will work. If it results in absolute chaos and the traders come back and say that it is not working, so be it. We have to find a way to test it. The other side of that — I am sure that the Minister on the Benches opposite will empathise with me on this — is that, at a time when public funds are limited, it would take out revenue that we probably have accounted for. We have to balance that. We have figures on what the impact would be. I would, however, argue that it would increase the numbers of people coming in to the towns, who will be paying for parking. I am not an accountant, but that is why we have to test it and get a real sense of the implications. My commitment to Members today is that I absolutely hear what everyone has said. As I said, I have advocated strongly for a solution for many years, and I still hold that position. I recognise that we need to listen to traders and the wider community. We need to see what we can do to give people a leg up, essentially. We need to revitalise our town centres, bring people in and show them that we are open for business and that they do not need to go out of town. We need to bring our town centres back to life. I will keep Members updated as I progress through the options that I am looking at.

1,632 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.61
No identity-related subject0.33
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.06
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:38 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification