Debate contribution: Hospital Parking Charges Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Robin Swann on .
- MLA
- Mr Robin Swann
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Hospital Parking Charges Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4485104
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the amendments tabled to the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. The amendments tabled by Mr McGrath would result in the postponement of the introduction of free parking for one year instead of the two years outlined in the Bill. The amendment tabled by Mr Carroll would result in the postponement of the introduction of free parking for three and a half months instead of the two years outlined in the Bill. Members will recall that I hope that the traffic management system contract will be awarded in the next couple of weeks. In the coming period, it is envisaged that site surveys will be completed by the contractor to look at appropriate locations for equipment, assess ground conditions, assess signage requirements and order equipment. It is also expected that the installation of priority items and equipment will take place by that date. However, I have asked for a further period of approximately 12 weeks. That will be required for the installation of all other automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) items in areas such as the set-down locations, smaller parking areas, bus routes and delivery yards in order to facilitate free movement of on-site traffic and mitigate potential congestion. Over the following eight weeks, there will be checks to assess whether the system is working as planned, management reports will be finalised, and data will be added in relation to permitted staff registration details, contractor vehicles and any known recurrent patient registration numbers to enable access to car parks. Training for front-line staff and back-office staff will take place during that period. The three-and-a-half-month timeline proposed by Mr Carroll would mean that, if parking were made free from 1 September 2024, there would still be a significant risk that trusts would not be able to control parking, preserve blue-light routes and protect designated spaces as required through traffic management systems, because those systems will not be fully operational. I think that Mr McGrath has recognised that. Health and Social Care has advised that, once parking is made free with the desired traffic management system, it will be able to control parking, preserve blue-light routes and protect designated spaces. Trusts are at present fully committed to the implementation of Encompass, which will continue to 2025. I have been informed that the Encompass project impacts on the availability of trust resources in ICT and estates services and that that will need to be taken into consideration in the roll-out of the traffic management system. A time frame of 12 months, as proposed by Mr McGrath, is not without risk. I have proposed a two-year deferral period to provide my Department with more time to stabilise its finances and allow trusts time and space to fully commit to the roll-out of Encompass without placing additional pressure on ICT and estates time. I propose to use the deferral period to fully implement the infrastructure required to manage free car parking. That period will also allow trusts time to fully review the impact of the new traffic management system and its impact on demand and car park usage and to overcome any teething issues. That will place trusts in the best position to ensure successful roll-out of free car parking after the deferral period.
I will respond to comments that have been made, and I will then give way to Members if I have not answered their questions during my contribution. Mr Carroll talked about making permits free. I talked about that last time, Mr McGrath raised the issue, and other Members have spoken about it. If permits become free, a criteria-based allocation system will be rolled out regionally to ensure a fair and consistent award process. Regionally, there are 5,032 designated staff permit-holder car parking spaces, and over 11,600 staff have been allocated staff parking permits. Those spaces can be shared by part-time staff and hybrid and shift workers. I have committed and will commit in answer to Members' questions today that all 11,606 permits will be made free of charge if a deferral period is agreed. They will become free of charge on 12 May. Access to a parking permit is currently awarded on a non-criteria-based system in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and the Northern Health and Social Care Trust. In those trusts, permits have been awarded to staff on a waiting list on a solely first come, first served basis. The Western Health and Social Care Trust does not operate a staff permit system, as the use of the vast majority of its car parking spaces is already free of charge. Criteria-based permit allocation is preferable, as it provides a mechanism by which the staff who most need a car parking permit are prioritised fairly and equitably. Due to limited capacity, not all staff who meet the criteria for a parking permit will have access to one initially, with many staff being placed on a waiting list. Criteria-based permit allocation is preferable because it provides a mechanism by which the staff who are in most need of car parking permits are prioritised, I have, as the Member identified, directed all trusts to roll out criteria-based permit allocations. The Belfast Trust's eligibility criteria include being required to use a private vehicle on a daily basis to deliver patient or client care; to provide regular clinics; to provide services at more than one site; to participate in a scheduled on-call rota; to manage service staff on more than one site; to hold a blue badge through disability; and to undertake cross-site working. The additional criteria will include the requirement to carry out shift working regularly scheduled to start before 7.30 am or finish after 7.30 pm; working permanently on night duty; being a registered car sharer who is actively sharing on a daily basis; having a public transport journey that involves one or more changes including park and ride and that exceeds one hour of commuting; or being a parent, guardian or carer who uses a private vehicle to transport children or provide caring responsibilities on the way to or from a base site and public transport is not available. Income criteria are currently not applied in the Belfast Trust or the South Eastern Trust. I note that many lower-paid workers tend to live closer to their workplace at the minute, and that information is coming from our trust staff. Staff permits are currently allocated on a needs basis, including on the basis of shift working, disability and the time and distance required to travel to the workplace. My intention is to apply the criteria consistently. Diane Dodds raised a query from the Children's Health Coalition about children with long-term conditions. I indicated at Second Stage that a number of conditions met the criteria for accessing permits. I will now ask that the trusts and my officials who are present engage with the Member and the Children's Health Coalition to see what more work we can do to make sure that eligible parents get full access to the permit system, because that is a criterion that I want to see maintained. I will take interventions at this stage, initially from the Chair of the Health Committee.
1,201 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- 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-qualifying 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:03 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.