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 4485116
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her intervention. On her first point, as I said, I considered at the start the time frame that I would ask for in the Bill. I have carefully considered the amendments that Mr Carroll and Mr McGrath have tabled about a change of timeline. I would not be standing here asking for two years if I did not think that that was the reasonable and practical ask to make sure that we can deliver free parking without risk, and, if we can do so, we will bring forward the date.
The specific criteria are about looking at how we support the entirety of our staff base rather than focusing solely on one profession. The criteria that I listed earlier are what I want to see all trusts working towards to make sure that there is a consistent approach across all trusts. It is about those who provide regular clinics or services, hold a blue badge due to a disability, or even do cross-site working. We also look again at the shift criteria and whether it is before 7.30 am or finishing after 7.30 pm. The initial intention of the Bill was to make staff car parking free, as I would like, but we are constrained at the minute to maintaining the number of permits that we have, but we will make sure that those are accessible to as many people as possible.
Yes.
I thank the Member for his clear and astute point. If we find a point at which we can introduce it earlier, there will always be a point at which the House can change legislation —
— because we are a legislative Assembly, after all. Issues around the two-year period go back to Mrs Dodds's points on looking for a multi-year Budget that will allow those decisions to be made by the Department. The intention is that it is there for two years; that is why I set the criteria. If we can do things earlier and have the equipment and the finance in place, I hope that whoever is in this place does so. I move now to some of the other comments that were made. Mr Carroll talked about Tory austerity and certain asks to be made of the Tory Government. I am aware, as, I am sure, Members are, that the First Minister and deputy First Minister met the Secretary of State on 19 April, and have asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister on the challenges that we face. Mr Carroll said, again, that £6·5 million is not a significant sum when it comes to the Department of Health. I can assure him that, when I look at this year's budget, what we want to do, the challenges that we have and what we could be looking at next year, £6·5 million is a considerable sum. I think that I have answered Mr McGrath and the Chair's questions. Mrs Dodds asked a pertinent question at the end of her contribution about whether capital has been spent on additional car parks. I am not aware that it has, but I will ask trusts to confirm that, because, again, the capital budget line of trusts and the Department of Health is pretty tight, and I would be surprised if it was being used to buy land to simply extend the car parks estate. Danny Donnelly commented on one year versus two years, and he was supportive of the rationale as set out. I welcome his support on that. Mr Speaker, I think that I have covered the majority of the points that have been —.
Yes.
607 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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| 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 | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| 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.