Debate contribution: Hospital Parking Charges Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .

MLA
Mr Mike Nesbitt
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
10 March 2026
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Hospital Parking Charges Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5436940

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to open the debate. At the outset, I thank my Executive colleagues for their support in bringing the Bill to the Assembly. I also thank the Health Committee. While I readily accept that many colleagues in the House will be disappointed by the Bill, the inescapable fact is that our health and social care services face an unprecedented financial challenge. The aim of the deferral is to protect the delivery of front-line services from a loss of income should parking charges be abolished. As Members will recall, the Hospital Parking Charges Act 2022 prohibits the imposition of charges for parking vehicles in hospital car parks. The Act was originally due to come into operation on 12 May 2024. Its main policy objective was to abolish hospital car parking charges across Health and Social Care (HSC) hospital sites in Northern Ireland for staff, patients and visitors. The 2022 Act was agreed by the Assembly with the best of intentions to reduce the financial burden on those who need to park at a hospital. At that time, it was a worthy aim. However, as the financial environment has grown more challenging, we have to recognise the impact of that loss of revenue at a time when literally every penny counts. Subsequent to the Act receiving Royal Assent in May 2022, the health and social care trusts made good progress in preparing for its implementation to the original timescale. However, in early 2024, a need was identified for a two-year deferral due to contractual issues and to provide sufficient time to have the necessary infrastructure in place.

Over the past two years, the trusts have undertaken further work to prepare for the Act coming into operation. For example, a new traffic management system is being implemented regionally to control parking, preserve blue-light routes and protect designated spaces in the absence of charging.

I want to be very clear that the deferral is not being sought because we are not ready to implement the Act. The trusts would have been ready to abolish the charges in May. The investment will not be wasted. Plainly, the new equipment will be needed when charges are abolished, and, in the meantime, the new systems will provide much-needed data and management reports on car park usage, and that will allow trusts to make evidence-based decisions to increase efficiencies in their car parks and better manage the available space. Although the trusts are willing and able to implement the abolition of car parking charges, the financial circumstances have now changed materially. Looking to the years ahead, the health and social care sector faces an unprecedented challenge, with the situation even more serious than it has been recently. The overall financial deficit facing the health and social care sector in 2026-27 is estimated at around £800 million, and it will grow further in subsequent years. That means that it is simply not possible for the health service to keep operating in the same way as it has been. Difficult decisions will need to be made across every part of the HSC sector. In that context, the abolition of hospital car parking charges would simply be unaffordable. It would require me to make decisions to reduce services to patients and their families to cover the £7 million in lost revenue every year. To be frank, the proposed approach set out in the Bill will not be the last time that I will need to make a difficult decision, and while £7 million on its own will not solve all the financial problems, the fact is that financial sustainability will require many small steps because there is no silver bullet. While I might take pride in some of the new initiatives and projects that I have announced during my time as Minister, being in the Government is not just about making the positive and popular decisions; it is about making the necessary ones. At a time when the Treasury is conducting an open-book review of the budgets of all Northern Ireland Departments, it is important to show that the Executive and the Assembly take their financial responsibilities seriously. I could not allow one of the first discoveries of the Treasury's open-book review to be that we had willingly surrendered £7 million. Turning to the details of the Bill, rather than specifying a date on which the 2022 Act will come into operation, the Bill indicates that it will subsequently be specified by regulation. Although I am confident that the challenging financial position can be addressed, I also know that it will take time. I hope that the necessary steps will be taken over the next three years to return our health and social care sector to a financially sustainable position, while protecting and enhancing the priority care that is delivered. For that reason, the Bill includes provision for a deferral of up to three years, but if the financial circumstances turn out to be better than expected, and sustainability is achieved at an earlier date, the Bill includes provision for the 2022 Act to come into operation at an earlier date, with May 2029 as the backstop. The Bill includes a provision that approval of the revised operational date for the Act will be sought by way of a statutory rule, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the Assembly. The affirmative resolution procedure, instead of the negative resolution, will provide an opportunity for the Assembly to debate and improve any draft statutory rule. During the deferral periods, staff parking permits will remain free of charge, and a needs-based system will apply to ensure that staff with the greatest need are provided with free, on-site parking. In October, I circulated the initial draft of an Executive paper to ministerial colleagues to seek their approval for the deferral of parking charges in order to protect front-line services. That was followed by further versions of the paper over the following months in my attempt to secure a discussion at the Executive. However, it was not until the Executive met on 26 February this year that I was finally able to secure Executive approval. The delay from the Executive meant that it was necessary to secure approval of the Bill by accelerated passage. That is because of the importance of securing Royal Assent in advance of 12 May, when the Act is currently due to come into operation. Although the timescales for approving the legislation remain tight, and the risk remains that charges will be abolished for a short period, Members will see that that eventuality is accounted for in the Bill, with the deferral coming into operation when the legislation secures Royal Assent. Departmental officials will continue to liaise with those responsible in the trusts to ensure that they are prepared for that eventuality. In concluding, I give credit to those who are responsible for the often unglamorous but vital work of managing our hospital car parks. Having put a lot of time and effort into preparing for the abolition of charging, they will have to change tack. I know that Members supported that measure for the best of motives, reflecting a genuine desire to show solidarity with health service staff, patients and patients' families and friends. However, the House needs to balance that benefit against the impact on vital services if it is not possible to offset the lost income with other funding. I therefore ask you all to support the Bill.

1,250 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: 0.02 (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 (0.94).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • 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 framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.02At 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
No identity-related subject0.96
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.04
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 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