Debate contribution: Hospital Parking Charges Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 10 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Hospital Parking Charges Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5436980
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is sometimes difficult to know whether to laugh or cry in the Chamber, to be honest. I am often accused of being cynical or negative, but it is the job of an official Opposition sometimes to say things that are pretty obvious — not "emperor has no clothes" stuff but stuff that is blindingly obvious. When the Assembly previously passed legislation on hospital car parking — I was a Member then — it is true to say that there was no formal Division. For obvious reasons, no one said, "No". It was the last thing that we did before people got in their cars and raced out to put posters up — in fact, posters were probably already going up at that point — and hand out leaflets.
The very last Act that was passed in the 2017-2022 mandate was — I will just get the correct title: I do not want to misquote for the purposes of Hansard — the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. That Act abolished hospital car parking charges. That was the last thing that we did in the previous mandate. Leaving aside Budgets, what was the first thing that we did in the 2022-27 mandate? Well, we passed the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2024, which delayed the implementation of the last piece of legislation from the previous mandate. That, in itself, was an absurd and farcical situation: the first piece of legislation that we passed was one that delayed the last piece of legislation that we had passed in the previous mandate. As legislators, who must be aware of the extraordinarily low levels of public trust in this institution, we all have to acknowledge that that is not good practice, to put it mildly. In fact, it is shambolic. We now have a 2026 Bill that, I assume, will shortly become a 2026 Act through accelerated passage, by which we are, once again, delaying the implementation of the 2022 Act. People will ask questions about the merit of the initial proposal. There are clear merits in the initial proposal, in the sense that hard-pressed people, particularly low-paid healthcare workers and people who are in vulnerable situations because they are facing care or going to hospital appointments, would rather not have to pay hospital parking fees. Nobody challenges that, which is why nobody challenged the Bill when it went through in 2022. However, there is a problem with our credibility as legislators when we come in here, pass laws, create social media content and go out and tell the world that we have abolished hospital car parking charges, and then keep delaying it. The public were promised that hospital parking charges would be abolished. They were promised it not just via a motion or ministerial statement but by an Act. We are legislators; we created a statutory obligation for the Minister to abolish parking charges. Let me say this: I do not hold the Minister responsible for the delay.
I will give way in one second. The Minister is in an extraordinarily difficult situation. However, the Assembly made a promise to workers and patients. We have then repeatedly delayed it. It is no use coming in here and saying, "We have to think about healthcare workers and patients". We should have thought of them when Members were going out, making social media content and giving out leaflets in 2022 saying, "We have abolished hospital car parking charges", which we then repeatedly delayed. We wonder why people think that this place is a Mickey Mouse Assembly or that it is toytown. That is not the Opposition's being cynical, nor is it the media that is doing that: we are doing it ourselves with things like this — genuinely. Members will probably find that uncomfortable. Once again, the SDLP is in the position of standing up and saying what the public already think. That is our job as the official Opposition. We have no problem doing that. I will give way briefly to Mr Carroll. There is not much more to say.
There is certainly a point about referring to financial constraints without being specific. I appreciate that the Health Minister and the Finance Minister are under pressure. We were told, when we came back here in 2024, that there would be a plan for transformation and that there would be healthcare transformation. I think that the Health Minister wants to do that, and he has made some progress. However, the Executive writ large have made very little progress on delivering transformation. It is not just me who says that: representatives of Executive parties have said it on multiple occasions. I will get back to the Hospital Parking Charges Bill of 2026. This is becoming almost biennial — if that is every two years. It is like the Ryder Cup: it comes round every two years. We promise the public that we will abolish hospital car parking charges. We then introduce a law delaying the banning of hospital car parking charges. Members are shaking their heads and looking disapprovingly at me. How dare I stand up and say that that is nonsense? It is nonsense. If you are a healthcare worker or someone with a chronic condition who was expecting free parking and was promised it by people here, and those people keep passing laws to delay it, it is nonsense. We should accept that it is nonsense. We should grow up. When we pass laws here, we should be honest with the public about what we are doing. That is what being a legislator is about. It is not about passing laws and then delaying them, making promises that we then do not keep or passing Mickey Mouse and meaningless motions. It is about taking responsibility for the public who sent us here, not shifting blame. I think that I have said enough.
981 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.04 (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 (0.69).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.76 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.15 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
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.