Robin Swann
North Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his detailed statement. I know how passionate he is about the subject and how many times he has brought it to the Executive.”
“It has been reported that today will potentially be the warmest day of the year. As we move into the summer and our summer holidays, I want to raise public awareness of wildfires across Northern Ireland, which have been detrimental to farmland and our environment over the past number of years.”
“Wildfires are still having a detrimental impact on our environment and, occasionally, on livestock, but that reduction shows the impact of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service's proactive approach to educating the general public and engaging with rural communities and schools on its fire safety message, which is to stay alert, not…”
“There has been a lot of talk of sport in this place over the past few days, with everybody concentrating on UEFA. One sport that is going on across Northern Ireland at the minute is cross-community and goes across all age groups without fear, favour or distinction: pigeon racing.”
“I want to put on record that, since this place passed the amendment that recognised pigeon racing as a sport under the 2016 Act, over the past five years, pigeon racing clubs across Northern Ireland have been able to obtain £113,000 of rates rebates through the sports and recreation rate relief, allowing many of those clubs to continue ra…”
“There was much coverage on social media over the weekend of an incident in Staines in England, in which a police car rammed a young calf to bring it under control. It has restarted the conversation about animal cruelty. <BR /> <BR />I am dealing with a specific case in my constituency.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,640 lines we hold for Robin Swann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 113.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this question for urgent oral answer. <BR /> <BR />I recognise and applaud the vital work of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice and all hospices in Northern Ireland. Last week, my officials engaged in detailed discussions with the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice. It is clear to me that the financial pressures facing the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice go much deeper than any reduction of departmental support. The reduction involved the ending last summer of an additional but temporary annual payment of £170,000.”
“I confirm that I am willing to take up the office of Minister of Health, and I affirm the terms of the Pledge of Office as set out in schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
“The Act is not about that but about Dáithí Mac Gabhann, his family and others across Northern Ireland who are waiting on a transplant.”
“However, if that is not to be, for those who are waiting on a life-saving transplant and those who would be able to be donors, let us not, in this place, fail them, but instead do all that we can to keep the tone and tenor with which this debate has started. The debate so far is a credit to the Members who have spoken in it and stands in contrast with some of the rancorous exchanges that we have heard in previous recalls.”
“The fighting spirit that the former First Minister referred to was shown when Dáithí put a right hook on his chin. With regard to the legislation and the discourse that we have had on it, I am sure that many have wanted to be in the same position. <BR /> <BR />If we do not have the political ability to deliver commencement of the legislation today, I ask for surety from those who have influence and can actually make a difference by bringing legislation through Westminster. The former First Minister was right: we have seen the Secretary of State and Westminster act at pace on many other pieces of legislation. This should not be a stumbling block to him or Westminster. I would prefer that it was done in the Chamber, in the spirit in which the legislation was brought forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Act still sits on time and on schedule, but it needs the additional step of positive affirmation of regulations that have been laid by the Department of Health. I thank the Department of Health officials who have played their role in ensuring that everything is in line for the legislation to be fully enacted. It does not look like that will be done today, so I ask that the Secretary of State and those whom he listens to ensure that it goes through Westminster as seamlessly as it went through this place. <BR /> <BR />Our former First Minister talked about Dáithí, Máirtín and Seph, and especially about Dáithí's fighting spirit. The former First Minister and deputy First Minister will remember well the day when we met the family at Stormont Castle and told them that we were bringing forward the legislation.”
“That is what Dáithí's law was: an Act that offered the opportunity not just to save lives, but to change lives. I still have my copy here, which was actually signed by Dáithí on the day that it went through its Final Stage in the Assembly. I pay tribute to Dáithí and his parents for the way in which they brought forward their fight and campaign for the Act. That legislation was one of my proudest achievements as Health Minister, due to the way in which the Assembly was able to bring it through. The former First Minister referred to how quickly, once there was a change in mindset, this place reacted collectively to take the Bill through all its stages within seven months and see it produced as law.”
“Often, we say in this place — I have heard it in discourse, especially over the past nine to 12 months — that we all want to keep politics out of health. Unfortunately, in the discourse leading up to the debate, it seems that we have been unable to keep health out of party politics. I want to start by welcoming the contributions of the three Members who have spoken so far, who have led the debate with the necessary tenor and tone. That is how the Act was brought through the Assembly. I remember it well. Long before the Act was delivered, my party colleague Jo-Anne Dobson attempted to bring through a private Member's Bill. Such legislation has not always had easy sailing through the Assembly. I want to quote Jo-Anne on where we are. She said, in a piece in today's 'Belfast Telegraph', that”
“It is a privilege to do that as my final contribution as Health Minister in this Assembly mandate. It is fitting that this Bill is the final piece of business in this mandate, because it will be life-changing and will give that surety. It would have been challenging for many of those listening, to whom Ms Dillon referred, if the legislation had not been delivered and was put off until another mandate or put on the long finger. It is right that we have this private Member's Bill, and it is also right that it was granted accelerated passage, which was supported by you, Mr Speaker, the offices and all parties across the House. I have great pleasure in endorsing the private Member's Bill.”
“As Ms Bradley said, when it comes to your legacy as Speaker, the Bill stands among the greatest testaments to you: you enabled us to bring the private Member's Bill through, and it was done in such a collaborative way by all parties in the House. <BR /> <BR />In addition, as Health Minister, I give my personal thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for the support that you have given me in the Chamber. I am probably the Minister who has been in the Chamber the most — possibly nearly as much as you at times. You have managed some challenging debates and legislation, and I thank you for your impartiality and for how you and your team have managed those. <BR /> <BR />It remains for me to thank once again my Assembly colleague Mr Chambers and other Members for their tenacity in securing this important legislation, to which I give my wholehearted support.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have thanked the Bill sponsor, but I take the opportunity to also thank my Department's officials who engaged in this process with the Bill sponsor and with Members who proposed amendments. It was the same dedicated team of officials as brought forward the Adoption and Children Bill at the same time. I place on record their commitment to getting us to Final Stage today. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, like others, I thank you for your support. I thank you and your office for facilitating our getting the Bill through so many stages as quickly as we have in the final days and weeks of the mandate. It means a lot to the people who are listening and seeking the surety of the preservation of information held across the institutions.”
“Given the collaboration and commitment shown by Members across the House in progressing the Bill through the Assembly, I am confident that there will be continued cross-party support for achieving that outcome. <BR /> <BR />It is my hope and expectation that the statutory inquiry recommended by the truth recovery design panel will provide the answers that are so desperately needed. There are also powers in the Adoption and Children Bill, which the Assembly passed recently, to make regulations that will empower the Department of Health to strengthen and clarify provisions governing access to information about adoptions that took place prior to that legislation's commencement. Victims and survivors will play an important role in the process.”
“That means having access to the life details that most of us have always known about ourselves: where and when you were born, who your family are, who cared for you as an infant, what happened to your mother and where you spent your early years. Those are just some of the unanswered questions that victims and survivors have had to live with and that are so important to an individual's sense of identity. The Bill presents an important step towards securing the answers that so many mothers, their sons and daughters and their wider family have been seeking for so many years. <BR /> <BR />The passage of the Bill, although significant, is just one step in the process. Much remains to be done to achieve the justice, accountability and truth that are so urgently needed.”
“<BR /> <BR />I say this to those victims and survivors and their family members: I know that no words can adequately convey the emotional and psychological hurt and distress that you have suffered, not only in the institutions where you or your relatives spent time but in the years since, during which many of you have been seeking the information that you need to understand your origins or the identity of a family member. I can only express the hope that the statutory protection provided by the legislation that we will pass today will offer you and your family some reassurance for the future. <BR /> <BR />The right to know who you are is a fundamental human right.”
“I also commend the Members who supported the Bill's progress in such a challenging time frame. In particular, I acknowledge the commitment of Linda Dillon and Paula Bradshaw, who listened to the needs and experiences of victims and survivors of the historical institutions and responded with constructive amendments. Those amendments widen the range of information that is protected by the Bill and that can therefore be made available to a forthcoming inquiry or investigation or to individuals who are seeking information about their or a family member's origins.”
“I, too, am immensely grateful to my party colleague Alan Chambers, thanks to whose initiative and commitment the Assembly has been able to conclude the mandate with the passage of such important legislation through his private Member's Bill.”
“I thank her again for sponsoring the private Member's Bill.”
“Anything less than the two-year implementation period would certainly have caused major disruption to the running of our hospital car park sites, which would have had a detrimental impact on service delivery at those sites. As Mr Chambers highlighted, the implementation time frame will also allow my Department to prepare for a reduction in income and to identify any as yet unidentified costs associated with passing the Bill. <BR /> <BR />When the Bill passes Final Stage today, which, as Mr Carroll indicated, is probable, my Department will be duty-bound and legally required to comply with any change to legislation. I assure Members that my officials will work with the health and social care trusts to implement the changes as directed by the Bill and the House and as brought forward by the Member.”
“<BR /> <BR />At present, there is not enough space to provide free parking for everyone, particularly at sites where space is limited. Sufficient time is therefore required to put in place any necessary provisions to deal with capacity. The agreed extended implementation period will allow our health and social care trusts, in partnership with my Department, to agree and finalise the new policy to direct and drive consistency regionally across all our hospital sites. <BR /> <BR />As Mrs Erskine commented, the implementation period will enable not only staff, patient and visitor involvement but collaboration with other, related Departments on infrastructure, such as public transport solutions, and on the House's commitments on climate change.”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank Members for supporting the Department's amendments at Further Consideration Stage to ensure that the prohibition is delivered in the best way possible, that its terms are simpler to follow and that it is expressed in ordinary language. It is clear how many important issues the Bill touches on and how important it is that we get it right. What we are talking about will impact on the lives of staff, patients and visitors. <BR /> <BR />Although elements of the Bill will undoubtedly present challenges and require significant resource from the Department and health and social care trusts, the extended commencement date will ensure that proper consideration can be given to what alternative arrangements can be put in place to manage and control spaces in hospital car parks when parking charges are abolished.”
“I am pleased to be here to respond to the Final Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill. I start by commending the Bill's sponsor, Aisling Reilly, for her work on bringing the Bill through the legislative process and all of its stages in the House. I acknowledge, as others did, Fra McCann for initially introducing it during his tenure. I also commend the members of the Health Committee for their commitment to scrutinising and progressing the Bill, those who give evidence and my departmental officials, who engaged both with the Health Committee and the sponsor to bring us to the legislation that is in front of us today.”
“If necessary, as the Member also indicated in her interaction with my officials, the prescribing power at clause 2(3) can be used to capture the intention behind that. <BR /> <BR />Once again, I am grateful to Members for their input to the Bill and, in particular, I extend my thanks to Ms Bradshaw for her reconsideration of the four amendments before us today, but also for the two that she has moved that we are able to support.”
“Amendment Nos 4 and 5 sought to capture a body that has a connection to a relevant institution but is external to it. My understanding is that those amendments were intended to capture, for example, a church institution that facilitated a child's adoption or foster care. A statutory body undertaking that function is already captured under clause 2(3)(d). Clause 2(3)(d) will also capture a non-statutory body that held some responsibility for the health, care or welfare of a woman or her child. While I support the intention behind the amendments, I cannot support the way they have been drafted — helpfully, the Member indicated that in her speech — because, in our opinion, they corrupted the definition of "relevant institution" and ran the risk of rendering the Bill incompetent.”
“Clause 3, which defines "relevant information", likewise refers in numerous places to "relevant institution", or simply to "institution". <BR /> <BR />The definition of "relevant institution" is intended to capture the places where women and their children resided, received care, worked, gave birth to children and had decisions taken about them. Other persons or bodies with a connection to the institution but external to it are captured at clause 2(3). They include, for example, the health and social care trust that may have arranged children's care subsequent to their separation from their mother, an adoption agency — statutory or voluntary — that was involved in making the arrangements for child adoptions, a resident's parent, a GP and a member of the clergy who communicated with the resident or with an institution.”
“Information relating to the care and accommodation of children when they were separated from their mother is specified at clause 3(4), because that should be read in conjunction with clause 3(5). <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment Nos 4 and 5. I am grateful to Ms Bradshaw for indicating that she does not intend to move them. Again, I would not have been able to support them, because, in my view and that of departmental officials, they are technically incorrect. That is largely to do with their positioning in the Bill. Both amendments are to clause 4, which provides a definition of "relevant institution". All the other definitions in the Bill are related to that definition. Clause 2, which defines "relevant document", refers in a number of places to "relevant institution".”
“<BR /> <BR />Reference has been made to institutions in the Republic of Ireland, to which we know that some women went. Although the reach of the Bill cannot extend beyond this jurisdiction, any relevant information relating to a woman or child held in this jurisdiction that was created either by the institution in which they resided between 1922 and 1995 or by the persons or bodies listed at clause 2(3) is captured by the duty to preserve and not destroy at clause 1. That includes relevant information that may have been created after 1995. Members will note that information relating to a resident's departure from a relevant institution is specified at clause 3(3)(b).”
“<BR /> <BR />The Member indicated her intention, on further consideration of the matter, not to move amendment Nos 2 and 6, for which I am grateful. We are trying through the Bill to capture information relating to the institutions, not just information held by them. Although information held by them is captured by the duty at clause 1 to preserve and not destroy, it matters not that the information was created before or after the relevant period. What matters is that the information relates to the women and children or to the institutions themselves during the period in which we know that they were in operation. Members will note that some time to allow for the full winding-up of the institution has been built into the definition of "relevant period".”
“Members will note that both amendments refer in very broad terms to "deceased persons". Their intention may have been more accurately captured by making the connection with residents of the relevant institutions or their children, but, given the stage that we are at, Members will need to decide whether to accept the amendments as drafted. Unfortunately, the alternative is for amendment Nos 1 and 3 to be voted down and for the prescribing power at clause 2(3) to be used, in conjunction with the prescribing power at clause 3(3), to deliver what the Member intends. That having been said, I am content, on balance, to support amendment Nos 1 and 3, given the significance of the information that they seek to require be given.”
“According to information published in the media, the response to the request indicated that the bodies of at least 27 children were donated to Queen's University Belfast for medical research in the middle decades of the 20th century. It was also reported, however, that the number may have been higher. On the basis that the information was found to be held and then disclosed under freedom of information legislation, it could be argued that it is unnecessary to include the provision. That having been said, it is, of course, a significant matter, which I accept is likely to be of significant interest to a future statutory inquiry. <BR /> <BR />If amendment Nos 1 and 3 had been tabled at Consideration Stage, that might have given Members the opportunity to examine them and make any necessary adjustments.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not consider that all the amendments that were tabled for today will achieve what they were intended to achieve, and, for that reason, I set those out. I am grateful to Ms Bradshaw for her reconsideration of the implications of a number of her amendments, her detailed engagement with departmental officials and her indication that she does not intend to move amendment Nos 2, 4, 5 or 6. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 1 and 3 relate to and rely on each other and, as Ms Bradshaw has explained their purpose, I now understand that they were prompted by a freedom of information request that was submitted to Queen's University Belfast, the purpose of which was to establish whether the bodies of children had been donated by mother-and-baby homes, workhouses or hospitals to the university.”
“A number of Members have already referenced the work of the panel. I place on record my thanks for the work that they completed, not just in publishing the report and the recommendations but the engagement process that they facilitated to allow us to get to this stage today, where we are seeing that continued all-party support for their work and the outworkings of the Bill. I fully appreciate that the timescale for the Bill's passage has been extremely tight, allowing little time for detailed scrutiny or the production of amendments. However, that should not prevent the House from striving to ensure that the Bill remains fit for purpose, as was the intention of its sponsor, Mr Alan Chambers.”
“The comments by all parties indicating support for the amendments that I have tabled at Further Consideration Stage are welcome. <BR /> <BR />Should the legislation be enacted, my Department will be duty-bound and legally required to comply with any changes. It will work with health and social care trusts to implement the changes directed by the Bill. I commend the amendments in my name.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of Members referred to working with the Department for Infrastructure and to public transport solutions to make sure that, as we enact this Bill, we recognise the climate change commitments made by Members and parties in other pieces of legislation to make sure that everything works together. Proper consideration needs to be given to the alternative arrangements that would be put in place at each site, because each site will have its own challenges and opportunities to manage and control spaces in hospital car parks, should car parking charges be abolished via the Bill. The House will remember that my amendments at Consideration Stage were not accepted in full, and that was why I did not move those that were.”
“Everyone knows that attending hospital can be very stressful. There is a concern that, if parking becomes unrestricted, spaces will be filled in the morning, and that this will only add to the anxiety of a hospital visit. I know from personal experience of trying to get a car parking space at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children that, as you enter the car park, you see a sign that says, "If you are delayed for your appointment, ring this number", because that is already such a regular occurrence. That is why we tabled the amendment that provides for an extension of two years to get procedures and things in place to make sure that this actually works as intended.”
“I thank Members for their contributions. Again, I put on record my thanks to Miss Reilly for her engagement and the open door that she referenced in the interaction between my departmental officials and her, as the Bill sponsor. I also thank, of course, her predecessor, Fra McCann, for introducing the Bill. It is clear just how many important issues the Bill touches on. Those issues have been raised again today at Further Consideration Stage, just as they were raised at earlier stages. How important it is that we get this legislation right. What we are talking about today will impact on the lives of staff, patients and visitors.”
“I commend the amendments to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />An extended implementation time frame would allow my Department to prepare for a reduction in income, to identify any as yet unidentified costs associated with the passage of the Bill and to identify other spending that may need to be stopped in order to make the abolition of parking charges affordable. In addition, given the current COVID-19 pressures on the Department and trusts and severely stretched and under-resourced staffing levels, the staffing resources are currently not available to ensure the full implementation of a new car parking policy within six months. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 amends the long title. The change to the long title is merely technical in order to reflect the restating of the provisions to reach the result that is wanted. Currently, the long title states that it is a Bill to:”
“My Department previously outlined potential areas for further clarification and discussion prior to the implementation of the Bill. Significantly, the Department is already facing a substantial funding gap in its future years' financial position, and, given existing financial commitments, the Department will need to identify funding to absorb the loss of revenue from the abolition of car parking charges. At present, there is also not sufficient space to provide free car parking for everyone, and that is particularly the case at sites where spaces are limited. Implementing free car parking provision prior to giving the matter due consideration may have unintended consequences.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Belfast Trust has advised that, once parking charges are abolished, due to the current capacity issues, it would still need to apply a form of access control to ensure that car parking is available for service users when needed and for those staff who are not able to avail themselves of alternative travel options. That will require the full implementation of new staff car parking access criteria across all sites where car parking charges currently apply to staff. It is estimated that that could take up to around nine months for full implementation. <BR /> <BR />Anything less than a two-year implementation time would most certainly cause major disruption to the running of hospital car parking sites, which would have a real detrimental impact on service delivery on those sites.”
“The solution will need to take account of the urgent nature of many attendances and the capacity of all motorists to engage with the necessary technology. That will require research and scoping; an equality assessment; consultation with all stakeholders; preparation of a business case and securing the necessary funding; a procurement exercise; a programme of installation for the infrastructure across all sites; recruitment of personnel as necessary for each site to operate the verification arrangements; implementation of any new systems; and awareness raising of the new arrangements followed by a period of monitoring and modification as necessary. An enforcement process to clamp vehicles that are parked on site and not registered will also need to be developed.”
“That will also enable staff, patient and visitor involvement, and collaboration with other related Departments on infrastructure, public transport solutions and climate change commitments. <BR /> <BR />Our health and social care trusts will also need to identify how best to facilitate access to car parks for patients and their relatives, while preventing parking by staff or others for whom the facilities are not intended. That solution will need to be applied to all sites where the demand for car parking exceeds the number of available spaces.”
“<BR /> <BR />It has always been the primary objective of the health and social care trusts to ensure that persons invited or in need of their services can safely access our sites with minimal delay. Should the legal requirements simply require that hospital parking be free, the only means to deliver that objective within the current stipulated time frame will be to open the barriers without any capacity controls. That will inevitably lead to operational issues and access concerns. <BR /> <BR />An extended implementation period will allow our health and social care trusts, in partnership with my Department, to regionally agree and finalise a new policy to direct and drive consistency across all hospital sites.”
“Proper consideration needs to be given to what alternative arrangements need to be put in place to manage and control spaces in hospital car parks, should the charges be abolished through the Bill. Alternative parking management solutions will need to be carefully researched to establish how effective they would be at controlling the management of spaces, congestion and the cost implications. At present, there is not enough space to provide free parking for everyone, particularly at sites where space is limited, so sufficient time is required to put in place any necessary provisions to deal with capacity. Our health and social care trusts remain concerned that, if the Bill is enacted, the time frame currently proposed is insufficient for a carefully considered plan to address capacity issues.”
“It is hoped, with real-life end users of the Bill in mind, that the new clause 1 will be simpler to follow on its own terms and in ordinary language. <BR /> <BR />The amendments to clause 2 relate to the commencement date. Following consultation with the health and social care trusts, I am proposing an amendment to the commencement date of the Bill which will extend the length of time available to the Department and the health and social care trusts to implement clause 1 of the Bill. I am proposing that the Act come into operation at the end of a 24-month period following Royal Assent. Clause 2 currently states that:”
“<BR /> <BR />New article 3A(4), proposed in the existing clause 1, has not been included in my amended clause 1 because the Bill is purely about the prohibition of charging, so the availability of parking capacity is something that lies, and is for due consideration, outside the strict confines of the Bill. Therefore, the prohibition of parking charges is not to be taken by a health and social care trust as the basis for reducing the amount of parking space to be provided at a hospital for the benefit of people who have reason to attend the hospital in a relevant capacity, but it should not limit the ability of the trusts to determine, from time to time, in light of all relevant factors, what represents the appropriate amount of parking space to be provided at a hospital for the benefit of such people.”
“That ensures that the references to hospitals are to be taken fairly widely for the purposes of making sure to catch wider facilities than just those for inpatient treatment. Hospitals where the prohibition applies are, of course, to be our National Health Service hospitals, and that is achieved by referring in the definition of "hospitals" to those under the responsibility of health and social care trusts. Some useful narrative is added for ease of understanding, by reference to hospital premises, as to what hospital car parks are and what sort of parking in hospital car parks is legitimate in context. That is when attending hospitals for relevant reasons as workers, patients or visitors, for example.”
“Workers, patients and visitors to hospitals are still mentioned expressly, but there is a better focus on who those people are. For example, the reference to workers is expanded to clarify that all relevant workers of different kinds are covered, including where described as employees or service providers. The reference to visitors is embellished to ensure that only bona fide visitors are covered, but also making sure that those people who are dropping off or picking up workers, patients or visitors are similarly covered, just as actual visitors are. <BR /> <BR />Again, "hospitals" as a type of institution needed to be defined. That is done by adopting a definition that is recognised in the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which is cited.”
“Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause 1 gets straight to the prohibition so as to cover, in fairly neat terms, everything that is done by paragraphs (1) to (3) of proposed new article 3A in the existing clause 1. <BR /> <BR />The result of amending clause 1 is that, just as in the existing clause 1, no one can charge for parking of vehicles by workers, patients and visitors at hospitals.”
“<BR /> <BR />The advice from the Office of the Legislative Counsel is that the fuller details surrounding the prohibition do benefit from adjustment so as to ensure that the prohibition is delivered in the best way possible for the sake of giving the Bill all the necessary legal and practical certainty. The prohibition can be stated in free-standing text in the Bill without inserting the text into the existing legislation, and that has the benefit of letting the Bill do the whole job by itself and without causing the readers of legislation to refer to different legislation once the Bill is enacted. The prohibition can be stated without referring to the underlying mechanisms by which charges could otherwise be imposed, be that by health and social care trusts themselves or through third-party arrangements.”
“I am pleased to be here to debate this very important issue. I start by commending the sponsor of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill, Miss Reilly, for her work on the Bill to date. I also commend members of the Health Committee for their commitment to scrutinising and progressing the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Having worked closely with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), my proposed amendment to clause 1 is to provide technical refinement and improvement while continuing to place a duty on the Department of Health and on health and social care trusts not to charge for car parking. The amendment to clause 1 has been designed solely to ensure that the prohibition, with all the necessary details included, works properly in practice once the Bill's provisions are commenced.”