Stobhill Hospital (Parking Charges)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-612, in the name of Paul Martin, on car parking charges at Stobhill hospital. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the proposal by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to introduce car parking charges at Stobhill Hospital later this year; recognises the impact that this proposal will have on the local community through inconsiderate parking by car commuters in residential areas surrounding the hospital; is concerned that current provision of public transport to and from Stobhill Hospital is insufficient, and considers that a new car parking policy that would remove car parking charges at Stobhill Hospital should be developed.
I thank all the members who supported the motion and the thousands of people from my constituency and other constituencies who signed a petition in opposition to the proposed parking charges at Stobhill hospital and who are no doubt represented in the public gallery. [Interruption.]
I ask members to check that their mobile phones are switched off.
I hear an allegation from Cathie Craigie that it might be my mobile phone that was interfering with the sound system, but it was definitely not mine.
As we enter the festive period, some of us—rather unwillingly, I must say—find ourselves in some of the shopping malls that exist throughout Scotland. I was recently struck by the quality of the car parking facilities in many shopping centres and by the fact that those facilities are provided free. That led me to compare the free car parking spaces in those facilities with the fact that our hospitals charge for car parking. It reflects poorly on society that people who visit relatives and staff who care for patients who are at a vulnerable period in their lives are charged to do so.
I will deal with several of the arguments that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has presented in respect of the implementation of car parking charges at Stobhill. I was born in Stobhill hospital and have lived in the area my entire life, but I have never known a problem with car parking at the hospital. The capacity has always been sufficient and no issues have arisen with commuters abusing the car park to use it as a park-and-ride facility to travel to Glasgow city centre.
One reason that the health board has given to justify the proposals is that they would fit with the board's green transport policy. If the board cared so much about its green transport policy, why has it not put in place what is required to deliver it? Not one additional bus service will be delivered by 25 November, not one cycle shed will be in place—which is a Glasgow City Council requirement—and there will be no showering facilities for those who wish to cycle to work. The health board has implemented no element of the green transport policy.
That is another example of how Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board puts its policies first and worries later about the policies that will have to follow. It is unacceptable. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to say in her summing up that she will ensure that the health board puts in place its green transport policy before it implements the car parking charges at Stobhill hospital.
For many years, Stobhill hospital has enjoyed the support of the community and has had an effective and constructive relationship with it. However, there is already evidence that that relationship will be put at risk if the car parking charges are implemented. There is evidence that building contractors who are involved in the ambulatory care and diagnostic unit project are parking in the surrounding area and that those who wish to evade paying the charges will do likewise. Despite the fact that I, and other elected members, have made representations to senior health board staff on that issue, they have not been able to deal with it.
We are aware of the tensions that car parking can cause, particularly when people park outside their own residential area. That will be a consequence of the implementation of car parking charges at Stobhill. I call on the cabinet secretary to meet me and the local residents who will be affected, so that she can hear about the problem at first hand. I note that she visited the hospital to launch the new ACAD unit, which I welcome. However, she also has to meet the people who are concerned about this issue. I hope that she will make a commitment today to do so.
The health board has confirmed that it will make proposals for a private company to enforce the car parking policy. When the parish council built Stobhill hospital in 1899 to ensure that poor people could access health facilities, I am sure that it did not expect that 100 years later we would not only impose car parking charges on those who are already financially disadvantaged but use private companies to enforce those charges. I ask the cabinet secretary to join me in condemning such use of private contractors and to ensure that those who are already financially disadvantaged are assisted.
Far too often in members' business debates there is no clarity in the minister's response. I call on the cabinet secretary to suspend the introduction of charges at Stobhill hospital until the board's green transport plan is put in place. That point has already been made by the hospital's medical staff association. Will she review the very principle of implementing charges at Stobhill hospital? I accept that charges might have to be implemented at some sites but not at others. Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has made it clear that it will take a blanket approach to implementing charges, which is unacceptable.
Will the cabinet secretary carry out a review of the impact that charges will have on the surrounding community? The current review of hospital car parking charges is wide ranging, but it does not cover specifically the challenges that Stobhill hospital will face.
The strength of opposition to the charges is something that I have not seen since the save Stobhill campaign. A number of representations from unions, communities and elected representatives have been made. I ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that their views are considered seriously.
Before I call other members to speak, I remind them that the debate is about parking at Stobhill hospital—the motion is quite specific.
I congratulate Paul Martin on securing this debate on an important matter. I apologise to him and to members that I will have to leave when I finish speaking, as I must attend the inaugural meeting of a cross-party group. I would have liked to stay for the whole debate.
Like Paul Martin, I was born in north Springburn. When I was nine, I moved to the Milton scheme; I lived there until I was 21, when I moved to Bishopbriggs. I have only recently moved from that area, so I am very familiar with Stobhill hospital. To this day, my doctor's surgery is in the Milton scheme. That is where my heart is. I might live somewhere else, but I come from Springburn. I know exactly the feeling that comes from Paul Martin's heart.
I heard what the Presiding Officer said before I rose to speak, but this goes for all hospitals: they are not happy places, in general. My experience of Stobhill hospital has not been happy. The things that happen to families that cause them to go to hospitals are usually traumatic, whether they involve injury, severe illness or death. However, we all have some affection for hospitals.
The last thing that I would have been thinking about when I was at the hospital, on any of my visits there, would have been parking charges. Further, the last thing that health boards should be thinking about is revenue from parking.
I must add a health warning. In my business, I see what can happen to cars that are parked in streets and uncontrolled areas. Unfortunately, in the age that we live in, hospital car parks are beginning to be such uncontrolled areas. The amount of vandalism and theft that takes place in those circumstances is enormous, and there is a price to pay for that. When a car is damaged, there is a penalty because the owner has to pay for it to be fixed. When I go to a football match and a wee boy comes up to me and says, "Mister, can I watch your car?", I pay him to do so. Actually, I usually pay half up front and half when I come back, because, sometimes, I can get a 50 per cent discount that way. That is why I do not grudge paying a small charge in a hospital car park, if there is someone on the ground who is looking after the cars.
My main message, however, is this: health boards should not seek to secure revenue from parking charges. All of us would like our cars to be protected, which is why I say that a small payment is acceptable. Revenue raising from parking charges, however, is not.
I congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate. Stobhill serves his constituency, but the wider area that it serves stretches into my constituency, too. I suspect that Paul Martin and Gil Paterson will not be alone in claiming some affinity with the hospital—most of us who intend to speak in the debate probably have that kind of affinity. For the record, then, I was not born in the hospital, but I have been a patient there and I also worked in it for a brief period earlier in my working life.
One of the reasons that have been given for the imposition of car parking charges, by Tom Divers—a former colleague of mine who is now chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde—is that some of the health board's sites are log-jammed by commuters taking advantage of free parking at the hospital, which results in patients and visitors, especially the disabled, struggling to find spaces. On other sites, there is so much congestion and lack of managed parking regimes that the car parks do not serve the needs of the patients, visitors and staff. That is a rational and understandable explanation of the reasons why there are car parking charges in hospitals.
However, Stobhill is probably unique in Glasgow, as it is one of the few remaining hospitals that was built either with a fever rationale behind it or for isolation purposes—it occupies what was, at the time of its construction, a rural location and it is laid out on a grid system across a substantial acreage of ground. That layout, which persists to the present day, makes a mockery of the imposition of car parking charges on the site. It is a hospital with a generous layout and space for parking, and it does not have the kind of congestion that Tom Divers described. Ironically, as a result of that now semi-rural location, the hospital is also difficult for many people to reach, especially by public transport. I am concerned that some of the people who live in the areas that Gil Paterson mentioned—Milton, among others—have difficulty in accessing their local hospital.
What will the scheme achieve for Stobhill? It could restrict the number of visitors who are able to visit their relatives and friends while they are in-patients, and it will make the visit more difficult for those who attend as out-patients. It will discourage those members of staff who need to travel between hospitals from taking up posts, and it will—as Paul Martin rightly identified—affect the neighbouring communities, which will bear the brunt of the displaced parking from the hospital. It will also require staff who use public transport or who park their cars outwith the hospital to walk down a relatively long and ill-lit path that borders on to Springburn Park; that is not an attractive proposition, especially for those who work irregular hours. What will be achieved as a result of those plans?
I had a look at what the parking scheme says and what it will mean for individuals, and I have never seen a more complicated scheme. A number of people are exempt, including people who require longer-term treatment, people who need to visit frequently, people who are disabled and have a blue badge, people who are in receipt of benefits and credits, motorcyclists and cyclists, delivery vehicles, couriers and taxis. That is not to mention the staff categories that are also exempt. In return, we will have a complicated bureaucracy to manage the scheme; that work has already been given out to another company. For Stobhill, that is a pointless exercise. I hope that the idea of charges, particularly with regard to Stobhill, can be re-examined and reviewed once more, taking into account the specific circumstances that apply at that hospital.
As we are all aware, Stobhill is only one of the hospitals where such car parking charges are being imposed. The charges are spread across Glasgow and the Borders area, and are causing fear and misery for staff and visitors alike. As the largest trade union representing staff at Stobhill, Unison has reported that many of its members are worried about suffering financial hardship as a result of this poll tax on the earnings of hospital workers. Relatives and friends of long-stay patients, as well as those who are visiting from out of town—as mentioned earlier—will face mounting bills as they perform necessary and psychologically beneficial visits to their loved ones.
The arguments of the health board are spurious and disingenuous. It is farcical to claim that because some people are abusing Stobhill and other hospital car parks, the board needs to dissuade them from that behaviour by imposing swingeing parking charges on legitimate staff and visitors. Why should honesty be punished, and why does the board refuse to reveal the fee that it is paying to the private company that operates the scheme? Many staff travel miles to their work at Stobhill—they work shifts, often over the parking company's fixed time limits. Women have to travel in the dark, as Patricia Ferguson mentioned. Public transport is often limited, or does not operate at the times required, as Paul Martin mentioned. Those workers save lives, and they will have to pay for the privilege of doing so.
Why were no scientific or academic studies undertaken by the health board on those vital issues? It is not the health board's duty to cut the amount of traffic on the road, nor is it the board's duty to make a cash cow out of its workforce and those who perform the necessary duty of visiting the sick in hospital. Permit schemes could easily be introduced for staff and those who visit long-term patients, and fines could easily be implemented to stop selfish people misusing the car parks at Stobhill and other hospitals.
Once again, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board is acting in the high-handed manner for which it is known without considering the impact of its actions on staff and patients. It needs to be held to account. Although democratically elected board members will make a change in the long term, people at Stobhill are suffering financially now and they would appreciate the Parliament's addressing the problem. Neither Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board nor any other health board should be allowed carte blanche to destroy the core NHS principle of free health care at the point of need.
Like other members, I congratulate Paul Martin on bringing his motion to the Parliament for debate. I acknowledge the work that he has done over the years to support the staff and users of Stobhill hospital. One of my colleagues says that we should put up a plaque stating that Paul Martin was born at the hospital.
Presiding Officer, you pointed out that the debate is about parking at Stobhill. People might be wondering why I am speaking in the debate, but Stobhill hospital does not provide health services only to the people of Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Indeed, it is not just for the people of Springburn, as others have pointed out. The hospital draws patients and staff from all areas of central Scotland, including my constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. We in Kilsyth, in particular, regard Stobhill as our local hospital and it is the hospital of first choice for many of my constituents. The vast majority of people who live in Kilsyth use Stobhill and other services in Glasgow rather than services that are provided by Lanarkshire NHS Board, and a significant number of people in Cumbernauld are in the same position.
People in my constituency use Stobhill even though public transport links to the hospital are difficult. People who live in Kilsyth have to take at least two buses and then have a lengthy walk up the avenue. People who live in Cumbernauld have to take three buses. However, people choose to do that because of the facilities at Stobhill and the services that they can expect when they go there. People increasingly want to use the facility because of the significant investment of more than £80 million that has been ploughed into the hospital in the past few years.
Because public transport links to the hospital are difficult, people generally take their cars. If they do not have a car, a family member or friend will often drive them to the hospital, whether for an out-patient appointment or for them to be admitted as an in-patient. If charges continue to be imposed at Stobhill, my constituents will be caused great financial hardship.
A moment ago, I was working out the costs of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's scheme. It is not unusual for people to visit relatives twice a day, once in the afternoon and once in the evening. If they pay £2 a day for parking, the cost will be £14 a week. If the person is in hospital for a couple of weeks, the cost will be £28. That is a lot of money, especially coupled with the additional expense that we know people face when a family member is an in-patient. For staff, the charge is £7 a day.
The unanimous view of my constituents is that it is unbelievable that the health board has introduced parking charges for patients and staff at Stobhill. As other members have said, the area is not one where there are commuters, or people who will use the car park although they work elsewhere. There are already charges at Glasgow royal infirmary. We hear that staff who work there are parking at Stobhill and taking advantage of the bus between hospitals. That should not happen. People need to be able to park so that they can visit their relatives or attend out-patient appointments. Despite everything that we want to do to encourage green transport policies, because of the poor transport links to Stobhill people will still want to take their cars for the sake of their security.
I call on the minister to use her powers to instruct NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to reverse its policy and ensure that the parking charges at Stobhill are not implemented. I ask her to address that in her response. She has used her powers elsewhere in the health service, and I ask her to use her powers here.
I, too, thank Paul Martin for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. I appreciate that a review is under way. I have lodged motions in relation to Stobhill and other hospitals that are in a similar situation. The management of hospital car parks is undoubtedly a matter for the NHS, but it is clear that the advice given by Malcolm Chisholm during the previous session has been hijacked by some hospital boards, particularly NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to justify the implementation of car parking charges. It is clear that the advice was never designed to justify the imposition of blanket charging across all hospitals within any health board area—which is what Greater Glasgow and Clyde is now doing.
The effect on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde employees is that, even after the discounts that have been offered, the charge will be greater than the net salary increase that they will receive and that the health secretary was keen to promote as a single-phase payment. That is completely unfair and it means that the net earnings of health board employees throughout Scotland vary according to whether they work in an area in which the health board charges for car parking. For health workers at Stobhill, it means that their net earnings are less than those of health workers who do a similar job in an area where the health board does not charge for car parking. I do not see why nurses and health workers should be penalised for having to work unsocial hours and respond to emergencies.
It is worrying that NHS hospital consolidation in Greater Glasgow and Clyde will require people to travel even further. There is a suggestion in Glasgow that hospital car parking charges are essential because, otherwise, the traffic routes that support, for example, the Southern general, where Stobhill patients will go in future, will not be able to cope. That undermines the presumption of the original case.
I wrote to the cabinet secretary ahead of the announcement of a review, for which I naturally take full credit—I thank her for that. In her reply, she said that the NHS has a role to play in
"reducing the impact of motor-cars on the environment"
and that the board has an obligation
"to encourage the use of public transport".
I mulled that statement over, and asked myself why.
We all agree, as a general proposition, that congestion is something we want to discourage and that we want to reduce unnecessary use of motor cars, but if there is such a thing as unnecessary use of motor cars it begs the question what is necessary use. Hospital visits must fall into the category of justifiable and necessary use of the motor car. Even if public transport were available, we would want it to be as good as possible. Surely we want to encourage people who have a hospital appointment to get a lift with a family friend, and to encourage people to visit patients in hospital on dark evenings. The NHS should therefore have no part to play in reducing car use or making the sick feel guilty by penalising them for using their cars.
I have paid to park in a hospital car park. When I did, I had to anticipate how long I would be there, because the charge is not a flat fee. I have a vision of elderly patients scurrying around car parks in hospital gowns to feed the meter as they realise that they have been in the hospital for longer than they have paid for. The health board has not made clear what the penalties will be if people exceed their stay. The considerable threat of not anticipating correctly the length of a stay and ending up with a fine could prove to be true.
In her letter, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said that she accepted
"that car parking charges are a legitimate response".
That is slightly different from what she said in opposition, which was:
"We have seen the introduction of many bad changes like the sky-high parking charges in our hospitals".
Brian Adam has referred to the ridiculous
"creeping commercialisation of the NHS",
but I have established that private hospitals do not charge for parking. It is ironic and peculiar that if people use a private hospital they do not pay to park, but if they use an NHS hospital, they do.
The review that is under way must reach a decisive result. The situation is wholly unfair and blanket charging is inappropriate. Stobhill is a perfect example of a hospital at which parking charges are not justified. I hope that the cabinet secretary's review will act to phase out charges.
Given the number of members who wish to speak, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3, that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.31 pm.—[Paul Martin.]
Motion agreed to.
This is my first speech in the Parliament that I have not written down, so it might be a wee bit more interesting than usual. However, I guarantee that my speech tomorrow morning in the debate on competition, regulation and business structures will be written down.
I congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate. The motion gets to the point, as we can tell from the list of people who have signed it. It is capable of applying to hospitals throughout the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area. As all the members who are present know, four motions and one amendment have been lodged on car parking charges and the review. All the motions express various levels of concern and highlight the charges that will be paid.
I welcome the review of car parking charges and I hope that it will change the health board's position. In my submission to the review, I raised various issues. Some of them have been touched on, but I will go over them. Not every hospital car park is overflowing. Anyone who has been to a hospital for treatment or for a visit at whatever time of day will have seen that.
If a hospital is close to a housing estate or housing scheme, the people who stay there may suffer if people park in the streets outside their homes.
Deprivation is another issue. Not everyone can afford to pay to use a hospital car park.
At times, public transport to hospitals is lacking. Not every hospital is beside a train station. Buses go to hospitals, but not everyone wants to take a bus.
Not every hospital is in an easily accessed location—we have only to consider the example of the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. For someone from Inverclyde, that hospital is difficult to access.
The parking charges are not proportionate. In my submission, I considered the figures. Somebody who earns less than £10,000 pays the same proportion of their wages as someone who earns £80,000—0.006 per cent. In the middle band of charges, someone who earns £12,000 pays 0.025 per cent of their wages, but someone who earns £29,000, which is still in the middle band, pays 0.0165 per cent of their wages. I do not agree with charging at all, but the banding structure is also wrong.
Another aspect, as Patricia Ferguson highlighted, is safety and unsocial hours. Hospital workers do not have a 9-to-5 job; they work in a 24-hour industry. We must consider the safety aspect of things.
Gil Paterson mentioned that, when he goes to the football match, a wee boy will ask, "Mister, can I watch your car?" I confess that I never thought of that when I put together my submission. That was new to me, but I would be prepared to consider it a bit more.
We must remember that the charges were agreed in March 2007. I had hoped that the health board would reconsider its policy after the May elections, but I welcome the fact that there is a review. I hope that a positive outcome will result from the review. The review must consider how the charges would affect everyone if they were to continue and were not altered in any way, shape or form.
I speak in support of the motion in Paul Martin's name. I have also supported the local petition that he organised. More than 300 of the signatures on the petition have come from people whom I represent—his constituency borders mine—because many of my constituents work at Stobhill or attend either as patients or visitors. It is fair to say that the introduction of car parking charges has raised a lot of concern and anger.
The issue was discussed at the most recent meeting of the north Glasgow monitoring group, of which both Mr Martin and I are members. We were told by management that the policy is to try to encourage staff, patients and visitors—staff in particular—to make more use of public transport: indeed, we were told that the board was introducing interest-free loans to allow staff to buy bikes. However, the gentleman who told us about the scheme—I will not embarrass him by naming him—did not look as if he had seen a bike saddle for many a year.
The introduction of charges is to discourage staff from using their cars to come to work in order to free up car parking spaces for people who visit the hospital for appointments. At present, such visitors can find themselves touring the hospital grounds looking for somewhere to leave their cars. However, the main reason for the current shortage of car parking space at Stobhill is the construction of the new day hospital, which was topped out only recently by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. As she will have seen when she visited Stobhill, a large number of vehicles are used by those who are involved in the building work and a large amount of ground is taken up by the construction site. As Patricia Ferguson said, there will be plenty of space for car parking at Stobhill once the new hospital is finished next year. However, as NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde wants car parking charges to be implemented at all its sites, those who use Stobhill will still have to pay.
Let us be blunt: the charges are a direct assault on the most disadvantaged citizens in our society. Many of those who regularly use the out-patient services at Stobhill already suffer from debilitating illnesses and the parking charges will merely exacerbate their difficulties and the distress of many sick Scots, whose ordinary lives already pose extraordinary problems. People who suffer from some of the most serious conditions who regularly use hospital services will be punished most by the charges. It seems to be an absurd decision to place further financial restrictions on the sick.
Furthermore, I agree with Bill Kidd—I never thought that I would say that in Parliament—that it is scandalous to impose such charges on hospital staff. Medical workers at all our hospitals are on the front line in combating Scotland's serious health problems. Such individuals do exceedingly important work at all times of the day and night, as Stuart McMillan said. The charges also disproportionately affect staff on lower wages. Not content with targeting the sick, the proposals go after people who are on low incomes.
In response to claims that introducing charges will simply promote greater use of public transport, I echo other members' views in pointing out that not all hospitals are served by accessible public transport. For example, one of my constituents lives in Torrance but works at Southern general hospital, where car parking charges will also apply. He told me that, to reach his work by public transport, he would need to leave the night before. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that that is a tenable option. It is even more ludicrous to ask him to get on his bike rather than use his car. Another constituent of mine has been rewarded with a £25 per month parking permit, which allows parking in the designated staff car park but does not guarantee a car parking space. If he cannot find a space, the cost of car parking outside could be as much as £35 a week.
Strathclyde Partnership for Transport has proposals to produce a green transport plan but, as Paul Martin said, it is not yet in place. When it is, it may encourage staff and visitors to use public transport, but until then people will still want to use their cars. The car parking charges are simply a crude attempt to reap financial benefits from people who visit the facilities frequently. They should be opposed until proper public transport provision is available.
I pay tribute to Paul Martin for bringing the issue to Parliament's attention. The debate so far has been useful in shining a light on many of the problems that car parking charges are causing.
I am keen to speak in today's debate and must declare an interest. My partner, Janet, is a nurse and has been affected by car parking charges at both Glasgow royal infirmary and Glasgow's Western infirmary, where she currently works. Although the motion mentions Stobhill specifically, this is a health-board-wide issue. That is why I support the independent review that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, has commissioned and which is due to report shortly.
I can speak with confidence and direct experience of the anger and frustrations that car parking charges are causing to staff across Glasgow, and which they will cause to staff at Stobhill. When charges were first introduced at the royal infirmary, nurses were charged £25 per month. By the time Janet applied for a permit there, the cost was £47 and the current charge is £57. That car park is owned by Impregilo Parking (Glasgow) Ltd and managed by a company called APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd, which is a private profit-making organisation. Profit is not the motive that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board should have when it considers whether there should be car parking charges at its hospitals.
My partner currently works at the Western infirmary, where—as at Stobhill—charges are determined by Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. If staff at those hospitals cannot qualify for a permit—which costs up to £40 per month—they must pay £7 a day. Not everyone qualifies for a permit. Staff are allocated permits on the basis of their need to access a car to do their jobs and of the frequency of journeys that they need to make. Staff who do not receive a permit cannot park in staff car parks. I have direct experience of the issue, as some of my partner's colleagues applied for permits, just as staff at Stobhill will have to do. Although a member of staff from Bearsden received a permit, members of staff from Wishaw and Linlithgow did not. There is no coherence, organisation, structure or fairness in how charges are applied and in who gets permits.
Janet is quite fortunate, because she stays in Maryhill and can get to the Western infirmary relatively easily. However, I do not want her to walk down to it at 7 in the morning in inclement weather, and would prefer her to take her car. Doing that daily for a month would cost her £91 in car parking charges.
I am mindful of the fact that in April 2004 the previous Executive issued guidelines on car parking charges and that at the time there was no opposition in principle to such charges. However, the Executive put some criteria in place. In 2005, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board committed itself to a strategy of car parking charges, but only to deal with specific problems. From what Paul Martin and others have said today, it is evident that many of those specific problems do not exist at Stobhill. Why is Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board applying a one-size-fits-all approach to car parking charges in the entire health board area?
It is clear that the pending review must consider not just the general principles behind car parking charges but how they affect patients, staff, carers and visitors at all hospitals. It must certainly deal with the real concerns that patients, staff, carers and visitors have at Stobhill. I commend Paul Martin for bringing the issue to our attention.
I thank Paul Martin for giving us the opportunity to have this debate this evening. I start with a confession: I was not born at Stobhill, or even in Glasgow. However, I visited Stobhill hospital on many occasions in my role as a trade union official representing people there. I was also a member of the then Health Committee when, under the convenership of Roseanna Cunningham, we examined car parking charges.
I am pleased to see the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing at a members' debate. That does not often happen and it is worth noting.
The anger that has been generated by this issue at Stobhill, at Inverclyde royal hospital and at other hospitals in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board area is as high as we have seen anywhere else. There have been protests, and petitions have attracted massive support. Unfortunately, industrial action is threatened. I have read the cabinet secretary's public statements and I am sure that she is working to prevent the situation going that far.
We have had review after review, which just will not do. We have been given guidelines, criteria and—supposedly—the right to consultation on the impact of car parking charges. Although most people would agree that charges should not be a profit-making exercise, I concede that some hospitals have suffered from abuse of their car parks. Such abuse has to be tackled, but I do not know that charges are the right way to do so.
Safety and security issues have to be addressed when they arise. However, for Stobhill, the Inverclyde royal and other hospitals, a case-by-case, hospital-by-hospital consultation before the introduction of car parking charges is essential. Many hospitals in the west of Scotland are in different situations. This is not a dodge—people in Inverclyde are not suggesting that it is okay to introduce charges at the Glasgow royal infirmary or other Glasgow hospitals. People from my part of the world use all those hospitals, and we have the additional burden of the cost of the journey to get to them. However, there is a double whammy in that if we get a friend to take us there, we have to face car parking charges as well.
It is a scandal that car parking charges will be rolled out across the health board area—and particularly in the IRH—without consultation. No one has consulted the local community, no one has consulted the local authority, no one has consulted the local users groups and no one has consulted people in the neighbourhood. I ask the cabinet secretary to use her powers and to insist that a full and proper consultation take place, so that issues can at least be aired.
In June 2006, the Health Committee raised the issue of access—another issue that angers me. We are pushing ahead with car parking charges in and around our hospitals, but I see no such enthusiasm for dealing with the general issues of travel access to hospitals and health centres throughout the west of Scotland. There is no guidance on how health boards and various other agencies should deal with access. How soon will it be before the health board moves on to consider charging for the use of car parks at health centres as well? I hope that we can stop such a move, and I hope that the cabinet secretary recognises—I am sure she does—the seriousness of the situation. If we can, let us consider car parking charges and other such access issues as part of the broadest consideration of access. We have to think about how the most vulnerable people can access health services at their health centres and hospitals wherever they may be throughout the west of Scotland.
I, too, congratulate Paul Martin on securing this debate. At the outset, I should make it clear that I recognise that the motion very much deals with Stobhill hospital and that, as other members have pointed out, the same situation applies to other hospitals such as Gartnavel, the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley and, indeed, the Vale of Leven. Maybe, like Duncan McNeil, I should get it out of the way at the start that I was not born at Stobhill hospital. However, my husband Stephen was, so some might say that Stobhill has a lot to answer for.
The charge is that what is happening at Stobhill is unfair to patients, visitors and staff. Paul Martin is absolutely right to say that, according to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, the move is somehow part of a green transport strategy. It has also said that people use hospital car parks as park-and-ride facilities. Indeed, Alex McIntyre, the board's very own director of facilities, has said that car park charges are necessary to address severe congestion.
Let me consider those remarks in the context of the Vale of Leven hospital, whose situation is very similar to that of Stobhill hospital. The Vale of Leven is not near a train station or a major bus route; it sits on a hill; and the distance from the front gate to the hospital is about a quarter of a mile. On my frequent visits to the hospital, I have never found the car park congested. As a result, I find it difficult to understand how the Vale of Leven or, indeed, Stobhill could be described as a park-and-ride facility. The health board's fundamental reasons for introducing these charges are clearly not justified in these cases.
Many have described hospital car parking charges as a tax on the ill. It is hard enough for a sick person to ensure that they have the right change or for people on low incomes to worry about having to pay £7 for a full day's parking. However, what of those with long-term conditions who need to visit hospital again and again? A local person said to me:
"I'm often required to attend the hospital with an elderly relative who suffers from heart problems. I've sometimes been sitting in the medical assessment unit for up to five hours while they treat her. The last thing I want to do, when I'm with a frightened old woman, is leave her and go and feed the meter indefinitely."
Like other MSPs, I have also been approached by hospital staff who are genuinely concerned about affordability. Many are part-time, low-paid workers; indeed, a lot of them are women, who, to live their lives, need their cars to meet tight timetables and to juggle work and things like collecting their kids from school.
Like those who are served by Stobhill, many people are required to travel to other hospitals for tertiary treatment. What of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's green transport strategy when it sends people miles for treatment and charges them for the privilege? Using alternative travel arrangements, it takes two and a half hours to get from the Vale of Leven hospital to the RAH. Clearly in such circumstances it is quicker to take the car.
I therefore very much welcome the review announced in September by the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. I am not convinced that that was down to the efforts of Jackson Carlaw, but in the spirit of generosity we should all encourage the cabinet secretary's actions. Given the scheme's evident complexity—certainly, as Patricia Ferguson made clear, in Glasgow—I wonder whether it is sensible to continue with it at all. I was particularly taken by Bill Kidd's suggestion of fining those who use hospital car parks as park-and-ride facilities.
As Bob Doris pointed out, the review reports in a mere two weeks' time, at the end of November. Because I believe in father Christmas, I invite the cabinet secretary to give the communities around Stobhill, the Vale of Leven, the RAH and other hospitals throughout the country a very early Christmas present by wiping out these charges.
I could be unseasonal and suggest to Jackie Baillie that it was open to the previous Administration to tackle this issue before last Christmas and that it declined to do so. However, as this is a consensual members' business debate, I will not go down that road.
I should also get it out of the way at the beginning that neither I nor—to the best of my knowledge—any member of my family was born at Stobhill. Nevertheless, I care very deeply about the terms of this motion. I, too, congratulate Paul Martin on securing this debate and thank everyone who has stayed behind to contribute to it.
I share many of the concerns that have been expressed and hope that my presence at such a debate—which, traditionally, would be responded to by a deputy minister—is evidence of that. Members will agree that, although these concerns centre principally on Stobhill hospital, they have much wider applicability and relevance. Some of my comments, although they apply to Stobhill, will have that wider relevance as well.
I will indicate where I disagree with some of the comments that have been made, but it is because I share many of the concerns that have been expressed that I took the decision to establish a review of the guidance that the Government inherited from the previous Administration and which governs the policy about which we have heard concerns in today's debate. I will say more about the objectives and progress of the review later, but I will begin by putting the debate in context.
It is evident from the contributions that have been made that we all agree that good patient car parking facilities are increasingly important in a modern patient-centred NHS, particularly when one considers the demographics of our country and the fact that more and more patients accessing acute care will be elderly and infirm. It is worth stating that.
Good car parking facilities also matter to staff, particularly those on low pay, and I recognise the concerns of staff about the criteria used to award permits. However, car parking facilities, even if we have alternative, green transport modes, will continue to be important to staff who live a long distance from their place of work or who have child care or other caring responsibilities. I recognise all that.
We must also remember, on the other side of the coin, that in providing car parking a health board, whether it is NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde or any other board, accepts certain health and safety and other legal responsibilities towards the people who use those car parks. Boards have an obligation to ensure that their car parks are maintained, safe and fit for purpose, and that means that costs are incurred. I say this not as a defence of any specific car parking policy but simply as a statement of fact: we must bear in mind the fact that any element of the cost of maintaining a car park that is not met by car parking charges comes from funds that would otherwise be spent on front-line patient care. Unlike shopping centres or even private hospitals, health boards cannot dip into profits to meet those bills. I say that simply as a statement of fact, because it is important that people bear that in mind.
As Jackson Carlaw said, the fine details of parking policies are for boards to determine locally, but it is for Government to set the parameters so that boards know what is expected of them, in the interests of patients, carers, visitors and staff. In setting those parameters, it is important that we adhere to certain key principles, which apply to Stobhill and to other hospitals as well.
The first of those principles is that car parking charges should not be introduced as a means of generating income to subsidise patient care. The second is that charging excessive rates to any car park user is unjustifiable. The third is that judging what is excessive must be put in the context of local circumstances. I hear clearly the point that Paul Martin and others made about Stobhill not being congested, and the appropriateness or otherwise of blanket policies is one of the specific issues that I have asked the review to examine. It is important to bear that in mind.
Where charges are applied, boards must be able to show that they reflect a reasonable balance between the needs of users and the costs of maintaining facilities. The final key principle that I want to mention—it reflects some of the comments that have been made—is that car parking charges should not be levied in isolation. If they are to be levied at all, they must sit within an operational travel plan that promotes and delivers sustainable travel choices.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to carry out a review in respect of a number of issues, but will she examine the fact that the green transport policy will not be in place by 25 November, and if it is not, will she call on Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to withdraw its plans until such time as they conform with the policy?
I will go on to talk about the review and about the timescale that I have deliberately set for it, because I understand that many car parking policies have been in place for several years now, while others, such as those in Glasgow, are in the process of being implemented. As I indicated, the previous Government issued guidance that reflected some of the principles that I have been talking about, but it is my view that that guidance did not go far enough to protect people working in or visiting hospitals. That is why I have asked for the guidance to be reviewed. The review group includes representatives of staff, unions and patients and will report to me by the end of this month. The review has been charged with looking at how the guidance, or individual local schemes, might be amended to safeguard access for patients and ensure equitable treatment for staff.
In the short space of time that I have left, I will deal with some of the issues that are particular to Stobhill. There is legitimate concern about the potential impact on local residents of parking by car commuters in the residential areas that surround the hospital. I accept that, as the capacity of the hospital car park is fixed, if we provide more spaces for patients, that may result in displacement of staff who currently park on site. Regardless of where we end up with car parking charges at Stobhill and elsewhere, it is incumbent on NHS boards to provide environmentally friendly transport alternatives that make it more possible for staff to leave their cars at home.
I say to members who have raised concerns, including Paul Martin in his intervention, that I will ensure that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board is aware that members have expressed concern that the board is not moving fast enough to provide alternatives.
The board is already working with FirstBus on a bus route development plan. I hope that, over the course of the next year, that will lead to significant increases in the services provided to hospitals—not services exclusively to Stobhill, but including additional services that enter the Stobhill site.
I look to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to work with local authority partners and transport partners to make effective, environmentally friendly public transport a reality for patients, whatever happens with car parking charges. I also look forward to receiving the review group's report, and hope that it informs a process and leads to an outcome that ensures equity for everybody who has to use our hospital car parks.
Meeting closed at 18:31.