Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 14 Nov 2007

14 Nov 2007 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Stobhill Hospital <br />(Parking Charges)

McMillan, Stuart SNP West of Scotland Watch on SPTV

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.