Hansard

I have noted Helen Eadie's comments and I understand her concerns. However, this is not a case of déjà vu; we are debating not last week's amendments, but this week's. Amendment 283 has wider-reaching implications than Helen Eadie's previous amendment had.

It might be helpful if I were to restate the Executive's long-standing policy on the matter, which has evolved out of past experience around the country. Earlier this year, we wrote to health boards to reiterate that car parking charges should not be introduced to generate income, that the decision to introduce charges for car parking at national health service hospitals is a matter for local determination—taking full account of local circumstances, including the needs of patients, visitors and staff—and that car parking charges should be introduced only to cover the cost of providing expanded or improved parking facilities, for reasons of security or for better management of existing facilities, by discouraging fly parking, for example.

I mentioned the cost of policing and improving security facilities for car parking. Few hospitals have sufficient space to cope with the demand, and what space they have is at a premium. The shortage of car parking spaces can lead to double parking, parking on yellow lines, pavement parking, non-disabled use of disabled bays and unsafe access to main entrances at peak times. All those things can create hazards for the staff, the patients, the visitors and the ambulance crews at hospitals. In addition, hospitals are encouraged to be crime conscious, because parked cars in hospital car parks could be easy targets. Increased security must be provided to deal with those problems, but that means increased costs for trusts, which would have to be met from within their budgets.

Helen Eadie's interpretation of amendment 283 is not the same as ours. Our strict legal interpretation is that, from the date of the bill's enactment, the phrase

"It shall no longer be lawful for charges to be imposed in respect of the use of car parking spaces at hospital premises"

would not mean that the parking would disappear, but it would certainly mean that the charges would disappear. That is something that Bruce Crawford was asking about, and we think that it would have major implications for the trusts that have gone down that route.

Let me give some examples of charges. The Yorkhill NHS Trust charges staff for car parking, and the provision of facilities for staff car parking is cost neutral. If the trust were not to charge, it would have to find £52,000 every year from elsewhere in its budget. At Grampian University Hospitals NHS Trust, car parking facilities last year cost £167,000. Again, if no charges were levied, that money would have to come from somewhere else. In the Highlands, car parking facilities cost in the region of £272,000. Those are year-on-year costs.

Helen Eadie has mentioned Ninewells hospital in Dundee, whose multi-storey car park was introduced to cope with the increased demand for car space at the hospital. To pay for that multi-storey car park, the trust agreed a 30-year contract. The last thing that I would want is for the Transport (Scotland) Bill to present those difficult choices all over again to health boards that have done the consultation work.

I spoke to Susan Deacon on this matter yesterday. She is absolutely determined to ensure that problems surrounding public consultation, such as people feeling powerless or excluded and unable to participate fully in the decision-making process, are addressed. That is something that she is committed to dealing with through the Scottish health plan, in which she will introduce proposals for the involvement of the public in an open and inclusive consultation process. Wherever possible, she wants to use existing public involvement structures—for example, those that local authorities use. She is keen to see community-based planning processes, which will provide local communities with the information and support that they need to influence the strategic development of services that they use.

We want to improve aspects of the consultation process. I can give Helen Eadie the comfort of knowing that the health department is aware of the need for health trusts to consult. Its guidelines provide a robust framework for decisions by health boards and trusts. However, it must be for them to make those decisions; they must be responsible, as Janis Hughes said. This is about local consultation and local decision making.

The amendment would force trusts to fund improvements to car parking facilities from money that would be better used to provide services for patients or to decide against improving their car parking facilities, which would have the safety implications that I outlined.

I urge Helen Eadie to withdraw the amendment. If she presses it to a vote, I strongly urge the committee to reject it.