Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 14 Nov 2007

14 Nov 2007 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Stobhill Hospital <br />(Parking Charges)

Ferguson, Patricia Lab Glasgow Maryhill Watch on SPTV

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.