Hansard

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.