Hansard

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.