Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 3rd December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Hospital car park charges are scrapped – but not at PFI sites



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 September 2008
PARKING charges are to be scrapped at NHS sites across Scotland, apart from three hospitals with contracts with private companies, it was announced yesterday.
The decision not to axe charges at the hospitals with PFI contracts, because of the high costs involved in terminating the deals, was met with anger.

But Nicola Sturgeon, the health secretary, said NHS boards should work with the private companies involved to keep the costs as low as possible for patients.

The scrapping of payments at the 14 hospitals that still charge for parking in Scotland comes after a £3 cap was introduced in January.

Ending the charges will cost health boards about £5.5 million a year. Boards will be given one-off funding of £1.4 million to help cope with the loss of income.

The Scottish Government said money raised from car parking was not used to fund patient care and would not affect treatment budgets.

In its election manifesto, the SNP pledged to issue new guidance to health boards to reduce excessive charges for parking at NHS sites.

Yesterday, Ms Sturgeon said the NHS should be free at the point of need, and that this should apply to hospital patients, visitors and staff.

"It's simply not fair to expect patients or visitors to have to pay when they come to hospital, when they may be suffering personal anxiety, stress or grief," she said.

The health boards have been asked to form plans to address problems such as increase in demand after charges are axed at the end of the year.

The announcement will not apply to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (ERI), whose car park is run by Consort Healthcare, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, where Impregilo has the PFI parking deal, and Ninewells in Dundee, with parking run by Vinci Park.

The Scottish Government said the nature of the PFI parking contracts, which in the case of the ERI do not expire until 2028, meant the costs of axing charges there would be prohibitive.

Ms Sturgeon said NHS boards were expected to work with the PFI providers to limit or reduce their charges.

The SNP government has been highly critical of PFI deals brought in under the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat administration.

But yesterday, it was accused of "playing politics" by not scrapping charges at the PFI sites.

Nigel Griffiths, the Labour MP for South Edinburgh, said the decision was "disgraceful".

"I think the SNP are using PFI as an excuse to avoid abolishing all charges in Scotland because they don't have the cash.

"It is political spite. They are playing politics with patients' wellbeing."

Campaigners and staff groups welcomed the scrapping of charges at the 14 hospitals, but expressed anger that the others were not included.

Cathy Miller, Unison Glasgow and Clyde branch secretary, said: "This decision will create a two-tier system, with staff and patients who are unlucky enough to be on a PFI site being charged for the pleasure."

Blue badge law may cost £20m

A NEW law that aims to end the abuse of disabled parking bays in Scotland could end up costing councils £20 million and become little more than an "expensive paper chase," MSPs warned yesterday.

Members of Holyrood's local government committee were taking evidence on Labour MSP Jackie Baillie's bill, which could see able-bodied drivers who park in disabled bays fined up to £60.

The bill would force councils to clamp down on drivers without blue badges using the bays, and end advisory disabled parking bays, making all of them mandatory.

It is estimated that one in five parking spaces for the disabled in Scotland is used by people without blue badges.

However, because most parking legislation is still reserved to Westminster, private car parks would not fall under the legislation.

David McLetchie, a Conservative MSP and committee member, said: "I'm not sure if this bill will prove to be anything more than an expensive paper chase and simply add £20 million to local authority budgets."

Edinburgh City Council says the estimated £1.7 million national cost could be exceeded in the capital alone.

The full article contains 690 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 September 2008 12:02 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Health of the NHS
 
1

Tris,

03/09/2008 00:09:21

Bless the PFI.

It means that in Dundee we will be able to go on paying the horrific charges that leave some people in total despair when they are obliged to visit regularly for a long period. This particularly affects the elderly. It's good to know that we and they are supporting British Business through the PFI, and keeping the fat cats in cream.
2

truthsleuth,

03/09/2008 00:37:01
Cost £5million
Thats about 1000 extra nurses.

The silly car drivers will kill us all.

Let the first petrolhead say that he will forego treatment for illness in order to make up the loss.

I hear the rush of feet coming forward.

IDIOTS
3

truthsleuth,

03/09/2008 00:40:12
#1 many of the elderly do not have a car
many of the elderly will be among those awaiting treatment that the £5million would have paid for
Many of the elderly will die because of the loss of this £5million
so that some can park free.

Those who do not have a car still 40% of the population have to go by bus
if there is no bus by taxi
The selfish motoring lobby win again.
4

James F,

East Ayr 03/09/2008 00:53:39
The worst aspect of the car parking scam was that the nurses - who had to start work or finish at all times of day and night - couldn't park their cars in the hospital car park while the consultants retained their free parking spaces.

These nurses (the majority of them female) had to walk from a parking space perhaps half a mile from the hospital through deserted streets to look after our sick and dying relatives.

This was a completely invidious state of affairs and the Scottish Government should be given the credit for making big progress on this issue. Next step? - the PFI hospitals. If we didn't have to pay for this stupid Iraq/Afghanistan figment of Bush's imagination, there would be an awful lot more money available to sort out these real problems. Now; where can we get a government that doesn't believe in going to war to make us look good?..... I wonder.
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 03/09/2008 01:01:44


Has the 'tramlines' got the go-ahead, to Gooo to the ERI yet, or was it disbandoned,?

1hour and 2minutes, cost me £2.20 for parking yesterday at the ERI, but 'hey' the treatment is 'free' so-to-speak,

I think it still 'Scandalous'
build a Hospital in the wilds with plenty of land and have the audacity to charge for "car-parking"

Now where's my Camels!
6

Edward,

03/09/2008 01:22:53
'Nigel Griffiths, the Labour MP for South Edinburgh, said the decision was "disgraceful"'
Thats rich coming from the party that instigated PFI in the first place!
It has already been proven that Hsopitals would have been cheaper if built under normal financing and not filling the coffers of private companies. Money from the car parks in the PFI hospitals goes straight to the private companies and not the local health board
Yes Nigel, it is a disgrace that Labour instigated the great PFI swindle in the first place!
7

Edward,

03/09/2008 01:25:56
#2
Grow up!
This move has been welcomed by all , from nursing staff, to patients and parents of patients
One couple interviewed had to take their child for treatment 5 or 6 times a month. Now at least they wont have to pay the car park fees
8

karinxxx,

03/09/2008 03:25:50
Nigel Griffiths, the Labour MP for South Edinburgh, said the decision was "disgraceful".

"I think the SNP are using PFI as an excuse to avoid abolishing all charges in Scotland because they don't have the cash.

aye mr griffiths remind us which party were in power when these parking charges were brought in at the ERI and GRI. Labour you say. who could have stopped them being brought in and didnt.
9

Pilrig.,

Livingston 03/09/2008 05:45:28
3 - £ 5 million ? now isn't that what a week and a half of Bambi's Iraqi war costs us ?
10

Pilrig.,

Livingston 03/09/2008 05:46:07
2 Let's uninvent the 20th century, eh ?
11

Pilrig.,

03/09/2008 05:48:33
4 - Bull, an appropriate surname. the real **** for brains are those who foisted the Embra trams scheme on us.
12

!Ya basta!,

03/09/2008 06:00:42
This just shows how totally screwed up PFI is, something most ordinary folk said from the very start. Having a situation where hospitals depend on income from parking to be able to maintain services its ridiculous, illogical, farcical, stupid, deceitful, the world turned upside down etc etc. What the hell are we doing here?

It's the same old story EVERY single time, PUBLIC SUBSIDY and PRIVATE PROFIT.

The SNP have inherited a mess and certain contratcual obligations, so it's not their fault. Unfortunately they are not radical enough to take on big business in this area, which is what we really need here.

Health is a public good and privatising health not only does not work in terms of service delivery it is financially VERY inefficient (e.g PFI). There is not one country in the world where it works efficiently and effectively for the majority of the population, not one.

Please please let this be a lesson to anybody on either side of the border thinking of voting Tory. They started this whole damn thing and their philosophy is EXACTLY the same as before, only with a different image. Nu-Tory will be just like Nu-Labour except worse.

For the SNP, be bold and kick the whole PFI initiative in to touch. It has already cost us more than needed and hospitals and health services need to be taken out of private hands, even the car parks.


13

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 03/09/2008 07:19:20
-- Let's uninvent the 20th century, eh ?

In retrospect it seems not so good a performance from humankind. Reimagining the 21st century is essential.

Project Earth Online
14

Anonym,

03/09/2008 07:26:52
Truthsleuth - perhaps you missed the bit of the article that says...

"The Scottish Government said money raised from car parking was not used to fund patient care and would not affect treatment budgets."

Fair point?
15

Anonym,

03/09/2008 07:30:06
Just to clarify, my response was to your assertion that, "Many of the elderly will die because of the loss of this £5million so that some can park free."
16

madrab,

South Edinburgh 03/09/2008 07:41:39
Griffiths is the worst waste of space in the Scottish Parliament.

Remember he is wasting taxpayers money on a personal crusade for charging for carrier bags, hardly the most pressing issue in Scotland today.

Make sure that he is voted out at the next election.
17

Joe,

Old Dalkieth Road 03/09/2008 07:48:32
Any bets that Sturgeon will find the money to enable free car parking at Glasgow Royal Infirmary?
18

Mr Twerp,

In the sticks 03/09/2008 07:52:09
Will the car parks be controlled in some way? Several years ago, when my late wife was in the Western General, Edinburgh, I was in and out of the car parks at all sorts of times. On more than one occassion, during the morning rush hour, I saw cars being parked and the drivers leaving the area and catching a bus into the city. Expensive cars, well dressed drivers. Perhaps Hootsmon and Co could get one of their finest to keep an eye out for these parasites. The story would be better than buggies and babies on buses.
19

Joe,

Old Dalkieth Road 03/09/2008 07:58:26
A lot of Blue Badge holders seem able-bodied.
Time I think for a change of policy on disabled badges,
issue them only to the severely disabled who have to use wheelchairs?.
20

Linda,

Edinburgh 03/09/2008 08:06:53
Yet again illustrates folly of the PFI/PPP method of finance. At Hairmyres Hospital PFI an investment of £100 of private capital will see a return of £80 million from taxpayers over next 30 years.
21

scottish person,

paisley 03/09/2008 08:12:20
No2 Get a grip.
This is not a 5 million loss. It was never there in the first place. Labour should be ashamed about PFI. They have tied every contract up so tight that the SNP cant afford to waste public money trying to unravel the mess.
22

Madame Ecosse,

Edinburgh 03/09/2008 08:14:48
#18 - Joe Joe

Eh, I don't think so.
23

Linda,

Edinburgh 03/09/2008 08:21:56
# 9, Griffthis voted for foundation hospitals in England and is no friend of the NHS.

Being in favour of further privitisation of the NHS Griffiths he now wants Scottish taxpayers to pay huge sums buy to buy out the commercial contract with the private company (Compass) that runs the private car park at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

Nicola Sturgeon's plans only covers NHS car parks.
24

Anonym,

03/09/2008 08:23:08
Linda @ 21, I assume you mean £100 million of private capital? As opposed to £100?

£80 million does seem a rather good return on a hundred quid, even if it does take thirty years.

:)
25

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 03/09/2008 08:44:27
#3 truthsleuth

You need to read the article more carefully. The current car parking income is not used to fund patient care.
26

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 03/09/2008 08:53:22
An example of Labour low-life:

"Nigel Griffiths, the Labour MP for South Edinburgh, said the decision was "disgraceful".

"I think the SNP are using PFI as an excuse to avoid abolishing all charges in Scotland because they don't have the cash.

"It is political spite. They are playing politics with patients' wellbeing."".

Does this sound like:

a) someone who really cares about patients

or

b) someone who is using this issue to score political points.


(Hint - someone who really cares about patients would have implemented this when they were in power).

This type of rhetoric will blow up in Labour's collective face, especially on the streets of Glenrothes.
27

Linda,

Edinburgh 03/09/2008 09:05:37
# 25

No it is £100 (one hundred pounds)
http://www.sundayherald.com/

11th 0r 18th May I think
It says

"The revelations are gleaned from thousands of papers released under freedom of information laws."

"Equity of just £100 invested in rebuilding Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride is predicted to earn £89 million in dividends over 30 years.

And £500,000 of equity in the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary is expected to earn £168m in dividends."
invested by one venture capital
28

Linda,

Edinburgh 03/09/2008 09:06:28
"Concern at huge profits for firms behind PFI projects. The companies behind a controversial Lanarkshire hospital development stand to gain £145m for an £8.4m initial investment, according to research by a team of leading economists into the huge profits made by firms behind PFI deals. Jim and Margaret Cuthbert analysed details released through Freedom of Information requests into projects such as the development of Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride. They claim sometimes more than double the capital could have been raised through conventional public means via the National Loan Fund, for the same costs levied by the PFI operators. Their financial analysis has nothing to do with the other way PFI firms make their money, which is through management and service charges for building, operating and maintaining hospitals, schools or colleges. The Cuthberts have focused purely on the financing of the deals. Their presentation to members of Holyrood's Finance Committee looks in detail at Hairmyres Hospital, claiming documents show that the consortium comprising construction firm Keir and financiers Innisfree put in just £100 in equity to the project initially. They then put in £8.4m in so-called "subordinate debt", charged at a rate of return estimated at 18.8% annually. Another £65m was raised in outside cash, known as "senior debt" at the much lower rate of around 7.2%. The contract then provided for the senior debt to be paid off more quickly, while the subordinate debt sat accumulating more interest. The result was that the outlay of £8.4m plus £100 equity will recoup £145.2m - almost as much as the £147.1m repaid to the senior debt which had been initially eight times as much. The economists claim that under this financial mechanism, the cost of financing Hairmyres was just under double (a ratio of 1.97) what conventional public financing would have cost. For the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh this ratio was 2.04;
29

Scotish Exile,

03/09/2008 09:07:29
Don't blame either PFI or the private sector contractors that operate these hospitals. Blame the NHS, for it is them that negotiated these deals, and they are the ones to blame.
Parking charges are part of the contract agreed between both parties, therefore if they were to be abolished the contractor (quite properly) would have to be compensated.
The NHS were quite happy to agree to parking charges when the contracts were signed, so shout at them, not PFI and certainly not the private sector contractors.
30

walter,

03/09/2008 09:22:46
Ending the charges will cost health boards about £5.5 million a year. Boards will be given one-off funding of £1.4 million to help cope with the loss of income.

So they are going to lose £4.1m.

The Scottish Government said money raised from car parking was not used to fund patient care and would not affect treatment budgets.

True it is not used for patient care directly but it may affect treatment budgets since the money raised was used to finance building maintenance, catering, cleaning, security, help desk support and portering.

If the Government had wanted to they could have included the Parking at these PFI hospitals as well.
They have not brought in legislation to remove it from these hospitals for political reasons, mainly they want to introduce the so called not for profit SFT even though it will be no cheaper than PFI.
As Ian Rylatt Managing director of Balfour Beatty Capital said: Just because it's called a not-for-profit scheme doesn't mean you can't make money. Traditional PFI schemes are financed 90 per cent from debt and 10 per cent from equity. Contractors then make a margin on the dividends.
Not-for-profit schemes are financed in the same way but the funding which makes up the majority of the equity carries a much higher margin. This, instead of the dividends, is where the contractor makes its return.


31

Publius,

London 03/09/2008 09:25:18
According to the article "The Scottish Government said money raised from car parking was not used to fund patient care and would not affect treatment budgets".

If so, what is the money used for?
32

thinking,

Scotland 03/09/2008 09:44:38
#2 & 3
It sounds like you are a city dweller with plenty of public transport.
When our daughter was in hospital for over a month it was a 70 mile round trip. There was no public transport available. So, would you have suggested we should not have visited her rather than 'selfishly' use our car?
33

!Ya basta!,

03/09/2008 09:44:51
#30 Scottish Exile.

You misunderstand the way it works.

The Tories (in this case, but it could be Nulabour etc.) and big business (in this case banks plus construction companies) cook up a deal, as a result of lobbying (i.e. Western version of corruption). Senior NHS Directors are selected for their pro-business outlook and therefore support the fundamental approach. This is then packaged, sold and IMPOSED on the NHS.

In the case of PFI it is the same in the education sector. The deal offered was PFI or no school or no hospital.

It is NOTHING to do with economics, healthcare or education it is ENTIRELY to do with political ideology.

The NHS was then stuck and had virtually no negotiating power, it is a very sick joke to consider otherwise. The only option left is to accept the raw deal and try to subvert the process later.

If the private sector that benefits so much from these deals were not making money then changes would be made, for sure. But when the other side is getting screwed i.e. the public, we are told "its the only way", "budgets are finite", "be realistic", "this is the 'real' world", "it's good value", "the old way is too expensive" etc. and other groundless plattitudes. Never any real evidence given you notice.

During PFI, even when data was presented that showed its incredibly poor vlaue, it was dimsissed, because the political decision was already made. Public "consultations" were merely for show and rarely if ever changed anything substantive.

So don't blame the NHS, other than the political appointees within. This was forced on the NHS like so many other politically inspired initiatives.

The blame lies clearly businessmen and NHS placemen. Once again. The politicians of course, when push comes to shove, or unless they fear for their political lives, will always side with business. Its a key but rarely even mentioned aspect of our sham democracy.
34

Anonym,

03/09/2008 09:45:01
Linda @ #28, #29, thank you for that, my jaw is now on the floor.

connaughtboy @ #27, well said. Does Nigel think he can con people into thinking that if Labour were in power then ALL of the parking spaces would be free of charge? None of them would be free! Not one!
35

wee weegie,

03/09/2008 10:29:44
Once again we see Labour trying to con the people of Scotland. They had the opportunity to refuse to allow parking charges in the first place and bottled it. Why? These contractors were going to be the one's who would make donations to their coffers. They then had the chance to get them removed and once again they bottled it.
The money raised from parking charges was only to be used on the car parks. If you have been to St John's in Livingston you will see that the millions raised from their tax on the sick has not been spent on the car park. It is full of holes, there is no patrolling security (as promised), there is no covered parking (as mentioned at the time). So where has all the money gone.
Labour MP Nigel Griffiths would have been better trying to persuade his government in Westminster to copy the Scottish Government rather than quibbling over his party's adherence to PFI/PPP. This just shows what we, the public, are tied into with these contracts. Some shareholders and companies are making a 'nice little earner' out of doing nothing for our health service. Maybe the companies that run these PFI/PPP contracts will lessen their profits and copy the SNP Government. Though i dont hold my breath. Perhaps Nigel will launch a campaign to get rid of the charges, without the public having to reimburse the company millions.
36

Calum10,

03/09/2008 10:40:18
Here is good example of the sheer hypocrisy shown by Labour MSPs on PFI.

Jack McConnell, as First Minister, was cheered on by these very same Labour MSPs in the Scottish parliament when he made public the scale and scope of PFI projects undertaken by the NHS in Scotland.

Under Labour (and the LibDems) cancer patients in Scotland have paid up to £700 each on transport and parking charges in order to receive treatment under the NHS. That is a tax on the sick.

Also the union leadership at Unison their continued support for Labour is a disgrace.
37

Miss H,

03/09/2008 10:47:23
34 City dwellers don't have it easy either. When I worked at the Southern General - this is quite a long time ago - if you had to leave after dark and did not have a car you got a taxi. Maybe the area is safer now, I am not sure, but back then you would not have walked along Langlands Road after dark.
38

Sedov,

Scotland 03/09/2008 10:51:29
The fact that the SNP have no control over a PFI "owned" hospital is an excellent example of the severe limitations that any government has over big business interests. What you don't own you cannot control notwithstanding the fact that we are all paying through the nose to fund these PFI's. The SNP like all the other parties, has neither the will nor the programme to make any great difference in challenging the interests of big business and so called independence if it ever comes about will also make no difference whatsover.
39

G,

sdundy 03/09/2008 12:19:00
Nicola Sturgeon on Radio 4 last night just about lost theplot when asked a simple question...who was going to pay for this lost revenue? And would it affect care...she couldn't answer save to say that the NHS boards would not reduce spending on care...SO where will the money come from?
What will be reduced, dropped or clipped to make up for this loss of revenue?
The SNP are going to make up the difference....so the NHS have to pay for the grandoise gesture by the SNP!!!
Better those who are using the facilities have to pay than we all pay!!!!
40

Miss H,

03/09/2008 12:23:29
40 Duncan in Edinburgh would make the point that the SNP Government could have bought out the parking contract if they had wanted to. It was just too expensive.

However leaving that to one side I would hope that - your hatred of the SNP nothwithstanding - you would welcome their commitment to find alternatives to PFI, the entirely publicly funded redevelopment of the Southern General Hospital and the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow and the legislation they are proposing to debar commercial companies from bidding to provide GP services.
41

Miss H,

03/09/2008 12:28:11
41 I am not surprised she lost the plot.

There is a piece on parking charges in the Evening Times tonight. One of the people commenting is a guy called Raymond Lee who cares full time for his four-year-old son, who has leukemia.

The 35-year-old, who makes frequent trips to Yorkhill, said: "I wouldn't mind the charges if we could see where the money was going but visitors like myself have been paying money constantly and not seeing any improvement in the car parks.'

Personally I find the idea of someone who is coping with a 4 year old with leukemia having to pay every time he goes to the hospital obscene.

You say 'Better those who are using the facilities have to pay than we all pay!!!!'

I disagree - better we all pay than he has to pay. The man already has enough problems in his life don't you think?
42

Proximaking,

Aberdeen 03/09/2008 13:06:33
I remember seeing a program on TV years ago with some posh type down South who was asked why his family was holding onto common land that had been stolen during the time of the enclosures act. He said clearly that was a wrong thing to have done back then when his family had the big swords but you couldn't undo hundreds of years of history just because it was unfair. The subtext being simply, ownership is 9/10 of the law. The simple answer to this is to say tough mate but now that you don't have the big sword anymore all common land is to be handed over to people to build cheap homes on. Scandia-Huss were asked years ago why their luxury houses sold like hot cakes in Germany but not in the UK and their answer was simple, in the UK a decent plot costs over £250k and in Germany the same plot only costs £30k. Cheap land equals cheap housing and repossession would also show the rich they are not above the law however long it takes for the law to catch up with them. What has this got to do with hospital car parks and PFI? If a gross violation of human rights such as theft of common land has no time limit for putting it right then PFI contracts that unfairly exploit stupid politicians can be undone. Laws can be backdated, they do it all the time when it suits them. Not only would such a revision wipe the smile from the PFI investor's face it would ensure such a wasteful exercise would never again be used to finance public projects. It is time we stopped allowing those who have a coerce-signed piece of paper to use it to dictate to those they steal from. And why should a nurse or a consultant get free car parking? It costs me almost £7 a day to park my car for work and since nurses and consultants work for me why shouldn't they also have to pay? Make nurses continue to pay and make the parking spaces first come first served so consultants have to pay and walk with the rest of them. If consultants don't want to walk they could always get in early like nurses and give up thei
43

Proximaking,

Aberdeen 03/09/2008 13:07:35
Make nurses continue to pay and make the parking spaces first come first served so consultants have to pay and walk with the rest of them. If consultants don't want to walk they could always get in early like nurses and give up their private hospital patients they pay frequent vists to during the working week, as they should be forced to do anyway under a new NHS contract of employment.
44

jtdx,

03/09/2008 13:22:51
#28 no its 8.4 million + 100 pounds. The "scandal" is that they are charging 18.8% interest on the 8.4 million and rolling it up. The "equity" is presumably just the share capital of some holding company set up for the project, and is irrelevent to the scheme of things.

However, at the end of the day it doen't matter a damn what the profits are, from the taxpayers point of view it is whether the cost is more or less.

Unfortunately it seems that these schemes are not evaluated on "what will it cost the taxpayer in total?", but on "what will it cost my departments budget this year?".

If you look at the scheme in that way then the amount of pounds being extracted for the initial 8.4 million will expand geometrically over the length of the contract, so the real problems will come in a couple of decades time, when the payouts will be greatest just as the building becomes old.
45

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/09/2008 13:45:32
#42 Thank you Miss H. :-)

#15 and others reiterate the somewhat confusing line from Ms Sturgeon that "money raised from car parking was not used to fund patient care and would not affect treatment budgets".

Of course it is true that money raised from car parking was not used to fund patient care - it was used to maintain the car parking facilities (and in the case of the Western and other hospitals, to improve bus and pedestrian accesses). But if that money is no longer to be coming in, then what budget is to be raided for this maintenance and access work?

To say that an income stream is being removed, and yet that there will be no impact on patient care, appears to be half a story. Where will the costs of parking and access maintenance now come from?
46

guenevere,

03/09/2008 13:55:11
As per usual scotlans gets the goodies, whilst we silly sods in England work to pay for it.
47

Sedov,

Scotland 03/09/2008 13:55:16
40 Miss H - you use the word "hatred" to describe my ctisism of the SNP ( and if you had read the post corectly) all the other parties. Yours is a flawed analysis of my style of polemic. I look at things objectively from a working class point of view and get stuck into anyone orany political party that I think is doing us down and if that includes the SNP, Labour atc so be it - but it is not hatred as I do not hate anything or anyone - - its standing up for my class As someone once said -it is not for us to cry or to hate but to understand (and then take action) - -anything wrong with that?
48

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 03/09/2008 14:01:51
The money spent on the car-park at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary is minimal. Large parts are mud and potholes.
49

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 03/09/2008 14:04:05
#37 ww

I think your question is a very good one. Where has all the money gone? clearly not on maintaining/developing the car parks.

Maybe Nicola Sturgeon should set up an inquiry?
50

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/09/2008 14:47:59
#51 I don't know about Aberdeen but NHS Lothian's accounts show that they received just under £1 million per year from parking charges (outwith the PFI hospitals) all of which was spent on car parking facilities or pedestrian or bus accesses. They are building a multi-storey car park at the Western, for example.

How can the removal of this income be financially neutral to NHS Lothian. Do they stop maintaining car parking and access routes altogether? Presumably they are obliged to maintain them to a certain level. So they must find at least some of the funds from elsewhere, and perhaps shelve projects like the multi-storey?
51

steve52,

Kinfauns 03/09/2008 14:49:12
There are some right assh**es posting on here no more so that #45. Why should nurse pay to park at their place of work..... As for his comments on consultants, utter piffle. My wife is a consultant and also disabled. She will continue to pay £300 to park her car with NO guarentee of a parking space. Quite often she has a one and a half mile to her office humping medical notes. Who else would fork out £300 and not be guarenteed what they are paying for? Why should my wife or a nurse pay for parking just to look after #45?

Its the greedy selfish people who use Hospital car park to save money on parking elsewhere that cause all the problems.....Oh and the parasites that abuse disable badges, the low lifes that they are.
52

Bottoms Up,

Blackhall 03/09/2008 14:56:53
Don't understand all the fuss over the ERI parking charges which will remain.

I go there reguarly, but park for free in a street nearby (Upper Craigour).

The Western General is more of a problem as you are not always guaranteed a parking space in nearby streets.
53

Miss H,

03/09/2008 15:21:32
49 Yet Sedov I note that you are incapable of welcoming the SNP's commitment to find alternatives to PFI, the entirely publicly funded redevelopment of the Southern General Hospital and the legislation they are proposing to debar commercial companies from bidding to provide GP services.

Which kind of proves my point.
54

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/09/2008 15:39:54
#55 I have to say I welcome the second and third items; I think the first has already become a joke, since this "commitment" has so far resulted only in the stalling or cancellation of several major new projects, including schools building in Edinburgh, while the SNP hums and haws over a scheme, the SFT, which it has known for years is dead in the water.

Such hypocrisy is what earns the SNP a bad press. The SFT, like the LIT, is designed to fail while placing the maximum blame on Westminster. Fight-picking and populism with scant regard for covering costs - not an impressive legacy so far.
55

Sedov,

Scotland. 03/09/2008 16:03:02
55 miss H - guilty by omission then if that makes you happy. Whilst every little reform which takes us forward is to be welcomed - and I have praised the SNP for a few things ( see my post on hydro energy for example). However, unlike you I am under no illusion that piecemeal measures such as you mention, which barely chip away at the edges of big business control over our lives are reforms built on sand and just as they are given to us they can be taken away. Only a fundemental and lasting change in the way society is run can save the planet. Any other view is utopian in the extreme.
56

Miss H,

03/09/2008 16:07:33
56 You say it is such hypocrisy that earns the SNP a bad press. Don't know if you have read Iain Dale's comments on the SNP and the press - interesting coming from an English Tory who surely has no axe to grind for the SNP.

In any case we have always suffered from a bad press. On polling day 2007 they published a picture of a noose in the form of the SNP logo. We still won. We don't court the press, we don't need them.

Cheers
57

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/09/2008 16:16:33
#58 Perhaps I should add mention of a victim mentality and an inability to answer a straight question?

How can the removal of income be financially neutral to NHS Lothian, or any other board?
58

Miss H,

03/09/2008 16:25:01
Nothing to do with a victim mentality, Duncan. You said ‘Such hypocrisy is what earns the SNP a bad press’. Had you said ‘Such hypocrisy is what is causing the voters to turn away from the SNP in droves’ I might have paused for thought. But bad press? Who cares? Like I said we have never had a good press and it hasn’t stopped us.
59

JOHNW,

DUNFERMLINE 03/09/2008 16:26:09
Agree with no7. It was labour that landed us with these non value PFI schemes. Hasn,t Lothian had to buy off a small proportion of the car park charges out of there own budget. In Fife we are about to start a PFI hospital build because the contract was too far gone for the new government to stop.As far as I am concerned the obvious drain on NHS Fifes budgets that will surely follow is totally the fault of the last Labour Exec and one Andy Kerr --Lead Scottish Labour --are they kidding?

The only good point is that Fife hospitals have always had free parking and would not let Consort near it
60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/09/2008 16:35:18
#60 Heh. :-) So you are unconcerned about bad press. Good for you. It's interesting that you appear also to be unconcerned about hypocrisy! The SFT and LIT are cynical levers toward independence; populist policies which create nice headlines but lead to service cuts are also cynical levers towards independence. I think you know this. I think you're quite happy to be a party of hypocrites as long as your precious, simplistic dreams of independence can come true.

Pity the rest of us who have to fight through the thick smug, sorry, smog of nationalist idiocy because it is us who will have to pick up the pieces in the end.
61

Miss H,

03/09/2008 16:58:37
62 Watch out, you will bust a blood vessel there Duncan.

62

Doh,

03/09/2008 17:16:29
#62 Duncan,

It is just a little hypocritical of Labour MPs to vote for Post Office closures at Westminster then to claim they are against the closures in their constituencies.

Sounds two-faced to me.
63

Miss H,

03/09/2008 17:28:44
64 Not at all - I think you will find that they are all in favour of the post office closure programme in principle, just not in their constituencies! That's not hypocrisy surely.

Anyway I don't think it is actually hypocrisy that Duncan was attacking.

He was saying that in both the case of LIT and PFI the SNP has chosen those issues deliberately because the Scottish Government cannot change policy due to Westminster. We can't scrap PFI or abolish council tax because Westminster won't let us. So it is more like an accusation of being cynical and calculating because the SNP has of course never pretended that we agree with Westminster controlling these matters.

That argument also rests of course on Labour in Westminster being stupid enough to identify themselves in Scotland as supporters of PFI and of council tax.

64

truthsleuth,

03/09/2008 21:47:29
#8 Edward

You want to get a brain
If you ask anyone about anything and you say do you want it FREE they will say yes
You pillock.


#10 Pilrig.,
Stick to the subject
(I agree with you about thewar
But then we could all have 'free' healtcare, prescriptions and more nurses more local hospitals
Free car parking comes last
IT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ALL
IT IS NOT FAIR

65

truthsleuth,

03/09/2008 21:49:51
#15 Anonym,
Not a fair point
Tell the politicians it should/must be used for healthcare.
All public expemditure/income
Is exactly that
It is NOT HYPOTHECATED.
66

truthsleuth,

03/09/2008 21:54:45
#34 thinking,
You have my sympathy
The journey is your proiblem NOT the parking
Do you think of the poor so and so without a car living in the Leadhills with a child who is in hospital in Glasgow.
Come on
One for ALL All for One.
67

truthsleuth,

03/09/2008 21:57:59
What about the land required for car parking.
Another hospital could probably be built on it
Yet another subsidy to the motorist
68

Pro Libertate,

Far Side of the Moon 03/09/2008 22:16:29
It's nice to see this forum providing an outlet for reasoned debate and as well as irrational ranting.

69

DaveK,

Edinburgh 03/09/2008 22:54:07
The big losers here will be NCP as everyone rushes to park for free at the hospital, perhaps people will get hurt in the scramble for parking spaces and A and E will fill up even more.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.