My, unusually Political, blog on the effects of the concluding stages of the Health Bill deliberations in parliament is found at:
http://nhspatient.blogspot.com/2009/10/theft-of-nhs.html.

It is highly relevant to this topic.

sherbert wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 7:13am:

This posting appears to be calling for the abolition of the devolved "national" parliaments and assemblies, so as to remove the capacity of their governments to prohibit hospital car park charges. I am sure that the author will be happy to explain the point at whatever length is necessary, if there is perhaps a more complex proposal lying behind the argument that is being advanced.

I do not intend to continue, or provoke, a full debate on the difficult issue of how far responsibility may be devolved in the management of our National Health Service, which covers all of our United Kingdom (we sadly suffer from the word "National" having two different meanings). Efforts to address the topic of this thread do expose aspects of this issue. It can however be fully and effectively addressed without having to consider constitutional change within the NHS in England or elsewhere, let alone at any more fundamental level.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the principles of the NHS demand that patients incur no incidental costs in accessing NHS services. I do not wish our campaign to be seen as a call for NHS providers to offer free telephone calls, by associating it with that for them to offer free car parking. (If the NHS is to be required to meet the costs associated with transport that patients incur when attending a Hospital as a matter of right, I believe that this right must extend well beyond patients and their visitors who are able to park on land that happens to be owned by the Hospital.)

I see the demand that telephone callers are not subjected to a surcharge due to use of revenue sharing numbers to be quite adequate for restoring the principles of the NHS. I fear that in trying to press the issue further we risk weakening our case. Calling for more control to be exercised centrally is a position unlikely to attract much support, so I put aside my serious concerns about the legitimacy of some bodies (not the national governments) holding devolved powers.


If the above points are "on topic" I hope it is therefore acceptable to duplicate the essence of a posting made in another thread, as it is relevant to NHS hospitals on ALL 084 rip-off numbers.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 8^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

sherbert wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 2:17pm:

Campaigners on this particular topic will be aware that the previous Secretary of State introduced limited measures to address this issue for England. We have yet to see whether these will be allowed to go ahead by the present government.

I can appreciate the concern expressed for a particular case. Would this not be the same if one had to travel by taxi, if the hospital had no car park, or if one had to use an alternative chargeable car park some distance away because the free hospital car park was filled with the cars of hospital staff and contractors or others who were not currently attending the hospital?

I regret to say that I believe a potentially complex, locally-devised scheme of exemptions and discounts for in-patients, out-patients, patient visitors, volunteers, staff, contractors and others with business at the hospital to be the only fair and morally correct way to proceed. The issues of how much parking space a hospital must provide, how it rations inadequate space that it has and how far it should encourage use of public transport also add further complications to the matter.


sherbert wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 2:17pm:

I sincerely hope that nobody chooses the subject of their campaigning efforts in order to please me. We disagree, in that I believe the cost of totally abolishing car parking charges on NHS hospital property or subsidising the full cost of telephone calls to the NHS is not justified as an addition to the structural deficit, or in place of other useful expenditure on NHS services.

I am prepared to argue that the cost of the loss of revenue share subsidy on 084 numbers must be carried by NHS bodies and contractors.

Free hospital car parking would undoubtedly be welcomed, especially in areas where free parking is not otherwise available. I believe that the measure would have unintended bad effects and would be unfair to those who have to incur significant costs in travelling to hospitals by other means, or who visit a hospital without a car park (or without any available spaces). There are some who would see it as morally incorrect to introduce a measure that encourages use of the private car.

I do however believe that everything possible should be done to ease, or totally relieve, any burden of incidental cost on those using NHS services.

sherbert wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 5:59pm:

An answer to an essentially political question is invited. Some would suggest that the devolved "national" governments find it easy to implement irresponsible populist measures, because they do not have to themselves raise the revenue to cover the cost. It may also be that with a more rural balance of communities there are fewer cases where the unintended bad effects are seen.

Do the measures that have been put in place for England not address the issue?

I continue to battle furiously to see the ill-specified measures that should form the basis for banning use of 084 numbers in England hospitals achieve the intended effect.

derrick wrote on Jun 10^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:



Here here.

As soon as people realise that the NHS is owned by the tax payer and by no one else the better.

sherbert wrote on Jun 10^th, 2010 at 1:46pm:


I think it is usually  "Hear Hear"      sherbert.  Best wishes.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 10^th, 2010 at 2:14pm:


But surely it always used to be free? I remember when my local hospitals never charged for parking. I also remember visiting my late mother in the Royal Free Hospital in London about 25 years ago and never had to pay to park in their car park. No, what has happened is that they have found a money making scam to screw their customers (patients and visitors) and now they would be in a bit of a hole without that source of revenue.