Parking Charges

winkyincanada posted:

Pev posted:

Another way they profiteer is by charging employees exorbitant amounts for parking, which is deducted from their wages - instant pay cut!

Another way to view this is that they are incentivising employees to choose more sustainable modes of commuting. Yet another way is to consider that they are charging a fee for a service that costs them money to provide. It would be unfair on those that take the bus to work to provide a free service to drivers only, unless it is matched by rebates to non-drivers.

A more sustainable way being a 3 hour long unreliable bus journey at each end of your shift? I don't know about Canada but in the UK there are many people that don't have a bus stop within miles of where they live, so add on a long walk at each end of the day down dark roads with no footpaths.

Not my idea of sustainable!

As for a fee for a service - the rate charged to employees at the Trust I worked in is way above any cost recovery level. Basically health workers are being ripped off to subsidise the NHS.

Pev posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Pev posted:

Another way they profiteer is by charging employees exorbitant amounts for parking, which is deducted from their wages - instant pay cut!

Another way to view this is that they are incentivising employees to choose more sustainable modes of commuting. Yet another way is to consider that they are charging a fee for a service that costs them money to provide. It would be unfair on those that take the bus to work to provide a free service to drivers only, unless it is matched by rebates to non-drivers.

A more sustainable way being a 3 hour long unreliable bus journey at each end of your shift? I don't know about Canada but in the UK there are many people that don't have a bus stop within miles of where they live, so add on a long walk at each end of the day down dark roads with no footpaths.

Not my idea of sustainable!

As for a fee for a service - the rate charged to employees at the Trust I worked in is way above any cost recovery level. Basically health workers are being ripped off to subsidise the NHS.

 

I agree. It's disgraceful and rubs salt into the wound of long-suppressed salaries too. 

MDS posted:

Probably a matter for a separate thread but I just don't 'get' HS2.  East/West rail improvements like the new Elizabeth line I can understand but North/South seems well served already.    

Why not start a new thread?I I feel the need the vent my spleen and if not that then the doubling of the plastic bag tax which is nowt to do with saving the environment IMHO.

Pev posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Pev posted:

Another way they profiteer is by charging employees exorbitant amounts for parking, which is deducted from their wages - instant pay cut!

Another way to view this is that they are incentivising employees to choose more sustainable modes of commuting. Yet another way is to consider that they are charging a fee for a service that costs them money to provide. It would be unfair on those that take the bus to work to provide a free service to drivers only, unless it is matched by rebates to non-drivers.

A more sustainable way being a 3 hour long unreliable bus journey at each end of your shift?I don't know about Canada but in the UK there are many people that don't have a bus stop within miles of where they live, so add on a long walk at each end of the day down dark roads with no footpaths.

Not my idea of sustainable!

As for a fee for a service - the rate charged to employees at the Trust I worked in is way above any cost recovery level. Basically health workers are being ripped off to subsidise the NHS.

 

I do. If there was a bus stop within 2 miles of our place I should be delighted. 15km into town. The first bus stop............I don't actually recall seeing a bus (other than the yellow school bus) never mind a bus stop !

Jonners posted:

MDS posted:

Probably a matter for a separate thread but I just don't 'get' HS2.  East/West rail improvements like the new Elizabeth line I can understand but North/South seems well served already.    

Why not start a new thread?II feel the need the vent my spleen and if not that then the doubling of the plastic bag tax which is nowt to do with saving the environment IMHO.

I'm sure that Bruce can advise on the effectiveness (and safest way) of doing this ......................

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

tonym posted:

"The money goes to patient care". Really? I'd like to see the audit trail that shows it. NHS Trusts are very good at trotting out that sentence as justification for such things, but in my experience very little, if anything, trickles down to direct patient treatment.

Have you actual knowledge and experience of that, or do you just believe it? Where are you saying it goes?

 

Bruce

I never comment on something I don't have experience of. Where does it go? "It" being the funding for the NHS, and in my fifty-odd years of either working with NHS patients, or latterly (I'm now thankfully retired) helping my wife, who was a clinician and is now involved in managing a specialist clinical service contracted to the NHS, I've witnessed funding increasingly being being swallowed up by inefficiencies. As an example, the dismantling of the NHS purchasing agency (PASA, NHS Supplies) "To free up funds for patient services" has lost a vital intelligent purchasing function and now cheapest rules. I've witnessed the debacle of the various NHS attempts to acquire a workable IT system (my GP's surgery has done so, to a limited extent). I accept that the demands on the NHS have grown, not only numbers of patients and complexities of treatments, but also the increasing need to justify what it does. But that should be grounds for greater efficiency. I could go on, but this is not the place for it.

I've just returned from Scotland, where most, if not all, hospitals have free parking. I'm not suggesting parking in English hospitals should be free, but it should only cover the costs of managing the parking facility and not prop up inadequate funding for patient services. It's just a tax that disguises the true shortfalls in funding.

Let's just blame the Nasty Party and move on. If you support the idea of car parking fees you are a hopelessly lost social pariah of a Nasty party supporter. However, if you do not then you are a responsible and caring member of society. A bit like the difference between supporting Brexit and doing the right and proper thing. That should get this thread closed.   

Pev posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Pev posted:

Another way they profiteer is by charging employees exorbitant amounts for parking, which is deducted from their wages - instant pay cut!

Another way to view this is that they are incentivising employees to choose more sustainable modes of commuting. Yet another way is to consider that they are charging a fee for a service that costs them money to provide. It would be unfair on those that take the bus to work to provide a free service to drivers only, unless it is matched by rebates to non-drivers.

A more sustainable way being a 3 hour long unreliable bus journey at each end of your shift? I don't know about Canada but in the UK there are many people that don't have a bus stop within miles of where they live, so add on a long walk at each end of the day down dark roads with no footpaths.

Not my idea of sustainable!

As for a fee for a service - the rate charged to employees at the Trust I worked in is way above any cost recovery level. Basically health workers are being ripped off to subsidise the NHS.

 

Yes, I understand that many people are very poorly served by public transit. But people using transit where they can, immediately make it better for those that have to drive by reducing congestion and making parking more plentiful.  Incentivising its use by those that are well-served increases support and funding for extension of that service in terms of coverage and frequency.

You'd (perhaps) be amazed by how many people dismiss transit as a strategic option to improve our mobility, simply because they, personally, are currently poorly served. "There should be no investment in transit because I don't/can't use it". Those people without access to decent services should be fighting the hardest for improvement, even if only to get the other drivers off the road and out of their parking spaces.

Parking rates aren't above cost-recovery when one considers the opportunity cost of the spaces. If nearby parking is very scarce, so you are forced to park in the hospital car-park (and pay the "rip-off" prices), then the hospital forgoes the opportunity to sell that space to someone else if they sell it to you. Oh, and the NHS is already subsidised. It's a public service. We're just discussing the mechanism.

Charging staff to park at their own place of work is a rip-off and, ethically and morally, indefensible. It is, as has been stated a pay-cut. Good luck to the guy who flouts it and park on! If they really must have paid parking for visitors, why not provide a dedicated staff car park with a security barrier so staff can park free? Or even just staff permits?

My employer not only provides a secure, well-lit, barriered, car park for its staff but also pays for a number of bays in a local authority long-term car park.

steve

Paper Plane posted:

Charging staff to park at their own place of work is a rip-off and, ethically and morally, indefensible. It is, as has been stated a pay-cut. Good luck to the guy who flouts it and park on! If they really must have paid parking for visitors, why not provide a dedicated staff car park with a security barrier so staff can park free? Or even just staff permits?

My employer not only provides a secure, well-lit, barriered, car park for its staff but also pays for a number of bays in a local authority long-term car park.

steve

Why should people who choose to drive to work, receive a subsidy over those who commute by other means? I'll get behind free parking when the true value of the subsidy/perk provided to those using it is paid in cash to those who do not. Anything else is grossly unfair.

winkyincanada posted:

Paper Plane posted:

Charging staff to park at their own place of work is a rip-off and, ethically and morally, indefensible. It is, as has been stated a pay-cut. Good luck to the guy who flouts it and park on! If they really must have paid parking for visitors, why not provide a dedicated staff car park with a security barrier so staff can park free? Or even just staff permits?

My employer not only provides a secure, well-lit, barriered, car park for its staff but also pays for a number of bays in a local authority long-term car park.

steve

Why should people who choose to drive to work, receive a subsidy over those who commute by other means? I'll get behind free parking when the true value of the subsidy/perk provided to those using it is paid in cash to those who do not. Anything else is grossly unfair.

Here in the U.K., public transport is heavily subsidised. Bus and train services bear little or no relation to the actual cost of provision.

If train commuters had to pay the true value of train services in cash, to those of us who don’t use them, I’d be laughing all the way to the bank and back.

Now, I don’t pay to park at work, (I work freelance) but if I did need to pay, I would easily add it to my chargeout rates, much the same as I cover the cost of travel to airfields, which by their very nature, tend to be out of town.

Cheers, Don

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Paper Plane posted:

Charging staff to park at their own place of work is a rip-off and, ethically and morally, indefensible. It is, as has been stated a pay-cut. Good luck to the guy who flouts it and park on! If they really must have paid parking for visitors, why not provide a dedicated staff car park with a security barrier so staff can park free? Or even just staff permits?

My employer not only provides a secure, well-lit, barriered, car park for its staff but also pays for a number of bays in a local authority long-term car park.

steve

Why should people who choose to drive to work, receive a subsidy over those who commute by other means? I'll get behind free parking when the true value of the subsidy/perk provided to those using it is paid in cash to those who do not. Anything else is grossly unfair.

Here in the U.K., public transport is heavily subsidised. Bus and train services bear little or no relation to the actual cost of provision.

If train commuters had to pay the true value of train services in cash, to those of us who don’t use them, I’d be laughing all the way to the bank and back.

Now, I don’t pay to park at work, (I work freelance) but if I did need to pay, I would easily add it to my chargeout rates, much the same as I cover the cost of travel to airfields, which by their very nature, tend to be out of town.

Cheers, Don

 

And if drivers paid the true cost of private vehicle use, we'd all be better off.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Paper Plane posted:

Charging staff to park at their own place of work is a rip-off and, ethically and morally, indefensible. It is, as has been stated a pay-cut. Good luck to the guy who flouts it and park on! If they really must have paid parking for visitors, why not provide a dedicated staff car park with a security barrier so staff can park free? Or even just staff permits?

My employer not only provides a secure, well-lit, barriered, car park for its staff but also pays for a number of bays in a local authority long-term car park.

steve

Why should people who choose to drive to work, receive a subsidy over those who commute by other means? I'll get behind free parking when the true value of the subsidy/perk provided to those using it is paid in cash to those who do not. Anything else is grossly unfair.

Here in the U.K., public transport is heavily subsidised. Bus and train services bear little or no relation to the actual cost of provision.

If train commuters had to pay the true value of train services in cash, to those of us who don’t use them, I’d be laughing all the way to the bank and back.

Now, I don’t pay to park at work, (I work freelance) but if I did need to pay, I would easily add it to my chargeout rates, much the same as I cover the cost of travel to airfields, which by their very nature, tend to be out of town.

Cheers, Don

 

And if drivers paid the true cost of private vehicle use, we'd all be better off.

In the UK I think Treasury has accepted that through road fund licence, road fuel duty, and VAT on fuel and vehicles, motorists pay significantly more than is spent on providing the infrastructure.    

MDS posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Paper Plane posted:

Charging staff to park at their own place of work is a rip-off and, ethically and morally, indefensible. It is, as has been stated a pay-cut. Good luck to the guy who flouts it and park on! If they really must have paid parking for visitors, why not provide a dedicated staff car park with a security barrier so staff can park free? Or even just staff permits?

My employer not only provides a secure, well-lit, barriered, car park for its staff but also pays for a number of bays in a local authority long-term car park.

steve

Why should people who choose to drive to work, receive a subsidy over those who commute by other means? I'll get behind free parking when the true value of the subsidy/perk provided to those using it is paid in cash to those who do not. Anything else is grossly unfair.

Here in the U.K., public transport is heavily subsidised. Bus and train services bear little or no relation to the actual cost of provision.

If train commuters had to pay the true value of train services in cash, to those of us who don’t use them, I’d be laughing all the way to the bank and back.

Now, I don’t pay to park at work, (I work freelance) but if I did need to pay, I would easily add it to my chargeout rates, much the same as I cover the cost of travel to airfields, which by their very nature, tend to be out of town.

Cheers, Don

 

And if drivers paid the true cost of private vehicle use, we'd all be better off.

In the UK I think Treasury has accepted that through road fund licence, road fuel duty, and VAT on fuel and vehicles, motorists pay significantly more than is spent on providing the infrastructure.    

You perhaps don't think any of this counts, but to those costs we need to add the subsidies accruing to fossil fuel industry, the health care costs due to pollution from the manufacture and use of cars, the health care costs due to chronic inactivity of drivers, the health care costs due to the killing and maiming of people, the current and future environmental costs, the costs of policing the roads (due to the inherently dangerous nature of motor vehicles), the loss of quality of life suffered by those living near and having negotiate the ubiquitous car sewers.

winkyincanada posted:

You perhaps don't think any of this counts, but to those costs we need to add the subsidies accruing to fossil fuel industry, the health care costs due to pollution from the manufacture and use of cars, the health care costs due to chronic inactivity of drivers, the health care costs due to the killing and maiming of people, the current and future environmental costs, the costs of policing the roads (due to the inherently dangerous nature of motor vehicles), the loss of quality of life suffered by those living near and having negotiate the ubiquitous car sewers.

I'd bet a Pound to a Penny that when PHCT Governors hold their meetings and car parking is on the agenda, deciding what to charge staff and visitors isn't decided on the things listed in this post which is tangental to the main subject and really a question of morality and fairness.

Jonners posted:

winkyincanada posted:

You perhaps don't think any of this counts, but to those costs we need to add the subsidies accruing to fossil fuel industry, the health care costs due to pollution from the manufacture and use of cars, the health care costs due to chronic inactivity of drivers, the health care costs due to the killing and maiming of people, the current and future environmental costs, the costs of policing the roads (due to the inherently dangerous nature of motor vehicles), the loss of quality of life suffered by those living near and having negotiate the ubiquitous car sewers.

I'd bet a Pound to a Penny that when PHCT Governors hold their meetings and car parking is on the agenda, deciding what to charge staff and visitors isn't decided on the things listed in this post which is tangental to the main subject and really a question of morality and fairness.

Of course they don't consider these things. Everybody drive everywhere! It's the only way.

tonym posted:

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

tonym posted:

"The money goes to patient care". Really? I'd like to see the audit trail that shows it. NHS Trusts are very good at trotting out that sentence as justification for such things, but in my experience very little, if anything, trickles down to direct patient treatment.

Have you actual knowledge and experience of that, or do you just believe it? Where are you saying it goes?

 

Bruce

I never comment on something I don't have experience of. Where does it go? "It" being the funding for the NHS, and in my fifty-odd years of either working with NHS patients, or latterly (I'm now thankfully retired) helping my wife, who was a clinician and is now involved in managing a specialist clinical service contracted to the NHS, I've witnessed funding increasingly being being swallowed up by inefficiencies. As an example, the dismantling of the NHS purchasing agency (PASA, NHS Supplies) "To free up funds for patient services" has lost a vital intelligent purchasing function and now cheapest rules. I've witnessed the debacle of the various NHS attempts to acquire a workable IT system (my GP's surgery has done so, to a limited extent). I accept that the demands on the NHS have grown, not only numbers of patients and complexities of treatments, but also the increasing need to justify what it does. But that should be grounds for greater efficiency. I could go on, but this is not the place for it.

I've just returned from Scotland, where most, if not all, hospitals have free parking. I'm not suggesting parking in English hospitals should be free, but it should only cover the costs of managing the parking facility and not prop up inadequate funding for patient services. It's just a tax that disguises the true shortfalls in funding.

Tony

I appreciate you replying.

Note however that NHS IT and NHS purchasing polices are central NHSE (ie government)  responsibilities. Car parking charges are a local ie NHSFT decision, and the funds can only be set, administered and spent by that organisation.

This may seem a pedantic difference but in actual fact it makes a huge one. NHSFTs are required to balance their books, and justify (as well as audit) their accounts. Central Govt does not, and often is the source of large amounts of stupidity in my view. The two you cite being prime examples.

Bruce

winkyincanada posted:

MDS posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Paper Plane posted:

Charging staff to park at their own place of work is a rip-off and, ethically and morally, indefensible. It is, as has been stated a pay-cut. Good luck to the guy who flouts it and park on! If they really must have paid parking for visitors, why not provide a dedicated staff car park with a security barrier so staff can park free? Or even just staff permits?

My employer not only provides a secure, well-lit, barriered, car park for its staff but also pays for a number of bays in a local authority long-term car park.

steve

Why should people who choose to drive to work, receive a subsidy over those who commute by other means? I'll get behind free parking when the true value of the subsidy/perk provided to those using it is paid in cash to those who do not. Anything else is grossly unfair.

Here in the U.K., public transport is heavily subsidised. Bus and train services bear little or no relation to the actual cost of provision.

If train commuters had to pay the true value of train services in cash, to those of us who don’t use them, I’d be laughing all the way to the bank and back.

Now, I don’t pay to park at work, (I work freelance) but if I did need to pay, I would easily add it to my chargeout rates, much the same as I cover the cost of travel to airfields, which by their very nature, tend to be out of town.

Cheers, Don

 

And if drivers paid the true cost of private vehicle use, we'd all be better off.

In the UK I think Treasury has accepted that through road fund licence, road fuel duty, and VAT on fuel and vehicles, motorists pay significantly more than is spent on providing the infrastructure.    

You perhaps don't think any of this counts, but to those costs we need to add the subsidies accruing to fossil fuel industry, the health care costs due to pollution from the manufacture and use of cars, the health care costs due to chronic inactivity of drivers, the health care costs due to the killing and maiming of people, the current and future environmental costs, the costs of policing the roads (due to the inherently dangerous nature of motor vehicles), the loss of quality of life suffered by those living near and having negotiate the ubiquitous car sewers.

And what about the weather? It’s high time the costs of the weather were also included (imho) ...

ynwa250505 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

MDS posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Paper Plane posted:

Charging staff to park at their own place of work is a rip-off and, ethically and morally, indefensible. It is, as has been stated a pay-cut. Good luck to the guy who flouts it and park on! If they really must have paid parking for visitors, why not provide a dedicated staff car park with a security barrier so staff can park free? Or even just staff permits?

My employer not only provides a secure, well-lit, barriered, car park for its staff but also pays for a number of bays in a local authority long-term car park.

steve

Why should people who choose to drive to work, receive a subsidy over those who commute by other means? I'll get behind free parking when the true value of the subsidy/perk provided to those using it is paid in cash to those who do not. Anything else is grossly unfair.

Here in the U.K., public transport is heavily subsidised. Bus and train services bear little or no relation to the actual cost of provision.

If train commuters had to pay the true value of train services in cash, to those of us who don’t use them, I’d be laughing all the way to the bank and back.

Now, I don’t pay to park at work, (I work freelance) but if I did need to pay, I would easily add it to my chargeout rates, much the same as I cover the cost of travel to airfields, which by their very nature, tend to be out of town.

Cheers, Don

 

And if drivers paid the true cost of private vehicle use, we'd all be better off.

In the UK I think Treasury has accepted that through road fund licence, road fuel duty, and VAT on fuel and vehicles, motorists pay significantly more than is spent on providing the infrastructure.    

You perhaps don't think any of this counts, but to those costs we need to add the subsidies accruing to fossil fuel industry, the health care costs due to pollution from the manufacture and use of cars, the health care costs due to chronic inactivity of drivers, the health care costs due to the killing and maiming of people, the current and future environmental costs, the costs of policing the roads (due to the inherently dangerous nature of motor vehicles), the loss of quality of life suffered by those living near and having negotiate the ubiquitous car sewers.

And what about the weather? It’s high time the costs of the weather were also included (imho) ...

To summarise....... the sooner mankind shoots itself and leaves this world to the apes, the better ......

..... now, didn’t I see a documentary about that ? Or was it just some Hollywood fantasy ?

Just looking at this thread now. I have been in hospital management for last 40 years and can say the the provision of car parking has always been a contentious point at every hospital I have worked in.

i think it's important to look at the core issue of what actual service are we trying to supply, and that is healthcare. The car park facility is not a prime role but is an enabler to the core service.

the hospital budgets are based on the healthcare need and do not cover the capital funding investment needed to create the car parking or indeed their continued and ongoing service provision, after creation.

when a hospital spends large sums creating the parking facility, then they are criticised for such spending rather than using the money on direct healthcare, so it's often a no win scenario.

if we separate out the question to whether we should be providing parking (not a healthcare matter, but an enabler), rather than the level of charging. Most people would suggest that providing parking would be a benefit to assist visiting a hospital.

now if we accept we need to offer some provision, but recognise that the funding investment to achieve this is not part of the healthcare budgets, then the management team needs to establish a funding source, and a business plan to recoup those costs against the capital investment.

we now arrive at the reason for the charges applied for the facility.

if the parking fee structure results in a surplus, it is only right that these monies are used to improve the healthcare provision, and also consider a review of fee structure with possible reductions,to achieve a future balance.

its important to also understand the location of the parking facility and its charge structure and its users, as in some situations, if fees are very reasonable, the car park will be used by "non hospital" traffic, for park and ride, shoppers, etc, which detracts from the principle reason for its creation.

in summary, not a simple solution and needs due consideration of a wide range of issues

Just a few clarifications and questions:

*since I live where there is no public transport I should presumably cease going to work until there is a bus service? I would welcome ideas on how to spontaneously create one given the current public spending regime!

*it is a disciplinary offence (quite rightly) for hospital employees to park in neighbouring residential streets so the "opportunity cost" argument is based on a false premise of a goldmine of revenue from demand for parking being an optiion. There is plenty of parking nearby but it is for the local residents not the hospital. The cost of provison is the whole cost. 

*THE BIG ONE! I am sick of people claiming that other peoples' behaviour should be taxed excessively to represent their "cost to the health system". If this is a valid principle then those people who live totally healthy/self righteous lifestyles should also be taxed to allow for the cost of the extra care they will need due to their massively extended lifespans. At least most smokers and drinkers have the decency to peg out early rather than endlessly lingering on at a far greater cost than an acute episode or two.

Irony alert: the above paragraph should be read in the spirit of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal".

Cbr600 posted:

its important to also understand the location of the parking facility and its charge structure and its users, as in some situations, if fees are very reasonable, the car park will be used by "non hospital" traffic, for park and ride, shoppers, etc, which detracts from the principle reason for its creation.

I don't think there can be any justification for over-charging hospitals workers and visitors as some kind of deterrent to park-and-riders. The average 1 hour stay in a hospital in England is £3-£4. Even if it were half this it would still be considerably more than park-and-ride facilities charging around £7 for a whole day including a return bus fare. I can understand the need to charge to provide, run and maintain but the only reason hospitals charge these over-inflated fees is because they can and I think its indefensible. In the case of Oxford Hospitals they even charge disabled drivers to park in the short term car parks. How is that morally acceptable?

This is a tricky one because if you scrap parking charges you'll have all and sundry taking up spaces and not for hospital visits. This may then make it difficult for hospital workers, patients and visitors to park. Hospital workers should have a pass card as should those on regular treatment. Agree it's a rip off but some thought needed to have a workable system. Rich 

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

tonym posted:

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

tonym posted:

"The money goes to patient care". Really? I'd like to see the audit trail that shows it. NHS Trusts are very good at trotting out that sentence as justification for such things, but in my experience very little, if anything, trickles down to direct patient treatment.

Have you actual knowledge and experience of that, or do you just believe it? Where are you saying it goes?

 

Bruce

I never comment on something I don't have experience of. Where does it go? "It" being the funding for the NHS, and in my fifty-odd years of either working with NHS patients, or latterly (I'm now thankfully retired) helping my wife, who was a clinician and is now involved in managing a specialist clinical service contracted to the NHS, I've witnessed funding increasingly being being swallowed up by inefficiencies. As an example, the dismantling of the NHS purchasing agency (PASA, NHS Supplies) "To free up funds for patient services" has lost a vital intelligent purchasing function and now cheapest rules. I've witnessed the debacle of the various NHS attempts to acquire a workable IT system (my GP's surgery has done so, to a limited extent). I accept that the demands on the NHS have grown, not only numbers of patients and complexities of treatments, but also the increasing need to justify what it does. But that should be grounds for greater efficiency. I could go on, but this is not the place for it.

I've just returned from Scotland, where most, if not all, hospitals have free parking. I'm not suggesting parking in English hospitals should be free, but it should only cover the costs of managing the parking facility and not prop up inadequate funding for patient services. It's just a tax that disguises the true shortfalls in funding.

Tony

I appreciate you replying.

Note however that NHS IT and NHS purchasing polices are central NHSE (ie government)  responsibilities. Car parking charges are a local ie NHSFT decision, and the funds can only be set, administered and spent by that organisation.

This may seem a pedantic difference but in actual fact it makes a huge one. NHSFTs are required to balance their books, and justify (as well as audit) their accounts. Central Govt does not, and often is the source of large amounts of stupidity in my view. The two you cite being prime examples.

Bruce

I'll pick you up on a couple of points if I may Bruce. Following the demise of NHS Supplies, responsibility for procurement of services devolved to the individual Trusts, who still decide on purchasing decisions but, crucially, have lost the central pool of commercial expertise, their procurement teams in my experience picking cheapest on the basis of not being capable of making a case for more cost-effective, or having the knowledge to do so. Some Trusts have made a decision to devolve procurement responsibilities to services frameworks, who in my experience are even more dumbed-down than the Trusts' own procurement teams, and appear to me to be another bureaucratic layer whose sole function is to select cheapest and slap a 2% charge of the contract value to pay for their "Services". I still regularly view the contracts drawn up by individual Trusts, procurement hubs, and now, heaven help us, "Gateway Towers". "Contract" is perhaps too kind a description, they're just generic cut and paste, with little if any customisation to suit individual specialist needs and in my opinion are an utter disgrace.

I don't doubt that as a sort-of commercial entity a Trust's books will balance, neither do I doubt that within their accounts spending has to be justified, but I would be interested to see the audit trail to show that all the money they make in profit for excessive car parking charges goes to direct patient care.

Cheers Tony

As alluded to in the post by CBR600 budgets for NHSFTs (and other NHS organisations) are held in various ring fenced pots. It cannot therefore be assumed that poor purchasing policies mean that monies generated from parking charges are 'lost' in purchasing for example. It may well be that regulations exist whereby such profits can only be used in certain ways, I am not sure, but it would not surprise me. Certainly such rules exist for the ways we can and cannot spend various pots as a CCG.

I am not defending these systems or the way they are run, and I know they could do things better, but they are also public bodies with a significant degree of accountability. I don't think it is fair or accurate to assume that when a Trust says any profits go to patient care they are not telling the truth.

Best leave this now maybe

Bruce