It is a fact that many people have no choice but to drive to hospital.
They may need to take in a sick child or elderly relative who might find the journey by public transport a struggle.
They may be required to attend frequent appointments for gruelling treatments such as chemotherapy or keep vigil, round the clock, in an intensive care unit.
Or they may be members of staff whose shifts start or finish at hours when the buses and trains have stopped running.
At a time of anxiety, patients and visitors shouldn’t need to worry about paying exorbitant hospital parking charges. Nor should the often low-paid workers, whose dedication keeps the health service going.
Hospital chiefs say they have no choice but to charge for parking as NHS trusts fleeced them out of £193 million in fees in 2022-23 (File Image)
But indefensibly, NHS trusts fleeced them out of £193 million in fees in 2022-23 – up from £102 million the year before.
Hospital chiefs say they have no choice but to charge for parking. First, there is the capital cost of building car bays.
Then there is the idea that charges deter those shoppers and commuters who might leave their cars there for the day. And, they argue, the bulk of the revenue generated goes back into general hospital services.
Nobody disputes that cost-saving exercises in the NHS are welcome. But sky-high parking fees are nothing less than a tax on the sick – and on those who care for them.
If people spend a great deal of time in hospital, the charges can very quickly cause financial hardship. That can disincentivise the less well-off from seeking treatment or visiting loved ones.
If people spend a great deal of time in hospital, the charges can very quickly cause financial hardship (File Image)
It’s nine years since the Government issued voluntary guidelines cracking down on cynical hospital parking charges. Now it should abolish fees completely.
Hospitals are meant to be centres of care and compassion. Not places where the sick and vulnerable are exploited for profit.
All talk on migrants
Stung by criticism that he is weak on illegal immigration, Sir Keir Starmer has dreamed up another idea to stop the small boats crossing the Channel.
Labour’s leader is looking at ‘offshoring’ asylum seekers. This would involve paying another country to accommodate arrivals while their claims are processed.
In contrast to the Government’s Rwanda deterrent, the migrants would not be settled there. They would either be granted sanctuary and returned to Britain or deported. But deported where exactly?
Labour’s leader is looking at ‘offshoring’ asylum seekers, which would involve paying another country to accommodate arrivals while their claims are processed
As many Channel migrants destroy their documents, it is almost impossible to send them home (Pictured: A group of people thought to be migrants after being brought in to Dungeness, Kent in November)
As many Channel migrants destroy their documents, it is almost impossible to send them home. So if they are not to languish in perpetuity in the ‘offshoring’ country, logic dictates Sir Keir will be forced to bring failed asylum seekers back to the UK.
He would have to house them at a cost of billions – something he has condemned the Tories for. And if migrants knew there was a good possibility they’d eventually end up here, wouldn’t that simply lead more to chance their arm in traffickers’ boats?
At least the Rwanda scheme could work, if given a chance. Labour’s plan would be all talk, all cost – and no deterrent.
Scrap this levy lunacy
First, the good news. The number of international visitors to Britain has almost rebounded to pre-pandemic levels.
But before we break out the champagne, there is also less encouraging Daily Star News Today. The amount of money tourists are spending here is still 16 per cent lower.
The number of international visitors to Britain has almost rebounded to pre-pandemic levels (File Image)
The reason is not hard to fathom. In almost every European country, they can buy goods free of purchase taxes. Here they must pay 20 per cent VAT.
The Treasury claims this will raise up to £2 billion a year. But it clearly won’t if tourists can buy comparable goods cheaper in the boutiques of France and Italy.
With the recovery so fragile, we can’t afford this perverse ‘tourist tax’. When will the Chancellor admit it is disadvantaging us?
NHSChannel 4LabourKeir StarmerRwanda
