HC Deb 19 December 1984 vol 70 cc526-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

9.4 am

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for his presence. He will appreciate that, as we conclude our all-night sitting, workers at Woodilee and Stoneyetts will have just finished their night shift. I am sure that we all anxious about the fact that they will be returning to housing conditions which fall far short of the type of environment that we want for people who do so much for the Health Service in my constituency.

The Minister is aware of the history of the problem. There are 100 houses in Woodilee and Stoneyetts. The campaign for the improvement of those houses began some time ago, and it is essential bearing in mind the appalling conditions in which some of my constituents have to live. The Minister was kind enough to afford me a meeting in St. Andrew's house on 1 June. We discussed the problems. Following that meeting—I was delighted with the Minister's response — he announced that an extra £6 million would be made available to the Greater Glasgow health board for the maintenance and improvement of those properties and that £250,000 of it would be allocated to Woodilee and Stoneyetts. The Minister also assured me that he would monitor the matter.

I have called for this debate because I should like to see what evidence there is of the Minister acting in that way. Monitoring is essential if we are to achieve what we want to achieve. When I met representatives of the health board on 1 November, they were not able to assure me that a start had been made. Indeed, the tenders had not been issued. I am sure that the Minister was greatly disappointed at that, in view of the additional allocation that he made. I am sure that, like me, the Minister has an eye on the financial year. I was disappointed to learn this week that, although the contractors have made a superficial appearance, there is no evidence that any real work has been done. I fear for the loss of the £250,000, which is welcome, although it is not an enormous sum. I am much more worried that, if the health board does not spend the money that is available in this financial year, it will be much more difficult for the Minister to endorse the rolling programme, in spite of his good intentions.

It is not enough to say that I am worried about the condition of the houses. I therefore invite the Minister to visit my constituency to see Woodilee and Stoneyetts for himself. If he did that it would be part of the monitoring process, and we might then make the type of progress that has not been made, although I think that the Minister wanted to make progress on 1 June. Even before he arrives, I would like him to send a surveyor so that he can be given professional advice on existing structural conditions. I hope that the Minister will come to Woodilee and Stoneyetts in due course, and I hope that it will not be too long before he does so.

The Minister is aware that I am referring to two old psychiatric hospitals. In Woodilee there are between 900 and 1,000 beds, and at Stoneyetts there are 140 beds, made up of six 40-bed villas. There is a large number of psychogeriatric patients, and I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that even today in Stoneyetts and Woodilee, as elsewhere, we have an absolutely devoted staff that is dedicated to its work and entitled to far better housing than the Greater Glasgow health board is prepared to provide.

The Health Service in my constituency, as elsewhere in Scotland, has experienced cuts. I shall not dwell on that, but, if the Minister is not convinced, all the more reason for him to accept my invitation. He will certainly be unable to persuade the nurses and those who work in those hospitals that the cuts are merely in their imagination. The staff are working longer hours to make up for inadequacies.

There are no changing facilities for staff at Woodilee, and they are using patient facilities. That in itself is indefensible, but to encourage these people to return to houses that are vastly inferior to any reasonable standard is something that I know the House will not accept.

If the Minister accepts my invitation, he will see houses, most of which were built at Woodilee in 1875 and at Stoneyetts in approximately 1912. He will see evidence of precious few repairs and he will award no prizes at all for maintenance. He will see that virtually all the houses are damp and he will learn that 90 per cent. are in need of rewiring. He will see that most of the houses are far from wind and watertight, with roofs leaking, poor guttering, windows in need of repair and outside stairways which are far from secure.

I would like the hon. Gentleman to meet some of my constituents, who can explain their cases much more eloquently than I can. For example, Mrs. Barrie of 12 Carriesbrook puts on a switch and finds that lights other than those expected come on. I am sure that Mrs. Barrie is committed to the Christmas spirit, but that is extending things just a little too far. In addition, it is expensive and dangerous.

The Minister will, I hope, meet Willie Copeland, who has two children aged seven and four. Willie must pay between £450 and £500 a year for a fireplace to heat one room and to keep hot water. Another constituent, Jim Anderson, must pay £400 a year for his gas bill, even though, like most houses, his, too, has only one fireplace.

The same is true of apartments 3, 4 and 5 in this development. When the Minister comes—I am sure he will confirm a visit in his reply—he will meet folks like Evelyn Johnson, Ricky McManus, Rona Anderson and Ciz McMullen. They will tell the Minister—and I shall support them — that they want central heating, dampproof coursing, modern bathrooms and kitchens, new windows, rewiring and modern plumbing and sewerage arrangements. They are absolutely right to ask for each of those amenities and services. It is the very least we expect to meet modern housing standards.

Those of my constituents who are in such houses are aware that modernisation has taken place in the Strathkelvin and Monklands district council schemes. They want similar modernisation. If those of my constituents who are in modernised district council schemes were here they would support fully the argument for similar arrangements to be made for those who work for the Health Service. I make that point not because Health Service workers are envious of council tenants whose houses have been modernised but to confirm that it is right that in both circumstances tenants should be provided with the same opportunity.

We want our staff to live in reasonable conditions. The health board has acknowledged that by reducing rents people are living in inferior conditions. I wish to put on record the response of Mr. Philip Tilley, the Secretary of the Woodilee tenants association. When writing to the district administrator of the Greater Glasgow health board on 9 July 1983 Mr. Tilley said: A number of concerned tenants have asked the committee to write to you regarding your letter dated 22nd June 1983 informing us of the proposed abatement of rent and when it was to be implemented. What concerns the tenants is that the abatement will in some way affect their rights as tenants and their right to have the repairs and improvements carried out. As you will appreciate, we do not feel that a 30 per cent. abatement would be adequate compensation for sub-standard housing or preferable if our rights were to be affected in any way. The tenants' committee would therefore ask that you give your assurance that the abatement in no way affects our rights as tenants. We would also like to take this opportunity to enquire as to whether or not the £40,000 to £45,000 revenue per annum, from the Woodilee houses alone, might not be used to carry out the repairs. We would feel it only just that the rent we are paying should go to improving the properties. In the light of recent government statements regarding the health service it would seem to us that the likelihood of these improvements being done grows increasingly slim. We would also be interested as to whether or not the government's plans might in any way affect your hopes that the improvements will be carried out this year. We hope to hear from you in the near future. Yours faithfully, Philip Tilley". The Minister will recall that the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues have often stated that the National Health Service is safe in their hands. Until these improvements take place my view is that the health of my constituents is not as yet safe in the hands of the Government. I should like an assurance on that point. We are seeking an improvement which represents a modern aspect of the National Health Service—and nothing less. Until recently the water supply of two houses was provided by fire engines. When some empty houses at Stoneyetts caught fire it was not very long before they were engulfed in flames and disappeared because of the absence of fire walls. I do not wish to spread fear and panic, but that is clearly unacceptable. I am sure the Minister would not wish to defend it.

The health of the tenants is a worry. There is evidence that children are suffering from kidney problems caused by dampness. One lady takes her family to live with her mother throughout the winter. I am sure that such circumstances are unacceptable to the House. In the absence of a positive response from the Government, Stoneyetts and Woodilee represent the Cinderella of the NHS in Scotland. My constituents would not expect me to accept that and to say nothing.

I have campaigned with the good people of Stoneyetts and Woodilee and COHSE to seek improvements in the houses, to ensure not what Scottish people would call a lick and a promise, but the full-scale modernisation to which those good people are entitled.

I thank the Minister for listening to the debate and for the response that he is about to make. I assure him that my constituents will consider his remarks carefully, because they will want to see for the people of Stoneyetts and Woodilee, not the bleak future that seems to be in store, but the sort of improvements that can only add to the status of the NHS in Scotland, for which the Minister has a major responsibility.

9.21 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Monklands. West (Mr. Clarke) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the condition of houses provided by the Greater Glasgow health board at Woodilee and Stoneyetts hospitals for the benefit of staff.

I know of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in the matter, about which he came to see me in June. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that the House is in a calmer mood than it was when he first attempted to initiate this debate on 21 November. I am sure that his constituents will be impressed by the fact that it is 9.21 am and we have waited through the night for the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), in whose constituency some of the houses lie, would like to have been present, but he has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. He is on parliamentary business in Edinburgh. Given the length of time that the business is taking, I suspect that my hon. Friend would prefer to have been here.

Hon. Members will know that all NHS property should be maintained to a satisfactory standard. Unfortunately, the standard of maintenance in the past has not always been as good as it might have been. The hon. Gentleman's description of the houses at Woodilees and Stoneyetts confirms that. The problem has been increasingly apparent in recent years.

In March 1980 it was agreed with the chairmen of health boards to set up a group — called the capital steering group—to review the health capital building programme. The group soon decided that a condition survey of existing stock was essential to its work. Such a survey was carried out, being completed early in 1981. The returns made it clear for the first time that a severe problem had built up over many years which could not be solved rapidly from within the normal revenue allocations of boards. It was estimated that the sum required to put matters right would be over £200 million. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend and I decided to provide extra resources from capital funds to attempt to reduce the backlog. Inevitably, it takes time to work up programmes, but we were able to make a start by allocating an initial £6.5 million to boards in the financial year 1983–84 for the purpose. So good was the uptake that we were subsequently able to increase the amount provided in that year to £9.4 million. As their upgrading programme developed, boards sought a total of £16.8 million for the current financial year.

We agreed to meet the whole cost of those programmes and, in the light of progress during the year, we have been able to provide additional amounts, so that, by the end of the year, we expect the total amount allocated to exceed £18.5 million. The House will not expect me to give an open-ended commitment for the future, but we are committed to tackling seriously and systematically the situation that has developed, and I expect, at worst, to maintain the allocation at this year's level.

I expect to learn early in the new year just how much boards themselves consider they can realistically tackle. I shall do what I can to provide the necessary resources. Boards are, I know, fully stretched in preparing suitable schemes. A great amount of detailed planning and negotiation is entailed, and the greatest care has to be taken to ensure that the funds are used to maximum benefit and are fully accounted for.

Nevertheless, having made a useful start, it is important and necessary to maintain momentum in tackling the very serious backlog maintenance problem. Of course we shall also have to take account of other demands for capital funds for new and replacement building. The responsibility for maintenance and for determining the priorities for the use of the funds made available naturally rests with the health boards. It is understandable that pressure from the public leads boards to think first about devoting resources to matters that affect patients most directly.

But it is still short-sighted to neglect maintenance altogether, and I have made that quite clear to boards. The money to which I referred earlier is being provided in an endeavour by my Department to get things back to rights. The buildings which can be improved and restored to a satisfactory condition will be upgraded in accordance with programmes prepared by them from the-special allocation.

Of course, I also expect boards to carry out routine maintenance from their own resources. It would be quite wrong for them to perpetuate the errors of the past. In addition, new accommodation is constantly being provided, either directly from central funds or from the boards' own ordinary capital programmes. Some of the worst hospital accommodation has been closed and patients are being treated in new or upgraded wards. Total capital expenditure this year will be well over £100 million.

I turn now to the position of the Greater Glasgow health board. The board has benefited from the special allocation. Work to the value of over £3 million was carried out last year, and more than £6 million is expected to be spent on backlog maintenance by the end of March. It is for the board itself to determine where the money should be spent, and it is natural that the first thought should be to improve patient accommodation. Staff housing has, however, not been neglected.

I have referred already to the meeting that I had with the hon. Member for Monklands, West in June. I welcomed that meeting and the very fair way in which he made his views known, just as he has made them known today. I was able to tell him then that the Greater Glasgow health board was anxious to proceed with necessary upgrading work to staff houses in its care. It proposed to allocate £250,000 to this work out of the total of £6 million which it had sought and which had been allocated for the current year. It was its intention that part of that money would be spent on staff housing at Woodilee and Stoneyetts hospitals. Had that been its only concern, I have no doubt that work would have been well under way, if not completed, by now.

However, preparatory work for a wide range of schemes affecting much of the stock has taken a good deal of time. A major programme is being carried out at Woodilee hospital on various works costing £500,000. I hope that those staff who look around and think that there may be cuts in the Health Service will consider that work which is going on in their own hospital at Woodilee. They might then realise that those cuts are more imaginary than real. Indeed, we are spending more money than ever before on the Health Service.

Those parts of the hospital that have benefited include wards one to four, wards five and six, the pharmacy, the laundry, Craigie house and Woodilee house. As an extension of that work a start has been made on upgrading the houses at Fauldhead and Woodilee cottages and at Stoneyetts. I am informed that the first stage of the work—a drainage contract involving houses in Carresbrooke avenue and Marweed avenue, Fauldhead, is due to be completed today. Similar work involving the houses in Blairhill avenue and Rutherford avenue and the Woodilee cottages is due to be completed on 10 January, and equivalent work at Stoneyetts, which is also under way, is due for completion on 18 January.

Going beyond this necessary preliminary work, a contract has been agreed covering the external work on the houses in Carresbrooke avenue and Robb terrace, Fauldhead; Woodilee cottages Nos. 15 to 18, and two houses at Stoneyetts. This work, which will cost in the region of £200,000, will commence on 7 January 1985, and the board is pressing ahead with the details necessary to let a further contract for the phase of the operations covering Marwood avenue, Rutherford avenue, Blairhill avenue, all at Fauldhead, and the remaining cottages Nos. 1 to 14 at Woodilee.

If weather conditions remain favourable, the work in phase one should be completed by the end of the financial year. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's specific point about ensuring that the work was done in a financial year.

Mr. Tom Clarke

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but in saying, If the weather conditions remain favourable", is he not confirming my criticism that the work should have started much earlier during the summer months? Has he had an explanation from the Greater Glasgow health board as to why that did not happen?

Mr. MacKay

I appreciate that it would be nice if all building work could be done in the summer months, but that is not possible. The building industry would not like that for a start.

I mentioned that the Greater Glasgow health board has a number of new building projects, schemes and problems of this nature on its books. Therefore, its staff resources have to be divided among those planning matters. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his previous incarnation in local authorities, it takes time to draw up specifications and get tenders. But I hope that, if the weather conditions remain favourable, the first phase should be completed by the end of the financial year and the second phase should proceed immediately thereafter.

Mr. Tom Clarke

In view of the Minister's reference to my previous involvement in local government, it is necessary, in the light of my invitation to the Minister to come to my constituency, to say that I cannot think of any local authority which, having been given money by his Department, then waited five months without presenting evidence that it was anxious to spend the money.

Mr. MacKay

The Greater Glasgow health board is anxious to spend the money. Indeed, it is anxious that phase two should proceed immediately after phase one. Any remaining external work and such other internal work, including re-wiring, as the board decides to carry out will be met from the 1985–86 allocation.

The board is responsible for many other staff houses associated with hospitals throughout its area. While I have concentrated on the houses which are the subject of this debate, I know that the board is carefully considering the improvements which are required to its remaining housing stock, and also, importantly—this is a matter that I wish to develop a little — the extent to which it can now declare staff houses surplus to requirements and earn some income from their disposal.

Concern about under-used residential property in the NHS is widespread. I have recently arranged for copies of a report, carried out for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, to be issued to boards in Scotland, and they have been asked to look closely at their residential accommodation with a view to identifying and disposing of all that is not needed.

I want to make it clear that there is no threat to tenants of NHS houses who do not wish or cannot afford to buy their houses. We simply want them to have the opportunity to do so. Health boards have always shown themselves to be good landlords and the guidelines that I have laid sown should ensure that they continue to do so.

Officials of the board met members of the Woodilee tenants association early in November to tell them of their plans for improving the houses. Since then they are to be congratulated on the progress that has been made and on keeping in close touch with the tenants association. When the last meeting took place, a further meeting was arranged for 21 December to review progress. I hope that that meeting will be an opportunity both to review the real progress that has been made and to discuss the board's proposals for future improvements.

The hon. Gentleman has been constructive in his discussions with me and in the attention that he has paid to this important matter. I hope that if he attends that meeting on Friday, as I think he intends to do, he will be able to hear further details of the progress that I have outlined today. He will also be able to raise, along with his constituents, some specific points.

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will keep me informed of progress, and I shall bear in mind his invitation to pay a visit to his constituency. I was flattered that he felt that a visit from me would be such a catalyst that work would progress apace and almost instantly. I hope that the work will progress apace without the necessity of a visit from me to stimulate it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep me informed, and I hope that before next winter, certainly, his constituents will be living in upgraded and much improved houses.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Ten o'clock am.