Stobhill General Hospital, Glasgow (Hansard, 9 July 1991)

§ Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)
May I convey my thanks through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Mr. Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate on a subject of great local importance—the future of Stobhill general hospital in my constituency?
The hospital is in the north end of Glasgow and serves not only my constituency but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is in the Chamber at this early hour. It also serves the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), for Cumbernauld and Kilsvth (Mr. Hogg) and for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate.
The staff, patients, patients' relatives and people who live in the community are attached to the hospital, which has served them since the first world war, but feel that its casualty department is not all that it could be. If someone suffers bone damage, he or she is sent to the Royal infirmary, which is about two or three miles down the road in the Townhead area of Glasgow. A patient can sit in casualty for a long time only to be told that he or she will be moved to the Royal Infirmary and will have to go through the same procedure again.
The Minister will know that in urban areas, where unemployment is high and there are many social problems, at least 40 per cent. of admissions are of people who prefer to be treated at the casualty department than by their general practitioner. That 40 per cent. consists of people who perhaps have an appendix problem, a stomach ulcer, a heart complaint or other serious problem. If the casualty department is run down, it is feared that the hospital will lose at least 40 per cent. of its admissions.
Stobhill, like every general hospital in Glasgow, has been told by Greater Glasgow health board to reduce the number of beds available to the public. The problem is exacerbated by chest patients from east Glasgow who were treated at Belvedere hospital but must now use Stobhill. We are grateful for Stobhill's expert chest consultants, but the Minister will know that unless extra beds are made available there will be severe pressure on the hospital and its highly professional staff who are trying to do a decent job for patients.
I was told only a few weeks ago that an elderly patient who was in the heart ward at Stobhill was woken at 2 am or 3 am and told that she and her bed would be moved to another ward because an acute patient had undergone surgery and needed that specialised ward. It is a sad state of affairs when our elderly, whose generation served us so well and who should be enjoying their retirement, must put up with that. They are shunted off and decanted—that is the best word I can use—in much the same way as a tenant is decanted from his or her home when a repair is necessary. I think that the Minister will agree that that is no way to treat an elderly person.
Doctors at the hospital are complaining about feeling guilty because, owing to the shortage of beds, they are having to put pressure on relatives, particularly those of elderly patients, to get patients discharged, when, in their 925 judgment, some of the patients should remain in hospital for a week or two longer. That is not helping morale among hospital staff or reassuring patients' relatives.
Six of Stobhill's wards are mixed, meaning that men and women share wards for 24 hours a day and toilet facilities. That restricts privacy, particularly for female patients who must be sure to be properly dressed all the time. Should a disruptive patient behave uneasonably, the whole ward could be turned upside down. My daughter Mary was in a mixed ward in Stobhill about a year ago. She had no objection to that and got on well with all the patients, but considering that some, especially female, patients could object to being in a mixed ward, I hope that the Minister will look into the matter.
The diabetic and rheumatology department at Ruchill has been moved to Stobhill. While we are pleased about that, severe pressure has been placed on that department, and on patients and their relatives because no additional beds have been provided.
The Minister will know that on many occasions I have raised the issue of the maternity facilities at Stobhill. It is believed that if we lose the two maternity wards, there could be a knock-on effect. It is feared that anaesthetists might not be needed and that nurse training could be so reduced that none might take place in the hospital. That, too, could affect the casualty department.
I was pleased when originally the Greater Glasgow health board announced that, as a replacement for the Royal maternity hospital in Townhead, consideration would be given to building a new maternity unit in the grounds of Stobhill, where acres of free land are available. Following representations from the medical faculty at the Royal maternity hospital and, to be fair, because of pressure from the local community and trade unions, the board reversed its decision, and the present proposal is now before the Minister.
The board intends to build a new maternity facility as part of phase one of the Royal infirmary. I believe that phase one has been in existence for about 10 years. The addition will, I understand, involve an additional floor being constructed as part of phase one. My information, which I cannot substantiate although perhaps the Minister can, is that the Common Services Agency has ruled out that technique because it would be structurally unsound. It is also possible that such a building could not be insured by any insurance company. If it cannot be built in the Royal infirmary in Townhead, why not revert to the Greater Glasgow health board's proposal and build it in Stobhill, where spacious grounds are available? If that cannot be done, I plead with the Minister to leave some maternity facility at Stobhill.
Although the people in the south end of my constituency, in Dennistown, may feel that the Royal infirmary is as handy as Stobhill, the Minister will remember that people in Torrance, Lennoxtown and Kilsyth depend on Stobhill. It is their nearest general hospital, and they would like a maternity facility in their area.
My time is limited, and the Minister needs time to reply, but I must state that there is great concern about Greater Glasgow health board's attitude in not approving vacancies at the hospital. The Minister will know that the health board must approve every vacancy before the 926 hospital can make an appointment. Young doctors are being interviewed for appointments commencing in August. Only a year or two ago, interviews for new medical posts took place three months prior to the appointment, which meant that we took the cream of the crop. There is no way that doctors will hang on until three weeks before an appointment if they can find a position elsewhere.
Only one chiropodist's vacancy in three has been approved. A renal dietician is needed to give kidney patients advice about their diet, but that vacancy has not been approved. Four vacancies for clerical staff have not been approved. It is also likely that three surgeons will retire, and I hope that those retirements will not provide an excuse to close down the accute surgery service at Stobhill.
I am proud of the hospital and the professional manner in which the staff and those who support them—the ambulance drivers and others—provide the patients with a very good quality of life. The service is second to none, and I ask merely that the Scottish Office, the Government and the Greater Glasgow health board give the hospital the support that it needs.

§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) on securing the Adjournment debate and commend him for taking such an interest in Stobhill that we are discussing it now at 3 am. I am sure that his constituents will be impressed. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise this issue. I welcome the fact that the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) are also here to take an interest in the deliberations.

§ Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)
So am I.

§ Mr. Forsyth
I thought that my hon. Friend was here to observe the proceedings, not to participate.
Two issues arise: first, the future of Stobhill hospital; secondly, what services it should offer. I shall happily draw the points made by the hon. Member for Springburn about the hospital's day-to-day management to the attention of the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board and ensure that the hon. Gentleman is given a detailed response on each matter.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned primarily with the future of the hospital as a whole. He is afraid that recent changes proposed by Greater Glasgow health board for Stobhill may be the thin end of the wedge and that, now they are agreed and are being implemented, the next step will be a closure proposal for the whole hospital. The hospital provides a range of acute services—general medicine, surgery, orthopaedics, ophthalmology and so on —as well as extensive services for the continuing care of the elderly and a much-valued accident and emergency department.
I am happy to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, that there is a commitment to the future of the hospital. Within the past few days, I have received from Greater Glasgow health board a renewed assurance that its strategic planning for acute services is proceeding on the basis that a range of services will 927 continue to be provided by Stobhill hospital to the north of the city. I can say firmly that there is no proposal with Ministers to remove the provision of acute services from Stobhill or to close the hospital and, indeed, that Greater Glasgow health board is planning on the basis that a range of acute services will continue to be provided from Stobhill for the foreseeable future.
If further evidence were required that Stobhill has a future as an acute hospital, we need only look at the immediate plans of Greater Glasgow health board. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the board is in the middle of implementing a wide range of changes in the pattern of provision of its acute services. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to describe these as cuts. There have been no cuts in the national health service. The NHS has been the beneficiary of substantial additional investment. It is true that Greater Glasgow health board is rationalising its services and that that affects a large number of hospitals, Stobhill being one. Greater Glasgow health board and I are clear that those changes are designed to consolidate and improve the services provided by the hospital.
The board's proposals involve transferring to Stobhill from elsewhere the new specialty of renal medicine and an increase in the bed numbers for the specialties of general medicine, orthopaedics and accident and emergency. That is hardly what would happen if the board were planning to diminish the role of Stobhill or to close it.
The board's rationalisation of its acute services also involved substantial investment—more than £13 million over several years. Part of that is taking place at Stobhill. Greater Glasgow health board has firm plans to spend some £500,000 at Stobhill to build a new day surgery complex. That will help the hospital to meet the changing requirements for health care. Again, it would hardly seem credible for the board to be planning such investment if the closure of the hospital were on the agenda.
The hon. Gentleman said that his constituents were worried about the practice of transferring accident victims requiring orthopaedic treatment to Glasgow royal infirmary. That is true. The orthopaedic service is provided by surgeons who work between Stobhill hospital and Glasgow royal infirmary. The practice is for patients who are taken to the accident and emergency department at Stobhill to receive whatever immediate treatment they require there. Once their condition has been stabilised, those patients who require orthopaedic treatment are taken to Glasgow royal infirmary. That is because the major orthopaedic trauma surgical expertise is based at the infirmary. The board takes the view—reasonably, I think —that to locate this at both hospitals would simply dilute the specialism. I am told that this pattern of service has been in operation for several years and that it works well.
Questions arise about the range of specialties that is to be provided at Stobhill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Greater Glasgow health board has proposed the closure of the maternity unit at Stobhill. I thought that it might be helpful if I were to say a few words about the background.
The five Greater Glasgow health board maternity units vary in quality. Two of their maternity units at Stobhill and Glasgow Royal maternity hospital—more popularly known as Rotten Row—are housed in buildings that date back to the turn of the century. What was considered then to be appropriate accommodation, design and provision in terms of fabric and layout is clearly no longer acceptable. The continued provision of maternity services must now at the very least be subject to question and review, taking 928 account of changes in the pattern of demand. The health board has done that, and, as part of its review of maternity provision, the Greater Glasgow health board has taken account of the registrar general's population projections to the year 2000.
Based on his findings and taking account of population movement, and also allowing for a margin of error at what must be, by its very nature, an imprecise science, the board has concluded that 371 staffed beds in 1996 and 337 by the year 2000 will be more than sufficient provision. That compares with its present provision of 402 staffed beds across five maternity units. All the board's calculations, projections and estimates are based on the highest use made per bed within its maternity units.
Faced with that position, the board embarked upon an extensive public consultation towards the end of 1989. 'The board issued a consultative document which proposed that for the north and east of Glasgow, the present maternity services provided from the Glasgow Royal maternity hospital and at Stobhill maternity hospital be replaced by an 84-bed unit to be constructed at Stobhill general.
The consultations, which were completed on 28 February 1990, generated considerable adverse reaction from individuals and organisations from the east of Glasgow.
Having considered all the arguments received, particularly those forwarded by all the consultants within this specialty in north and east Glasgow, the board decided that Stobhill maternity unit and the Glasgow royal maternity hospital should close and that the services they have provided to date should transfer to a new-built unit of 120 beds at Glasgow royal infirmary.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Common Services Agency and whether that unit was planned to be built on top of an existing building. I understand that the board's proposals are for the new maternity unit to be situated in the car park and not on the site to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The board further plans a second phase reorganisation to provide a new maternity unit at the Queen Mother's hospital, Yorkhill. Those proposals are now being considered by my officials. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions have been taken, and I hope that I will be in a position to announce any decision in the near future.
However, the arguments for retaining maternity services at Stobhill do not appear to be strong. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Stobhill maternity unit is housed in accommodation that dates from 1903. Despite regular refurbishment, the quality of accommodation is not impressive. Although the fabric of the building could be improved, it is not possible within the existing buildings at Stobhill to meet all the minimum space standards set down for maternity units and wards. The main departments of the special care baby unit and the labour wards are separated and relatively distant from ante and post-natal wards.
More importantly, the unit is separated from the main support services of the hospital. The building and its fabric has major physical shortcomings which could not easily be rectified. The board's clear conclusion is that this would not be appropriate and that the investment should take place at Glasgow royal infirmary.
I am well aware of the affection, loyalty and esteem in which Stobhill maternity unit is held by many people in Glasgow and beyond. This was most recently 929 demonstrated to me through the 700-signature petition lodged in support of the unit. I am also aware of the so-called "Hands Off Stobhill" campaign. I hope that what I have said today assures the hon. Member that the Greater Glasgow health board is are adopting a "Hands On Stobhill" policy.
I cannot offer the hon. Member an assurance that maternity services will continue at Stobhill. As I have 930 described, this question raises a range of difficult and important issues which are currently being considered and which I hope will be decided soon. But on the general issue of the future of the hospital, I am in no doubt that the hon. Member and his constituents can be assured that the board is planning to retain it for the foreseeable future, and it will play an important part in improving the quality of care for the people in the city of Glasgow and beyond.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Three o'clock.