Hospitals, Glasgow (Hansard, 6 March 1991)

§ 14. Mr. Michael J. Martin
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the future of general hospitals in the Greater Glasgow area.

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth
Greater Glasgow health board's proposals for rationalising and improving its acute services have been approved by my right hon. Friend following consultation.

§ Mr. Martin
Is the Minister aware that there is anxiety in the north of the city about Stobhill? He will know that new maternity facilities are to be built at the royal infirmary. Many people in the north end of Glasgow believe that that could be the end of Stobhill as a general hospital. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there is a future for Stobhill and that it will continue as a general hospital?

§ Mr. Forsyth
The hon. Gentleman has been a doughty fighter for Stobhill. The proposals in respect of the maternity services are before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and are still under consideration. As the hon. Gentleman said, they include building a new maternity hospital at the royal infirmary. I can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. Stobhill will gain additional facilities, including renal services and an additional 15 accident and emergency beds. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I know of no future proposals for changes at that excellent hospital.

§ Mr. Dewar
As the Minister knows, in Glasgow there are hospitals which are on the hit list for the opting out procedure. I remind him that, in approaching this matter, he said that one of the tests would be a substantial commitment of those likely to be involved in the new management. Does he agree that that does not mean six persons—any six persons in any hospital? The consultants in South Ayrshire hospital voted by 50 to nine against opting out, and those in Aberdeen Royal infirmary voted by 82 to seven against. Does the Minister agree that, even in his Looking Glass world, that cannot be equated with a substantial commitment on the part of those who will be involved in new set-ut? He talks about local choice and local democracy. Does he agree that forcing opting out through on that basis would be offensive and indefensible?

§ Mr. Forsyth
No Government—not even any previous Labour Government—have taken decisions concerning the future of hospitals on the basis of votes or ballots. The criteria for the approval of applications for self-governing status are set out in the working paper, which the hon. Gentleman has seen, and they are perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman referred to a "hit list". I regard that as a fairly offensive term. In hospitals throughout Scotland, people are looking behind the Labour party's rhetoric and seeing the opportunity to improve patient care. In the case of the South Ayrshire hospital, in respect of which an application is coming into the Scottish Office, the leading person responsible is a consultant with a distinguished history in the national health service. I do not believe that people of that calibre would do anything other than go forward with proposals that they thought were in the best interests of patients. That is the sole criterion on which my right hon. Friend's decisions will be based.