Stobhill Hospital
We move now to the final item of today's business, which is motion S1M-126 in the name of Paul Martin, on the subject of Stobhill hospital. The debate is limited to 30 minutes. I ask members who are leaving to do so quietly out of courtesy to the member who has the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament calls upon Greater Glasgow Health Board to enter into full and meaningful consultation with the residents and medical staff who are affected by the proposal to build a Secure Unit on the grounds of Stobhill Hospital and to take action to ensure that local people are included in the membership of the Glasgow North University Hospital Trust
I would like to acknowledge the fact that I am able to raise this issue in the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament is beginning to show how effective it can be for local communities; the fact that we have been able raise this issue proves that.
I can assure members that the future of Stobhill hospital is a local issue—that has been made clear by the large amount of correspondence and telephone inquiries I have received. It is important that the Parliament is aware of the reasons for my objection to proposals to build a secure unit on a greenfield site of approximately 10 acres adjacent to the hospital.
The site that is earmarked for the secure unit is where we wanted an ambulatory care and diagnostic unit. The ACAD unit site is now a 2 acre hospital car park. That is one of the reasons for my concern. We want the ACAD unit to develop into a state-of-the-art facility that will be a benchmark for other facilities in the UK. It would receive more than a third of a million visits every year. The facility needs an opportunity to develop.
The concern in my constituency is that the facility will not have the opportunity to develop if it is overshadowed by the proposal to build a secure unit. I have been accused of being a NIMBY member of the Scottish Parliament, but I am not alone in my view.
The medical staff association and the widely respected Dr Frank Dunn recognise the importance of the secure unit, but say that they are unable to support the present proposal because it would seriously jeopardise the functioning, development and ultimate success of the ACAD unit. That is the view of the professionals—some with as many as 20 years' experience—at the hospital. It is important that we listen to their views and to the views of patients. I
am concerned that those views have not been taken seriously.
One would expect the first secure unit in Scotland to be the subject of extensive consultation, but there has been no formal consultation on the proposal. The only consultation with the local community will be through the statutory obligation that results from the planning process. That reeks of arrogance and shows contempt for the community and the medical staff.
At a recent meeting, the chief executive said that if the community had been consulted, it would have opposed the secure unit. What right do highly paid officials have to tell me that they know what the community will say? Do they have a monopoly on knowledge of how a community will react to proposals?
Of course the community will have a point of view, but is not it important to listen to the community and to learn from that point of view, rather than take a decision and then speak to the community?
Some of the public meetings have been constructive. It is disappointing that decisions were made beforehand. We should discuss local communities' concerns with those communities. I am sure that the minister will agree that consultation is crucial to the health service and that we should be taking part in consultation.
Government policy is clear—hospital policy should be clinically driven. That view is shared by the former health minister, Sam Galbraith. In March 1998, he told the Kirkintilloch, Bishopbriggs & Springburn Herald that changes at Stobhill hospital should be clinically driven and made after consultation with doctors.
I will repeat the question that I have asked on a number of occasions: why were medical staff not consulted on the revised proposals for building a secure unit at Stobhill hospital when there was such clear guidance from the then health minister that medical staff should be consulted on clinical matters?
There is a great myth that local people are NIMBYs. The same accusation has been levelled at me. Some local people might be concerned about any proposal, such as for a new supermarket, that affects the community, but they are entitled to hold and express their opinions. Our great concern about this proposal is that we have not had an opportunity to air our views.
I have had a helpful meeting with the Minister for Health and Community Care, but the Parliament has to take action to make a difference to local people's lives. There are no representatives from the local community on the local NHS trust, which is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
I want to be constructive in this debate and raise some points to which I want the minister to respond today. This Parliament should not be a talking shop—we need to take prominent action.
First, the proposal should be withdrawn from the planning process to allow for real and meaningful consultation with the local community and the medical staff. I reiterate that the medical staff and the patients are the people who matter. If we want to make progress in hospital care, we need to include those people in discussions about the future of their hospital.
There should be a comprehensive study into the effectiveness of a 2 acre ACAD unit. This is the future of hospital care. Will the unit be given a chance to develop if it is built on a 2 acre car park site where the secure unit might inhibit and overshadow it?
There should also be a comprehensive study of other possible sites for the secure unit. I understand from documents that I have received from the health board that 14 sites were appraised. I can exclusively reveal that some of those sites were being sold when they were being appraised. I want proper appraisals of those sites to be carried out. Organisations such as City of Glasgow Council and East Dunbartonshire Council, which were involved in the appraisal process, were not clear that they were appraising sites for a secure unit, but thought that they were being asked for an opinion on the sites. They did not realise that their opinion counted towards a final decision.
There is no clear medical evidence that a secure unit has to be placed next to a general hospital. That point has to be clinically proven before we place such a facility next to Stobhill hospital.
In question time a couple of weeks ago, I asked the minister to meet the medical staff association in the hospital. Unfortunately, she was not able to do that, but her visit to the hospital on Monday was much appreciated. However, I ask her again to meet the people who matter, such as representatives from the medical staff association, to discuss their concerns about the proposed secure unit. They are concerned that, as Dr Frank Dunn said, the secure unit will inhibit the ACAD unit from developing into a unit that will be able to serve the Glasgow North area.
The minister should also ensure that Glasgow North residents are included on the board of North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust. That serious flaw in the new merger of the hospital trusts needs to be addressed. Local trust officials have advised me that a place on the trust board has been available for some time now and they have asked me to give them some names.
If trusts are serious about having local representation, they should reach out to local communities. They should not have to use me to reach out to local communities. They will make direct links with the community if they are serious about community consultation and representation.
I will finish now as I understand that a number of members want to speak. I live next to Stobhill hospital. I was born there, my wife was born there and almost all my family was born there. We feel a great link to Stobhill hospital. I am not taking this view in a NIMBY way. The leader of East Dunbartonshire Council is also opposed to the proposal. Some of his constituents stay 10 to 15 miles away from the facility. They are concerned about the future of the hospital and that the secure unit will inhibit any possible development of it. Our case is about the future of the hospital and how it will be affected by the proposal to build a secure unit.
I will call the minister to wind up at 5.27 pm, so there is very little time. Five members want to speak, so members should make their own calculations.
I will be brief, because I have an urgent appointment.
I back everything that Mr Martin has said about his fight. I advise him—as a definite non-NIMBY myself—that neither he nor the people who live close to Stobhill hospital should feel embarrassed if they have been forced to feel like NIMBYs. The best of people can be converted into NIMBYs if they are not consulted. The lack of consultation has been shocking.
I am the only Glasgow member on the Health and Community Care Committee—I will try my best to raise this issue there. I am glad that the Minister for Health and Community Care, and her deputy, have remained for this debate. If the unit is to contain paedophiles, that will be an unsuitable type of client to be in that part of Glasgow.
Is Dorothy-Grace Elder suggesting that there should be some other form of establishment, where individuals who have committed crimes should be?
I am talking about crimes against children. Most of those people are sent to Peterhead or Carstairs. The community has every right to be fearful. I have been involved in tracking down paedophiles. Those men are the most dangerous in the community to children. We cannot be politically correct at the expense of risking children.
It is a secure unit.
How secure is secure?
It is secure.
We cannot have two people on their feet at once.
I oppose that type of client going to this unit. Enough is already stacked against the child in the community. The lack of child safety, even right through to the courts, is appalling. Only 5 to 10 per cent of the 1,500 cases of child abuse in Scotland that come to light and get as far as a fiscal, get into court.
Will Dorothy-Grace Elder stop blowing the issue out of proportion by making comments that will frighten the community, and address the debate today. We are here to discuss Stobhill hospital, not to introduce scaremongering tactics.
Those concerns have been expressed to Mr Martin, and expressed by Mr Martin in the press already. The type of client who might be in the secure unit is one of the concerns of the local people.
This development is unsuitable for that area, and I support everything that Mr Martin has said about it.
I will not take up much time as I realise that other members want in and Paul Martin has already covered much of the ground. Like him, I would like to stick to the terms of the motion. I would particularly like to address the aspects concerning the consultation.
This is not the first suggestion that a secure unit should be sited at Stobhill. Unlike Paul, I do not live near the site, but I have done and I have relatives who do. I have been treated there and have worked there on occasion. I feel strongly about the hospital, which is the local hospital for most people in my constituency.
Only a year ago, the community and mental health trust, which had responsibility for the proposal, announced that it was no longer considering Stobhill as a possible site because it could not accommodate both the ambulatory care unit and the secure care unit without undue design compromise. All of a sudden, within a few months, we find that the size of the ambulatory care unit has been reduced greatly and that it is now to be sited on land that is currently a car park. That rather conveniently leaves a greenfield site for the secure unit.
When the Glasgow MSPs were invited by the health board to attend a briefing on the matter, we were issued with a question and answer note that contained 27 questions and answers. Some of the questions on the note beggared belief, frankly. If the health board is able to have that number of questions and answers prepared to brief MSPs, why can it not meet the community to discuss the questions that they have raised or any other questions that the local residents might have?
Doctors and other staff in the hospital have said that they do not think that Stobhill is the right place for the secure unit. Local residents have been saying the same thing for three or four years, but the health board has decided that the consultation should be conducted through the quasi-judicial framework of the planning application process where only matters relating to planning can be raised.
I know who I would consult if I were the health board—the doctors and staff of the hospital and local residents. I would not make the decision on the basis that I had been able to reduce one unit to accommodate another.
I have much pleasure in supporting, in general terms, the content of Paul Martin's speech. It is important to talk about the matter today. It is unfortunate that the debate takes place against the background of the wide-ranging debate that we had a couple of weeks ago regarding the Noel Ruddle case. That debate was evocative and might have spilled over into this debate. People in the Stobhill area sometimes feel that they are under threat.
I know—and we would all agree—that those who will be housed in this secure unit are not likely to be malevolent characters like Norman Bates, but the local population feels that it is under threat. It is clear that the health board has failed to reassure them and that that is because the consultation process failed lamentably. It is worth underlining the fact that every politician, whether at parliamentary level or council level, has to consult those who will be most affected by their decisions.
There is no reason why a secure unit has to be combined with a general hospital facility. There is no clinical necessity for it. Secure units should, by definition, be secure enough to provide the people round about with the necessary degree of confidence, and they should be built away from the main bulk of the population. Local people need to feel relaxed about the fact that those who are affected by mental illness are among them, and their safety must be considered. I am sure that a number of people have raised this issue with Paul
Martin, the member most immediately affected. Others have raised with me the matters of safety, falling property values and the public insecurity that such units inevitably bring about.
It is certainly a matter that must be re-examined and nothing that Paul Martin has said today is at all unreasonable. I support his views and I call on the minister to recognise the public's disquiet about the provision of the facility at that locus.
I call Fiona McLeod. You will have only one minute, I am afraid.
I begin by commending—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it a possibility that we could have more time to address some of the points that have been made?
This is a members' debate and, as time is limited to half an hour, I am not prepared to accept a motion to extend it. We have had a good debate, but there is one minute left for a few quick points from Fiona McLeod.
I have a point of order before I begin. At the domestic violence debate, the time was extended by half an hour.
I am aware of that. However, this afternoon's debate is on a specific subject raised by the constituency member. In such circumstances, a half-hour debate is appropriate. You are eating up your own time, so please press on.
I will be as quick as I can.
I want to give the minister plenty of time to reply, because that is what the debate is about.
And I want to get a couple of questions in.
On behalf of my constituents in Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch, I commend Paul for raising the matter. Many of my points have already been mentioned, so I will stick to the question of a full and meaningful consultation. The health board does not have a good track record on consultation so far. Greater Glasgow Health Board's web pages contain a code of practice on openness. The last time that the web pages mention anything about the secure care unit at Stobhill is in June 1998. There has been no other information since then. That does not strike me as full and meaningful consultation.
At the meeting on 31 August at Tom Johnston House in Kirkintilloch, attended by more than 500 of my constituents, the main issue that was raised
was the threat of the secure care unit to the future of Stobhill as a general hospital. More specifically, the unit threatens the ACAD unit, which has now been trimmed and hemmed in to a very small site, almost to the point of non-viability, as Dr Dunn explained and as Paul quoted.
The minister is quoted in the Kirkintilloch, Bishopbriggs & Springburn Herald today as saying that
"it is important that local communities are fully involved in consultation".
What will she do when the people in the area say that they have not been fully and meaningfully consulted and are not satisfied with Greater Glasgow Health Board? What will she do when Glasgow City Council refuses the planning application for the secure unit in favour of the ACAD and the future of Stobhill as a general hospital?
I now have less than two and a half minutes to address a range of very important—
No. You can go on until
5.34 pm. Susan Deacon: I am grateful for that, and will relax slightly in making my response.
I am grateful to all the members who have contributed to the debate for putting on record their views on the subject. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made. I also congratulate Paul Martin, the local constituency member, on securing this debate. As he indicated, we have met previously to discuss the issue. I am pleased to continue to listen to his views as the constituency member, and to those of other members who have constituency interests in the hospital. I note the comments that we have heard from West of Scotland members.
In replying, yes, I will attempt to answer some of the specific questions that have been raised, but I will also explain quite specifically why I will not attempt to answer some of the questions. I want to put in context the development that has taken place at Stobhill and explain how that fits with the Scottish Executive's wider strategy.
I will start with the latter point. I would like to recap briefly on how Glasgow's proposals for a local forensic unit fit in with the Scottish Executive's strategy for providing care for people with mental illness. I stress care for people with mental illness. That is, in essence, what a great deal of the discussion has been about. When the Scottish Office published its guidance on health and social work care for mentally disordered offenders, it was putting into practice modern thinking on the best way to care for mentally ill people. I hope that these days few people would argue that it is in the best interests of patients— and a modern and civilised society—to keep them shut up in Victorian institutions miles from their families and their homes.
The guidance paper set out a framework under which patients would receive high-quality care, with proper attention given to their needs as individuals. They would be cared for, where possible, in the community rather than in institutions. They would have care that maximised their rehabilitation and gave them the best chance of an independent life. Where necessary, they would receive their care under conditions of appropriate security with due regard for public safety. The phrase appropriate security is important. It sets the context of today's debate on the new local forensic unit for Glasgow.
People whose illness means that they do not need the high level of security provided by the state hospital at Carstairs should not be incarcerated there. I have no difficulty in making that statement. There has been much discussion over recent weeks—some of it well informed, some of it ill informed—about how we treat mentally disordered offenders. I hope that people agree that those who do not require to be incarcerated in the state hospital should not be there. If they can be treated in a local setting, with a lower level of security and without presenting an immediate risk to the public, that is where they should be.
In many cases, such patients are being cared for in temporary facilities around Scotland that are less than ideal. The overall Scottish Executive framework provides an integrated and coherent approach to the care of those people. We must remember that many of the patients who will benefit from the local forensic unit are themselves very vulnerable people who deserve as high a standard of care and treatment from the health service as the rest of us. I hope that we will have the chance to discuss the wider issues in greater detail at a future date.
That, in short, is the Scottish Executive's policy on forensic mental health services. However, a policy is worth nothing unless it is implemented. That is where local health boards and local trusts come in—it now falls to them to make a reality of the framework. That is what health authorities in Glasgow are seeking to do.
We have heard a lot in the debate about the detail of the plans for Glasgow. It is worth giving some thought to whose responsibility it is to take the decisions on the unit. It is a principle firmly held by the Scottish Executive, and by most members of the Parliament, that decisions
affecting local communities are best taken by those close enough to understand those local communities.
The local forensic unit is just such a local service, so the location of the unit in Glasgow is a decision for the Glasgow health authorities. I respect the right of the local member, Mr Martin, to take up the issue in the Parliament. However, I hope that he understands that, as a minister, I cannot take the detailed location decisions that are being discussed today. It would be quite wrong of the Parliament to begin to embroil itself in detailed issues, when it is the job of local health boards, local authorities and other local bodies to take those decisions. It is important that that is done in discussion with local communities. I have said, in this chamber and directly to the health authorities concerned, that I want them to ensure the highest possible degree of engagement and dialogue with local communities.
I also recognise that this is a sensitive issue and that locally there is great concern about it. That is in part—and not least—because of the way in which mental illness has traditionally been portrayed and stigmatised.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I do not have time, I am sorry.
That is the backdrop to this local debate. As we address issues of this nature it is important that this chamber, and the Executive in particular, focuses on the strategic context within which we want local development to take place. It is then for local bodies to ensure that that development takes place in line with those strategic priorities.
Paul Martin raised the matter of representation on the trust. I am keen to ensure that trusts are as representative as possible. The North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust has two vacancies at the moment, and I would welcome applications from local representatives. I encourage members to encourage people in their communities to apply for those positions and to participate in the running of trusts. I can give an assurance that those appointments will be made as openly and as fairly as possible. It is, however, important that we get the best people possible involved in local trusts and local boards, and that must be decided on the basis of who they are, not where they are from.
I am conscious, Presiding Officer, that many other issues were raised in this debate. You are looking at me to wind up and I do not have time to deal with them. I hope that we will have an opportunity to return to some of the broader issues raised in this debate and to have a discussion about mental illness. We have touched on mental illness, but we have not dealt with it fully. The Parliament, health boards and trusts have difficult jobs to do and must make difficult decisions along the way. I hope that we can do that in open discussion and for the benefit of people in local communities across Scotland.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I made it clear that there were a number of questions that I wanted the minister to address. Is it possible to say that, in future, the questions should be answered first, before any historical piece on the framework of mental health? It is important. If a member puts a number of questions, they should be given priority in the winding-up speech.
It may help the chamber if I say that members' debates are different from general debates. They are in the hands of the member who raises the issue and, primarily, it is for that member to raise a constituency issue and for the minister to reply. We try to get agreement beforehand as to what time is allowed—the minister agreed seven minutes to reply—and other members may speak between if they can.
I would like to make one other point, which is that members who participate in the debate ought to be here to listen to the minister's reply. I regret that that has not happened today.
Meeting closed at 17:38.