Help Talking-up Scotland keep going

Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going

Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421

By stewartb

With apologies for the length of what follows. It’s hard to do justice to such a topic – to offer an authoritative account – without quoting extensively from the Scottish Parliament’s record of debate from c.25 years ago.

I and others on TuS discussing the siting of a new ‘South Glasgow Hospital’ have referred to a debate in the Scottish Parliament on 17 January 2001, noting the cross-party concerns about proposed location.  Nearly two years later, these concerns about location of the new hospital had if anything become more acute. What follows comes from a debate in the Holyrood Chamber on 12 September 2002: ‘Acute Services Review (Glasgow)’ – https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2002-09-12.13633.0

Time for this debate was won by the SNP: Nicola Sturgeon MSP tabled the following motion (with my emphasis): ‘That the Parliament welcomes the proposed £700 million investment in the modernisation of Glasgow’s hospitals; CONSIDERS, however, that the plan by Greater Glasgow NHS Board for the re-structuring of acute services in Glasgow is unacceptable in its current form; is particularly concerned about the proposed number and location of in-patient hospitals and the reduction of accident and emergency departments from five to two, and calls upon the Minister for Health and Community Care to suspend his approval of the board’s plan and to establish an independent expert group to conduct, within six months, an impartial review of the plan, with a view to identifying proposals which command greater public acceptance and which can be implemented within a rapid timeframe.’

An amendment to the SNP motion, tabled by health minister Malcolm Chisholm MSP (Labour) for the Scottish Executive sought to gut the above motion of its prime purpose:

‘I move Amendment S1M-3375.1, to leave out from “considers” to end and insert:

“.. accepts that the status quo is not an option and that improvements and modernisation must be progressed as soon as possible in order to enhance the quality of care; recognises that this is a long-term plan which must be flexible enough to take account of changing service demands and developing medical practice; supports an on-going monitoring and review process that includes external independent audit by Audit Scotland on an annual basis; endorses a commitment to keep named services at Stobhill and Victoria over the next five years and to have this locally monitored; gives high priority to the acceleration of ambulatory care and diagnostics developments in consultation with local communities; recognises the particular concern over the number of accident and emergency departments and supports a review of this in two years time that involves staff, patient and community groups, Glasgow Health Council and the Scottish Royal Colleges, and welcomes current developments in the Scottish Ambulance Service which will include the near doubling of paramedics in Glasgow by 2005 and one paramedic in the crew of each front-line ambulance.”

This amendment tabled by Chisholm was passed: For 62, Against 52, Abstentions 5. Ms Sturgeon’s motion as amended (aka ‘gutted’) also passed: by the Executive minister and its backbenchers (including Jackie Baillie): For 65, Against 52, Abstentions 2.

To give a flavour of cross-party concerns about the decision-making process and the proposed hospital site, here is a sample of contributions to the debate:

Bill Aitken (Conservative) 12 September 2002: “There is alarm and bitterness about the way in which the consultation process has been run. It has been a sham. As Nicola Sturgeon said, in regard to the south side of the city, it is apparent that the Southern general option had been pencilled in in biro from the inception. The so-called consultation exercise was cosmetic. I have little doubt that those who were involved were determined to drive through that option. All through the process we have been bedevilled by lack of information and wrong information. We have received scant or wrong information on bed numbers, the availability of land for a possible new build at Cowglen, transport studies and costs. That is unacceptable.”

Aitken added: “The purpose of the SNP motion is to ensure that the review that is carried out is totally independent. Someone must consider the issue with a fresh mind and a clear eye. It is necessary to demonstrate that those decisions, which could affect the lives of people in Glasgow for the next 50 years, are taken on the basis of correct facts. There may be disagreement—it is inevitable—about the number of emergency units that there should be. Three would have to be regarded as an absolute minimum.“

“It is the unanimous view of the Glasgow MSPs who have been involved in the issue that Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s plans are wrong—wrongheaded to the point of being dangerous. It is disappointing that despite the considerable representations that have been made to him, the Minister for Health and Community Care feels unable to support the MSPs and the vast Majority of the Glasgow public. He is even prepared to fly in the face of considerable medical opinion. That is a very dangerous thing to do. I pay tribute to MSPs of all parties—and those who are independent—and their efforts to achieve a review of the situation. There has been a mature and measured debate.”

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat): ‘I remain of the view that the choice of the Southern general hospital as the main south side centre was wrong. The hospital is located at the extreme tip of the south side and is subject to unpleasant smells from the Shieldhall sewage works.’

Gordon Jackson (Labour): ‘… having closely examined the evidence and the arguments, I am extremely unhappy at the recommendation to build a massive hospital on the Southern general site. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that location is important.

‘I know that we have had a consultation process. Indeed, that is part of the problem. The people of the south side of Glasgow feel that that process has been a sham, and they are not far wrong about that. It is increasingly clear that the health trust and its predecessor have had a very definite agenda and have always intended to reach the conclusion that has been reached. Having examined the matter over the past three and a half year, I have found that there has been no openness of thinking.’

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party) ‘Last Saturday, I attended the annual forum of Glasgow’s community councils. Many of the 140 delegates were angry and frustrated that consultation is devalued by the frequent refusal of the council, the health board or even the Scottish Executive to take any notice of the views—often passionately held and well researched—of community groups, staff and members of the public. The acute services review is a prime example of that.’

Tommy Sheridan (SSP): “It is rare—even unique—for me to applaud the likes of Bill Aitken and Gordon Jackson for speeches they have made in the chamber, but we have a rare situation. We have an opportunity for the members of Parliament for Glasgow to seize on an issue that means so much to the people of Glasgow. It is a cross-party issue. It is about ditching party priorities and putting Glasgow first. That is why the proposal cannot be accepted today. Let us have the six-month time-limited review and let us make sure that we do not subject the citizens of Glasgow to any more high risks.”

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour): “I welcome the commitment to local consultation, but will the minister describe one Greater Glasgow NHS Board proposal that has been affected by the views of residents? Has one change been made to the plan that was proposed two years ago because of the views of residents on the south side of Glasgow?”

Candidly, I had no idea that the consultation process and the decision on location of what was once termed the ‘new South Glasgow Hospital’ had been quite so controversial. The gutting of Ms Sturgeon’s SNP motion by the Executive’s (Labour/Lib Dem) ministers and backbenchers meant that the serious concerns regarding the site for the new hospital near Shieldhall were effectively put to one side: the rest is history!

Help Talking-up Scotland keep going

Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going

Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421