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 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 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.