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 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 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 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 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.