Hospital Provision: Tees Valley

I beg to move,

That this House has considered hospital provision in the Tees Valley.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I start by thanking all the hard-working staff of the three main hospitals in the Tees Valley: the University Hospital of North Tees, the University Hospital of Hartlepool and the James Cook University Hospital, south of the Tees. They include my son, who I am proud to say is a student nurse at one of those hospitals.

While we have had some welcome new additions to provision in the Tees Valley, for example the new diagnostic and mental health care hubs in Stockton, in the light of the state of disrepair at the North Tees hospital, we are still in need of improved hospital facilities. The trust and the wider Tees Valley are experiencing severe challenges around current estate capacity, which is not suitable for the needs of the population it will serve over the next 10 to 20 years. For example, a significant volume of elective surgical procedures are performed within the private sector because of a shortage of resources within our NHS trust.

It is my contention that the University Hospital of Hartlepool could fill that provision gap, and that it is underutilised in providing services to the people of the Tees Valley. Not only can it play a greater part in delivering these services, but it can take some of the pressure off the other hospitals, which are undergoing renovations. It can do both those things with a relatively small amount of investment.

It should be pointed out that, in its heyday, Hartlepool hospital served not only the people of Hartlepool, but all the communities north of the Tees. Its position in the north of the trust’s geographical area meant that it also provided vital health services to the mining villages to the north and west, in County Durham, which saw Hartlepool hospital as their local hospital, too. It has provided much-needed healthcare to all those communities since it was founded in the late 19th century. The hospital’s generous 28-acre site has a lot of potential, with a significant amount of cleared land that we should use to build more services for the people of Hartlepool, of the Tees Valley to the south and of the ex-mining communities to the north.

I am grateful to my next-door neighbour for giving way. I congratulate her on securing the debate and her son on his role in the NHS. Does she remember that it was her Government who cancelled our new hospital 13 years ago without a plan for future health delivery? Recently, the Health Minister, who is in his place, wrote to the Labour candidate for Hartlepool, Jonathan Brash, turning down the funding for a centre of excellence in the town despite cross-party support, including from the Conservatives in Hartlepool. Does she have any thoughts about how we might change the Minister’s mind and deliver for Hartlepool and wider Teesside?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has brought that up, because he has mentioned two things that I want to address. I will talk about the new super-hospital later in my speech. I think we dodged a bullet there, because it would have created another private finance initiative like the unsustainable one at James Cook University Hospital.

It was not a PFI.

It was. The other thing I want to say is that this is an extremely good example of Labour putting politics above the people of Hartlepool. The Labour candidate in Hartlepool, the councillor Jonathan Brash, has had no interest in the hospital. He has had no interest in anything in Hartlepool for a long time. However, every time it looks like I am going to succeed in bringing something forward for the people of Hartlepool, Jonathan Brash is there, ready to have a photo opportunity or write a magic letter to try and take the credit. I am grateful to hon. Gentleman for raising that so I can clarify the situation.

Some may wonder why there is a need to invest in new services. If the hospital had been properly loved and maintained, there would be no need to do so. Sadly, Hartlepool has not been championed by my predecessors —the Labour MPs who went before me—resulting in a significantly lower amount of investment compared with surrounding regions. The Labour centralisation policy of the mid-2000s meant that it became Labour party policy to close down Hartlepool hospital. Indeed, the candidate who stood against me in the by-election, Dr Paul Williams, co-authored the report that recommended that critical care and other services be taken away from the hospital and moved elsewhere. As I have said, there was Labour talk of a new super-hospital, to be funded by one of Labour’s public-private finance initiatives, and we have seen the issues that have arisen from that at James Cook—a prime example of the huge amount of money that the schemes now leech from our NHS.

Labour’s health legacy on Teesside is a dodgy Labour PFI deal that still costs James Cook hospital £1 million every single week. Does my hon. Friend agree that that money would have been better spent on doctors and nurses supporting our residents?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, less than a year’s-worth of the £1 million a week that goes into propping up James Cook’s PFI deal—£40 million—would be enough to upgrade and put in the services that we want Hartlepool.

Sadly, my constituents got caught in the political crossfire and were left with a shell of a hospital at Hartlepool and faced with long journeys to North Tees and James Cook for many hospital services. When the accident and emergency unit was closed down in 2011, local opposition was so strong that roughly a third of the population of Hartlepool signed a petition organised by the “save our hospital” campaign. It was incredible—there were more than 30,000 signatures, and there were marches through the town.

I was elected in 2021 on a promise of bringing positive change. That includes bringing education, skills, jobs and prosperity to the town, but there was also an overriding call on the doorsteps for the return of services to our much-loved Hartlepool hospital. I set about trying to find a solution for this long-standing and ignored issue. I have therefore been working directly alongside North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust and its excellent chief executive, Julie Gillon, for in excess of 18 months. During that time, I have built a strong working relationship with Julie. Sadly, she has recently announced her decision to retire from her role and pursue other things, but she intends to dedicate the next six months to championing our proposals for Hartlepool. She will be a sad loss to health provision in the Tees Valley, and I will be one of many who will miss her. She is a competent leader and a good, strong woman—the sort we excel at in the north-east.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I need to make some progress.

The first plan that Julie and I favoured was an upgrade and return of services to Hartlepool, new diagnostic hubs in Hartlepool and Stockton, and a new hospital closer to the A19 in Hartlepool, which would be the major trauma centre. This was a bold new model. It would allow people to access diagnostic and out-patient facilities very locally and to travel to the true central point of all the communities in the Tees Valley for major procedures in a state-of-the-art new facility. Sadly, with the huge pull on public funds created by the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the rising cost of living, it has become clear that that project will not be possible in the near future.

Undeterred, Julie and I returned to the drawing board with a plan to upgrade Hartlepool further and maximise the return of services to that site. I mentioned that there is not enough capacity for the significant volume of elective surgical procedures in Tees Valley NHS sites. The upgrade at Hartlepool, with a proposed 40% increase in operating theatres, would address that lack of resources and increase capacity to perform those elective procedures in a new centre of excellence. That would be alongside a new, much-needed primary care hub and a community hub, which would enable patients to be fully rehabilitated before being discharged. That would free up hospital beds on wards.

I also point out to the Minister that, like most things that I inherited in my constituency, hospital services had not been championed by predecessor Labour MPs for too long.

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Hartlepool and is doing incredible work to secure the hospital. Representing as she does the former lands of Mandelson, Milburn, Mowlam and Blair—all who are here today represent such places—does she agree that there is very little to show in our region for their years in office, save for costly PFI deals?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that we are here now is the proof of the pudding; people got tired of being ignored by Labour MPs who took the heartlands for granted.

They took the north for granted for years.

Exactly. The Minister might be surprised to learn that the trust has not received significant capital investment to improve its services since its initial construction more than 50 years ago, while neighbouring trusts have received funding more recently. That results in a significantly lower per capita spend for the population served by the trust—around £60 per head in the region, compared with neighbouring trusts that receive more than 11 times that amount, at £680 per head. I am sure I do not need to point out to him that positive change means productivity and prosperity. Those things are limited by a high local prevalence of chronic disease.

Our local population has a higher prevalence of 17 out of 21 chronic conditions recorded on the quality and outcomes framework in 2020-21. Both long-term and temporary sickness are cited as the main reason for unemployment in Hartlepool; at 33%, that is higher than the national rate of 25%, suggesting that poor health outcomes are the main driver of unemployment in the region and underlining the significant need for a return of good health services locally.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once again; she is being incredibly generous with her time. We were all elected on a mission to level up, and levelling up is about delivering on those health outcomes. Does she agree that levelling up health inequalities in the north-east is a key part of why we are here?

Absolutely. It is incredibly important because, without levelling up health disparities, we cannot get growth or productivity, so it is very important to make sure that we have a happy, healthy population.

The historic lack of prosperity means that a disproportionately high percentage of the local population is in the lowest 10% for deprivation in England, based on the index of multiple deprivation. That puts Hartlepool in the bottom 10 of 147 local authorities nationally. High levels of deprivation also contribute to the fact that life expectancy in Hartlepool and throughout the Tees Valley is considerably lower than the national average in the most deprived areas.

It is the lack of prosperity and the deprivation that I was elected to fight. The people of Hartlepool voted for me to bring positive change. They wanted an MP who finally listened and did something about it. I will not rest until we get the local health services that we deserve and have been so cruelly deprived of. We have been ignored for too long. Will the Minister commit to meeting Julie Gillon and me to discuss the matter further?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) on securing this important debate about hospital provision in the Tees Valley. I know the issue is important to her and that she works tirelessly for the people of Hartlepool on not just healthcare but many other issues. As she knows, responsibility for the new hospital programme sits not with me but with Lord Markham, a fellow Minister at the Department of Health and Social Care. I am, however, hugely grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to update the House about the ongoing work in this area.