University Hospital of North Tees

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I will call Matt Vickers to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. I have had no notice that such permissions have been given. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

11:01

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of University Hospital of North Tees.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate.

I was born in North Tees hospital. So were tens of thousands of my constituents and many of their children and grandchildren. For nearly 60 years, it has been where Stockton goes when something goes wrong. It is where we are stitched up after an accident, welcome our children into the world and sit beside our parents in their final days. There are very few families in our town whose story does not run through North Tees at some point.

I want to begin by thanking the incredible people who work at North Tees: the doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners and everyone who keeps our hospital going day and night. I have seen for myself their dedication and the challenges they face in a building that makes an already difficult job harder. They deserve decent facilities. Their patients deserve them, too. I have to tell the Minister plainly that the building they work in is running out of time.

When my party was in government, I campaigned for a new diagnostic centre in Stockton. Thousands of residents signed my petition and backed that campaign. Around £25 million was secured, with a further £8.4 million from the community diagnostic fund, to bring scans and tests into the heart of our town. For somebody waiting to find out whether they have cancer, that means answers and that treatment can begin. Alongside that came £3 million for the new mental health hub at Brook House, a new respiratory unit, upgrades to the urgent care centre, and a £4.3 million robotic and emergency maternity theatre, where a woman who needs urgent surgery in labour can now get it next door to the delivery suite. That is what investment can achieve, but we cannot keep bolting 21st-century medicine on to a 1960s frame forever.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, which is not specific to one corner of the mainland; as an example, our South Eastern health and social care trust has to find savings of £50.7 million. Does he acknowledge that the capital and resource crises across our United Kingdom are interconnected and that patient safety should always be paramount? Ensuring the availability of the resources it needs to keep patients safe should be the NHS’s priority at all times.

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. Investment in technology—I talked about the robotic theatres in our part of the world—means not only that staff have the facilities they deserve to work with, but that more patients can be treated more quickly, more safely and with reduced recovery times. There is a real value in looking after those patients, all too often at the worst times of their lives.

I made the case for a new hospital when my party was in government. I held a similar debate to this one five years ago and backed the trust’s bid for one of the new hospitals. I was devastated when, in 2023, the places in that programme went instead to hospitals built from reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which put them at risk of collapse. I understood why—safety must come first when a roof could fall in—but it pushed North Tees back in the queue, and I have kept pressing Ministers ever since.

North Tees opened in 1968. The trust’s own board papers identified 2031 as the point by which its main buildings would be beyond their useful economic life. That is just five years away, and parts of the estate are already past it. The maintenance backlog stands at £126 million, despite around £100 million being spent on repairs in the past decade, and it is projected to reach £300 million by 2033. Staff are working around leaky roofs, broken ceiling panels and pipes that freeze in winter. This is not a hospital that needs a lick of paint; it is a hospital whose fabric is failing.

On 2 June this year, heavy rain hit Stockton, and the drainage at North Tees could not cope. The trust’s chief executive told me that every one of the hospital theatres for in-patient surgery, bar one, was flooded. More than 400 patients had their surgery cancelled. Repairs have cost £1.5 million, and re-providing the surgery cost a further £1 million. That is £2.5 million gone, not on treating a single extra patient but on catching up after a rainstorm. Think about the person waiting for an operation: they have arranged time off work, their family have made plans to look after them and they have spent weeks preparing themselves, and then they are told to wait again because the theatre is flooded. That was not a freak event; it is what happens when a hospital runs past its design life, and it will happen again unless something changes.

What are local people seeing under this Government? Not a new hospital or a place in the new hospital programme, but job losses. Around 600 posts are to go across our local hospital trusts, with a voluntary redundancy scheme and a vacancy freeze. The trust’s own figures raise further questions. Since 2024, total staffing has fallen from 6,084 to 5,958. Over the same period, the number of managers and senior managers has risen from 91 to 110. That is 2% fewer staff and 21% more managers. Of course, the hospital needs good management, but when vacancies are frozen and a £2.5 million flood bill comes out of the same budget, that increase needs explaining. Every year we wait, the bill gets bigger. A few years ago, a replacement hospital was expected to cost around £380 million. The trust now puts it at between £1 billion and £2 billion.

Before the election, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who was then the shadow Health Secretary, came to North Tees and said that

“there is no doubt we need a new hospital here.”

I agreed with him then and I agree with him now, but when his Government reset the new hospital programme in January last year, not a single hospital on Teesside was in it. When I asked last October what assessment had been made about replacing North Tees, the answer was none, and that there were no plans to invite further schemes into the programme. North Tees is failing in a different way from those RAAC hospitals. Its problem is not one dangerous material; it is a whole building past its life. It is not on the list and there is no list it can join. A hospital whose theatres flood and whose backlog is heading for £300 million should not be left without a route simply because it is failing in the wrong way.

Meanwhile, the Tees Valley Mayor has written 25 times to ask for a meeting about the hospital. The answer given by the right hon. Member for Ilford North was that the mayor could show him the colour of his money. Three Health Secretaries later, there has still not been one meeting. A hospital that is running out of time cannot wait for the Government’s revolving door to stop spinning. The trust is drawing up plans, but a plan with no route to capital is just a very expensive document.

I have five questions for the Minister. First, what has changed since the answer last October? If the new hospital programme is closed, what route is open? Will the Government assess the case for replacement and set out a timetable? Secondly, will she commit to resilience funding to keep the current building safe until then, so that flooded theatres do not become an annual event? Thirdly, will she guarantee that North Tees will keep its offering, its A&E and its core services while the future is decided? Fourthly, will she look at why management numbers have risen by 21% while overall staffing has fallen, and ensure that cuts never come at the expense of frontline care? Fifthly, will she make sure that the Secretary of State finally meets the mayor, along with me and Members from across Teesside, and the trust, before the end of the year? Better still, will she come and visit our hospital and see at first hand the challenges that our incredible workforce is facing?

People across our area, whatever their politics, want the same thing: a hospital that they can rely on when someone they love needs help. I will work with anybody who wants to make that happen. North Tees has seen us born, patched us up and cared for the people that we love at the end. Its staff have kept caring through every challenge put in front of them. The right hon. Member for Ilford North was right: there is no doubt that we need a new hospital. What my constituents want to hear today is not whether, but when, where and how it will be paid for. Our staff deserve it, our patients need it and our community has waited long enough.

11:10

[The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) on securing this important debate. It is good to hear him rightly put across the strength of feeling that I am sure many people in Stockton and elsewhere nearby have in support of the staff of the hospital and how people feel about it. It is very important to the communities that it serves, and patients and staff rightly deserve facilities that are safe, modern and fit to deliver high-quality care.

I must offer a brief apology to the hon. Member. I am obviously not the Minister directly responsible for this area—we have a clash, unfortunately, which is why I am responding. However, I will make sure that the Minister with direct responsibility hears all of the points that he makes, and I am going to do my best to respond to the questions he has asked.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

This is a Teesside-wide issue, and it is felt by communities across the region. All of us, as MPs representing the Tees Valley, believe that there needs to be a long-term future for this hospital. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is also supporting the trust’s strategic outline case for the future of the hospital. We need to see a future here. However, there are also other hospitals within the trust’s area that are sitting and rotting. I see one in my constituency in East Cleveland. It is controlled by NHS Property Services and there are huge parts of that building that are sitting empty, which could have more services in. I urge the Minister to meet with us collectively to talk about the future for hospitals across the Tees region.

[Alison McGovern]

As I was just mentioning, I will make sure that the Minister responsible hears my hon. Friend’s point and the discussion we have had in this debate and that they can take forward that strategic discussion about the future. I also hope and anticipate that I will be able to answer the questions from the hon. Member for Stockton West in the contribution that I am going to make. If that is not the case, we will certainly follow up in writing with him and with other Members in Tees as well.

We recognise the need to plan for the hospital’s long-term future for all the reasons that Members have set out and which are understood. That requires three things: more investment in the NHS estate, greater certainty so that investment can be planned over the long term, and greater autonomy for local leaders to decide how it is best used. That is the approach that we have set out in our 10-year capital plan for health and social care.

The challenges at North Tees reflect a much wider problem across the NHS estate. For too long, capital investment was insufficient and short term, with capital budgets repeatedly raided to meet day-to-day pressures. The result is an estate carrying the consequences of years of under-investment, and hon. Members have set out the consequences people are living with. Previous Governments allowed these pressures to build, leaving too many NHS buildings ageing and in poor condition. Patients and staff across the country are living with the consequences.

We cannot undo that legacy overnight, but we can change the way the NHS invests in its buildings—moving away from short-term fixes towards sustained investment and proper long-term planning. First, we are investing more. After years of under-investment, we are providing the largest health capital budget in NHS history, with annual spending rising to £15 billion by the end of this spending review period.

Within that, we are targeting funding where the need is greatest. The estates safety fund, established in 2025-26, will be provided with £6.75 billion over the next nine years to tackle the poorest-quality parts of the NHS estate and to ensure safe environments for patients and staff. That sits alongside around £21 billion in operational capital over the spending review period, empowering local health organisations to invest in their priorities, including their estates. We are also investing around £5 billion over the spending review period to expand and modernise diagnostic, elective, mental health and emergency services, helping to increase capacity, cut waiting times and improve urgent and emergency care performance, as mentioned by Members in the debate already.

Secondly, we are providing greater certainty over that investment. We are providing £65 billion over 10 years for operational capital and estate maintenance, giving the NHS unprecedented long-term certainty to plan and improve its estate. For the first time, providers have multi-year, operational capital allocations alongside longer-term certainty over estate maintenance funding. Instead of having to plan from one year to the next, NHS leaders can look ahead, prioritise investment over several years and develop longer-term plans for their estates and services.

Thirdly, we are giving local leaders greater autonomy about how that investment is used. We are devolving more control to the frontline, streamlining capital approvals, giving local leaders greater freedom to invest according to local need, helping projects to move forward more quickly and delivering better value for money for taxpayers. This matters, because those closest to patients are best placed to understand what their communities need. We are giving them more investment, greater certainty over the resources available and greater freedom to decide how those resources can best support local services, which brings me back to North Tees.

I have heard the case that hon. Members have made about the University Hospital of North Tees becoming part of the new hospital programme. As the hon. Member for Stockton West mentioned, there are currently no plans to invite further schemes to join the programme, as our focus is on delivering the existing schemes set out in the plan for implementation.

However, the new hospital programme is not the only route through which we are investing in the NHS estate. As I have set out, we are providing significant long-term capital investment through the estates safety fund and operational capital programmes to expand and modernise services, alongside the certainty and flexibility I have mentioned. Over the next nine years, more than £1.1 billion is planned through the estates safety fund for the North East and Yorkshire region. Importantly, the fund gives local NHS leaders greater flexibility to prioritise that investment against the most pressing infrastructure risks across the region.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked some questions on funding and what routes are open. This funding means that the case for further investment at North Tees can be considered through that process, making sure that local priorities drive decision making. The longer-term funding certainty we have provided means that decisions can be made on strategic plans for the estate, rather than short-term pressures alone—although I acknowledge the point that has been made about flooding and so on.

The North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust has already been allocated more than £3.2 million through the estates safety fund for vital repairs at North Tees and Hartlepool hospitals over the next four years. That sits alongside more than £78 million in operational capital for local priorities, including repairs at North Tees. However, I say again that the Ministers responsible and others are aware of this debate and the points that Members have quite rightly raised about the consequences of the current position and what staff are dealing with.

The Government recently announced £1 million to refurbish the emergency department at North Tees over two years as part of our £140 million boost to NHS urgent care. That builds on £2.7 million already invested in the emergency assessment unit to increase capacity and improve patient flow, safety and experience.

We are also investing directly in services across Tees Valley more widely. In 2025, the trust received more than £4 million to expand the Tees Valley community diagnostic centre, which we have discussed, as part of our £343 million expansion of community and crisis mental health services.

New facilities are planned in Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, alongside a dedicated mental health emergency department at Roseberry Park. Together, this sits within £671 million of planned capital investment to support improved NHS performance in secondary and emergency care across the North East and Yorkshire region over the next four years.

[Luke Myer]

There is not yet much clarity on where some of that funding will go in terms of setting up those mental health services, particularly in Redcar and Cleveland. If we have a hospital with a wing that is sitting empty, it seems to me a no-brainer that that wing could be a site for some of those services, but obviously I would like to have a conversation with the Department to understand whether there are any such plans, and if there are not, whether we can get some confirmation on that.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for asking me a question that is actually within my direct responsibilities, which does make my life slightly easier. The issue that he raises regarding the suitability of location is very important. It is one that I am considering through our work on the mental health strategy. If he would like to have a discussion with me about it, alongside local leaders, I would be more than happy to agree to that.

In addition, decisions about the future of local services and estates should be shaped by those who understand them best, and I will take this opportunity to say on the record that that includes Members of Parliament. Too often, MPs have not played that role. As MPs, we frequently have a huge amount of local intel about how to make services work best and I encourage all my colleagues in the NHS to work with MPs and to use the local knowledge that they have. However, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust, working with the local NHS, is best placed to assess the needs of its patients, determine the right model of care and plan the infrastructure required to deliver it.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked me some questions about A&E and management numbers. I have just talked about the importance of the insights that MPs have and I encourage local NHS leaders to listen to what he and other colleagues have said in this debate when they are making decisions. We want to ensure that local leaders have a strong foundation to make decisions, and multi-year funding allows them to look beyond immediate pressures, consider investment across their estate and develop credible plans over a longer period. Given what the hon. Member said in this debate, there are clearly two jobs to be done: first, to try to deal with the problems in front of us at North Tees hospital; and, secondly, to develop a longer-term plan for the future in a credible way. I hope that some of the decisions that we have taken will enable those jobs to be done.

These are significant problems that we are discussing and, as I have already said, I am realistic about our ability to deal overnight with what is a substantial and strategic problem. However, we must use the opportunity to plan for the longer-term future of North Tees hospital to get a clinically led and affordable plan that is supported by a clear business case—not planning one year at a time, but being able to look to the long term with that investment, greater certainty and more autonomy as tools to plan properly for the future of the services and the estate.

[Matt Vickers]

I made the point earlier that the mayor has written 25 times but we have not managed to get a meeting yet. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to cajole or commit her ministerial colleagues, or even the Secretary of State, to meet local MPs, the mayor and representatives of the trust, in order to have a discussion about where we go next.

[Alison McGovern]

I meet Members of Parliament, from all parties, regularly. I am always happy to agree to meetings with Members of Parliament, and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues feel likewise. Regarding the mayor, we have obviously created new institutions, such as the mayoral council, so that mayors can make representations directly to Government, and I am sure that the mayor is capable of doing that. I will also make sure that, when I follow up on this debate, the Secretary of State is aware of the question that the hon. Member has asked.

As I finish my remarks, I will return to the hon. Member’s opening comments about the importance of hospital facilities to local communities, wherever they are in the country. I heard what he said about the importance of North Tees hospital to the people that it serves, which just goes to show what a foundational role the NHS plays for all of us in our family life.

I commend the hon. Member for Stockton West for securing this debate today. We have a lot of work to do to get the NHS back to what it should be; we are in a turnaround process. It will be hard, but if we work together collaboratively, with one eye on the immediate term and one eye on the long term, we will get the job done.

Question put and agreed to.

11:24

Sitting suspended.