NHS Trusts: Finances

Iain Wright Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I went to Watford a few weeks ago, and the buildings are in a poor state of repair. They do not enable clinicians to provide the high standards of care that they all aspire to; in many cases, it is difficult to do so. West Herts trust requires additional capital expenditure. I have talked with the trust about how it might realise that, and I am discussing that in the Department at the moment.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I was contacted earlier today by a constituent. She had a scan last Tuesday, and the following day she was told that she required an urgent referral to a gynaecologist within two weeks and that she would be provided with an appointment within 48 hours. That did not happen. This morning, I was told by the NHS that no appointments were available anywhere, and that it had no idea when one would be available. My constituent is frantic.

In an earlier response, the Minister mentioned outcomes and increased numbers of appointments, but the reality of the NHS in 2016, for my constituent and millions like her, is that no funding or staffing is available not just for routine appointments, but for urgent appointments related to cancer. What will the Minister do for my constituent, and how quickly will he get a grip to ensure that appropriate funding is provided for the NHS?

[Ben Gummer]

During the course of the last Parliament and the beginning of this one, we have moved from being one of the worst performers on cancer outcomes in Europe to a position roughly midway in the table. We have done that through making rapid improvements in the work we do with people suffering from cancer. There is a lot more to do, but the money is flowing in and improvements to outcomes are being made. However, if there are individual cases, I will of course look at them, as I know will the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has responsibility for cancer services. I am happy to take this on as a personal case.

Space Policy

Iain Wright Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing it and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it. There have been far too many references to “Star Trek” at the expense of “Star Wars”, so let me try to even it up a bit. Space policy has not been debated as much as it should have been in this House given how important it is, but I am pleased that, as a result of the tenacious attitude of the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire and for Glasgow North, the force has awakened. [Laughter.] That’s the only thing you’re going to get.

As has been mentioned, Tim Peake’s mission on the international space station is a fantastic achievement. I think the whole House and the whole country wish him well as he embarks on his spacewalk tomorrow. His mission is important for a number of reasons. First, he is undertaking practical experiments and research that will have positive applications back on earth, a point to which I will return in a moment. Secondly, as has already been mentioned, Major Peake’s space mission is undoubtedly inspiring and motivating a whole new generation, rather like a previous generation was inspired by the Apollo programme. I remember the inspirational words of President Kennedy:

“We choose to go to the moon…and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.

That inspiration and ambition are incredibly important.

The young people looking at what Major Peake is doing—following his journey and progress on Twitter, Facebook and so on, and perhaps even interacting with him as he conducts experiments in space—will have their eyes opened to the enormous and often unlimited potential available to them in their lives and careers. They might not necessarily want to become astronauts—I still have a wish to be an astronaut; I think everyone in this debate does—but they will see the dizzying potential and scope of science, technology and engineering. I hope that the impact of Tim Peake’s mission into space will last for decades, as young people are inspired to go on to have an impact on science and research throughout the 21st century.

The third reason why Major Peake’s mission is so important is that it showcases a true British industrial success: the UK space industry, and that is what I want to focus on. Most people walking the streets today will not be aware, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said, that Britain has a space sector. People will perhaps automatically think of NASA and, possibly, Russia. They might consider a space industry linked with putting people regularly into space or, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North said, with missions such as New Horizons and the exploration of Pluto and the Kuiper Belt. Major Peake’s journey gives us the opportunity to celebrate a great British economic success and highlight what I hope is a shared ambition—it certainly is in today’s debate—to see the sector grow.

I think the Minister would agree that the UK space sector is the very model of the type of modern, successful sector that Britain should be focused on: innovative and high value, and providing well-paid and highly rewarding —in every sense—careers. It taps into Britain’s strengths, based on the very best of science, engineering and world-class British research, but with a very clear nod to British excellence in professional services, such as legal, financial and regulatory work. It is a rapidly growing sector throughout the world—perhaps it is best to say above the world—and the British comparative advantage should be used to capture even more wealth and value for this country in the future.

We have been quite canny in this country in identifying precisely where in the space sector, and throughout its value chain, Britain excels. We have skills in upstream activities, such as satellite construction. I visited Airbus in Stevenage and saw the great work that goes on there. I saw satellites being built and walked on the surface of “Mars”, which was absolutely fantastic. Our real strength and potential, however, lie in the industry’s downstream activities, such as user equipment, applications, services and data. Our strengths in professional services such as legal, regulatory and financial services allow Britain to lead the world in raising capital to finance space technologies, as well as the expertise to provide licensing arrangements. It is these downstream activities that will increase demand in the future so that Britain is well placed for future growth.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and others have already mentioned the figures, but it is important to reiterate just how successful the UK space sector has been in recent years. It generates almost £12 billion for the UK economy, which is almost double the value of the sector just a short time ago in 2007. The industry directly employs 37,000 people in this country. That figure rises to 115,000 when one considers the supply chain, and supported and indirect jobs. UK space has seen an annual growth rate of 8.6% since 2008-09.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you were in the Chair yesterday when we discussed, in an Opposition day debate secured by the Scottish National party, some of the structural weaknesses in our productivity and trade positions. Frankly, if all other sectors in the British economy were performing at the same rate as the UK space industry, this country would be doing well. Productivity is three times the national average, with a value added of £140,000 per employee in the sector. Exports are twice the national average, representing about a third of the sector’s turnover. That success bodes well for the future. The global space industry is set to grow even further to about £400 billion by 2030. The UK space sector’s ambitions are challenging but achievable; the national space policy’s objectives are for Britain to have a 10% market share in the global space industry, provide £40 billion of value to the British economy and employ an additional 100,000 workers by 2030.

I hope there is a real consensus across the House, regardless of party affiliation, for that ambition, and for backing the Government and building on the back of previous support for UK space, regardless of which party is in government. Tribute must be paid to Paul Drayson, who launched, as it were, much of the Government’s interest in UK space. To be fair, David Willetts continued that policy in an excellent way throughout the coalition Government, providing all-important policy continuity and certainty that transcended Parliaments, and allowed confidence in the sector to grow and gave potential investors the reassurance that has provided much of the success for British space.

Given the characteristics of the UK space sector—a high-value, innovative, productive, export-focused industry that has identified our specific key strengths within the sector and built on that comparative advantage to secure more global market share in the future, assisted by a strong and long-standing partnership between industry, Government and research to provide policy certainty—it is surprising that the Government do not want to shout more about the virtues of an industrial strategy. An industrial strategy has been part of the success of the UK space industry. The Secretary of State seems to have abandoned such aspirations, with the possible exceptions of the aerospace and automotive industries. That seems wrong. I am pleased that the Minister on the Treasury Bench is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences. I would single out life sciences as another great skill for Britain. It is a marvellous sector, so why is it not also classed as strategically important? That approach is very important.

In his autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a movement of research funding away from grants to loans, with the exception of the aerospace and automotive sectors. That runs the risk, as mentioned yesterday, of investment not being attracted to Britain. For such a successful and promising sector as space, that is worrying. Will the Minister consider expanding the definition of the aerospace sector to include space so that it can take advantage of the security of research funding and grants?

[Jim Shannon]

In seeking to advance the space industry, is it not important to involve universities and their expertise and knowledge? Is partnership with universities not also part of this?

[Mr Wright]

That is incredibly important. Britain’s unique blend of strong leadership and partnership between industry and Government, through things such as the UK Space Agency and the Space Leadership Council, and our world-class research expertise and strong university base, means we are well positioned to capture as much market value as possible.

Will the Minister accept—I believe he personally believes it—that industrial strategy works and commit to ensuring that the Government embrace such an approach so that sectors such as space and the life sciences can be exploited as much as possible for the benefit of Britain? I mentioned that the national space policy set out an ambition for 100,000 additional jobs in the space industry in the next 15 years—I think we would all sign up to that—but given the skills shortages in engineering and science-based industries throughout the economy, and the difficulty of encouraging girls and young women to consider science, technology, engineering and maths subjects in school, college and university and then as a career, what is he doing to address barriers to growth in the UK space sector? What further assistance, in terms of outreach activities, internships and apprenticeship opportunities, will be provided to motivate and inspire girls and young women to think about a career in space?

In criticising the space industry, it is often said that interest and investment in space is a luxurious folly and that, at a time of austerity and crisis in public services, we cannot afford a space industry: why are we sending a man into space, when patients are lying in hospital corridors? This is a false argument. To a vast extent, the UK space industry is driven by private sector investment—Government investment in the past 15 years has averaged 0.015% of total investment—and the value it creates grows the economy, employs people on good wages and increases tax revenues, thereby helping to fund public services. Research in space or in the space industry has positive applications on earth—for example, satellite technology and food crops or experiments into materials and how they react. Major Peake, while on the international space station, is carrying out experiments to measure pressure in the brain that could have important applications in serious trauma care. Investment in space results in tangible benefits for society on earth.

I am not just talking about the cost-benefit analysis. I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee). Industry is important, and the bottom line is crucial, but as he said, exploration and imagination are fundamental to the human spirit, and it is difficult to think of anything comparable to space when it comes to letting our imaginations run riot. It is vital that we ensure an interest in space by showing what space can provide. The UK space industry is a huge success story, and has the potential to grow still further and inspire a whole generation, but that requires an ongoing partnership between industry, the Government and research. This debate shows that there is great consensus and that many people support the Government in ensuring that the UK space industry realises its potential.

Green Investment Bank

Iain Wright Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank hon. Members who are present and the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this important topic for discussion. I particularly want to thank the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who gave an excellent, thoughtful and skilful speech that got to the heart of the key issues. It is to his credit that he did so in such a balanced manner. The future of the UK Green Investment Bank and the Government’s plans for it to be privatised have not been given sufficient attention, so this opportunity is very welcome. I also welcome the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). He and I were present at the creation of the Green Investment Bank, because we sat on the Bill Committee of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which set it up. We challenged the Government on some of the things to which the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness referred, such as green purposes and where the bank can invest.

It is probably appropriate when discussing the future of the Green Investment Bank to consider, as the hon. Gentleman did in his opening speech, its status and achievements in its relatively brief life. Most stakeholders would agree that the bank’s first three years have been a success. It has enjoyed broad political consensus, which has allowed it to establish itself quickly and in some depth without risk of political knockabout and the turbulence that that causes. For an organisation barely out of nappies, the bank has proven to be remarkably mature. It already feels like an established and respected part of the financial and public sector architecture. As somebody who supports institutions designed to promote long-term and sustainable growth in competitive sectors, I think it is on a par with the likes of catapult centres, the Automotive Council and the Aerospace Growth Partnership, all of which should be long-standing players in a UK industrial strategy.

The bank was established to address and help to correct market failure and the reluctance of investors to put funds into the low-carbon sector because of risk or the lack of a track record. The bank has provided confidence in what remains a stuttering, albeit fast-evolving new part of the global economy. For example, the bank’s financial services arm has just enjoyed a second close of over £350 million into its offshore wind fund, bringing the fund to a total of £818 million and establishing its credentials as the largest renewable energy fund in the UK.

I am particularly interested in the three-year collaboration agreement between the bank and the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, designed to better manage the risks of investing in offshore renewable energy. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Siemens and the work of an offshore wind cluster in Humberside, and I have a similar cluster in Hartlepool and Teesside. Yesterday in the Chamber we were discussing the crisis in the UK steel industry, yet it could be an important component of the offshore wind supply chain, putting the steel industry in our country on a sustainable footing in every sense.

I fully support the comments about the collaboration between the bank and the catapult made by the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. She said:

“This collaboration is a very positive step for our offshore wind industry—helping to increase business productivity, encourage green innovation and stimulate long-term growth,”

because it will bring down costs and ensure that the UK’s goal is to be the largest and most innovative and competitive global player in the offshore wind industry.

The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness alluded to the bank’s projects and the funds invested. To date, the bank has invested in 55 green infrastructure projects and committed about £2.1 billion to the UK economy in the process of leveraging somewhere in the region of £8 billion to £9 billion more widely, as the hon. Gentleman said. After less than three years of operation, the bank has now posted a profit. Combining green credentials in a new, emerging and uncertain sector with a rapid move into profitability is fantastic work—I think we all agree on that. Credit must go to the bank’s leadership, Lord Smith of Kelvin and the chief executive, Shaun Kingsbury, as well as to every member of the bank’s staff, for the great combination of business and investment acumen with a green ethos and a commitment to environmental concerns.

Given that the bank has achieved so much in such a short period of time, the next phase of its life is truly promising—the opportunity to go to a new level of financial scale, which could boost investment in low-carbon technology and assert Britain’s leadership of this modern and exciting part of the global economy. Having established credibility, environmental sustainability and commercial profitability, the bank might look to relax its risk profile to diversify its investment to ensure that it invests in truly innovative technologies.

[Caroline Lucas]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the compelling case that he is making. Does he agree that removing legal protection for the Green Investment Bank’s green credentials would be an economic own goal? Right now we have no real guarantee that the bank’s purposes will remain green, but that is the value added and what makes it so special—that it will focus on such areas. If we lose those purposes, the bank will lose its essence. We therefore need some kind of contractual commitment from prospective buyers that they will keep that focus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Lady pre-empts the rest of my speech. I wanted to start with the glass half full, the positives and the promise; I now come to the buts. I have real concerns about the future of the Green Investment Bank, precisely because of what she has outlined.

As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said in his opening remarks, the Government’s announcement in June of their intention—though they were vague about their plans—to privatise at least part of the bank raised the prospect of a number of risks. I was sufficiently concerned to use my first question on the Floor of the House as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills to ask the Secretary of State about his plans for the Green Investment Bank. Moreover, the Government have tabled an amendment to the Enterprise Bill, which is in Committee in the other place, that would repeal fully part 1 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, thereby completely removing the green purposes of the bank.

I agree with the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness that the bank’s resources need to be scaled up and that it should be allowed to borrow. The Environmental Audit Committee report on the Green Investment Bank in the previous Parliament claimed that it was necessary for it to raise extra capital as a real bank can. I fully agree. However, the method proposed by the Government is questionable. In particular, we must ask—as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has just asked me—whether any loss of legislative protection for the bank’s green purposes would also mean the loss of safeguards.

I do not think that the Minister will be able to reassure us this afternoon. If the purposes are removed from the statute book, no subsequent private owner can give any such safeguards whatever. I will come back to the Government dilemma over Office for National Statistics classification and ensuring safeguards, but the fact that at the moment the Green Investment Bank can state, on its website and in all its publications, that it is “wholly owned” by Her Majesty’s Government provides confidence and certainty for investors in the low-carbon economy, which remains at an embryonic stage.

Coupled with policy announcements since the general election, such as changes to solar panel feed-in tariffs, onshore wind capability and planning approval, along with other things, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government are abdicating from any wish to lead in the global low-carbon economy. That is a real tragedy, not only for green issues, but for our future economic and industrial shape and for what modern industry and employment opportunities will look like.

[Kevin Brennan]

As I was explaining to my hon. Friend, I have been reading his 6,000-word speech in Committee on the bank. In discussion of the Bill that set it up, he said that it would not be a green investment bank, but only a fund, if it did not have the ability to borrow. In essence, the Government want, as we all do, the bank to be able to borrow, but that makes no difference. Whether it is in the public or private sector, the bank’s ability to borrow will mean that such borrowing goes on the Government’s books, unless they take the trouble to repeal the essential protection in legislation. As a result, therefore, is the proposal not fundamentally undercut and in need of revisiting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

I agree with my hon. Friend, although my concerns have changed since the Bill Committee three years ago. Then I was concerned that without sufficient powers to borrow the bank would be only a fund. Now I think that, given the privatisation plans, the Green Investment Bank will become simply another bank, and a very small bank at that, and will therefore lose its distinctiveness, which plays a major part in the leveraging or crowding in of other private sector investment.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

I will mention one point, because it is central to my concerns, then I will certainly give way.

Given that the bank will be small, I am concerned that it will be vulnerable to a takeover by another institution, whose concern for its shareholders would be the pursuit of short-term profits rather than long-term value maximisation. That would be a real danger.

[Graham Stuart]

The bank will not be able to borrow, because it is at too early a stage—it does not have the cash flow to borrow against, so it would not be able to borrow. That is one of the reasons why it either uses the £3 billion—now £3.8 billion—provided by the Government, or gets private equity investment for the long term. Borrowing is probably out of the window, because there is nothing for the bank to borrow against, apart from future cash flow, which people do not normally lend on.

[Mr Wright]

I disagree, because of the bank’s financial track record so far. We are talking about a policy decision by the Chancellor. Throughout the bank’s life to date, he has stopped the ability to borrow. He has said in the past that once overall public debt is falling as a proportion of GDP, the bank might be allowed to borrow. He seems to have changed his tune now. However, based on the bank’s track record, the banks could leverage in further private sector money through borrowing as a means of strengthening its balance sheet.

I have mentioned the risk profile, which is another concern. As I said, the bank turned a profit quickly, which is welcome, but a scaled-up bank could diversify its investments, concentrating to an extent on higher-risk and innovative technologies. In many respects, what the bank has done in the first three years of its life is to invest in important and environmentally sustainable, but commercially lucrative opportunities, such as offshore wind, and in driving down costs by investing in, say, product and process innovation. In the next phase of its life, there is a real opportunity to think about the products and technologies that have not even been invented yet. A traditional market will not consider that unless a state-backed development bank both de-risks and crowds in further investment. In this field, Britain could have first-mover advantage, thanks to investments led by the Green Investment Bank. That would have positive effects for UK prosperity and employment opportunities.

In giving evidence to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee in June 2012, the CBI told us something that stuck with me: that the bank could encourage

“investment into technologies that are not entirely proven yet, or that will require a little assistance to get going. The Green investment bank is part of helping private sector investment and it could have a role in topping up investment in new technologies.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 5, Q5.]

I certainly agree, and we are putting that at risk with the Government’s plans. The Government have talked about securing safeguards and reassurances, but they cannot provide them because by sacrificing control and repealing the bank’s green purposes, they will have no input whatever. Clearly no safeguards can match legislation on the statute book.

The repeal sends out entirely the wrong message. The Minister is a decent, good man on a whole range of different matters, and I know that this is not his policy area—he has been cast into the lion’s den—but when he responds to the debate, I would like him to answer this question. If he cannot provide adequate safeguards now and he cannot articulate the criteria for the safeguards that would reassure us, why do the Government expect Parliament to repeal the part of the 2013 Act that provides the green purposes?

The Government have got themselves in a real bind. They want to scale up the bank’s operations, but they do not want it on the balance sheet. They have had conflicts with the Office for National Statistics, which said it was not possible to do anything and retain control without completely repealing part of the legislation.

The Government will have no direction whatever because they had to go for the nuclear option of repealing part 1 of the 2013 Act. They will therefore have no control over what the Green Investment Bank does, which leaves it entirely vulnerable to its private ownership. The strategic direction of the bank could completely alter.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he think we could learn from some of the European public banks that do not seem to have the same squeamishness about having things off the balance sheet? Banks such as KfW in Germany leverage equity by a factor of 28 and the Portuguese national bank is leveraging by a factor of 17. They seem to have much less horror about having things off-balance sheet. We have had other things off the balance sheet—the CDC is off-balance sheet—so why is there so much horror about that in this country?

[Mr Wright]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I wonder whether she agrees that, in future, state-backed development banks will be part of a modern, innovative, dynamic economy. The UK is unusual in that we are the only one of the G7 countries without such a financial institution. Ensuring that the state, through a development bank, can drive forward the innovations and technologies of the future is the hallmark of a modern, successful and prosperous economy. It is madness that we are moving away from that model; we need to accelerate towards it and concentrate our efforts.

The bank has achieved so much in such a short period of time and it has the potential to achieve much more if its scale is expanded. The move the Government propose, given the bind they find themselves in, means that the privatisation is fraught with risk. It will compromise Britain’s environmental credentials and any ambition we should rightly have to lead global commercial and industrial opportunities in the new, low-carbon economy.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I agree with that point. In relation to wave power, we are all very interested to see how the Swansea lagoon project proceeds. That is a very interesting development in the sustainable generation of energy; if it is a success, it could lead to even larger projects, particularly in the part of south Wales that I represent.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) said. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is relatively new to his post. Could I urge him to read the CBI’s “The colour of growth” report? It says that we have a £130 billion share of a global low-carbon marketplace that is worth about £4 trillion. That will rise hugely in terms of the opportunities around the world, but we are slipping down the ranks. We cannot abdicate our leadership on this issue, because our prosperity as well as our environment will suffer. Will my hon. Friend have a look at that report?

[Kevin Brennan]

I most certainly will. I am sure that my hon. Friend will lend me his copy so that I can do that as soon as possible. I look forward to receiving it shortly in the post or perhaps by a more green method: he can hand it to me personally.

It is a myth that privatisation is necessary and is the only way the Green Investment Bank could go out and borrow in the marketplace. That could be done, as I understand it, under the current legislation in any case, but because of that financial orthodoxy and the desire, which I understand, for the Government to be able to say what they want to say about their deficit targets, they are extremely reluctant to allow the Green Investment Bank to do it.

As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, in a sense this is a notional concept; it is the sort of debt on the books that really is not of great concern to the City or to the markets. It is part of the obsession of the boffins at the Office for National Statistics that where the Government, in any minor way, have an influence over what an institution such as the Green Investment Bank does, by setting out to limit the types of investment that it makes in any way shape or form, it has to be counted as being in the public sector for the purposes of Government debt.

[Mr Andrew Percy in the Chair]

It is an incredibly esoteric and technical reason for requiring the Green Investment Bank to be privatised even though there is clear evidence of real problems with that process, as we have seen from today’s debate.

The decision to privatise the Green Investment Bank was announced in June. Was it a premature decision? I believe a lot of people thought it was. Many commentators expressed concern at the time. The Government were able at the time at least to give the assurance made by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in his written statement on 25 June, in which he said that he was going to privatise the bank:

“This should bring a number of important benefits, giving GIB greater freedom to operate across a wider range of green sectors in accordance with its green purposes, which are enshrined in legislation.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 27WS.]

A key part of the Secretary of State’s announcement, emphasised in that written statement, was the fact that the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank were protected by the legislation in which its duty to pursue them was enshrined. Obviously, something has gone horribly wrong in the meantime.

The advice from the Office for National Statistics that I referred to earlier has led the Government to say that they intend to repeal the very legislative protection that they prayed in aid when deciding to privatise the bank on 25 June. By October, they had to say, “Do you know what? That is not so important after all. It doesn’t really matter if we repeal all that to make sure that the Green Investment Bank doesn’t appear on the books.” That requires a great deal of thought, scrutiny and debate. I thank the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for pointing that out—and, indeed, for ensuring that we are having this debate.

I do not think it is unfair to say that so far, the Government have no answer to the question of how we can ensure that the Green Investment Bank maintains its green purposes. The letter from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills of 15 October, in which he announced his intention to repeal the relevant measures in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, offers no assurance that those green purposes will definitely be maintained. The Secretary of State does say:

“We want to ensure GIB’s green principles continue to underpin its business in future and this will form an important part of our discussions with potential investors.”

That is all very well, and I am sure that potential investors will come along and happily assent to the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank prior to privatisation. That is not the question, however; the question is what happens after privatisation. At that point, when the bank is either fully or partly in the private sector—we do not know the full details of the Government’s proposals for privatisation—how are we to ensure that it maintains its green purposes and does not, as other hon. Members have suggested, simply become yet another bank, albeit a very small bank that can easily be, and is likely to be, gobbled up by somebody else?

Although the Secretary of State says in the letter that the Government want to ensure that the green principles will be maintained, he cannot ensure that they will be. The Government can only entreat; they cannot ensure. We need to hear more about how Ministers will pursue this proposal, and how they will ensure that the green purposes remain if the current proposal is implemented. There has been no answer yet from the Secretary of State or Ministers.

I referred earlier to a written question from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion to the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. In response, the Minister repeated that the Government want a privately owned Green Investment Bank to continue the focus on green sectors, but she did not explain in any way, shape or form how the Government can ensure that it does. We need to know more about that, and I would be interested to hear more from the Minister when he responds to the debate. That absolutely central question has to be answered if we are to have any confidence in what is happening. Otherwise, the situation would seem to be a bit of an unholy mess, and we need to know how the Government will unravel it.

I will ask a few other questions, because there will be a reasonable amount of time for the Minister to respond when I have finished my remarks. Will he admit that he cannot guarantee that privatisation will not dilute the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank? Is the Government’s policy simply: “Fingers crossed”? Have the Government discussed or considered the possibility of some form of penalty for the privatised company should it depart from the green purposes currently enshrined in legislation when the legislative guarantees are removed? Can he confirm that the legislative lock on the green purpose is being repealed purely in order to get the Green Investment Bank off the books? Is that the only reason for removing that lock? Can he tell us a bit more about the stake that the Government expect to retain in the Green Investment Bank following privatisation? Some clarity on that would be greatly welcomed by the House and the country.

What about the £1.8 billion that the Government have set aside to fund the Green Investment Bank and its projects, which is yet to be committed? Do the Government intend that £1.8 billion to be committed to green projects as originally intended, or do they intend that money to be taken back into the Treasury during privatisation? If the latter, what will the Treasury do with that money? Will it simply be set aside against the deficit, or will it be used instead for other green projects and priorities? We need some clarity on that, because some of the claims made about the Green Investment Bank will ring pretty hollow if that £1.8 billion is not devoted to the purposes for which it was intended.

Can the Minister give us a ballpark figure for how much the Government expect to raise through the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank? I do not expect him to be precise, because it is impossible to be precise about that, but can he give us some idea of the parameters that we are talking about? How do the Government intend to avoid the sorts of criticisms that they encountered about the lack of value achieved for taxpayers in the privatisation of Royal Mail? I will not put it any more strongly than that, because we have raised the tone of the debate again since the partisan interventions of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness; I do not want to lower the tone again or tempt the hon. Gentleman out of his slumber. [Interruption.] He is not asleep; I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

I am coming to that. I have been very generous in giving way. Perhaps I should crack on and then I could answer the points that I keep being asked.

In consultations on the Green Investment Bank in May 2012, Greenpeace said:

“If it’s going to be more than an empty gesture, the bank’s got to have the borrowing powers necessary to support the green shoots of the UK’s renewables industry.”

It recognised that the sector is moving fast.

On the freedom to borrow and to raise capital, by giving the bank access to private funding, we will enable it to grow in accordance with its ambitious green business plan, giving it access to a much greater volume of capital than if it remained in public ownership. I commend that plan to any Members who have not looked at it, as it is a legal document that investors are investing in and will be the subject of all the legal constraints of a company sale. Crucially, it will give the bank much greater freedom to operate, removing a number of constraints that apply to it because it is a Government-owned enterprise, and enabling it to borrow freely on the capital markets without impacting on public sector debt. Hon. Members who take a view that public sector debt is not a national priority or issue will not find that argument compelling. Those of us who believe that that debt is an issue will find it compelling. That is firmly the view of the Conservative party.

In Government ownership, the bank must compete for funding along with all other Government expenditure needs, in a necessarily tight public spending round. We do not want to constrain it because of that. For all those reasons it makes sense for the Green Investment Bank’s investment activity to be funded by private capital where possible and to minimise the need for public funding, which fits with our original strategic policy aim of getting the market to work in tackling green policy challenges. Part of the coalition’s strategic intention was to try to generate, support and de-risk that early green investment market here and globally. As a number of Members have mentioned, the bank has been very successful in that first phase.

I want to touch on the need for repeal of the legislation, which a number of hon. Members have talked about. The reason that we need to repeal the legislation on the bank contained in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 is so that the company can be reclassified to the private sector rather than remain as a public sector body. That is essential to achieving the benefits of private ownership, including the aim that the bank should be free to borrow and raise capital without affecting public sector debt. It has become apparent that, unless we repeal that legislation, there is a major and uncarryable risk that the bank would remain classified to the public sector, even after a sale, because the legislation will be likely to constitute a continued public sector control over the company’s business. The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked whether this was wise in terms of the drafting of the original legislation that set up the bank. I cannot comment on that because I was not involved in it. Our advice now is very clear. If we want the bank to be able to operate in the way that we do, that piece of legislation needs to be repealed. While the decision was not arrived at lightly in any way, we are clear that it is a necessary step if we are to achieve our aims.

[Mr Iain Wright]

This is a really important point. Given the Government’s determination to move the bank off the public books, does the Minister accept that there are no safeguards whatever to ensure that a privatised Green Investment Bank will continue with the green purposes that are currently enshrined in that legislative lock in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act?

[George Freeman]

I am trying to remember the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Will I confirm that there are no safeguards? No, I will not confirm that. It will not be set out in legislation in the way that it is at the moment, but there will be a whole series. The shareholder agreement has not been drawn up yet. Despite the earlier comments of the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) about articles of association, the funding and raising of subscription moneys for companies like this is a major legal undertaking. The business plan will be a material document in that process. The bank has set out what it is raising money to invest in. That has to be done when money is being raised. That is all subject to incredible legal scrutiny. The investors who are investing in the company have to sign warranties and give undertakings to their own investors that they are investing in what they say they are. Although they will not be set out in legislation, there are a number of safeguards to ensure that the bank will continue to operate in the green investment space.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the devolution settlement. I will come to that. I am not ducking it; it is an important point that I will come to.

On the protection of the bank’s green mission and green values, the Government recognise that people will rightly be concerned about whether repealing the legislation means that the bank’s focus on green investment is in any way diluted. Let me be very clear. As the Secretary of State has sought to make clear in his written statements on the matter, the Government’s intention is that, following a sale, the Green Investment Bank should continue to focus on green sectors, mobilising more private capital and further accelerating the transition to a green economy. As somebody said earlier, the clue is in the name on the tin. Green investment is what the Green Investment Bank does and where its value lies, and that will be the basis of its offering and the offer it makes to investors. It is clear from preliminary feedback that potential investors are interested in the Green Investment Bank precisely because of its unique green specialism, business plan and investment track record. We fully expect that potential investors will wish to maintain that focus and will be bound by the prospectus and green business plan that the bank is putting at the heart of that subscription.

As a key part of any sale discussions, potential investors will be asked to confirm their commitment to those values and the plan, and they will be asked to set out how they propose to protect them. The Government envisage that that will involve new shareholders agreeing to retain the specific green objectives in the bank’s articles of association and to ensure that the bank continues to be required to invest in a way that achieves a positive green impact.

The Government also expect that new shareholders will maintain the bank’s existing standards for reporting on its green investment performance and will continue to provide for independent assurance of that reporting. We fully expect that approach to be effective in securing the outcome we want, which is that new shareholders readily commit to maintaining the Green Investment Bank’s green mission and values.

[Mr Iain Wright]

That cannot be reconciled with the Government’s intention to get the Green Investment Bank off the national accounts. The Office for National Statistics has criteria for determining whether an entity is on balance sheet or off balance sheet, and those criteria will include a Government right to control via contractual agreements and via regulation such that a unit cannot diversify its activities. The Minister can say that the Government intend, wish and hope, but does he accept that they are impotent on the future operations of the Green Investment Bank?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Gentleman and I are in violent agreement. Let me make it clear that we will not put in legislation or in regulation—

[Mr Wright]

What about in contract?

[George Freeman]

Let me answer the question. We will not put a binding contract in regulation or legislation, but we will ensure—here is the point—that when the Green Investment Bank goes to raise funds in a subscription round, the subscription agreement and all the legal documentation will be based on the bank’s current mission to be a green investment bank. The bank’s green business plan will be a material document in the context of that funding round, and investors will be investing in that mission, that plan and those values. As I have said, we will build in a series of protections to ensure that the vehicle in which they are investing is clearly committed to that green mission.

I want Members to understand that we have taken legal advice, and in order to comply with state aid and Treasury rules on public sector financing, and in order to give the bank the freedom that we want to give it, it is essential that we do not bind it with statutory, legislative and regulatory instruction but ensure that, in its offering to the market, the intention of the bank is clear. That is the right mechanism for us to ensure the bank’s green mission.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I know he has raised it with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. It flows from everything I have said that we are determined to ensure that the Green Investment Bank is able to continue being a green investment bank. Given the constraints under which we are operating, we need to be creative in exploring every option. I am open to my hon. Friend’s suggestions about how we might be able to do that in a way that does not compromise the bank’s ability to operate in the way we want.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Freeman]

I want to crack through. Time is galloping on.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

To clarify, I was not suggesting that we have a round table on the subject; I was merely extending an open offer to anybody who has any suggestions, in addition to the safeguards that I have explained, about ways to ensure that we deliver what I set out as the Government’s clear objective, which is to ensure that if the bank is put out for subscription, the subscription makes it clear that the bank exists to deliver its mission. We are all ears, but it must be within the context of the Government’s strategic policy intention of liberating the bank from the constraints of being defined as a public sector asset, and thus liable to Treasury lending requirements.

[Mr Iain Wright]

The Minister talked about agreements. What will be the legal status of the agreements with potential new shareholders of the Green Investment Bank?

[George Freeman]

For any investor entering into a subscription agreement, the parties will be the current owners, the operating company, the bank and the other investors, so the shareholder agreement will be crucial. It is binding in law and if anyone has ever seen a subscription agreement pack, they will know that it is lever-arch files-worth of papers. However, the central point is that all the parties in that agreement come together to agree what they are investing in, and what the objectives and aims of the company are, and that is set out in the articles of association and in the subscription agreement.

We hope that there will be a substantial range of serious investors who are committed to this space and to subscribing investment moneys into the bank’s green investment plan. They are not investing in a casino or any of the things that conspiracy theorists might imagine this thing could go on to be, including a “zombie” handing out money. They are investing in a specific commercial venture, and the directors of the company will have to put a prospectus out to the market, and they will have to warrant it legally themselves, personally as well as in the usual way. So, the subscription process, in and of itself, affords significant protections to us all, as shareholders and parliamentarians.

The issue of the Government’s ambition of retaining a stake in the bank was raised; I am trying, Mr Percy, to deal with all the points that were raised this afternoon. We will consider all options for a sale and we will be guided by the ultimate test of what achieves best value for the UK taxpayer, and what best fits with the strategic intention of allowing the bank to continue to be a leader in the green investment market and to pull in private finance. I am not in a position to commit this afternoon to a particular level or stake; I do not suppose that anyone would expect me to do so. We need the flexibility to do what best achieves that value for money and the best outcome for the bank.

It is important to note that, in any event, the Government’s retaining a stake while also securing declassification would not give Her Majesty’s Government the power to exercise control over the company; it would merely provide a stake in the company. Before anyone asks, the advice we have had has been very clear that retaining special shareholder rights that would enable the Government to veto corporate policy decisions would effectively amount to state control, and would bring us back to the problem that we are trying to get around. The Government could only have the same rights as any other shareholder in the company.

Here come the tickertape answers to some of the questions that have been put. The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked if I could comment on whether the off-balance sheet treatment is the only reason for the repeal of the legislation. It is the central reason why we need to do it; it is a necessary technical step to liberate the company from the constraints that would otherwise apply. The reason for wanting the bank to be able to operate in the private market is broader than that; we want it to access private capital and to be freer to develop in that growing market.

The hon. Gentleman also asked how much we would expect to raise from a sale. He will not be surprised to learn that I am not in a position to tell him today what that figure would be.

A&E Services

Iain Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am extremely pleased to see you in what I think is your rightful place.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) for her excellent speech. She is part of a very talented 2015 intake—far too talented for my liking, I am afraid to say. She has already demonstrated a strong reputation for standing up for her constituency—often in the face of terrible attacks—in terms of fairness, tolerance and decency in public services. She is a strong asset to this House and I welcome her.

The issue of accident and emergency services is important for Hartlepool, because we lost our A&E in August 2011. That closure has been felt very deeply by my constituents, who now have to travel to North Tees, which is some 13 miles away, for accident and emergency services. Given the appalling provision of public transport, the low level of car ownership and the relative levels of deprivation, that is too far to travel for far too many of my constituents.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the impact of that A&E closure on, and its implications for, areas below the River Tees, including my constituency? In South Tees, despite the best efforts of our NHS staff, waiting times have increased and the A&E target in particular continues to be missed.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Having fewer A&E departments puts further strain on other parts of the system, such as A&E at James Cook hospital, and other parts of the NHS, such as ambulance services. They are queuing up outside James Cook hospital, but it does not have the throughput it needs.

It is important that A&E returns to the town of Hartlepool. Given the level of health inequality, as well as the high proportion of older people relative to the rest of the country, there is a greater risk of accidents and, therefore, I think it is fair to say, greater reliance on A&E than other areas.

To be frank—this is not a party political point—the closure was based on clinical safety factors. The number of medical staff to cover two rotas at both Hartlepool and Stockton was deemed insufficient, and the supervision of junior medical staff was deemed inadequate, as it did not meet modern guidance criteria. Additional resources will need to be provided for adequate staffing to ensure that A&E can return to Hartlepool. North Tees and Hartlepool Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has a financial deficit of £4 million, which is expected to worsen over the coming years.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

In the coming winter months the Royal Free hospital in my constituency will once again face pressure in A&E and other services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the extra winter NHS funding should be allocated sooner rather than later so that hospitals can start planning, and that it should be included in the forthcoming Budget?

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. On the additional resources, the north-east region has not been provided with anything, despite the level of health inequalities and the additional pressure on resources.

Lynne Hodgson, the director of finance at the trust, has said:

“The whole system is stretched financially.”

The situation is so bad that the trust has recently taken out a £2 million loan. That is not for investment in health services—it is not helping to pump prime the return of A&E to Hartlepool—but for paying the wage bills of current staff. When an organisation has to borrow to meet obligations for something as fundamental as its staff’s monthly pay packets, something is fundamentally wrong with the system.

I am arguing for the services to be returned to the town, but given the precarious finances of the trust I am fearful that most services will move further away or simply cease to operate, putting further pressures on the local health economy, such as James Cook hospital, and other parts of health and social care. What will the Government do to ensure that the finances of the North Tees and Hartlepool trust are put on a more secure footing while at the same time allowing such essential services to return to the town?

I fully accept that clinical safety for A&E services is paramount—I will never argue against that—but I have to question the model of acute accident and emergency services in my area. Over the past two decades or so, there has been a tendency to centralise services at North Tees, to the detriment of patients from Hartlepool and those slightly further away in south-east Durham. The momentum programme was going to centralise services on to a single site, culminating in a new hospital at Wynyard that would serve the populations of Hartlepool, Stockton, Easington and Sedgefield. The Government have made it perfectly obvious through their actions that Wynyard will not go ahead, which, together with NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View”, shows that smaller hospitals can thrive. Indeed, we have seen that across the region and the country. Darlington, whose population is only slightly larger than mine and which comes under the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, is able to maintain an A&E. Hexham has a population not of 92,000 like Hartlepool, but of 13,000, and it is able to maintain an A&E at Hexham general hospital. Clearly, centralisation is not the answer everywhere. Different clinical models and reconfigurations are available to allow smaller towns to retain their A&Es.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more transitional care, with step up, step down facilities, and that we need to address the skill mix of different clinicians in those facilities?

[Mr Wright]

That is an incredibly important point. I started with staffing and I will end on it.

I want to make a vital point. The Minister spoke of local solutions, and the people of Hartlepool, Hartlepool Borough Council and I, as the MP for Hartlepool, want that to be the approach, but we are not being heard. I understand that there are always tensions between the wishes of the public with regard to where health services are located and the essential requirements of clinical safety, but, as shown by the examples I have given, there are other ways. The local trust is simply not listening. Given that I, the people of Hartlepool and the local authority—regardless of its political complexion—want this, what will the Government do to ensure that, in the shaping of local accident and emergency services, the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives are genuinely heard?

As I said, I started by addressing staffing and I want to finish on that, too. I hope I have made it clear that I want A&E to return to Hartlepool, but it is clear that the pressure on acute services would be reduced if there was more access to primary care. The GP per head of population ratio is low in Hartlepool, with 63 GPs per 100,000. That is significantly lower than the north-east regional average—only Stockton has a lower ratio—and it is lower than the average in England. Greater access to GPs and better integration of all health and social care services has to be the way forward, but that also includes giving the people of Hartlepool what they want, which, put simply, is a fully functioning hospital in the town and an accident and emergency department at its very heart.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

My hon. Friend is right to champion that project. The Prime Minister’s 100,000 genomes project is leading the world and has the potential to transform the future of health care. The Institute of Translational Medicine in Birmingham will accelerate access to new diagnostics, new drugs and medical devices and provide a focus for life sciences. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that my colleague with responsibility for life sciences, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), plans to visit on 3 March.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State refuses to meet Hartlepool borough council and me on the issue of hospital services in Hartlepool. On Wednesday in this House he said:

“I take responsibility for everything that happens in the NHS.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 277.]

If so, will he respond to the 12,000 people who signed the petition organised by the Hartlepool Mail, the 1,000 people who marched on Saturday morning, Hartlepool borough council and me on this issue? Will he stop snubbing the people of Hartlepool, work with us and make sure that hospital services can return to Hartlepool?

[Mr Hunt]

I do take responsibility, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will be responsible in his campaigning in Hartlepool and welcome the extra doctors, extra nurses, extra operations and extra number of people seen within four hours in his constituency. It is a record of success, of which this Government are proud.

Aerospace Industry

Iain Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

May I begin, Mr Hollobone, by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again? I also want to thank the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) for securing the debate and for advancing his argument in such a characteristically persuasive and courteous, although on this occasion very quiet, manner. I hope that his voice returns soon. I have said it before, but it bears repeating: I am sorry to see him leave the House, especially given the work he has been doing on raising the status of engineering in this country. He leaves a good body of work and I am sure that it will continue outside the House. He will be missed, certainly by the Opposition, for the work that he has done.

As this is the first time I have debated with the new Minister, I want to welcome him to his post. Since he obtained his red box, he has aged about 35 years, so the Government must be working him far too hard. I am pleased that he has been given specific responsibility for the life sciences sector, and I hope that we can soon debate the future of that vital industrial sector, too.

We have had a good debate about the future of the UK aerospace industry, which, as has been said many times, is a remarkable success story. Indeed, it is the very model of what a successful modern industrial sector in the UK in the 21st century should look like: high value added, with a focus on design, manufacturing, production, maintenance, innovation and excellence, as well as a relentless drive in the global export market, providing highly skilled and well-paid jobs and enjoying a long-term, collaborative approach between industry, Government, employees and research institutions.

Over the summer, I was privileged to visit the design team and view the manufacture of the A400M at Airbus in Filton. I have been to Marshall of Cambridge, which is one of only 15 companies out of a total global supply chain of 23,000 suppliers to be presented with a supplier of the year award in 2014 from Boeing. I also visited Rolls-Royce in Derby and the manufacturing technology centre in Anstey to see how innovation and collaboration between industry, research institutions and Government is ensuring that British industry retains its competitive edge.

The aerospace industry is vital to the UK economy, and, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, this country should rightly be proud of it. It is worth noting that the UK aerospace industry grew on average by over 7% each year since 2008. Bearing in mind where we were in 2008, with the global financial recession and the drying up of credit across the world, that is a remarkable achievement. One reason for that, apart from the technical brilliance, drive and entrepreneurialism within the industry, is long-term collaboration between Government and industry. The aerospace industrial strategy, set up by the previous Labour Government and, thankfully, continued under the current Administration, has provided the industry with long-term certainty to plan and invest in Britain with confidence. Labour remains determined to ensure that the UK maintains its position as Europe’s No. 1 aerospace manufacturer, and that Britain remains second only to the US on the global stage.

We are well placed to capture a sizeable part of future growth in the industry. As has been said today, it has been estimated that, by 2032, more than 29,000 new civil airliners will be required, with a value of almost $4 trillion. As the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire said, according to the data released by the trade association ADS last week, the largest ever month-on-month increase in the industry’s order book will bring it to about 12,000 aircraft and 21,000 engines in total, worth between £135 billion and £155 billion to the UK economy in the next nine years.

Labour Members welcome that and we will actively look to capture greater market share in a growing industry, although, as has been acknowledged today, that will be difficult, given the rapid pace of innovation and technological progress, the intensifying competition and the determination of other nations to secure a firm foothold in a high-value, lucrative and prestigious sector. In direct response to what the hon. Gentleman was asking me, that is why the next Labour Government will prioritise the aerospace industrial strategy as a vital sector. We will maintain the Aerospace Growth Partnership and the Aerospace Technology Institute, and we will emphasise the importance of long-term policy stability to allow the industry to soar ever higher.

A number of issues need to be addressed—many have been aired today—in order to ensure that the ambition for the industry is realised. I was particularly pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said about the importance of the supply chain, because he is absolutely right. It is key that the supply chain is aligned with what the primes require to maintain competitiveness and technological innovation. No one wants to see work leak away from our shores, costing jobs and industrial capability, because of an un-coordinated, uncompetitive or unresponsive supply chain.

The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire, in his opening remarks, mentioned the report in yesterday’s Financial Times. It is worth the Minister having a look at the report, which questioned the industry’s supply chain capacity to deliver the backlog of orders, especially when combined with the simultaneous emergence of new product development lines. Geoff Ford, who runs Ford Aerospace in my region of the north-east—I have been to see his factory—stated in that Financial Times report that the backlog of orders should give the suppliers the confidence to expand and to increase capacity. He said:

“If we don’t do that we’ll lose out to other countries.”

He is absolutely right.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that British-based companies in the aerospace supply chain are geared up to take advantage of the industry’s great order book? Not only is capacity important, but so is ensuring that technological advances and product development cascade through the primes and into the supply chain. The role of a proper, co-ordinated industrial strategy is crucial. If industry states that composites will be used more in future at the expense of metals, how are the supply chain companies being assisted to make the investments needed, not only to grow capacity, but to stay relevant to the primes’ modern production requirements? What are the Government doing to assist?

Access to finance has not been mentioned as much as I thought it would in the debate, but it is equally crucial, especially in the aerospace supply chain. The nature of the industry means that up-front capital expenditure is often required with long pay-back times. Supply chain work might move from Britain if British companies do not have access to the finance necessary to invest and compete. Will the Minister update the House about progress on the supply chain finance forum set up by the AGP? What tangible improvements have been seen? How many companies have received access to finance for up-front investment costs? Similarly, will the Minister let us know how many companies have benefited from and actually received the cash from the National Aerospace Technology Exploitation Programme since its launch?

In connection with the importance of the aerospace industry, I think about the three S’s: supply chain, skills and certainty. I have already mentioned certainty and the supply chain, but I must make a point about skills as well. Skills are the means by which the industry will maintain its competitive edge. The work force is ageing and, traditionally, the sector has not provided as many apprenticeships as other comparable sectors have done, although that is now changing. There is a need to increase the industry’s capabilities in certain skills and trades. Many companies carry vacancies that cannot be filled because of a lack of suitable skills. Unless that problem is addressed urgently, activity will move away from the UK, because of a lack of suitable skills.

Is the AGP going as far as it can to identify the specific crafts and skills necessary to enable the UK to maintain its comparative advantage? For example, the AGP has introduced standards for an aerospace manufacturing fitter role, and something similar for electrical fitters and machinists is being developed. What other trades are being considered? That is important and would show the benefits of a proper, co-ordinated industrial strategy.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I agree with the shadow Minister. The craft parts of the industry are critical. Plenty of young people wish to be involved in design and the high-tech part, but the craft side is critical. Does he agree with me and with the big companies such as Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and Airbus, which are now training more than the necessary number of apprentices? For the benefit of its supply chain, Rolls-Royce took on double the number of apprentices that it needs. Does he agree that some of the bigger companies should be getting on board and doing that for the smaller companies in the supply chain?

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and that model works well for the aerospace industry. I certainly want to see that encouraged, because an oversupply of apprentices then cascaded down through the supply chain reassures the primes about quality. It can be a means by which the whole competitiveness of the sector can be maintained and something that we should certainly encourage.

[Jim Shannon]

In Northern Ireland, with Shorts aircraft fitters for example, Bombardier has been anxious and keen to secure recruitment from those in the 50-plus bracket, who perhaps went to another job, but still have the skills. They can come back to do training with Shorts Bombardier. That is an example of where in the United Kingdom that is happening for those over 50, who are not on the apprenticeship scale, but are looking for jobs and have the skills.

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Going back to what the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) asked in an earlier intervention, not only with specific regard to particular trades and fitting, but the whole education system, from primary through secondary education and on to further and higher education, the system should be geared up to say, “The aerospace industry: you could have a fantastic career if you choose it.” Going to work in a factory, in particular somewhere such as Airbus in Broughton, is certainly not a sign of failure. I would be absolutely delighted if one of my children won an Airbus apprenticeship. It is a fantastic success story, which we need to encourage. The culture of this country is that we do not make anything in Britain any more, but that is simply not true in practice. What steps are the Government taking on manufacturing in general and aerospace in particular to ensure that that is dealt with?

I mentioned the success of exports for the UK aerospace industry, with 90% of the high-value products made by the sector in Britain exported overseas. However, the industry has told me—the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire mentioned this—that more support and co-ordination are needed for export sales campaigns. Primes and suppliers have said to me fairly consistently that they would like more advanced information and to be more closely involved when Ministers are travelling on trade missions, or when international delegations are visiting the UK. Will the Minister respond to what seems to be a constant voice?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) said, the UKTI Defence & Security Organisation has done a fantastic job under Richard Paniguian. May I add that, in my experience, our embassies around the world are fantastic? For the record, the late Simon Featherstone, our high commissioner in Malaysia, was one of those diplomats who really helped us.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. To draw his remarks to a close, I call Iain Wright.

[Mr Wright]

My final point, as has been mentioned several times, is about ensuring that British firms are competing on a level international playing field. What steps are the Government taking with the European Commission and the WTO to ensure that rules are complied with and enforced, so that there is a level playing field?

Aerospace is a massive success story for Britain, which needs to continue not only next year but for the next few decades. There is cross-party support, and I hope that the Minister will address our points in his response.

Ambulance Resources and Response Times

Iain Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby? I hope that you will pass on my most grateful thanks to Mr Speaker for assisting me in securing this important debate so quickly after I made my request to him.

I also want to thank the front-line ambulance staff and paramedics whose professionalism and expertise, combined with care and compassion, can often mean the difference between life and death. Time and time again, we hear of the dedication beyond the call of duty of front-line staff in the NHS, and it is entirely right that we hold them in high regard and give them the recognition, remuneration and resources to do their job.

This debate was prompted by the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of one of my constituents, Mr William Gouldburn. Mr Gouldburn was 73 and had served his community as a special needs teacher. He had heart problems, and in the previous couple of days he had come out of hospital after surgery to his shoulder. After leaving hospital, he had felt unwell, to the extent that a doctor was called to his home at 9 am. Less than 90 minutes later, Mr Gouldburn collapsed in his bedroom and an ambulance was called by 10.32 am. The call was not considered to be urgent by the contact centre that took it, and a response time of 60 minutes was given. However, even that response time was not met. It was after 12 noon that a St John Ambulance arrived.

My understanding is that Mr Gouldburn’s family, who were naturally frantic about his condition, placed a total of seven calls about his case to the emergency services during this period. At this point he was lying on the floor of his bathroom, and he was to do so for more than 90 minutes. A regular ambulance was eventually dispatched, but Mr Gouldburn was pronounced dead shortly afterwards. I hope that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to Mr Gouldburn’s family.

At the inquest into Mr Gouldburn’s death last month, a manager for the North East Ambulance Service said that the service had been experiencing a high level of calls and that ambulances were delayed in admitting patients to North Durham hospital due to a lack of available beds. The manager was asked by the coroner:

“Is what I’m hearing you don’t have resources to meet demand?”

The ambulance service manager stated:

“Yes, that’s correct. It is a national problem”.

Mr Gouldburn’s case raises some significant questions about ambulance services, which is why I wanted to secure this debate.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Wright]

I will certainly give way to my parliamentary neighbour.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this important and timely debate. There are serious concerns about the performance of the ambulance service in the north-east region. What is his opinion of the assessment by its chief executive, Simon Featherstone, that the service’s unsatisfactory performance is not as a result of the cuts, given that the trust is having to make £23 million of cuts during the lifetime of this Parliament?

[Mr Wright]

I must praise my hon. Friend, because he does fantastic work on health issues through his passionate commitment to the NHS and in his work on the Select Committee on Health. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to the finances and resources for ambulance services in a moment.

Mr Gouldburn’s case was tragic, and from what the coroner said, it was avoidable. However, a further tragedy is that his case is not unique or isolated. I have been told about similar cases, as my hon. Friends have been.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate so quickly. I have raised the issue of the NEAS a number of times. I have met the Minister about it; I even recognise some of the civil servants who are here today, having met them before. However, I was talking then about cases in the dales, where we accept that there will be an issue about logistics. Recently, cases have been raised with me every week. The latest one involved an elderly lady who fell outside and broke her hip. When her son rang to find out where the ambulance was, he was told that she was 42nd in the queue. She was lying outside with a broken hip for three hours, and that happened in Consett, where there is an ambulance service in the town. The whole situation is spiralling out of control, and I would welcome my hon. Friend’s views on it.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the situation is spiralling out of control. The case that she has just told the House about is simply unacceptable and downright distressing, but it is not unique.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I concur, of course, with what he has said in praise of front-line ambulance staff, and I also express my condolences to the family of his constituent.

The South Central Ambulance Service, which has a good record against targets in urban areas but a less good record in rural areas, has faced rising demand as well. One of the specific factors that it has pointed to is the increasing number of referrals it receives from the 111 service. Is that also a factor in my hon. Friend’s area?

[Mr Wright]

It could have been a factor in Mr Gouldburn’s case, because originally his family contacted the ambulance service via 999 but subsequently they went to 111. I do not think that there is sufficient join-up between the ambulance services and the contact centres about what is appropriate to 999 and what is appropriate to 111. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is being very kind and gracious in giving way, although I had asked his permission to intervene beforehand.

Obviously I do not represent the immediate area covered by the ambulance service that the hon. Gentleman is referring to. In Northern Ireland, however, we have a system whereby the ambulance service can respond to someone who has had a heart attack, as was the case with his constituent. It is a rapid response unit, whereby a car goes out in advance of the ambulance and staff take the urgent remedial and medical action that is necessary in the critical first minutes after what has happened, and then the ambulance follows. Does he feel that the Minister could consider using that system in parts of England as well?

[Mr Wright]

We should have that system already, but it is simply not working in the north-east and in other parts.

Let me cite another case. A constituent of mine from the Headland part of Hartlepool, which is an urban area, contacted me to say:

“My dad has kidney failure and has only 12% of his kidneys working. Just over three weeks ago, my mam rang me concerned about dad. When I arrived at their house, I could see he was very, very ill. I rang immediately for an ambulance. A nurse rang me back for an assessment of dad. No ambulance. I rang again, another assessment, no ambulance. I rang again, another assessment, (the 4th one), this time stressing that I was angry because he was dying and the family would be driving dad to the hospital if they didn’t come, even though this was impossible. After two hours ten minutes, the ambulance finally arrived. In each phone call that I made, I stressed the fact that dad had kidney failure, which results in potassium build up, which results in a heart attack.”

Thankfully, my constituent’s father went to hospital and, almost against the odds, is slowly improving. As my constituent stated to me:

“He is still weak but my dad has always been a hard worker and a tough, strong man. He is at home but missing going to his allotment! There is no doubt the wonderful nurses and doctors saved dad’s life.”

I want the Minister to respond to and take action on a number of points raised by the examples that I and my hon. Friends have given. First and foremost is that stark admission from a manager within the NEAS that the service does not have the resources to meet demand, and that that is a national problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said, demand is clearly rising. Since the 2010 general election, emergency calls to ambulance services in England have increased by about 12%, and calls in the north-east have gone up by about 13%. An ageing population will only increase demand further. In the next decade, this country will need more ambulance resources, not less.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has secured an excellent debate. We know from the NEAS itself that it had an expectation of 415,000 call-outs in the financial year 2012-13, yet it was funded for only 376,000 calls. Also, the use of private ambulances has gone up ninefold, with an initial cost of £96,000 in 2009-10 rising to £754,461 in 2012-13.

[Mr Wright]

I know that my hon. Friend has spoken in the House about this issue before, and I praise him for that. The use of private ambulances is taking resources away from our having a sustainable public service, which all our constituents want. As a result of that, the ambulance services are not able to invest in their work force, and something needs to be done about it. I hope that the Minister will respond directly to my hon. Friend about that issue, because the use of private ambulances is simply unacceptable.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. As this is a 30-minute debate, I will keep my interventions short, although I have a whole list of constituents who have waited an inordinate length of time; there is not the opportunity in a short debate, such as this one, to give all those examples.

In relation to the specific point about private ambulances, is it possible that the Government’s health reforms have led to fragmentation? I ask that because I have met representatives of front-line ambulance staff who have told me that the one-year contracts from the clinical commissioning group are not helping with the North East Ambulance Service NHS Trust’s forward planning of the services and resources that are needed to meet local demand.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. How can an ambulance service plan for the next five years if it faces annual commissioning rounds? That does not work and does not provide long-term sustainability.

The North East Ambulance Service, which, like other ambulance services, has received a flat cash offer from the Government over the course of this Parliament, has been required to cut £4.83 million from its budget for 2012-13, which is some 5% in real terms, and another £4.35 million for 2013-14. Unison estimates that real cuts of about 20% to 25% have been made to ambulance services so far over this Parliament. Those cuts, coupled with rising demand, are having a detrimental impact on the quality of ambulance service that people receive.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

If the hon. Lady will allow me to continue for a moment, what I am about to say is relevant to her area. Response times, especially for the most life-threatening emergency cases, are getting worse. In March 2012, 75.5% of emergency calls in England were responded to within eight minutes. In March 2014, in the latest figures available, that had gone down to 74.7%, with seven of the 11 ambulance trusts, including the North East Ambulance Service, seeing a deterioration in performance. The East of England Ambulance Service saw the proportion of emergency calls responded to within eight minutes fall from 76.2% to 62.4%. That is simply unacceptable, and the hon. Lady will want to respond to it.

[Dr Coffey]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I agree that this is a depressingly familiar situation, but I do praise Anthony Marsh, the new chief executive of the East of England Ambulance Service. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points, but what is the North East Ambulance Service’s board doing? MPs in the east of England campaigned and successfully managed to get rid of the entire board.

[Mr Wright]

As a north-east collective, we work closely to ensure that our constituents get the best possible services.

Let me move on to average response times. In the north-east, the average response time increased from five minutes and 16 seconds in 2011 to five minutes and 48 seconds last year. The east of England saw a 90-second increase in response times. Only one ambulance trust actually reduced the average emergency response time. Those figures reinforce what the senior management from the North East Ambulance Service confirmed at Mr Gouldburn’s inquest, namely that ambulance services do not have the resources to meet demand, that it is a national problem and that response times are suffering as a result. There has been an admission from a senior manager in the ambulance service that resources are not keeping up with demand. Response times, in particular for more serous cases, are deteriorating and lives are being threatened, if not tragically lost. Will the Minister therefore pledge this afternoon to provide more resources to ambulance services in Hartlepool, the north-east and across England to meet rising demand?

I also want to question the assessment process used to screen calls and prioritise response times. Given Mr Gouldburn’s history of heart problems, his age and the fact that he had recently undergone surgery and had seen the doctor that same day, why on earth was he not prioritised as an emergency case and provided with an eight-minute response time? Why did it take seven calls to escalate the case to an emergency? The Minister must accept that that is simply unacceptable. Is there pressure from the Government to downgrade the priority of emergency calls due to inadequate resources?

This week, I received a letter from the Health Minister Earl Howe stating in response to Mr Gouldburn’s case that

“the 999 call was triaged correctly, although some of the questioning could have been better.”

Why was it not better? Why is the questioning not relevant and efficient in every case? The constituent whose father had kidney problems said to me:

“Phone assessments should be changed. In each assessment they asked me did dad have a rash and could he put his chin on his chest! Words like kidney failure and potassium should be taken note of. Because I’m not a rude person I didn’t react angrily, but wish I had because dad could have died. We realise that there is a shortage of ambulances and this can’t go on. We are a rich country. Shortages of ambulances are something you read about in poor countries. It shouldn’t be happening here.”

Assessment and prioritisation seem to be failing and the right questions are not being asked during initial screening. What will the Minister do to address that?

The third issue is that ambulances were delayed because of a problem in admitting patients to North Durham hospital due to a lack of available beds. That seems to show both a lack of joined-up thinking on hospital admissions and the fact that ambulance and NHS resources are hanging by a thread. Is it really acceptable, as seems to have happened in Mr Gouldburn’s case, that because of a delay at a single hospital in County Durham due to insufficient beds, the whole ambulance service for the north-east, or certainly the south of the region, grinds to a halt? The Minister surely cannot find that acceptable. Are resources being spread so thinly that services are not being provided to my constituents?

Hospital services in my area have gone through dramatic changes in the past few years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) knows all too well. Hartlepool’s A and E closed in August 2011, much to the town’s concern, on the grounds of clinical safety and the specialisation and centralisation of appropriate medical skills. There is a mismatch between the Momentum programme of centralising services and the Government’s failure either to commit to funding a new hospital or to provide resources to reinstate services at the existing Hartlepool hospital. If there are fewer A and Es across the country and ambulances have to travel greater distances to a smaller number of centres, will that not increase the handover and turnaround times of patients between the ambulance service and hospital staff? Ambulance crews—my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) has been strong on this—are queuing up outside fewer hospitals, making handover and turnaround times worse. Does that not reduce the amount of time for which ambulance staff can be in a position to respond to emergency calls?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Such cases will only increase in my constituency, where it is proposed to close two minor injury units and the walk-in centre in Skelton. That all comes on the back of a recent development at the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which could have a £50 million deficit. My main problem is that we have been refused meetings with Health Ministers to discuss such matters.

[Mr Wright]

It is wrong for any Minister to refuse a meeting request from a Member of Parliament, in particular on something as important as ambulance response and handover times.

Will the Minister respond to my point about the trade-off between the specialisation and centralisation of services, which is how the NHS is going, and the impact on the distances travelled by ambulances and their subsequent response and return-to-road times? Those are links in the chain that will ensure a seamless and high-quality NHS service, but they do not seem to be as locked together as they should. What is the Minister doing to address that? Will she commit to monitoring handover times to ensure a better and more responsive service for all patients?

At times of emergency and crisis for themselves or their loved ones, the public expect a responsive and professional ambulance service, but as we have heard from those working at a senior level within the North East Ambulance Service, resources are not matching demand, response times are worsening and lives are being threatened. Will the Minister act to ensure that in Hartlepool, the north-east and across the country we have ambulance provision that meets demands, is professional and is the best in the world?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

Thank you, Mr Crausby. Welcome back to the hon. Member for Hartlepool—I think some colleagues may not have been able to rejoin us.

As I was saying, NEAS tells me that in 2013-14, 74.8% of calls categorised as green 2, meaning serious but not life-threatening, received a response within 30 minutes, and 71.2% of calls categorised as green 3, meaning non-emergency, received a response within 60 minutes. Although that does not in any way diminish the tragedy of cases such as Mr Gouldburn’s, which are never acceptable, it is important that we recognise the generally excellent service provided by the trust and its staff.

[Mr Wright]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but when it goes bad, it goes catastrophically bad, with life-threatening consequences. Surely she realises that we should make sure that we minimise that as much as possible.

[Jane Ellison]

I think we can all agree that those are circumstances that we want to minimise.

I want to turn briefly to one or two specific local points, and then to one or two wider points. Most recently, the Government recognised the importance of investment in front-line services with £14 million provided to ambulance services last December. Obviously, it is for local commissioners and trusts to decide how that money is used. I recognise that in the hon. Gentleman’s region, local commissioners see that more investment is needed for ambulance services, and we recognise that the trusts are working with local commissioners on that, making sure that they get that commissioning piece right.

More generally, there is also an issue about staffing in the ambulance service. Since 2010, the NHS has recruited 16% more paramedics, but we know that in some areas of the country, there is insufficient academic capacity, for example, to produce paramedics in the numbers required. Again, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives is working with Health Education England to address that issue in the medium term.

The hon. Gentleman also alluded to ambulance handover delays. We absolutely recognise the role that they can play in making the job of the ambulance service more difficult. I believe there has been an ongoing issue, to which he alluded, for NEAS at County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust hospitals. Local commissioners have advised that there has been recent improvement, helped by winter initiatives supported by the urgent care working group. That has included support from the fire and police service, but I know there is more to be done.

Indeed, my colleague from the east of England, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has not been able to rejoin us, was talking as we went to the vote about work that had been done specifically in her area to look at some particular issues that affect handover delay. As she said in her intervention on the hon. Gentleman, it is well worth local Members exploring some of that detail with their board as well to see whether lessons can be learnt from other parts of the country.

The urgent and emergency care review is being led by Sir Bruce Keogh, the national medical director of NHS England. He was asked to undertake a review of urgent and emergency care, looking at all aspects of the sustainability of the urgent and emergency care system. That does not exclude ambulance services. The review proposes the development of 999 ambulances; they would become more like mobile treatment services, not just urgent transport vehicles. There is a lot of fresh thinking in all sorts of areas of delivering excellence in emergency health care, and it is right that we look at new ways of delivering that health care with regard to ambulances as well, rather than just looking at the old model.

I want briefly to put a point on the record in the 30 seconds left to me. Let us not minimise the importance of people being asked about a rash as a symptom on the phone. It is one of the signs of meningitis and the royal colleges have advised that that should be asked as a question, so it is not an insignificant point.

With regard to private ambulances, that provision was brought in by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), when he was in office—

Accident and Emergency Departments

Iain Wright Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The A and E department at the University hospital of Hartlepool closed in August 2011. I want to raise five points relating to the experience of the 18 months since.

First, clinical safety is paramount in all health reconfigurations. There was clear consensus among senior medical staff that there were significant safety issues with the A and E at Hartlepool. The number of medical staff was insufficient to cover two rotas at Stockton and Hartlepool, and the supervision of junior medical staff was inadequate and did not meet modern guidance criteria. When senior clinical staff say that lives will be saved if changes are made, it is irresponsible for anybody, whether elected representatives or others, not to listen to those expert voices.

Despite the paramount importance of clinical safety, however, it is clear that the people of Hartlepool did not and do not want the closure of their A and E department—no community does. More provision can be made outside the hospital setting and in the local community to make services closer and more convenient to where people live. A One Life centre—a minor injury unit—has been built in the heart of the town centre and should be more easily accessible to a greater number of the town’s population. That is a welcome step. During a debate on A and E in September 2010, I said:

“Moving more serious cases to North Tees is very unwelcome as it is detrimental to my constituents”.—[Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 202WH.]

I stand by that.

My area has seen bitter disputes about the reconfiguration of acute services for the best part of 20 years. There is real tension between the views of professionals, who are best placed to consider the safest and most clinically effective means of providing a service, including in specialist concentrated centres, and the general public who will be the recipients and beneficiaries of that service, and who will pay for it through general taxation, even though they may often disagree with the means and location of that service. Successive Governments over two or three decades have failed to reconcile that basic tension. The concept of “No decision about me, without me” and the four tests of reconfiguration that are often bandied about are a fallacy. It is an understatement to say that Hartlepool would have preferred to maintain a full A and E service. People do not feel as if they have had a proper say in the matter.

Safety, changing medical practices and, increasingly, financial considerations, will play the decisive role in where A and E and other health services are located, and invariably it will be against the general wishes of the local population. I would be interested in the Minister’s views about how that tension between clinicians and the public can best be resolved.

That was my second point. My third point concerns communication about where a patient should go. If a child bangs his or head in Hartlepool tonight, where should their parent take them? Previously, it was a relatively simple choice—they went to A and E. Now, a parent is confronted with going perhaps to the A and E at North Tees hospital, perhaps the One Life minor injuries unit and urgent care centre, or even the university hospital of Hartlepool. The new arrangement seems more complex and fragmented, and surely if the system contains greater complexity and fragmentation, there is greater risk.

Some 18 months after the A and E closure, the system is bedding down; it was not perfect from day one, although that is another matter. However, I am not convinced that the risk is being adequately managed. There is inadequate communication and subsequent misdiagnosis, leading to obvious and understandable alarm among my constituents. What will the Minister do about that?

My fourth point concerns the pressing and persistent need to link reconfiguration of health services with transport policy. Such a link is just not there at the moment. How on earth will my constituents be able to travel to North Tees hospital 13 miles away? The hospital is a long way from many of them and difficult to get to. Hartlepool has low rates of car ownership and poor public transport links, and bus services are virtually non-existent, certainly at weekends and evenings. I would not have thought that the Government or local NHS trust wanted the public to rely solely on ambulance services. The point I wish to stress, and which I hope the Minister will address, is that any reconfiguration of services requires transport and accessibility at its heart. At the moment, transport policy is merely being paid lip service. What will the Minister do about that?

My final point is about the wider reconfiguration of health services north of the Tees. Although, as I said earlier, much of the decision to close Hartlepool A and E was based on immediate clinical safety grounds, it is fair to see that decision in the context of the Momentum programme, which is designed to move health services out of the hospital setting and into the community. The Momentum programme culminates in the building and opening of a new hospital in Wynyard, which is designed to incorporate the most advanced equipment and medical and surgical practices and serve the acute health needs of the populations of Hartlepool, Stockton, Sedgefield and Easington. The original plan was for construction to start last year and for the first patients to be admitted by 2014-15. Soon after taking office, however, the Government withdrew public funding for that hospital, and despite warm words and a series of announcements from the Foundation Trust Network, no alternative source of private funding has been approved. We do not appear to be any further forward.

Two procedures are running dangerously out of parallel. We have the Momentum programme, with the reconfiguration of services, and the funding programme for the new hospital. That is now three years out of date and there is no concrete indication that private funding is on the table. Services have been moved without any clarification about the endgame. My big fear is that my constituents will have the worst of all possible worlds with services moving to North Tees and no new hospital. Something must be done.

Regional Pay (NHS)

Iain Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure for this pleb and prejudiced northerner to follow another self-confessed pleb and prejudiced northerner, the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh).

Much of this debate, and the excellent Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall this morning, has focused on the south-west. I would like to focus on what is happening with regional pay in the NHS in the north-east and, in particular, in my local NHS trust. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, last month North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust issued HR1 “advance notice of potential redundancies” forms to almost 5,500 trust staff based not only in my constituency but in Easington and Stockton. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) in his place and hoping to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. The trust was asking staff to sign new contracts that specifically end the practice of enhanced sickness pay.

I am very concerned about the tactics employed by the trust, which can be seen only as hostile, intimidatory and confrontational. Through the issuing of the HR1 forms, the trust, in effect, said to staff, “Sign this or be sacked.” In its last annual report, published earlier this year, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust stated that

“our most valuable and important resource…our staff. The value of our staff cannot be over-emphasised. Quality, value and recognition are the themes which run through all our activities, to enable us to attract, retain, reward and develop our current and potential future staff.”

I could not agree more with those sentiments, and I want to put on the record my tribute to all the hard-working NHS staff all over the country, but especially in my north-east constituency, who work valiantly on behalf of my constituents. However, I do not think that the 5,500 trust staff issued with HR1 forms feel particularly valued or recognised at the moment.

Staff who are most affected by those proposals comprise the lowest-paid in the trust, such as band 1 nurses, porters, domestic and catering staff and midwives. However, the proposals will affect all employees. I understand that staff who are new starters, those who might gain promotion and those who are changed on to flexible working for whatever reason—whether it be that they are looking after a child or a sick and elderly relative—were automatically put on to the new contract as of last Thursday, without consultation.

The specific issue—enhanced sickness pay—could and should be resolved amicably through negotiations between unions and management on a national basis. I understand that the matter is subject to national negotiations as part of “Agenda for Change”, but, as regards my trust, I am concerned about what is coming next for workers’ terms and conditions.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

I think we know what is coming next, whether it is in North Tees and Hartlepool or in the south-west—cuts to pay and reduced employment benefits. In my part of the country, and I am sure in the hon. Gentleman’s, this does not have public, patient or political support.

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. I am about to come to the financial condition of my trust, which I imagine is true of other trusts.

A total of £40 million needs to be cut from the trust’s budget in the three-year period from 2011-12 to 2013-14—so much for real-terms increases in NHS budgets, as put forward by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. Given that pay costs represent over 68% of the trust’s total income, it seems inevitable, given the financial pressures that the Government are putting the trust under, that there will be a need to cut pay costs still further, whether through redundancies, recruitment freezes or changes to terms and conditions.

The change on sickness enhancement pay is the first of many, and I suggest to the Minister that we must see it as the thin end of the wedge. The proposal on sickness enhancement pay will go through, and then, as the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) said, there will be changes to or cancellations of increments for staff, cuts in overtime, and further pay freezes for lower and middle-paid staff, leading to less money in the local economy. The actions of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust on sickness enhancement pay simply amount to regional pay through the back door.

As a result, we will see a steady deterioration in pay and other terms and conditions for NHS workers in my constituency relative to other areas and other trusts, even within the north-east. I do not want a race to the bottom with regard to health care in my area. I am concerned that recruitment and retention of staff in North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust will become an issue because pay will be higher elsewhere, even within the region. Staff may want to move elsewhere, or may not want to work in the trust in the first place, which will lead to a deterioration in quality health provision.

[Ian Mearns]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Wright]

Before I give way to a fellow regional MP, let me point out that my constituency has huge health inequalities and low life expectancy, and we therefore need the best possible health provision and the best possible staff.

[Ian Mearns]

I have an additional concern. Eroding morale within the NHS and hospital trusts to such an extent that staff turnover increases, will lead to an inherent increase in costs due to the additional training required when new people replace those who have left, at a lower rate.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As the shadow Secretary of State will know from when he was in office, we have had debates, concerns and anxieties about the future of health and hospital services in Hartlepool and north of the Tees for many years. That has not helped staff morale, recruitment or retention. I think that this is the thin end of the wedge, and regional pay through the back door will make matters in my area even worse.

In his response, will the Minister comment on what is happening at North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust and explain why, if NHS spending is increasing in real terms, it has to find £40 million of savings? Why is regional pay being pushed in through the back door? Does he think that the ideas put forward by the trust are good, and what impact will that have on recruitment, retention, morale, and ultimately health care provision in the NHS in areas such as mine?

I will conclude with a broader point about the economic rationale—or rather, the lack of it—behind regional pay. If the national economy’s major problems are caused by a lack of demand, an erosion in the confidence of consumers, households and businesses, and structural imbalances in regional economies—in the north-east especially, relative to London and the south-east—I cannot emphasise enough that it seems economically ludicrous to contemplate policies that widen the regional imbalance, restrict demand still further, and result in further private sector austerity in regions such as mine. That is precisely what Lord Heseltine argued against in his review on growth published last week. We must ensure balance between the regional economies, so that the great potential of areas such as mine can be fulfilled. Regional pay in the NHS, or elsewhere, is not the way to do that.

The 5,500 people employed by the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust live in my area and contribute to the sub-regional economy. They buy things such as cars; they might add a conservatory to their house. That will all stop as a result of regional pay, which will strip out money from the north-east economy to the tune of £0.5 billion a year, according to the TUC. That will result in reduced economic activity in the private sector, and increased private sector unemployment in an area that already has the highest unemployment and the lowest wages anywhere in the country. That is economic madness. We cannot say, “Public sector work over here, private sector enterprise over there”. Modern economies simply do not work like that.

If the Government wish to rebalance the economy geographically—as I think they should—regional pay and a race to the bottom is not the way to do it. The national health service needs a national pay agreement. I strongly support health care provision and health care workers in my area, and on that basis I support the motion.

Health Inequalities (North-East)

Iain Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I apologise for turning up late to this debate. I was chairing another meeting, which I was obviously doing badly because we overran our time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing this debate, which is on one of the most important issues facing the north-east. The health inequalities in my own constituency are certainly unacceptable. For many years, the health of the people in Hartlepool has generally been worse than the national average. Although progress has been made, health levels remain too low and are not improving fast enough for many of my constituents.

Life expectancy in Hartlepool is lower than in the rest of the country. A boy born in Hartlepool today would expect to live until he was 75.9 years old, which is two years shorter than the national average. A girl born in Hartlepool would expect to live until she was 81 years old, which is longer than her counterparts in Middlesbrough, Gateshead, South Tyneside or Sunderland. None the less, her life expectancy is still more than a year shorter than the national average for girls and women.

Those figures have improved dramatically over the past 15 years, which reflects increased health funding, more investment in primary care, a greater emphasis on prevention and rising living standards. However, there are several worrying elements within the data. First, generally rising life expectancy rates mask huge inequalities within Hartlepool that simply should not be tolerated in a civilised society. A constituent of mine living in Stranton, Dyke House or Owton Manor would expect to die up to 11 years earlier than a similar constituent living in the area close to Ward Jackson park.

Secondly, the mortality rate for women of all ages has fallen across all parts of the country, with the exception of those in my constituency. Data show the contrasting fortunes of different local areas. In the decade after 1998, the mortality rate for women in Kensington and Chelsea fell by more than 40%, but it barely moved in Hartlepool. I suggest to the Minister, who has some experience of Hartlepool, that women in my constituency consider the health of their children and family over and above their own. What can she do to address that cultural issue, so that the caring nature of Hartlepool’s womenfolk is retained, but not at the expense of their health?

Thirdly, much behaviour in Hartlepool leads to poor health outcomes. For example, estimated healthy eating, smoking rates and obesity are significantly worse than the England average. Although deaths from heart disease and strokes in Hartlepool have fallen, they remain well above the national average, while death rates from cancer remain some of the worst in the country. Hip fractures for people in Hartlepool aged 65 and above are off the scale by comparison with other areas in England. Why? It is mostly because of our place in history and the manner in which we have been affected by de-industrialisation.

Given our legacy as a place of heavy manufacturing, we have a disproportionate amount of people suffering from industrial diseases and injuries. I particularly want to highlight the number of chest-related diseases. The number of people suffering from asbestos-related diseases such as pleural plaques and mesothelioma is heartbreaking. The present Government’s delay in setting up any response to deal with those cases is prolonging the suffering for many constituents and their families. I urge the Minister to speak to her counterparts at the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the employers’ liability insurance bureau is established as quickly as possible.

[Ian Swales]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not take interventions because a lot of my hon. Friends want to contribute to this debate.

I mentioned the de-industrialisation of the past 30 years. The loss of the shipyards, the docks and many of the steelworks and our engineering firms has hit Hartlepool’s prosperity hard. As my hon. Friend said, there is a very clear correlation between income, employment and health. Given the bad and deteriorating economic situation in my constituency and the wider north-east, the Minister needs to be mindful of the implications on health of the Government’s economic policy.

As unemployment in the north-east and in Hartlepool is high and rising, and there is a direct link between being unemployed and being unwell, the significant health inequalities that my constituents experience will only get worse. Only this week, the Centre for Cities highlighted a growing divide between northern cities and their southern counterparts in prosperity, innovation and resilience to an economic downturn in 2012 and beyond. That is bound to have a worsening effect on health inequalities, whether physical health or mental well-being.

The Minister will recognise the direct link between economic policy and health inequalities. How will she combat the health fall-out from the failures of the Chancellor’s economic policy and the neglect of the north-east? The problem will be made worse by the Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement to regionalise public sector pay. That will have enormous repercussions on the NHS in the north-east. Although highly professional, the NHS in the region is already struggling to recruit and retain appropriate staff tasked with addressing health inequalities in our region. Health services are already under strain not merely because of budgetary pressures, but because of difficulties in recruitment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) mentioned difficulties in attracting and recruiting GPs. My area has one of the lowest GP per capita rates anywhere in the country, and that does not help to reduce health inequalities. Does the Minister not think that that problem and therefore health inequalities will get worse under the Chancellor’s proposals for regionalised pay, and how will she counteract it with regards to recruitment and retention in the NHS?

Let me refer to the ongoing saga of the University hospital of Hartlepool. The Minister will be aware of the closure of accident and emergency last year, which no one in Hartlepool wanted. It has been announced recently that some services will migrate back, which is very welcome, but the whole health economy in my area and, by implication, the health inequalities in the region remain uncertain because of the lack of a clear decision about the new hospital and its funding arrangements.

Will the Minister today provide some clarity about what will happen with regards to the future provision of a hospital in Hartlepool? I do not want to take away the welcome news of a new hospital for the constituents in Hexham, but what about my constituents in Hartlepool? Will she reconsider the proposals put forward by Lord Darzi five or six years ago? In short, can we have clarity with regard to the ongoing provision of a hospital in Hartlepool?

We in the north-east and in Hartlepool have suffered for far too long with disease, ill health and early death, much of which is linked to deprivation and poverty. Government policy threatens to make that worse, so I hope that the Minister can provide us with some reassurances this morning.