Tees Valley Spinal Unit

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I want to highlight the work of the spinal unit at the University Hospital of North Tees and the charitable support group established in 1999 by patients who have used the spinal unit for surgery to relieve chronic back pain, allowing some patients to walk again and many others to get on with their lives pain-free. I speak with first-hand knowledge of the unit and its support group because of the major spine surgery performed on me in November 2008, after years of pain.

At a time of controversial change to the NHS, I want to put on record my belief that the spinal unit at the University Hospital of North Tees and the volunteer network that supports patients before and after treatment is a shining illustration of all that is good about the NHS, and should be an example of how other acute care and chronic pain services should operate elsewhere. Recent advances have made spine surgery safer and more effective and now there are safe and effective surgical options to treat back pain. It is no longer accurate to tell patients that nothing can be done and they just have to live with it. The North Tees spinal unit specialises in the holistic treatment of spinal pain—from physio to surgery, with surgery being the last option.

The spinal unit at the University Hospital of North Tees is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who is a good friend of the hospital. It serves the Tees Valley and South Durham area, including my constituency, but its reputation has now reached far and wide, with patients travelling from all parts of the country for treatment. The spinal unit was set up in 1997 by consultant spinal surgeon Manoj Krishna, who operated on me. The unit was originally staffed by two spinal surgeons but is now staffed by three dedicated consultant spinal surgeons supported by associate specialists and middle-grade doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and other support services such as radiology. The unit offers a number of leading therapeutic, non-surgical and surgical procedures. My understanding of the procedures used is only surpassed by my complete inability to pronounce many of them, but they include lumbar disc replacement, neck surgery and other surgery on the spine.

The spinal assessment team’s specialist nurses carefully examine patients’ medical history to establish the best course of treatment for each case. Patients who require non-operative treatment are then channelled to the appropriate department and patients requiring surgery are referred for treatment in the spinal surgical unit. The unit’s consultants see about 2,000 new patients a year, usually from the musculoskeletal service but sometimes directly from GPs both in and out of the area. Patients come from as far as London and the south-west to have their surgery at North Tees. Fifteen major spinal operations are carried out in the unit each week. The average length of stay in the unit is two and a half days. The unit is a training centre for specialist registrar and spinal fellowship programmes. It is active in research and development, represented on the national and international stage.

I suffered from back pain for years. Initially, the periods between incidents of pain were long, lasting several months. Then the pain became constant. The by-election that I fought in 2007 was not pain-free, but was something that had to be coped with of necessity. One does learn coping techniques—for instance, exercise and physiotherapy are essential—but the more the pain intensified, the stronger the painkillers became. Heat wraps and ice packs were bought in abundance as a short-term remedy.

Coping mechanisms included wearing slip-on shoes because it was too painful to bend over to fasten shoelaces. Books, television remote controls and clothes would be left on the backs of chairs or on shelves at a particular height so it was not necessary to bend or stretch. Working in the office meant standing at the filing cabinet, using it as a desk, or walking around the room reading papers or documents. Sitting for any length of time could be torture. Standing in the Chamber attempting to catch the Speaker’s eye would be a welcome relief for a few seconds, and speaking would be a relief in more ways than one. The pain would be in the legs rather than the back, because the damaged disc was catching the sciatic nerve.

My back was continuing to deteriorate. I was referred to Manoj Krishna, who treated me for about a year with physiotherapy regimes and epidurals that bathed the base of my spine with anaesthetic. All the treatments worked for a time, but the underlying problems caused by discs that were disintegrating meant that I needed surgery. The surgery meant removing the two offending discs and fusing the three vertebrae. Years ago that technique meant recuperating in hospital for many weeks, but in November 2008, when I had the operation, I hobbled into the hospital on a Wednesday morning and walked out on Thursday afternoon, less than 48 hours later. I have not looked back since. Nevertheless, surgery is not a silver bullet. People must continue to exercise, and must not take for granted the new lease of life that the operation has given them. Mr Krishna told me that I had an 80% chance of being 80% better, and I am, I think, more than 80% better. I experience the odd twinge, but the pain that I had before is gone.

My story is not unique; far from it. The cost to the individual, the family and the nation of chronic back pain is massive. Back pain is common in the UK. In any given year, about 30% of the population suffers from it, and 20% of the population—12 million patients—visit their GP with it. Between 3% and 4% of the population are chronically disabled by back pain, and 52 million work days a year are lost because of it. The chance of someone’s returning to work after being off work with it for two years is less than 5%. Research shows that, for the individual, sudden severe and then chronic back pain is debilitating and can result in low mood, loss of libido, disturbed sleep, poor appetite or weight loss, fatigue, feeling worthless, problems with concentration, and even thoughts of suicide.

Back pain can also threaten the stability of the sufferer’s family, possibly leading to marital and family breakdown. Because it often strikes during a person’s maximum earning period, it can threaten the economic survival of the family unit. A person’s back pain and associated side effects can become very draining for the family, as an inability to remain in one position for any length of time threatens normal daily activity as well as leisure. The extent to which the whole family is affected when one of its members has back pain cannot be underestimated. The economic consequences to the nation are also apparent. The individuals concerned are often at the peak of their earning capacity, and months and years of not being able to work and to contribute to society add to their feelings of worthlessness.

For those reasons, I want to pay a special tribute not only to the work of the spinal unit at University Hospital of North Tees but, more specifically, to the voluntary workers of the Tees Valley spinal support group. In 1999 Victoria Fenny, a patient waiting for back surgery, approached Mr Krishna and asked what support there was for patients with this debilitating condition. She wanted to talk to someone who had been through the experience, but no support group existed, and as a result the Tees Valley spinal support group was formed. The group, which now attracts at least 100 people to its quarterly meetings at the hospital’s teaching centre, includes former patients and those awaiting surgery, and provides an invaluable source of learning and support for the hundreds of people who have back and neck surgery each year.

The feedback from the group is used to improve the service further. Health professionals attending the support group say they learn as much from the patients as they teach them about how quickly they can get back to normal after surgery. North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust supports the work of the charity by providing a counselling room for patients where they can meet volunteers and talk about their concerns, and rooms at the teaching centre where the quarterly support groups are held.

The Tees Valley spinal support group is a registered charity and it raises funds to support the work of the spinal unit. I have visited the support group on a couple of occasions and it is good to speak to people who have suffered from the same symptoms—people who coped by wearing slip-ons, used the filing cabinet as a desk and left the TV remote on the back of the chair. I would like to place on record my recognition of the voluntary work undertaken by Victoria, and also Linda Botterill, Claire Poulton, Peter Evans, Peter Allan and Gordon Marron.

In 2011 the support group held its first fun-walk to raise funds for educational equipment for the unit. I met former patients who had spent years in wheelchairs but can now walk. I agree with Mr Manoj Krishna when he says that it is no longer accurate to tell patients nothing can be done for their back pain and they have to live with it. The skills are there. The support is there too. What can the Government do to ensure the excellent example of the spinal unit and its support group can be replicated around the country so that the millions of our citizens who suffer from back pain can receive the treatment they need instead of being told they just have to cope with it?

Is the Minister aware that Britain has 18 spinal surgeons per 100,000 head of population, whereas the Netherlands has 30 and the USA has 76? Back surgery rates in the UK are 30 per 100,000 head of population, as against 52 in Sweden, 115 in the Netherlands and 158 in the USA. What more can be done to improve Britain’s position, because we obviously have the talent, skills and expertise to be world leaders in this area?

What will the Government’s proposed reorganisation of the NHS do to ensure that patients who need the treatment will get the treatment, especially as spinal surgery techniques are rapidly improving and becoming ever more sophisticated? Finally, will the Minister join me in congratulating the management and the surgical and nursing staff at the hospital on the work they are doing to ensure chronic back pain is being treated with such professionalism? In particular, will he join me in congratulating the volunteers who run the support group, and who ensure that the service provided is holistic in its approach and helps secure the good will of patients to help other patients, in order to give them hope and address their fears? All specialties in all hospitals would do well to have their own support groups. I know from personal experience how important they are.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Anne Milton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He must be psychic, because I recently visited China, and it was fascinating to meet Ministers there. He will also be very pleased to hear, as I am sure the whole House will, that I visited a hospital and community centre that combines western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The coalition agreement states that public sector employees, including health care employees, will be given a new right to set up employee-led co-operatives to run services. Can the Minister detail how many NHS co-operatives have been established and how many employees are involved in them?

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman if my recollection is wrong, but I think that something in the order of 25,000 staff have been transferred into social enterprises since the election. That represents something like £900 million-worth of NHS activity across England.

Hospital Services (North-East)

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate, Mr Sheridan. I want to make a business case for the Wynyard hospital based on its effect on the local economy, because the Government’s decision is short-sighted. The new hospital was to be sited at Wynyard park—a 700-acre business park owned by Wynyard Park Ltd that has created more than 1,000 jobs in the past five years. Fifty-five companies have moved on to the site, and the hospital would have been a catalyst for further private sector investment and jobs. The Government go on all the time about the need to rebalance the north-east’s economy, and the Opposition agree with them. One way to do that and to help generate private sector investment would be to invest in infrastructure and public sector hospitals, such as the one that the Government have cancelled.

The cancellation of the hospital came on the back of the announcement about housing benefit. The former Chancellor said that we would take £250 million out of housing benefit through reforms, but the present Government want to take out £1.8 billion, which would greatly affect areas of County Durham. In addition, just under 100 schemes have been cancelled under Building Schools for the Future, which is a problem not just for education, but for construction jobs in the region. On top of that, the regional development agency is to be abolished. It has played a part in work on the Wynyard site and the foundation hospital, and it has tried to attract investment into the area.

[James Wharton]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s terminology when he says that the RDA will be abolished, but is it not rather the case that it will be replaced by more localised local enterprise partnerships, which will deliver better for local people in communities across the north-east?

[Phil Wilson]

Actually, it is being abolished—that is what is happening.

I want to make two points about the RDA. First, it invested £2 million last year in attracting inward investment. On the basis of that money, it attracted £720 million of inward investment into the north-east—82% of inward investment into the region comes through the RDA, so if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Secondly, in preparation for the hospital development, the RDA organised meetings between the foundation hospital and overseas firms to see whether those firms would come on to the site.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the person who had the vision for the Wynyard site was John Hall? He saw the benefits of working with the RDA and others to develop it, and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) was a big supporter of his during the election.

[Phil Wilson]

That is absolutely right. I heard John Hall speak last Friday, and he also has a lot to say about the abolition of the RDA.

[Mr Iain Wright]

My hon. Friend is making a convincing economic case for the hospital. Does he agree that the £464 million in investment that was to be provided could also provide about 550 apprenticeship opportunities in the construction industry and elsewhere? The Government say that they want private sector-led growth and recovery, and I agree with that approach, but scrapping the hospital and cancelling Building Schools for the Future will mean that private sector construction industry jobs are not maintained. Is that not a devastating blow for the north-east?

[Phil Wilson]

That is absolutely right. Over the past 13 years, the number of apprenticeships in the region has gone up astronomically. In 1997, in my constituency, there were fewer than 30 apprenticeships, but there are more than 700 today. Obviously, anything that curtails the growth of apprenticeships in the future should be frowned on.

As far as other jobs are concerned, the hospital would be a catalyst for inward investment and private sector investment. Wynyard Park Ltd worked closely with the hospital, local universities and further education colleges because it realised that high-value medical and other research jobs would come to the area. The company estimated that 12,500 jobs would be created on top of the 3,000 jobs that the hospital would create. There would be 12,500 private sector jobs in the area on the back of the hospital development—just think of the Government’s income tax and national insurance take and all the other benefits that they would pick up on the basis of that growth in the local economy. Public sector investment would kick-start growth in the private sector.

The hospital would also have become an anchor tenant—a tenant that attracted a lot of other investment to Wynyard. In addition, it would have brought greater investment in infrastructure: the roads and transport networks would have improved, which would have brought more businesses to the park. This is not just about the hospital, as great as that would be. My family and I have used the North Tees and Hartlepool hospitals, and they are great hospitals, but it is time to replace them and to have a new hospital. The credible case put by the new hospital’s designers was that the development would be not only a hospital, but a catalyst for growth in the private sector economy in the south Durham and Tees valley area. That case has been completely ignored.

I really get annoyed when people try to say that the project was worked out on the back of a fag packet a few weeks before the general election. I have been attending meetings on the issue since I was elected in 2007, and meetings were going on before then. We need the development to happen.

The Government’s proposals prove what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign when he pointed out that the north-east would feel the brunt of the cuts. He was right to say that we rely too much on public sector jobs, so the Government should give us the opportunity to change that, but that opportunity was taken away from us when the hospital programme was cancelled.

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman asserts that the area should be given the opportunity to address the lack of private sector jobs, but that that would not be done by spending more public sector money. We cannot address the deficit on every single occasion by creating private sector jobs through public sector spending, which is surely the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s hospital argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

We are not saying that we should do that at every opportunity, but when we spend public money, we should take the opportunity to ensure that it pump-primes the local economy. That is what the Wynyard scheme was bound to do. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not think that the public sector is of any value, but Opposition Members do.

[Guy Opperman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Phil Wilson]

No, several other Members want to get in on the debate.

Figures have been bandied about, such as the £5 billion and the £11,000 difference, which was actually £11 million—the Minister corrected that error, and I noticed it, too, and went up to correct it. That £11 million, over 35 years, means the difference between a new hospital and a hospital that is falling down. Surely we could have found that money somewhere to help to maintain the hospital.

I want to end with a question to the Minister. Three or four weeks ago, we brought down the foundation trust’s chief executive and the chair for a meeting, and I was pleased that the Minister could meet us. I took away from that meeting the view that the Department would look again at the development if the trust could come up with a credible scheme or initiative to get money from the private sector. If all the figures stacked up, would the Department underwrite such a proposal? We are talking about a foundation hospital. Are we saying that foundation hospitals will be around for ever? Things might change—Governments might change, policy might change—but the hospital must still be funded. Are the Government prepared to underwrite any financial arrangements with the banks and the private sector?

On that point, I will sit down and listen to what other Members have to say. The proposed hospital is a missed opportunity for growth in not only the public sector but the private sector in the region.

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

Mr Speaker, I agree with the long intervention and the facts laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris).

In Stockton-on-Tees, just over a quarter of residents live in some of the most deprived areas of England. Early deaths from heart disease and stroke and from cancer are higher than the England average. Inequalities are starkly demonstrated by the fact that a man living in one of the least deprived areas of Stockton can expect to live just over 10 years longer than a man living in one of the most deprived areas.

Since 1997, however, early death rates from heart disease and stroke have fallen markedly and early death rates from cancer have also fallen, albeit more slowly. We have also seen a narrowing in the gap between our area and the rest of the country. Things are improving for my constituents, and my concern is that the coalition’s decision will see a halt to and possibly even a reversal in these positive outcomes. The NHS is too important to be turned into a party political football, however. Those listening to this debate back in the north-east this evening do not want to hear us point scoring. I have heard you say yourself, Mr Speaker, that that is the sort of behaviour that turns people off politics and politicians.

I wholeheartedly welcome the commitment shown by the Prime Minister and his party to the NHS, and I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to a statement that he made during the election campaign. He said:

“The test of a good society is you look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society. And that test is even more important in difficult times, when difficult decisions have to be taken, than it is in better times.”

I could not agree more with the Prime Minister’s statement, but I fear that his words are not being followed by his actions. As we all know, it is all too easy to make promises in politics. The real test is whether we stand by our word once the votes have been counted.

During the election campaign, the Conservative party claimed that it was now the party of the NHS. I doubt very much that people who went to the ballot box on 6 May and put a cross next to the name of their Conservative candidate thought that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) would be authorising the cancellation of a long-awaited new hospital just weeks later. We all acknowledge that cuts have to be made to reduce the deficit, but this is a much needed front-line service, and I will not stand by and let this project disappear without a fight.

Of course, 6 May gave us not a Conservative Government but a Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition, so I urge Members to refer to the document “The Coalition: our programme for government”, which states:

“We are committed to the continuous improvement of the quality of services to patients.”

Again, I warmly welcome that statement, but I fear that when push comes to shove, it will mean very little to my constituents and those in neighbouring areas. This coalition seems intent on cutting spending without fully realising the human cost of the cuts. This decision is a backward step for the communities that would have been served by the new hospital, and it does not tally with the Prime Minister’s claim that the Conservatives are now the party of the NHS or with the coalition’s document.

Since the announcement on 17 June, I and other Labour Members have met the chair and chief executive of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust. They are understandably extremely disappointed that, after the many years of hard work creating and fine-tuning the plans for the future of health services in our region, those plans have been sent back to the drawing board. It is not only the foundation trust that is unhappy with the decision: on Saturday 26 June, other Members and I attended a rally in Hartlepool to highlight local opposition to the decision, which grows by the day.

I have also received encouraging support for early-day motion 273, which asks for a review of the coalition’s decision. To date, it has received 42 signatures—regrettably, only from Members on this side of the House. I hope that it will not only be Labour Members arguing this evening that their constituents should not lose out after waiting so long for an agreement on the future of health care in our area.

One of the key questions that I hope the Minister will answer this evening is why this particular project has been scrapped. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his statement to the House that his decision to cut £2 billion of public spending, including on our new hospital, was guided by a principle of fairness. At the moment, we feel as though we have been subject to an arbitrary decision. I have yet to hear any persuasive argument as to why people in the north-east have had their new hospital withdrawn while schemes such as the Royal Liverpool hospital, the Pennine acute hospital and the Epsom and St Helier hospital are going ahead. What advice did the Minister receive from his Department that led to the conclusion that the North Tees and Hartlepool project did not represent value for money, compared with the other projects?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the House on 17 June that our new hospital was

“assessed against a number of other major build projects that were at the same stage of development; those schemes are more urgent.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 1051.]

I would appreciate a little more clarity from the Minister about what was meant by that statement, and I request that he publish the criteria used and the detailed comparisons carried out against the project. The North Tees and Hartlepool project was, according to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the top priority for the NHS. We would like to know why it has slipped down and out of the queue.

In answer to my question on 29 June about the strategy developed by the foundation trust, the Secretary of State for Health did not rule out other ways of making our new hospital happen. I noted that he said it needed to fit his new criteria and that the trust should not ask the Department of Health to meet the whole capital cost of whatever it proposes. Does that mean that some funding could be made available and the balance raised by the trust using its existing powers?

I urge the coalition to work with Members on the Opposition Benches as well as with the foundation trust to look at new and innovative ways of funding the project and ensuring that local people are not left behind. Will the Minister confirm that more time invested in developing a new solution to fund the new hospital will not be a waste of time, and that he and his coalition partners have not set themselves against any new hospital in our part of the country?

If we do not find a solution and build a new hospital, what will happen? The chief executive of the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust has publicly acknowledged that there is a chance that Hartlepool hospital could close, whether or not a new hospital goes ahead. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)is extremely anxious about that. We could end up with one hospital. I want it to be a new one.

There is much more at stake than just health care and a new hospital. The location for the hospital was Wynyard park, a 700 acre high-end mixed-use development accommodating residential and business properties.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving the Adjournment debate. I shall be brief. I expect the point that he intends to make is about added value arising from the project. The business park would have attracted high-value private sector jobs in medical research in an area that needs them. They would have reached the site as a result of the £10 million that would have been introduced into the transport system.

[Alex Cunningham]

Exactly. The new hospital would have kick-started development in the area, creating many thousands of jobs. The owners of Wynyard park believe that the new hospital would have been a considerable incentive for investment by others to develop the type of industries mentioned by my hon. Friend. Most important of all, the coalition’s decision to scrap the new hospital will have a major detrimental effect on continuing the work to close the gap between the unhealthiest and healthiest in our communities.

I am therefore grateful to the Minister, who has agreed to a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for a meeting to discuss how we can keep our hospital project alive. I look forward to the meeting to discuss the way forward and will listen intently to his response this evening, in the hope that the door to funding is not already firmly closed. At present there are many more questions than answers about the future of acute services in our region. What is the future of health care, of our strategy for a new hospital, and of the organisations, such as the foundation trust, that plan care? There is so much doubt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effects on public health of plain packaging of cigarettes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

Evidence of the impact on public health of plain packaging of tobacco needs to be developed further, because no jurisdiction globally has yet introduced it. However, Australia will do so from 2012. We will monitor developments there with considerable interest.

[Phil Wilson]

Smoking costs the NHS £2.7 billion a year, six times the cost of a new hospital for north Tees and Hartlepool. In the north-east, approximately 10,000 children between the ages of 11 and 15 are smoking. We want all of them, not just half of them, to lead a fulfilled life. Will the Minister ensure that the assessment of plain packaging is expedited, so that we can be given an answer as soon as possible?

[Anne Milton]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the impact that smoking still has on the health of children in particular—I believe that 200,000 take up smoking each year. We still have 80,000 smoking-related deaths in this country. It is important to watch what happens in Australia and see where the evidence points for the future.