The people of my constituency and the surrounding area have had uncertainty regarding the future of hospital services for something like close to a decade. The recent set of recommendations by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel following its review of maternity and paediatric services raises many more questions than answers.

The IRP recommended a new hospital should be built and the existing hospitals at Hartlepool and at North Tees should be closed. Specialist neonatal services for the whole of Teesside should be situated in the new hospital. In the interim period, which could be a decade away, consultant-led maternity and paediatric services should be centralised at the University Hospital of North Tees and a midwife-led maternity unit and paediatric assessment unit should be provided at the University Hospital of Hartlepool.

To say that I am disappointed and feel profoundly let down by this decision is something of an understatement. The set of recommendations produced by the IRP look suspiciously like the recommendations produced by the County Durham and Tees Strategic Health Authority in 2003, which stated that “the long-term intention is to have one single acute hospital north of the River Tees”. So, so much work and effort by a whole range of people was for nothing. These include the observations by Professor Darzi in his review regarding a single-site option for the North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Trust, namely that:

“neither the University Hospital of North Tees or the University Hospital of Hartlepool could provide services for the whole of north Teesside. Any single site option would therefore involve a major capital development. The timescales for such developments are often in the region of 7-8 years. As such, this would not be a solution to the issues facing the health service today and, in particular, the need for rapid change to deliver sustainable, thriving, convenient and high quality services.”

I am pleased that government business managers have arranged for this subject to be debated. Bus provision is an important feature of our country and with concerns about access to services for all sections of society, growing congestion on our roads and the effects of transport upon the environment, it is appropriate that this House discusses this subject which is rightly rising up the agenda.

Mr Speaker, if there is anywhere in this country outside of London and major metropolitan areas where bus services, as part of a co-ordinated public transport system, should work, it is Hartlepool and the wider sub region. My town is a very centralised community, concentrated to a large extent upon an urban core. I understand from research carried out as part of Hartlepool Borough Council’s second local transport plan that some 99 per cent of the town’s residents could access Hartlepool Town Centre within half an hour by public transport. The vast majority of journeys in Hartlepool are within the constituency itself; 72 per cent of all travel to employment takes place within the Borough of Hartlepool. These two factors – a centralised population, together with journeys concentrated within the town itself – should mean that Hartlepool is ripe for a successful bus transport system. In addition, nearly two in five households in Hartlepool do not have access to a car, almost double the rate in England and Wales. This fact, combined with high levels of deprivation and economic inactivity, means that a high quality bus service would allow access to a range of vital things for a large number of my constituents, things like employment, education, healthcare and leisure.

Yet, access to and take up of good bus services is simply not happening. In the period 2001 to 2005, bus passenger numbers in Hartlepool declined by 3 per cent year on year, a compound fall of about 9 per cent. This is consistent with the 10 per cent drop in use of buses and light rail in the North East region in the same period, the biggest fall in the country.

Before I begin I would just like to pay tribute to the work of fishermen in my constituency. Fishing has a proud history in Hartlepool, spanning over 800 years, and the North Sea is often a harsh and unforgiving place. Over the years countless fishermen have lost their lives trying to make a living for themselves and their families and sadly fatalities continue. Earlier this year Edward Bissell’s empty fishing boat Bonny Lass was found by rescue teams. The same day as last year’s fisheries debate, town fisherman Stephen Horsley, part of a strong Hartlepool fishing family, was plucked from the sea by lifeboats after his boat sank off the coast. The danger that the fishermen face to make their living, and the bravery shown by rescue teams are awesome.

Can I also take this opportunity to mention the bombardment of Hartlepool. On 16 December 1914, Hartlepool became the first place on the British mainland to be attacked by German ships in the First World War. Over 100 people, including fishermen returning from their early morning catch, were killed during the bombardment. The North Sea has seen dangers for the people of the North East in many ways.

As I mentioned in last year’s fisheries debate, Hartlepool has not, because of other industry, had to rely upon the sea and fishing as much as other communities. However, there is a small and very intense fishing community with great characters and traditions and I am determined during my time in the House to ensure that this community goes from strength to strength. I therefore want to spend my contribution setting out the challenges that these fishermen in my constituency face.