Dr Luke Evans

I, too, associate myself with the comments about the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on her stepping down as a Minister. She was a formidable opponent and will be sorely missed. I am sad to see her step back, but she has made the right decision for her, as in this place we should all do. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for securing this debate. He was absolutely spot on when he said we do not scrutinise the process of NHS capital spending nearly enough. I was taken by what he said on that point, but less surprised that not many solutions came forward, although that is key to having this debate, because it is hugely technical. I will use an example from my constituency for both the pros and the cons, the good and bad stories about capital investment. I was elected in 2019 and Hinckley is my biggest town. Healthcare is an important priority for my constituents and talk of improved hospital services there has been ongoing for 30 years now. On the good side, we were lucky enough to be picked to have a community diagnostic centre, a £24 million investment, and I was lucky enough to open it last year. That shows what good can come of capital investment. Under the previous Government, at August 2024, there were 165 similar good news stories of community diagnostic centres being opened across the country, not to mention the 108 surgical hubs that have not been talked about, but that are increasing patients’ ability to be seen and treated quickly, helping to deal with the waiting lists. I also come with a negative story related to the same hospital. We were looking for a second project, a £10 million day case investment, but unfortunately, despite funding having been secured, delays in the system and difficulties with changing need have meant that that has been cancelled. The NHS papers specifically on that case state: “The STP Capital business case for the Hinckley Day Case Unit received national approval in March 2024”— but then struggled. The papers go on to say: “However, since business case approval there have been further key changes… Changing financial context nationally and local financial challenges… Increased capital costs of the scheme circa £2m compared to that approved by the board… Programme delays resulting in a significantly reduced capital resource”. They go on to explain that further delays to the programme occurred due to “Cost pressures that exceeded the STP capital allocation…Since the approval of the STP Capital Business case in 2024, delays can be attributed to…The planning application phasing (considering the contention surrounding the demolition of the Hinckley District Hospital…The delay in submitting the planning application to allow the development of a robust design to address the Local Planning Authority’s concerns”. We can already see the difficulties in how need is being allocated across Leicestershire and how planning and inflation interfere. That is the process issue at the heart of making these capital decisions. That leads us to the bigger picture that confronts the Government today. As has been mentioned, funding is important, so what is the best document we can look at to see what the Government are trying to do? The 10-year plan is clear: “We will continue to use private providers to improve access and reduce waiting times, to return the NHS to its constitutional standards. As we outlined in our Plan for Change, we will not let spare capacity go to waste on ideological grounds. We will continue to make use of private sector capacity to treat NHS patients where it is available, and we will enter discussions with private providers to expand NHS provision in the most disadvantaged areas.” The Opposition agree with that, but I am not sure that all Government Members will, so I am interested to know whether all the Minister’s hon. Friends are aligned with it. I agree with the concern that the previous Government’s private finance initiatives, which brought in £13 billion of investment for new hospitals, cost the taxpayer more than £80 billion in repayments. We are still paying for that now. Turning back to the NHS 10-year plan, a section called “Harnessing new investment” states that “we will learn from previous experience with the Private Finance Initiative…In other cases, however, PFI was a costly mistake which represented poor value for money. Contracts were too complex and lacked proper transparency. As the government considers new sources and models of private investment, we do so with this experience in mind.” How do we know that? Where is it set out that the Government have learned this time? In the same section, the Government tell us they will “evolve” their “infrastructure finance models and…consider the use of Public Private Partnerships…where there is a revenue stream, appropriate risk-transfer can be achieved, and value for money for taxpayers can be secured.” Those are not small tests; they are the fundamental ones that we must ensure are in place, so my simple question is this: what is different this time? How will we assure value for money, and who will make that decision? How will we see genuine risk transfer being assessed, rather than simply pricing it into decades of payments? How will that work? The 10-year plan also states: “We will codevelop this with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), building on the successful NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust programme, and will look to drive competition in the market to incentivise others, including third party developers, to improve their offer to deliver better services at lower cost to the taxpayer.” That is great—but LIFT is used only for small practices, so what model will come forward for everything else? The plan states: “We will engage with the market on this programme and support NISTA in its wider market testing of a new PPP model.” What is that model? Can we see it? What does it look like? I note from the Minister’s answers to written questions that 120 neighbourhood health centres will be operated by 2030; 70 will be new buildings, 50 will come from refurbishment and, of those, 80% will be funded through PPPs. However, there are no plans to publish the business case. That raises legitimate questions. Why are the Government hiding this? We have been here before, and the country is nervous about this, so why can we not see what is being brought forward? If a new model is genuinely different, transparency should not be a threat; it should be a strength. Why will Parliament and the public not see it?