🏥 New Hospital Programme

• New Hospital Programme Delays: Dr Kieran Mullan highlighted that the new hospital programme, initially promised by the previous government, has been postponed. The reconstruction of hospitals in East Sussex, such as Eastbourne district general hospital, Conquest hospital, and Bexhill community hospital, will now commence between 2037 and 2039, not meeting earlier expectations.

• Impact on Local Healthcare: The delays have been described as disappointing, particularly affecting the delivery of essential services and infrastructure upgrades needed for hospitals serving Bexhill and Battle. This includes expansion of emergency departments, improved parking facilities, and enhancements in cardiology, ophthalmology, and diagnostic services.

• Financial and Economic Context: Dr Mullan referenced the economic challenges inherited by the government in 2010 and criticized the current government’s fiscal decisions, such as pay increases to public sector workers, which he believes contributed to the delayed hospital programme.

• Government’s Response: Minister Karin Smyth confirmed the government’s commitment to the new hospital programme, explaining that it inherited an unfunded plan with no credible delivery strategy. She announced a new, realistic plan backed by sustainable funding, aimed at delivering 40 new hospitals by 2030 and beyond through a phased approach.

• Funding and Transparency: The Minister announced that the programme will be funded through five-year investment waves, totaling £15 billion and averaging £3 billion per year. She emphasized a new approach of honesty and transparency in communicating with trusts and local communities about the timelines and progress.

• Engagement with Local MPs and Trusts: The Minister has engaged directly with MPs and trusts to discuss individual hospital schemes, promising ongoing collaboration and regular updates to manage expectations and address concerns about delays and project management.

• Future Challenges and Mitigations: Discussions are planned to establish interim solutions for hospitals facing critical infrastructure issues, ensuring they can continue to operate safely and effectively until new constructions are completed. This includes exploring other activities to address immediate needs and mitigate the impact of delays.

• Political Context: The debate included political exchanges on responsibilities for the delays, with criticisms directed towards both the current and previous governments. The focus was on ensuring public trust through clear communication and actionable plans.

The session displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centering on the delays and funding of the new hospital programme. The disagreements were largely political in nature and revolved around attributing responsibility for the delays and the adequacy of the plans put forth by the current government. While there were expressions of disappointment and criticism, the overall atmosphere was professional and focused on the issue at hand, with some efforts towards constructive engagement and transparency.

Examples of disagreement include:

1. Dr Kieran Mullan (Con) expressed disappointment with the Labour government’s decision to delay the start of the new hospital programme until 2039, suggesting this move was a ‘broken pledge’ from the election campaign. He pointed out the challenges, including inflationary pressures and the previous government’s efforts to push the project forward despite external difficulties like the Covid-19 pandemic.

2. Helena Dollimore (Lab/Co-op) challenged Dr Mullan on the Conservative government’s role, claiming they had not budgeted for the hospital projects promised, leading to the current situation where the new Labour government had to address the funding issues.

3. Clive Jones (LD) criticized the Conservative party’s part in the delays, expressing disappointment over the pushback of construction dates for the Royal Berkshire hospital and requesting an apology from Dr Mullan for his party’s involvement in these delays.

4. Perran Moon (Lab) argued that the debate was overly political and emphasized the need for a coherent plan for hospital transformation, contrasting this with what had been promised over a decade ago under the Conservative government.

5. Mr Gagan Mohindra (Con) shared concerns over the rising costs and delays for the Watford General hospital project, pressing for assurances on managing the costs and timelines.

Despite these disagreements, there were also instances of constructive dialogue and a commitment to collaboration:

• The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth, Lab) reaffirmed Labour’s commitment to the hospital programme and outlined a detailed plan with funding and timelines, acknowledging the inherited challenges but presenting a new approach with ‘waves’ of investment.
• Both sides emphasized the importance of the hospital programme and the need for investment, showing a common goal despite disagreement on the means to achieve it.
• Dr Mullan and the Minister engaged in a professional exchange, with the Minister offering to continue discussions with MPs to address concerns, indicating a willingness to work together.

Overall, the disagreements were significant enough to justify a rating of 3 out of 5 due to the political nature and the level of contention over the programme’s delays and funding. However, the session also showed efforts towards constructive dialogue and the shared goal of improving healthcare infrastructure.