Kieran Mullan MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have been granted this Adjournment debate, as it provides a welcome opportunity to put on the record in this new Parliament the benefits that deep geothermal could deliver for our country, in particular for parts of our country that most need investment, while making a contribution to the vital issue of energy security. Helping me in this effort is the all-party parliamentary group on deep geothermal, which the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology helps to administer. I am delighted to spot the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in the Chamber, who are all members of the APPG, which provides me with an opportunity to recognise and thank them for the work they are doing for the cause. Deep geothermal energy remains an underutilised resource in the UK, despite its potential to provide reliable renewable heat in particular, and also power. With growing pressure to secure our energy future and decarbonise heating, now is the time to give this technology the attention it deserves. As we work towards energy security and decarbonisation, we must explore every viable renewable energy source. Deep geothermal offers a stable and sustainable solution, yet it remains largely untapped in the UK. To unlock its potential, the Government must take the lead, providing the necessary support to get projects off the ground and demonstrate their long-term viability. One of the biggest challenges we face in the journey to net zero is the decarbonisation of heating, which must be treated as a priority. The UK has more than 28.5 million homes and 1.9 million other buildings—including offices, hospitals, shops and warehouses—the vast majority of which rely on gas boilers for both heating and hot water. These buildings alone account for nearly one fifth of the UK’s total emissions. The Climate Change Committee has identified decarbonising heat as one of the most difficult yet essential steps in reaching net zero. Achieving net zero by 2050 requires us to use every tool at our disposal. While much of the Government’s attention has been focused on air and ground source heat pumps, alongside other electrification methods, which have an important and certainly dominant role to play, converting the entire housing stock to those technologies will put immense pressure on our electricity grid and supply chains. That is where deep geothermal stands out. It offers a reliable, low-carbon solution for heating that is not dependent on sun or wind—it is there all year round, whatever the weather—and has been successfully deployed in other countries to great effect.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right, and I join him in paying tribute to the BGS, an organisation I have had the pleasure of working with over recent years. It has done fantastic work in mapping and identifying the potential, and with funding it will have the appetite to go even further, reducing uncertainty by helping developers and investors to understand the resources underneath our feet. The UK is already a world leader in tackling climate change and clean energy, having been the first major economy to halve our emissions, and renewables now account for more than 50% of our electricity, up from just 7% in 2010. With deep sedimentary basins in east Yorkshire and Cheshire, granites in Cornwall and Scotland, hot sedimentary aquifers in Surrey, Dorset, and Sussex—in my constituency—the UK’s unique geography puts us in an ideal position to exploit the benefits of geothermal energy.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I fully support the hon. Member’s efforts to raise this issue. She will know from the local projects in her constituency that we are making a start, but it is not enough, and this needs to be part of the broader plan in a comprehensive way. When I first learned about deep geothermal technology, I thought it sounded too good to be true: an environmentally friendly, reliable and cost-effective source of heat and power right underneath our feet. But the more I explored it, the more I realised it truly lives up to its promise. Let me briefly explain the technology. Deep geothermal taps into naturally occurring hot water deep underground to produce significant amounts of usable heat and energy. Making use of that is no different from the way in which the Romans built their baths above hot springs; we just run a pipe down instead of relying on the water making its own way to the surface. People sometimes wonder whether the technology is fracking mark 2. Fracking involves the use of high pressure to crack the rocks to create artificial flows. Like Europe, we have access to resources of naturally flowing water that simply need to be tapped. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the United Nations all support deep geothermal in the light of its environmental benefits. A site is typically 1 to 2 acres. It does not take up huge swathes of farmland like solar panels can or involve erecting wind turbines, which some communities think detract from the local landscape.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister will know that one of the challenges is American voices suggesting that their focus should be on China, not Europe. I think a victory for Russia would also be a victory for China, but at a time when we are asking America to focus on our strategic interests, we should be willing to demonstrate our commitment to theirs. In that regard, can he reconfirm his commitment to AUKUS and update the House on progress?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that we are apparently willing to give in to a judgment from a judge from China who oversaw the erosion of rights of the people in Hong Kong, in violation of our agreement with them? That is shocking and shows the weakness of slavishly adhering to international law.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  If the Government are so confident that this deal offers excellent value for money and that taxpayers will welcome it, why do they not just tell us how much they are going to pay?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. The whole House wants the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Trump to be a success, which requires credibility on our defence spending commitments. The Leader of the Opposition gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to rule out unambiguously funding any Chagos deal from the defence budget, but I am not clear that he did that. I want him to be taken seriously in Washington, so I will make it really easy for him: will he rule out funding any Chagos deal from the defence budget—yes or no?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Minister in his extensive and accurate list of thanks, and particularly in his thanks to Lord Bellamy, who introduced the original Bill, and to the Law Commission for its excellent work. The Minister also mentioned Lord Thomas, Lord Hacking and Lord Wolfson. I echo his comments on the effective role of the arbitration sector, and on the wealth that it brings to our economy because of its world-leading status and the certainty and confidence that it gives businesses that they will get an excellent service on which they can rely. Finally, like most Members, I have had conversations with constituents who have said, “Why can’t you lot agree with each other more often? When I turn on the TV, it seems that all you ever do is argue,” but we work together quite effectively on Delegated Legislation Committees and in other forums. This debate is an excellent example of us working collaboratively in the national interest in the main Chamber—an example that Members might point their constituents towards.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to contribute to the Committee stage debate on the Arbitration Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I thank Lord Bellamy, the previous Conservative Minister who originally introduced the Bill in the Lords in the previous Parliament, and I recognise the work of the Law Commission. Much of this Bill is based on the excellent work that the Law Commission did in considering the original legal framework for arbitration. We fully support this Bill’s objective of modernising and strengthening the UK’s arbitration framework. Arbitration is a vital pillar of our legal system, supporting businesses, individuals and international commerce while reinforcing London’s position as a world-leading hub for dispute resolution. It is important that this legislation is as robust, effective and fair as possible. The Committee stage presents an opportunity to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise, and we welcome the improvement that it introduces. I do not intend to go through all the Bill’s clauses, but I reassure the House that the necessary scrutiny that one would expect from the Opposition in Committee is taking place. I will just touch on some of the key clauses. First, clause 1 provides welcome clarity on the governing law of arbitration agreements, particularly in light of the Enka v. Chubb case in 2020. Defaulting to the law of the arbitration seat where no choice is specified increases certainty for businesses. Secondly, clauses 3 and 4 extend arbitrator immunity to protect them from liability unless bad faith is proven. This is an important step to ensure that arbitrators can act independently without undue fear of litigation. We must retain an effective safeguard to challenge an unreasonable resignation, and we welcome the Minister’s reassurance that parties affected by an arbitration resignation are not unfairly disadvantaged. Thirdly, clauses 5 and 6 streamline the process for jurisdictional challenges. Parties will either need to seek a preliminary ruling from the court under section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996, or wait to challenge jurisdiction under section 67. Fourthly, on the procedural innovations covered in clauses 7 to 9, the introduction of summary disposal of claims is an important step towards greater efficiency, though we would welcome reassurances from the Government that they will monitor its use so that we can be sure that it is applied carefully and fairly, and does not have any unintended consequences. We believe that the recognition of emergency arbitrators is a positive step that enhances the availability of urgent relief, aligning the UK with international best practice. Also of note is the right of appeal in clause 13. As the Minister stated, there was an unusual previous drafting issue that suggested that appeals to the Court of Appeal were permitted only if expressly allowed under the 1996 Act. That was incorrect. Clause 13 corrects the error, ensuring that appeals are permitted unless specifically restricted. This is a vital change to uphold fairness and legal certainty. I want to acknowledge an important issue that was raised in the other place by Lord Hacking, whose contributions to the discussion on arbitration have been incredibly valuable. I know that other Members have also pressed for greater scrutiny of how confidential arbitration could be misused to conceal corruption. We welcome the Minister’s assurances that arbitral institutions are taking steps to mitigate those risks, and we believe that the Government must remain actively engaged in monitoring and addressing potential abuses, and not rule out taking further action at an appropriate time if it becomes necessary. Beyond the issue of corruption, other crucial areas were mentioned in the other place; these are important and warrant further Government attention. They include the need for expedited hearings to prevent undue delays in arbitration proceedings, the role of third-party funding, and ensuring transparency and accountability in funding arrangements, as well as the authority to mandate mediation between parties, where appropriate, to encourage resolution outside of arbitration. The Minister’s attention to these issues is essential, so I would welcome confirmation that they will be addressed in due course. In conclusion, the Arbitration Bill is a necessary and welcome step in ensuring that the UK remains a pre-eminent jurisdiction for arbitration. However, as with any legislation, its success depends on the details. The Opposition remain committed to ensuring that the Bill delivers legal clarity, procedural efficiency and fairness while upholding the integrity of our arbitration framework. I commend this Bill to the Committee and look forward to seeing its rapid progress through the House.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  The Deputy Prime Minister has talked a lot about additional resources, but they are not being spread evenly. There are significant additional costs to deliver services in the rural areas that I represent, but as well as abolishing the rural services grant, the provisional settlement will give around 40% less spending power per head to rural areas than to urban areas. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that that is not fair, and commit to doing something about it?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Away from Labour’s rhetoric, I suspect that Members on both sides of this House are hearing the reality from our constituents. On Friday, I visited Saxonwood care home in my constituency, and St Michael’s hospice just across the border, which looks after my constituents. I have also heard from Bexhill chamber of commerce, and they are all clear that Labour’s planned national insurance rise will do enormous damage to their attempts to grow, and to employ people. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the OBR’s forecast that the jobs tax will harm growth, not help it?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I will speak briefly. I focused my remarks earlier on the Bill, as hon. Members might expect, but I want to take this opportunity, as important matters such as arbitration are before the House and as I have the Minister’s attention, to reiterate our thanks to everybody involved both in this Bill and in the previous one, in both Houses. Particularly, we thank Lord Hacking for his work in highlighting other issues. I encourage the Minister to recognise that, although the Bill is welcomed and will be positive, the Government will need to continue work on some issues: as I mentioned earlier, the interplay between arbitration and corruption; the need for expedited hearings; the role of third party funding; and the authority to mandate mediation between parties. The Minister may not have an immediate response, but I would welcome future work from the Government in those areas.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  No!

• 29 Jan 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support the Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill. As the Minister has laid out, arbitration is a cornerstone of the UK’s legal and economic landscape, contributing significantly to our reputation as a global hub for dispute resolution. The Bill seeks to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 to ensure our framework remains world leading and fit for purpose in a rapidly evolving global business environment. Arbitration plays a vital role across both the domestic and international spheres. It is employed in areas ranging from family law and rent reviews to commodity trading, shipping and investor claims against states. With over 5,000 arbitrations conducted annually in England and Wales, the process directly contributes more than £2.5 billion to our economy in arbitrator and legal fees, while also supporting wider sectors, such as banking, insurance and trade. The Minister used the opportunity of this debate to cover quite extensively the long and distinguished history of arbitration in our judicial system. We all agree that London stands proudly as one of the world’s most preferred seats for international arbitration, alongside Singapore. Maintaining this position is no accident. It reflects the strength of our legal system, the confidence of global businesses in our expertise and the robustness of the original 1996 Act. However, as other jurisdictions modernise their arbitration laws, we must ensure that ours remain cutting edge to safeguard our competitive lead. The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised that need, and in March 2021 tasked the Law Commission to review the Act. I thank all those involved at the Law Commission for their hard and excellent work. After extensive consultation and input from stakeholders, the Law Commission published its final report and a draft Bill in September 2023, identifying targeted reforms to enhance our arbitration framework. A Bill to deliver those reforms was introduced by the Conservative Government in November 2023; I thank the Minister for his acknowledgment of the previous Government’s work. The Bill’s progress was interrupted by the general election. The Opposition commend the Government for reintroducing the Bill swiftly in light of the broad support. Observers may have noticed that we have a quiet Chamber today, but in this the world’s first debating chamber, the lack of attendance is a reflection of the deep and considered consensus and lack of debate around the need for this important Bill and what it is seeking to achieve. I thank Lord Bellamy in particular for his contributions as the sponsoring Minister of the original Bill and for his continued and important contributions in the development and improvement of this Bill. I also thank Lord Hacking for his contribution to the debates in the other place, particularly on the issue of corruption. We appreciate such valuable input and agree that that matter warrants further consideration. Even if, ultimately, the need to get the Bill on to the statute book for all the benefits that it brings means that it would not be appropriate to do that through the current legislation, we should continue to monitor and revisit that issue. The Arbitration Bill introduces a range of reforms designed to improve clarity, efficiency and fairness in arbitration proceedings. Those reforms address practical changes while reinforcing the UK’s position as a global leader. I will highlight a few key provisions, as the Minister has explained in detail, which make the Bill significant. First, the Bill addresses long-standing uncertainties in the legal framework, particularly regarding arbitration agreements where no jurisdiction is specified. By defaulting to the law of the seat of arbitration, the Bill aligns with international norms, thereby enhancing predictability and clarity for parties involved. Secondly, it strengthens the integrity of arbitrators by codifying the duty of impartiality and disclosure. As clarified in the landmark Halliburton v. Chubb case, the Bill ensures greater transparency and fosters trust in the arbitration process. Finally, the Bill promotes procedural efficiency. Provisions such as allowing summary awards, recognising emergency arbitrators and streamlining jurisdictional challenges represent vital steps towards making arbitration more accessible and efficient for all stakeholders. Those are just some of the many commendable provisions in the Bill that aim to modernise the 1996 Act and ensure that arbitration remains an attractive and effective method of dispute resolution. The Opposition developed the original Bill and support this one to ensure the UK’s ongoing leadership in arbitration. However, we remain committed to scrutinising its provisions in Committee to ensure they achieve their intended goals without unintended consequences. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the contribution of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to the debate.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Quite right.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Prolific Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State mentioned, the approach to managing hyper-prolific offenders is part of David Gauke’s review, which could consider, for example, the wider use of GPS tagging and home curfew, but the Department has been undertaking its own assessment of the effectiveness of GPS tagging. Will the Government commit to publishing that review before or alongside the sentencing review, so that we can properly judge the merits of any proposed expansion?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Prolific Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  I did not quite hear a “yes”, but I will take that as an encouraging commitment that the Secretary of State will publish the GPS tagging review ahead of any sentencing review. However, I am afraid that in Ministers’ discussions of these issues, they risk losing sight of the fact that imprisonment also serves the important purpose of punishing offenders in the interests of justice. Importantly, how will the Government decide whether any of David Gauke’s proposals that they are minded to accept sufficiently punish offenders? How will that judgment be made before any recommendations are accepted?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that the money resolution is narrow in scope—I will perhaps bring the attention of the House to some tangentially related issues when it comes to the role of the Government in these proceedings. As I said, proponents of the Bill will be glad of the progress that has been made, but this motion brings into sharp focus the fact that at some point the Government will need to fund, organise and provide assisted dying services to reflect any legislation that receives Royal Assent. As the Minister said, the money resolution will provide the legal basis for funding that service. I recognise that we are not yet at the stage when the Government can say with certainty what exactly those services and their associated funding will look like. There is time still for changes to be made, and we should not of course make an absolute assumption that any Bill will pass all its stages, as likely as that is, given the will of Parliament as expressed to date. As the Bill proceeds, it will become increasingly important, and helpful to Members voting on future stages, to begin to have some idea of how the civil service and Ministers are envisioning enacting the legislation, not least in relation to the matter of resources before us today. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) estimated that up to 3% of adults may eventually choose assisted dying. In 2023 there were 577,620 adult deaths in England and Wales. If 3% of those were assisted dying cases, that would result in about 17,000 cases annually. Those are not insignificant numbers, and Members will recognise the considerable existing challenges with resources and personnel in the relevant areas of spending. Although this is not a Government Bill, the Lord Chancellor has ultimate responsibility for ensuring the effective functioning of our legal system and judiciary, as does the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for the delivery of this service, and how that will balance and interact with the other health services provided. I therefore have a small number of questions relating to resources, which I hope the Minister agrees will assist the House in better understanding how the Government are approaching such matters. If information is not forthcoming today, it is crucial that the Minister sets out, in slightly more detail than he did earlier, at what point the Government will engage more fully with the detail of how they intend to resource the Bill, and start sharing their considerations. First, have the Government produced at the very least internal estimates of a potential range of the costs of delivering an assisted dying service, for both the NHS and the judiciary? If they have, will they share that with the House today? If they have not produced internal estimates, when do they anticipate doing so, and when do they intend to publish such estimates? Secondly, have the Government identified potential sources of funding for the service? If they have, will that funding come from existing departmental budgets, or will it be allocated from outside currently allocated funding? In the latter case, where will those additional resources be drawn from? If the Government have not yet produced options for Ministers to consider on these questions, when will they do so, and when will they share them with the House? Questions of resources relate to the impact on existing services of any decisions that the money resolution enables. The closer we come to the closing stages of the Bill, particularly ahead of any final parliamentary vote on a settled set of proposals, the more important it will be that Members get the benefit of answers to those questions, which can only come from the Government. It is important to say that it is perfectly legitimate for Members to decide that a better understanding of these issues is not an absolute necessity, and it will be for Members to decide whether they are happy to support legislation purely on principle. That may well be the position for many Members of the House, but I think most would agree that it would be preferable to be able to vote with, at very least, possible approaches and assessments of these matters, even if not definitive answers. In conclusion, these are not merely procedural or technical issues. The Government’s tabling of this motion signals an acceptance that, should the Bill become law, the financial costs will need to be met, and that will not be a minor area of expenditure. This House has a duty to scrutinise every aspect of the Bill, and I urge the Government to provide a degree of clarity that only they can provide to assist Members in doing that. At this stage there has been a clearly expressed will of Parliament to introduce this service, and it is right for the Government to make legal provision for funding it in principle. However, the Government should enable Members to make decisions at future stages with as good an understanding as possible of how the legislation they may wish to support will translate into the real world.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money) · Hansard source

  More

  I am conscious of the limited time available and so will keep my remarks focused. I appreciate that it is not commonplace for Front Benchers to speak at length on money resolutions, but this is not commonplace legislation. I reiterate that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have taken a neutral stance on the merits of the Bill, both in principle and in detail. The House has expressed its support for the introduction of assisted dying, and Members are currently considering the Bill in detail before it is presented back to the whole House for further consideration. The money resolution is a necessary part of associated legislation. Proponents of the Bill will welcome the Government bringing this forward, as it is not unheard of for Governments to withhold these resolutions in a manner that delays the progress of legislation.

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), who stood up first.

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Governments make choices. I have just laid out the economic situation that we inherited, which was worse than the one Labour has inherited, and yet we prioritised NHS spending. Nobody forced Labour to give above-inflation pay increases to a number of public sector workers and enormous pay increases to train drivers, or to make a significant but unwise investment in the green investment plan.

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise. If Members are not willing to go along with that courtesy, I am afraid that I will not continue to take interventions. I have tried to be fair and decent. I hope that the Minister will at least be shorter on rhetoric and longer on the details of what will actually happen than the Secretary of State was. That brings me back to my local hospital and what happens next. Shortly after the election, I attended a briefing with East Sussex healthcare trust, which I am proud to say has made incredible improvements over the past 10 years. Despite being in what it described as a challenging financial position, it has reversed its special measures and improved standards across the board. The hospitals under the trust are crucial parts of our local healthcare services in East Sussex and have served the community for decades. Each year, they carry out over 160,000 emergency attendances, 56,000 planned surgeries and 438,000 out-patient appointments. It is also important to remember that those hospitals are not just healthcare providers but job creators, employing around 8,700 people locally. However, East Sussex healthcare trust was clear that the remedial works due under the new hospital programme could not be delivered soon enough. When the programme was announced in 2019, the trust estimated that the total backlog rectification cost throughout all its hospitals was over £300 million. Its critical infrastructure risk was the 10th highest in England, and was estimated to represent around £64 million of the £300 million total required to resolve the backlog. If left untouched, it is estimated that that figure will rise to £220 million over 10 years. Given the disappointing decision to delay the major infrastructure investment that would have addressed the situation, what is the plan now? How will the Government now ensure that those sites can continue to function effectively? I am grateful to the Minister for her time in our previous interactions, but I ask her to explain in detail how the Government are going to manage those issues. The trust is now working at pace to try to develop a better understanding of the impact of the decision and the possible mitigations. What support is being put in place by the Department and NHS England to assist hospitals in that work? Tackling the colossal backlog of repairs is not enough to equip such hospitals for the 21st century. The way that we deliver care has drastically changed since they were built. A new hospital is not just a new building; it is more than just bricks and mortar. It is about rethinking traditional and outdated models of care to reflect the changing needs of patients. Hospitals in East Sussex have been assessed as having a digital maturity level of zero. That must be addressed if the Government’s ambition of a digital revolution is to be realised. The layout of the hospitals is simply not designed for modern healthcare, with far too few single rooms to meet demand, which leaves hospitals poorly equipped to effectively control infection and unable to offer patients privacy and dignity when they need it most. Those issues are more pronounced when we enter the winter months, with the UK Health Security Agency reporting a sharp increase in the number of patients admitted to hospital for flu and other respiratory diseases. As the Health Secretary mentioned last week, there are 5,100 people in hospital with flu, which is more than three times the number at this point last year. That is only compounded by the UK’s ageing population, which is often described correctly as a demographic time bomb, as in the next 25 years the number of people older than 85 will double to 2.6 million. In East Sussex alone, the population is expected to increase by 14%, with significant growth in the over-70s demographic. As that comes to pass, healthcare needs will become more complex and the demand for services will continue to grow. I have been working with a number of GP practices in my constituency to help bring to fruition their plans to move to larger, more modern premises. As such, I am encouraged by the Government’s £889 million of extra funding for general practice. From that work, I know that a significant barrier to those projects being delivered is the rising cost of construction. I was informed by Rother district council that construction costs on its joint projects have increased by approximately 40% since 2020. Those issues underscore how critical the rebuilds are to East Sussex healthcare trust, as well as others across the country, to deliver the best healthcare outcomes for patients and future-proof our NHS. Although financial prudence is essential, the Health Secretary’s delays only escalate construction costs and deepen the strain on our healthcare system. Investment now will save money and lives in the long term. Instead, the Labour Government have delayed plans—admittedly ambitious plans—and kicked the can down the road. The decision to delay schemes in East Sussex will have consequences for patient care, NHS staff and public trust. Without urgent interim funding to address those issues, patient safety and care standards will be at risk. I call on the Minister to secure dedicated resources to tackle the new challenges in maintenance and capital spending created by the Government’s decision, and ensure that hospitals can continue to serve the community safely and effectively while we wait for the new promised facilities to materialise. Delay must not mean deterioration, and I urge the Government to act now to protect both patients and NHS staff.

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a 30-minute debate, and I want to be generous in letting hon. Members make short points in support of their hospitals, but I do not want to allow it to degenerate into a highly political back and forth. As I was saying, the Government pledged to do it and they did not.