Health
The shocking report on the William Harvey Hospital and the rest of the hospitals in East Kent has disturbed many people. I have taken the issue to the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and at a meeting with him, along with other MPs, made a number of requests. We asked for an increase in the number of nurses across the Trust, an urgent improvement in relations between the senior management and the doctors at the Trust, and a swift exit from special measures for the Trust.
The report produced a range of responses. Perhaps the most important response is from those who have been patients of the Trust in recent months. Most of those who have spoken in public have been supportive of the treatment they received in the William Harvey. Direct responses in my postbag and email inbox have been more negative, with a particular repeated concern that when a complaint is made it takes an unnecessarily long time for it to be resolved.
What this adds up to is a belief that the staff themselves are working hard and doing their best for patients, but that there may be some failings in reporting or management systems which need to be addressed urgently. That is precisely the purpose of the recovery programme which the Trust is required to produce within the next few weeks.
I think that what needs to emerge from the end of this traumatic experience is a concentration on the key measures of hospital performance, such as the success rates of the treatments. One of the measures I will use to assess the recovery programme is how it reflects the needs of patients, and promises us all a greater degree of confidence in our hospitals for the future.
Southeastern rail franchise
The announcement that Southeastern will continue to provide rail services in this area for another four years is both important and controversial. Many of you reading this will not be thrilled at their performance over the years and will ask why their franchise should be extended, and whether they can possibly live up to the improved standards of performance that will be demanded of them.
On the first question, I can see the logic of the Department of Transport in not wanting to take any risks with the network at a time when major works at London Bridge are going to cause some disruption. These works are hugely important in improving services through London, so they will benefit us in the long term, but between now and 2018 they will add to the difficulties of running the service. In these circumstances, I don’t oppose the idea of minimising risk.
However, it is necessary that in the Department’s words that Southeastern have at times “failed to meet expectations and satisfy passengers”, and that “performance on the network has not always been what passengers expect” do lead to some visible changes.
There are clear benefits in extra high-speed services which will help everyone in East Kent and beyond as far as Hastings, and in more seats available at some services from Ashford. But at the moment these are just promised benefits, and we need to see them made reality.
In all the discussions about rail services over the years there has been a real difference in attitude to the High Speed line and the services on the traditional track. Even though the HS1 service is more expensive, people recognise that it is a premium service, and that this means not just faster trains but more reliable services in all weathers. I find most people are prepared to pay for these better conditions.
This is absolutely not true for the other services, where the lack of reliability and the vulnerability to winter weather leaves commuters regularly fuming. If I had one ask of Southeastern over the coming four years, it would be to get their reliability figures into the 95% and above area. That would make the single biggest difference to their passengers.
We should regard the next four years as an extended audition for Southeastern for the next full franchise contract. They have a testing task, but they need to perform it better than before.
