Department of Health and Social Care and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). In fact, all the speakers so far this evening command the respect of both sides of the Chamber for obvious reasons given what they have said. I, too, agree with a large amount of what has been said. It is also a pleasure to speak in this very week of the 70th anniversary of the NHS.

We are talking this evening—it is in the Order Paper—about NHS expenditure summing to greater than £120 billion. That is a staggering sum and it just shows how important the NHS is not only to the Treasury and the Government, but, perhaps most importantly, to the public. Certainly, this is the top topic of interaction for my constituents. It is very, very important to them. The NHS is right up there with the royal family and the armed forces in making the Brits proud to be British, and for understandable reasons. I therefore very much welcome the £20.5 billion increase in real terms spending on the NHS. It is not only obviously needed because the population is ageing and the cost of healthcare is growing, but also desired by the British public. Some 86% of the British public say that they feel the NHS needs more spending. They are also willing to pay for it. It is very important that we listen to the public very carefully when they say that they need more spending on the NHS and that they are willing to pay for it. We will come in a moment to how they should pay for it. The British public are not stupid. They are fully and well aware that Government expenditure all comes from taxation, either now, immediately, or in the future in terms of debt. That is important, as they recognise that we cannot magic money out of thin air. We must also be very responsible and careful as politicians that we respect the fact that, whenever we decide that we wish to increase Government expenditure, what we are effectively doing is reaching into the pockets of hard-working people in this country and saying, “We’ll take some of that out, thank you very much.” We have to be really respectful of that and explain why we are doing it and what we are doing it for. The laziest thing to do in politics is pretend that other people are going to pay for all this and to promise the world to everybody. It is a dangerous route to go down and the British public will eventually see through that approach.

If we are going to be straight with the British public, how will we achieve this increased expenditure? I am sceptical, but not as sceptical as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), about the Brexit dividend. I do, however, like to talk about a deficit dividend; as we reduce the massive amounts of interest that we are paying over time, there will be a benefit to the UK population. We have to be honest about where the money could come from, and hon. Members have mentioned other ideas about how it could be generated, including by looking at council tax, tax-free allowances and the pension age.

We do need to look at the pension age very carefully again. We have already increased the pension age to 67 and 68, but as the population ages and we all live longer, it is not unreasonable to expect us all to work longer. As we work longer, we generate more taxes during our lifetime, and that is pretty important. We have to consider whether it is reasonable that we should all be living 15 or more years after we have retired without paying more tax.

[Dr Whitford]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in life expectancy is actually stalling and not continuing to soar? Unfortunately, it is another inequality between richer areas and poorer areas, and the danger is that people in deprived areas will get no retirement at all.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady makes a perfectly valid point. The differentials in life expectancy concern me greatly, but we have come such a long way. Pensions were first introduced in 1908 for people aged 70, when the average life expectancy was 48 for men and 52 for women. Life expectancy increased slowly as the century went on, but I believe that it is now—quite staggeringly—78 for men and 82 for women. This is well beyond the average age at which we retire, so we have to look at the situation carefully.

Rather than directly tax people more, I would like to see economic growth, which was mentioned earlier. Every 1% increase in economic growth adds £7 billion to the economy, whereas every 1p increase in income tax raises just £5 billion. We have to look at having a good mix. The more that we can grow the economy the better. Owing to the growth in the economy, HMRC receipts actually increased from £414 billion in 2010-11 to £594 billion last year, so the more that we can do for economic growth, the better for us all.

Alternatively, we could shift Government expenditure from one Department to another, but that is very difficult to do in the age of austerity and perceived austerity. As a Conservative, I believe in Government spending that is as small as it can be, but as large as it needs to be. The message that I heard from my constituents at the last election is that they believe that it probably needs to be just that little bit bigger, particularly for health, social care and education.

The British public are now respecting and accepting the fact that Conservatives are very careful with their money and are respectful of taking tax and money out of their pockets. They know that we are not going to spend money willy-nilly. More than 60% of the British population—across all demographics, including party political persuasions, age groups and income groups—support a taxation increase to spend more money on the NHS, and we need to listen to that.

But we need to move the conversation away from being all about inputs. Everyone in this House needs to commit to avoiding this kind of arms war, whereby there is always a debate and a fight about who can spend most. Instead, we need to put much more focus on the outputs, such as improving diagnoses, treatments, survival rates and other matters in the NHS. That is part of the debate. I was glad that the Health Secretary focused on that while introducing the additional spending. It is an important factor to consider; productivity very much needs to be part of the deal.

We need to continue focusing on an NHS that is free at the point of need, but we need to be clear with people that it is not free. The NHS never has been free and never will be free. It comes at a cost and we all have to pay for it. We need to ensure that we keep focusing on cost, look at other areas of savings and educate the public that there is a cost when they miss an appointment, when an ambulance goes out unnecessarily and when people go to A&E but do not really need to do so. We should all play our part in ensuring that NHS money is spent as wisely and carefully as possible.

There is still a lot of work to do on social care and public health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said. We should try to put together a cross-party royal commission, as other have said, and investigate moving the NHS out of party politics as much as possible, but that is a debate for another day.

Gosport Independent Panel: Publication of Report

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

We will, of course, look at that. That was why I said in my statement that there were failures by the Department of Health—the specific incident needs to be looked at—and also as the steward of the system in which so many other things went wrong.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that all deaths in the NHS will be properly assessed by a coroner or a medical examiner so that lessons can be learned and avoidable deaths minimised?

[Mr Hunt]

I can confirm that, from next April, all hospital deaths will be examined by an independent doctor—this is the medical examiner process. We are expanding the learning from deaths programme to primary care. That is exactly where we want to go.

NHS Long-Term Plan

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I have answered this many times, and I am very happy to answer it again. Yes, we will be able to access extra funding by not paying subscriptions to Brussels once the divorce bill has been settled, and that will mean many thousands of extra nurses.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I and my constituents warmly welcome this extra money for the NHS. Does the Secretary of State agree that the British public are not stupid? They, unlike some of the Opposition, are well aware that any and all Government expenditure always comes from taxation, either now or in future. We have listened. We have had a conversation. They have told us that they want more spending on the NHS. We have said, “But that may mean you paying more taxes,” and they have said, “Fine, it’s that important.” Is that not a good and honest agreement between the public and the Government?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend could not have put it better. The only surprise here is that having spent years and years saying that we should invest more in the NHS through the tax system, when the Government actually stand here and say that is what they are doing, the Opposition tell us that they are against it.

NHS Staff Pay

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks the pay freeze was a folly, why does he support policies that would increase borrowing by £350 billion and potentially lead to another financial crisis and pay freeze?

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement and believe that it is a further obvious commitment by the Government to the NHS and NHS staff. I will continue to have a debate on whether the record spending is enough, as, personally, I would support more spending, but does the Secretary of State share my disappointment and anger that there continue to be campaigners and campaigning organisations that, for whatever reasons and motivations, spread the untruth that there have been cuts in spending in the NHS?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is right. Just to reassure him, I do not think that any Health Secretary would ever say the NHS does not need additional funding. He makes an important point, and the truth is that at the 2010 election there was one party that wanted to cut funding for the NHS. It was the Labour party, and we stopped it.

Mental Health Services: Children and Young People

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

We will put the money in, publish a sensible strategy in a Green Paper, consider the responses and then take it forward, backed by the investment we think we need to deliver the strategy. That will be the same in Lewisham as in Winchester.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am sure that both sides of the House will welcome the commitment to 21,000 more personnel in mental health service provision by 2021, but can the Minister assure me that this will lead to more children accessing mental health services within the four-week target period?

[Steve Brine]

We talked about testing the four-week target in the Green Paper—it was one of its key pillars—and we hope to pilot the idea to test the impact of our additional investment on reducing waiting times. We will then assess the benefits and challenges and provide information on how the waiting time standard should be adapted to avoid perverse incentives—around thresholds, for instance.

Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). We have all learned that her daughter Rebecca is just as strong and brave as her mother. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on bringing the Bill to the House and thank him for the compassionate and positive tone he has taken and for the collaborative way he is working across party lines to make sure that we drive this legislation forward.

The Bill is vital; we are talking about a genuinely life-or-death issue. It is a true tragedy that 456 adults and 14 children lost their lives last year while on the organ donation list. Every single day, somebody dies because they do not get the transplant that they desperately need. There are around 6,500 people waiting for organs who do not want to become a part of those statistics. This legislation is for them, and it is about saving lives. Organ donation does save lives: around 50,000 people in the UK are alive today because they have had an organ transplant. Some 80% of the population support organ transplants in principle and 25 million people are on the NHS organ donors list—including, I am proud to say, me. That number has risen by 75% over the past 10 years, and transplants are up 56%.

The Bill, as I am sure its author will agree, is about removing obstructions to donating while at the same time allowing anyone who does not wish to donate to opt out. As many colleagues have said, it is important that we do not attach any stigma to anybody who chooses to opt out for a variety of perfectly valid reasons.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) has identified a real issue that he supports, and I certainly have no intention of blocking his Bill. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend share some people’s misgivings about the principle of the state presuming that people have consented to something when they have not, and the potential implications for public policy? Does he have any understanding of those misgivings about the state presuming that people have done something that they have not actually done?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point that I am sure will be raised again in this debate, but we are talking about a matter of life and death. All the surveys show the large number of people willing to support organ donation in principle, so it is alarming that the number who are actually on the organ donation list is relatively low, despite the fact that it takes literally two minutes. In an ideal world, everybody would be completely educated and would voluntarily make their own choice, but that is not happening. Many such issues will be raised in Committee; I hope we will be able to find a reasonable alternative.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the past 10 years the number of organ donors has increased by 75% and the number of transplants by 56%? Is there really a need for the Bill?

[Nigel Huddleston]

There is indeed, because there is still a long way to go and people are still dying because they are not getting the donations or transplants that they need. There absolutely is a need to move forward with the Bill.

Let us look at the alternative systems around the world. The example of Spain is often mentioned. We are looking at the system there as some kind of model, although perhaps not an exact one. Spain leads the world with 43.4 deceased donors per million. It is joined at the top of the statistical league table by other opt-out systems in countries such as Croatia, Portugal, France and Italy. All these countries have better donor rates than England and all have opt-out rather than opt-in systems. Another advantage of such “soft” opt-out systems is that they do not deny or restrict the role of bereaved families, and they allow families to be consulted on the wishes of their loved ones. That is important.

One thing that surprised me about that 43.4 per million figure was how incredibly low it is. Half a million people die in the UK every year, yet just 1% of them die in circumstances or conditions that allow them even to be potential donors. It is important to note that just because someone is on the donor list, that does not mean that they will end up donating their organs, but we need to get the figure as high as possible to help as many people as we can.

We also need the supporting infrastructure to enable those who wish to donate actually to do so. We have all heard about people who have been willing to donate their organs but have, for example, passed away at the weekend in a hospital in which there is no capability to take the organs out of their bodies and transplant them. We need to look carefully at the supporting mechanisms for any changes that are introduced.

Quite a few colleagues have mentioned the need to raise overall awareness, which is linked to the need to encourage family consent. It is telling that in cases where a specialist nurse is involved, donation consent rates are 68.6%, whereas if a specialist nurse is not involved, consent rates plummet to 27.5%. That is clear statistical evidence that when people are provided with impartial but expert information about the possibility of donating, they are more likely to consent to donating their organs.

One problem is that there is still an awkwardness or queasiness about the idea of one’s body being examined and operated on post-death. We are often comfortable about that ourselves, but, in the horrible circumstances of someone passing away, particularly if the circumstances are tragic or the death unexpected, our families are particularly queasy about the idea. It is therefore vital that we continue to have these dialogues—that we all go home and have these conversations with our families, including our children, because of course children can also become donors. We must have informed conversations.

It is simply not right that 80% of people say that they would be willing to donate their organs, but only 36% actually register to do so. The number is increasing, but we need it to be much higher. In a well-publicised opt-out system, those figures could converge, and the 20% who are unwilling to donate would have a simple mechanism for making sure that they do not have to do so.

Many years ago, I was asked if I had a private Member’s Bill—I think it was during one of the selection processes—what would it be. It would be exactly this one. The hon. Member for Coventry North West should be in no doubt that I fully support this Bill, and I hope that many of, if not all, our colleagues will do so too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me. I did not mean to be unkind to the Minister who was attending closely to his answer. It is just that we want the whole House to get the benefit of it.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister provide an update on efforts to move Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust out of special measures, and on the status of the promised £29 million for much needed capital improvement programmes?

[Mr Dunne]

As my hon. Friend is aware, I visited all three hospitals in the trust. I am pleased to be able to announce to him today that the Department of Health has concluded its analysis of the outline business case for the £29 million allocated in July and that it has been approved.

Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the Worcester Acute NHS Trust.

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter, a cause of deep concern and worry for the people of Redditch and the surrounding area.

As this is a day on which health is being discussed in this place, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her tireless work on behalf of the victims of the contaminated blood scandal. I have a constituent in Redditch who has contacted me, even in my first few weeks of serving as a Member of Parliament, and I know that they and other victims will welcome the inquiry announced today.

The Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust caters for a population of between 420,000 and 800,000 people. Referrals from GP practices outside of Worcestershire currently make up 13% of the trust’s market share. That clearly shows that the trust is under immense pressure to provide care to a huge number of widely dispersed people.

I will focus on the Alexandra Hospital in my constituency of Redditch. It serves approximately 200,000 people, is the county’s centre for urology services, and has eight operating theatres, MRI and CT scanners and cancer unit status. It may appear on paper that the hospital is well resourced. However, the Care Quality Commission’s most recent report, published in June this year, rated the Alex and the trust overall as inadequate, which is clearly a highly distressing situation. As a result, the trust is in special measures until further review, a status it has remained in since its initial inspection in November 2015.

Despite that status, I welcome that the trust is rated as good overall for its care. Feedback from patients, their families and friends is exceptionally positive in terms of their being treated with kindness, dignity and respect. My constituents in Redditch have often told me of their great personal experiences at the Alex.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As a fellow Worcestershire MP, I agree wholeheartedly with her comments. While there are many concerns about our local hospitals, not a week goes by in which I do not get letters and calls from people saying how positive their experiences at them were. While a lot of things need to change, we should also recognise the hard work and dedication of many of the staff, who provide excellent service much of the time.

[Rachel Maclean]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving up his time to attend today, but I have some key questions for him. While a number of factors led to the trust being in this situation—the debate does not have the scope to allow me to describe them all—what is important to my constituents is what the Department and other responsible bodies are doing to plan for the future. We want the trust to come out of special measures as quickly as possible.

A related but somewhat separate issue is the consultation on the future of acute hospital services in Worcestershire. The review of services in the trust began in January 2012 when clinicians across Worcestershire raised concerns about whether they could safely deliver services due staff shortages. Those shortages meant that services had to be concentrated and centralised, owing to the provision being too small at each of the Worcestershire hospitals. Initial temporary emergency changes—births, complex emergency surgery, in-patient children’s services, emergency surgery on children and emergency gynaecology moved from the Alex to the Worcestershire Royal Hospital—have now become permanent. Those changes will be the subject of the consultation proposals put to the board of the three Worcestershire clinical commissioning groups for approval tomorrow.

As hon. Members will understand, those two wide-ranging issues when taken together have been highly emotive for my constituents, as well as for Members for the rest of Worcestershire. The “Save the Alex” campaign in my constituency has gained huge community support, and I have nothing but respect for the dedication and commitment of those campaigners, led by Neal Stote and many others, who have campaigned extremely hard for more than 11 years. They have kept the Alex at the forefront of public debate in our area, and I look forward to working closely with them in future in the best interests of the people of Redditch and the whole community.

In their proposals, the CCGs told us that there are not enough staff or local demand to maintain services at the Alex. I understand that the Worcestershire Royal is a busy, modern hospital with an interesting caseload that is attractive to consultants and specialist neonatal nurses who want to develop their skills. I have also learned that the Meadow Birth Centre at Worcestershire Royal is fantastic. Since the transfer of maternity services, emergency C-section rates have dropped from 32.6% to less than 25%, meaning fewer expectant mums being rushed down corridors and more relaxed births. Having given birth four times myself, and having been a National Childbirth Trust worker, I am somewhat of an expert on birth, and I know that local women are fortunate to have access to that wonderful care.

I accept that the Worcestershire Royal provides the safest and best care for the women of Redditch and their babies, but we cannot ignore the fact that Worcestershire is a rural county and that Redditch has a very low level of car ownership. In fact, it is one of the lowest in the country, with one in five Redditch households having no access to a vehicle. Not owning a car or driving will be a cause of great stress in times of emergency, and for those who want to visit loved ones who have just given birth in Worcester, it will present difficulties if travelling with young children in tow. Additionally, I have heard from my constituents that, when they arrive at Worcestershire Royal, the facilities are sometimes not quite set up for their needs.

During the general election campaign, and now as a newly elected MP, I have talked to thousands of local people who have brought up the Alex time and again—I have received numerous messages, emails, phone calls and comments on my Facebook and Twitter channels on this topic. Hon. Members will be able to imagine that, at every door I knocked on, the constituent said, “Let me tell you what the number one issue in Redditch is.” I already knew the answer: the Alex.

One young mum broke down in tears during my visit. She said that she had moved to Redditch specifically for the Alex, and had given birth to her first son there—a young lad who was now four. She suffers from a condition that means she is at high risk when in labour, needing almost immediate access to maternity services or her life would be at risk. She is therefore unwilling to fall pregnant again, even though she would like a second child. I find that situation tragic. While I have reassured her that our West Midlands Ambulance Service is the best in the country and would be able to transport her safely if needed, I would be grateful for confirmation from my hon. Friend the Minister that conditions such as hers have been taken into account in the clinical decision-making process.

Another problem that people raise with me is the rate of growth of Redditch as a town—it grew by more than 7% between 2001 and 2011. There must be something in the water in Redditch, because in 2012 there were 18,800 children, which is more than 22% of Redditch’s total population. It is a young and growing town with a lot of young people and children. On top of that, there are plans for new houses in areas such as Webheath. People are naturally worried that services at both the Alex and the Worcestershire Royal will not be able to cope in future, so I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister confirms that he has considered the projected rise in the population when making decisions on commissioning services in Redditch, which serve the populations of both Redditch and Worcester.

Specifically, will the Minister tell me at what level of population, and births-per-head in the population, he would review maternity service provision in an area? I have also questioned the Secretary of State on that point. Will the Minister commit to call for a review when the population reaches that level? Can he also give examples of comparable areas in the country that have successfully transferred maternity services to a neighbouring town or area, so that the people of Redditch do not get the sense that they are being unfairly singled out? My constituents would particularly like to know why services were centralised in Worcester instead of Redditch, and whether that process was carried out fairly and with all due process.

Another extremely worrying fact is the winter pressures faced in Worcester. The BBC reported in January 2017 that three patients died at Worcestershire Royal over the winter period after waiting on trollies for lengthy periods, which has been quoted back to me many times by residents. I heard, and continue to hear, many stories of people waiting on trollies in corridors for lengthy periods and in dirty conditions. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) in recognising the dedication of our NHS staff—the hard-working doctors and nurses doing their absolute best in such conditions—but the root cause of this problem lies not with them, but with a failure of leadership that goes back some time. That is not good enough. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to provide much-needed assurances that robust and effective plans are in place to provide much better care for next winter.

As I previously alluded to, transport to Worcester is of huge concern to my constituents—my hon. Friend the Minister will find it challenging to drive between Worcester and Redditch on the M5 if he is unlucky enough to be stuck in traffic. What assurances can he give me that, if an ambulance providing transport in the event of an emergency transfer from Redditch to Worcester is unlucky enough to be held up in traffic, it will be able to care for a critically ill patient, baby, child or mum in labour? That is a priority for me and my constituents.

Although I am delighted that there is a free shuttle bus from the Alex to the Worcester Royal, I would like the Minister to join me in calling on the responsible authorities to ensure the sustainability and extension of that service. It could then serve more areas by making more stops over the diverse area that our county covers, as well as being more flexible and publishing its services more effectively. A lot of people in Redditch do not know about that valuable service, as I saw for myself when I knocked on doors in the election campaign.

The Minister will understand that one of the most difficult and emotive subjects is the treatment of critically ill children. Given the removal of accident and emergency care services for under-16s at Redditch, can he confirm that the new urgent care centre proposed for Redditch will be staffed 24 hours a day? What type of conditions will be treated there, and which cases will need to be transferred to Worcester? Can he confirm that, if children need to be treated in the urgent care centre, there will be enough fully trained staff to treat children, given that they are mainly serving an adult A&E population? Can he give any idea of the timescale for opening that urgent care centre?

One key problem identified by the CQC was leadership. I am very pleased that the trust has a new permanent leadership team, including a new chairman and a new chief executive. My Worcestershire colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Worcestershire, for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for Worcester (Mr Walker), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid)—and I will meet regularly with the trust’s new chief executive, Michelle McKay, whom I have already met.

I welcome the reaffirmed commitments that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and the Secretary of State made to me of a £29 million investment in the Worcester and Alex Hospital sites, if the business case is approved this week by the CCG board. I would be most grateful to have more detail on what that will involve, when we will see it and what benefits it will deliver to Redditch.

What conversations has the Minister had with, and what support has he given to, the trust’s leadership team to ensure that the new chief executive can swiftly transition the trust out of special measures? Specifically, can he confirm what conversations his Department has had on the critical issue of staff morale? Low staff morale has in the past led to high staff attrition at the Alex, as I heard at first hand during the election campaign from a number of former and current staff members at the Alex. That has a knock-on effect on service delivery. I know from my experience of running a business that if staff are not happy and do not feel valued, it is impossible to achieve a good outcome in an organisation, no matter how much investment and resources are put into it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Does she agree that low morale and any hospital being in special measures has a knock-on effect on recruitment, because people are a bit more reluctant to start or pursue their careers in those hospitals? The challenges that that brings need to be addressed.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend touches on the key point of recruitment, which my colleagues and I, and himself, have raised with the new trust leadership. The trust has brought forward some interesting and exciting measures to address that, such as a new Facebook recruitment video. We look forward to seeing how that progresses and delivers more staff into this much-needed trust.

I am extremely grateful for the Minister’s interest in this matter and for being granted the time to discuss it. I am especially grateful for the commitment shown during the general election campaign by his colleague the Minister of State, who visited me in Redditch. I call on him to lay to rest the pernicious rumour circulating in Redditch that our hospital is at risk of further downgrades or even closure. I am aware, as are some of my constituents, of the Naylor report, which contains in its numerous pages—they are too numerous to mention—proposals for selling unused NHS land to build affordable housing for NHS workers. That seems to me to be an eminently sensible suggestion, given the shortage of affordable housing in our country and the need for affordable homes for our public sector workers.

Some of my constituents have found suggestions in the report’s pages—suggestions that I have not personally been able to find, despite assiduous reading over a number of hours, which I can confirm is a great insomnia cure, should the Minister be interested—that the Alex Hospital might be sold off for building land. I would be grateful for his confirmation that no suggestion is hidden in the small print of the report or elsewhere in any Government document that the Alex Hospital faces that fate.

As the Minister has been so generous in attending this debate, I would like him to go further by guaranteeing my constituents that Redditch will have a hospital that serves its population and is fit for the size of the town both now and in the future. Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for allowing me time to make my points. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Defending Public Services

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who as always represents his constituents with great passion.

I intend to focus on matters in the Queen’s Speech that relate to communications and the digital economy. In her Gracious Speech, Her Majesty spoke of legislation to be introduced to

“improve Britain’s competitiveness and make the United Kingdom a world leader in the digital economy”.

I wholeheartedly support that aim, and a great deal has already been achieved. Britain must be a nation where technology continuously transforms the economy, society and government. The UK has embraced digital transformation, and it is one of the most advanced digital economies on the planet. The internet as a UK industry sector has surpassed manufacturing and retail, and represents the second-biggest economic sector. That has come about as a result not just of the Government’s policies, but from the entrepreneurial efforts and passion of British businesspeople.

According to the Centre for Retail Research, UK consumers will spend an average of £1,372 per person online this year. Online retail as a percentage of total retail is 23% in the UK, which is more than double that of Germany and three times that of the US. A key driver of that is the underlying strength and sophistication of the UK’s financial services industry, and consumer confidence in the security of credit card and financial information online. That is not the case in many other countries, and lack of confidence in the security of online financial data has inhibited the development of the digital economy not only in the developing world, but across many countries in Europe. UK consumers’ online habits are so strong that, when asked what other lifestyle habit they would give up for a year instead of giving up the internet, 78% said they would rather give up chocolate; 21% said they would give up their car; alarmingly, 17% said they would give up showering; and most alarmingly of all, 25% said they would give up—I am not sure how to phrase this, Madam Deputy Speaker—intimate relations.

[Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

Can you elaborate on that or give an example?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Later on, perhaps, but I will spare my blushes now.

Digital is a UK success story. At 12.4% of GDP, the UK internet economy is the largest of the G20 countries—it is double the size of the US internet economy, three times that of Germany and nearly four times that of France. I have said this many times in the Chamber but it is often overlooked: the G20 average is 3.5% of GDP.

The digital economy employs more than 1.5 million people and is growing at more than double the rate of GDP growth. Clearly, we are already in a leading position in the world. The issue is not so much about becoming a world leader in the digital economy, but retaining and further strengthening our leadership position. Broadband plays a key role in that. We have made huge progress—superfast broadband of at least 24 megabits per second is available in 90% of homes and businesses in the UK, up from a mere 45% in 2010. Ofcom statistics show that business connections sometimes lag behind domestic connections, and companies such as BT Openreach need to do much more to get businesses connected and to improve customer service overall, particularly in remote and rural areas.

The broadband market remains confusing to many consumers and businesses. Research commissioned by Ofcom found that around half of small and medium-sized enterprises found that information about suppliers and tariffs was difficult to compare. I am therefore pleased that the Government are making progress to improve competition, particularly by making the switching process clearer and easier in both the broadband and mobile markets.

On the specific digital measures announced in the Queen’s Speech, I very much welcome the digital economy Bill, which will deliver on the manifesto commitment to roll out universal broadband and increase competition. The new electronic communication code will make it easier and cheaper to build mobile and superfast broadband infrastructure. We must protect and support our digital industries, which is why the introduction of equal penalties for infringements of online and physical copyright is so important. I warmly welcome the proposals to protect children with age verification for accessing online pornography.

The BBC has played a key role in shaping how we are educated, entertained and informed in the UK, via radio, TV, print and online. The BBC iPlayer is one of the most-used digital content sites in the UK. According to last year’s annual report, in January 2015 alone, 264 million iPlayer requests were made. Similarly, more than 27 million unique users in the UK went to BBC News online each week in the first three months of 2015. Those numbers will be higher now.

The BBC has clearly played and will continue to play a key role in the future of the UK digital economy. I therefore welcome the proposals in the recent White Paper to secure the BBC’s future. Many people have been in contact with me about the future of the BBC, expressing suggestions and concerns. I am glad that many of those fears were allayed in the White Paper. Contrary to the predictions of some, there was no wholesale destruction of the BBC, no abolition of the licence fee, no meddling with TV schedules and no instruction not to make popular programmes. Instead, there will be a longer charter, clarity on funding, improved governance, and opportunities for more commercial exploitation of the BBC’s hugely valuable content library. The simple fact of the matter is that the BBC will be in a stronger not weaker position as a result of the recommendations in the White Paper.

There is much to be praised in the Queen’s speech, and I am confident that the focus on the digital economy and technology will have long-lasting consequences that will benefit the UK economy for decades to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

What the hon. Gentleman describes as a “savage cut” was a real-terms increase of £10 billion a year, which was £5.5 billion more than his party proposed as part of the platform he stood on at the last election.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

16. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as focusing on health inputs and how much we spend on the NHS, it is also important that we focus on health outcomes?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I am so proud that under this Conservative Government we have put 27 hospitals into special measures, 11 of which have now come out of special measures. We are improving the standard and quality of care, and increasing the number of people being treated across the board. Outputs matters, and that is what this Conservative Government will deliver.