Covid-19: Dental Services

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Access to dentists in North West Norfolk, particularly for children, was one of the issues that I raised in my maiden speech, when I reported that constituents were being advised to register in Skegness. As I said at the time, that remains good advice for pink-footed geese, but it is not very practical. Prior to covid, my constituency had the highest population per dentist across Norfolk and Waveney. West Norfolk was the second lowest area for dental activity actually delivered in the country, with only 65% of contracted activity carried out, and it had the highest percentage of patients who were unsuccessful when trying to get an NHS dental appointment. That was before covid.

During the pandemic, access to services has become even more severely limited, as the early results of a survey that I am carrying out in my constituency show. Many patients are unable to get treatment. The British Dental Association has said that 20 million appointments have been lost nationally, and access to emergency dental care has also been very challenging. I have helped constituents to access the urgent dental care that was there, but the General Dental Council reported that 50% of people did not know that it existed, which may explain why a fifth of people experienced pain or even took action into their own hands.

It is crystal clear that the level of provision in North West Norfolk is simply not good enough. This is a long-running issue. I have spoken on numerous occasions to the NHS east of England direct commissioning group, whose responsibility it is to commission those services, to underline the need for improved local access. I certainly acknowledge that there are challenges in attracting and recruiting dentists in North West Norfolk, and there have been positive developments, such as the opening of the surgery at Marham, which my constituents have been using successfully. I know that the commissioning group is actively exploring the increased use of training places to play a part in the sustainable approach to this issue, but it is of course important that the significant backlog due to covid is addressed and done so safely. Like other hon. Members, I have been contacted by dentists in my constituency, who are concerned about the activity levels that they are being asked to deliver and question whether they will be achievable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those concerns in her remarks.

What my constituents really want is a commitment to short, medium and long-term improvements, so they can actually see a dentist. My dentist in King’s Lynn high street closed in November, and the money for that should be used to recommission services locally. Prior to covid, the NHS planned to open another practice by the summer and to issue a procurement exercise offering in-perpetuity contracts, which should be more attractive to providers in the long term. Understandably, those plans are now on hold, which is disappointing for my constituents. They want a public commitment to address these issues, so that they know improved provision will be coming. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to meet me to discuss these issues so that we can urgently address the provision, which is certainly inadequate for my constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Let us see whether Scott Mann’s audio is less scary.

National Security and Investment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Graham. I am also pleased that the Committee is now moving to the new expanses of new clauses. I see that Committee members have come fully prepared to deal with the environment in which we find ourselves. I should say, Sir Graham, that the previous Chair said that we should be able to put on as many coats as we liked. I think that that is much to be desired. Unfortunately, I left my office in a rush and forgot to bring my coat, as well as the Houses of Parliament Christmas jumper in which I invested only yesterday, in anticipation that it might be needed today. We shall have to take the temperature as an encouragement to press on.

Had we known that, regardless of the title of the Bill, it was actually the National and Security and Investment, and any improvements to the Enterprise Act 2002 we feel it is necessary to make, Bill, we might have ranged somewhat broader in our new clauses. We chose instead to focus on what we felt was absolutely critical to the good functioning of our national security framework. New clause 1 seeks to set out some of the factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to when making assessments under the provisions of the Bill. We recognise some of the implications of including a definition of national security. The Bill is called the National Security and Investment Bill, even if it does go somewhat beyond that title.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I note that the hon. Lady uses the word “may” not “shall” in the new clause. Can she explain why she opted for “may” in this instance?

[Chi Onwurah]

I am grateful for that intervention. First, it shows that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention, which in itself is something to be welcomed. If I may say so, it also shows that he is taking lessons from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. We have considered the matter and this is the correct use of the term “may”. I shall go into more detail later, but this is not about prescribing what the Secretary of State must look at; it is about giving greater clarity, particularly to those who will come under the Bill’s remit. One of the expert witnesses put it very well. Those who will come under the Bill’s remit need to get a sense of what the Government mean by national security, not in a specific and detailed definition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been a supporter of small businesses significantly longer than he has perhaps. I did make it clear that this is a way that we can protect small businesses without in any way compromising the integrity of the Bill. There is nothing in the new clause that will in any way weaken the effectiveness of the Bill and protecting our national security. I would be happy at another time to debate the reasons why, for example, employment measures in Scotland should be taken by the Parliament and Government elected by the people of Scotland rather than somewhere down here, but that is not a debate for today. I expect, Sir Graham, that neither you nor anybody else would be too pleased if we started to take up time this afternoon on that subject.

[James Wild]

In clause 32, there is provision to look at whether a reasonable excuse exists in an individual case. The hon. Member’s amendment would give a blanket exemption to any small business by dint of being a small business. Is the case-by-case basis not a better way to approach the issue?

[Peter Grant]

That is a valid point, but I do not think it is. The difficulty with the case-by-case basis is that it creates uncertainty and worry for the small business concerned. We are talking about a period of only six months. I do not really think that hostile overseas investors are waiting to pounce during those six months to gobble up small businesses in a way that will damage our national security. Let us face it: if they were going to do that in the first six months, they would be doing it now or they would have done it in the last six months.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the new clause is deliberately worded to explicitly recognise the importance of small businesses, particularly during this period. The Bill is likely to come into force at the exact time that small businesses will be trying to get back on their feet. They need all the help they can get. There is a danger that the way that the Bill could be implemented and enforced will be an unintentional barrier to their growth.

All that we are asking is that, for a short period, until smaller businesses get used to the new legislation, it does not allow them to go ahead with transactions that are otherwise prohibited and would otherwise be blocked by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will still have the full power to block those transactions or to impose conditions on them. It does not mean that an acquisition is legally valid if it would otherwise be void under the terms of the legislation. The only difference it makes is that it removes the danger of small businesses or their directors spending time defending themselves in court when they should be developing their business and helping to get the economy back on its feet. On that basis, I commend both new clauses to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I will not take up the opportunity of a test. We have all learned a lot about air flows—in this room, at any rate—as we seek to maintain some heat. What we have not learned, though, is how the Minister believes the Bill can be improved. All our line-by-line scrutiny has yielded many assurances, compliments on our intention and, indeed, some letters, for which I am grateful, but no acceptance and not even the commitment to go and think about some of our constructive proposals, amendments and new clauses. I urge him to consider this new clause as an opportunity to show that he truly believes, as he said earlier, in the skills, experience and expertise of the Committee by reflecting on the potential for improvement.

The new clause returns to an earlier theme and would require—the Minister will be pleased to note that that is a “must”, not a “may”—an annual report to be prepared by the Secretary of State

“in accordance with this section”

and a copy of it to be provided

“to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the end of that period.”

It sets out what should be in that report, such as the events, the number of entities, the nature of the risks and

“details of particular technological or sectoral expertise”

and so on. It would provide the Intelligence and Security Committee with information about the powers exercised under the Bill and allow closer scrutiny and monitoring.

The new clause reflects how we have consistently supported the need for the Bill. Our approach to the security threats we face is to push for change specifically to allow broad powers of intervention, but for those using those broad powers to be held to account by Parliament and through transparency. Our international allies do exactly that. The US requires CFIUS to produce a non-classified annual report for the public, alongside a classified report for certain members of Congress, to provide security detail to them, allowing congressional scrutiny while retaining sensitivity of information.

As I think the Minister acknowledges, the Government have been late in following where international allies and the Opposition have led with calls to better protect our national security, so he must not fall behind in following our calls for accountability and transparency. That is critical not just to ensure our security and wider parliamentary understanding of the nature of the threats we face but for accountability.

The Secretary of State is to be given sweeping powers. For the last time, I should say that we will go from 12 reviews in 18 years—less than one a year—to 1,830 notifications a year, which is more than five every single day. The Secretary of State will be able to intervene in every single such private transaction. It will be hard to bring claims against national security concerns in court, where the judiciary will understandably find it difficult to define national security against the Government’s definition. In that context, it is important to bring expert parliamentary scrutiny to the Government’s decisions. I do hope the Minister will reflect on that. Alongside a public report, the new clause would require the Government to publish an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee so that we have greater accountability without compromising security.

I will say a few words about the evidence base and the reason for tabling the amendment. Professor Ciaran Martin said:

“I think that the powers should be fairly broad. I think there should be accountability and transparency mechanisms, so that there is assurance that they are being fairly and sparingly applied.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2020; c. 81, Q96.]

My understanding is that the only accountability and transparency mechanism is the public report, which may be published, and the prospect of judicial review, neither of which provide for expert scrutiny on the security issues.

I also ask the Minister to reflect on Second Reading, where member after member of the Intelligence and Security Committee stood up to say that they felt that their expertise would be useful and helpful in the working of the Bill.

[James Wild]

The hon. Lady said that the annual report “may” be published, but in clause 61 it “must” be laid before the House, so there is no question that the annual report will be published.

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It must be published, but the details that it sets out are limited. The reporting on other information, as I think the Minister has said, is something that is intended but is not required. We have requested that several other pieces of information be published, but the Minister has said that they may be.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk is absolutely right that there will be an annual report, but that is a public report that will provide only the limited information set out in clause 61(2). Obviously, it will not provide anything that might have an impact on national security. With regard to what is published in the final notifications, for example, that can be redacted to take out anything of commercial interest as well as of national security interest. There is no requirement to report on any aspect to do with national security. Given that the only report is a public report, that is understandable. That is why we are proposing that a secure sensitive report should also be published and shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee.

The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said that

“there is a real role for Committees of this House in such processes and…the ability to subpoena both witnesses and papers would add not only depth to the Government’s investigation but protection to the Business Secretary who was forced to take the decision”.—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 238.]

A member of the Intelligence and Security Committee also said that

“we need mechanisms in place to ensure that that flexibility does not allow the Government too much scope.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 244.]

As I have already noted, CFIUS has an annual reporting requirement.

National Security and Investment Bill (Fifth sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah]

May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and what a pleasure and, indeed, honour it is to discuss this important Bill with the rest of the Committee?

This issue is important to Members on both sides of the Committee, and as we scrutinise the Bill line by line over the next two weeks I am sure we will get closer—or as close as social distancing allows. Labour Members look forward to a constructive and collegiate debate and recognise that Members on both sides of the Committee share the objective of making well-informed contributions. It was clear from speeches made last night on the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, the interests and ambitions of which overlap those of this Bill, that all Members share a belief in the critical importance of national security, and I am sure that will be reflected in our deliberations.

We agree on the importance of securing our national security, for which line-by-line scrutiny is vital. The Government’s impact assessment notes the need for change and says that national security is an area of “market failure” requiring some Government action. I found that statement somewhat shocking, and a marked difference between the views of Labour and Conservative Members. It is an astonishing claim, because national security is not a private concern first, and a Government after-thought second. There is no market in national security, which is the first duty of a Government and not a failed responsibility of the private sector. It ought to be the first priority of any Government to address it. It is not under-supplied by the market; it is outside the market altogether.

Although that claim is astonishing, it is unsurprising from this Government and the party that leads them. The impact assessment is a marker of a Government who have outsourced significant responsibility for national security; a Government who let Kraft take over Cadbury in 2012 because the market promised good behaviour by the acquirer, only for them to be embarrassed when the acquirer broke all its promises—national responsibility outsourced and British jobs and national interests handed over to the market.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Could the shadow Minister explain the national security issues with the Kraft takeover?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I meant to say that national responsibility was outsourced—and British jobs—and the national interest handed over to the market. That was the concern with the Kraft takeover. If he wishes, I shall follow up with further examples, but the national interest and the responsibility of this Conservative Government for economic security have clearly been lacking. This is the Government who let the Centre for Integrated Photonics, a prized research and development centre, be taken over by Huawei in 2012—an event that our head of the National Cyber Security Centre said that in hindsight we would not wish to happen. National security was outsourced and the British interest again relinquished to the market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Rather late in the day, I will say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am sure you are aware that we share an anniversary: we are among the few surviving Members of the 1997 intake—those happy days when Labour used to win elections. We came to this House in 1997 and have been here ever since.

The reason I emphasise that fact, Mr Twigg, is to underline just how many Bills you and I have sat on, led for the Labour party or been involved in over the years. I am unable to tot up the exact number but it is a considerable, and it is a great pleasure to be sitting on this Bill Committee. I have served on a large number of Bill Committees of late, the most recent being the Environment Bill Committee, which has just finished its deliberations. I was unable to be present for this Bill Committee’s witness sessions because I was finishing off the Environment Bill—well, trying to strengthen it rather than finish it off. I am grateful to my colleagues for asking a series of pertinent questions in the evidence sessions. We are all grateful for that and, indeed, to the expert witnesses.

I want to cite the amendment in the context both of the various Bills that have come through the House and of the witness sessions, which I have assiduously read, even though I was not present for them. I hope the Minister will accept that the amendment is entirely in line with the constructive way in which I hope we have gone about our business in this Committee. The amendment, which I shall unpack in a moment, strengthens not only the Bill but the ability of Ministers to do their job properly as far as its provisions are concerned. That is its intention.

The amendment seeks to replace subsection (1), which is a bald sentence:

“No more than one call-in notice may be given in relation to each trigger event.”

My time with Bills has taught me to look carefully through all of the different clauses to find the qualification. In my experience, tucked away somewhere in most Bills is a qualification. Sometimes it is about when a clause is to be implemented, sometimes it is a definition of the wording, and sometimes it is an additional provision that mediates the clause to which our attention was first drawn.

This clause has no such qualification. It is an absolutely straightforward statement. We have discussed trigger events to some extent in our evidence sessions, and they are elucidated and qualified in further clauses, as are call-in notices, but the fact that we get only one call-in notice per trigger event seems to be the central essence of this subsection. Our amendment seeks to put a question mark against whether that bald statement about the fact that we get one go per trigger event is the wisest formulation to have in the Bill.

The amendment makes a modest change to the clause, stating:

“No more than one call-in notice may be given in relation to each trigger event,”

and adding,

“unless material new information becomes available within five years of the initial trigger event.”

[James Wild]

From his experience of many Bills, I wonder what the hon. Gentleman made of the provisions in clause 22 on false or misleading information that has been given to the Secretary of State, whereby if he has been given that information he can change a decision he has previously given and can therefore issue another call-in notice.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed. The hon. Member is quite correct to draw attention to clause 22, which concerns false or misleading information. It relates to where someone has, at the time of the trigger event, concealed or misled or sought to deceive those concerned with the trigger event about the nature of the event. I would suggest that that is a different case from what we are trying to establish today. It is not that anyone has tried to deceive anybody or maliciously mislead anybody at the time of the trigger event, but new material may come to light or become available within five years of the initial trigger event that might cause a further call-in notice to be introduced. According to the definition set out in the Bill, that looks like it might not be possible.

Coronavirus

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

As demand for testing increases, some of my constituents are struggling to get slots, are having to travel significant distances or are even being turned away from mobile test centres. So will my right hon. Friend confirm whether the Government’s plans to increase capacity are aiming for 10 million tests a day or the 2 million to 3 million that Sir John Bell talked about this morning? As part of that welcome boost, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at my request for a public testing site in King’s Lynn?

[Matt Hancock]

I will absolutely look at my hon. Friend’s request on King’s Lynn. Thankfully, after an outbreak a couple of weeks ago, the number of positive test results in Norfolk has come right down. I commend the work of Norfolk County Council, my hon. Friend and colleagues from across Norfolk, who have done so much to ensure that the public messages get through. On the “moonshot”, we do not have and have not had any plans for 10 million tests a day, but we do have a goal to get to the millions of tests a day when we can. That is dependent on new technology, so that is what we need to drive forward. It is vital for this country, for the resolution of exactly the problems we are talking about today, and then for expanding testing availability more widely that we really embrace those new technologies.

Covid-19

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]]

The plan that the Prime Minister set out yesterday shows the difficult choices involved in creating a pathway on which we can continue to suppress the virus while easing some of the restrictions. I will focus my remarks in three areas. First, I pay tribute to the key workers in North West Norfolk, and particularly those in the NHS and care sector. Two weeks ago, I joined staff at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn to pay respects to their friend and colleague Chrissie Emerson, who sadly died from coronavirus. The dedication that the staff show every day deserves to be recognised with capital investment to modernise this acute hospital as part of the health infrastructure programme. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the proposals put forward. As well as mortality figures, the QEH publishes data on patients who have recovered and been discharged. Such figures could helpfully be published nationally.

A quarter of the care homes in my constituency have now reported outbreaks. While that is below the national average, there is no room for complacency. It is vital that care homes have access to testing and PPE to protect residents and staff.

Secondly, the bold package of support for businesses and individuals has been rightly welcomed across west Norfolk. My area relies on tourism, and the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—grants and bounce-back loans in particular—have so far been the difference between businesses surviving and not. However, the lockdown has come a time when pubs like the Crown Inn, restaurants, hotels and attractions in Hunstanton and across the coast should be bustling. As the plan sets July as the earliest date at which hospitality businesses could start to reopen, those firms need help. I am therefore pleased that the Chancellor today extended the furlough scheme and introduced a more flexible approach, including part-time working. He has also responded to calls that I and many other Members made for new funding for local authorities to assist businesses that did not qualify for the earlier schemes. As well as that grant support, insurance premiums, holidays and other steps would help firms be ready for the day when we can safely welcome visitors again.

On that, Norfolk police has done a great job of enforcing the current social distancing rules, in difficult circumstances. I share the concerns that travel changes in the plan may make the police’s job harder and see people flocking to the coast. Everyone must act responsibly and follow the rules. If there is a repeat of the overcrowding at the coast that occurred before lockdown, stricter measures must follow. Please, let us use common sense, stay local, only make reasonable journeys and not overcrowd the coast.

Finally, the response to the crisis from voluntary groups, including on rough sleeping, has been incredible. When I worked in the Cabinet Office, the advice was that it would take years to end rough sleeping, yet in the space of a few weeks there has been a fall of over 90%. That is thanks to the great work of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with local authorities, charities and hotel chains. It is now crucial that we seize the opportunity to move people into long-term accommodation rather than see them return to the streets. According to Purfleet Trust, a charity in my constituency, that means long-term funding and a focus on prevention.

We have a road map to ease restrictions in a measured and controlled way. Everyone who has followed the rules so far has helped us get this point. Now we must continue to stay alert, and together we will come through this.

Covid-19 Update

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. We solved several of the problems in the pension system at the Budget, and there are further solutions in the Bill. I have not come across any further problems in respect of pensions, but if my hon. Friend writes to me with the individual case, I will check that that is the case in that instance, too.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

On Saturday, I met the chief executive and the incident management team at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn in my constituency, where sadly two patients who tested positive for covid-19 died last week. I pay tribute to the dedication of all the staff who are, as the Secretary of State knows, working in buildings that need more investment. Will he make sure that those on the frontline continue to get the PPE that they need and have more access to ventilators?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely—on all counts. I just want to add my thanks to all those working on the frontline, and throughout the NHS and social care, to my hon. Friend’s thanks to those in King’s Lynn. I also put on the record my thanks to my extraordinary civil service political and Public Health England team, who have done amazing work and continue to work incredibly hard in response to this crisis.

Coronavirus

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We do have plans to be able to ramp up the bed capacity that can be used to deal with coronavirus patients, and, as I said earlier, we have already extended funding to trusts and are willing to consider that further if necessary.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

People are understandably concerned, and I have been contacted by some of my constituents about potential treatments, including vitamin therapy, that are appearing on the internet. Will my right hon. Friend send a clear message from the Chamber that it is the NHS and the Government who will provide the authoritative advice on medical treatments? Will he work with social media companies to remove any misleading content?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, and that is a very important point. Fake news in response to a virus like this can be dangerous and damaging to health and it should be taken down. I am working with the social media companies—I spoke to the main social media companies yesterday—and the biggest of them are playing a very responsible role. If someone searches on Google, the top two sites that come up for coronavirus are from the World Health Organisation, and the NHS is third. Google is promoting good, high-quality, medically informed advice, and the other social media platforms—the major ones with which we are working—are also taking this very seriously.

Health and Social Care

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a huge privilege, as someone born and bred in Norfolk, to stand here having been elected to represent the people of North West Norfolk. I thank them for putting their trust in me, which I will do my very best to repay.

I have many auspicious predecessors, including Sir Robert Walpole, our first Prime Minister. However, I want to pay particular tribute to my immediate predecessor, Sir Henry Bellingham. Henry was a great constituency MP who represented the area for over 30 years. He is rightly recognised locally as an assiduous champion for his constituents, regardless of how they voted. Indeed, such is his commitment that I was delighted to speak alongside him at a planning inquiry on Tuesday this week. I am sure the House will agree that, as a Member of Parliament and a Minister, he more than met the aim that he expressed in his maiden speech: to remove some of the “blemish” of a family member who assassinated a British Prime Minister. Echoing my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), I know that I have big shoes to fill.

King’s Lynn is at the centre of my constituency, and its rich heritage dates from the 13th century, when it was one of the country’s main ports. Today, it continues to make a significant contribution to our local economy. This month saw the 575th anniversary of the first play performed at St George’s Guildhall, the oldest working theatre in the UK and the only one that can claim that Shakespeare performed there. The guild was founded, incidentally, by another of my predecessors, John Brandon, known as Britain’s greatest pirate. Channelling his spirit, I want to secure some of the treasure of the towns fund, the future high streets fund and the other investment coming from this Government for North West Norfolk.

Beyond King’s Lynn, my constituency is blessed with a beautiful coastline from Hunstanton to Holme and Brancaster to the Burnhams. To the west are the villages in the marshland—from Clenchwarton to Walpole St Peter. It is an area with a diverse economy, with much to offer, but it needs the infrastructure investment to help it thrive and take full advantage of the opportunities of Brexit. We also have a wealth of excellent pubs in the constituency: the Dabbling Duck in Great Massingham, the Rose & Crown in Snettisham and the Black Horse Inn in Castle Rising. As you can tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been working hard to find the best, and I hope that the Budget will have good news for beer drinkers in all of them.

The Love West Norfolk campaign is doing a great job to promote all the good things about the constituency, but there are challenges—rural bus services, broadband, flood risk, educational outcomes—that I will want to help tackle in my time in this House. Healthcare is at the top of my constituents’ list of concerns, so I strongly support putting into legislation this record investment in the NHS. Similarly, our manifesto pledge to have 15 million more GP appointments has been widely welcomed, as has the excellent Pharmacy First initiative. During the election, I saw where that investment was going when I visited the site of the new surgery coming to Burnham Market, which will serve surrounding villages and also, importantly in my constituency, will have a dementia suite. Tomorrow, I will be meeting constituents who are concerned, as am I, about plans to close the GP surgery in Fairstead.

More than one constituent looking to find an NHS dentist has commented to me on the absurdity of the advice on the NHS website, recommending that they go to Skegness as the nearest practice. Flying across the Wash may be practical for the migrating pink-footed geese that are a great sight in the big skies of Norfolk, but it is not very practical advice for my constituents, so dental provision is an issue that I will be working on in this Parliament.

As well as the need to improve mental health services and social care, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital—the QEH—in King’s Lynn is extremely important to my constituents. Although it is in special measures, there is new leadership there, and on Friday I went to see for myself the improvements that are taking place, so the opportunity to speak in this debate is very timely. My visit came after an intense period in A&E, with a tenfold increase in the number of flu cases. Pam, the matron of A&E, was a great ambassador for the hospital—committed to delivering for patients and, despite all the challenges, she was still smiling. I met a dedicated maternity team, improving the service for new parents and supporting those who, sadly, suffer bereavements. I was glad to speak to the porters, cleaners, infection teams and security guards—the people who do not get the recognition they deserve, for they are the ones who can tell you what is really going on in the hospital. What came across to me was the passion of the staff: people proud of the improvements they have delivered for their patients, but who want to continue that journey and take the hospital out of special measures. As their MP, I pledge my support for them.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. However, it was built with a life expectancy of 30 years, and its age is showing. The design does not lend itself to current clinical practices, care pathways or patient flows. A&E is too cramped to meet demand, and the roof has major structural issues. So, in this decade of renewal—with the infrastructure plan and the biggest cash investment in the NHS—I spy an opportunity not just to fix the roof, but to do more. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during the election campaign and since about the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I know he will consider carefully proposals from the trust for capital investment—proposals that also harness digital technology. The QEH currently languishes near the bottom of the digital league, when it aspires to be like King’s Lynn FC, which is riding high at the top of the Vanarama National League North. The QEH is up for change, and it is up for innovation. My right hon. Friend has previously accepted an invitation to come to the hospital, and I would be delighted if he will join me in the near future to come and see how we can make the real improvements that the people of North West Norfolk deserve.