Sir Jeremy Hunt

Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Godalming and Ash since (elected).

Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions

Parliament's profile data for this member has not been retrieved yet. It is pulled by the daily ingest; the affiliation and activity below are already current.

Entries on this tracker

107

Each filed under the party they sat for that day

Register entries

0

As currently published

Party affiliation

PartyOfficeAreaPeriodBeganEndedSource
ConservativeMPGodalming and Ash – presentelected—Party history

Register of interests

Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.

Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.

Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 107

  1. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), who was an excellent Business and Trade Secretary and <span id="342" class="column-number" data-column-number="342"></span>a great loss to the Government when he stepped down. Like him, I have been writing about economic growth—he wrote an essay; I wrote a book. I have absolute confidence that all Members were poring over every word in my book over the summer. The book happens to be called “Can We Be Rich Again?”, in case anyone was interested. I want to say, in a brief contribution, that doing a Budget since 2022 has become much harder because the invasion of Ukraine caused a spike in energy prices and inflation, which brought to an end over a decade of near-zero interest rates. In that context, rule No. 1 is not to upset the markets. Today they are calm and long may that last. Rule No. 2 is to do no harm. Frankly, after two Budgets that put up taxes, mainly on business, by £66 billion, many will be relieved that today it is “just” a £2 billion tax rise on businesses. I am worried, however, that the bank tax will lead to higher mortgage rates, which will make the cost of living worse for ordinary families. My concern is about what I might call rule No. 3, which is never to waste a Budget. In the run-up to a Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, in some ways, the most powerful person in the country. They are sitting on top of the most powerful Government Department and they have the full support of No. 10 Downing Street, which needs Budgets to be successful. The OBR has just downgraded our growth next year to 1%, and there are still formidable impediments to getting back to that 2% to 3% growth that we all know is so important. Today could have been the Budget that set out plans to get 1 million young people off welfare and into work. We could have found out how it is going to happen, when it is going to happen, where the money is going to come from, and what the impact will be on national accounts. Today could have been the Budget that showed how we are going to enshrine AI into every part of our economy, helping us to become the world’s next silicon valley—that would have been an extraordinarily powerful opportunity for us. There were some things mentioned about bringing down energy prices, but it could have been the Budget that showed how, over three years, we are going to get energy prices for businesses, factories and data centres down to levels in France, where they are 35% less, and it could have shown how that was going to happen. It could have been the Budget, with Ukraine about to go into the most difficult winter, that showed how we are going to get defence spending up to 3% of GDP and how that is going to help our technology sector and our economic growth in the process. Instead, I fear the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have wasted their political capital by putting off difficult decisions. We are told that we will not hear what is going to happen with respect to those not in education, employment or training until the new year. We are not going to find out about defence spending and the spending review until the end of next year. That is a year away. The problem is that those decisions are going to be harder in a year’s time than they are today, and today could have been a Budget that did so much more. The Prime Minister likes talking about hope. Young people are leaving school and university with high levels of debt and fewer available jobs—particularly far fewer graduate jobs—and they are worried about their future. They are losing hope. We had lots of so-called <span id="343" class="column-number" data-column-number="343"></span>breathing space measures and they are welcome in their own right, but they will be forgotten within a matter of months. To really give people hope, we have to be prepared to take difficult decisions. We need to be completely honest: reforming welfare is really difficult. It was difficult for the Conservatives and it is difficult for Labour—I understand that it is particularly difficult for a Labour party to reform welfare. Controlling public spending is difficult, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now the Economic Secretary, knows well, and it is very difficult for any Government to deal with the pressures on public spending. Dealing with the reforms that improve public sector productivity, bring down energy prices or sort out vocational education involve very difficult decisions, but today I feel none the wiser as to whether those difficult decisions are going to be taken. That is my worry. In the end, people need to have a sense of a Government that are prepared to grasp the nettle on all those difficult things. I am afraid that it is not enough to say, “It’s okay because we are not the Tories.” We got a lot of things right, and I am proud of the fact that 4 million jobs were created under 14 years of Conservative rule—that is 800 jobs a day, by the way, compared with 200 fewer jobs a day since Labour came to office—but we also made mistakes. Looking forward, we know that there are lots of difficult decisions that need to be taken. Until we have a Government that are prepared to grasp the nettle on those decisions, our economy will continue to be buffeted by international storms instead of being master of its own destiny.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Topical Questions

    Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker. On 7 September, Natural England submitted the legal orders for a 30.5% expansion of the Surrey Hills national landscape, which would transform biodiversity and nature protection in my area. The decision is now on the Secretary of State’s desk. When will she make that decision, and would she like to come to Surrey Hills to announce it and try out some of our fantastic local pubs?

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    <Question HRSContentId="{2274A503-93F0-482F-9FAE-F4A3746D780A}">10. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BC658671-1572-48B6-B890-81408EC88781}">What plans she has to improve continuity of care in the NHS.</QuestionText> </Question>

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Continuity of Care in the NHS

    Has the Minister read the Norwegian population study published in the <em>British Journal of General </em><em>Practice</em>, which says that people who see the same doctor over many years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need emergency care and 25% less likely to die? It has been two years since the Government made the pledge to bring back the family doctor, but the basic structure of general practice has not changed. Can we see some changes in the next GP contract negotiations to bring back the system we used to have, in which everyone has their own doctor?

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for that excellent opening speech. I also thank him and the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for co-sponsoring the debate with me. Most of all, however, I thank the parents who have lost children, and who took me on a journey on this issue when I was Health Secretary. I am thinking of James Titcombe, who lost his son Joshua at Morecambe Bay; of Carl Hendrickson, who lost his wife Nittaya and his son Chester at Morecambe Bay; of Richard Stanton and Rhiannon Davies, who lost their daughter Kate at Shrewsbury and Telford; of Derek Richford, who lost his grandson Harry at East Kent. They, and many others, are watching this debate and can see that the Health Secretary is here. I thank her for being here for this Backbench Business debate; it means an awful lot, and I know that she cares about the issue. I start by recognising that some progress has been made. Since I first stood at the Dispatch Box in 2014 with the Morecambe Bay inquiry, which was the first of many maternity safety inquiries, the neonatal deathrate has fallen by 21%—about 700 fewer deaths a year—but that is not good enough. The fall in death rates plateaued in 2020 and has not got much better, and since then we have had a worrying rise in maternal deaths. The 2025 target to halve neonatal deaths that I set in 2017 was missed. There are three problems behind our lack of progress. First—and this is something for which I am partially responsible—there are too many recommendations. Earlier this year, Baroness Amos counted 748 maternity safety recommendations, mainly since 2015. The NHS is a world champion at doing reports into maternity safety, but sadly not a world champion at implementing the recommendations made. It is encouraging that the Health Secretary says that there will be a recommendations hub, but could she give it real teeth, so that there is a timescale within which the NHS will decide if it is going to adopt a recommendation and, if it is going to, a person responsible for implementing it within the vast labyrinth that is the NHS? Could she give a timescale so that we and our constituents all know that something really is going to happen?

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and his point closely links to the second of my three reasons, which is that we have still not, after all this time, implemented proper continuity of care. That should mean that every mother, from the moment she is told that she is pregnant, is assigned one team of doctors and midwives to be with her throughout pregnancy, <span id="107" class="column-number" data-column-number="107"></span>birth and even after the birth. Clinical teams that know their patients are much more likely to identify risk when it happens and to avoid tragedies. That lack of continuity of care sits behind the feeling that we heard about in the speech by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen: parents saying time after time that they feel forgotten in the system.

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I thank my hon. Friend for that very powerful personal experience. I am concerned about this idea of women being moved from having no team to a high-risk team, because it cannot always be known in advance if someone is high risk. It is knowing every woman’s situation continuously that enables a team to understand whether she is deteriorating and whether, therefore, she is in need of specialist help. The third reason we still have this problem after all this time is the one I really want to focus on: the ideological obsession that still exists in some parts of the NHS with so-called natural or normal birth. That leads to the promotion of vaginal birth over and above C-sections in a way that, all too often, sees interventions and escalations happen too late, and mothers and babies die. I do not ask the House to take my word for it, as some of the reports have commented on this issue. Bill Kirkup, who did the Morecambe Bay report, said that maternity services at Furness general hospital “became strongly influenced by a small number of dominant individuals whose over-zealous pursuit of the natural childbirth approach led at times to inappropriate and unsafe care.” Donna Ockenden told the Select Committee about Shrewsbury and Telford: “We have spoken to hundreds of women who said to us that they felt pressured to have a normal birth. My clinical team said they have seen examples, even in situations where a normal birth in their own hospital would be contraindicated, of women being pressured”. She said there was “a multi-professional…focus on normal birth at pretty much any cost.” Again, at the launch of the Nottingham inquiry, Donna Ockenden said there were hundreds of cases where “the quest for normal birth continued. And avoidance of intervention persisted”. Finally, in Leeds, Fiona Winser-Ramm told <em>The Times </em>she was convinced that “normal birth” ideology played a part in the death of her daughter, Aliona.

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s clinical experience, but I absolutely agree with him. He has hit the nail on the head. Before I come on to my solutions, I want to say why I think this is still a problem. Very senior voices are still promoting “normal birth” ideology, including a former president of the Royal College of Midwives who told LBC in June: “Doctors have taken over maternity, and they’re not doing it very well.” It really is time to stop denying the problem and start solving it. Never again should the promotion of an ideology about a so-called preferable type of birth lead to a mother or baby being put at risk.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Baby Loss Awareness Week

    I thank my hon. Friend for her courage in talking about her personal experience, which says it better than I ever could. That leads me to my conclusion and what I think are the solutions. First, bringing together the points made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), we need a total overhaul of midwifery education to make it clear that there has to be teamwork around every birth. It is not midwives versus doctors; it is midwives and doctors working together for the safe delivery of every single child. Secondly, we need a shared agreement across both professions about what risk is, and about when escalation is required—total agreement about the moment for intervention—so that something such as my hon. Friend describes never happens again.<span id="109" class="column-number" data-column-number="109"></span> Finally, we need to rehumanise the whole process through which the NHS takes care of pregnant mothers and newly born babies so that from the moment of pregnancy, every mother is assigned one team of doctors and midwives who are responsible for that mother and child right the way through pregnancy and after birth. No one should ever be turned into a number or a type of care. Everyone is a human being and should always treated that way by the NHS. This week we are here to remember the babies and mothers who should be here but are not. We recognise the progress that has been made in their name, but we also have a duty to the families to be humble about the failures as well.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentSir Jeremy Hunt

    Public Sector Productivity

    <Question HRSContentId="{93C1521A-407A-4E84-8BC7-37B0CA64DAD4}">7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A4916A98-6258-4585-A000-5A7D4A1F75E4}">What steps he is taking to improve public sector productivity. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source