Dave Robertson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 764785 relating to support for the ceramics industry. It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. Before I get going, I declare that I am a member of the general, municipal and boilermakers union, the GMB. It is a particular pleasure to introduce this debate as a ceramics MP, and I add my full-throated support to the petition and its aims. My constituency of Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages is home to Armitage Shanks, a company that for more than 200 years has been manufacturing bathroomware in the village of Armitage, from which it takes its name. The identity of the village is inextricably tied up with the company, but, sadly, my constituents will fully recognise the petition’s characterisation of a struggling ceramics sector, because like so many of our British ceramics businesses, Armitage Shanks has been suffering, despite the best efforts and hard work of its brilliant staff. Earlier this year, the firm—now owned by Villeroy & Boch, a German manufacturer—was forced to close one of the kilns at its site in a bid to keep the business internationally competitive. That closure has had a real impact on the community, with 100 jobs lost as a result, and it is a reminder that when our heritage ceramics brands are struggling, it is about not just our country’s manufacturing history and the heritage of the areas that support those businesses, but present-day jobs, skills and livelihoods. I have visited the Armitage site multiple times in recent months, and the concerns that I have heard over and over again from workers there and from their union, the GMB, fully echo the petition. The job losses at Armitage Shanks are, sadly, just one example of the pressures that the sector faces. In 2025, we lost two ceramics firms in Stoke-on-Trent, Royal Stafford and Heraldic Pottery, a blow that went right to the heart of that city’s identity. Last month, the final pieces of pottery rolled off the production lines at Denby in Derbyshire, which was a sad moment for many people, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). In March, the iconic British brand, known around the world for quality manufacture and design, entered administration. Its collapse has also led to more than 100 skilled workers losing their jobs. Thanks to one of those workers, Hayley, we are here to debate this motion. I am very glad to see her in the Public Gallery today. I congratulate her on her first week in a new position that she found elsewhere, but I am sure she would have liked to go to it in rather better circumstances. I am sure that I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber when I say that British ceramics is richer for retaining her experience and passion in the industry. Hayley’s petition could not be more timely. We met ahead of the debate to discuss her concerns, which echo the worries that I hear from the constituents, businesses and unions in my area, and which I and other ceramics MPs gathered here today have been pressing the Government on. I am not surprised to see so many hon. Members joining us, because almost 110,000 people signed Hayley’s petition—more than 10% of them coming from just seven constituencies. This issue is very much centred on Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and the people in our areas care deeply about it. Hayley’s petition recognises that much of the ceramics sector in our country is in crisis. As she warns, “soaring industrial energy costs” have left businesses “at the risk of imminent collapse without urgent intervention”. Ceramics manufacturing relies on high levels of electricity and gas, and when their prices rise here in the UK, our businesses are put at a competitive disadvantage on the international stage.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It seems like Cornwall has come mob-handed today; I am getting it from both sides. My hon. Friend is right, and that goes back to the point about reindustrialising the nation. We have heard for so long about deindustrialised areas and former industrial areas, so it is fantastic to see the Government continuing to drive the reindustrialisation of those areas to bring highly skilled, high-quality unionised jobs back to our communities, where they deserve to be. Returning to ceramics, since this petition was started, the Government have recognised the challenge facing the ceramics sector specifically and have pledged a £120 million package of targeted support. That funding is hugely welcome, but we all know that funding alone is not enough. A lot now hangs on the design of that scheme to ensure that the money is delivered quickly and is well targeted at the companies that most need it and where it will protect the most jobs. Crucially, the scheme should be simple for firms to apply for. Some ceramics firms employ large numbers of people, but they do not have significant back offices that can go through a very complex and heavy administrative process to access such a scheme. Although it is important that companies are asked for the right information to support the scheme, we must not create an unnecessary administrative barrier. I and other hon. Friends in the Chamber will continue to work on this alongside the GMB, other unions and the Government. We must ensure that that funding helps bolster and secure this industry for the long term rather than kicking the can down the road. That brings me to why supporting this sector is so important—all of us in the Chamber know this, but I never miss the opportunity to remind a Minister. Ceramics manufacturing goes to the heart of identity in our counties. So many ceramics firms take their names from the towns, villages and areas in which they are based, and they have made those places famous around the world. I spoke to one hon. Member who had used an Armitage Shanks toilet in Samoa. That is a powerful form of soft power, if Members will excuse a rather crude pun. Ceramics manufacturing jobs powered our economies. Stoke-on-Trent is literally known as the Potteries, and if I had not mentioned that, I am not sure I would have been allowed to leave the room. Just as the closure of mines struck at the identity of the towns that supported them, including places such as Stoke-on-Trent, deindustrialisation has hurt our communities. Ceramics speaks to a proud tradition of world-class manufacturing in our counties, but it is not just about the past; it is about the present and the future. It is about providing jobs for people where, at the end of the day, they have the satisfaction of looking at a pallet of whatever they have produced and knowing that they have made something. It is a proud tradition that we should not allow to pass into the past. To support that soft power, those iconic British brands need to know that they have a supporter in our Government. I would like to see our public procurement work much harder to make sure it is championing the best of British ceramics—actually, the best of international ceramics, because the very best of international ceramics comes from the midlands of the UK, and I will defend that hill until there is no breath left in my lungs. It is entirely possible for our public procurement to be used to support ceramics. It would be fantastic if every embassy were stocked with ceramics made in Britain. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Again, other ceramics MPs are behind me. Every public building should also look at whether it can support British-made ceramics in its sanitaryware—and the list goes on much further than that. I will also draw attention to the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), which I support. The Bill relates to backstamping and the “Made in Britain” mark, so we can make sure that when something says “Made in Britain”, it is from Britain and it is of the high quality that people expect. Currently, firms can import ceramics that have been made cheaply elsewhere, glaze them here, refire them and stamp them as British. Being able to support the supply chain through not only public procurement but the backstamping Bill is very important. Wider than that, we need to come back to the supercharger. Ceramics is an energy-intensive industry. It relies on high inputs of electricity and gas, but electricity prices in the UK are higher than in many of our competitor countries. That takes a toll on the industry and means that the supercharger scheme is so important. Entry to the scheme is based on what is known as a SIC—standard industrial classification—code and the categories that the Government use to classify businesses and identify what they do. The SIC codes in use for ceramics are not currently eligible for the scheme, but, worse still, because of the way the scheme is funded, ceramics businesses are being levied to subsidise other high-energy businesses—because if businesses do not receive the supercharger, they pay for others to get it. Ahead of the debate, I met with the industry association Ceramics UK, the GMB union, the Trades Union Congress and Energy UK. One concern was that SIC codes are not necessarily being properly applied. The number of ceramics businesses that the Government count is far higher than the number that the sector recognises. Hopefully that is good news for Ministers, because if we can get the codes altered correctly, we will see that there are fewer ceramics businesses in need of support, which will help to reduce the headache in the Treasury. First, we can look at tightening up the SIC codes, then we can extend the supercharger to those codes. We can then ensure that the supercharger scheme is properly funded by the Treasury and not by other businesses, so that general taxation can support these jobs. Beyond the supercharger, which is undoubtedly vital for ceramics, the Government have committed and recognise that the industry needs tailored support. I ask Ministers to look closely at the specific pressures that the sector is facing. As well as high electricity inputs, ceramics uses a huge amount of gas. Although the cost of gas in Britain is internationally competitive, prices are highly volatile because of a lack of storage in the United Kingdom. If we could look at supporting gas storage or some other mechanism to smooth peaks and troughs in gas pricing, it would help ceramics businesses with their long-term planning and help to them look at their decarbonisation processes, too. On decarbonisation, hydrogen gas is a promising alternative, but hydrogen kiln technology requires further investment and if we cannot pipe gas in, there will be serious supply problems. Some ceramics manufacturers run their kilns 24/7/365, and the idea of hydrogen being brought in by lorries just does not stack up. We can use the revenues from carbon levies to support the transition and protect manufacturing jobs both today and for the future. I have gone slightly over the amount of time I was aiming for, and many other hon. Members are eager to make the case for the industry, so I will draw to a close. I reiterate my thanks to Ceramics UK, the GMB, the TUC and Energy UK for meeting me, to Hayley for spurring today’s important debate, and to every single one of the workers who go out day after day to produce fantastic, high-quality ceramics—some of the best in the world—right here in the UK.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I have listened very carefully to people’s speeches, and it is important to say that we are debating that clause 47 stand part of the Bill. The clause creates the single patient record and, while many Opposition Members have justifiably and understandably asked how we will do this right and what safeguards we will have, it is important that what we are debating is that the clause stand part of the Bill. The clause creates the single patient record, and it creates the overarching ability for the NHS to use data better than it currently does. I am not a data scientist. I am a physicist by training, and I taught physics and worked in trade unions for a long time. Because of my training and my use of data, every group of people I have ever worked with invariably came up with nicknames for me, which usually boil down to “Data Dave”. There is something so valuable about being able to use aggregated values to tell us something that we do not already know. One of the most valuable things we may get from this is that, when a clinician talks to a patient and they say or present something that does not match what is on the single patient record, it will raise a red flag that leads the clinician to realise something they would not have realised if they did not have access to notes previously taken elsewhere. I genuinely think that is one of the most valuable things that will come from this. On a wider stage, the ability to aggregate data and properly track what is going on within the health service, and for people to be able to track what is going on with their care, with a wider view of what is going on, will be so valuable to clinicians and wider afield.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I don’t know about that!

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not entirely certain that I want to agree with “one of” the most valuable datasets in the world; I think it could potentially be the most valuable dataset in the world. We know that the NHS is the largest healthcare provider in the world. We know that the data is potentially very valuable. Creating this will allow our NHS to be at the forefront of managing how it works, in a way that no other health system will be able to, and certainly to a scale that no other health system anywhere in the world will be able to. That obviously comes with risks. I have been listening carefully, and it is important that we tease out those risks and make sure that we stay as red hot as we can on all the issues that hon. Members have raised. I go back to the salient point of whether this clause should stand part. I fully support that this measure should be part of the Bill and that we should be moving in this direction. I have spoken about the more global ideas and the reasons why, intellectually, I think this is a good idea, but let me take an example from my home county of Staffordshire up in the west midlands. There are reports that one hospital in Staffordshire uses 450 different electronic systems, which is absolutely bananas. For so long, we have not had a single patient record. We have not had one unifying system. Over a cup of tea with the Minister a couple of days ago, I got very excited and started talking about primary keys because, although I am not a data scientist, I like the use of data. I do not think we need to get into a situation where there is a single primary key that is instantly recognisable to everybody and where we are necessarily using some machine learning to assess that. That could potentially come later down the line. That is not what the clause is doing, and it would need a much wider discussion than we are currently having. If we take the example of Staffordshire and its 450 different data systems in one hospital—I do not know that number for certain, although it has been reported to me by two or three colleagues—I cannot imagine the difficulties that the IT team has in trying to get that number of systems to talk to each other. It will be nigh on impossible. All it leads to is delays. All it leads to is people having to reproduce data from one system to another manually. By creating an overarching single patient record, we will force it to happen.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The phone analogy is really valuable. I am not an expert on the various architectures that make up phone operating systems, but I know a little about drivers and a little about computer programming languages. The hon. Gentleman is right that all the different bits of hardware in every single phone speak to themselves in a different language. Lots of them use different computer programming languages, and they all require drivers to translate that into whatever the operating system uses. There are two or three major providers when it comes to mobile phones in the UK: Google and Android, and iOS. There is effectively a requirement on the phone companies that says, “If you want your app to be on our phones, it’s going to have to be able to use this language.” Depending on the operating system, the language will be slightly different, but the commercial requirement that apps must be able to use a certain language obliges the individual app producers and the individual pieces of hardware to have the driver to translate whatever language they use to talk to themselves into the one that works with the operating system. Does the hon. Gentleman think there is a parallel in the Bill? Having a piece of legislation that requires a single patient record, whatever that looks like and whatever language it uses, potentially shortcuts some of the problems he is talking about with using a plethora of systems. Rather than having 450 systems, which could potentially use 450 languages, and trying to teach all of them all 450 languages, we create the requirement to use a specific language. We then teach all 450 one additional language and they will all be able to feed in—

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the intervention, and it is nice for the hon. Member to get me back after I got him the other week. He is absolutely right. I do not think anybody in this room expects that after we have this discussion and the clause forms part of the Bill, and after the Bill goes through the parliamentary process and hopefully becomes an Act very soon, the next day there will instantly be this magical, ethereal thing called a single patient record and everything will drop into place immediately. I have a bridge to sell to anybody who thinks that. What the clause does is put the NHS on a path to being able to deal with data appropriately, in a 21st-century way, by adding the ability and requirement for the NHS to use data appropriately. In terms of how that is done technically, I am very far from a computer programmer—I have done a tiny bit in parts of my life, and it always drives me absolutely wild—but there would be a number of architectures that could be used to make this work. I am not an expert and would not profess to be or to give anybody advice on that. An advantage of the way the Bill is written is that things can be picked up by secondary legislation, which can go into a lot more technical detail. That is a real strength of how this is drafted. If we tried to mandate in primary legislation, in an Act of Parliament, far too granular a level of data science and information technology architecture, we would run a real risk of falling behind. Everybody is very aware of AI, and it is rare that I go a day without hearing people talk about it. Quantum is just behind it, and it is potentially much more disruptive and much more beneficial to huge parts of the economy, especially healthcare. Trying to do everything through primary legislation is absolute folly. However, making sure we have primary legislation that allows us to drive the NHS into this space and to require and enable the NHS to stay on top of the proper use of data and to modernise its structures and practices can only be a good thing. I close by saying that I absolutely support clause 47 standing part of the Bill. It has the potential to drive huge improvements in the NHS, both on a local scale and on a more global scale.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The modification order is a piece of legislation that is often used in the public sector. It means that when people from a lot of public sector organisations are made redundant and find alternative employment at another state-funded organisation, they are not entitled to a redundancy payment. During their 14 years in power, it would have been entirely possible for the Conservatives to add NHS England to the list of organisations covered by the modification order. That would have prevented the costs that the hon. Lady has mentioned several times. It just seems like they did not take the opportunity to do that, and now they are saying that they should have done that when they were in government.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard a few times about Conservative fears about redundancy payments and so on. Why did they not add NHS England to the list of organisations covered by the modification order when they had the opportunity to do so? Is the hon. Lady aware of a reason why that did not happen when the Conservatives were in government?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming Road Map and Profitability Review · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a long name; there are lots of letters in the second bit. The farming road map that we have seen today sets out a long-term plan for fertiliser. That will be really welcome for farmers across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages because, due to actions way beyond this Government’s control in the strait of Hormuz, we are seeing real cost pressures. Can the Secretary of State give us an idea of when that long-term plan might be ready, and whether it will consider strategic reserves and diversifying the sources of fertiliser? Can she tell us what that will do to ensure that we have the fertiliser we need?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think this is the first time we have had a Robertson on Robertson intervention. It is a pleasure to break that duck. The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about the need to change culture to embed innovation across the NHS. There is an example that we always come back to: fax machines. Fax machines were used in the NHS for far too long. It was mandated in 2018 that the use of all fax machines had to be stopped by the end of March 2020, yet in 2023, the NHS still owned 600. That mandation came up against a cultural barrier and it did not work, because 600 of them survived for three years after that. In amendment 58, I see more mandation and nothing on culture. The problem with the amendment is that, by trying to mandate innovation too closely, we would miss the cultural point. We could undermine the Secretary of State’s power to say that all parts of the system are fair game for them. Would the hon. Gentleman like to respond to that point?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. One of the most powerful things we can do as Members of this place is bring our constituents’ stories here so that they can form part of our discussions. That is what I will do as we discuss the future of NHS England. I openly admit that I have never knocked on a door and found that someone’s burning question was about the abolition of NHS England. I have never had that particular discussion, but I do have regular discussions about the NHS. We know how important it is to people. They value the greatest gift that the Labour party has ever given the United Kingdom. As we have those discussions, one thing that comes up time and again is that people will always want more; they will always want better healthcare, and they should be able to expect it. Across my constituency, the biggest health need is access to primary care. Two towns each make up one third of my constituency, so a third of my constituents live in Burntwood, 4 miles up the road from Lichfield— I believe my constituency is misnamed, but that is a matter for the boundary commissioner, not for me. When I talk to people about healthcare and access to primary care in Burntwood, one thing comes up time and again: the new health centre for Burntwood that was promised but never delivered. That centre was promised in 2009 when the old one was demolished, but its funding was cut in 2011 following the change of Government, and we are still waiting. A modular building had to be put up in the car park of the leisure centre—“modular building”, by the way, is a grand term for what are portacabins stacked on top of each other. A huge number of people have worked at that site for a long time, delivering the best care they can, but they are being failed by the facilities that they are forced to work in. When I have conversations about primary care with people in Burntwood, they are never unhappy about the care they receive, about their doctors or about others who work in the NHS; they are unhappy about the facility that they are forced to use. I am standing here in 2026 and we still do not even have planning permission for the replacement centre. It has been promised so many times that people are beginning to doubt that it will ever happen. That is so hard to hear.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. Sir Jeremy, I want to turn to NHS England’s accountability, or lack thereof. I know you made the point that you did not want clinically advised decisions to be overly politicised, but I had the reverse in my constituency when a decision was made after the lease on a doctors’ surgery ran out. It could not be extended because of some rule in NHS England, but due to that lack of accountability, there was nothing that we could do. The surgery closed, and one in six of its patients was just redistributed to another surgery, so that accountability clearly failed in that space. If you are concerned that accountability ends up too close to the Department, where else should it land? I am quite comfortable with a Minister being accountable for that decision, because they are accountable to MPs, who are ultimately accountable to the people that it affects. Can you pare back your answer a little bit and talk about where that accountability should lie, and how we can ensure that it works? Sir Jeremy Hunt: That is a story I think every single Member of Parliament could repeat, and it is a fundamental flaw in the system. Do you not think it is completely ridiculous that you have to go to the Health Secretary, who is responsible for a budget of £160 billion—the largest healthcare system in the world—to sort out something like a GP surgery lease in your constituency? That is a perfect example of a problem that we should be able to sort out locally, and that is why I think the bureaucracy has got completely out of hand.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Mohamed al-Fayed: Alleged Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps her Department plans to take to help support the response to alleged abuse at workplaces connected to Mohamed al-Fayed.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Mohamed al-Fayed: Alleged Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new Minister to her place. I thank her for her work in facilitating the historic meeting last week, which was the first time a sitting Prime Minister has met a group of survivors in this space. It was a great meeting, but the survivors are understandably sceptical, because they have been let down severely by so many institutions for so long. Can she outline the steps she will take in the short and medium term to ensure those survivors start seeing the justice they have been denied for far too long?

• 4 Jun 2026 · General Medical Council · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by thanking the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for bringing this debate to the House today and for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents. I hope that Jack’s family, at what must be a terrible time for them, gain a small measure of solace from his story being raised in this place. I have the great privilege to be a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. I say that because it gives me the privilege of working with dozens of survivors who bring their stories to us, and members of the APPG can drive forward the agenda of bringing the crimes to light and ensuring that the systems that enabled the abuse for so long are dismantled. That is why I wanted to take the opportunity of this debate to place on the record the serious concerns that survivors of abuse by Mohamed Al Fayed and his associates have about the failings of the General Medical Council in his case and associated ones. I am sure that the House knows that Fayed has been accused of systematic trafficking for sexual abuse, aided by a network of enablers. So far, almost 500 survivors have come forward to tell their stories, and there are believed to be many more. Fayed has rightly been called the UK’s Epstein. One dimension of the network that enabled his abuse relates to invasive medical examinations that he had doctors perform on female staff at various companies he owned. They were billed as standard company medicals, but they involved invasive gynaecological procedures and testing for sexually transmitted infections. In many cases, survivors say, results were delivered straight to their abuser without their knowledge. The women have been left with significant trauma, and anyone who has directly heard their stories, as I have, will no doubt be astonished by the serious consequences of that abuse, yet the doctors who carried out these tests have not paid any price. Survivors are still waiting for justice. One of the doctors who has been accused is still practising on Harley Street today. The General Medical Council says it has a zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct—as it should, and as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members would expect—yet survivors tell me that their complaints to the GMC have gone unacknowledged and unaddressed for far too long. That is simply unacceptable, as I am sure we would all agree. It is appalling. These women have been left with nowhere to turn. Medical staff who should have been prioritising these women’s safety and health, and who should have been a safe port of call for reporting abuse, were instead complicit in it. The GMC should strike off any doctor found to have participated in these disgusting abuses. I welcome the attention that the Government are rightly giving the issue. Yesterday was a difficult day; there was a meeting between the all-party group and the Prime Minister—the first sitting Prime Minister to meet a group of survivors of historical sexual assault and abuse. In that meeting, he made it very clear that the meeting was the first step in ongoing engagement on this. I wonder if the Minister could carve out an opportunity to meet me and the co-chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), to discuss where the GMC’s responsibilities lie on this, and whether there might be an opportunity for us to feed into the consultation that is open, so that we can ensure that the GMC takes action, although it has failed far too many women for far too long.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are here tonight to talk about a very large piece of legislation, but I would like to focus my remarks on just one part of it, which is the changes the Government want to bring in around planning for the future in the NHS, which are so very needed. There is perhaps no better example of where that planning is going wrong than in Burntwood in my constituency. Almost 20 years ago, a new doctors surgery was planned for the town. The NHS at that time was very good at knocking things down; however, when the coalition Government rode into town in 2010, all the funding for the replacement was cut. Here we are, almost 20 years later, with no replacement. That has been to the detriment of the town: for well over a decade, people in Burntwood have had to see their doctor in portacabins in the leisure centre car park. In all that time, nobody has stepped up to right that wrong. We thought there might be light at the end of the tunnel in 2023, when we were promised a replacement by the end of last year. But before that happened, some pen pusher at NHS England decided that the existing surgery in that temporary structure had to close, which meant 5,000 patients distributed to other surgeries in the town. In a town of 30,000 people, that is a significant number. They were told simply to disperse them—“It’ll be fine, don’t worry. We’ll just disperse them.” That dispersal was so traumatic that an existing surgery has had to pick up the same temporary structure and is now operating out of there as well. There was also all the paperwork, legal matters and everything that went with that, because NHS England said that it could not extend for two years. I am very pleased to see the back of that particular quango, which so disadvantaged my constituents. However, that structure is still being used because the replacement is still not here—it was not delivered by the end of 2025. We do not have the planning application yet. We have once again been promised that it will be here by the end of next month. I am aware that the Reform-led county council inherited this situation and promise from a Conservative-led county council, but it has not sought to talk to the people in Burntwood. The council has not sought to explain why that promise was not going to be met; it just blew past it. It broke the promise with very little expectation. We now have another one, and that must be met, because so many people across the town have seen so many broken promises and false dawns that they are failing to believe that anything will actually come good. This entire saga reinforces exactly why the Bill is needed and why these changes are needed. I do not want any other community in any other constituency to be overlooked and forgotten in the way that Burntwood in my constituency has been for so long.

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  The announcement today of the £120 million fund to support the UK ceramics industry will be so welcome in my part of Staffordshire. Armitage Shanks is often not spoken of in the same breath as ceramics—partly because of the excellent advocacy of the Stokies and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth)—but ceramics goes much further than flatware. The sanitary ware that comes out of Armitage Shanks is world class, but it is much, much more than that. It is the identity of that village, and it is an iconic British brand. The Chancellor’s support for Armitage Shanks and the rest of the ceramics industry will go down so well, not just with those workers and the GMB workers who are part of that factory, but with my community, so may I thank the Chancellor for her intervention?

• 19 May 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  In March, the Prime Minister agreed to meet survivors of abuse by Mohammed Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, Fulham football club and other businesses. Almost 500 survivors have come forward, all of whom have been waiting for years, and in many cases decades, for justice. Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister’s adviser on women and girls will attend that meeting, and what progress has been made on scheduling it?

• 19 May 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  3. How he plans to work with the Prime Minister’s adviser on women and girls to help tackle violence against women and girls through the criminal justice system.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will not be surprised to see me rise yet again to raise issues with HS2. She is right to be angry about the scale of the failings laid out in the reports published today. She is angry, and I am angry, but our anger pales into insignificance when compared to the anger of my constituents, who have had to fight for 17 years as a result of the failures of HS2 Ltd. We heard today in the announcement that we potentially face another 13 years before we even carry on with the work north of Curzon Street to connect to Handsacre junction—and all of that, by the way, is north of Birmingham. The community is furious. My constituents are the most, or certainly some of the most, impacted by HS2. Just last month, the A38 going past Lichfield was closed, forcing 70,000 vehicles a day on to roads in the city. My constituents are fed up. Can the Secretary of State give some reassurance that the ongoing works at Streethay—that is one of only two places north of Curzon Street where work is continuing—will be completed on time, by October? What mitigations will the Department put in place for communities like mine, who are significantly impacted? By the sounds of it, it could be a third of a century from the start of this process before the trains actually start travelling through our part of the world.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is being very generous with her time, and I appreciate that. In south Staffordshire we have had massive problems with HS2, and particularly with the route that it has had to take. It is on a very wide arc around the city of Lichfield, but because of the speeds it has to go at, the corners cannot be too tight. So there is a really significant piece of engineering work, with a tunnel having to go under the A38, a railway and a canal—all at different heights. That was specifically because it could not be moved further away, so it had to go under two slip roads as well as the main carriageway. It has been an absolute nightmare. That recently led to the closure of the A38, with 70,000 vehicles a day pushed on to my local roads, which has been really difficult. That is specifically because of the speeds this thing was designed to go at, so mitigations could not be put in, and it had to go through areas of outstanding natural beauty. It could not avoid problems, and that has led to some of the cost overruns. Does she agree with me that the decision to try to make it the fastest railway in the world was a mistake when it was made, and that it was a mistake not to unwind that sooner?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for delineating everything that the Government are doing to support people with epilepsy. I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate a couple of months ago to talk about the Clive Treacey safety checklist. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), said at the Dispatch Box that he expects every NHS trust to follow that checklist. Does she agree with him, and will she send the message that all trusts must follow that checklist?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for bringing to light the Clive Treacey checklist, because it is a really fitting way to remember Clive. It is important to remember, however, that although it is named after Clive, he is not defined by his epilepsy; he was not defined by his learning disability and he does not need to be defined by his death. Clive loved to paint and was a really talented gardener, and his family are eager that he be remembered for those memories that they carry of him. I want to make sure that I take the opportunity to put that on the record. It is also very clear from the Clive Treacey checklist that SUDEP risk for people with learning disabilities and epilepsy is three times higher—300%—but the actual risk of SUDEP can be cut by 84% if people have an annual check-up. That is part of what the Clive Treacey checklist advises NHS trusts to follow. I again thank the hon. Gentleman and invite him to do all he can alongside me—and, I am sure, many other Members—to make sure that every single NHS trust introduces and follows the Clive Treacey checklist to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.