Dave Robertson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point about the centrality of public health to the founding of the NHS. Earlier in Committee, I said that the NHS was the greatest gift the Labour party had ever given the country, and I fundamentally believe that. He is absolutely right to mention the centrality of public health in that process. I also thank him for his recommendation of a book to read over recess—that is always a pleasure. To return to new clause 79, I want to focus on what we are asking when we say that all Cabinet members have to attend this new committee. That would include the Secretary of State for Defence, and although I understand cross-Government working and the need for Departments to work more closely together, I am scratching my head over what actions we expect the Secretary of State for Defence to take to support public health, and especially over the fact that they will be required to attend this committee a minimum of three times a year with, in my reading of the wording, another Defence Minister.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I very much appreciate that intervention, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting published in a very important journal. I am not in any way saying that the Secretary of State should not have any regard— [ Interruption. ] Now that he has made a joke, I want to say that I think he looks like a trombonist, rather than a trumpeter. There is a very important point to draw out here. Although Departments can think about the public health impacts of the work that they undertake—I am sure many Ministers will do so—I am not sure there needs to be such a requirement to focus on public health for the Ministry of Defence, which obviously has a very significant, serious role. New clause 80 would require all Ministers to have regard to public health. I really appreciate and value that—I think this is a good debate for us to have—but if the Minister for investment has managed to secure an investor to save a large business that is essential to the economy of an area, do I want them to be held up by having to demonstrate that the investment will ensure public health? I am not sure I do. A lot of decisions have to be made very quickly. I am not going to go through a long list of Ministers; we would all be here until next week. I just think the wording of the new clause is too broad, and I am not sure I can support it in its current form because it would place too much of a requirement on too many Departments to focus too much on areas that are not their core responsibilities.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely join the hon. Member in thanking those service personnel who do so much good around the world, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to focus on public health. It is absolutely right that the Defence Department could do things, but does the Secretary of State need to be so centrally involved in this committee that they will have to attend three times a year, in addition to another Minister, who will have to attend a minimum of four times a year? Yes, a variety of Departments would be able to do that.

• 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.