Dave Robertson
MP for Lichfield · Labour · United Kingdom
“As I am sure the Minister knows, I have been a trade unionist since I started my teaching career some years ago. I have been involved in a number of industrial actions over that time, as a teacher and member of a trade union and as a trade union staffer.”
“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.”
“It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak briefly on new clauses 79 and 80. I really like the intent of these new clauses, and the idea of Government working better and more together, public health being more of an agenda, and trying to get people working together in that framework.”
“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.”
“To quote the Precision Health Technologies Accelerator at the University of Birmingham, very close to my Lichfield constituency, its leadership has been supportive of the removal of tariffs from pharmaceuticals, saying that the introduction of the tariffs could lead to “supply chains collapsing and patients suffering.” That is an enormous…”
“I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for not quite being able to get here for the kick-off. The Secretary of State talks about the importance of the ceramics industry, both in economic and heritage terms.”
The complete record
Every one of 477 lines we hold for Dave Robertson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“As I am sure the Minister knows, I have been a trade unionist since I started my teaching career some years ago. I have been involved in a number of industrial actions over that time, as a teacher and member of a trade union and as a trade union staffer. The driving force behind a significant majority of those industrial actions was not pay; it was often the safety of staff, the safety of sites, bullying managers or the inability to deliver an environment in which members felt they could deliver their best. Does the Minister agree that the ability to take industrial action is not always about money-grubbing or about pay? It is often about health and safety and about delivering the very best workplaces for our workers.”
“There comes a point when a committee, if it has 70 people in it, ceases to be a committee, particularly when it will also need to be chaired, have clerks and have various people in the room. I have concerns about its size. I also have concerns about the frequency with which it would meet, and the requirement that every single Cabinet Minister must attend a minimum of three times a year, which is the implication of the wording.”
“It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak briefly on new clauses 79 and 80. I really like the intent of these new clauses, and the idea of Government working better and more together, public health being more of an agenda, and trying to get people working together in that framework. I am pretty sure that every Member in the House would support that. I do, however, have some serious concerns about the wording. New clause 79 proposes a new committee, whose membership would include at least one Minister from each Department and all Cabinet Ministers—I presume that that is in addition, so it would be all Cabinet members plus one other Minister from each Department, which makes it seem like quite an unwieldy 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“To quote the Precision Health Technologies Accelerator at the University of Birmingham, very close to my Lichfield constituency, its leadership has been supportive of the removal of tariffs from pharmaceuticals, saying that the introduction of the tariffs could lead to “supply chains collapsing and patients suffering.” That is an enormous growth opportunity for the West Midlands combined authority, for Birmingham and for the wider region. There have been a lot of discussions, but I wanted to make sure that the views of organisations that will benefit are on the record, because this will be so beneficial for my region.”
“Farmers across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages know that one of the most important things for them to make their businesses work is access to fertiliser at a price that allows them to be profitable. What can the Government do to ensure that fertiliser prices do not spike, as we have seen in the last couple of years, and remain stable in the long term?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for not quite being able to get here for the kick-off. The Secretary of State talks about the importance of the ceramics industry, both in economic and heritage terms. Does he agree that ceramics firms offer us a huge amount of soft power around the world? The “Made in Stoke-on-Trent” and the “Made in England” marks are so important, and in my constituency, we have Armitage Shanks, a name known all around the world for the products that it provides. Does he agree with that point?”
“The feedback that I have received has ranged from, “My local healthwatch team is brilliant— I work with them really closely and they have really helped out with a huge amount; they deliver great things in my constituency” all the way to, “I have some pretty significant concerns about their impact.” In a couple of cases I heard, “What is Healthwatch? I have never heard of it.””
“The Francis report stated: “The arrangements for public and patient involvement, and for local government scrutiny in Stafford, were a conspicuous failure.” The report recommended some changes to ensure that Healthwatch, which was in the process of being set up at the time, was funded properly. In that light, the framing of this debate is important and timely. Healthwatch has been going for well over a decade. It is right that we now examine its impact, as it is a significant part of patient voice within the NHS. Despite the very best efforts of a great many hard-working staff and an army of committed volunteers across the country, the quality of local healthwatch organisations is pretty changeable. Over the past few weeks, I have spoken with right hon. and hon. Members from across the House.”
“It is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Healthwatch was established, at least in part, as a response to the Mid Staffs scandal. Mid Staffs came up three times in our evidence sessions, and the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned it just now. That scandal matters to everyone, but it has a particular resonance for my role in Parliament. Many of my constituents were harmed by the failing at Mid Staffs. I was born in that hospital, and I speak as a Staffordshire MP. None of us should ever forget what happened or allow it to be swept aside without examining it. There were a great many failings at Mid Staffs over a long period. Oversight was just not in the room when decisions were being made. Staffordshire county council’s health and care overview and scrutiny committee clearly did not do that job.”
“Funding Healthwatch is really important, but to address the issue properly, we must make sure that Healthwatch is in the rooms it needs to be in. Funding needs to be part of the process that ICBs follow. I will touch on that later, so the hon. Member will hear further thoughts on the matter. Local healthwatch organisations across all our constituencies have an important role. At the local level, they are geographically bound to counties. In constituencies like mine and that of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, those geographical areas are huge. The health disparities within my constituency, with two towns that are 4 miles apart, one with a significant mining—”
“In isolation, that criticism would be legitimate, but, alongside other changes being introduced, there are ways to mitigate that problem. I am concerned that local healthwatch branches are not truly local. The healthwatch in Staffordshire has not held an event in my constituency for a number of years. I think its last three events were just volunteer fairs to get more volunteers involved. That is not to say that there are not significant numbers of people there who work very hard to support people in their engagement with the health service, but geographic changeability is real. On a national scale, Healthwatch England has a huge role to play.”
“There is obviously more work to do, and we need to stay on top of it because, as I said earlier, there are risks whenever there are changes to healthcare. I am reassured that bringing the patient voice into the room with decision makers is the right way to enact change.”
“I will make some progress. There are concerns that if we roll some responsibilities into ICBs or councils, the Department needs to make sure that the issue does not get pushed to the side and that the funding does genuinely remain for patient voice. I am reassured that there will be a patient experience directorate within the Department. That will bring decision making and the patient voice into the Department while also keeping an eye on what is happening with those ICBs and ensuring that they have standards to hit. The Department needs to ensure that it is sharing good practice and keeping oversight of local authority commissioning of social care. The CQC is starting to do that, and there are some positive indicators.”
“I am just about to conclude, so I will allow the hon. Lady to come back when she makes her speech shortly. The final point I want to make is about local government. I hope the Secretary of State will issue guidance on how local government will commission adult social care services. I also hope we will get annual reporting from ICBs and local councils on how they are using the patient voice. I know that the Secretary of State will have the ability to intervene, and I would expect him to do so should those reports show that the patient voice is not being used, is not finding its way into the room or is not leading to the meaningful change that the Amos report suggests.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“During the last few months, Denby has said that relief through the supercharger scheme would have saved the company, but currently, ceramics businesses are falling through the cracks of the scheme.”
“My good and hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of energy costs to industry across the United Kingdom. Ceramics, though, is the hardest industry to decarbonise. It is therefore right that the Government are looking at a specific carve-out for ceramics, especially given its geography. Returning to the problem so ably diagnosed by Hayley, she has also offered a solution. The petition calls on the Government to urgently review the British industry supercharger—a scheme that helps energy-intensive businesses including steel, chemicals and paper manufacturers with their electricity costs. She calls for that to be extended to the ceramics sector.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme shamelessly asking, “Can we have some more?” However, we will keep banging on about this, and I know we have a partner in that fight. Hopefully, we will be able to turn our shoulders to the wheel and continue to get support in the right place for this great British industry. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 764785 relating to support for the ceramics industry.”
“Everyone here today can really understand that this is not just another sector; it is recognised the world over for exactly the quality I mentioned. The hon. Lady and I significantly disagree on the myth about cuts to North sea gas, but fortunately I expect to have many more opportunities to rehearse that debate until we finally get the Conservative party to see sense. Finally, I think the Minister will eventually become sick of the sight of us all banging down his door to talk about ceramics—I do not care. It would be remiss of me not to remark on his willingness to work with MPs. He listens to parliamentarians and turns that into action. Clearly, we are still not there with the design of the scheme, but we are not going to go away and we will keep asking for more. The Minister quoted my hon.”
“Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) also mentioned the £120 million support package, and it was fantastic to hear somebody else talking about the impact that dumping has on the ceramics industry. I give many thanks to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), for also talking about bricks. He made a really valuable point about the assessment of carbon costs, especially when we talk about the quality. He said that 120 years might be more appropriate for a brick; although that estimate might be true for an international brick, it is very conservative for bricks made in the UK, because they are of such high quality. I also wrote down a quote from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) as she said it: “This is not just another sector”.”
“It would be remiss of me not to say that we must support this industry by driving it forward and providing those high-skilled, high-quality jobs that people really want. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) importantly raised the £120 million package that the Government have announced, and she talked about the identity of place that comes with this industry. I am actually unaware of any other industry that is so linked to the identity of the place that it supports. I would not expect to attend a ceramics debate without hearing my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talk about bricks. Not only did she mention the importance of bricks and the jobs they bring to her area, but she highlighted the importance of the industries that ceramics support, particularly construction. My hon.”
“It was also fantastic to hear them talking about the advanced ceramics industry and its growth potential, and how the Government can support that through better procurement and action on backstamping. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) focused on jobs, skills and growth. He also highlighted the fact that the ceramics industry is not just an area that we need to help; if we can provide the right support, it can drive our economy in this century and beyond. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) excellently showed that these are not jobs of last resort. People want to work with their hands and they want to make things—people want to work with ceramics.”
“The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) rightly brought up the high-skilled jobs that the ceramics industry provides and its link to his visitor economy. But if he wants me to go that far north, he might have to take me to a distillery as well. We can never expect to come to one of these debates and not hear the Stokies—my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner)—or my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) coming at us with the importance of ceramics to their areas, as well as its centrality to the north Staffordshire identity and economy.”
“It is a pleasure to sum up this debate, although my thanks will be a bit out of order, because I want to start with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It has been an incredibly difficult year for her and her constituents. Throughout all the difficulty that she has faced, I have been proud to call her a friend. She is a great credit to both her constituents and this House for her hard work in this area. I want to move on to the other contributions. Yet again, the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) and I have come to a debate in which we are forcefully agreeing on the same points—normal service will resume very soon. The points he made about identity and the need to increase exports are well met, and I am sure that they are common to many people in the Chamber today.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”