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 3 of 10.
“The quantum technology sector is hugely important for the UK. We have world-leading researchers and businesses innovating in healthcare, defence and many more industries, but quantum firms tell me that as they grow, they find it harder and harder to secure the investment that they need to commercialise their exceptional ideas. The risk that we face is that they will take their businesses out of the UK in order to seek that investment. That is why I recently established the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies to help Members of both Houses to understand this rapidly evolving sector. What can the Government do to ensure that our quantum businesses get the investment that they need to grow here in the UK?”
“Residents of St John’s Grange in Lichfield have serious concerns about the property management company, Remus, that is running their estate. Some residents have submitted formal complaints and had no reply from the company, and a promised meeting between the company and concerned residents has never materialised. I wrote to Remus in October to ask it to meet me but got no reply. I wrote again in November and got no reply. In February, I escalated it to the CEO. He did get back to me and told me that the regional manager would be in touch. A month later, I have heard nothing. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on Remus to stop dodging residents’ complaints and meet me as a matter of urgency?”
“They include employees who identified, groomed and trafficked women for abuse; security staff who harassed and intimidated survivors into silence; lawyers who churned out non-disclosure agreement after non-disclosure agreement, while nobody thought to do anything about it; doctors who performed invasive medical exams and reported—”
“Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) powerfully described al-Fayed as Britain’s Epstein. It is a characterisation that she and I have heard many times from survivors, as we co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. It is good to see another of our officers here, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). The scale of the crimes committed by this predator—I will not call him a man, because real men respect women—is staggering, but it is a mistake to think that this is the work of one bad human. Al-Fayed was supported by a network of enablers. He died having escaped justice, but there are scores of people who can and must be held to account.”
“It gives us the opportunity to celebrate what is great, but also to talk about where our society and systems have failed women for far too long, and unfortunately, that is my role today. I want to raise a way in which the system has let down far too many people for far too long. I am talking about the crimes of Mohamed al-Fayed. I am specifically talking about his crimes, because I do not want to talk about him. Today is about the proud survivors who have done all they can to bring his crimes to light. Al-Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, was a sexual predator. He trafficked and sexually abused hundreds of women over decades with near complete impunity. Well over 400 survivors have already come forward, and every day, more women take the brave decision to do so. Yesterday, the hon.”
“People have taken the opportunity to celebrate wonderful things in the country, and the wonderful people who saw a glass ceiling and jumped higher. It has been wonderful to be part of it. People also did not shy away from the difficult things that we must do. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), who both took the opportunity to talk about some really difficult things. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her powerful testimony. She is somebody I always enjoy listening to in the Chamber, and I thank her for her contribution today. The debate today serves many of those purposes.”
“Earlier, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) mentioned that it can be difficult to advise people to come into the role that we all do. She would be well served just by playing people a recording of what we have heard in the House today. This debate has been of the highest quality, and I thank everybody for their contributions so far. It has been a genuine pleasure to listen and be part of it. We have had the whole gamut. People have taken the opportunity to big up their own constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) did excellently. I will not mention everybody because I cannot remember everybody’s constituency, but I will do my best.”
“I thank the Survivors Trust, which has been working with the APPG, and which provided invaluable support to ensure that we are working in a safe way, bearing in mind the trauma that survivors have suffered. In the coming months, I am eager to work with Members across this House and the other place, and anybody who wants to be involved, to make sure we build up a drumbeat of evidence about the scale of these crimes.”
“Their tenacity and strength has been fundamental to driving this agenda forward and making these recent advances. I am very grateful to all survivors, as I am sure everybody in the APPG is, but we must never take the trust that they have placed in us for granted. The APPG ran a consultation with survivors, and we are really pleased that we have had dozens and dozens of responses to it, because we are clear that there is a huge network of people who have been wronged in so many ways by so many systems. It is astonishing how almost every time we have a meeting, there is something else. The scale of the failings cuts right across civil society and enormous parts of the state, and a huge amount needs to be done to recompense these people who have been so poorly served for so long.”
“Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is really important, because there are some ongoing cases; I will talk about the Metropolitan police in a minute. It is clear that we must do better. For far too long, survivors have been ignored. That cannot and must not continue. I am really grateful to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, who is set to meet survivors very soon, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment yesterday to meeting survivors. It has taken far too long to get to this stage, but I am glad to see that things are finally starting to move. I have had the privilege of meeting dozens of women who have taken the very brave step of disclosing their experiences to parliamentarians and people they have never met before.”
“I thank all Members who have spoken about al-Fayed’s crimes in this Chamber. A number of people have done so, in various ways. There are all those who joined the APPG, and all those who have spoken to me about the subject. It has been a real learning curve for me over the last year or so. It has been challenging for me; that is not to say that it is not more challenging for other people. I have appreciated people coming to me and showing trust. I want to repay that, as time goes by, and to move things forward for them. A few Members have mentioned that the themes for this International Women’s Day have been rights, justice and action. We can see that this predator took rights away from far too many people; they deserve justice, and it is time for action to get justice delivered.”
“That is vitally important, because survivors regularly bring up that the issue was not being taken seriously enough, and I am very glad that it now is. That focus is vital to maintaining what trust is left between survivors and the Met, but survivors still need reassurance that the force truly grasps the scale of the issue, and is truly working on this as fast as it can. A frustration often raised with us is that the updates from the Met appear to be, “We will give you another update in three months.” That update ends up being, “There will be another update in three months.” Three months is not a short time, and when that statement is made a third, fourth or fifth time, it undermines people’s trust that things will ever come to a head, and that justice will happen.”
“I am thankful to the hon. Member for mentioning Jessie and Kathryn, who act as the secretariat in a difficult space. They do that in and around other busy jobs. It is clear to me and the hon. Member that without their hard work, we would not have been able to do this. [ Interruption. ] They are far too good. We are regularly reminded by survivors that for far too long, parts of their story, and often their entire story, was ignored. We are clear that things need to change and to move quickly. One of the things that comes up most regularly is the police investigation. I am glad that the Met, along with forces in Scotland and France, are investigating. The Met has now confirmed that it is interviewing suspects on suspicion of trafficking.”
“My speaking notes talk about excuses from Royal Mail. Now that I am in the Chamber, though, I do not think that is the language I will use, because people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are sick of being lied to by Royal Mail. I met Royal Mail just before Christmas to complain to it about the total lack of a postal service in Lichfield—we were probably the worst area in the country at that point. When I had that meeting, I was told that all the first-class mail went out last week, but that was a lie—it was an absolute lie, because my constituents told me so. Royal Mail clearly does not have a handle on this issue. It is either not measuring its performance or it is covering it up, so I ask the Minister to use the golden share we have to force Royal Mail to be honest, fess up and fix it.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and county colleague for giving way. I am listening intently because we are hearing of many of the wonderful things about the Commonwealth and much of what we have spoken about has been about the past and our shared sacrifice and the real history that we should celebrate. But as we look forward, will he join me in offering the best of luck to all competitors in the Commonwealth games this summer in Glasgow?”
“I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to that issue immediately, but I do ask him to have a look at it and consider how we can support the sector during this time of huge uncertainty.”
“We also need to ensure that many more of our colleagues understand that this next industrial revolution—the quantum revolution—is coming and we need to get ahead of it. That is why I have brought together a number of Members to form the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies, and I thank many colleagues here in Westminster Hall for being part of that. I will finish with a plea to the Minister. We are here to talk about technological sovereignty, but we live in a globalised world and I hear real concerns from the sector about procuring helium. The international situation in the strait of Hormuz means that Qatar, which is home to one of only two plants that produce semiconductor-grade helium, has been forced to pause production because it has been targeted by Iranian airstrikes.”
“That is not just at the PhD level that we often associate with physicists, but at the level of the lab technicians who will physically build the machines and maintain the infrastructure—it is vital that we have the skills supply to provide those guys too. People do not need to aspire to a doctorate to work in this sector; we need more pathways for apprentices to do these roles, which are more skills-based than some other roles. We also need better access to capital for quantum companies. We have brilliant start-ups, but every time they go through a round of funding, they find it harder and harder to secure the funds they need to be able to remain in the UK. We need specialised infrastructure, such as cryogenic systems, advanced fabrication facilities and secure quantum networks.”
“That economic impact is one thing, but the fact that it will also revolutionise defence and huge amounts of our civil infrastructure means that it is a great example of why technological sovereignty is not just an economic issue but a security issue. The UK is home to some really exciting quantum research and quantum businesses, and it is vital that we keep this industry here, strong and growing. The Government aim to make the UK a leading quantum-enabled economy by 2033, which I absolutely welcome, but too often these businesses are tempted abroad as they scale. How do we stop that? One way, which hon. Members have not touched on today, probably because of the time limit on speeches, is to improve the skills supply.”
“It is a pleasure to take part in a debate with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) for securing this debate. In my best Geordie, I will say that she’s done a geet canny job again. [ Laughter. ] That is the end of my Geordie—don’t worry. Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), I am here to talk about quantum technologies. For most people, the word “quantum” sounds like the title of a James Bond film—and if I am honest, “Casino Royale” is better—but it is so important for the future of our economy, and not just because crusty old physics teachers like me get really excited about it. The quantum industry is projected to generate $100 billion globally by 2035, which is now not that far away.”
“I thank the Chancellor for her statement. She is absolutely right to take the action that she has on energy prices, particularly given that 20% of the world’s oil is transported via the strait of Hormuz. The strait of Hormuz also transports more than a third of the world’s urea, almost half its sulphur, and a significant amount of ammonia. What steps is the Chancellor taking to protect our farmers from spiking fertiliser prices at the same time as energy prices are rising?”
“Will the Leader of the House raise this issue with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care, and ask what they can do to tell Reform-controlled Staffordshire county council to get its finger out, stop breaking promises to the people of Burntwood, and get this facility built?”
“My constituents in Burntwood have been waiting for a new GP practice since 2009. Over 16 years of cancellations, missed deadlines and broken promises, people have had to visit their doctor in a temporary facility made out of portacabins in the leisure centre car park. We thought things were going to get better when the town was finally promised that the replacement centre would be open in 2025—yet another deadline missed. It was revealed this week that the planning application for the facility will not be submitted until late July, or possibly August. That is not acceptable.”
“There is precious little good news around at the moment, but I may have some for the Secretary of State. I have listened to the contributions from those on the Opposition Benches, and I think I have discovered a new renewable energy source: the amount of hot air coming from that side of the House could surely heat 100 homes. At a time when prices are spiking and profits are about to rise, does the Secretary of State think that his constituents in Doncaster North would welcome it if we did what the shadow Minister suggested and cut the energy profits levy? My constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages would not appreciate it if we let companies off like that.”
“T5. The ministerial team will be aware that schools in the Arthur Terry learning partnership across my constituency and six others in the west midlands saw nine days of strike action in January and February. The trust was consulting on staff cuts because it had a multimillion-pound hole in its budget, a hole that senior leaders put down to a mistake in the finances. I am glad that there is now new leadership in place at the Arthur Terry learning partnership, but what steps can our Government take to ensure that trusts are held to account much more strongly than they currently are?”
“It is interesting to hear the hon. Member for Spelthorne say that this is apparently hypocrisy and the shadow Minister agree with him. The National Audit Office report was published on 29 January 2025, barely six months after the general election, so it was really commenting on 14 years of Conservative-led Governments. I think it is pertinent to put it on record there has been a lack of focus in this area for far too long, and I am glad that the Government are introducing legislation. If we are to have comments such as that made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I feel it is appropriate to have something on the record to counter it.”
“People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are overjoyed that this Government are investing in the midlands rail hub project, but they are eager for more. Will the departmental team look again at the south Staffordshire line, which would reconnect Lichfield to Burton via Alrewas, and the potential merits of a station to serve the National Memorial Arboretum?”
“SMEs rely on electricity and power supply, and making sure that we have the correct regulations in place to give them the security and confidence in the knowledge that the supply will always be there comes back to the regulatory framework. I am not in any way trying to step away from the hon. Member—he also spoke about the balance of regulation, and I think he is right on that—but to use a sentence such as “regulation is a harm” steps too far from that balance. We need to make sure that we also see the good side to this regulation, in creating the business confidence to allow SMEs to operate in an environment where they can have confidence in their access to data and energy.”
“I am taken by the hon. Member saying that every regulation is a harm; I cannot hear that and not intervene. Regulations do place burdens on businesses—that is absolutely a thing, and we all understand that—but we cannot afford to look at regulation as only negative. The hon. Member is making a very good point about SMEs and their access to markets and funding but, if SMEs want to grow and thrive in the UK, they need access to data centres whose security they can have confidence in. Part of what we talked about in introducing this Bill was ensuring that SMEs can be confident about the regulatory environment that we have in the UK and providing such reassurance to them. Later on, we talked about large load carriers.”
“I fear I am about to repeat what I said a moment ago. I am aware that nobody gets up in the morning and is excited to pay tax, but tax pays for our roads, for our infrastructure, for our hospitals, which keep our workforce in good health, for the education of the next round of employees, for our security services, and for the police, who help to prevent crime. It pays for a whole variety of things that are essential for business to succeed, so taking an evangelical view that tax is bad is just not—”
“The report by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology mentions that the number of cyber-security professionals directly employed in the sector has increased by 11% over the past year. That said, there is more to be done. I urge the Government to think about the skills piece, not only in relation to the Bill but as a wider challenge. We are very proud of our 10,000-plus members in the UK, who work very hard day and night to secure their organisations despite all the challenges and pressures, but the Bill does give Government a pivotal opportunity to elevate the status of the profession and to professionalise the sector.”
“They deal with that.” It is an interesting challenge, but, to your question directly, I think medium-sized and large MSPs will not have an issue. Dr Sanjana Mehta: If I may weigh in on this, I just want to take a step back and comment on the state of the profession in the UK. I appreciate that we are having this discussion specifically in relation to the regulated entities, but there is a broader picture. Parts of the industry are not in scope, but they need to have the right skills as well. We are starting off on a good foundation. The work done by industry, academia and professional associations over the past few years has helped to grow the profession steadily.”
“As it comes down the supply chain, most managed service providers are suitably qualified to deliver, but they will not be in scope of the Bill. Certainly the critical national infrastructure will not be in that sort of space. We have a good industry, and I think most of the MSPs are in that space, but I would highlight that MSPs are generally IT companies, and cyber-security is not an IT problem. It is much bigger than IT. Although MSPs can be at one end, this goes back to a question that was asked before about why companies do not just do this anyway, and so be more secure. The reality is that they do not generally understand it; they do not understand the risk and they do not have the qualified people, and it goes on in a sort of vicious circle. A lot of those companies will just go, “Yeah, I’ve got an MSP.”
“It is very easy to write a piece of legislation, but if we do not have the professionals needed to deliver the level of compliance at the thresholds we are setting in this place, that raises other potential issues. Do you have a view about whether the 11% you mentioned is in the right ballpark for the number of professionals we have, or whether it needs to move either way? Stuart McKean: I am referring to the Government’s report on MSPs that was done a couple of years ago. There are some 12,500 MSPs in the UK. Of those that are in scope of the Bill, 11% are medium-sized and large, but they account for something like 85% of the revenue that MSPs generate in the UK. Proportionally, the larger and medium-sized organisations will have the skillsets needed to deliver the requirements set out in the Bill.”
“Q I have a bit of a blended question. Earlier, Stuart, you said that some of the wording in the Bill says that only 11% of managed service providers are likely to be covered by the legislation, but in previous answers we have heard about skills shortages and where we will need to build those skills. Although I think we all want as many organisations covered as possible, where is the line? Do we currently have enough professionals working in this space to be able to deliver this level of compliance across 11% of MSPs? Given the number of people available for this very specialised work, is the 11% figure in the right ballpark, or do we need to make that wider or thinner to ensure compliance?”
“As I said before, we have to understand that Chinese vendors are legally obliged to compromise once they are required to. The fine under the Bill is scary, but not as scary as having your existence threatened in China—whether you still have access to that market or you can still exist as a business there. It is not doing the job to address state-sponsored hackers, but it really does help when it comes to traditional hacking, such as phishing attempts, malware and those kinds of things.”
“Q Thank you for coming in to talk to us this afternoon. The Bill includes a couple of backstop powers for the Government to compel information and things like that. Are those powers sufficient to guarantee national security? Chung Ching Kwong: I think that to a certain extent they will. For hackers or malicious actors aiming for financial gain with more traditional hacking methods, it will definitely do a job in protecting our national security. But the Bill currently views resilience through an IT lens. It is viewing this kind of regulatory framework as a market regulatory tool, instead of something designed to address threats posed by state-sponsored actors. It works for cyber-criminals, but it does not work for state actors such as China, which possess structural leverage over our infrastructure.”
“There were measures taken in terms of prosecutorial discretion. Most recently, in Portugal, we saw a specific cyber-security defence created within the criminal law just last year. In the US, it varies between states. In a lot of states, you have quite an unhelpful debate between minimalist and maximalist positions, where they either want to have complete hack-back on the one hand or no action at all on the other, but you have a slightly more tolerant regime in terms of prosecution. So there are varying degrees, but certainly that is the direction of travel. For sensible, criminal law reasons that I would speak to, as well as the commercial benefits that come with a sector that is allowed to do its work properly, and the security benefits, that is certainly the direction of travel.”
“Having said that, we do see a number of jurisdictions making positive strides in this direction, because they need to; indeed, we see that at European Union level as well, where directives are being created to target this area of concern. There are a few examples. We wrote a comparative report, incidentally, which is openly available. In terms of some highlights from that, there is a provision in French law, for example, where, despite mandatory prosecution being the general model within French criminal law, there is a carve-out relating to cyber-security and legitimate actors, where there is not the same requirement to prosecute. In the Netherlands, there was a scandal around hacking of keycards for public transport. That was done for responsible reasons, and there was a backlash in relation to prosecution there.”
“It is certainly fair to say that all jurisdictions are somewhat in flux about how to deal with cyber threats, which are mushrooming in ways people would not have expected—certainly not in 1990, but even many years after. The various international conventions—the OECD, the Budapest convention and so on—require regulation and criminalisation, but those are not nearly as wide as the blanket approach that was taken in this country. Some comparative civil law jurisdictions in the rest of Europe start from a slightly different place, in that they did not necessarily take the maximalist approach to criminalisation we did. In a number of jurisdictions, you do not have direct criminalisation of all activities, regardless of the intention of the actor, in the same way that we do. So we are starting from a slightly different position.”
“Q Thank you, Professor, for coming along. You said that when the Computer Misuse Act was written in 1990, not many people were doing cyber-security work. You attested that the criminalisation element was negative for a number of reasons. Obviously, since then, a private sector has grown up in this area. I am struggling to marry those two pieces of information together. Can you give us an impression of other jurisdictions and of international comparators where things may be different, and whether they have been able to get ahead of us in building a more thriving sector? Are we particularly lagging behind in the OECD? Are other countries ahead of us because they do not have the measures we do? Professor John Child: That is a good question.”
“There are also the sectoral surveys and so on, and the predictions about what it is likely to do to the profession if you allow it to do these kinds of services in this jurisdiction. That is about the security benefits, but they are also talking about something like a 10% increase in the likely projection of what cyber-security looks like in this jurisdiction—personnel, GDP and so on.”
“This is part of the reason, incidentally, why my organisation, which focuses very much on criminal law aspects, ended up doing some collaborative work with the CyberUp campaign. That is because, from the industry perspective, they can do that kind of business modelling in a way that we do not. Whereas we can make the case for sensible criminal law reform, they can talk about how that reform translates into both the security environment and the commercial environment. Their perspective on this is, first, that we can see that there is already outsourcing of these kinds of services, particularly to the US, Israel and other more permissive jurisdictions. That is simply because, if you are a cyber-security expert in one of those jurisdictions, you are freer to do the work companies would like you to do to make sure their systems are safe here.”
“Q That is a really helpful international comparator on where others are with the criminal law. Is there any correlation between that and the ability of people within those jurisdictions to act and work in this space? In the UK, we have seen a significant increase in the number of people working in this area since 1990. That is the real thing for me: whether we can prove that, internationally, there is a significant difference between jurisdictions that are minimalist or maximalist. If one of them is encouraging more people to work in this area, and therefore has a wider pool of talent, are they able to protect critical infrastructure better? Does that correlation exist? Professor John Child: Yes. As I understand it, it does.”
“I thank the Minister for Industry for his engagement with Ceramics UK this week, meeting the organisation and ceramics companies from across Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, the west midlands and further afield. He will have heard from them about the importance of getting ceramics firms into the super- charger scheme. I was pleased to hear what he said about trying to extend eligibility, so could he give us an idea of when we might hear some positive news on that front?”
“The Arthur Terry Learning Partnership runs 24 schools in the west midlands, including six in my constituency. It is currently trying to plug a £6 million gap in its finances that was caused by what it characterises as an accounting error. The National Education Union has taken nine days of strike action at Arthur Terry schools this month, with nine more planned for February. The Department for Education’s engagement with my office on this issue yesterday was excellent, but may I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the relevant Minister meets me and other affected MPs as a matter of urgency to discuss the ongoing dispute?”
“People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are delighted that this Government have funded the midlands rail hub project, meaning a doubling of the number of trains from Lichfield to Birmingham every hour. Ministers could go even further, though, by investigating the reopening of the Derby-Burton-Lichfield line, including a stop in Alrewas for the National Memorial Arboretum. Despite warm words from my predecessor, no business case exists for that. Can the Minister confirm that this Labour Government are not done with investing in transport in the midlands, and will he look again at the Derby-Burton-Lichfield line?”
“In my part of the world, people who get in touch with me about crime raise four major issues: car crime, county lines, antisocial behaviour and retail crime. The first two are often caused by criminal networks that extend beyond Staffordshire, and into the west midlands and further beyond. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the reforms are aimed at ensuring there is a regional response to those cross-border crimes, allowing local police to focus on antisocial behaviour and retail crime?”
“The right hon. Member and I have both done some work on Chester Road—a place where one of my constituents lost their life a number of years ago. Is the right hon. Member able to update us on any conversations she has had with Walsall council about that area? I, and my constituents, would greatly appreciate that.”
“My hon. Friend elucidates the problems that we face at Rugeley Trent Valley station. He is a doughty campaigner and it is a pleasure to work with him and to follow his lead. The issue affects not only his constituents but a number of mine as well. I want to go back to his remark that, “The next station is Lichfield Trent Valley.” Very few people in this room will have tried to do that journey, which is not simple. There is no direct road linking the two places. We have to go through Armitage in a circuitous route. Sometimes just looking at the distance between two stations is not sufficient; we have to look at travel times as well. The practicalities of being able to do that I feel are sometimes overlooked by the Access for All process. He was making an excellent point and I want to reinforce that.”