Technology in Public Services

Peter Kyle Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered technology in public services.

It is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for it. May I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) to his place? I had his job, and I realise just what a privilege it is. Today, I think we have nine Members seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make their maiden speech. In advance, I offer them my very best wishes in this nervous moment. I look forward to hearing them. I am about to perform my maiden speech as a Secretary of State, so we are all in it together.

My mum was scanned three times in 18 months because of chest pain, and each time the scan came back clear. Not one of the scans detected the disease—lung cancer—that without warning would take her away from her family. Today, it takes an artificial-intelligence-powered scanner in Huddersfield hospital just seven seconds to detect the earliest signs of lung cancer. Seven seconds is all it takes to give somebody back decades with the people they love. I firmly believe that had my mother received that kind of care, she would still be alive today. I would have celebrated her 80th birthday just this weekend gone. It is that belief in the power of technology to change our lives for the better that will guide this Government’s approach.

It is all too easy to think of technology such as AI as being impersonal, alienating or distant, but the first thing I think about is people—the teachers in our schools who will deliver a personalised lesson to every pupil and help them fulfil their potential, and the patients in our hospitals who can access lifesaving drugs for diseases that until recently were untreatable. Technologies can change our everyday lives in ways that are both ordinary and extraordinary.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is making a fine maiden speech in his start at the Dispatch Box. As a previously practising doctor, I know that one thing that could really help is using some of the AI we see coming forward in the back office. The previous Government committed to a £3.4 billion NHS productivity plan. Are the Government still committed to taking that forward, because that investment would have significant benefits for staff and patients?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for that intervention and welcome the hon. Member to his place, too. The Government take extremely seriously the role that AI and digital technologies have in productivity in all public services and, as my speech unfolds, I hope that he will hear more detail about the scale of our ambition. To take just one of the schemes that we will be unfolding, the fit for the future programme—a £480 million commitment in our manifesto—will be responsible for driving innovation through the NHS, with adoption of the very latest scanning equipment as well as other equipment right across the NHS in England. Those are just some of the things that we are committed to, and I assure him that the Government are wholly committed to this agenda.

Nothing about change is inevitable. The future of technology is ours to shape, and the opportunities it offers are ours to seize. My ministerial team and I want to see a future where technology enriches the life of every single citizen and a future with safety at its foundation, because only when people are safe and feel safe can they embrace technology and the possibilities that it presents.

Today, Britain’s tech sector is showing us what that future might look like, but far too often our public services are simply stuck in the past. The contrast could not be clearer. Much of the century so far has been defined by the sheer speed of technological advancement. The digital revolution has transformed our lives in ways that would have been unimaginable just a couple of decades ago. Most of us can access our bank accounts anywhere, at any time, and transferring money takes just seconds. Social media and video calls have given grandparents back precious time with their grandchildren, no matter how far away they may live. Young people live in a world where they can find thousands of jobs at the click of a mouse and work for a global brand without having to leave the community they love living in. Yet, as innovation has accelerated, the state has fallen further behind. Our citizens still need to contend with up to 190 different accounts, with 44 different sign-in methods, to access Government services online. Each of them is easy to lose or forget.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

This is obviously a positive debate, as there are so many benefits for us all. I could not remember 191 passcodes—I struggle to remember my own to log in every day in Parliament—but of course we have to underpin everything that we are talking about in terms of technology with cyber-security. In Cheltenham, we have a 4,900 member-strong community speaking for our industry in CyNam, and of course we have GCHQ, where thousands of people work every day; they do not ask for our thanks, but they deserve it in bucketloads.

The Secretary of State may be aware of the golden valley development in Cheltenham, which I recently sent him a letter about and which would include the national cyber innovation centre. I wonder whether he might like to find out more about that by sending members of his team—or he could come himself—to have a chat with me about it.

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman, who I welcome to his place, spent quite a bit of time on his intervention, but I realise that there is simply so much to talk about in his constituency. I pay tribute to the organisations he referenced, including GCHQ and CyNam. The work that they do often goes unthanked, but it is absolutely essential to the security, wellbeing and economic welfare of our country. I certainly intend to visit as soon as I can, and it would be great to meet any of his representatives at any point; I am sure that my ministerial team will be willing to do so as well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the things that comes up all the time in my constituency is the great difficulties that elderly pensioners have with online commitments. They do not understand them, not because they are silly or anything, but because the processes are too technical for them. Will the Secretary of State assure me that when it comes to ensuring that pensioners are looked after, nothing will disadvantage them in any way when it comes to getting their moneys?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which was his first on me in this Parliament; I doubt that it will be the last. I will come to digital exclusion a bit later in my speech, which I hope will answer his question. If not, I am happy to return to the point. I will also return to cyber-security—I do hope that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) learns his parliamentary sign-in codes as quickly as possible, as that would be a good start to a secure and safe parliamentary career.

I realise that every one of these log-in details is easy to forget. Engaging with the state has become a bureaucratic burden on working people—one that they can scarcely afford. Unbelievably, UK adults spend 3 billion hours each year dealing with Government-related admin; for the average citizen, that is 1.5 working weeks every single year. That is less time to spend with their kids when they get home after a long day’s work and less time to get outside or see friends to stay healthy and be happy—put simply, it is less time to do the things they like and to be with the people they love.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on his excellent, moving speech, which is his first from that Dispatch Box. My condolences about his mum. He will be aware that during the pandemic, the evidence review commissioned by the former Health Secretary exposed widespread inequity and racial bias in the use of oximeters—little gadgets used to look at oxygen in blood. It also revealed that algorithms used in artificial intelligence—in social security, for example—have inequity potential. How can we ensure that, along with all the benefits that he correctly mentions, there is also protection around equity?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that incredibly important point. I hope she will see that one of the themes of my speech is indeed tackling inequality and inequity, as well as outlining how I believe this is one of the progressive causes of our time. If we are not careful and do not shape this agenda in the right way, with progressive values and safety baked in from the start of everything we do, we will not have the trust of the public, and every citizen will not benefit as they should.

My hon. Friend references issues in the life sciences aspects of the agenda. The Health Secretary and I are joined at the hip on this; we co-developed the life sciences action plan, which we are jointly rolling out, he and I both chair some of the work relating to the life sciences action plan, and the two of us—working for a Government and a Prime Minister who care so much about tackling the inequities that currently exist in society—will ensure that these issues will be central to the agenda as it unfolds.

Every day, people in Britain are confronted with a glaring technology gap between the private sector and public services—a gap that has become impossible to ignore, between the personalised and paper-shuffling, the efficient and the inconvenient, the time-saving and the time-wasting. That gap is not just a policy problem to solve but one of the great progressive causes of our time.

The previous Government promised us a small state, but after 14 years all they did was give us a slow one. They gave us a state that takes away time from those with too few hours to give: parents on low income who are already missing out on time with their families because they are working overtime just to make ends meet; and the people at the margins of our digital world, or excluded from it all together. By closing the technology gap, we will restore every citizen’s belief that the state can work for them.

When the previous Government set up the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, they recognised the transformative power of technology. They were right to do so, but if we want to lay the foundations for a decade of national renewal, we must be much bolder. We need to rewire Whitehall, because technology is much more than just another sector to support or a strategic advantage to secure; it is the foundation for every one of our national missions.

From kickstarting economic growth and making Britain a clean energy superpower, to breaking down barriers to opportunity and building an NHS that is fit for the future, our task is fundamentally different and our approach must be, too. That is why we have made DSIT the digital centre for Government. By bringing together digital, data and technology experts from across Government under one roof, my Department will drive forward the transformation of the state. That transformation will not just save people time; it will save taxpayers money, too. This Government are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that we face.

[Dr Evans]

Could the Secretary of State explain what that means in reality for the Cabinet Office and the role that DSIT now has? Who has the organisational responsibility and the control over what goes on in Whitehall and his Department?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the question. The delivery functions of digital transformation have moved from the Cabinet Office and other Departments into DSIT. Governance of such services remains shared between us, including a powerful role for Treasury oversight. We want to harness the best of Government, and we must do so by working collaboratively. That is the missions-led approach that the Prime Minister has championed, and it is a belief that I have baked into DSIT and the way that we work. I recognise that the challenges that we are seeking to solve with a powerful digital centre of Government can work only if we provide a resource that other Governments aspire to draw down on and work collaboratively on. That is the target that we have set ourselves and that we are setting about trying to achieve.

As I said, the Government are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that we face. We promised to mend Britain’s broken public services. Now, we must do so with the worst set of economic circumstances since the second world war. With taxes at a 70-year high and a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, we cannot afford to duck the difficult decisions. The solution is not unchecked spending. It is long-term, sustainable economic growth, delivered in strategic partnership with business.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Women in business could add £200 billion to the economy if they were invested in at the same rate as men in business. The female founders community has been in uproar since it was announced that Innovate UK would award only half of the 50 £75,000 grants from its women in innovation fund, even though almost 1,500 women applied for them. Innovate UK has since reversed that decision. Would the Secretary of State meet those from the community to understand their experiences, find out what went wrong and ensure that Innovate UK better supports the Government’s growth mission by better supporting female founders?

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. First, on the broad themes of under-represented communities in the tech sector, the issue is multifaceted. It is not just about some people being excluded from the products that are emerging from the tech sector; it is also about access to the great jobs that are being created in the tech sector itself. It is clear that there is regional and socioeconomic imbalance, and that there are other equality issues. I remember very well in the 1990s trying to get into university, and the system back then diverting people like me away from it. I had to apply four times and go back to secondary school at the age of 25 to get into university. Now I see a tech sector that is not dissimilar—sometimes it diverts people from certain backgrounds away from it or fails to attract into the sector those people with great potential.

We need to do better than that. We need to lead from Government. When I saw Innovate UK’s decision, I was unsettled, but I was very pleased that it then came out so rapidly—not only reversing the decision and going back to the full 50 grants but issuing a forthright apology for the mistake that led to the problem in the first place. Such issues should not emerge. I know that Innovate UK will learn those lessons, but we need to ensure that the Government are at the forefront of delivering support for the sector and creating the jobs and technology of the future, and making sure that it does so in an equitable way. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to put that on the record, and I look forward to meeting the community she mentioned.

A missions-led approach to reforming our public services will harness the power of technology to make them more productive. Let us take artificial intelligence. It is not just doctors and teachers who are using AI to change the lives of the public they serve. In Greater Manchester, citizens advice centres are using Caddy, an AI-powered co-pilot tool developed with my officials to help staff and volunteers provide more helpful advice to the people who need it. Digital experts in my Department are thinking about how we can use AI to connect clean energy projects to the grid more quickly. Stories such as these are just the starting point, but they remain all too rare. Why should any citizen be denied cutting-edge healthcare, clean energy or a world-class education? Why should a vulnerable person struggling with eviction or debt struggle to get the help they need?

Adopting AI across health, education and policing could boost productivity by almost £24 billion a year. If we fail to do so, the benefits of AI could become the preserve of the privileged few. The urgency of our task demands decisive action, because people should not have to wait for better public services. Rightly, they expect that we will fix the public finances fast. That is why we will publish the AI action plan, led by Matt Clifford. The action plan will work out how we can make the very best use of AI to grow the economy and deliver the Government’s national missions. Then we will set up the AI opportunities unit to help make the action plan’s recommendations a reality.

My Department will transform public services for the people who use them, by working with Departments across Whitehall to pioneer safe, new and innovative applications for AI. Every one of those applications will depend on two things: digital infrastructure and data. These will be the driving force behind Britain’s digital transformation, better hospitals and schools, safer streets and transport that works for working people.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. Transforming the public sector is something that I think we all, across the House, can get on board with. I wonder whether in any of the pay negotiations that have happened or will happen across Whitehall, the acceptance of technology in the public sector will be part of a quid pro quo for the future.

[Peter Kyle]

I think the right hon. Gentleman pits productivity-enhancing tools against the interests of workers. I do not believe that is the case. If we take my example of Huddersfield hospital, which I had the pleasure of visiting, people have been retrained because AI is very good at giving all-clears—20% of people were given all-clears. Therefore, the radiologists are retrained and come back on a higher pay scale for doing so, and productivity has gone from 700 scans a week to 1,000 scans a week. It is not only cost-neutral but cost-beneficial for the Department. Those are the kinds of productivity gains that enhance work and the satisfaction of workers in the workplace.

We are the Government. We have some agency in how this technology is used and rolled out and how it supports people in the workplace. We will ensure that we deliver value for money for the taxpayer and services that are cost-effective for the taxpayer, but we will also aspire to ensure that workers’ rights and satisfaction in the workplace increases. We are a Government who respect the work of the civil service and the value it provides to our country. We want to ensure that these tools sit alongside that ambition to deliver greater outcomes for the country, while ensuring that the civil servants who work so hard for our country take a bit more pleasure from their work, by being assisted by some of this technology that we will introduce to the work of Government.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Peter Kyle]

It will be a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to cut into the time for the maiden speeches that are coming up, so I will not take too many more interventions after this.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I look forward to hearing the rest of his contribution. As someone who does not have much of a grasp of technology, I understand that many people have a fear. The Post Office Horizon scandal is an example of where the system should have said no but instead said yes—a real problem. When people were travelling with British Airways, the system conked out for 24 hours. Those are examples of things going wrong. What can the Secretary of State do to give us confidence that the system will work?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. As I will say in a moment, all of this is contingent on one key principle: building trust with the public. We need to do so through actions, not just words. We have to take the public with us every step of the way, because otherwise we will not have the permission to deliver the transformation that, ultimately, will be profoundly beneficial for them. I have striven throughout this speech and since I have had the pleasure of this role, in opposition and in government—

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being generous with his time. On that point about the public being confident in any systems we roll out, does he agree that we need to ensure guard rails are in place so that organisations and companies know what their responsibilities are?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful. The interventions are building up, but I think I can answer both together to satisfy both Members. Yes, safety has to be built in at the outset and the public need to see that. We have inherited a problem with safety in our country. Women and girls do not feel safe outside after dark. Parents do not think their children are safe online. We have an issue with safety that we need to get a grip of. I feel incredibly strongly, as do Ministers and the Department, that we need to reassure people that as we embrace the technological advances that sit before us, we do so in a way that has safety built in from the outset. That is something we will do, and we have high expectations that others will do so too. As I will mention in a moment, we are setting statutory obligations on people at the pioneering side of AI.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Peter Kyle]

I am afraid that I will not give way a third time, because others have to get in, and otherwise you will give me a glare, Madam Deputy Speaker—if the hon. Gentleman has not yet had one of those, when he does he will understand why I am moving forward at pace.

To build a smarter state, we need to build a state with digital infrastructure that is faster than ever, from the data centres powering cutting-edge AI to the broadband connections creating opportunities for all our communities. We must also manage public sector data as a national strategic resource. For far too long, public sector data has been undervalued and underused. We must replace chaos with co-ordination, and confusion with coherence. That is what the national data library will do. With a coherent data access policy and a library and exchange service, it will transform the way we manage our public sector data. It will have a relentless focus on maximising the value of that data for public good, on growing the economy and creating new jobs, and on delivering the data-driven AI-powered public services that they deserve.

The digital revolution promises to overhaul the way citizens engage with the state, but as with every technological revolution before it, we know that it brings risks. With those risks come uncertainty, instability and, for some, fear. We do not believe that people should have to choose between those two competing visions of our future: between safety and prosperity, and between security and opportunity. By shaping technology in the service of people, we will grow the economy, create jobs and lay the foundations for an inclusive society in which every citizen can see a place for themselves.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making a fine speech, but could he say a little bit about the cross-Government conversations that should be happening about upskilling and the opportunities for workers? What is cutting-edge technology today can be obsolete in six to 12 months’ time. Is there a plan for a rolling programme of training and upskilling, so that workers who work with technology can keep pace with it as it develops over time?

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend—it is fantastic to see him back in his seat, and we can see no better reason why when he makes such incisive contributions. I am in very close touch with the Education Secretary over the skills agenda, and my Department is in very close touch with the Department for Education, because we can only seize these opportunities and ensure that they are available to everybody from every background if we get skills right. At the moment we are not, but there are some pioneering projects that I have visited. We ought to ensure that they are accessible to everybody who needs them. I can assure him that is essential to the conversations we will be having.

Even as we seize every opportunity to build a better future, we will responsibly manage the threats that new technologies pose to our security. The first duty of any Government is to keep our nation safe. Thanks to years of neglect, Britain has been left catastrophically exposed to cyber-attacks, with disastrous consequences for public services and working people alike. Over 10,000 out-patient appointments were postponed following this year’s attack on the NHS in London—that is 10,000 people forced to wait to access the care they needed. If we do not act, we know there will be more attacks to come, and more hours lost in our hospitals and our schools. The Prime Minister has been clear that in an ever more volatile world we will do what is necessary to defend our country from those who seek to do us harm. That is why we are introducing the cyber security and resilience Bill, which will shore up our cyber-defences and protect our public services in the decades to come.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Supercomputing and artificial intelligence are key drivers for making us more cyber-resilient. Will the Secretary of State please clarify why £1.3 billion has been cut from that budget?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I welcome him to his place. It is good to see him participating in these debates. It gives me the opportunity to respond to his question. He asks why I cut something. Can I just point out to him that I cannot cut something that did not exist in the first place? We have a former Prime Minister who announced a scheme but allocated not a single penny towards it. We have a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who at this Dispatch Box in his last Budget announced a scheme, but did not go back to his Department and allocate a single penny towards it. I did not cut anything, because nothing existed in the first place. Words matter when you are in government, and they must be followed through with action. I am afraid that the previous Government were all words and no action.

That is why we will be bringing forward binding regulations on the handful of companies that are developing the most powerful AI systems of tomorrow. The principle behind both pieces of legislation is simple: trust. We will rebuild Britain’s public services. Public trust in technology will be our cornerstone. To earn that trust, we will always put people’s safety first. We must also show that technology can be a force for good, and that is what we will do. Every person who receives the kind of scan my mother did not receive, every family with years longer together, every child with an education that gives them the opportunities their parents never had—every one of those people is a testament to the power of technology to change lives for the better. And yet for each of those people there are so many more who are missing out on an education that could change their life, or on the scan that could save it. By closing the technology gap, this Government will ensure that every person benefits from the digital public services that they deserve, and we will give Britain’s future back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I could not be happier to debate that topic, but I am very conscious of the number of Members who, I was told, are trying to make their maiden speeches, and I think it is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, that every intervention we take at this stage potentially jeopardises their chance of doing so. In short, however, there is a very fine place for solar: it is on the roofs of warehouses, car parks, supermarkets and new homes, where appropriate, but it is not on productive farmland.

In government, we significantly increased spending on public sector research—by 29%, to £20 billion in the current financial year—and our recent manifesto pledged to increase that by a further 10% over the life of this Parliament. May I ask the Secretary of State, and the Minister who will wind up the debate, if they can pledge to match that ambition to a sector that is desperate to see such certainty of funding?

The Secretary of State has my sympathy. I cannot imagine how difficult his phone call with the University of Edinburgh, which had already invested £30 million in the exascale supercomputer, must have been. This was a national facility that would have enabled significant advances in AI, medical research, climate science and clean energy innovation. The investment was fully costed, amounting over many years to what the NHS burns through in three days. There seems to be confusion at the Treasury: just because semiconductors are becoming smaller in size, it does not mean that the Secretary of State’s Department must follow suit.

[Peter Kyle]

The shadow Secretary of State said that the exascale project was fully costed. Could he confirm that it was fully funded too?

[Andrew Griffith]

Yes. The exascale investment was being delivered through UK Research and Innovation, an enterprise that receives nearly £9 billion every single year and that, under our manifesto, would have had a growing level of investment across the entirety of the spending review. There were plans in place to deliver the investment, which is why Edinburgh was so confident that it would be delivered. It was a clear priority in our spending plans and communicated in writing by the Secretary of State’s predecessor to the chief executive of UKRI. Notwithstanding the fact that the Treasury seems to have got his tongue immediately upon taking office, a project that the Treasury never loved seems to have been mysteriously cancelled. The project was being delivered by UKRI, an organisation with significant financial resources that far exceeded the £1.3 billion cost of the supercomputer. It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.

[Andrew Griffith]

The last Government did not do that; it was an independent institute that had multiple sources of funding. As the Secretary of State and his Ministers will discover, funding of that nature is competitive funding that is allotted by independent research councils. It would not have been within the gift of me or any other Minister to abrogate that competitive funding process.

Inevitably, there are projects that are funded and projects that are not funded, but the exascale computer was a very clear priority. It sat within the overall financial resources of UKRI and, under our Government, there was an expanding level of resource. People should have absolute confidence that the programme would have continued and been delivered in the context of the much larger amount of money that is spent through the Department, but by the Government as a whole. That was a good decision, and it would have had huge benefits to the UK. The chief executive of UKRI has talked at length about the benefits, and I think the Government are making the wrong decision. I urge the Secretary of State to go back, lock horns with the Treasury and seek to continue the project before it is too late, before contracts are cancelled and before technology is not procured.

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman has said quite clearly that it was announced in the Budget, but it was contingent on a manifesto that had not even been written at the time of the Budget, in order to deliver the money promised in the Budget. He is an accountant by trade. Could he explain to the House why a Chancellor of the Exchequer standing up and making a commitment for which he has not one penny allocated until potentially winning a general election, which has not been called, is irresponsible?

[Andrew Griffith]

The Secretary of State will understand that at any point in time, a Department may go through a triennial spending review, although actually the triennial spending review had not fully happened. Governments also make forward-looking commitments and declarations of intent, and commission work, whether from arm’s length bodies such as UK Research and Investment or from officials in the Department, to deliver their priorities. I do not think that the Secretary of State disputes that this was a clear priority. Looking at the aggregated spend through UKRI and the different funding councils that were going to deliver the supercomputer project, including the Science and Technology Facilities Council, there is no question but that it would have been delivered. It was not contingent on growth; a Government of any persuasion, advised by their independent civil servants, would have delivered the programme through organisations such as UKRI. That is why Edinburgh University was so committed to it. It had been announced by the previous Government, and equipment was being procured.

As we seek to compete with modern states that are busily investing in exactly this sort of facility, it is important to recognise that it is wrong to simply recoil from the project. It is not something that the Treasury ever loved, and the Secretary of State has to push hard, as we did, but it is wrong to allow a step back on that brilliant project, which would unlock so many of the benefits that the Secretary of State talked about this evening. Again, I ask him to lock horns with the Treasury, and use every opportunity to see what can be done to revisit the decision. It is a very important project, and part of an ambition that I think we share for the future of this country.

In conclusion, the first duty of government should be to do no harm, and we cannot afford to get this agenda wrong. We will judge the Government by their actions. Where they are bold in order to deliver better outcomes at a lower cost to the taxpayer, they can count on our full support. We will help this progressive Secretary of State to face down the union luddites in his party. We on the Opposition Benches will support efforts to place the private sector at the heart of reform of the NHS, but the people of the UK cannot afford half-hearted efforts, the Treasury curtailing the departmental budget to pay for public sector pay rises elsewhere, or the abandonment of real ambition that can unlock the potential of technology to benefit this country for years to come.