UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Alex Norris

  • Alex Norris – 2023 Speech on the Ballot Secrecy Bill

    Alex Norris – 2023 Speech on the Ballot Secrecy Bill

    The speech made by Alex Norris, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2023.

    I add my congratulations to Lord Haywood on initiating this important Bill in the other place and on securing its progress so far. If it is successful—I think we can have complete confidence in that success—it will be the first private Member’s Bill in several years to start in the other place and make it on to the statute book. That will be no mean achievement and I know that we will get a decisive step closer to that goal today. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) on his leadership of this legislation in its proceedings in the Commons and on the case he has ably made for his Bill today and in previous sittings.

    Significant contributions were also made by other Conservative Members. I want to cover the point made by the hon. Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) about disability in a moment, because it is such an important point—let me associate myself with the comments they made about its importance.

    First, however, I wish to deal with something that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said in an intervention. He always has interesting points to make on our democracy and how it runs, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, as he knows. The one he made about guidance is so important—guidance is always important. We are all saying today that voting is an individual act, a “private act”, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) characterised it. If that is the case, we have to make it easy to do, so that, in general, a person would not need to solicit support because the guidance is so clear and things are obvious.

    I am less of a fan of the more complicated and novel systems of election, but sometimes there may be multiple candidates and that does get tricky. When the single transferable vote is used, people wonder whether to vote in the first column or the second column—that can get tricky. It is up to the regulators and, obviously, the leadership in this place, to make sure that that guidance is so clear. That touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) about the staff working in the polling stations, as we need things to be easy for them too. We cannot now have a significant range of burdens, or even tensions or anxieties, for them in respect of having to become enablers and supporters of votes; they do not want to be going anywhere near those booths either. The guidance has to be really clear, both for the individuals and for the staff we ask to administer those elections.

    I wish to make a point or two of my own, but I am pleased that there is such consensus on this issue. As the hon. Member for Peterborough said, this is fundamentally a point about clarity. No matter how well established the spirit of the Ballot Act may be, 151 years later there is a lack of clarity, and the Bill adds that clarity. Our democratic processes must be free from intimidation and—a point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan)—free from inducement as well. That was the spirit of the Act which put into law the secret ballot that we enjoy to this day. In one fell swoop, it put an end to the egregious practices of landowners and employers influencing their workers’ or tenants’ votes.

    However, a clear and identifiable problem remains with the Act: it does not give presiding officers the right tools to fully tackle the problem of people being compelled to vote in one particular way, or indeed not at all, by others. Those practices are always unacceptable, but they do happen, and this is the moment for us to act to end them. Intimidation of this kind goes against all our democratic principles, but there is an ambiguity, which the Electoral Commission has highlighted, so the case for change is clear.

    In the other place, the Government provided important reassurances about the continuation of any assistance that disabled voters may need in order to vote. That is right and proper, and I am glad that it will not be affected by the Bill. As we heard from my hon. Friend for Darlington (Peter Gibson), there was a “build-out” for this in the Elections Act 2022. Nevertheless, I think that, as far as humanly possible, we should collectively seek to render this moot by providing appropriate assistive technologies enabling disabled people to vote independently, which would remove the need for another person to be there.

    In Committee I mentioned the My Vote My Voice campaign, which aims to improve participation in voting by adults with learning disabilities and/or autism, as well as campaign groups representing deaf people, blind people, people living with Usher syndrome, and deaf-blind people more generally. They want the right technologies and support to ensure that as many people as possible—indeed, virtually everyone—can vote, and vote independently. That should be our aspiration. As I have said, the Elections Act has moved us in the right direction, but I suspect that we will need to monitor the success of its provisions and those of the Bill, and I dare say we may need to go further still in the fullness of time.

    Notwithstanding those points, the Opposition welcome the Bill and are glad to support it today. It is vital for us to have clear law in this area, with no ambiguity about what is and what is not acceptable practice at polling stations, and the Bill constitutes an important step towards ensuring that happens.

  • Alex Norris – 2022 Speech on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

    Alex Norris – 2022 Speech on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

    The speech made by Alex Norris, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in these proceedings.

    The Public Bill Committee had 27 sittings over four months. The Government enjoyed it so much that they sent seven Ministers and three Whips to share the joy of line-by-line scrutiny. Which was my favourite? How could I choose between those 27 glorious sittings? They were very good debates, as the Minister said.

    When it comes to levelling up, we have been clear from the outset that we feel the Bill is a missed opportunity. It ought to have been a chance for the Government finally to set out what their levelling-up agenda really is and what it means for the country. It was a chance to turn the rhetoric and all the press releases into reality. Instead of translating three years of promises into genuinely transformative change, we do not feel the Bill takes as much further forward. After the White Paper and now this Bill, we are still searching for the big, bold change for which the country is crying out and that the Government promised. The Bill has squandered that opportunity, and it seems those premises will be broken.

    Levelling up is supposedly the defining mission of this Government but, after all the talk and all the promises, all they could muster was bolting a few clauses on to the front of a planning Bill. It serves no one to pretend that that is not the reality. Where is the plan to tackle entrenched regional inequalities? Where is the plan to unleash the wasted potential of our nations and regions? And where is the plan to get power out of Whitehall and into our towns, villages and communities?

    Part 1 of the Bill establishes the levelling-up missions and the rules for reporting progress made against them. The missions are an area of consensus. Who in this House does not want to see a reduction in the disparities in healthy life expectancy, regional investment and educational outcomes? The problem is that, although the Government set out their supposed policy programme to deliver on these missions in their White Paper, it is in reality a mishmash of activity, much of which is already happening. We seek to improve this with amendment 10, as the missions should be accompanied by a full action plan setting out the activity taking place and how it will contribute to delivering the missions. I would hope that the Government already have such action plans, if levelling up really is such a totemic priority, but I fear they do not, because levelling up is not a priority.

    Richard Graham

    The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a couple of times the important question of levelling up across the country. Does he accept that, under the last Labour Government, one of the biggest challenges for many of us was that, although huge amounts of money were funnelled into metropolitan cities, smaller cities in counties around the country completely missed out? A huge amount of progressive work has been done by this Government to ensure that constituencies such as mine in Gloucester do not miss out on the levelling-up programme.

    Alex Norris

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, when we talk about levelling up, it should never be north versus south or London versus the rest of the UK, and that it should recognise that, across all communities, there are challenges and areas that need support. I think that is an area of consensus.

    I stress that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the previous Labour Government, not the last Labour Government. I was at secondary school for much of that period, and I am not sure that relitigating it would advance this debate. I do not see that huge progressive changes have come through in the intervening 12 years, as he sees it, and I do not see them on the horizon either. Conservative Members may disagree with me on this point, which is fine, but if the Government are so sure of their case that this Bill will be very impactful, where is the impact assessment? Its publication is long overdue, and the stream of Ministers who came through the Committee all promised to publish it. It was signed off by the Regulatory Policy Committee on 19 July—what is that, four months ago?—but instead, it is hidden. What on earth does it say that it needs to be locked away in the Department, and what does it say about the Government that they are not brave enough to publish it?

    We recognise that progress will not always be linear, and there will be times when reports—certainly the annual reports—into the missions may show a lack of progress or a need to operate differently. That will be challenging for the Government of the day, but it is an important part of the process, because that is how we will generate change. At the moment, however, the Bill states that these reports must be published within 120 days. There will be situations where the Government are not delivering on a mission and change is badly needed, but the report will be nearly a third of a year into the next year. We think that that is too late to generate meaningful change, so we seek with amendments 12 and 13 to reduce that to 30 days. I cannot believe that that is not sufficient. Surely, the reports are developed during the year, and a month ought to be enough to finish them off.

    This is another key point of difference, because the sad reality is that rather than learning and reacting year by year to ensure that progress is made, the Government have an alternative plan. When they fail, they will simply change the mission, the methodology or the metrics. As set out in clause 4, they want to mark their own homework. With this clause, they are saying the quiet part out loud: that they will not deliver on these aims, and when they do not, they will just change them. That will not do. This was a serious promise made to the British public, and it ought to be kept. That is why we think that, as set out in amendment 14, this entire clause should be deleted. That is mirrored in amendment 11, where we have sought to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to discontinue a levelling-up mission. This is at best a ministerial convenience, but in reality a political crutch.

    I listened carefully to the case made by the Minister—she is the Minister twice removed—for including these provisions, namely that unforeseeable events might mean that the Government of the day need such flexibility. I think that that is questionable, at best, but in the spirit of cross-party co-operation we have tabled amendment 64 as a compromise. That would mean that in genuinely unforeseen circumstances, Ministers could change the missions and their metrics, with the consent of a majority of this place and the other place. I would hope that that offers a happy medium. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, it tells us everything about the extent of their commitment to this agenda.

    What we want the Government to do, and what they should want to do themselves, is to build confidence in their plans and their commitment to those plans, as set out in Amendment 8. Such Office for Budget Responsibility-style external, high-quality scrutiny would give the Government a real chance to demonstrate that their efforts are working and to help them change course where they are not. Similarly, amendment 15 would give this body the opportunity to comment on whether the levelling-up missions themselves are contributing to reducing geographical disparities. I think that that would be a real asset to the Government.

    Resources are at the heart of the matter, and we want the Government to put to one side the rather bizarre spin that we saw at Monday’s departmental questions and be honest about the resources available for levelling-up, as we have suggested in amendment 9. This matters more than ever, which brings me to new clause 41. The Government’s inflation crisis is a serious risk to levelling-up as currently constituted and funded. The successful bids for round 1 of the levelling-up fund were announced more than a year ago, and the bids were designed a significant period of time before that. Clearly, much has changed since then. The previous Secretary of State confirmed to me in his single appearance at departmental questions that these bids can be downgraded to account for extra cost, and that is a serious concern. Local communities have entered into commitments in good faith, and expectations have been built up. They should not be hindered by the damage this Government have done to our economy; that is not good enough.

    Similarly, round 2 bids were submitted before the Government drove the nation’s finances into a ditch at the mini-Budget. Either those bids will be downgraded, or fewer of them will be successful. I asked the Minister on Monday during departmental questions which it would be, but I did not get an answer. We should get that answer today, or—even better—the Government should accept new clause 41.

    Finally on part 1, we welcome new clause 84, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). Literacy really ought to be at the heart of all we do.

    I move now to provisions, amendments and clauses relating to part 2. Part 2 establishes combined county authorities. We are supportive of structures that allow for the greater devolution of power and resources from Whitehall to town hall. We also agree that it is desirable for there to be alignment with combined authorities more generally. Our concern in Committee was that we believe that these bodies and entities should receive powers from the centre, rather than absorbing powers from councils. That is why we tabled amendment 17. In line with what the Minister has said and what was set out in Friday’s written ministerial statement, we welcome Government amendment 29, which renders ours unnecessary. We are grateful that the Government have listened and moved on this point.

    We do, however, want the establishment of CCAs to be as swift and painless as possible, and we have been told that Ministers intend to use guidance to ensure that that is the case. We think that that must happen promptly, and our amendment 18 calls for it to happen within six months. That is probably a reasonable timeframe, because we suspect that it has already been drafted. If that timeframe is not desirable, will the Minister at least say when she anticipates the production of the guidance?

    I turn now to clause 58 and our amendment 19. The clause looks quite docile but is hugely significant. We have been told throughout proceedings that the purpose of part 2 of the Bill is for CCAs to mirror combined authorities, but this provision changes the rules governing combined authorities, and we do not think it has a place in the Bill. Currently, an elected Mayor can assume the police and crime commissioner role for their combined authority area if there is coterminosity and, crucially, if there is local agreement amongst constituent authorities. The clause changes that and states that the Mayor can assume these powers unilaterally. That is a significant and wholly unnecessary change.

    In reality, virtually all combined authority Mayors either have PCC powers already, or cannot have PCC powers because of their boundaries. There is a tiny third category—indeed, I can only think of the one case in the West Midlands—where the Mayor does not have PCC powers but could do. The intention of the clause seems to be to change that. Eighteen months ago, the public voted for a Conservative Mayor and a Labour police and crime commissioner. That was their right, and their judgment must be respected. This clause allows Ministers to overreach and let the Mayor change that. That is unacceptable. I hope the Minister will reflect on that and delete the clause, which is an outlier in this Bill.

    We are supportive of new clause 71, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It would mean that all areas, with or without a Mayor, could access tier 3 devolution deals. The Opposition believe that all communities should have access to the maximum devolution of power and that governance arrangements should reflect local wishes. Currently, the Government will only give maximum powers if in return communities accept a Mayor, which is the Government’s preferred model. We are proud of our country’s Mayors. A significant number—I dare say a majority—are Labour and Co-operative ones, and they are very good indeed. We believe that those structures should reflect the choice of the local community, as set out in the new clause. I hope the Minister will look kindly on it.

    Accordingly, we cannot support new clause 1, which will give the Secretary of State the unilateral right to impose a Mayor on local authorities that they deem to be failing. That would be an inversion of devolution, and we cannot support it.

    I move on to parts 7, 8 and 9, to which we offered a significant number of amendments in Committee. In general terms, we are supportive of the provisions contained in part 7 concerning compulsory purchase. We believe that they are sensible and proportionate measures that will give local authorities clearer, more efficient and more effective powers; greater confidence that they can acquire land by compulsion to support regeneration schemes; and greater certainty that land can be assembled and schemes delivered quickly through compulsory purchase.

    We also supported the Government new clause tabled in Committee concerning compensation in relation to hope value, on the grounds that it would help to expedite development in cases where a certificate of appropriate alternative development is unlikely to be awarded, and it would make many more such developments financially viable. We are grateful to have heard from the Minister in her opening remarks about where the Government might go next with that. We do not feel that there is a pressing need for the statutory review of the powers proposed in new clause 34, but we take no issue with new clause 66, which represents a sensible consolidation and modernisation of compulsory purchase law along the lines suggested by the Law Commission.

    On part 8, we are very pleased to see the Government bring forward proposals for high street rental auctions. Sites that lie vacant on our high streets pull the area down. We need to get these sites into use, and rental auctions are a good way to do so. In Committee, we felt that there were too many loopholes in this process, so we are pleased to see and support Government amendments 40 to 44, which tighten matters. In reality, we want to go much further. We want a proper community right to buy important assets, high street or otherwise. It was disappointing that the Government rejected it in Committee, but the next Labour Government will correct that. More generally, it is regrettable that the Bill does not say more about community power, and that the Government have resisted all our efforts to insert community power provisions into the Bill. We may need a general election before we can resolve that.

    On part 9, if we are to have effective use of land across all communities, we need to know who owns it so that they can be supported to use it. In extremis, we can use powers under parts 7 and 8. In Committee, we put a number of questions to Ministers that we do not think have quite been addressed yet. We hope that they will be answered in closing, but in broad terms we support the provision.

    Finally, I turn to clause 190, relating to the Government’s proposed reintroduction of the Vagrancy Act 1824, notwithstanding Parliament’s repeal of the Act during proceedings on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Even by the low standards set by this Government this was a particularly shoddy affair. Putting aside the blatant disregard for this place, it shows a genuine lack of humanity and care for the most vulnerable. We are very pleased to see that efforts on both sides of the Chamber—I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) in this regard—have borne fruit and that the Government now seek to remove this provision with Government amendment 1, which of course we support. But I hope that the Secretary of State does not seek credit in having belatedly supported this amendment given that this is his own Bill—his own provision. Similarly, we debated this in Committee only five weeks ago and at that point the Minister defended its inclusion; what does that say about the Government’s judgment in this matter?

    I have one final question for the Minister. Thursday’s business statement programmed in next Monday for the second part of remaining stages on this Bill. There are not many well-kept secrets in Westminster and it is not a well-kept secret that that is not going to happen. Surely the Government are not running scared of their own Back Benchers on this; what is going on? Can we have clarity from the Minister that the Bill is coming back next week, because these are important provisions. The Minister says that if they are held up, it will affect the roll-out of devolution, which will be very bad. I hope we will get some clarity that the Government will step up and deliver on the promises they have made.

    This Bill is a missed opportunity. Today, as in Committee, we have sought to help the Government improve it. I fear once again for our prospects in this regard, but that is because this Government are interested in the politics of levelling up, not the delivery of it for all of our nations and regions. This Government will never level up, and they should get out of the way for one who will.

  • Alex Norris – 2022 Speech on Protecting the Rights and Safety of Teenagers

    Alex Norris – 2022 Speech on Protecting the Rights and Safety of Teenagers

    The speech made by Alex Norris, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the safety and wellbeing of teenagers; to make provision to prevent crime against teenagers; and for connected purposes.

    There is nothing more important than ensuring that our young people have the best opportunities to thrive and that all are able to access such opportunities. Every instance where we fail to do this, we let those young people down and often start a spiral of wasted potential and greater societal need down the road.

    Recent reports warn that social care, education, family support and children’s mental health services are not working for thousands of vulnerable teenagers, diminishing their life chances, putting some teenagers at risk of grooming, exploitation and serious violence, and costing taxpayers billions. For the young people we fail the most, the implications are stark.

    Government statistics reveal that, in 2021-22, more than 16,000 cases of child sexual exploitation were identified in social care assessments, as were 11,600 cases involving gangs and more than 10,000 cases of child criminal exploitation. Sadly, these numbers are likely to be the tip of the iceberg, because those involved in gang activity and criminal exploitation are disproportionately young, vulnerable and, crucially, unknown to services. This leads to estimates that as many as 200,000 children in England aged 11 to 17 could be vulnerable to serious violence.

    Let us be clear that the blame for this lies at the feet of those cowards who seek to exploit children for their own individual gain, but the responsibility for tackling and preventing it is with us in this place, with our devolved Assemblies, with our elected Mayors and combined authorities and with our town halls. We must collectively find the answer.

    There is significant concern that the pressures on overstretched services and on the public purse due to a lack of early intervention and a combination of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis are increasing the risks to teenagers. It has been reported that many of these problems have become more extreme since the pandemic, including the ages of those running gangs becoming even younger. This creates a great challenge for the system, one mirrored in slavery cases more broadly, where the boundary between the exploiter and the exploited is blurred and, in many cases, exists in the same person.

    We must recognise that what we are talking about in many cases is slavery. The Government were right to introduce anti-slavery legislation, but we must make sure it keeps pace with the challenges we face. According to the Children’s Society, 22,000 children have entered the national referral mechanism since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was introduced. That is a staggering scale, but it has led to just 186 prosecutions where children were the victims, and only half of those led to a conviction.

    This is part of an overwhelming body of evidence, including the final report of the Commission on Young Lives, published earlier this month and from which I drew earlier in my speech. Just last Friday, the National Audit Office added the stark findings that the number of nine to 17-year-olds in care has jumped by more than a quarter since 2014, that there has been a 142% increase in referrals to secondary mental health services over the last five years and that 81% of children who are cautioned or sentenced have been persistently absent from school. We know what creates vulnerability but, at the moment, we are not doing enough to tackle that vulnerability.

    The impact on young people is not only borne out by the crime statistics. It also affects how safe our young people feel, and not feeling safe has an impact on them and the decisions they make. Girlguiding does the largest survey of girls and young women, and the most recent iteration of its annual girls’ attitudes survey found that more than half of 11 to 21-year-old girls and young women do not feel safe when they are outside on their own, that nearly one in five does not feel safe at school, and that more than a quarter do not feel safe online.

    The Government-funded organisation that identifies what works in tackling violence, the Youth Endowment Fund, published its first annual report on children, violence and vulnerability this week, and it showed that 39% of 13 to 17-year-olds have been a victim or a witness of violence, increasing to 46% of those in receipt of free school meals and to 60% of those with a social worker. We are failing our young people if we allow such a situation to persist unchecked. Behind each of those statistics is a young person, their family, their hopes and dreams, and a huge societal failing.

    Unfortunately, the Government’s response on the safety and wellbeing of teenagers is often unfocused and lacks co-ordination. No Department has a lead responsibility for promoting the safety and wellbeing of teenagers, and although several Departments have welcome funded programmes of activity that relate to teenagers, they are not co-ordinated and do not tackle the needs of vulnerable teenagers in a holistic and systemic way. This lack of focus and co-ordination nationally is reflected locally, with many teenagers falling through the gaps between school, children’s services, the NHS and the police. We know that there is a paucity of preventive help in most communities, meaning that teenagers will often need to fall into crisis before they can access help.

    So the system is not working as it ought to, it needs fixing and this Bill is an attempt to kick-start that process. A Bill such as this could do that in four areas: by identifying a lead Department for vulnerable teenagers with clear accountability; by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the safety of teenagers across government; by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent crime against teenagers; and by placing a duty to promote wellbeing. The Bill would therefore ensure that there is clear responsibility and accountability in government for the welfare, safety and wellbeing of teenagers, rather than the unco-ordinated approach that has characterised the response so far. This need for national-level strategic intervention is called for by the National Audit Office and the Children’s Society. It really ought to be a fundamental requirement of government, but it currently is not. So let us put that right and ensure that, in future, essential action is being taken.

    I am pleased to say that this Bill has the support of the former Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield. Anne is a relentless campaigner for young people and I know she is widely respected across this House. She is chairing the Commission on Young Lives, which is seeking to find solutions for our system to protect and support young people at risk of violence, exploitation and crime, and it has been a privilege to work with her closely on this. I urge the Government to take heed of the provisions in this Bill and the spirit in which I raise them today. When the system is not working, we must fix it and deliver better outcomes for our young people. I believe we can achieve that with this Bill and finally bring to our public policy a clear, laser-like focus on the safety of teenagers and the prevention of crime against them.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Alex Norris, Karen Bradley, Ms Lyn Brown, Vicky Foxcroft, Sarah Owen, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Jim Shannon, Cat Smith and Nadia Whittome present the Bill.

  • Alex Norris – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Alex Norris – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Alex Norris, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2022.

    I rise to speak in tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on behalf of my constituents in the north of Nottingham. We loved her dearly, and are united in grief today. The values that she exemplified—duty, love of country, commitment to fellow persons—are ones we strive to live by every day in our part of the world.

    I have two short memories that I wish to share on behalf of our community. First, for the diamond jubilee in 2012, the Queen visited Vernon Park in Basford in my constituency. I was the local councillor then and, as I left my home to walk to that event, it felt that like for every door we passed, someone else joined the throng walking down to the park. When we got there, we were this mass of humanity, just so thrilled to be able to show off our community to the Queen, and to sing, to dance and play sport. Virtually everyone in our community has a story about that day. That was the sort of connection the Queen made with British people up and down this country. The markers we have to commemorate that day, we will have forever.

    That was echoed 10 years later, on the occasion of the platinum jubilee. We had more than two dozen events across our constituency, all locally organised, spontaneous demonstrations of love of Queen and country, and the desire to get back together after so long apart. That is what our Queen did, didn’t she? She brought us together. She united us. My community is united in mourning today, but also united when we say God Save the King.

  • Alex Norris – 2022 Speech on the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre

    Alex Norris – 2022 Speech on the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre

    The speech made by Alex Norris, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 21 July 2022.

    This is an issue that has generated a range of very strong views, but there should be a common sadness that such an important memorial is set back yet again. Remembering the holocaust and what it says about humanity’s past, present and future is an intergenerational necessity— 6 million Jewish people, Roma and Gypsy people, Slavic people, LGBT people, disabled people all savagely murdered. Antisemitism remains a scourge today that we all must fight together.

    I am proud that Nottinghamshire is home to the National Holocaust Centre and Museum, and I urge right hon. and hon. Members and anyone watching proceedings today to visit it. They would not accept credit readily, but the work of the Smith family is a model of how memorials can be very thoughtfully done by bringing people together. We lost Marina Smith last month and I know that all colleagues will want to pass on their best wishes to the Smiths.

    We are now faced with the question of what to do next. The Leader of the Opposition made very clear last week our commitment to a national memorial and his very strong belief that it should be sited next to Parliament. Does the Minister intend to bring forward legislation to make sure that this memorial happens? Will he commit to a cross-party, all-community effort to revitalise the project? I know that he is by instinct a consensus builder, and I suggest that he leans on that now, because this is a project of huge national importance and it is a source of sadness that we cannot make something of such universal significance happen. We now must come together to ensure that it does.

    Paul Scully

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. Yes, indeed, we will continue to work. I think that the fact that the commission is chaired by Ed Balls and Lord Pickles shows the cross-party nature of the approach. We all want to have the best sign—the best memorial—to remember, and to teach and bring in a whole other generation of witnesses, as described by one holocaust survivor. In terms of legislation, it will clearly be for the next Prime Minister to direct that, but we will look at the court case and consider all options available to us.

  • Alex Norris – 2021 Speech on Down Syndrome

    Alex Norris – 2021 Speech on Down Syndrome

    The speech made by Alex Norris, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 26 November 2021.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Opposition on this very important Bill. I commend the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for using his precious private Member’s Bill slot on this important matter, and I understand this is his first success in the ballot in 29 years, so roll on 2050 for the next one.

    The right hon. Gentleman said plenty that will have moved people who are watching as well as Members in the Chamber, particularly the comment that I will reflect on now and over the weekend, too. This Bill is not about a condition: it is about people, and it is not about charity; it is about empowerment. That really struck me, and it is important.

    We have heard that 47,000 people in this country, across every nation, region and constituency, are living with Down’s syndrome. They are people with hopes and dreams, who love and are loved, and they have a right to live full lives and to reach their potential. The right hon. Gentleman is taking a major step in that direction with this Bill.

    We have had brilliant contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House, and I will try to group them into themes. As this Bill is human rights legislation, as the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said, I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) that there should be a four-nations approach in the years to come.

    There were moving contributions from the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who brought the debate to life by raising constituency cases. We can throw around the statistics about tens of thousands of people, but each one of them is an individual with different needs, different hopes and different dreams, and they should be treated in that way.

    Alongside the 47,000 people, there are tens of thousands of families—mums, dads, sisters, brothers and cousins—who I know will have listened to the debate. My family is one of those tens of thousands, so I am especially grateful to the right hon. Member for North Somerset for giving us the opportunity to take a leap forward in the support available for people living with Down’s syndrome.

    I was born in 1984, when life expectancy for a person with Down’s syndrome was about 25; it is now into the 60s. People with Down’s syndrome have basically gained a year every year for my entire life, which is wonderful and it shows the advances we can make when we prioritise the human rather than the condition, and when we are ambitious for everybody and do not define people by the challenges they live with. We know that, with appropriate support, people with Down’s syndrome can thrive at school, can work, can marry and can live full lives. We have to take every opportunity to remove all the barriers, to tackle stigma and to tackle the poverty of ambition that hold back progress in this area, and this Bill is a perfect opportunity to do so.

    I note that the right hon. Gentleman has secured Government support for the Bill, so its passage is likely to be smooth. Clause 1(1) provides for the Secretary of State to publish guidance to relevant authorities to make sure they meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome, which is a powerful tool and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what she envisages being part of that.

    Under clause 1(3) there is an expectation that the Secretary of State will consult. As other colleagues have said, that is important. It must start with individuals with lived experience, so they can tell us what change they need in their lives and what challenges they have had to negotiate. It must also apply to their families—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington talked about it being a battle, which is a common theme in the stories of the families who I have spoken to and who we have heard about today. Beyond that, it is crucial that Ministers talk to clinicians, commissioners and decision makers. I am sure that the Minister will not want to be prescriptive about a consultation today, but she might set out some of its broader themes.

    The schedule to the Bill highlights four areas in which the right hon. Member for North Somerset is seeking guidance to be made. I will touch on them briefly in turn. On the national health service, it is vital that healthcare services are responsive to and ambitious for people living with Down’s syndrome so that they get world-class healthcare. We can be proud of the progress made over the last few decades, but we must make sure that we are as ambitious about mental health as we are about physical health and that the progress in physical health can be matched in mental health. I hope that the Minister reflects on that in her closing remarks.

    The Bill also references clinical commissioning groups. The Health and Care Bill is going through this place—we debated its remaining stages on Monday and Tuesday—so the commissioning landscape will change. Can the Minister tell us how the language will change to reflect the fact that the Bills are progressing at the same time?

    Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)

    To return to what my hon. Friend said about mental health concerns, when people with disabilities and conditions such as Down’s experience mental health problems that are not necessarily connected to their condition, treatment can be more difficult and it can be difficult to identify that they are developing mental health problems. Perhaps it is more a point for the Minister, but I hope that we can bear that in mind when we are looking at how we treat people with Down’s.

    Alex Norris

    I am grateful for that intervention. Members on both sides of the House share a commitment and an ambition to make significant advances in the mental health of the British people. We know that there are barriers for people with the most profound physical health conditions because, traditionally, we have not looked beyond those conditions to evaluate the mental health aspect. I hope that the Bill is a good opportunity to do that.

    On housing, we know that with the right support, people with Down’s syndrome can live semi-independently, so we must make sure that the right type of housing, sensitive to need, is available and distributed across the country. Has the Minister made a baseline assessment of where we are and what we might need to do better?

    Hon. Members have made important points about education. At the risk of repeating more of what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the points about education, health and care plans were well made and I hope that they were heard. I took from his contribution that they cannot be pro forma exercises; they must be individual exercises that meet individual needs. That is the purpose of having them.

    Linked to that, on employment, only 6% of people with a learning disability in this country are in employment. We should aspire to do much better. Work gives purpose, independence and dignity, and is part of the collective investment that we make in each other. Our ambition is for everybody to be in work who can be, irrespective of their challenges. We need a full strategic plan on the active steps that we can take to show employers the benefits of hiring staff with learning disabilities and the support that can be offered to help to facilitate that. It is important to understand that it is a win-win because, as global studies show, workplaces hiring employees who live with Down’s syndrome are happy and productive.

    The right hon. Member for North Somerset made the point about redress, which is an important and live conversation in this country. To read across, if I may, to the Cumberlege report and the impact of sodium valproate and Primodos on children who are born having been exposed to them, those families still cannot get redress—in many cases, many decades later—without an expensive, long and hard pursuit in the courts. That system is not working. The report recommended that a redress system be set up to avoid that, which has not happened as the Government have not accepted the recommendation. It should not be happening to them and it should not happen here, so I hope that, through the Bill, we can do better for people living with Down’s syndrome and for others.

    Dr Fox

    There is, of course, a great carrot for the Government in producing a workable redress system, which is that, if it is not fixed in this Chamber, it may be fixed in the other place. One way or another, however, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be fixed.

    Alex Norris

    I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, although I am not sure that it was a carrot as much as a stick. However, I know that noble Lords will be taking the same interest in the Health and Care Bill, and I absolutely share his confidence in that sense.

    To finish, I look forward to seeing this Bill in its next stages, and we want gains to be made in the four areas in the schedule to the Bill. I would make the very important concluding point that, particularly in relation to local authorities, social care is distressed and under-invested in in this country, so if there are new responsibilities, there must be new investment to come with that. We will continue to make such points at future stages. This requires Government commitment, and it is good that we are hearing that today, but also the resources to sit behind it, and I hope we hear that, too.

  • Alex Norris – 2021 Comments on NHS Patient Data Collection Delay

    Alex Norris – 2021 Comments on NHS Patient Data Collection Delay

    The comments made by Alex Norris, the Shadow Minister for Public Health and Primary Care, on 8 June 2021.

    This is a welcome decision, but it was only achieved after overwhelming pressure from patients, and health professionals alike.

    This must now mean that all elements, including the opt-out, are delayed and there must be a full public consultation about this issue before the data collection is resumed. Labour will continue to raise this with Ministers to ensure this is the case.

  • Alex Norris – 2021 Speech on the Obesity Strategy

    Alex Norris – 2021 Speech on the Obesity Strategy

    The speech made by Alex Norris, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 27 May 2021.

    It is a pleasure to open this important debate on behalf of the Opposition.

    Obesity is a significant public health challenge in this country. It is a growing problem that compounds down the years in missed potential and accelerated poor health. I am glad the obesity strategy recognises that, as well as being a matter for individuals in their personal choices, there is a significant impact from our environment. As such, we have a responsibility in this place to do what we can to help people to maintain a healthy weight.

    Almost two thirds of adults are overweight or living with obesity—I am one of them—and we have heard that a staggering number of our children leave primary school overweight. This is an unequally distributed problem, with hospital admissions due to obesity nearly three times greater in poorer communities than they are in the best-off communities. At a population level, it is clear that excess weight brings with it increased risk of diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, liver disease and, of course, associated mental health conditions. In 2019-20—this is such as staggering figure—there were over 1 million hospital admissions for which obesity was either the primary or secondary cause. That was up 17% on the year before, and represents a 600% increase on the previous decade. That is an extraordinary changing picture and one that should kick us all into action. We have also seen in the last year that living with excess weight makes us more vulnerable when fighting the effects of covid. As the Minister says, it is one of the risk factors we can actually make a direct and swift impact on. It is clear that we need to act.

    I have said before when we have debated this topic that where the Government bring forward sensible proposals, we shall work with them to implement them in the national interest. Happily, the 2020 strategy contains many such proposals that we are very keen indeed to see implemented. The 9 pm watershed on unhealthy food adverts is prudent. Efforts to curb the promotions and prominent placements of things that we know are bad for us is a good idea, too. Sometimes, even when we are trying to make healthy choices it feels like we cannot escape reminders of those other options. An expansion of NHS weight management services is well overdue, and I hope we will empower such services to use all effective treatments and resource them to be able to do so, too. Traffic lighting is a valued and effective tool in understanding what our food comprises of. We will support proposals that strengthen and develop that system, and I hope we hear a little bit more about that later. A national-level publicity campaign is valuable and we will support its introduction. There is so much to agree with and I have consistently said so to the Minister. Indeed, the only addition I will contribute here is that we need to get on with it and that we do not have time to waste. There are elements, however, that I want to probe and seek reassurance on from the Minister.

    On the total online advertising ban, I do not think it is a secret that the Government do not do online policy very well. I think the ever-running saga of the online harms Bill shows that. Online advertising is complex and sophisticated and is changing all the time. I am conscious of concerted efforts by those in the advertising industry to seek to offer the Government a way of delivering on this goal that reflects their expertise in this area. I hope to get an assurance from the Minister that officials are at least talking to them about that and taking it seriously.

    On the restrictions on retailers, I hope that we will get a proper chance to understand and debate the qualifiers on square footage and staffing levels. I do not think we would want to be in a situation where this ends up affecting relatively few organisations, creating an unlevel playing field or promoting perverse outcomes, such as having fewer staff. I would be interested to hear from the Minister in that regard.

    Crucially, we heard from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) about calories on menus. I know that that has public support, and support from many campaigners, but if we effect that, it really must be done correctly and properly. I strongly do not believe that before they sought to publicise that and press on the Government have given enough consideration to those with eating disorders who will be negatively impacted.

    Richard Fuller

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for cantering through his support for the Government. I just want to take him up on his first principles and the rationale, from his philosophical point of view, for why he believes the Government have a right and a responsibility to manage what people eat and how they look. Does he put obesity on the same level as the tobacco industry of the past? Obviously, health measures were taken because of the harmful effect that tobacco could have on people. If he does not put it on that level, what level does he put it on? Does he put it on the same level as alcohol, which causes a lot of poor health? If not, does he believe that we ought to be doing more on alcohol?

    Alex Norris

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Philosophically, I believe that the state has a responsibility to act when we acknowledge evidence that we have an environment that promotes poor health in this way, so that it goes beyond our personal choices and the way in which we want to lead our lives to things that swamp us. I reject his characterisation of a hierarchy. I would consider the impact that it has on the public and, indeed, the pressures it creates. As for alcohol, I would absolutely support stronger alcohol strategy proposals from the Government, as I would an updated and refreshed version of the tobacco control plan, which we have been waiting on for many months. Again, I would not establish a hierarchy, but I think we can act in those areas and that we ought to.

    The hon. Gentleman recognised the support that I had given so far, but I am afraid that that is now about to change—it is not just because of him, I promise. On calories on menus, we have seen the instrument. The impact assessment is comprehensive—it has five different options, 235 paragraphs, four annexes—yet eating disorders are afforded one mention covering three paragraphs before being discarded in a fourth. I do not think that that is sufficient or that due regard has been paid, and I hope that the Minister will revisit it. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), I am seeking to bring together stakeholders who reflect a full range of views on this topic to forge a solution that realises important health benefits for one group but is not injurious to another section of society. I hope that the Minister is still in listening mode on the matter and might seek to do something similar.

    That leads me to what I am saddest about with this strategy; the Minister knows about it, because I have raised it with her many times. Rather than having just an obesity strategy, we ought to have a healthy weight strategy. Eating disorders are increasingly common and can blight people for their whole lives, and their lives and voices are missing from the strategy. I have thought about this for a long time—since last July—and I think we can guess why that is: talking about eating disorders inevitably challenges us to talk about mental health services in this country, and of course, the Government are not keen to do that, as it would offer a reckoning of their leadership in this area over the previous decade. Access to high-quality mental health services of all kinds is too rare. People wait too long and the oft-repeated promises about a parity of esteem approach have not led to meaningful action. That gets worse when we talk about child and adolescent mental health services. The evidence is irrefutable that the root of challenging behaviours around food is at that time in life, but, as every right hon. and hon. Member knows, trying to get a young constituent into CAMHS treatment is simply too hard. We are failing a big and growing part of our population by not addressing that, too, so in that sense the strategy has missed a really important opportunity.

    I turn to public health. As I say, I am glad that these proposals have been brought forward. It has to be said, though, that they follow a decade of the Government’s cutting services that improve the public’s health. I know that it is a core strategy of the current Administration to act as a new Government and run as far away as possible from their record over the last 11 years—I would want to do that if I were them—but they cannot do so.

    The public health grant, even with the recent uplift relating to covid, is nearly a quarter lower in real terms than it was five years ago. I had responsibility for the public health grant in Nottingham for three years prior to entering this place. My experience was that, with the growing pressures for demand-driven services such as drug and alcohol services and sexual health services, added to the consistent cuts to local authorities, there just was not anything left for longer-term services such as those that deal with healthy weight. That has meant a withering of nutrition guidance, shared cooking programmes and specialist support. That has absolutely weakened our approach to taking healthy weight issues head-on in this country. These proposals should have included a commitment to reversing those cuts and, frankly, some humility for having imposed them in the first place. That point needs addressing.

    Of course—I will make this my final point—this is an issue about poverty in this country, too. If we eradicated much of the poverty, we would take a lot of the obesity with it. As I said, there is compelling evidence that obesity is much worse in poorer communities. Again, that makes it all the more mystifying that those massive and ongoing cuts to local authorities have been targeted at the poorest communities, especially in the big cities. That is an extraordinary public policy disconnect and, again, it is something that we ought to address in the strategy if we really want an all-services approach, at all levels of government, to taking on this national issue.

    This is a very important issue and it is right that the Government are seeking to act. We will support them to move at pace to implement evidence-based, effective interventions, but we will push them, too, to close the gaps in the strategy so that it becomes genuinely transformative. The stakes here are lofty, so our ambitions must be lofty too.

  • Alex Norris – 2021 Speech on the Covid-19 Vaccine

    Alex Norris – 2021 Speech on the Covid-19 Vaccine

    The speech made by Alex Norris, the Labour MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2021.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for his kind words about my birthday. Of course, the gladdest tidings is the news that more than 10 million people have received their first dose. Once again, our incredible national health service has delivered for us. I visited a site in Nottingham earlier in the week, and that team of the NHS, armed forces, local councils, volunteers and many more coming together was an uplifting and incredible sight.

    We welcome today’s announcement about the new clinical trial. It is clear that we will live with covid-19 and its mutations for a long time, so this is the best way to get out in front of it. We were glad also to hear the study results regarding the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine reducing transmission and maintaining protection over 12 weeks. As the Minister said, it is clear that vaccines are the way out of this pandemic. Daily cases are beginning to fall, but it is vital that the Government do not repeat previous mistakes and take their foot off the gas just as things look to be getting better. Could the Minister update us on whether he expects similar trial data to be published for the Pfizer vaccine?

    The Government seem to be on track to deliver on their promise of vaccinating the top four Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation priority groups by the middle of this month. We really welcome that, and I commend the Minister’s work in that regard, but in a spirit of co-operation, I need to press him on a couple of points about what comes next.

    First, regarding data, we are all concerned about the reports of lagging take-up among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, as well as poorer communities, and I associate myself with the comments about the brilliant work done by our colleagues to fight that. We know that these groups have been worst affected by the pandemic, and we need them to take up the vaccine, but I am conscious that much of what we hear is based on anecdotal stories, rather than hard data at a community level, split by ethnicity. Can the Minister say what data he has on that and when colleagues can get council ward-level data, so that we can all be part of the effort to drive up take-up? As the first phase is coming to an end, can the Minister update us on the number of care home staff who have received their first dose and perhaps what the plan is to encourage those who have not done so to take it up on reflection?

    When we get to the beginning of April, those who have had their first dose will be expecting and needing their second one. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be enough supply to ensure that everyone who is due their second dose gets it, as well as, obviously, to manage those who are due their first? The Foreign Secretary would not offer that commitment on behalf of the Government recently. I hope the Vaccine Minister will be able to.

    Colleagues have raised with me the fact that constituents who have received a national letter and called 119 to book are not routinely being offered local primary care network-based options. Can the Minister confirm that that should not be the case and that he would welcome hearing examples of where that is happening so that we can change it?

    The Opposition fully supported the Government in prioritising those at greatest risk of dying—those in the first four categories—but as we move to categories 5 to 9, it is reasonable to ask the JCVI about including key workers. Data has shown that those who work closely with others and are regularly exposed to covid-19 have higher death rates than the rest of the population. By prioritising those workers alongside the over-50s and 60s, and people with underlying health conditions, we can reduce transmission further, protect more people and keep the vital services that they provide running smoothly, which includes reopening schools. Putting the politics of this to one side, we raised this suggestion over a week ago now. Will the Minister say whether he has had those conversations with the JCVI, or whether he will at least commit to asking it to look at how that suggestion might work?

    It is HIV Testing Week. Those living with HIV are in category 6. If their doctor knows their HIV status, they will have their opportunity as planned. However, some choose, perfectly legitimately and for some profoundly important reasons, to access their healthcare through other means, such as an HIV clinic. Their doctor might therefore not know their status and they may well be missed. In this specific case, will the Minister commit to looking at a possible workaround? Allowing HIV clinics to connect those individuals directly would be one way, but we would support any effective way of doing that.

    Finally, given that it is World Cancer Day, what consideration has the Minister given to vaccinating household members of the clinically extremely vulnerable, to give another layer of protection to blood cancer patients and other CEV people, an argument strongly supported by the reports that transmission is reduced by these vaccinations?

    To conclude, this programme really is the light at the end of the tunnel. Our NHS has delivered, and we must support it to continue to do so by making the right policy decisions.

  • Alex Norris – 2021 Speech on Vaccinations

    Alex Norris – 2021 Speech on Vaccinations

    The speech made by Alex Norris, the Shadow Health and Social Care Minister, on 11 January 2021.

    I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

    We meet today at a challenging moment in the handling of the pandemic. We have growing infection rates, we are in lockdown, businesses are shut and schools are closed, and tragically more than 80,000 people have already lost their lives to this awful virus. The vaccine provides us with a light, a glimmer of hope, and a way to beat the virus, saving lives and getting us back to normal.

    The Government succeeded in the development of a vaccine—investing in multiple candidates has paid off handsomely—but a vaccine alone does not make a vaccination programme. Given the Government’s failures with the test and trace system and the procurement of personal protective equipment, it is right that we scrutinise the plans carefully.

    The plan is quite conventional: aside from the new big vaccination centres, it uses traditional delivery mechanisms operating within traditional opening and access times. The Opposition have some concerns about that, as we believe that exceptional circumstances call for an exceptional response. At the No. 10 briefing earlier today, 24/7 access was said to be something that people would not be interested in, which surprised me; I would like to hear from the Minister the basis for that view.

    Similarly, there is the mass deployment of community spaces and volunteer mobilisation unprecedented in peacetime. It is the Government’s prerogative to choose their approach, but I am keen to hear from the Minister assurance that the plan as written and set out today will deliver on what has been promised: the top four priority categories covered by the middle of next month.

    On a recent call, the Minister said that the only limiting factor on the immunisation programme would be the speed of supply. Will he publicly reaffirm that and confirm that this plan will make maximum use of the supply as he expects to get it?

    I think we would all agree that our frontline NHS and social care heroes deserve to be protected. At the beginning of the pandemic, our staff were left for too long without adequate personal protective equipment, and we must not repeat that with the vaccine. Protecting them is the right thing to do, reflecting the risks that they face, but it is also pragmatically a point of emphasis for us, because we need them to be well in order to keep doing the incredible job that they are doing.

    We are currently missing about 46,000 NHS staff for covid reasons. The health and social care workforce are in category 2 in the plan, but there does not seem to be a national-level emphasis on inoculating them immediately. There seems to be significant variation between trust areas. Will the Minister commit today to meeting our demand that they all get their vaccines within the next fortnight? We very much welcome the clear and simple metrics that he is going to publish each day so that we can follow the successes of the programme, but as part of that, will he commit to publicising the daily total of health and care staff vaccinated, so that we can see the progress being made against that vital metric, too?

    It was reassuring to see pharmacies included in the plan. They are at the heart of all the communities in our country, they are trusted and they already deliver mass vaccinations. It was disappointing and surprising to see them having to take to the front pages of national newspapers last week to get the Government’s attention, but now, with them in the plan, will the Minister reassure the House that he is fully engaged with their representative bodies and that they are satisfied that they are being used properly? The number that has been trailed publicly is of 200 participating pharmacies, but given that there are 11,500 community pharmacies in England, can that really be right? Why are there not more involved, or is that number wrong? If so, could the Minister share with us what the number is? On social care, 23% of elderly care home residents have been vaccinated, compared with 40% of the over-80s more generally. Given their top prioritisation, is there a reason for this lag? What plans are there to close the gap? Is the Minister confident that all care home residents will be vaccinated by the end of the month, as promised?

    Finally, there has been a high level of consensus across this place, and certainly between the Minister and me, on misinformation, and we will support the Government in whatever they think they need to do to tackle it. We will have a real sense of the impacts of misinformation as the programme rolls along, particularly as we look at who is and is not declining the vaccine. Will the Minister tell us what he will be monitoring in that regard, and what the early feedback is, perhaps from our own care staff, on who has been saying yes and who has been saying no and what that might mean for the future?

    We welcome the fact that the Government have published this plan. We will back them when we think they are right but we will continue to offer constructive ways to improve the process, as I hope I have just done. I hope that the Minister can address the points that I have raised.