Building Safety and Resilience

Debate between Alex Norris and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend will be pleased with the answer that I have to that question, which, with his forbearance, I will give once I have dealt with the next few questions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East referenced the Morrell and Day report, published last year, to which the previous Government did not respond. The intention of this Government is to bring forward proposals for system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime, which will tackle issues both in that report and the Grenfell Tower inquiry report. We think that it makes sense to do that as a collective piece of work.

My hon. Friend mentioned product manufacturers and remediation costs, which the shadow Minister also talked about. We are currently working on identifying how we might strengthen the Building Safety Act 2022 to ensure that such manufacturers can make a contribution. We have been taking action already through the recovery strategy unit to hold those construction product manufacturers to account and to get money out of them for their share of the costs. Where the work has not had the results that we wanted, we have written to institutional investors and encouraged sponsors to reconsider their partnership, which has resulted in the severance of two sponsorship deals, as well as another to which a colleague referred earlier. We know that more may be needed in this space, so we will continue to do that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

It is very hard not to have an intervention from Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I outlined the case for the legislation and for building safety and resilience going forward. Does the Minister intend to share the findings with the regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which I represent, so that the appropriate Department in the Northern Ireland Assembly can take the legislative measures forward constructively to ensure safety for us in Northern Ireland as well?

[Alex Norris]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will absolutely share the best of our knowledge and insight—I am sure that will be a two-way process—to ensure that we are doing right by everybody across Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Alex Norris and Jim Shannon

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that I will be coming on to the modesty of the Government’s plans for tackling obesity, but I have to finish my remarks about new clause 16.

New clause 16 compels the Secretary of State to publish an annual statement about the spend and impact of alcohol treatment funding. After a decade of reduced commitment in this vital area, the Secretary of State should seek to embrace this opportunity. At the moment, national Government cannot say they are meeting their responsibility to tackle alcohol harm with the requisite financial commitment and in the right place, which should discomfort them greatly. New clause 17 would replicate in England the minimum unit pricing restrictions that we see in Scotland and Wales, and we are all watching with great interest as evidence gathers as to their impact.

Let me now turn to the amendments and new clauses relating to advertising. The Government have included a couple of elements of their obesity strategy in the Bill. As I have already said to the Minister—in Committee and upstairs in the delegated legislation Committee—I wish that they had put the entire obesity strategy in this legislation, because there are bits that could have been improved by amendment, by debate and by discussion, as we heard in the contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and as I dare say we will in that of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). We should have taken that approach to the entire document, and it is sad that we did not.

On the obesity strategy itself, it is too modest and it fails to attack a major cause of obesity, which is poverty.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he is saying. I am a type 2 diabetic and I am well aware of the issues. As I understand it, figures that have been gathered during the covid-19 pandemic showed that the number of diabetics rose by some 200,000. That tells me that, if we are going to address the issue of diabetes, we need to have a tax process in place, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, rather than a regulation, because that is the only way that we can control diabetes.

[Alex Norris]

I think that a solution might be a little from column A and a little from column B, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

We have heard about the modesty of the strategy from the hon. Member for Buckingham. The reality is that any benefits from the obesity strategy will be outstripped by losses in the nation’s health caused by the impact of the cut to universal credit. We want the strategy to succeed, but it needs to be seen in that broader category.

Obesity is an important issue, with nearly two thirds of adults carrying excess weight. Childhood obesity is also a significant issue, with one in 10 children starting primary school obese, rising to one in five by the time they leave—extraordinary at such a young age.

Covid-19: Dental Services

Debate between Alex Norris and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I join colleagues in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this important debate. Timing is everything in politics, and this is well timed indeed. I will cover the point that she made about imposed targets shortly, but I do not want to miss the contributions that she made about health inequalities and cancer, which I thought were really important.

I do not think that it is a great surprise that there was cross-party coverage and, frankly, a lot of consensus. Concerns about the targets were expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), the hon. Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). I must say, though, that a spirited case for the defence was made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford).

I was glad to hear dental labs brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I will address them myself, but they are too often lost in this conversation. I also thought that important contributions were made by the hon. Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) about the pre-covid status quo not being what we should aspire to. Again, I shall address that myself.

Dentistry, like every industry, has had to battle its way through this pandemic—closed at first, worried for jobs and livelihoods, reopening desperate to address growing need, and innovating to do that as safely possible in challenging circumstances. We should be very grateful for the work that dentists and their staff have done and are doing, but even with that work 20 million appointments were lost between March and November. That is a backlog that we will live with for many years.

Although the dental profession has adapted well to provide urgent care through covid, the crisis has highlighted the need to do things differently and to do things better. As we rebuild post covid, we have a unique opportunity to not return to business as normal but instead shift the focus of dentistry in this country from the short term to the long term, and from the reactive to the preventative. I strongly believe that a more prevention-focused approach is something that many dentists across the country want for the benefit of their patients. I know that the chief dental officer is a big advocate of prevention being at the heart of NHS dentistry.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand. There are some 6,000 registered dental technicians who provide dental implants such as crowns and bridges to 80% of UK patients. It is predicted that 1,000 of them will lose their jobs by July 2021. If that happens, we will be unable to address the issue of dentistry in the future.

[Alex Norris]

I completely share that perspective, and I will cover that in my final points.

On prevention, I hope that the Minister will make a commitment that the Government want to move towards a preventative model. If she does that, the Opposition will work with her to deliver it.

Of course, there is a more immediate issue at hand. On 17 December, as colleagues have said, NHS England imposed new activity targets on NHS dental practices, which took effect at the beginning of this month. At the beginning of the pandemic the Government were right to step in and offer dentists their full contract for a much smaller proportion of their usual activity. We supported that then and we still do. It is also right to seek to increase capacity to help tackle the backlog, and avoid NHS patients being pushed into the private sector. However, what has followed is a mess, with negotiations between NHS England and the General Dental Practice Committee breaking down, and so targets being imposed on the sector, with practices needing to hit 45% of their pre-pandemic activity targets in the first quarter of this year.

Allowing negotiations to break down like that, rather than intervening to ensure that an agreement was found, is a failure of leadership by this Government. Where have they been on this issue? Whether we think that dentists are right or wrong in their perspective, and whether we think the figure should be 45%, 55% or 35%, surely we would agree that an imposed target is a failure of leadership.

It simply will not do that such a crucial part of our health service has working arrangements that discomfort it so greatly. NHS England would never pursue a work pattern that is dangerous, but there are reasonable questions about how practical it is. It is not just dentists raising that; we have had public pronouncements of concern from the faculty and the colleges. There should have been a negotiated deal that found common ground. I know the Minister is a consensus builder and I enjoy working with her. I hope she will say that she will step in to build consensus and fix this, and Labour will support her in that venture.

In the meantime, I hope the Minister can offer some reassurance on areas of concern relating to this: first, if practices do not hit that 45% of pre-covid activity, and instead land at between 36% and 45%, any reduction will be proportionate to the full payment; it will be downscaled in ratio. However, below 36%, a practice will drop off the cliff edge and not get its contract. That is concerning because in November that would have applied to 40% of practices. Those targets were put in prior to the third wave of the pandemic gripping, and we know that is having an impact. Eight in 10 practices have seen increased cancellations or missed appointments, and three quarters of practices have experienced staff absences this month alone.

Will the Minister therefore reassure the House that she will look again at that element to ensure that dentists have a fair chance of meeting targets and are not unfairly penalised if they do not, through no fault of their own? I know there will be a regional analysis of whether there are extraneous factors. I hope the Minister will endorse and double underscore that today.

Secondly, will the Minister offer reassurances that the use of units of dental activity will not incentivise just the treatments that fit in a little more easily—for example, check-ups that do not require fallow periods—while disincentivising more urgent complex care, and care that does not count towards the target? Thirdly, I am concerned about the wellbeing of dentists and their staff, because 45% of UK dental professionals feel that their mental wellbeing is worse compared with the start of the pandemic. What steps are in place to support our workforce? We have a duty of care towards them.

I will conclude with a point about dental laboratories. They make the crowns, bridges, dentures, and more, on which dentistry relies. While the Government acted quickly to protect the dental industry—as I said, we supported them on that—there has been nothing for dental labs, which have seen their orders collapse. Many have shuttered and will never reopen. People are leaving that skilled profession, but we are going to need them again, and in greater volumes as we catch up. Instead, we will now buy those products from the continent and beyond, all around the world, and we will have lost skilled work because we let it wither. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity today to announce relief for that.

Dentistry is a vital part of our NHS. Dentists and their staff have fought valiantly to keep the industry going in unprecedented times. Now they are at a crossroads and need political help. The Government must step up and resolve the contracting issue, and work with dentists to build a new exciting future for dentistry, preventing ill health, rather than chasing it. If they meet the moment, we will support them, but if they do not we will call them out.

Cancer in Teenagers and Young Adults

Debate between Alex Norris and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. He works hard through the Backbench Business process to get important debates either on the Floor of the main Chamber or here in Westminster Hall. I think he has chosen very wisely in this one.

I know that all Members in the room have a personal commitment to this issue. My childhood experience of cancer was the death of my father just before my third birthday, and that stays with me and my family, 33 years on. I am here to speak up for my community, but also to fight on this issue so that across the country, there might be fewer families like mine. We are well served in that regard with the Minister, and her personal commitment to this issue is something that we all look to.

Similarly, when it comes to the Scottish National party, it always great to see the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) in his place. We always learn from his contributions, and also from those of his colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford); with her enormous professional experience, she always adds to the debate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his colleague and friend the hon Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). I am sure she is watching, and I know the hon. Member for Glasgow East will pass our best wishes on to her. We can see that across this Chamber, there is a high level of commonality in our views about what must be done for young people. Between us, I am sure we can move forward on this important issue and make an impact.

I agree with so much of what the hon. Member for Strangford has said that throughout my speech, I will be reiterating the points that he made. Unlike him, I did not have a point to make on schooling, which is very important. Whatever challenges our children face in their lives—because of their socioeconomic background, their health, or whatever makes them different from their peers; everything makes a child different in some way—we must ensure that we are no less ambitious about their educational outcomes. We must meet their health needs in the short term, and then be ambitious about their futures so they can reach their potential. That is a cross-party theme; no one has ownership of it. It is important that we remain ambitious about the broader outcomes of children and young people who are suffering from cancer, so that—fingers crossed, and all that wonderful support willing—we can help them to resolve their health challenges and they can go on to live really full lives.

I refer to the poignant personal experiences described by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan). If he is still in touch with Daniel’s family, I hope that they can take comfort from the fact that Daniel’s story has been heard and his life recognised. The hon. Gentleman’s moving contribution will stand as a testament to Daniel in Hansard for centuries, and I hope that the family get to see it. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about early diagnosis, and I will refer to that theme shortly.

On covid-19, the hon. Gentleman said that the cure must not be worse than the disease. I understand that, but if we do not put restrictions in place and we do not control the virus to the degree to which we are able, our NHS will not be able to do anything else because it will be overwhelmed. I do not think that treating cancer and treating covid are in tension, and I hope we do not lose sight of that in the debate that we will have later today.

The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made points about cashlessness. We are all looking at how covid will change British life and our own lives. I was thinking about cashlessness only this morning as I beeped on to the tube. I have had the same £10 note in my wallet for months, and it is hard to think when we will use cash again. I have to say that such change makes me a little anxious—that might just be something in me—especially when I think about my constituents. For me, beeping in is great and doing stuff on apps on my phone while watching the telly is brilliant, but for lots of people in my community, cashlessness would be their worst nightmare. We tend to think about it in those terms, but the hon. Lady talked about how we might embrace the opportunity to get better outcomes, and how we might all take into these new times the spirit of putting money into charities’ collection boxes. Those points were well made. Importantly, I am sure that those whom she works with at Toby’s Magical Journey will have seen that their contributions and their wonderful work have been recognised today. I will come back shortly to the point about getting an early diagnosis.

I have spent eight months as shadow public health Minister, and it has has been a non-stop procession of virtual calls. The fact that it has been eight months may remind you that it feels simultaneously as though this pandemic has been going on forever, and as though it only started yesterday. The sense of time and space is strange. Sometimes, the virtual meetings can blend in together—I think I can say that without that sounding rude—but one really stood out, and that was when I was lucky enough to meet the Teenage Cancer Trust youth advisory group. I heard from four incredible people who had all experienced cancer at a young age, and they shared with me their unique and personal experience of this horrific disease. What they said was eye-opening and quite hard to hear at times. It was so inspiring that those four young people, who have fought or are fighting cancer, have chosen to use their experiences to fight the greater fight for others like them. That has had a great effect on me and informed my work.

Those young people talked about the scale of the problem that we are dealing with. We know that every year, 2,200 15 to 24-year-olds will be diagnosed with cancer. Lymphoma will be the most common—about a third—the next most common will be carcinoma of the thyroid, cervix, ovary, bowel or breast, at a little bit less than that. Survival rates are improving. That is something we should recognise, and we should be pleased and optimistic about it. We know that 82% to 85% of teens or young adults diagnosed with cancer will now survive for at least five years, but that is still in the context of the fact that nearly once a day a young person will pass away from cancer. That is the level of seriousness of this debate. Cancer in young people is rare, thankfully, but it is the biggest killer by disease, and the 2,200 15 to 24-year-olds diagnosed each year face mammoth challenges. We in this place cannot make that go away, although we wish that we could, but we have a responsibility to make sure that the best services are in place to meet their health needs directly and to provide support. I know that we are all committed to that.

The hon. Member for Strangford talked about the wide variety of challenges our young people face; everyone goes through them, even if they do not have to deal with this disease. I am just about young enough to remember some of them, whether social, emotional or physical. The idea of combining them with the physical and mental burdens of dealing with cancer is quite unimaginable. As we know, the normal challenges faced by young people are not sidelined in that situation; dealing with cancer just adds to and compounds them.

The experience that the TCT youth advisory group shared with me highlighted one of the biggest issues that young people with cancer face, and that is diagnosis. As multiple hon. Members have said, that is something that those young people face before they even know they have cancer. Cancer is often not the first, second or even third suggestion for what their healthcare challenges might be, and we know that young people are the most likely age group to present three or more times before they are diagnosed. That is backed up by studies that show that rarity can lead to doctors being unfamiliar with some of the symptoms that are presenting. A compounding factor is that, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, this age group is the least likely to take to a doctor concerns about their bodies. That can often go on for more than a year. Although the challenges that we face are understandable, we should not accept them. Rarity is not an excuse for us to not be really focused on the issue, and to want to do something about it.

I know the Minister will want to do that, and I look forward to hearing her contribution. I hope she can address a couple of issues. I am particularly keen to understand what steps the Government can take differently to increase awareness of cancer, not just among young people, but also among healthcare professionals, doctors and the wider healthcare system. We know those people are doing their best, so what can we do better to make sure they have the right information and awareness to recognise it more quickly? The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, and I think we could all do more during that month.

I am keen to hear the response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Strangford about what can be done to get waiting time statistics broken down by age, and I will explain in a second why that is particularly personal. The current situation masks the true extend of the problem and restricts our ability to understand it.

That leads on to my point about the impact of the coronavirus. I have raised this at three of the last four Health questions. Dealing with the cancer bubble of delayed diagnosis and delayed care is critical to improving our health services and making sure we do not add to the terrible loss of life from covid a series of other lives lost to cancer. Young people are particularly at risk in that regard.

In the short term, I cannot even imagine how scary it must be to deal with cancer at a young age during this period of time, because all the support systems that would normally be there are more difficult to access, and they must be accessed virtually rather than person to person. That is really challenging. The long-term issue is around waiting times. In the first lockdown, referrals dropped dramatically, as people stayed home to protect themselves and others. That means that lots of undiagnosed cases of cancer are out there, many of which will be among young people, who were already less likely to seek medical attention or be diagnosed quickly. That is a potential added factor that may make outcomes for young people worse. As cancer services are restored, we really need a sense of what we are doing differently to deal with the bubble for young people in relation to those extra factors.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. There is a build-up of young people, children and young adults who have not had a diagnosis or the chance to get treatment because of covid-19. Does he think that in the Government’s policy and strategy decisions, resources must to be set aside to address the long list of people who need diagnosis and treatment, and that resources must be in place for staffing as well?

[Alex Norris]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We will have to do something differently to catch up. When we talk about restoring cancer services, that does not mean restoring them to how they were in January. I know there will be a debate tomorrow morning on ways in which we can make those treatment pathways better. I think the wise thing to do is to focus on those groups on whom the impact is worse, and young people are one of those groups. Before I finish, I ask the Minister for her assessment of what the second lockdown has done to referrals and waiting times. When that was discussed at Health questions the week before last she was relatively optimistic about it, but I would be keen to know more. Particularly, we had a period between lockdowns where services will have been getting back to normal. Do the Government feel that we have learned any lessons from that about restoration of services, particularly for young people?

I want to conclude by saying, as have all Members who have taken part: if any young person, or indeed anyone at all, who is watching this is worried about possible symptoms, such as hacking cough, blood in the stool, or a lump or bump that they do not recognise—whatever it is—they should please not think that we are distracted by fighting the coronavirus and that they should therefore not present in the normal way to the health services. Do it—ideally this morning, or, if not, this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Whatever the earliest opportunity is, please do it, because the services will be there for you.

Palestinian School Curriculum: Radicalisation

Debate between Alex Norris and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing his first debate. He started with a tough subject, for which I admire him. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I declare an interest as I visited the region with the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding and Medical Aid for Palestinians.

We all care deeply about the education of children across the world. Nobody comes to this place thinking that that is not exceptionally important. It is even more important in the vulnerable refugee communities that are rightly at the forefront of the Department for International Development’s work. I want to be clear that there is no place for promoting hate or intolerance in school curricula or textbooks anywhere in the world. We have a double responsibility where UK aid may be present, either tangentially or in another form.

Last month, I visited the consul general. Hanging outside his residence is a sign that reads,

“Our mission in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. To advance the United Kingdom’s security and prosperity through a just peace between a stable, democratic Palestinian State and Israel, based on 1967 borders, ending the Occupation by agreement. To strengthen the ties of friendship between the Palestinian and British peoples.”

That is a worthy goal and a worthy ideal that I suspect all 650 MPs would just about agree with. That is the context for the debate. With a sense of sadness, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) that perhaps we are having this debate a few months too early. The exceptionally important review of the Georg Eckert Institute will set a context beyond the anger that has properly flown around, and settle things in independent facts. As a result, we will have a better discussion.

I do not mean to be critical, but I was concerned by references to the IMPACT-se report. When Alistair Burt, who is no longer of this parish but who was admired on both sides of the House, was the responsible Minister, he said in a written answer that he was “concerned at…the allegations” in the report and was

“working to commission a robust study”

of it, but that his assessment was that it was

“not objective in its findings and lacked methodological rigour”.

As long as our debates are based on such facts, we will struggle to move forwards. We have a responsibility to try to assemble the best facts.

The Department was right, therefore, when it said last March that it wanted to take an active interest in the issue in conjunction with international partners. If we are to have something that everybody has confidence in, it is best to act collectively, and the EU is an obvious actor in that place. The Opposition have supported the review throughout, and we will to continue to support it, because it has significant implications. What stems from the review will have an impact on the lives of refugee children—what they learn, where they learn and whether they receive an education at all. Those are exceptionally important matters that make a significant difference to people’s lives. We need to work collectively. It was bad when the United States unilaterally pulled out of UNRWA, because that does not promote anything. Even if a country has problems with institutions, to act in that way does not promote peaceful goals and certainly not a two-state solution.

We were expecting the review to be completed in September, so we are six months on. Since it was launched, there has been a lot of change in the Department’s leadership. There have been four Secretaries of State in that time; the Minister is the third Minister who I have shadowed. There is a fear that things will be missed. We hope that there will now be a period of stability and genuine commitment to the Department by the Government.

I know and respect the Minister. He is a good Minister who will do a good job. Like me, he is a plain speaker, so I have some plain questions that I hope will some get plain answers. When will the report be published? What are the Government doing to roll the pitch so that we are ready to act on those recommendations? What conversations are taking place with the Palestinian Authority and what is the nature of those conversations? The hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) mentioned the importance of the Palestinian Authority, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) asked the Minister what the Palestinian Authority are willing to do. From talking to colleagues in the sector, my understanding is that the PA have said that they are willing to accept criticism and to engage. That has to be the right thing to do.

I do not know the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) well, but he made the outstanding contribution of the debate and spoke brilliantly when he said that we have to see the issue through a lens of reform being possible. That was not the tone of the whole debate. We need to work on it as a moving thing and a live thing. To do that, we need the debate.

UNRWA is another live matter. We were flyered outside the Chamber by someone wanting to put a report about UNRWA into our hands. Many people use this subject—I am not referring to hon. Members who have engaged with it seriously and soberly—as a proxy measure to damn UNRWA’s work and undermine it. We do that at our peril. UNRWA supports 5.5 million refugees with a range of vital services including education, healthcare, social services, infrastructure services and microfinance, about which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) spoke strongly. When we undermine UNRWA, we pick at and risk those things.

When I visited the occupied territories last month and I was at the Aida refugee camp, I met UNRWA staff and my first question was about textbooks. Their analysis was that, in their opinion, less than about 3% contravene UN principles, largely on age appropriateness, gender representation and inclusiveness, rather than on issues with Israel; they said that, in response, they had supplemented the curriculum with human rights content. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on whether that chimes with the best information he has. The hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) suggested that the curriculum was saturated. It is absolutely critical that we know the facts, so we know where to go next.

[Jim Shannon]

I am always respectful to other hon. Members, but if an evidential base proves that the money has been used for ulterior motives, which is wrong, surely that cannot be ignored.

[Alex Norris]

No, absolutely. This is a case where 97% or 99% compliance will not give hon. Members or people worldwide much confidence. Of course, 1% is too much, but that is the basis to start from. We need to start from the evidence base, which is why we need the report.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Debate between Alex Norris and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris]

I have never been so popular.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My constituency has a large agri-food sector, which has a real need for agricultural workers coming in to bring in the vegetables so that the factories can process them, selling them throughout the United Kingdom and further afield. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need some sort of scheme in place to provide that important protection and, in doing so, enable the factories in my constituency and others to do the job that they want to do and export their products?

[Alex Norris]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. After Brexit, we have a chance to reform our migration system, but we have to ensure that we still meet the needs of our growing industries. I am about to highlight the fact that the soft fruit production industry has doubled in size over the past two decades. We have to move and to keep pace with that, building in the regulation to make things work.

Universal Credit Roll-out: Nottingham

Debate between Alex Norris and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the roll-out of universal credit in Nottingham.

The latest stage of the universal credit roll-out in my city took place about a month ago, which is why I sought this debate. One of the vagaries of this place is that we cannot always get the debates that we want at the time we want them, so I am pleased to be able to raise the subject at this important early stage of the roll-out.

Some claimants in the city were already on universal credit, but many will remain on legacy benefits for a while longer, until managed migration. For the past month, however, all new claimants in our city have had to claim universal credit. So far, so simple, but having seen how the roll-out has gone elsewhere and its impact in communities that are very similar to mine, my constituents and I are anxious, fearing that this will be anything but simple. We are anxious that it will mean delays, reductions in benefits, debt, rent arrears, visits to food banks and more poverty. My colleagues in Nottingham—I am glad to be joined by three of them—and I do not accept that for our community. I believe that the roll-out should be stopped.

I will talk about experiences in similar parts of the country to ours, and specific concerns that I hope the Minister can address. It seems incredible that universal credit was first announced eight years ago. The rationale was to replace the six working-age benefits. The aim was to simplify the benefits system, improve work incentives, reduce the potential for error and fraud, and mitigate poverty among low-income families. Those are broad principles that we share—I certainly do—but universal credit as it is today is not that system, and it is the most vulnerable people who are suffering and will continue to suffer as a result.

We are pleased to have campaigned for—and, in the Budget two weeks ago, secured—money back into universal credit. That is, however, only a small fraction of the £7 billion in social security cuts still to come by 2022-23, according to Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis. That will both make families worse off and be worse for the Government and the state of the public finances—a point I shall cover later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter before the House. What he cites is not specific to Nottingham; it applies to other parts of the United Kingdom, including my constituency of Strangford. Does he agree that this “simple” scheme, which is easy for those who are computer-literate, is not so simple for many? More consideration must be given to those who are not able to claim correctly due to genuine misunderstanding and miscommunication, given that they can be penalised with sanctions if they cannot work through the system. The system simply does not work for the ordinary person.

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman is right that what I have to say about Nottingham is informed by the experience of other parts of the country, so it will be true for every community in the land. Yes, the system is supposed to be simple—we want a simple system that promotes work—but there are lots of pitfalls, which people with the best of intentions are falling into. I completely share his view that such people ought to be supported.

In June, I was startled to read that the National Audit Office had found that universal credit might end up costing more than the existing system, that it cannot prove that it gets claimants into work, and that it is unlikely ever to deliver value for money. We should all look at that.