Luke Evans MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. He talked about planning for the future and people understanding what is going on with their pensions. We have the WASPI example where that was not seen to be the case. The new Government are making changes to inheritance tax and where pensions fall, but much of the public do not realise that that will have big implications for them as their pensions will be subject to tax and inheritance tax. Would he consider a campaign to let people know that that change is coming in the next year or so?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  One of the ways the last Government helped to deal with this issue was by dealing with the taper. It was at 63% and it went down to 55%, so people who were working got more of their own money back. Does my hon. Friend believe that this is one way we could incentivise people to step back into the workplace—by having more of their money as they earn it?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a fantastic point about the family unit. The last Government were looking at introducing a measure on household income, particularly with child benefit, to try to make sure that we see people not as individuals, but as a group. That could stop such things as the child benefit cliff edge. However, the new Government took that measure away in the Budget. Would he make the argument to his Front Benchers that looking at household units—the family unit—is a positive way of seeing how we can support people?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Agreed. That was brought in by a previous Government, and we in the Conservative party campaigned to remove it. Can the Minister confirm that the situation will remain in place until 2028?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I believe that under the Budget, the Government are not looking to review the position until 2028, so those on the state pension have to submit a tax return, because the state pension is being taxed.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful. We do indeed want more people to take up pension credit. However, one of the biggest problems is the processing time. The response to a written question that I tabled before Christmas showed that there was a 75% success rate in getting that done within 50 days, which means that that did not happen for one in four. I later re-tabled the same question, and it turned out that the standard had got worse. What work are the Government doing to make sure that applications are processed within 50 days? Especially when it is cold and people have had their winter fuel payment taken away, it is important that those who need that support get it as soon as they can.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  On clarification, can the Minister clarify for how much longer the state pension will be taxed? The Conservative Government stood for election on a commitment to the triple lock plus. We lost the election, but we were going to take out that fiscal drag. Can the Minister explain how long that tax will stay in place?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Medicinal Cannabis · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the honour of responding for His Majesty’s Opposition in this debate, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his tireless dedication to health issues—not just this one, but many others. In my short career on the Front Bench, I think this is already the fourth time in the space of six weeks that I have responded to a debate that he has secured; I congratulate him on his success in doing so. He never ceases to amaze me, because not only does he represent his own constituents—he has told us so passionately about Danielle, Sophia and their story—but he even represents others’ constituents as well, bringing forward and championing their issues. His ability to step forward and raise those issues is a true testament to the parliamentarian he is, and he has my full admiration and respect for doing so. Today we have heard some moving stories about the difficulties faced by patients who are suffering, and about the plethora of conditions that could benefit from having these medications. I thank Medcan Family Foundation and the Medical Cannabis Clinicians Society for their advocacy on the issue, and for repeatedly bringing that information to the fore so that this country can debate such an important topic. The debate has focused on the challenges that many children and adults face with accessing medical cannabis, but we appear to be in a new phase when it comes to managing the fact that such prescribing is becoming more prevalent. It is worth recognising, as we have done, that there was no legal route for such treatment only seven years ago. It was Sir Sajid Javid, who, as the Home Secretary, listened to the families and commissioned a review into that area to allow the creation of legal routes for accessing those medications. That decision has led to significantly more people being able to access licensed cannabis-based medicines. Between January 2018 and September 2024, written answers show that 24,395 NHS prescriptions for licensed cannabis-based medications such as nabilone, Sativex and—even as a doctor, I am struggling to say it—Epidyolex were dispensed across the community in England. However, it must be recognised that that is dwarfed by the number of private prescriptions currently being issued. Where there have been challenges with access to licensed medications, as with Sativex, the last Government worked with the NHS to take steps to increase uptake of prescribing. On 6 September 2021, the NHS wrote to local trusts and integrated care boards reminding them about NICE’s guidance relating to that medication, and their responsibilities to prescribe in line with NICE recommendations. My understanding is that the letter contributed to an increase of prescriptions of Sativex. However, challenges remain with access to unlicensed cannabis-based medications. We have heard that those medicines must be accessed through individual funding requests, but clinicians are wary of prescribing them, because of concerns about both the evidence base and the legal responsibilities involved. I can attest to the fact that, as a doctor who prescribes unlicensed medications, one looks for guidance on the best way to do so safely. The law was changed in part to encourage more research and clinical trials so that robust evidence can be collected, potentially leading to marketing authorisation and licensing. In the meantime, it is notable that NICE guidance does not prohibit healthcare professionals from considering unlicensed medications. In 2021, NICE stated: “The fact that NICE made no such population-wide recommendation should not however be interpreted by healthcare professionals as meaning that they are prevented from considering the use of unlicensed cannabis-based medicinal products where that is clinically appropriate in an individual case. Patients in this population can be prescribed cannabis-based medicinal products if a tertiary paediatric epilepsy specialist considers that that would be appropriate on a balance of benefit and risk, and in consultation with the patient, and their families and carers or guardian.” However, a recent report by Medcan Family Foundation has highlighted that more restricted prescribing in some areas may be leading to serious or unintended consequences. It is concerning to see, when reviewing their research, that three online forums identified 382 families in the UK who are giving their child illegal cannabis products specifically to manage epilepsy. Given the nature of that research, it could be argued that the figure may be significantly higher nationwide. Is that just the tip of the iceberg? It is worth reflecting on some of the debates that have taken place in this House that have been mentioned previously. I think it was Mark Twain who said, “The past doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” which I feel is apt in this case. To that end, it is always wise to try and learn from previous experiences. After all, advice from the wise is like the torch in the dark; it does not walk the path for us but it does light the path. So I looked at Hansard for the last debate and noted a particularly strong contribution from the then shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who is now the Minister with the power at her disposal. I think it is fair to ask her the questions she posed to the then Minister: “It would be helpful if the Minister could set out what steps he is taking to empower and accelerate research in this space. I hope he will not dodge the question by saying that the issue is simply one for clinicians. The Government have a responsibility—the Minister is nodding, and we await his reply with interest, but there seems to be a lack of urgency on the issue, which is concerning. People are suffering right now. We have heard again this afternoon about children who are fitting, sometimes 100 times or more. Accessing care is, in some cases, pushing families to the brink of destitution. We should do everything we can to support those people. If research is needed before clinicians feel comfortable prescribing, then it is incumbent on the Government to support clinicians. We need more streamlined clinical trials and better engagement with clinicians. We do not want to be back here in another two years, having a rerun of this debate. In 2020-21, the then Minister said: ‘It will take time to generate further evidence and see the results of clinical trials. The Health Secretary and I are committed to doing everything in our power to accelerate this work.’ If the Minister could update us on where this work has got to, and whether the Government are any closer to finding a solution, that would be welcomed by people tuning in today, and to the families present. Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister set out what action he has taken to support people in the system right now—those living in extreme pain who are paying thousands of pounds to access treatment. There is consensus on this issue, as we have heard. The debate has been had and a decision has been made, but we can and should do better. In that spirit of consensus, we would all like to see some progress from the Minister.” —[ Official Report, 20 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 223WH.] The Minister is clearly a strong advocate, and she is now in a position of power. She has been in post for over half a year, so what steps has she taken to empower and accelerate research in that area? What action has she taken to streamline clinical trials? Since taking office, what steps has she taken to empower clinicians to prescribe and to feel more comfortable? Since being in post, what action have her Government taken to support people in the system now? It seems to me that the debate has moved on, but it is still rhyming. We are two years on and progress has been made. More than 24,000 prescriptions clearly represent an improvement. As has been said today, however, there is more to do, and we have new problems. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) talked about the legal farming industry, the Hilltop Leaf situation and trying to create a virgin industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) talked about the clinical pathways and how they need to be specifically looked at. The hon. Member for Strangford highlighted policing, given that there is a growth in use. I will not tempt the Minister to stray into the Home Office brief, but I want to ask what conversations she is having with her Home Office counterparts about legal medical cannabis. I hope the Government will continue to progress in this space as the issue evolves. They will have the Opposition’s support as they continue to research, educate and raise awareness. I hope the Minister will agree to meet Medcan and the Medical Cannabis Clinicians Society, if she has not done so already. Given the concerns that have been raised today, perhaps as a first step she will write to trusts and ICBs again to highlight the guidance on prescribing these medications. After all, we all want the safest, most effective medications to treat patients as soon as they are needed, and they should be uniformly accessible. I believe that noble aim is distinctly achievable, and I hope the Minister does too.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A rail freight interchange is being proposed near Hinckley and Burbage in my constituency. Before Christmas, the Planning Inspectorate passed its judgment on it and the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), said she was “minded to refuse” the application. However, in an unprecedented decision, the Department extended the call for further information, which closes in a couple of weeks’ time. After yesterday’s speech from the Chancellor, there is growing concern among my community that the project might be greenlighted. In the light of that, while I know that the Leader of the House cannot comment specifically on that case, will she write to the new Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), to make sure that all protocols are followed as they are written? May we have a debate in Government time on having a joined-up national strategy on rail freight interchanges and where they are placed?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister rightly points out the need to try to deal with the postcode lottery and to ensure that there are reviews and sharing of best practice, but may I draw him back to my comments about guidelines? One thing he could do is ask NICE to look at the current evidence and consider what national guidance should be in place. ICBs have the right to choose what kind of treatment they think works best, and they will be driven by the clinical evidence and clinical guidelines; if there are no clinical guidelines, they will simply make their own decisions. Will the Minister commit to doing that?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Auditory Verbal Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on leading this debate and pay tribute to Auditory Verbal UK for its tireless advocacy in this area. I know that, to obey parliamentary protocol, I should never direct comments to the audience but I would like to say thank you to Sam for his advocacy and for being here to watch this debate. Maybe one day he will be on these green Benches, advocating for further changes, although I hope the Government will have served that purpose by then. If Sam is listening, I hope it is okay, Mr Western, to put those comments to him through you. As Members have noted, the provision of auditory verbal therapy was previously discussed in the House in December 2023. In the aftermath of that debate, I understand that AVUK held discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care and received support from two Ministers in the last Government: Maria Caulfield, the former Member for Lewes, and Dame Andrea Leadsom, the former Member for South Northamptonshire. I also understand from the charity that, before the election, the last Government were considering how to roll out training for auditory verbal therapy and to upskill the existing speech and language therapist workforce. That is part of the workforce plan for the NHS and I am pleased to see that the current Government are continuing in that vein. Helen Keller said that the only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision. Since the election, it appears that the Government are possibly stepping back from this area. Recent responses to written questions have indicated that the Government have no plans to review the adequacy of the provision of AVT and have stated doubts about the strength of the current evidence supporting its effectiveness, but today we have heard arguments made about a range of studies that suggest AVT really can support deaf children to develop age-appropriate spoken language and attain educational outcomes on par with hearing children. It is not for us, at this point, to make a decision but it is for this House to raise this topic. As a first step, will the Minister commit today to meeting Auditory Verbal UK so that it can present the latest evidence and research from the UK and abroad? We know that integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning services for their local communities, including the provision of auditory verbal therapy. Thanks to charitable funding and efforts from AVUK, there are now 33 certified AV therapists across the UK. However, as other Members have noticed, there are still major gaps in provision, particularly in the public sector. Will the Minister therefore commission a review about the impact and effectiveness of the AVT that is currently taking place in the NHS? Although there are five AV therapists in Manchester, there is just one for the whole of the west midlands, and, as the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South mentioned, there are currently no AV therapists in the north-east. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) also said that there are none in the north-west. That highlights the postcode lottery, which needs to be addressed—especially when, as we have heard, there are 50,000 deaf children in the UK. AVUK has argued that national guidance to ICBs could help to improve provision across England. Although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has guidance on hearing loss for adults, there is no such guidance for children. We know we need an evidence base for guidance, and, given that NICE is the organisation responsible for that, it seems reasonable to focus our attention on it. Can the Minister commit to speaking to NHS England and NICE about current guidance for hearing loss and whether it needs to be updated in the light of the emerging evidence around AVT? Much has been said by Members today about the return on investment we can see from putting more money into AVT. AVUK has said that for every £1 invested in therapy, there could be as much as a £4 return. We have seen in other areas—for example, the children’s hospice grant—how a small amount of national funding can go a long way in supporting community services across England. Therefore, as decisions are made on the allocation of NHS funding announced in the autumn Budget, will the Minister consider AVUK’s ask to provide funding to train more public sector workers in AVT? I think it was also Helen Keller who said, “I cannot do everything, but I can do something. I must not fail to do something that I can do.” I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South on securing this important debate and raising these issues. Deaf children across the land are lucky to have an advocate in her—she is doing her part. I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Bolton North East, for Bury North (Mr Frith), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan); they too, are doing their part by raising the issue in this debate. I thank AVUK for all it does; it is doing its part. I hope, in raising constructive questions as His Majesty’s Opposition, I am doing my part, too. In turn, I hope that the Minister will answer my questions and others raised today, meet AVUK and assess its evidence, and make appropriate recommendations and changes with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS so that deaf children can reach their full potential—in doing so, he will fulfil his part.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Green Infrastructure Investment · Hansard source

  More

  Get real!

• 21 Jan 2025 · Servicing Government Debt · Hansard source

  More

  Last time I raised the markets’ concerns about debt with the Chancellor, she told me to “get real.” What is real is that the cost of debt interest is over £10 billion. What is real are the three choices she has: to increase taxes on people and businesses in Earl Shilton, Burbage and across the country; to cut services for people in Hinckley, Donisthorpe and across the country; or to borrow on the country’s credit card. Will she now be real with the public and tell them which of the three it is going to be?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Servicing Government Debt · Hansard source

  More

  9. What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of recent trends in the level of interest on Government debt.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Southport Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Home Secretary on her proposals; she has my full support in turning over every stone in looking into this case, and I wholeheartedly agree with all the powers she is bringing forward. However, that is half of the story. She rightly talks about balancing the risk of a criminal walking free, but we have to bear in mind the riots that happened across this country. Will she consider conducting a review that looks into the creation of a framework for how Government talk about these issues in the media, so that the approach is standardised and there is no political point-scoring across this Chamber? At the heart of this issue is the public perception that information was withheld from them. We could then hold a review on the rioting, to make sure that there are no further riots, because there were no riots in October, when this information came out. There is a discrepancy there that needs looking at, and I would be grateful if the Home Secretary took up this matter.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition · Hansard source

  More

  I commend both sides of the House on how they have respectfully approached this statement, because that is really important. The Minister talked about the robustness of this topic, and I am keen to pick him up on that, because one tenet in the UK is all about safety and the other is freedom of speech. Can the Government rule out changing any definitions that could lead, intentionally or unintentionally, towards blasphemy laws, because free speech is really important?

• 20 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme Review · Hansard source

  More

  She’s happy with that!

• 16 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Leicestershire was one of the areas hit by significant flooding. Fortunately, my constituency is relatively okay, bar pockets such as Shenton, Barwell, Sheepy Magna and Witherley. The problem is that they do not hit the Government’s threshold for funding because they are too small and often experience flooding only to roads and connectors, rather than houses. Will the Leader of the House write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ask him to reconsider the formula, and to provide for isolated communities that are cut off but do not get breaches into houses? That problem is fundamentally difficult to solve.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate, and on giving Members from across the House the opportunity to raise issues such as Primodos, breast implants, mesh, SSRIs, vaccines and MMR. As a clinician, I have seen patients who have been affected by all these issues, and I know the heartfelt difficulties that they have faced—not only in what has happened to them, but in trying to resolve the problems. It is a testament to her that she has given the House the chance to debate these issues, and I am not sure that the public have ever paid so much attention to a regulator, even in the financial crisis. The MHRA has suddenly become something that people know. I often used to explain to patients that a regulator should be like a good referee: we should not see them, but they should be there to hold people to account and know the rules. However, modern refereeing is about more than that. A referee has already met the players beforehand, and speaks to the public about how things work. They help to shape the way in which the rules should be interpreted, allowing us to improve the game. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) asked who regulates the regulators, and the answer is that this House is accountable. That accountability is key. What are the functions of the MHRA? They are: to ensure that medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion meet applicable standards of safety, quality and efficacy; to secure safe supply chains for medicines, medical devices and blood components; to promote international standardisation and harmonisation to ensure the effectiveness and safety of biological medicines; to educate the public and healthcare professionals about the risks and benefits of medicines, medical devices and blood components, leading to safer and more effective use; and to enable the development of innovation and research that benefit public health. I welcome the MHRA’s new chair, Professor Anthony Harnden, who was appointed at the start of the year. I hope he is listening to this debate, as it will be important for him in setting his priorities. I pay tribute again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton because, whether or not the MHRA knew this debate was happening, I noticed during my research that all the guidance was updated on the MHRA’s website only yesterday. That is testament to the power of this place, even if inadvertently. The last Government did a lot in this space, particularly focusing on patient safety and access. They introduced new regulations on medical devices, with the classic example being diabetes monitoring, but they also set out to attract innovation. Their reforms have helped to make the UK an attractive market for medical technologies. I am pleased that both sides of the House agree that this is a great place for the UK to find growth. These developments were based on a consultation-led approach, following the changes we have had since 2021, when there was a consultation on the future regulation of medical devices. This led to a proportionate and phased approach that minimises supply disruptions and supports system readiness. Under the last Government, a road map for implementation was set out on 9 January 2024. Again, I am pleased to see that the current Government updated the road map in December. This has the regulatory aims of adapting new technologies, strengthening patient safety and providing clarity for manufacturers that are trying to bring products to market. All these significant changes try to balance medical technology advances, market capture, patient access, affordability and clinical outcomes. However, as we have heard in this debate, this is all well and good, but “perception versus reality” comes to mind. We arguably have one of the best regulatory regimes in the world and, post Brexit, there is a real opportunity to lead the way. Counter to what the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), said, it is because of Brexit that we were able to regulate around our vaccines. As has been said today, there are still serious concerns about the system, surveillance and resources, given the medical tech boom. This is a wide debate, so I will focus my remarks on three areas: the current medical market, the emerging medical market, and communications with the public, perceptions and beliefs. When it comes to the system for current medications, we need only consider what we heard earlier about SSRIs, and particularly their impact on sexual dysfunction —I happen to have that casework on my desk at the moment. Do the Government believe that the yellow card system works, or will they consider a review? When it comes to emerging markets, we have to remember that the MHRA has a statutory role not only in regulating but in the advertising and promotion of medicines in the UK. We have seen thousands of online adverts for weight-loss injections, such as Ozempic. The Times found approximately 6,500 adverts that mention GLP-1 on Meta’s ad library between January 2022 and the end of June 2024. And Sky has reported that, according to Simple Online Pharmacy, which has access to wholesale figures, 500,000 people in the UK are currently using things like Wegovy. I would be grateful if the Government could set out what support they are offering the MHRA to ensure that it can fulfil its roles and functions properly, given that it has to manage promotion, safety and supply in all these areas. Are there any plans to review whether the MHRA is able to meet these conditions in a changing medical world? Finally, and most importantly, if I were to be critical of the MHRA, I would say that the key thing missing on the list of objectives, as set out by the new chair, is communication. Let me finish where I started: a regulator has never been more in the public eye. As a clinician, I know how difficult it is to wade through complex medical data that is both conflicting and opaque. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, freedom of information requests and transparency are key to our understanding of this area. Will the Government look to review how the MHRA interacts with the public, how it communicates with grassroots professionals, and what it can do to explain the hugely important work that it does? To conclude, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) pointed out, this is all about trust. I think it was Reagan who said, “Trust, but verify”. That seems particularly apt for this debate—for that is the role of a regulator, but it is also the role of the Government and the public. We must build a regulatory system that all can trust, and do so inherently, but that is also easily verifiable at any point. If we can achieve that, we can build a trusted ecosystem that is good for innovation, good for the economy, and, most importantly, good for the people.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Grassroots Sports · Hansard source

  More

  There are growing storm clouds in rugby union. At the grassroots, clubs are up in arms about what is going on in the leadership. They called for a general meeting, which was denied. One has now been agreed and will happen in March. When asked in writing whether there will be a review of the finances or governance of the Rugby Football Union, the Government said that there are no plans for one. In the light of what I have set out, will they reconsider whether there should be a review of the governance, and do they have confidence that the RFU will be able to solve this issue?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I am usually measured when I come here, but it worries me that the Labour Government seem to be playing us for fools today. The Home Secretary has picked five out of 50 towns and provided no statutory powers. She has announced a review by the incredibly able Baroness Casey, but Baroness Casey is already conducting a review of social care, and this review is not a review; it is an audit. Is not the truth that the good Members on the other side of the House went back to their constituencies—and there are many across the country—and recognised the strength of feeling among the public about the need for a national inquiry? Members on this side of the Chamber get it, and most of the Back Benchers on the Home Secretary’s side get it. Why does she not swallow her pride and launch a national inquiry?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is making an excellent observation on the impact of these costs. We know from the surveys that 75% of businesses will pass on the costs to the very people who use them. They will have an inflationary impact on the public. Does he agree that it is imperative that we think about that?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: there is a timing issue. The Labour Government were explicit and up front on this tax rise in their manifesto, but they claim that they care about children’s education and welfare. If so, why would they implement the change halfway through an academic year? The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) just turned around and said, “Well, it doesn’t matter because it’s 120 kids in the Member’s constituency.” Actually, it really does matter, because every single child’s education matters. Does my hon. Friend agree that even if those are small amounts at the margin, it is completely justifiable to delay the measure as the schools, the experts and the parents have asked for?