Asked if it is important to consider hospitalisations in an area, particularly why Redcar and Cleveland are not under local lockdown restrictions.

Inquired about evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of measures introduced in Liverpool and reassurance for constituents that the Government has a grip on the situation.

Opposed the removal of furlough support amidst extra restrictions, advocating for greater financial aid to compensate those affected by self-isolation or business closures.

Thanked the Minister for not treating Teesside as a single entity but considering separate areas like Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Redcar and Cleveland individually.

Asked if he could give way to ask another question.

Questioned whether the Government's approach is solely focused on suppressing the virus until a vaccine arrives, or if there are long-term plans for living with the virus post-vaccine.

I will start with the good news. I have been critical throughout the pandemic about the time that it has taken between a statutory instrument being brought into effect, and it being debated. In one case there was a lag of nine and a half weeks. It makes a nonsense of parliamentary scrutiny if we rubber stamp measures months after they have come into effect. We must have a timely say, so that the British public can have confidence, and as the Minister said, this statutory instrument is just four days old—that is the good news. The bad news is that SI 2020/1074 amends SI 2020/1010, which came into force on 18 September, although it is not to be debated until Monday. We are discussing amendments to secondary legislation, even though we are yet to discuss that secondary legislation. I am keen to hear from the Minister why things have happened in that order. Is it possible that the other SI is more controversial and is to be hidden upstairs and discussed after the fact? We have followed events over the past hour or so on the controversial SI on the curfew. That seems to have been pulled from upstairs entirely because it is coming downstairs. What on earth is going on? I hope the Minister can tell us so that we do not have to find out through anonymous briefings yet again. This is a reflection of rather chaotic, rather than competent, leadership.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Nottingham and as a fellow Nottinghamshire MP I am interested in his views. A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) mentioned the granular and localised nature of those lockdown areas and being able to pick the areas where this is most effective. My constituents in Mansfield, with one seventh of the rate of transmission in Nottinghamshire, are faced with lockdown measures linked to that outbreak. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important in those areas to consider local data, and not to impose additional restrictions on people where that might not be appropriate?

My hon. Friend mentions that many of these lockdowns have been in the north of England and the midlands. Does he agree that the figures for Chorley, Wyre, Lancaster, Oadby and Wigston, Wolverhampton, and West Lancashire, where there is lockdown, hardly vary from those in areas where there is no lockdown that have Conservative MPs, such as Barrow, Darlington, Craven and Newark? It reeks of political bias rather than objective decision making.

On 23 March, it was absolutely correct that our nation entered lockdown as one nation, but I believe the fact that we are discussing these local restrictions today shows that we should have left lockdown in a sequential way, guided by regional data. In Blackburn with Darwen, when the pubs opened in July our local infection rate was 81 per 100,000, while London’s was 3.2. I think the Government have fallen into the fatal trap of making national decisions based on a London-centric view with London data. I hope that the Minister will go away and reflect on that, and take the opportunity to take a new approach.

The Prime Minister has overpromised and underdelivered consistently. The Government's measures have increased confusion among constituents who are now breaking rules due to uncertainty. There is a need for cross-party collaboration, effective communication of trade-offs, and addressing delays in treatment for non-covid patients.

The extension of regulations in the north-east has led to a 321% increase in cases since they were introduced three weeks ago. Local authorities' requests, such as allowing informal child care and visiting family members' gardens, have been rejected. Financial support for businesses is also lacking, leading to significant closures in the hospitality sector.

The Government faces a choice between acting to stop virus spread or letting it rip, with potential for 300,000 deaths if unchecked. While measures are tough on mental and physical health, they must be balanced against the cost of the virus spreading widely. The hospitality sector would struggle under such conditions, so current actions are justified but need clearer explanation.

The effectiveness of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations should be regularly reviewed and published data on this should be made available to Parliament. The two options discussed are not exhaustive; there is a third option which involves living with the virus through sustainable restrictions that enable meaningful lives and economic sustainability.

People need joy in their lives, and simple rules that do not change weekly should be established to help people live meaningfully while dealing with the virus. Local data-driven rules are necessary for this approach.

Regulations must be clear, understandable, and effective in lowering infection rates without causing economic damage or threatening livelihoods. In Merseyside, local lockdown regulations have not been successful in reducing infections; instead, they pose a severe threat to businesses and jobs. The Government should implement a support scheme for local businesses hit by these measures.

Emphasises the need for localised measures to address the pandemic while highlighting the economic impact on businesses and individuals. She urges the Government to provide more targeted support for sectors hit hardest by restrictions.

Critiques the Government's handling of data errors and contact tracing, urging them to invest in local authorities' public health teams. She argues that controlling the virus is key to economic recovery.

Questions the need for granular data on infection spread and asks about specific measures taken regarding university halls of residence and hospital-to-care home transmissions.

Expresses concern over the sudden imposition of restrictions, lack of clarity in rules, and inadequate support for local businesses. He criticises the Government's communication with local authorities.

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool who made terrific points, and I would like to make specific points about policing local lockdown restrictions and ask questions of the Minister. The additional resources promised for policing the restrictions should not be dependent on demonstrating more prosecutions but rather on effective community relations. He expressed concern over the nonsensical 10 pm curfew in hospitality businesses, causing harm to jobs and public health. Smaller British brewers are struggling under Government proposals and need support from the Chancellor's relief plan. Specific industries need specialist support from the government.

Agrees with hon. Member for Easington that localised restrictions are better than national ones, but wants to see more localised data. He highlights three concerns: clarity of schemes, the 10 pm curfew’s impact on hospitality sector, and issues surrounding test and trace system's speed of response. Government needs to explain and justify measures clearly to maintain public consent for imposing them.

Expresses gratitude towards those working hard during the pandemic but highlights concerns over local jobs and economy due to new regulations. The £7 million funding announced is insufficient, as it only supports outbreak management without aiding affected businesses. Urgently requests a test and trace system utilising local expertise and criticises government's incompetence in managing crucial data.

Speaks for residents under lockdown since 16 days, facing restrictions such as ban on indoor drinks/meals with non-household contacts. Businesses are seeing a sharp decline in bookings without eligibility for further support grants. Residents resent confused instructions and economic harm caused by inconsistent treatment. Urgently requests evidence of benefits from these restrictions and hope that there may be an end in sight.

Amesbury argues against the 10 pm curfew, citing his experience as a son of a publican. He notes that the new kicking-out time has led to congregation and spreading of infections in communities. He also mentions an astronomical rise in covid infections on one side of his constituency compared to another without additional restrictions. Amesbury calls for review of the 10 pm curfew, devolution of responsibility for test, trace and isolate system to local authorities with proper funding, better communication from the Government, and a sectoral support package for hospitality industry.

Eagle emphasises the need for coherent and transparent rules from the Government that are simple and understandable. She advocates for an effective test and trace system and criticises the withdrawal of support to businesses as the pandemic is still raging in communities. She calls on the Government to increase support for individuals who need to self-isolate, provide financial assistance to affected businesses, and give extra support to local authorities and statutory services.

Cummins is disappointed with how the Government handled the introduction of local restrictions in Bradford. She highlights issues such as lack of accountability, inconsistent decision-making, and absence of public data and criteria driving decisions. She demands clarity and consistency in decision-making processes and a clear plan to review strategy if local restrictions are not working.

Brabin discusses the impact of restrictions on her constituents, businesses, and hospitals. She criticises the arbitrary implementation of new restrictions such as the 10 pm curfew. She calls for a locally controlled test and trace system with councils drawing money when needed and clarity around parameters for coming out of restrictions.

The situation is frustrating and frightening due to high cases in Newcastle and the contradiction between suppressing virus through local lockdowns and withdrawing financial support. Mortality rates are higher in deprived areas, highlighting economic inequalities. The job retention scheme's replacement will not support viable jobs if people cannot afford self-isolation or comply with restrictions. There needs to be proper funding for localized responses.

The difficulty in understanding shades of restrictions affects residents, especially those unable to see relatives in care homes. The north-east's proactive approach requires local test and trace system run by local authorities and support for businesses affected by curfew and fear of going out. There is a need for extra measures and funding to manage the situation locally and ensure viable jobs. Confirms £10 million for local track and trace services.

Acknowledges the difficult time facing constituencies with restrictions affecting livelihoods, businesses, and visiting relatives in care homes. The global pandemic requires balancing virus suppression with protecting economy and education. Local factors including incidence rate, positivity rate, hospitalisations are considered for different actions across areas. Praises the capacity build-up of testing system from 2,000 to over 200,000 people a day. Emphasises that local and national systems complement each other in test and trace.