National Security and Investment Bill

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his work and for being here for the debate; I know how busy he is, so I am most grateful. I will speak to new clause 4, which provides a definition of “national security”. After listening to some of the speeches, I wonder whether I am going to play the role of General Melchett in “Blackadder” when I insist that “security” is not a dirty word. Let me try to put the argument in favour of a national security definition. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) suggested that I do so, and I am grateful to him for the opportunity. Like him, I thank Nicole Kar and Alice Lynch, who supported the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

New clause 4 provides a non-exclusive framework of factors that the Secretary of State would be obliged to regard when he is assessing takeovers or work in this field. It does not limit the Secretary of State in any way, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), who spoke eloquently, and others suggested. It provides a public recognition and a public baseline of things that should be considered. As such, it is a sensible amendment to improve the Bill, as well as providing a wider public service by defining national security in the modern era. I would like to make a few background points and then speak for between five and 10 minutes on a few other points.

We need a definition of national security, because the alternative is to have a vague and unstated set of assumptions. The amendment is broad, but it sets quite a high benchmark. It is not a generalised catch-all, nor does it contain a substitute for an industrial policy; that is another debate. The Cadbury takeover would not be included in this, nor would a Stilton creamery in South Notts—it might in France, but not in this country.

In this country we have a tendency to romanticise vagueness, as if planning were a bad thing and muddling through a strategic art as well as a national pastime, with this just-in-time Dunkirk spirit. I think it was Churchill who noted that, actually, Dunkirk was a military disaster, not a victory, and that if we had got our security and strategy right in the years previously, we could have avoided glorifying disasters because we would not have been in that disastrous position in the first place. A more systematic approach to national strategy—frankly, I think we need a national strategy council—but also to security and the definition of national security is important.

My next point is that the nature of national security has changed, and we need to be mindful of that. It is not simply about defence and espionage and the immediate threat to the realm. We have seen from Russia and China a combining of non-military and military, of covert and overt strategies—people call it hybrid war, grey war, under-the-radar war; there are about 25 definitions doing the rounds. This is not a war as such, but it is a form of state struggle and state conflict. Some states in the world, including very significant states such as Russia and, perhaps to a lesser extent, China, see things as a zero-sum game. We need to understand that liberal internationalism is not the only show in town and not the only way to understand international affairs. The west is good at many things, but seeing the world through the eyes of others is not necessarily one of them.

These new states, as many people here have said, use multiple and novel tools, including economic power, energy power, espionage, blackmail, information war and even cultural and religious power, as well as military and paramilitary power, and they use different templates and different tools in different parts of the world. Clearly, the tools that China uses in Xinjiang province are different from the ones that it uses in the City of London or to reach out to parliamentarians. The tools that Russia uses in eastern Ukraine or Kiev are different from the ones that it uses in the UK. Is the Kremlin’s use of Russian Orthodoxy a national security threat to us? No, of course not. But is its use of oligarchs and informal channels to influence senior political and financial elites in our country—the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) called it “elite capture”—a potential threat to national security? Yes.

The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was right to mention how states are using those new powers and how they use power to bend or break the international system. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling has also spoken about that repeatedly, as indeed have many of us on the Foreign Affairs Committee. That international system is not perfect, but it has served humanity well.

It is important to understand that national security is not just about a narrow defence threat; it is broader. China has published a document, “Made in China 2025”, outlining how it plans to dominate data, artificial intelligence, big data and so on. Is it a threat to our communications infrastructure if we are dominated by a one-party state with a very different values system? I am not saying definitely, but potentially it would be.

The Henry Jackson Society and I produced a report on Five Eyes supply chain reliance on China. Over a quarter of British supply chains are dominated by China, and the UK is strategically dependent on China for 229 categories of goods, 51 of which have potential applications in critical national infrastructure spheres. We need to be mindful of the impact of that on our national security.

There are companies that are going to be bought and universities that are going to be working on gait technology and facial technology. I do not doubt that there are some countries in the world that will use that technology to improve their mass transport systems, but there are countries—China is potentially one of them—that will use it as a means of controlling their people more effectively and developing the sort of Orwellian state that is a potential threat to humanity and mankind.

Let me look specifically at new clause 4. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble talked about the need to be nimble, and she is exactly right, but osmosis is not a way to provide a definition of national security. The new clause obliges the Government to look at a series of areas. We tried to make it broad, but it sets a high bar. It requires the Government to look at the critical supply chain, critical national infrastructure and national resource. A year ago, who would have argued that personal protective equipment manufacture, vaccine supply or AstraZeneca’s cyber-security were national security issues? Probably nobody. Who now would deny it? Probably nobody. This is a significant element of our national security.

Another example—one that has worried me greatly—is that the Government did not see Huawei’s domination of 5G as a national security issue. They chose not to listen to those people in the agencies who said that it was and set a clear political direction. It concerned me particularly that, bizarrely, BEIS and other Ministries presented Huawei in this House as a private firm when, clearly, it was part and parcel of the Chinese state. Therefore, having a clear definition in the Bill of what Ministers are obliged to look at would help to guide them to come to good decisions in the national interest, and that is what we are trying to do.

We are trying to do things in the national interest to improve the Bill where we can. Paragraphs (b) and (c) address the threat from individuals and to individuals. Paragraph (c) addresses the nature of potential acquirers of UK firms. The hon. Members for Aberavon and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) spoke very eloquently about this, and Huawei is instructive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling spoke about two companies that were bought when perhaps they should not have been, and we need to look at the nature of potential acquirers of UK firms. It is not an attack on laissez-faire economics or on our role as a free market and dynamic, global economic centre to accept that a national security definition, along with good laws, helps to provide a framework for honesty and integrity in business life. Paragraph (f) addresses national security and our responsibility to oppose modern slavery and genocide, which is an important issue for me, but again it sets an extraordinarily high bar.

Paragraph (g) addresses the potential threat of global organised crime. Again Russia, specifically, has tried to influence other countries in this way. Yes, that could be a potential national security risk. Finally, paragraph (h) gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to take a generalised approach to things that are not in the interests of the UK and are a threat to our interests or our citizens.

This new clause is a baseline, not a limiting factor. It helps to provide guidance for the Secretary of State and for BEIS. Frankly, this should be cross-departmental. We need our own CFIUS, and why we do not have one I do not know. Again, that is a concern. I will not address it now, because it clearly is not in the amendment and I am wrapping up.

I fear that the vagueness on national security does not help this Bill, nor does it help national security and its role. Clarity is needed in the long term to help us provide better strategy and a better understanding of the opportunities and risks that face this country in the years ahead.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]]

I start by congratulating Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and by wishing for a violence-free inauguration today. Good riddance to the outgoing President. We will not miss his hate speech.

The National Security and Investment Bill seeks to usher in sweeping reforms to how our Government can scrutinise foreign investment. It proposes strong measures to toughen foreign investment rules and to bring the UK into line with other major countries in key sectors. These steps to keep high-growth and strategically important companies in the UK are overdue and highly welcome, but does the Secretary of State agree that, for the UK to have an active industrial policy that works in the public interest, the Government must go further than just blocking hostile mergers and acquisitions, and instead implement a robust industrial strategy that puts critical national infrastructure at the heart of Government policy?

One example is the recent takeover of Arm, the crown jewel of the British tech sector—a genuine global powerhouse worth more than £31 billion and with more than 6,000 employees. Its recent sale to Nvidia, a US tech giant worth more than £338 billion that is tucked away in the tax-light and secrecy-heavy state of Delaware, provides a clear example of the risky and problematic sale of a British firm to foreign investors, which threatens both security fears and job losses.

Mental Health Act Reform

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I would very much like to pay tribute to those who bravely put forward their testimony of their lived experience of what it was like to be a service user under the existing Act, which formed so much of the evidence for what we need to do to make it better.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend. She was the Minister responsible for mental health during much of the framing of the review, and the initial turning of that review into this White Paper. She did that with such sensitivity, thought, and—crucially—by actively listening to what people want when they are at some of the most vulnerable points of their lives. It is not easy to do that; it requires skill and compassion, and my hon. Friend has both of those in spades.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the changes being proposed today because as the Mental Health Act currently stands, black people are four times more likely to be detained, and more than 10 times more likely to be subject to a community treatment order. Evidence from my constituency of Liverpool, Riverside echoes that, and my office deals with multiple requests for support from constituents from our diverse communities. Will the Minister confirm that the steps being proposed will ensure that care is accessible, culturally appropriate, and free from the levels of discrimination currently experienced?

Public Health

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]]

There have been more than 2 million confirmed covid cases in the UK, 71,000 people have tragically died, and a staggering one in 50 are now diagnosed with covid—another record high for this country. Liverpool has been significantly impacted by the pandemic. The total number of confirmed cases in Liverpool for the last seven days is over 3,500, an increase of over 2,300 on the previous week.

The new variant poses more of a threat going forward, and we clearly need to take action to halt the increase, save lives and protect the NHS, but this was not inevitable. Time and again, we have seen this Government refuse to take the necessary steps to save lives and protect livelihoods. We have the second highest death rate in Europe, surpassed only by Italy. On top of that, we are currently suffering the deepest recession of any G7 country. The Government have failed to rise to the challenge of the pandemic since last year, and future generations will look back on them as having done too little, too late.

I repeat that this was not inevitable. This is what happens when those in charge disregard calls by frontline workers, teachers, scientists, unions and experts for schools to be closed and for a national lockdown to slow the spread of the pandemic. Doctors at the Royal Liverpool Hospital in my constituency describe the situation as hanging by a thread, with major staff shortages and staff suffering exhaustion, the additional winter pressures and delayed medical demand still overdue from the first covid wave all adding to that pressure.

With hospitals at risk of being overwhelmed by the new variant and already facing this huge spike in infections with fewer staff than in the first wave, can the Minister outline what funding will be made available to bring extra support and staff into the NHS over the coming weeks? With the vaccines being rolled out as we speak, and the welcome news that the AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved to begin distribution next week, when will the Government produce a national plan for vaccinations? What steps will be taken to ensure that agency and outsourced workers in frontline jobs, such as hospital porters, cleaners and teaching support staff, will be given equal access to vaccines alongside everyone else in their workplaces, especially given that those staff are more likely to be at greater risk of contracting the virus?

Let me conclude by paying tribute to our valiant NHS, all the workers who have continued to work to keep my city safe: the council, public health, the community and voluntary sector, and the army of amazing volunteers.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin at 6.44 pm.

Covid-19: Hospital Parking Charges for NHS Staff

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Zarah Sultana]

I agree. We see in Scotland and Wales that staff parking is free, because parking is free for everyone. Northern Ireland has also shown leadership in this field, and I hope that our Government here in Westminster follow suit.

As of today, it is reported that staff at the Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust will have to pay for parking. Quite simply, I and many others can see that the Government have promised free parking for NHS staff throughout the pandemic and funding for NHS trusts to make this possible, but they have unfortunately broken that promise. Parking charges have been reintroduced for NHS staff, during a global pandemic. From clapping for carers, we are now clamping carers. Frankly, that is scandalous and no way to thank our incredible NHS staff.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our hard-working NHS staff, who put their lives on the line every day and are currently suffering from anxiety and mental health issues, need to be supported in a better way than clapping and need to have free parking reintroduced? I have heard that charges are going up by 200%. Does she believe that this should be stopped?

[Zarah Sultana]

I will touch on the mental health of NHS staff later, but my hon. Friend makes the point that some trusts are introducing parking charges, in some cases with a 200% increase, which is absolutely scandalous. The Government should provide enough funding to cover the gaps from a decade of cuts to the NHS. I will talk later about increasing NHS pay so that actual rewards and recognition are given to our NHS staff.

When I asked the Prime Minister about this in the Chamber, he promised to look into it and get back to me. I have heard nothing since and would be very interested to hear the Minister’s update today. It appears that the Prime Minister and Health Secretary are so out of touch that they do not even know that this has happened.

This is not just about the Government failing to keep their word; it is about public safety and basic fairness. Working on the frontline, NHS staff are already more exposed to the virus. As the Royal College of Nursing and UNISON highlight, travelling to work by car reduces the risk of NHS staff catching or spreading the virus. Reintroducing parking charges makes that safer option more expensive. It also makes it more unaffordable for some workers. To ensure public safety, parking charges must be abolished throughout the pandemic.

But it is not just that; NHS staff are battling the virus day in, day out. Some tell me how exhausted they feel, pushed to breaking point by the pandemic. One nurse at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle told me:

“We are exhausted, we are on our knees”.

She told me that staff are acting outside their roles, working overtime for free and being redeployed across wards and positions to try to cover the gaps. Another told me how frightening battling covid has been, with consistent failures to provide NHS staff with proper PPE. A Sunday Mirror investigation found that healthcare workers needed almost 2 million days off for mental illness in the first wave, with doctors and nurses suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and more than 2,000 doctors quitting the profession since March. Tragically, we know that more than 200 health and care workers have lost their lives to the virus.

Even now, staff are being forced to use repurposed bin bags as official PPE at some hospitals in the UK. It is not a surprise that a British Medical Association study found that nearly three-quarters of its members fear that they will be overwhelmed this winter. Nurses in Coventry tell me that morale is at rock bottom, but the stress and overwork that NHS staff experience are not new. They did not begin with the pandemic. Instead, a decade of NHS underfunding and privatisation has left NHS staff underpaid and overworked. Nurses’ and doctors’ pay has fallen by more than 8% and 9% respectively since 2010. Many cleaners and porters are on less than the real living wage.

Underfunding means that we now spend 22% less per head on health than France and 47% less than Germany. It is in this context that NHS staff are being battered by a Government that have overworked and overstretched them for 10 years. A deadly second wave is hitting our hospitals and we see the Government have let parking charges be introduced. Can the Minister tell me how this is fair? One member of staff at University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire told me that the move has felt like a kick in the teeth. She said:

“Staff feel totally undervalued and unappreciated.”

What will the Minister say to them? At another hospital, a student nurse has spoken out about how demoralising it felt to get a parking fine after she worked a 13-hour shift. Another told me:

“Staff give and give and give and get nothing in return, not even a free place to park our car.”

Another described how he is,

“incensed that we are expected to pay to park in the middle of a global pandemic. This is happening while nurses are using food banks and are leaving the profession in their thousands.”

Such problems with parking are not new. I have been told how low pay and high parking charges have forced staff to quit the jobs they love. There are reports that parking charges could dramatically rise, with recent revelations showing that one NHS trust plans to raise charges for staff by 200%.

Some NHS trusts are under such financial strain that they feel they have no choice but to reintroduce charges. Staff tell me that that underfunding has become so extreme that parking charges are used to subsidise frontline care costs, meaning that NHS staff are victims of what one healthcare worker described as a stealth tax, paying for the NHS twice: once through taxation and again through parking at work. In Coventry, a private company runs hospital parking, lining its pockets from the hard work of NHS staff.

In the past, hospital parking charges have been justified on the grounds that abolishing than is not feasible. Tell that to the people of Wales, where charges for staff, patients and visitors were abolished more than a decade ago. If anyone thinks that there is something different or unique about England; that here we somehow cannot abolish charges, that has been thoroughly debunked by the simple fact that for three months at the start of the pandemic, charges were abolished. It is not a question of feasibility; it is simply a question of political will. The Government just need to find the will to intervene, to provide the funds for trusts and to guarantee free parking, just like they said they would.

In the spring, Ministers clapped for NHS staff. Instead of more empty gestures, I call on them today to give our NHS staff the recognition they deserve. Start off by guaranteeing free parking for all NHS staff, and this time make it permanent. That is the very least they can do. It should not stop there—parking charges are an unfair second tax on staff, but they are also a tax on patients and on visitors seeing loved ones. Parking charges should also be abolished for patients and visitors.

NHS staff have faced a decade of falling pay, for which the current pay deal does not compensate. The French Government have stepped in to give their healthcare workers a pay rise totalling £7.2 billion. Our Government need to do the same, so I call on them to give NHS staff a fair pay rise of 15% to make up for a decade of lost pay, and to end the creeping privatisation of the NHS, which has seen resources taken away from frontline services and channelled to private healthcare companies. If the Minister says there is no money for this, I say to him that the Government have just found £16 billion for the military. Let us fund the NHS instead. Our priority should be welfare, not warfare.

I will finish with a series of questions for the Minister. Does the Minister acknowledge that the Government have broken their promise and allowed parking charges to be reintroduced during the global pandemic? Will he apologise to NHS staff for this broken promise? Will he urgently work to reverse this situation, and bring back free parking for NHS staff in Coventry and across the country? Will he move on from empty gestures for the NHS and instead commit to permanent free parking, a fair pay rise, and the funding the NHS needs for the future?

Deaths in Mental Health Care

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

Matthew Leahy had his whole life ahead of him. He was just 20 years old when he was detained in November 2012 under the Mental Health Act and transported to the Linden Centre, a secure mental health unit in Chelmsford. Three days after his admission to what his mother, Melanie, believed was a place of safety, Matthew reported that he had been drugged and raped. Four days later, he was found hanged in his room.

Over the ensuing years, multiple inquests and inquiries into the conditions surrounding Matthew’s death have uncovered evidence of serious care failings, including the fact that Matthew’s paperwork was incomplete or missing and that no key worker had been assigned to him. It was revealed that Matthew had no care plan and that staff had falsified one after his death and backdated it.

I welcome the petition and this debate, and I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Matthew’s parents and all those who have campaigned so hard to get the truth, justice and accountability. I also welcome last month’s announcement by the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), that the Government will launch

“an independent review into the serious questions raised by a series of tragic deaths of patients at the Linden Centre between 2008 and 2015.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 733.]

It is absolutely right that we commit to uncover the truth about the significant failings in the care and treatment of vulnerable patients, and that the mantra of “learning lessons” is not merely a soundbite accompanied by endless toothless reviews but results in substantive and tangible change.

No mother should ever have to go through the dreadful loss and devastation faced by Melanie Leahy and so many other people, who made difficult decisions in impossible circumstances to hand over their children to the care of others, where they believed their children would be safe. No family should have to campaign for years to forcibly expose the negligence and incompetence of a system that contributed to the death of their loved one.

We know that black people are overrepresented in mental health services and are disproportionately subject to the use of Taser on wards, and it needs to stop. I congratulate Mary Seacole House, a mental health charity in my constituency, on the work that it has done over many years to support patients with mental health problems, and on shining a light on injustices.

My question to the Minister is: how can we challenge and improve the process and culture of attaining inquiries, so that families bereaved by state neglect and wrongdoing are placed at the very heart of conversations about accountability and change, and are not blocked, bullied, stigmatised or cast aside with accusations of being a nuisance or a problem in their quest for truth and justice?

Local Contact Tracing

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Liverpool is proof, if proof is needed, that the Government’s privatised test and trace system has failed. The Government have had months to get an effective system in place, but we are still waiting for it. The proportion of people being reached by the test and trace system has decreased over the past three weeks, coinciding with the sharpest increase in infection rates that we have seen since the first wave in the spring. We cannot afford to have an ineffective test, track and trace system.

[Suzanne Webb]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Johnson]

No, thank you. I cannot give way.

Let us be clear: it is not the NHS test and trace system that is failing us because the NHS has not been given the contract. It is a privatised system, wasting billions of pounds, that is failing us and the people of this country. We can no longer depend on a national system that 74% of the population believe is not working. Contracts are handed out without competitive tendering, which is what happened with the company that was set up on 12 May 2020 by an associate of a Conservative peer. It had no track record and received a £122 million contract. There are all those favoured Government companies with a track record of failure, such as Serco, which was fined £23 million by the Serious Fraud Office last year for overclaiming on its tagging contract, or its subcontractor Concentrix, which was previously involved in scandals around tax credits. Millions of pounds have been gifted to privatised companies, whether or not they are successful. Serco’s track and trace programme is reaching only 68% of close contacts. My local health protection teams have managed to communicate with 97% of contacts. People’s lives are dependent on an effective and swift test, track and trace programme.

Half of the wards in my constituency are in the top 20% of deprived neighbourhoods. Poverty is strongly linked with the incidence of covid-19. We have a large black community who are more susceptible to the virus and prone to a disproportionate number of deaths. As of this afternoon, Liverpool has no intensive care unit beds in the city, and the virus is impacting other critical care wards. It is time that this Government stop playing ideological games with people’s lives and handed responsibility back to local authorities, regional public health directors and our NHS to run this critical programme, save lives and protect our NHS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about how we need to see children and young people getting in place, as soon as possible, the support that can help them and about how there are waiting times for these plans. There are two things I can say in response. First, in the context of covid, NHS England has made it clear to NHS organisations that they must restart and restore services that support children and young people with EHC plans and in the assessments for those plans. Secondly, in the review of the SEND system, we are indeed looking at how we can address some of the problems in the system and achieve better integration across health, care and education.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

What steps he has taken to ensure the continuation of breast screening during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)]

Women at greatest risk of breast cancer continue to be prioritised for screening. The NHS has worked hard and has significantly reduced the backlog of delayed breast screening appointments from over 468,000 in June to under 52,000 in September. All services have now been restarted and, in Breast Cancer Awareness Month, the message is clear: when you get a screening invite, please attend; if you are worried about anything, contact your general practitioner.

[Kim Johnson]

Breast screening appointments were paused during the height of the pandemic. Breast Cancer Now has estimated that 986,000 women across the UK missed their mammograms, and it estimates that, as a result, there could be 8,600 women living with undetected breast cancer. With this being Breast Cancer Awareness Month, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to address the gaps in specialist breast cancer nurses recently highlighted by Macmillan Cancer Support?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Cancer nurse specialists are a particular interest of mine, and the long-term plan identifies that everybody deserves to have personalised care from a cancer nurse specialist. We did see the rate decline from 91% in 2018 to about 89% in 2019, and we are focused on making sure that everybody has a cancer nurse specialist. We promised it in the long-term plan and it is our ambition to deliver that personalised care to every woman. As I have outlined, the backlog of breast cancer screening has gone down but, again, I urge women who are called for screening to come forward. It is safe and, as with me, it could make all the difference.

Covid-19 Update

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course we support businesses and others who want to get tests outside the NHS Test and Trace system; last week we published a paper on how they can go about doing that, and we encourage businesses to do that for their employees. The critical thing is that if people test positive, that data must, by law, flow to Public Health England so that we can do the necessary contact tracing and enforce the isolation that is going to be mandatory from next Monday. We strongly support that sort of action, whether it is taken by employers or, indeed, the University of Cambridge, which proposes to do the same for its students.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Liverpool incidence rates have increased quickly and we are now on the precipice of local lockdown. There has been an increase of 247 cases on the previous week’s figures and the latest weekly rate in Liverpool is now 120 per 100,000, as the Secretary of State mentioned. What additional resources does the Secretary of State plan to provide to Liverpool and other local authorities to assist them in dealing with further localised outbreaks?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady asks an important question. We are putting more testing into Liverpool, notwithstanding the challenges in testing capacity, because it is exactly the sort of place where we need to put that testing. We are also bringing in £500 of support for everybody on a low income who has to self-isolate, whether they have tested positive themselves or are a contact of somebody who has tested positive and have been contacted through NHS Test and Trace. I support the hon. Lady in her work as the local representative to explain to her constituents in Liverpool, Riverside how important it is to follow the rules.

Covid-19: BAME Communities

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) for organising this debate this afternoon. As the first black MP for Liverpool, I know only too well the impact of deeply entrenched systemic racism and inequalities, and I welcome the opportunity of speaking in this important debate today on the level of deaths from covid-19 among black communities. The unequal impact is linked to a number of factors, including structural racism, discrimination and health inequalities increasing the risk of serious illness. The Office for National Statistics reports that black men and women are four times more likely to die from covid-19 than white men and women, and it is clear that covid-19 did not create these health inequalities, but rather that the pandemic exposed and exacerbated long-standing inequalities affecting black communities in the UK.

In “Health Equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on”, Professor Marmot stated that health inequality was

“even worse for minority ethnic population groups”,

and commented that the pandemic will entrench and make worse existing inequalities. Recent analysis suggests that black individuals account for 63% of all NHS staff deaths from covid-19, including 64% of deaths among nursing and support staff and 95% of deaths among medical staff. Black people are more likely to work in occupations with a higher risk of covid-19 exposure, more likely to use public transport to travel to work and less likely to access the necessary PPE to protect themselves.

Race equality has been firmly placed on the agenda in the past couple of weeks, but we all know only too well that countless reports and commissions tell black people what we already know: that we are disadvantaged simply because of the colour of our skin. I say enough is enough. Now is the time for action and change. I do not want my grandsons having the same debate in years to come. Public Health England has published two reports now and the Government are setting up another commission that will report back at the end of the year. They must act now to reverse these long-standing, systemic inequalities and move form rhetoric to reality.

Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 General Committees

[Jo Churchill]

I do not know whether I caught every one of those questions, but if I have missed any, I promise I will write to the hon. Lady to fill in the gaps. I will give it my best shot.

The legislation was made to ensure that we had the means of detention there, should we need it. If we go back—I see that one of the hon. Members from the Wirral, or near the Wirral, is here—

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Liverpool.

[Jo Churchill]

Liverpool. I will take this moment to put on record how brilliant not only the health service, but the local councils and everybody involved in the self-isolation of individuals at both Arrowe Park and Kents Hill Park have been. However, the need to have a deterrent was made clear during that period. That is why this statutory instrument was brought forward. It was deemed that the powers to invoke section 2A, go to the magistrates and use that route would perhaps take too much time for us to be able to effect what we may—but what, in the circumstances at that time, we did not—need to do. This piece of legislation is there so that we can invoke it.

On the sunset clause, this legislation will drop after two years. That was deemed a suitable period of time, but if during that period it is determined that coronavirus is no longer a threat, the Secretary of State has the power to revoke. The chief medical officer and chief scientific advisers have indicated that we are not totally sure of the trajectory, and it may be that we get another peak later in the year. We therefore have the flex to allow us to invoke these measures. I hope that that provides clarity.

The regulations give public health consultants, public health officers, the Secretary of State and members of the constabulary the power to detain. All appropriate safety measures would be taken if we were to use those powers. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West was rightly concerned for anyone enforcing these measures. Instructions on how people are to behave at the point at which these measures are invoked is covered, with the personal equipment they may need and so on, to ensure that everyone is kept safe. Ensuring population safety and being led by scientific advice is at the heart of the Government’s response to coronavirus.

It may be that we move on from self-isolation and need the regulations for something different. As we move forward, isolation will probably be for different reasons, such as protecting the vulnerable, among others.

I totally understand the hon. Lady’s comments about statutory sick pay and so on, but the Secretary of State answered many of those points during the urgent question earlier. He said that many such challenges have been sorted out, but that some—particularly those for the self-employed—have proved trickier to deal with through the normal channels, because statutory sick pay is normally received from the employer.