Dame Diana Johnson
MP for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham · Labour · United Kingdom
“Longer-term funding is subject to future spending reviews. The Department and NHS England are committed to prioritising funding for sepsis in future spending bids. The framework is a 10-year plan. I do not pretend that we will deliver everything overnight, but it sets clear targets to reduce deaths by a quarter over the next 10 years.”
“It is not acceptable that when someone has been through the worst experience of their life, they are just left to get on with it. That is why we are committed to improving access to post-discharge support and rehabilitation, with priority actions set out in the framework.”
“I encourage everyone who has not yet come forward to do so, and to ensure that they obtain both doses of the vaccine for proper protection. The framework commits to improving vaccine access. The shadow Minister put a number of questions to me. I will respond in writing, as I am conscious of the time.”
“No one knows a child better than his or her parents or carers, which is why listening to patients, carers and families is vital to supporting sepsis recognition and escalation. Too many cases have shown the devastating consequences when deterioration concerns are not heard.”
“During Sepsis Awareness Month, I pay tribute to the charities, such as the UK Sepsis Trust and Sepsis Research FEAT, that do so much to support families, raise awareness and fund research.”
“That will include research calls that cover sepsis improvement priorities, whether it is vaccination and screening, faster and more accurate diagnosis or innovative treatments. It is true that the most recent data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that sepsis deaths went down in 2024.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,801 lines we hold for Dame Diana Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 97.
“I am not going to force the issue to a vote today, but I want to test the Minister further on whether he might be minded to include the community wealth fund as a named and clearly identified object category in that first consultation by putting it in the Bill, if not at this stage, perhaps on Report. The noble Lord Parkinson, the Under-Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media And Sport in the other place, said “the Government will consider including community wealth funds in the first consultation launched under Clause 29.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2021; Vol. 816, c. 192.] The Minister has reiterated that commitment today, but I would like a bit more reassurance from him.”
“In response to efforts to assist the Government by putting in the Bill powers to establish pilot community wealth funds, the Minister is arguing that the Bill should not cover the specifics and set out the purposes that the funding should be directed to, and that such important detail should be left to the secondary legislation, albeit informed by public consultation. I note what the Minister has committed to do. He said that the community wealth fund would be a part of the first round of consultation, but I would like to push him a little further. Will he meet me and the others who are advocating the establishment of a community wealth fund halfway? Amendment 3 is probing at this stage.”
“As drafted, the Bill was silent on the purposes that the cash from this next wave of dormant assets would be spent on. As we know, the Government estimate it could be as much as £900 million. As I just set out, that lack of clarity contrasts very clearly with the original legislation, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. The causes that would be supported—social investment, financial inclusion and projects for young people—were very clear in that legislation, so it makes sense to me, given the amount of money at stake and the enormous contribution that the dormant assets scheme will make to good causes, that the matter of where the money is spent should be debated in and ultimately determined by Parliament.”
“Were the fund to remain written into the Bill, the Community Wealth Fund Alliance could start the process of securing match funding and planning to get money into the most left-behind communities as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I ask the Minister to reconsider on the basis of those arguments. I genuinely believe that this measure would assist the Government with one of their flagship policies. I move on to amendment 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods. If amendment 1 is passed, amendment 3 offers an alternative approach, as it would require the Government to “specifically consult on the merits of establishing a community wealth fund”.”
“In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the summer and talked about a 12-week consultation period, so it seems likely that the rest of 2022 will be gone before we get to the point of any secondary legislation being brought to Parliament. If the Government really are serious about their levelling-up agenda, keeping the provision for community wealth funds in the Bill is an opportunity that helps the Government. The community wealth fund commands broad support. Polling research shows that the proposal would have support among senior leaders in the financial services industry, whose endorsement the Government have said is key.”
“I therefore believe that it would be beneficial to keep provisions relating to the community wealth funds in this Bill to make clear what the money will be used for, and that it is the clear will of Parliament. I know the Government do not want dormant assets to be used to supplement their day-to-day spending, but without direction and clarity in the Bill, that could be one unintended side effect. We need a very clear direction of travel, which clause 29 currently provides. The second reason I oppose the Government’s amendment to remove the provisions for a community wealth fund is that any consultation process on how assets should be distributed could take some time.”
“I know that Members across the House will want an opportunity to make the case for funding for their own constituencies and for many other good causes—of course they will; of course we all will. I would argue that the creation of a community wealth fund is a matter of some importance to the Government themselves, with their levelling-up agenda for the most disadvantaged and left-behind areas. We hear so much about that from the Government, and it is really in their interest to have that on the face of the Bill. There is, of course, a precedent here. It should be noted that the first causes to benefit in England—social investment, financial capability and projects for young people—were all written into the original 2008 Act.”
“If the distribution of dormant assets is not identified with clear markers at this stage in proceedings, after so many years of discussion and debate, that would be a missed opportunity. I do not believe that the Minister is correct in claiming that secondary legislation is the most appropriate mechanism for deciding on the distribution. We all understand that there is limited opportunity for debate on secondary legislation, and there is, of course, no opportunity to amend it. That means Parliament’s role will be limited to rubber-stamping the Government’s proposals. With the expanded scheme expected to generate close to £1 billion of new funds for good causes, decisions about those causes are important and should be subject to proper debate and scrutiny in Parliament, rather than just introduced in secondary legislation.”
“First, the Bill, as a piece of primary legislation, is an excellent opportunity to set out clearly not only the mechanism for the acquisition of dormant assets, but some of the priorities for their distribution. It is worth noting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington just set out, that the clauses inserted by the other place are permissive, allowing the Minister and the Government if they so wish to enable the creation of funds to be established for community wealth funds. That helps to set out the current thinking of this Parliament—that we recognise the importance of community wealth funds, and that we would like to see Government investment in that area.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I rise to oppose Government amendment 1 and commend amendment 3. As we know, Government amendment 1 removes the provisions to create a community wealth fund as a means of tackling deprivation and building social infrastructure in left-behind communities. The Bill was amended in the other place to include those specific provisions. As we know, that amendment enjoyed significant cross-party support, including from Lord Hodgson from the Conservatives, Lord Bassam and Baroness Lister from Labour, Baronesses Kramer and Barker from the Liberal Democrats, Baroness Bennett from the Greens, and the Lord Bishop of Ely. I oppose Government amendment 1 for two reasons.”
“The Paymaster General has made various references to fairness and natural justice. He has made no reference at all to the Nolan principles: the seven standards that govern us all in public life, including honesty, leadership and accountability. On that basis, why will the Prime Minister not do what Gavin Barwell, a former chief of staff in No. 10 has suggested, and come clean and say whether he attended that party or not? Why is he hiding behind Sue Gray’s investigation?”
“We know that over Christmas children and young people would have been watching mainly streaming services rather than terrestrial TV, so can I press the Minister? Would it not be an easy and quick win to require all streaming services to use the British Board of Film Classification age verification system? We know that Netflix does, but Disney does not, which causes confusion for parents. This would be an easy, quick win for the Government, as well as everyone else.”
“We have heard a lot this morning about what the Leader of the House does not read, but I hope that he is reading the Health and Social Care Committee report on the challenges facing the NHS workforce, which has just been published. This week more than ever, we recognise the challenges that the NHS and social care workforces are facing with the omicron surge, the backlog in treatment and already being exhausted. Is this not an ideal opportunity for the Government to take up my idea of an NHS and social care covenant, just as we have for the armed forces and for the police, to recognise society’s responsibilities and obligations to that important part of our social infrastructure in this country?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement this morning. I know that the Home Affairs Committee will want to look in detail at the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme in the coming months and take evidence from the Minister. May I press her on one issue that we raised in a recent Select Committee meeting? It is the problem of those local authorities that do not put themselves forward for schemes such as these, resulting in the burden not being evenly shared across the country. Will councils be compelled to participate? When councils are involved in these schemes, can she guarantee that the Home Office will be constructive in consulting with those councils and providing the resources that they need?”
“A happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all Members and staff of the House. I know that the Leader of the House will agree with me about the importance of the local high street, especially in these uncertain times. At the beginning of December, I visited the owners of Steve’s Cycles on Chanterlands Avenue and Macs Tools on Newland Avenue in Hull, both of whom have really gone above and beyond in the service they have provided to their local community while also dealing with the effects of the pandemic on themselves and their families. Could we have an urgent statement from a Minister about the support that will be available to small family businesses while we are under plan B?”
“I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the report, along with all who served on the Committee. I will certainly add it to my reading list for the Christmas recess. I have a specific question on whether the Committee was able to look at the issue of pimping websites, on which individuals, often trafficked, are advertised for sex. They make large amounts of money for websites such as Vivastreet. Did the Committee feel able to make any recommendation about how that should be covered in the draft Online Safety Bill?”
“This is an excellent debate and my hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the international Human Rights Day. Given those moving words that she just read out, will she pay tribute to the human rights defenders around the world and in the UK, including the lawyers who defend the rights of women all around the world? I chair the all-party group on human rights, and we are putting a lot of effort into making sure that human rights defenders get the attention they deserve, particularly women human rights defenders around the world.”
“T8. May I take the Minister of State back to the answer she gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on statutory sick pay? People in Hull North face a very tough winter. Even with the new circumstances that have been announced for work, many of them will have to go to work because they work in factories or in manufacturing. Is it not now time that the Government take some action on statutory sick pay and reversing the £20 cut to universal credit?”
“I was very pleased that the Leader of the House announced the business for the whole of next week, until Thursday, because the election of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee is due to take place on Wednesday and I hope I might be a candidate. Can we have a debate on the issue of county lines? Last Friday, I spent time at Hull interchange with officers from British Transport Police who were carrying out a county lines operation. They were a superb group of officers, assisted by Railway Children, a charity that works to get alongside and support young people who, sadly, have got involved with county lines. I wonder whether we, as a House of Commons, need a debate about what additional resources British Transport police, home police forces and local authorities need to deal with the scourge of county lines.”
“Victims may also be reluctant to self-identify for a number of other reasons that can make understanding their experiences challenging.” This amendment acknowledges Home Office guidance by ensuring that late disclosure does not damage credibility. Amendment 6 sets out how a person who makes a late disclosure might be better identified by any relevant authority.”
“The Modern Slavery Policy Unit, co-led by Justice and Care UK and the Centre for Social Justice, stated: “Presuming late disclosure of modern slavery damages credibility will create barriers to effective identification and engagement with victims.” The Bill, as it stands, will make identifying and assisting victims of human trafficking more difficult. Amendment 5 would stop late disclosure affecting the credibility of a claim of being trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The Home Office’s modern slavery statutory guidance states: “Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.”
“I also want to speak to amendments 5 to 7, which focus on stopping late disclosure affecting credibility and providing guidance to help the relevant authorities to identify victims. Andrew Smith of the Humber Modern Slavery Partnership, an experienced practitioner, told me: “We know there are various reasons why we might see late disclosure by victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking. Victims may not identify as victims first and foremost, it can be only when a person is removed from the exploitative environment that they understand they were in fact being abused and exploited.” And yet, the Bill proposes a time limit on disclosure.”
“The latest figures from the national referral mechanism show that 60% of women and girls who were identified as potential victims in the past year were trafficked for purposes including sexual exploitation. In 2020, 94 women and 624 girls were trafficked and sexually exploited. These women need specific and targeted protection. New clause 3 would ensure that the link between human trafficking and sexual exploitation is acknowledged. It would aid efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking and broader violence against women and girls by providing a framework that would ensure that the authorities respond to individuals who may have been previously viewed as criminals as though they are, in fact, victims of sexual exploitation.”
“I rise to speak to new clause 3, which would put into law a specific offence for trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. We know that serious organised crime networks are deeply involved in this trade in human misery. I thank Kat Banyard at UK Feminista and Tom Farr at CEASE—the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation—UK, who have helped to draft new clause 3, and the Humber Modern Slavery Partnership at the Wilberforce Institute in Hull for all its help. Although the Modern Slavery Act 2015 covers exploitation broadly, the catastrophically high number of women and girls trafficked into the UK for the sex industry means that it merits a specific offence.”
“The Government need to do more to protect people who have suffered from these horrendous crimes.”
“The Minister also stated that delineating between trafficking for sexual exploitation and trafficking for other purposes would motivate individuals to put forward falsified referrals. However, all the evidence shows that victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation need more encouragement to come forward, not less. Finally, I want to speak in support of new clause 47 and the supporting amendment 149, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He has worked assiduously on protections for victims of human trafficking and modern slavery for many years. The new clause would provide all victims who receive a conclusive grounds decision with 12 months’ leave to remain to either recover, claim compensation or assist the police.”
“That would provide a framework for the relevant authorities to refer to when trying to discern the type of exploitation that has taken place. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), argued against these amendments in the Bill Committee, stating that the Government did not want to create a “two-tiered system” based on the exploitation that a victim had faced. I think that is simply wrong. Acknowledging the distinct features of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, as opposed to, for example, forced labour, would improve the authorities’ response and the ability to prosecute and find the perpetrators. Recognising and identifying difference would not create a hierarchy; rather, it would make the system more effective and accurate.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention and pay tribute to her for, as Home Secretary, bringing in the Modern Slavery Act. I sat on the Bill Committee for that Act and I remember well the debates that we had. She should be very proud of her work on this issue, and I absolutely agree with her comments on what the Bill will lead to. To return to amendment 6, I want to make it clear that putting these guiding factors in the Bill would provide a deeper understanding for the authorities of what they should be aware of and how to identify victims. Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the specific factors that may indicate that somebody is a victim of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation.”
“Many parts of the country have a lot of jobs that are impossible to do from home. I am thinking of factories and manufacturing jobs, many of which are in Hull. Hull also has below average vaccination rates, so will the Secretary of State say what more we can do to support areas such as that, and would not one start be to improve statutory sick pay?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the Health Secretary’s announcement about the guidance that people should work from home wherever possible, are you able to say anything to the House about what will happen to Parliament before we rise on 16 December?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She knows well the high levels of indebtedness in Hull. The fact that there is such an excellent service operating through our local citizens advice bureau is of huge benefit to many people. We know that demand is only going to get higher with the cost of living crisis, which she has so ably outlined. Does she think that having a hybrid system, where there is accessibility through face-to-face appointments as well as telephone advice, is the way to go, rather than moving to telephone advice only?”
“This is the most awful tragedy, and I want to add my condolences to all who have been affected by it. However, it is surely right to point out that the Home Office has failed to get a grip on this issue for far too long. In a week when the Home Affairs Committee has recommended that the Windrush compensation scheme should be removed from the Home Office because of issues of competency, is it not time that this matter was also removed from the Home Office and given to the Cabinet Office, and is it not time for a cross-Government response?”
“What implications do the changes to TfN have for the wider levelling-up agenda and prospects for boosting UK GDP growth? Finally, how can the north now have a genuine say in its future?”
“When challenged, Ministers have decided to stop the criticism by gutting the powers of Transport for the North and centralising to Whitehall responsibility for rebranding the TransPennine route upgrade as Northern Powerhouse Rail. This Government are taking back control to prevent levelling up. I, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and many other MPs across the north want answers to the following questions. When did the Secretary of State decide that Transport for the North’s advice on the integrated rail plan would be ignored and that it would not be provided with the full details and impact assessments of the integrated rail plan? What will be the fate of Transport for the North if it continues to advocate for a genuine Northern Powerhouse Rail line?”
“The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised not one but two high-speed train lines: the eastern leg of HS2, which would have benefited areas to the east of Leeds, including Hull; and Northern Powerhouse Rail. Now regeneration of great cities such as Hull and Bradford will be held back for another 20 years at least, with poor connectivity, slow speeds and inadequate capacity for passengers and freight. By removing Transport for the North’s responsibility for developing Northern Powerhouse Rail, Ministers reduce scrutiny and accountability and show no interest in working in partnership with the north. So much for devolution.”
“I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question and thank the Minister for his response. Sadly, though, I am far from reassured that cutting Transport for the North’s responsibilities and funding are not just spiteful reprisals for TfN advocating strongly on behalf of the north for a new high-speed, fully electrified Northern Powerhouse Rail and for the eastern leg of HS2. I thought there was broad consensus, informed by Lord Heseltine’s 2012 report, that rail infrastructure investment is a central part of the levelling-up agenda. Levelling up, in turn, was meant to be a central part of the Government’s strategy to increase overall UK economic growth. Treasury rules were meant to have been changed.”
“These changes to TfN represent a significant policy development, with consequences for the levelling-up agenda, and as such they should be discussed in this House. With no Transport questions scheduled until 16 December, Mr Speaker, have you been told whether Ministers intend to make a statement in this House on TfN’s future? If not, could you advise on how we might best summon Ministers to the House to answer questions on this matter?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 18 November, the same day as the statement was made in this House on the integrated rail plan, Transport for the North was written to by the Department for Transport setting out changes in relation to its future operation. In essence, the already limited powers of TfN are to be further reduced and its budget cut again. This comes after TfN’s recommendations on the integrated rail plan were largely rejected, with the scaling back of previously promised investment plans for northern England’s rail network. As you know, Mr Speaker, rail infrastructure investment is a central part of the levelling-up agenda, which in turn is meant to be a central part the Government’s strategy to increase overall UK economic growth.”
“Can I just gently remind the Home Secretary that it is her party that has been in power since 2010? Is it therefore a matter of incompetence on behalf of her Government that only five people have been removed in the past 12 months?”
“It is important to protect the independence of ICPs and ensure that they can set a strategy that effectively meets local needs, but there is also a need to ensure that women’s voices are not left behind in the decision making. Without this amendment, it cannot be assumed that those voices will be heard on all ICPs. I hope that the Government will consider the purpose of the amendment, which is to strengthen the Bill.”
“As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health, I have seen how the experience of women in relation to their healthcare is often an afterthought in a fragmented health system, as in the case of the vaginal mesh scandal; the recent debate about pain during the insertion of intrauterine devices, a form of contraception; maternity provision; and cuts to contraceptive services. The amendment would ensure that the issue of representation was considered by the Government. It has strong support from the medical bodies in this area, including the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as in other areas of healthcare, such as childhood cancer, and, as previously mentioned, carers groups.”
“I want to speak briefly to amendment 15, which focuses on the membership of integrated care partnerships—the bodies that will be responsible for developing plans to address the health and care needs of local populations. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make specific provisions ensuring the representation of particular areas of healthcare on ICPs via secondary legislation. In particular, I am concerned about having a strong voice for women’s health in ICPs. I also mention in passing the need for other groups to be represented, such as carers, in an ICP area.”
“It was five years ago on Tuesday that Tory Ministers blocked the privately financed rail electrification to Hull, and there was not one mention today of the great city of the north, Hull, and the economically important area of the Humber. Will the Secretary of State explain why passengers in Hull, who pay more for their train tickets and get a poorer service, will now have to wait even longer? I cannot see anything in the detail to show that the Prime Minister is delivering on his promise for Northern Powerhouse Rail. In the Hull and the Humber area, levelling up means absolutely nothing.”
“I serve on the ISC, and I have been incredibly impressed by the thoroughness of the information that the Committee has available to it, the reports that are produced and the recommendations that are made. What has concerned me today has been listening to both our Front Bencher and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) explain that recommendations that have been public for quite a while have not been responded to by the Government. Might the Minister be willing to undertake a review of all the recent recommendations that the Committee has put forward, to see what more can be done to make sure that we keep ourselves as safe as possible?”
“I refer back to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on the crisis of vacancies in the social care sector, which I think is currently at 100,000. Will the Secretary of State say something practical about how we will make sure that we have staff in the social care sector for the coming winter, as we know about the knock-on effects for the NHS and the real worry for families across the country?”
“In order to meet our commitments on net zero, the Humber energy estuary will play a vital role. So I am at a bit of a loss to understand why, in all the briefings over the weekend about the integrated rail review, we in the Humber will get nothing in terms of greener, faster connectivity. There will be no coast-to-coast Northern Powerhouse Rail, despite what the Prime Minister has promised in the past, and no benefit from HS2 to the east of Leeds. So, Prime Minister, I just wondered whether you could comment on the fact that the Humber is not getting much—”
“The Department for Transport now says that it does “not comment on speculation”, but its advance briefings set the speculation running. What further action can Mr Speaker take to address the way in which the House has been treated, and is waiting until Thursday for the House to hear about the rail plan not just a charade now? Will the Secretary of State for Transport now be summoned to this House to make his statement on his wholly, or mostly, leaked rail plan without further delay and before Thursday?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I speak further to my point of order on Tuesday 9 November, in which I sought assurances that the long-awaited integrated rail plan—the centrepiece of the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda—would not be leaked to the media while the House was in recess. All or most of the contents of the integrated rail plan have now been reported in the press over the weekend. Yet again, before any statement to this House, there has been selective leaking to the media ahead of the plan’s launch, which Government sources say is not until Thursday. This is despite previous statements from Mr Speaker telling Ministers on numerous occasions—most recently over the recent Budget statement—to end this repeated and systematic abuse of the House.”
“Mr Speaker has repeatedly reminded Ministers of the need to make important policy announcements to this House first. I therefore ask whether Mr Speaker has received notice of any intention by Ministers to make a statement in the House regarding the integrated rail plan, and whether Mr Speaker has sought any assurances that such an important statement will not be published while the House is not sitting.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of the importance across the country, not least in the north of England, of the long-awaited integrated rail plan. In Hull, we await news on the Government’s levelling-up promises on rail electrification and the eastern leg of HS2, but recent reports suggest that the plan may be published this week, on 11 November. In Transport questions on 4 November, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), said: “I am delighted to say that the integrated rail plan is not just coming soon—it is now coming very soon.” —[ Official Report , 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1035.] This evening, the House goes into recess until next Monday.”