Leicester’s mayor has criticised the government for taking a “sledgehammer approach” to the city’s lockdown. It came after Matt Hancock announced only a partial relaxation of the measures imposed more than two weeks ago.
Hancock has announced changes to the lockdown boundary, with the restrictions only applying to the city of Leicester and the borough of Oadby and Wigston from 24 July.
Bitterly disappointed but not surprised. I asked Secretary of State to focus on the 10% where the virus is – not lock down the whole of the city on an artificial political boundary. #LockdownLeicester pic.twitter.com/MBUOtOFjly
— Leicester City Mayor (@CityMayorLeic) July 16, 2020
The health secretary told MPs on Thursday 16 July that restrictions on schools and nurseries would be lifted from 24 July. Meanwhile councils would be given local powers to close non-essential shops where necessary. But pubs and restaurants will remain closed, and restrictions on non-essential travel and only having social gatherings of up to six people will remain in force, pending another review in a fortnight.
Mayor Peter Soulsby, who previously claimed that data provided to city officials highlighted that only 10% of Leicester had shown higher transmission rates, said he was “bitterly disappointed” by the announcement. He added:
I am not surprised by this decision but remain extremely frustrated that a sledgehammer approach is being taken to deal with an issue in a very small part of the city.
Now that we finally have the very detailed data we have been calling for over the past few months, we can take targeted local action to get the virus under control, without the need for the force of law or a full city lockdown.
We have already showed the Government what can be achieved when they work with local councils on the ground, by helping them to set up the biggest testing operation in the country which is now responsible for more than 10% of all testing in England.
If the Government allowed us to focus on the 10% of the city where infection rates are higher, we are more than capable of doing what is needed.
Soulsby accused the government of making a “party political” decision to keep city-wide restrictions. Speaking to reporters at Leicester’s City Hall, he added:
They have chosen to focus on the city geographical area – effectively the area of the county that votes Labour – and that’s just scandalous.
If they were going to alter the boundary, they should have gone down to the area that they now know where the virus is.
They have left two areas in there – one that has a Liberal Democrat council, the other that has a Labour mayor.
More clarity needed
In a statement to the House of Commons, Hancock said the latest data showed that the seven-day infection rate in Leicester was now 119 cases per 100,000 people. It’s come down from 135 when the local lockdown was announced on 29 June. But he added that coronavirus (Covid-19) rates in the city “still remain well above the national average and the average for surrounding areas”. He said:
Some say that the local lockdown is unnecessary.
I wish this were true, but sadly it remains vital for the health of everyone in Leicester and the rest of the country that these restrictions stay in place.
Leicester South MP Jonathan Ashworth tweeted:
Leicester stays in lockdown & we have no clarity of how we will be released.
Our local health officials need more testing data & we must increase testing locally. And we need the public health advice why city stays locked down but neighbourhoods next to city can be released.
Claudia Webbe, the MP for Leicester East, wrote on Twitter:
Its disappointing many parts of Leicester will remain in #LeicesterLockdown.
However, high rates of positive testing particularly in parts of the city with high levels of deprivation, poverty and inequality remains. In defeating the virus we cannot return to business as usual.
We need your help ...
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.
Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.
We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.
Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?