Public Health England Review: Covid-19 Disparities Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury

Public Health England Review: Covid-19 Disparities

Flick Drummond Excerpts
Thursday 4th June 2020

(4 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Kemi Badenoch Portrait Kemi Badenoch
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I utterly reject what the hon. Lady has said. With permission, Mr Speaker, I think I need to clarify some confusion that seems to have arisen. The Government commissioned a review to analyse how different factors can impact on people’s health outcomes from covid-19. That is what was published this week. Separately, PHE has been engaging with a significant number of individuals and organisations within the BAME community over the past couple of months to hear their views. That was not a part of this. A lot of people think that that is something that should have been in the report. We will be building on, and expanding on, that engagement as we take this work forward, but that is different from the report that we have commissioned.

Flick Drummond Portrait Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I have read the report and I do understand that it has been rushed, but it does raise a number of issues, such as the effect of age and ethnicity. Further examination is also needed of other issues such as comorbidities, socioeconomic issues and multi-generational living, which is the case in Italy too. Does the Minister feel that the report has gone far enough?

Kemi Badenoch Portrait Kemi Badenoch
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The short answer is no. The report is a welcome first step, but it certainly has not gone far enough. We will take it to where we think it needs to get to.