Health Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Cane]

I absolutely agree. The single patient record is so important to make the NHS work efficiently and effectively, and to help it treat patients better. To achieve that, patients have to trust that the data is being well protected, and I am afraid that a lot of the people I talk to, including GPs—who are obviously critical in convincing patients that Palantir is safe—do not trust it. We have to pull out of the contract with Palantir. Will the Minister please consider that, please consider the issues faced by rural areas, and please, please, please get us some NHS dentists in Ely and East Cambridgeshire?

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley).

Countless numbers of constituents have contacted me about Palantir Technologies, telling me their concerns about the company’s involvement with Israel’s military and Trump’s ICE. Over 35 Members from across the House have signed my early-day motion calling on the Government to activate the break clause in the NHS federated data platform contract. The objection is not just about Palantir’s ethics, but about its operations under that contract. I share the concerns of many, including the National Data Guardian, about whether data identifiable to individual patients may be accessible by Palantir.

The potential success of the proposals on the single patient record and whether it manages to gain the confidence of the British public depends on the Government listening to these concerns, and making sure that issues around data access and limits, patient opt-outs and the data controller are resolved. I note that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has tabled a number of other amendments related to data safety, which I support.

I also wish to speak in support of amendment 10, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), on ICB financing. I am deeply concerned by the introduction of a duty under clause 48 for each of the constituent bodies of the ICB to achieve financial balance. In east London, we are currently fighting against massive, eight-figure cuts to the East London NHS foundation trust, where workers have been on strike amid cuts to jobs in much-needed mental health services, all of which are being justified by reference to new requirements for financial balance across the trust. Under the provisions of clause 48, matters will be made much worse and the ability to shift and adapt capacity across the system will be rendered impossible. One of the reasons that this is so regrettable, particularly in an area like east London, where the need for mental health services is acute and rising, is that cuts to these services will simply lead to greater costs arising elsewhere. For that reason, I also support amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, to place ICB spending on mental health services on a statutory footing.

I also support amendment 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because I am concerned, as others are, about provisions in the Bill for the reorganisation of ICBs. The changes are among many aspects of this Bill that regrettably point towards a revival of marketisation policies from prior decades—policies that have now been largely discredited. To tackle the biggest health challenges that we face, we require partnership working, joined-up decision making between the NHS, local authorities and expert voices—a dialogue between providers and commissioners. Removing the potential for this type of dialogue appears to be a significant misstep, particularly for integrated care.

Turning ICBs into purchasers alone appears to be being done for the benefit of reinforcing a purchaser-provider split—a split that experts have said time and again does not work, and does not deliver improved performance and outcomes, or even value for money. While I am relieved that the Government are tabling their own amendment 60 to reverse the scrapping of local authority ICB membership, I remain in full support of amendment 45 in order to ensure that NHS trusts, and foundation trusts too, retain their voice in commissioning and public health decisions.

To conclude, the fundamental problem in the Bill lies in its adherence to a logic of marketisation. It is deeply regrettable that the Government are returning to the harmful public-private partnership model for capital investment and a rehashing of the private finance initiative disaster, the negative effects of which are still being felt across my east London constituency.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a practicing optometrist and an officer for the APPG for eye health and visual impairment.

Sight is precious and none of us would like to lose it—but, sadly, 2 million people in this country are living with some form of sight loss today. On the Department’s own projection, that figure will rise to 2.7 million by 2030. Every day, 250 people in the UK start to lose their sight—one person every six minutes. Left unaddressed, that number is set to more than double to over 4 million by 2050. We are witnessing a growing problem, which, sadly, the Bill does not treat with the urgency it deserves.

Tonight, I urge the Government to strengthen this legislation in some specific ways. On governance, clause 21 rightly ensures that ICBs reflect local political accountability, but it says absolutely nothing about clinical accountability. Optometrists have no guaranteed voice in the rooms where commissioning decisions affecting their patients are made. It would be unthinkable to build localised healthcare without GPs at the table. It would be equally unthinkable to do so without pharmacists. I say to the Government plainly: optometrists have the expertise, the infrastructure and the systems already in place to relieve pressure on our hospitals, yet this Bill says nothing about it.

I want to see eyecare—glaucoma monitoring in particular, along with the management of minor eye conditions—commissioned consistently by every ICB in England and not left to a postcode lottery. Optometry already has what I call the TAC effect: it is trusted, accessible and capable. Commissioning it properly would reduce unnecessary demand on emergency departments, freeing them to focus on genuinely specialist cases while improving patients’ access to specialist eyecare where they need it.

A recent report by the Association of Optometrists has found that right now, 780,000 people—the equivalent of the entire population of Greater Nottingham—attend A&E with eye problems annually, at an average cost of £145 to the NHS per A&E presentation. That is £113 million a year. At least seven out of 10 of those people with eye problems could be successfully managed in a community optometry setting with the right service commissioning. Those stats reflect a lived reality for many across our country. If the new Government want to make smarter decisions with public money, they must consider that.

Finally, I turn to the single patient record. Proposed new subsection (7) to clause 51 should be amended so that it explicitly includes optometry in the single patient record framework, ensuring that optometrists have appropriate access to relevant patient information.

This Bill takes real and welcome steps in many areas, but more than 2 million people have already lost their sight—a number that none of us wants to see double to more than 4 million by 2050. Fundamentally, seeing should be a right, not a privilege, so I ask the Government to look again.

Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate and for the work he is doing as chair of the APPG for acquired brain injury; I worked with his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), on these issues.

I want to speak about the case of Imran Douglas, the deceased son of my constituent Amy, to illustrate why an acquired brain injury strategy and action plan should no longer be a matter of if but when. Imran was born in 1995 and suffered a brain injury as a result of a road accident when he was just 17. He was in a coma, and when he woke up he was found to have significant personality changes. Imran was taken into care, having never previously needed psychiatric assessments or had any run-ins with the authorities or the criminal justice system.

While in care, Imran committed a horrific act of murder—something which his mother, my constituent, has always maintained was a brutal and undeserved attack for which Imran was responsible—of an elderly person who was completely innocent. Imran was then transferred to hospital, and in 2013 pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Imran was the first 18-year-old to be sent to Belmarsh prison following his sentencing. He lasted less than a week, because he killed himself.

A subsequent inquest into Imran’s death found a lack of planning and a failure of care by some of those responsible for his welfare while he was in custody, who were aware of Imran’s condition. It spoke to

“a systemic lack of communication between, and within, almost all the agencies involved most notably within Feltham Young Offenders Institution.”

In other words, he should not have been transferred to Belmarsh prison. Since his suicide, Imran’s mother Amy and his father Masum have been fighting for a serious case review. They have been fighting for several years but have never been granted one.

Over the years, Imran’s parents have worked with the Acquired Brain Injury Forum and various other campaign groups for changes in the law to identify brain injury at much earlier stages, and ensure that people in this country have the right to support in that regard. I pay tribute to them for their efforts over the years to deal with the pain of that loss and the tragic circumstances around it, and to use their energy and time to campaign for change. They know, as I do, that any action plan must be wide-ranging, comprehensive and multifaceted, because the prevalence of acquired brain injury among those with contact with the criminal justice system is reported to be around the 46% to 60% overall, between 50% to 87% among children, and 78% among women.

I have supported the work of Brainkind, an organisation that has evidenced the impact of brain injury on domestic abuse survivors. Its report, “Too Many to Count”, found that one in two survivors of domestic abuse may have sustained a brain injury, often through blows to the head or through non-fatal strangulation. As chair of the domestic violence and abuse all-party parliamentary group, I know that our membership is well aware of the correlation between women in prison and undiagnosed conditions such as acquired brain injury.

What is important for a revised or shorter action plan is to ensure that Departments and services speak to one another—that should be worked into the action plan itself—and that there are duties placed on national bodies, Government services and social services to collect and analyse data, and to share it with each other. Ultimately, if we look at the case of Imran, even just data collection and sharing between services could have perhaps prevented his death.

It is also important to ensure that the action plan invests in awareness training and support. Brainkind is doing some work around that, and has developed a new free tool—not a diagnostic tool, but a tool that professionals can use for support when working with survivors of acquired brain injury. Those are the areas that we need to look at if we want not just to present, but to deliver an action plan that can be passed through as soon as possible.

My constituent Amy has shown incredible resilience and fortitude; she is someone who reflects on what happened to her son and commits herself to trying to change things in society. While she continues to advocate for changes to the way in which serious case reviews are conducted, and to the difficult, onerous processes around them, she knows that the picture is much larger. It is a nationwide issue and it needs a national framework.

I mention Amy again because there is a need for serious case reviews, and I saw what she and Imran’s father Masum went through in trying to secure one. From my engagement with the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and with other survivors and families that I have met, I can say that the thresholds that need to be met for a serious case review are applied inconsistently by local government and social services across the country. That is why there are not that many serious case reviews—I appreciate that they are reviews of serious cases, but the threshold seems incredibly high, even when a situation presents itself where it is probably better to have one than not.

I raise that issue because some of these matters could be addressed through a strategy and a more focused, shortened, action-oriented plan for the issue. A number of campaigners have called for data collection, analysis, awareness, training, data sharing and collaboration. I started engaging on these issues and matters as a result of my constituents’ case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned, since about 2020 we have had lots of discussions, meetings and engagement. Progress was made under the previous Government to present a strategy, but we need to deliver it now. It has been five years since I started engaging on these issues. We need a society where no one loses their life to murder or suicide. I hope that the Minister can relay to us some form of timeline for when action plans and strategies can be delivered.

Budget Resolutions

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

This Budget has delivered some welcome measures, including increasing the minimum wage for young adults, lowering energy bills and, of course, lifting the two-child limit. I want to be clear that I voted to add that measure to the Government’s programme—I did not vote against the King’s Speech—and I am proud to be on the right side of history, alongside other colleagues, standing with my constituents to right this wrong in the sixth largest economy in the world.

Governments are judged on how well they can create the conditions to prevent illness and to enable children and adults to live long and healthy lives. Before the last election, the NHS had already suffered years of austerity and starvation of investment, as confirmed by the Darzi report last year. However, the reality is that the overall announcements in the Budget are not on the scale needed. Patients, NHS staff and campaigners are clear that the solutions must involve proper funding for the NHS, including capital investment, and that there need to be mechanisms to raise money to address the catastrophe that the Tories drove us into. Ending outsourcing and privatisation, through a wholesale renegotiation of current PFI debts to reduce future payouts, is one way of addressing the issue of chronic underfunding. The UK already spends far less on health than do many other countries in Europe.

Politics is a matter of priorities and making choices about in whose interests decisions are made. That is why I have grave concerns about the reintroduction of the use of private capital for building NHS neighbourhood health centres, given that past arrangements, such as PFI and PF2, are still damaging the NHS. In fact, all the evidence shows that the involvement of the private sector in the NHS has been disastrous in east London. The trials and tribulations of Barts NHS trust reveal the significant threat of PFIs to NHS budgets, and consequently the ability of trusts to provide the care that NHS patients deserve and that trusts want to provide.

At its core, privatisation is a question of resourcing. The extraction of profits from the system has been shown to undermine capacity and value for money, and to take money away from vital patient services, in other words undermining investment and renewal itself. My constituents do not want to be told that there will be more of the same. They are absolutely and utterly desperate for change. It is crucial that any NHS reform prioritises building back publicly provided NHS services, ends privatisation and does not become PFI 2.0. Big business should not be lining its pockets at the expense of our society’s health and wellbeing. The Government made a manifesto promise that the NHS will always be publicly owned and funded. Taxpayers’ money should be spent only on the service itself, because health should be a question of people not profit.

Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best vaccine against covid is covid, and many people were naturally immune. There are questions to be asked about the effects of vaccination on the immune system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made an understandable point about the importance of resisting misinformation. As I mentioned, there are certainly many crazy theories out there to which we need not give credence. If we are talking about a programme of vaccinating the population, it is important that the public are persuaded to do what the Government want them to do, so I understand why the Government should have a public health information campaign. However, it is an essential principle of medical ethics that people must be able to give informed consent before any treatment, and I worry about whether we can say that consent was fully informed in all cases.

Throughout, there has been misinformation in favour of the vaccine. I would not say that was deliberate; it was possibly accidental. We can tell that with hindsight. Perhaps the most egregious example was the claim that the vaccine is 95% effective; as was mentioned earlier, Dr Malhotra presented on this to the APPG last week. That figure refers simply to the relative risk, instead of the actual or absolute reduction in risk to an individual. The absolute risk reduction is really less than 1%.

There was also the widespread claim that the vaccine stops transmission, so people should take the jab to protect other people. We were all told that; we all believed that for many months. Last month, we heard from Pfizer that its vaccine was never tested to see whether it would stop transmission. Despite that, we had the notorious claim by Professor Chris Whitty that even though the vaccine brought no benefit to children, children should be vaccinated to protect wider society. I am all for thinking about society, not the individual, but that, again, feels like a profound break with medical ethics. A lot of people are asking what the vaccine does to children and young people, and Professor Whitty is right that the benefit to healthy children seems to be essentially nil.

There are genuine questions to be asked. I have not verified these questions; I merely ask them on behalf of my constituents. How do we explain the increase in the rates of myocarditis, heart attacks and excess deaths among young people? Indeed, across the general population, it is plausible, though not definitive, that the vaccine is responsible for more harms than we know about. As I said in my intervention, we know from the yellow card scheme that up to one in 200 hundred people vaccinated report an adverse reaction. That is bad enough in itself, but we also know that adverse effects are significantly under-reported through the yellow card scheme. Based on the MHRA’s research, there may be as many as 10 times more serious adverse reactions than the yellow card system shows.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the Minister to explain how people who say they have experienced damage from the vaccine can ensure that they are heard? There is the yellow card scheme, the module in the public inquiry, and people can apply for vaccine damage compensation, but there need to be more meaningful ways through which people can be engaged with on their experiences of damage.

Health Inequalities: Office for Health Improvement and Disparities

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is completely right and she has been a real champion of osteoporosis services, pushing them in her own area and as chair of the APPG. One figure shows that half of women over the age of 50 suffer a broken bone due to osteoporosis. That is the kind of stark figure that we have to face. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

The NHS Confederation has made comments similar to those I have mentioned:

“The number of people waiting for planned NHS care in England has grown to record levels, with more than 5.6 million people currently on the waiting list and over 7 million ‘missing patients’ anticipated to come forward... Inequalities are now becoming evident in the backlog, with evidence suggesting that waiting lists have grown more rapidly in more deprived areas during the pandemic.”

Maternity Action says:

“Vulnerable migrant women face charges of £7,000 or more for… maternity care. Charges are levied on women with insecure immigration status, including destitute asylum seekers whose claim has been refused and who are not in receipt of Home Office support, women whose relationship has broken down and who were dependent on their partner for their immigration status, women on fiancee visas and women who have been unable to afford to renew their visas. This policy disproportionately impacts on minority ethnic women, who make up 85% of women using Maternity Action's Maternity Care Access Advice Service, which advises women”

on such matters.

The British Heart Foundation said:

“The prevalence of heart failure, stroke, and mini stroke in adults with learning disabilities in England is higher than the general population, and circulatory diseases are one of the main causes of death in people with learning disabilities. For the most part, this can be attributed to differences in the social determinants of health.”

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health said:

“Child health outcomes in England are some of the worst in Europe… Our State of Child Health 2020 report reveals a widening gap between health outcomes across nearly 30 indicators. It shows that children living in more deprived areas have worse health outcomes than their peers living in less deprived areas… The COVID-19 pandemic has also highlighted and accelerated the devastating impact of health inequalities.”

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, given that the largest number of covid-related deaths have been experienced by ethnic minority communities, it is imperative that the Minister provides clarity on whether the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Health Promotion Taskforce will be given a remit outside the Department for Health and Social Care?

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend asked that question, because it is one that has been asked many times, and I am sure the Minister will cover it—it is one of the questions I have as well.

The UK vaping industry said:

“It is absolutely critical that the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities continues the pragmatic approach of Public Health England in recognising the role of vaping in tackling inequalities. It is essential that the institutional knowledge of PHE is not lost in the establishment of the OHID”

It is important that that is factored into these debates.

The House of Commons Library referred to the debate on health inequalities versus disparities. Jabeer Butt of the Race Equalities Foundation has welcomed the institution of the OHID and the possibility of working alongside it, but he said:

“With the establishment of OHID, we can’t help but wonder why the language used by the Health and Social Care Secretary talks about ‘health disparities’, compared to Professor Chris Whitty, who describes ‘health inequalities in the Government announcement.”

This is not just about semantics. It is important that we recognise that it is about not just disparities but health inequalities as well.

Health and Care Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Members will appreciate that I have had to give precedence to people who have amendments in their names on the Order Paper, so not everyone else will have a chance to speak this evening.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

In the interests of time, I will just speak to my amendment 99 and new clause 57 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).

The Government often talk the talk on health inequalities but fail to walk the walk. New clause 57 sets out a requirement that NHS England must publish guidance in relation to health inequalities, which I wholeheartedly support. My amendment 99 seeks to put in provisions to reduce inequalities between non-migrant and migrant users of health services. Campaigners and experts have argued that the pandemic has shown more tangible action is needed to tackle health inequalities. The increased risks of those on lower incomes and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities catching and dying from covid-19 have been well documented, yet the provisions outlined in the Bill will likely make the situation much worse.

Social Care Reform

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Huq.

The covid pandemic has thrown light on a number of holes in social care provision. That is a pressing issue not only because of the pandemic but also because an ageing population will be a huge challenge for the post-covid future. The key issue facing social care is the privatisation of so many contracts. That has led to private companies being paid by local authorities with public money, but being unable to provide an adequate amount of care for those in need.

The need for a more robust social care system was felt most acutely in my constituency during the first wave of the pandemic. It has been reported that at Aspen Court care home, 21 residents died last year between 28 March and 24 April. The loss of life during that significant period was so substantial that it needs to be investigated at a national level. My condolences are with the families of those who have been lost, who have been impacted directly by this tragedy. The care home is run by HC-One, a private company that runs many care homes across London. Staff at those care homes are delivering care in a privatised system. Questions have been raised about the level of pay, hours being worked and the quality of training available to staff.

This month, I learned that HC-One will sell 52 homes and move into more specialist care. I support the calls from GMB and other unions for the HC-One homes being sold to be brought under local authority control, and for the Government to fund the transition costs. Aspen Court is one example of the national issue of the outsourcing of adult social care, which has exposed the financialisation of chains and larger providers, often funded by private equity firms that dominate contracts across adult social care provision.

A key concern of the charity Inclusion London is that in many cases, those of working age who receive disability benefits have to use those benefits to pay for adult social care. For those whose disability is making it hard or impossible to earn money, it is completely unjust that disability allowance should be utilised to pay for care. That is why Inclusion London and others, including me, believe that we need a robust social care system provided by the Government and through our NHS.

In my constituency, the need for proper funding of social care at this time of the crisis is felt acutely. Many constituents rely on extended care offered through charity and voluntary organisations. Organisations such as Neighbours in Poplar and food banks such as First Love Foundation are filling the gaps left by the fragmentation of the social care offer. That will be compounded by the closure of a number of day care centres, which are integral to the well-being of the communities they serve. The suggested care that would replace them would rely further on the voluntary sector, which is utterly inadequate.

The overhaul of social care is needed now. The pandemic has highlighted such issues, and it is important that the Minister addresses how they will be dealt with going forward.

Covid-19 Update

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

That is exactly our goal, and we have been working very hard with the carriers and airport operators to put this new scheme in place. There is further work to do in the days ahead, and no doubt after its initial introduction on Monday. What I would say very directly to my hon. Friend, the airline industry and the airports is that I know this is very difficult and tough. It is absolutely vital that we all work together constructively, positively and with the spirit of innovation that she describes to put in place a robust system that uses all possible technology to ensure that we have the basis of a future safe global travel arrangement. It is about both securing the borders now and ensuring that we can get global travel going for the long term.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]]

Last week, the London director of Public Health England, Professor Kevin Fenton, said that London’s Asian communities have been the hardest hit by the covid-19 second wave. It is being felt deeply in my constituency, and I pay tribute to those on the frontline in my constituency who have been helping to drive up the vaccine uptake, and those serving in our mortuary and funeral services. I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that the Government need to learn quickly from the impact of the first and second waves on minority communities, but that must be informed by evidence, especially to ensure the effectiveness of any strategy to deal with vaccine hesitancy. Will he and his colleagues ensure that data about the vaccine roll-out and mortalities in the second wave is published regularly in a meaningful format and disaggregated by ethnicity?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the Secretary of State to answer the question, I give notice that we ought to be stopping this statement now, but I have seven more people who wish to get in. Can you please just cut your bits of paper in half and ask a question? It is not fair to everybody else, and the people who are sitting at home are not getting the atmosphere. We have got to do this quickly. We do not need speeches, just questions. If people take more than 20 seconds, I will cut them off.

Covid-19 Update

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, and we all know how close it is to her heart. In the first lockdown, many NHS services were suspended, partly because of the uncertainty that we have just been talking about. We know far more about the virus and how to manage it the second time round, and our goal is that all NHS services stay open. That has not proved possible in the areas of the country where there is the highest prevalence, but all maternity services and services around perinatal health ought to stay open everywhere. We have had to delay some non-cancer, non-urgent treatment, but crucially, the best thing to do for this agenda that she champions is to try to keep the virus under control and try to suppress the virus as much as possible.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

A happy birthday from me too, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As well as age and underlying conditions, the JCVI notes that early signals have been identified of other potential risk factors, including deprivation and ethnicity, but there have been enormous amounts of research and evidence showing that black, Asian and minority groups are at risk of this virus. Given their occupations, and given the overcrowded households that they disproportionately represent, why have they not been included in the composition and order of priority of groups for vaccination?

[Matt Hancock]

Before I forget, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say happy birthday to you as well.

The hon. Lady asks a very important question. The JCVI has looked at that issue and in its earlier iteration of its draft advice it considered the disproportionate impact that the virus has had on BAME communities. Its conclusion, having looked at it in some detail, is that the overwhelming indicator of mortality from coronavirus is age; and therefore it has based its recommendations around age and, of course, the occupational groups that directly support the most vulnerable—hence it has come up with the classification that it has. I respect the JCVI’s independence and its analysis.

Covid-19: BAME Communities

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate.

My constituency is one of the most diverse in the country, with a large Bangladeshi population, and it is one of the most deprived, with the highest rate of child poverty in the country—and now we have suffered a high percentage of excess deaths due to covid-19. That is no coincidence. In particular, it is not random that British Bangladeshis are one of the groups most vulnerable to the virus.

Discrimination and structural racism continue to dictate who gets dumped and who gets resources—who suffers events worse. BAME individuals are more likely to work in jobs that cannot be done remotely, obviously increasing their risk of contracting covid-19. Not only are we yet to have justice for workers such as Belly Mujinga, but many are still being forced to work in unsafe conditions. Shockingly, a study by the Royal College of Nursing even revealed that BAME nursing staff experience the greatest PPE shortages.

Data from the annual population survey in 2018 revealed that Bangladeshi workers are disproportionately employed in distribution, hotels and restaurants, and transport and communication, which includes road transport drivers as well as key workers such as sales assistants and retail cashiers. That is one of the many reasons why it is incomprehensible that a full regulatory impact assessment had not been prepared for the statutory instrument relating to health regulations that we considered this week.

Likewise, BAME individuals continue to face an unfair pay gap, on average having lower incomes than their white counterparts. Workers of Bangladeshi heritage have the lowest median hourly pay of any ethnic group and are over-represented in the most deprived neighbour- hoods in England—the very areas where deaths from covid-19 occur at double the rate in more affluent areas. Households with a low income are more likely than higher-income households to be overcrowded and have damp problems, because they cannot afford to move to a larger house or fix damp problems. That is highly relevant as covid-19 attacks the respiratory system, which can be compromised by chronic exposure to damp conditions.

I raised the issue of overcrowding when I spoke in the House all the way back on 18 March. Since then, it has become clear that the probability of being infected by covid-19 is likely to be higher in close-contact settings, and that social distancing and self-isolation rules are much more difficult to uphold in overcrowded households. Moreover, the evidence points towards an increase in the mortality rate among ethnic minority people living in more densely populated, more polluted and more deprived areas, including among key workers.

According to campaigners, more than 40% of the population in my borough, Tower Hamlets, lives in areas with unacceptable air quality, with the situation predicted to get worse. Our children are growing up with reduced lung capacity due to nitrogen dioxide exposure, and they are at greater risk of developing lifelong breathing disorders—the exact symptoms that affect an individual’s vulnerability to covid-19. It is not just that BAME people are held back by economic and health inequalities; research suggests that they also experience poorer access to services and poorer quality of services. Privatisation and underfunding continue to undermine the daily efforts of our health workers. We have demanded urgent measures to safeguard the health and wellbeing of migrants, including an amnesty for undocumented migrants, an immediate suspension of the NHS charging for migrants and the scrapping of the no recourse to public funds policy, yet undocumented migrants, in particular, in my constituency, are still contacting me on a daily basis in despair.

I have been moved and inspired by Black Lives Matters protesters all around the world and I truly hope that the Government are listening. However, last week, as people were calling out the state regarding racism, Islamophobia and discrimination, the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill received its Second Reading. That Bill delays the long-awaited review of Prevent, which fosters discrimination against Muslim people and introduces significant curtailments of civil liberties, which will disadvantage BAME communities. It is time for some joined-up thinking and plain speaking: from now on, every decision by government or other public authorities needs to consider and act on addressing the needs of BAME communities. Lockdown restrictions should not be eased further unless it is safe for everyone. I continue to repeat over and over again: urgent and immediate action must be taken; the lives of people in my constituency and all over the UK matter.