Sam Carling
MP for North West Cambridgeshire · Labour · United Kingdom
“In a contribution to the King’s Speech debate last month, I listed a range of regulators: the MHRA, NICE, the Health and Safety Executive, the Human Tissue Authority, the Health Research Authority, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, and so on.”
“I, too, thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate, and I, too, wish we had more time. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who made some difficult, but really important points.”
“That is why I am so pleased to see increasing confidence from the private sector in the UK as an environment in which to do impactful research. Last month, we saw AstraZeneca commit £300 million in investment across the UK, after this Government’s work to agree a pharmaceutical deal with the US enabled that investment.”
“Why do we not create a single front door for study approvals: a unified application process that collects all the information that different regulators might need, so that researchers can fill in one form, and a team of recruited staff whose job it is to liaise with all the regulators, establish who needs to approve the individual study i…”
“I have regular engagement with research scientists, universities and professional bodies through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group known as the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.”
“The Secretary of State knows that I have concerns about the enforceability of a platform-based ban, but I welcome the news about tackling infinite scrolling, which affects people of all ages.”
The complete record
Every one of 357 lines we hold for Sam Carling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“I will use the example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses—the religious group I grew up in—to illustrate how and why. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a deep cultural distrust of secular authorities, which, as happens in a lot of religious groups, leads to a culture of dealing with everything internally, including child sexual abuse, and reporting nothing to the police. Their internal processes for doing so are atrocious. Jehovah’s Witnesses have something called the “two witness rule”, which means that no action is taken on any report of wrongdoing unless there are two witnesses to it. There are never two witnesses to child sexual abuse. I give that context to highlight why the mandatory duty to report must be absolutely watertight, as IICSA recommended, to prevent people in the leadership of organisations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses from avoiding it.”
“Amendments 10, 11 and 22 are not intended to change Government policy—quite the opposite. They are intended to deliver the Government’s stated policy to implement the IICSA recommendations relevant to the Home Office in full. The Home Secretary stated in January that that was the Government’s intention, and reaffirmed that just yesterday, responding with a firm “yes” to my question after her statement on whether it remained Government policy to implement the recommendations in full. However, there are three significant gaps in our plans to implement recommendation 13 on mandatory reporting, where the Bill does not deliver what IICSA recommended. With these gaps, I am concerned that the duty to report will be ineffective in some of the settings where it is most needed. My concern applies to religious groups in particular.”
“I begin by once again welcoming the Bill. It will deliver so much for my constituents by protecting people from crime and enabling tough action on antisocial behaviour, including in areas that have too long been labelled “low level” and ignored, such as the illegal off-road bikes that constituents so often raise with me. The Bill will introduce mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse—one of the key recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, or IICSA. This is a long-overdue measure, which has long been called for by our Labour Home Secretary and Prime Minister personally. However, I remain concerned that the Government are not going far enough on the issue of mandatory reporting. I have therefore tabled three amendments to the Bill on that subject—amendments 10, 11 and 22—on which I will focus my speech today.”
“Those who do report tend to do so years after it happens, when it is far too late to protect them and far too late, in many cases, to catch the perpetrator and stop them harming other children. The Australian royal commission in 2015 found that the average time for someone to disclose child sexual abuse was 22 years after it happened, so including reasonable suspicion is critical, and that is what my amendment 11 would do. Given the potentially subjective judgments needed in that case, amendment 11 would exempt the case of recognised indicators from criminal sanctions for non-compliance, which is also what IICSA recommended.”
“IICSA recommended that the duty should apply in three cases: first, when a mandated reporter is told by a child or perpetrator that abuse has taken place; secondly, when they see it happening; and thirdly, when they observe recognised indicators of child sexual abuse, which can range from things like a child being pregnant or having a sexually transmitted infection to other, more subjective indicators. Our Bill scores two out of three, as it does not include the third point on recognised indicators, which are also referred to as reasonable suspicion. Overwhelmingly, children do not report abuse that is being done to them at the time that the abuse is happening.”
“As I highlighted on Second Reading, the Australian royal commission that investigated the organisation’s handling of abuse cases found that while allegations had been documented by religious elders against 1,006 individuals in Australia alone, not a single one was reported to the police. We must tighten up this definition and ensure that it includes religious leaders. The Government could do so by amending the definition in paragraph 17 of part 2 of schedule 8, and by adding a further item to the list in relation to sports professionals to deal with that point as well. However, the much neater and stronger legislative solution would be to just do what IICSA said, and refer to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the definition therein, which amendment 22 seeks to do. The third problem relates to what triggers the duty to report.”
“I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am very pleased that other hon. Members in the House are aware of that issue, which is something I am trying to do some work on separately. It is certainly relevant to what I am discussing. To give the House a little more context on that, through the act of disfellowshipping, when the organisation decides that someone has committed a serious sin, it can essentially tell all their family and friends to cut them off permanently; the same applies if an individual chooses simply to leave the religion. Disfellowshipping is very rarely applied to perpetrators of crimes, and is more often applied to the victims who report them. It is an enormous problem that has to be dealt with, and I look forward to engaging with the hon. Member further on that.”
“I thank the Home Secretary for the robust measures she has laid out. Can she reaffirm the commitment that the Government made in January that the IICSA recommendations relevant to the Home Office will be implemented in full?”
“Last year, Sandi Toksvig and Stephen Fry were joined by Stonewall, the Terrence Higgins Trust, the LGBT+ Consortium and the LGBT+ groups affiliated to all three major political parties in writing to the Prime Minister about what recognition would do for LGBT couples. This seems to be one of those issues on which pretty much everyone agrees. Given the overwhelming public support, the ease with which this could be introduced and the impact it would have on LGBT couples in particular, I hope we see recognition of humanist marriages in England and Wales, joining Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that everyone in the UK has the option to have a legally recognised humanist ceremony.”
“In Labour’s 2024 election manifesto, we committed to strengthening the rights and protections of cohabiting couples. The Minister cited that in response to a recent written question on humanist marriages, which I was pleased to see. I know the Government are currently considering the recommendations from the Law Commission report on weddings and will hopefully confirm the position on that soon. I look forward to that development, as I know humanists have been waiting a long time for legal recognition. I hope we hear more about that today. There is huge support among various religious groups for this change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth said. More recent polling has shown there are majorities in favour across all religious groups, as well as across voters of all major political parties.”
“Humanists UK’s statistics have also shown that less than 1% of places of worship in England and Wales have registered to perform same-sex marriages, so, in practice, a lot of the time, LGBT couples who want to get married and have their union properly recognised are left with very few real options. That is not to downplay the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which was a big step forward in LGBT rights. To give credit where it is due, that Act was one of very few positives under the previous Conservative Governments, albeit something that got through only because Members from other parties, particularly my own, supported it. That Act, as others have said, included a provision for an order to be laid in future to recognise humanist marriages without the need for further primary legislation, so we could make this change very quickly.”
“Indeed, that is what is happening. Humanists UK, whose stats I will be quoting throughout—I also declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group—has found that, following the legislation of same-sex marriage in 2013, humanist celebrants do more same-sex marriages without legal recognition every year than there are legally recognised religious same-sex marriages. That means that many people are opting for these meaningful, inclusive ceremonies even though they do not carry legal weight. That says something very powerful about the demand. Part of that is out of necessity.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), who secured this debate. It has been worth it for all the puns, if nothing else. I will use my time to speak about what a positive impact making this change would have, particularly for LGBT couples. In the 2021 census, 37% of people in England and Wales identified as having no religion. Among lesbian, gay and bisexual people, that jumps up to 63%. The numbers for trans people, while a bit less clear due to some issues with the census, are similar. With that in mind, it stands to reason that those LGBT couples would generally prefer to have a non-religious ceremony when they get married.”
“That would also complement the £5 billion support package we have already delivered in that space. That is also what the British public want: recent polling has shown that around 84% of people, including a significant backing among rural communities, support applying our animal welfare standards to all imports. The policy is not controversial at all, and it is fair for farmers, animals and people. It builds on the trade successes that we have already achieved while closing a loophole that undermines our farmers and our values. Alongside our trade successes, it is time to show that our approach to trade is both principled and practical. We can grow our economy while standing firm on the standards that matter to British people. I hope that the Government will consider some legislative interventions on this issue.”
“That would mean legislation requiring that imported animal products meet UK standards on key welfare issues, which means no eggs from barren battery cages, no pork from farms using sow stalls and no lamb from farms practising live lamb cutting. The European Union is already moving in that direction, with proposals to end caged farming by 2027 and extend that rule to imports. Aligning our policies would improve our trade relationship with our largest partner, further benefiting British farmers. That change would directly improve animal welfare, aligning both with our values and with public demands. For our farmers, it would right a wrong, preventing grossly unfair competition from low-welfare imports and allowing British producers to uphold higher standards while remaining competitive.”
“British farmers follow our welfare regulations—no battery cages, no sow stalls and humane transport conditions—yet we continue to allow imports that undermine those standards. Instead of preventing cruelty to farmed animals, the effect of many of our laws is to simply offshore that cruelty to other countries, sometimes those with standards far lower than our own. Imports should meet our domestic animal welfare standards. If certain practices are too cruel for our farms, they should also be too cruel for our borders. We already have a precedent for this approach—for example, current UK legislation requires that all meat imports comply with our slaughter standards. We now need to extend that principle to how animals are kept throughout their lives, not just how they are killed.”
“When we negotiated with the US, we held the line on hormone-treated beef, delivering on our manifesto promise to protect farmers and consumers alike. This is Labour in action, proving we can expand trade without compromising our values. We now need to address the inconsistency still visible on supermarket shelves across Britain. Nearly 50% of pork imports come from countries where pregnant pigs remain confined in narrow sow stalls, unable even to turn around. Lamb imports from Australia, where farmers practise mulesing—cutting skin from live sheep without pain relief—have surged following the Conservatives’ flawed trade deal. Such practices were banned here because they do not align with British values or public opinion.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I want to focus on import standards, which the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) began to talk about. Farmers in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire play by the rules and abide by the regulations. For example, since 1999 they have stopped using sow stalls because UK law rightly declared those cramped conditions cruel. But every day, when my constituents go to local supermarkets, the shelves are stocked with bacon from overseas farms that still use those banned methods. I think everyone agrees that that is unfair both for animal welfare and for our farmers. The recent weeks have been historic for British trade. The Government secured groundbreaking agreements that will boost our economy while, crucially, remaining firm on our higher food standards.”
“To encourage more people to pursue a career in our armed forces, we need to ensure that the whole offer is strong, including accommodation. Concerns have been raised with me about poor performance by managing agents involved in maintaining Ministry of Defence properties in my constituency, often with complex subcontracting arrangements that make it very difficult to hold anyone accountable. I know of cases where people were dealing with a rodent infestation for six weeks due to inaction after it was reported to the managing agents. Can the Minister assure me that we are working to ensure that managing agents are held accountable by the MOD?”
“T3. According to Sense, there are over 2,500 people with complex needs in North West Cambridgeshire, many of whom will never be able to work because of their conditions. Does the Minister agree that dignity for severely disabled people needs to be a priority for the welfare system, and can he update the House on progress towards ensuring that people whose conditions mean they will never be able to work are no longer subject to the appalling repeated reassessments that we saw all too often under the previous Government?”
“Listening to residents in North West Cambridgeshire on the doorstep and at local coffee mornings, there is a clear message: people want local police to have the time and resources to get to know crime in their areas and to tackle it at the root. I know our Labour mayoral candidate is committed to that if she is elected tomorrow. Could the Prime Minister update residents across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough on how our plan for change is tackling crime and antisocial behaviour and boosting police ranks by 13,000 officers, who will be visible in all local communities?”
“I enormously welcome the Government’s decision to introduce 300 new Government-funded school-based nurseries. I am particularly delighted that one of them will be in the Hampton Vale primary academy in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that these new nurseries will make a real difference to families in my constituency and across the country by saving them up to £7,500?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am looking for guidance on how I can raise a breach of the behaviour code by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). He was galivanting around my constituency yesterday, and I thought it a real shame that he did not tell me about his visit in advance, as the behaviour code requires him to; I could have taken him around all the communities that would be impacted by his party’s plan to privatise the NHS. This follows an incident in February, when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), also visited my constituency without telling me in advance. How can I ensure that section 43 of the behaviour code is upheld in future?”
“In my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire, there are lots of young families seeking to buy their first home. I am pleased that the Government are committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but it is important that people can trust that they are buying a good-quality home. Just down the road, at the Darwin Green site in Cambridge, 36 new build houses with building control privately managed have had to be demolished for foundational failures. Does the Minister agree that, since the part-privatisation of building control under Margaret Thatcher’s Government, it is a real problem that developers can essentially choose their own regulator, and that it is leading to falling standards?”
“In my constituency, I get regular reports of antisocial behaviour in Pleasurefair Meadow carpark and Stanham Way, relating to the screeching of tyres from motorbikes, loud music until the early hours of the morning and constant instances of drugs and antisocial drinking. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take this sort of antisocial behaviour seriously wherever it is happening and that the local residents should not have to put up with it?”
“We have that problem with off-road bikes as well e-scooters on pavements. I receive regular complaints from my constituents about them being used improperly, often putting elderly people at great risk because they cannot move out of the way quickly enough when one whizzes up behind them. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take that sort of antisocial behaviour seriously? Does he welcome, as I do, the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that will help police seize those vehicles?”
“I enormously welcome this Bill, in which there is so much that will make a real, positive difference for my constituents in North West Cambridgeshire. Due to time constraints, I will have to skip through a lot of the praise I had for the Bill and move straight to an area where I would like to have a conversation and a dialogue with the Minister about what we can do, and that is the area of mandatory reporting. I enormously welcome the fact that this Bill will finally introduce a statutory duty to report the possible sexual abuse of children when those who have responsibility for children are made aware of it. It has been a long road. In March 2018, the previous Conservative Government said the case for mandatory reporting had “not currently been made” and that they would not introduce the policy.”
“This goes back to the IICSA report, which recommended that the duty to report should fall on anyone who works in regulated activities, but also on anyone in a position of trust over a child, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On my reading, the Bill does the former but not the latter, as currently drafted, and addressing this by using both criteria could significantly strengthen the legislation. I welcome this Bill, which contains very powerful provisions to progress measures outlined in the manifesto on which Labour Members stood to make our streets safer and tackle crime. I look forward to voting for it this evening.”
“It does not mean that he is guilty in the sight of God.” I should flag that he was not specifically referring to child sexual abuse, but that attitude is pervasive. I describe this example to highlight just how critical it is that the duty to report is backed up by criminal consequences for ignoring it, because some of these organisations will do anything to avoid compliance. Is the Minister willing to meet me to discuss this issue in more depth, and how we can address it? I would also appreciate it if she could comment on the scope of the individuals that the Bill places under a duty to report. I am not convinced at the moment that many religious leaders—who often hold very significant power and influence, as I have outlined—will be included.”
“Almost 10 years ago, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were one of the case studies examined by an Australian royal commission on institutional responses to child sexual abuse. The commission found that, in Australia alone, allegations had been documented by religious elders against 1,006 individuals, and not a single one was reported to the police. In the UK, elders sometimes say that it is a victim’s absolute right to go to the police, which is often the organisation’s response to such criticism. But behind the scenes, they heavily discourage it, telling victims that publicity would bring reproach on God’s name. This secretive attitude is best exemplified by a recent speech by a member of the religion’s governing body: “Suppose that someone is convicted and put in jail, or someone is found guilty by men, as Jesus was.”
“As an example, I would like to talk about the religious organisation in which I was raised, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most people know very little about them, but they are a very insular religious community with a deep distrust, in many cases, of secular authorities, much of which comes from the fundamental nature of some of their beliefs. Witnesses have a mindset in which the first port of call for any issues with another member of the faith is their local congregation’s body of religious elders, who are men—always men—appointed from within their ranks. The organisation denies that it stops these elders from referring allegations of sexual abuse to the police, but numbers speak louder than words.”
“The only consequences spelled out in the Bill for failure to report are that someone could be referred to as their professional regulator, where relevant, or to the Disclosure and Barring Service, which, to quote the Bill’s explanatory notes, will “consider their suitability to continue working in regulated activity with children.” That is all really positive, but we have to go a little bit further. As currently drafted, is the Bill enough to tackle the chronic under-reporting of sexual abuse identified by the Jay inquiry? The new offence of stopping someone else from reporting child sexual abuse is very welcome. For example, it should stop managers pressuring people who work under them not to report such abuse, but I do not think that it will cover such cases in religious groups.”
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for that intervention. As a society, we must move towards ensuring that children are protected. When it comes to the detail, I am not fully sure that the Bill, as currently drafted, delivers on the Government’s pledge to implement the IICSA recommendations. That is mainly because, on my reading, it does not create criminal sanctions for non-compliance, which was a key part of the 13th IICSA recommendation.”
“They do that based on swiping left or right, and with profiles based on photos, or on bios and interests. As everyone will immediately notice, that sounds a lot like dating apps, and indeed some of those apps are being used for that purpose by young people. That is incredibly alarming, and something we must get on top of. It is made even more severe by the fact that some people can match with others who have a significant age difference to them, which is unacceptable and is flying under the radar. There are enormously significant issues regarding social media for young people, and I welcome the Bill as it provides an opportunity for us to get some of the research in place and to consider how we can address those issues properly.”
“Similarly, as some Members will know, I grew up in a high-control religious group. I was lucky in that I went to a mainstream school, but lots of others do not, and they are kept in more secluded environments and have little contact with the outside world. The ability to find support networks outside can be valuable, and I am keen to ensure that we maintain that. The onus must be on social media companies to up their game enormously regarding how they regulate online spaces, because so much is going under the radar and must be addressed through safeguarding. I am particularly struck by the fact that some apps out there that are aimed at young people between 13 and 17 portray themselves as forums for making new friends around the world.”
“Article 16 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is about children’s right to privacy, and we must try to strike a balance between a parent’s ability to know what their children are doing online and who they are speaking to—that is incredibly important for safeguarding—and the need for young people sometimes to have access to private spaces. The example I have in mind is that of young LGBT people in families who are not accepting of them. When someone in that situation is starting to understand their sexuality, which often happens around the age we are talking about of between 13 and 16, sometimes being able to find people in online communities who are going through similar experiences can provide an incredibly valuable support network that they otherwise would not have.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, and as the youngest MP I have seen a lot of this happening throughout my time going through the school system. I have reams of positive things to say about the Bill that I will not have time for, but I wish to say briefly that I welcome it hugely. I wish to focus on a couple of points that have not been covered much. There are benefits that some social media can bring. I would therefore argue that we must be careful to regulate it in the right way to ensure that we do not lose those benefits or that we are able to introduce them in other forms.”
“My constituents regularly raise concerns about their safety when they are out and about, given the prevalence of off-road bikes being used in antisocial and illegal ways, particularly on pavements and footpaths. Such bikes are a particularly significant issue for elderly people, who might be less mobile and are therefore more likely to be involved in a collision with one. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done about these bikes to ensure that our elderly constituents can feel safer when walking around outside?”
“I welcome the Government’s commitment to implementing the IICSA recommendations, notably the introduction of mandatory reporting, which will go a long way towards tackling abuse in religious settings. Does the Minister agree, particularly in the context of more independent safeguarding processes, that as we work to improve safeguarding in the Church of England we should also take the opportunity to bolster safeguarding within smaller religious groups, especially high-control religious groups like the one in which I grew up, in respect of which public awareness of the scale of failings is very low?”
“The right hon. Gentleman’s speech is very helpful, and he is making some useful points. The shadow Minister would not give us any clarity about his party’s position on the opt-out mechanism, so could he help: what is the Opposition’s position on that? Do they support it—yes or no?”
“I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he not accept that the Bill very clearly explains that in cases where any automated decision is taken, there would have to be the right to a proper explanation of the decision, which would probably address a lot of his concerns, and that there must always be a right for an individual to make representations about the decision and obtain human intervention if that is what they want?”
“We know that this is the direction in which a lot of organisations are moving, and there is a lot of potential, but strong safeguards are essential, so I am pleased to see the Bill place a serious emphasis on putting them in place.”
“The Bill will give scientists more tools for innovation and discovery, and people can be reassured that their data is safe and their privacy respected. The quantity of data that we need to draw strong conclusions in research is huge, which has historically been a barrier. I am really pleased that the Government have published a 250-page impact assessment with this Bill. I welcome the particular emphasis on trust, but we need to make sure that we get the comms right, particularly around protecting privacy and ensuring that what we have said in this House becomes more widely known by the public. The Bill makes important clarifications about the use of AI in decision making.”
“Notably, personal data will be able to be used for research purposes only if it was processed in a manner that does not permit the identification of the data subject. That goes back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons). We talk about risks to privacy and personal rights, but this is anonymised data, usually at a very large scale; no one is looking at individuals’ records. In my field, we look at thousands and thousands of genomes at the same time to identify associations between certain areas of genetics and diseases. This Bill poses no risk to patients, and we do people a disservice if we engage in scaremongering, so I am glad that Members have not done that.”
“If we get too caught up in not allowing anonymised data to be shared with researchers for that purpose, it will really harm inclusivity; it will not help at all. It is worth making those points. University colleagues have highlighted the new national data library, spearheaded by the Department. If designed effectively, it has the potential to facilitate research from the outset, and to help drive improvements in public services for the benefit of all UK citizens. I hope the Government will make sure that we get universities and private sector research partners around the table when we set up the library, to make sure that it will work for them and their needs. This Bill will allow researchers to seek broad consent for areas of scientific research, while ensuring high standards of data protection.”
“Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), a lot of our scientists, particularly those working in genetics, rely on datasets from other countries, particularly Nordic countries, which have known about this issue for quite a long time and have made a lot of data available to researchers. We need enormous datasets to be able to do the necessary analysis, particularly around drug development. There are a lot of inclusivity problems, because particular ethnic groups are lacking from the countries on which we are dependent for the data. For example, there is often not enough information about how particular drugs affect black people. In order to deal with that, we need the data to be available so that we can look at the genetics.”
“Colleagues in the university sector have given me their feedback on the Bill, emphasising that providing researchers with secure access to Government data is crucial for research that drives economic growth, productivity and inclusivity. Linking academic and Government data enables better research. Take my field of pathology, critical work is going on to understand the genetic causes of diseases so that we can develop new treatments. We need huge datasets for that, and it makes complete sense for the Government to work with partners to provide them. In response to the hon.”
“We are giving police their time back by reducing the administration burden and allowing them to do their actual jobs, protecting the public and making our communities safer. As someone from a science background, I am particularly interested in the Bill’s reforms to data access for researchers. This has huge potential to help scientists to conduct more impactful research and drive critical innovation in everything from pharmaceuticals to manufacturing, technology and more, and the benefits that that could bring to our economy are enormous. When working in the research space, I could see significant problems with data sharing and access, so I know that this Bill will make a real difference.”
“These changes are hugely important, and cannot come soon enough. In North West Cambridgeshire, the improved data access in the Bill will allow for greater connectivity between all the health services that my constituents use. Whether they have an appointment at Peterborough city hospital, at Hinchingbrooke hospital or further afield, and whether their GP’s surgery is at Old Fletton, Lakeside, Botolph Bridge or beyond, the Bill will ensure that their healthcare professionals have all the information they need to do their jobs quickly and effectively. On our streets, people are rightly concerned about crime. Police were stretched to the limit and stripped to the bone under the last Government, and the percentage of people seeing officers on the beat has dropped by two thirds over the past 14 years.”
“That requires funding to fix, which is why, in the Budget, this Government rightly pledged an additional £22.6 billion in resource spending for our health service. However, it also needs reform, and I have been pleased to hear that message clearly understood and prioritised by the Government through Bills such as this. At present, each part of the system finds it difficult to communicate with the others, partly because of issues relating to data sharing, which puts more strain on patients and more strain on our NHS staff. The Bill would change that. Medical records would be shared between health professionals, which would mean quicker diagnosis and treatment, and those records would be subject to strict security protocols: only the most relevant staff would have access to non-anonymised patient data.”