Health Bill

Debate between Martin Wrigley and Peter Prinsley

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I know of a quite frail diabetic patient with cancer, who underwent several operations as well as complicated chemo in London. He eventually decided that he was well enough to take a short holiday, so he went to Cornwall on the train. Unfortunately, shortly after arriving he was found in a state of collapse by his daughter, and taken to the nearest hospital late on a Saturday night. The doctors had no access to his medical notes, and no answer when they called the hospital in London, so they were puzzled. That situation is familiar to doctors. Patients are incredulous when they are told that we are unable to see all their medical records: “Surely everything is on the computer?”

As a surgeon before becoming an MP, I worked in at least three different hospitals. There was no compatibility between the records, which meant that transferring care was complicated and hazardous. I would be asked to advise on a patient from another hospital, relying on a dictated note from the referring doctor, but I could not access the clinical records, the results of investigations such as the pathology test, scans or, crucially, the operating records. Consultations were delayed as I stared at creaking computers, with numerous software programmes, each individually protected by ever-changing and forgettable passwords, that slowly booted up. That obviously needs to change.

I would link the NHS number to an unique single patient record. I would give ownership of the record to the patient, and let the patient be the custodian and the gatekeeper. That is the truly revolutionary idea. If someone could easily look at their medical record, with appropriate physician safeguards, they could monitor everything—blood pressure, heart rate—and perhaps there would be an incentive for them to look after their health a little better.

Let us imagine for a moment the power of anonymised medical data for a population of 70 million people. The NHS is perhaps the largest complete set of health data on a whole population in the world. That is a huge resource for informing health policy and medical research. By tracking the health outcomes of millions of our fellow citizens, we can sort out all kinds of diseases, such as heart disease, cancer and mental health disorders. I can think of no greater innovation, or more helpful measure to improve the health care of this nation, than a single patient record.

[Martin Wrigley]

All the features that the hon. Member is asking for are available to people within the Greater Manchester area. Exactly those things are there and work today, even down to the remote monitoring he mentions.

[Peter Prinsley]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I am aware that in various bits of the country such systems do exist. I would like to see a single patient record that is genuinely single, so that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who is sitting next to me, writes something in the record, I can see it, and when I write in my record, he can see it, and no letters are passing back and forth between us. That is why I am sure that legislating for the mandatory single record is what we must do, and as a surgeon who has worked for 40 years in the NHS, I will do everything I can to help.

Digital ID

Debate between Martin Wrigley and Peter Prinsley

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I think I am the first person to speak today who is a supporter of digital ID. However, I agree with many of the objections raised by some colleagues; they are reasonable arguments and echo what many of my constituents have told me. Simon from Stowmarket wrote to say that he is worried about the state using digital ID to micromanage people’s lives, John from Bury St Edmunds said that digital ID could exclude those without smartphones or a fixed address, and there are many more who are concerned about the security of their data.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Prinsley]

I will not just now.

I agree with all those arguments, but why do I support digital ID? Because I believe that those arguments are about the practicalities of how we implement digital ID, as opposed to the principle of whether we should have digital ID in the first place.

It should be entirely possible for a great country like ours to modernise the way in which its citizens interact with the state while preserving civil liberties and privacy. That is entirely the Government’s intention. No one will be stopped in the street and asked for digital ID, data will be stored on personal devices, and it will the individual’s decision to share it or not. There will be alternative routes for those who cannot use smartphones.

Nevertheless, I know some Members will think this is a slippery slope, but that, again, is a practical argument. It is up to us, as legislators and as a Government, to ensure that digital ID is implemented with safeguards against bureaucratic creep. But we should not forgo the incredible benefits of digital ID because of the hypothetical chance that something we are against, and that we can prevent, might happen.

The benefits would be incredible. Before entering this place, I was a surgeon for many years, and the biggest problem I faced on a daily basis was accessing basic information about patients, which is stored in piecemeal fashion across myriad organisations. We could use digital ID to create a unified record and give control of it to the patients. That would revolutionise the national health service, and that is just one potential use—I have not mentioned the benefits for other public services and in reducing illegal working. People say that this is hugely expensive; I say that digital ID would pay for itself through reduced fraud. Privacy, inclusivity, civil liberties and a modern, streamlined state—I believe in all those things.