The Health Bill was debated in the House of Commons. 

In his first debate in the House of Commons, the new Secretary of State for Health James Murray joined the side of the ghouls and creeps who read medical notes simply because they can. Nottingham victims, Southport victims, others all covered up, and Ministers said nothing beyond platitudes that it’ll all be fine, platitudes that DH officials working on the Bill are already breaking and undermining, deliberately and knowingly.

One MP said: “My constituent, whose family member was brutally murdered, is rightly horrified that victims’ NHS records were shared unlawfully online with NHS workers—she called it “repugnant voyeurism”, and she was right to do so. I hope the Minister will echo the apology of the trust and condemn that kind of behaviour.” Ministers did not echo the apology and did not condemn the behaviour, in fact they propose to exacerbate it.

The Bill debate came straight after MPs debated the new guidance on who can/must have their genitalia checked in order to enter a toilet in a public building. MPs then moved seamlessly on to data sharing such that anyone in the NHS can access any data they feel they need, and it will come down to Ministers to decide what information must be shared, not patients. Indeed, there is no legislative basis for patient control over sharing at all.

SPR means choices being taken away

Layla Moran described a constituent “who described how repeatedly recounting traumatic experiences compounded her own suffering. The single patient record could be transformational for her and others who find recounting traumatic experiences difficult.”

Patients tell their story all too often, but equally they may not wish to share all information with all care providers – do all the staff in your local pharmacy have to see the notes on consequences of prostate surgery?  Or see the reason that you have the prescriptions you do?  Or the full detail of the “traumatic experiences” being shared – the NHS knows all of it, it recorded all of it, including all of the details that the patient wishes no one read about every time they walked in the door. Giving all the information to everyone is no better than giving it to no one if it’s not reliable. Your record will be fed to a Palantir AI and summarised by them. How relevant is the cause of a self-harm incident at 19? or 14? What’s the risk averse summary? Is every event ever mentioned in every transcript of a consultation includable in the summary?

Wes Streeting said in his speech: “Our health, our data, our NHS—patients should control who can access their data, and they should control their own data”. Yet the Bill Mr Streeting introduced does not do that, it’s what he says, but the Bill and his (former) Department does the opposite. Did Wes Streeting mislead the House on what he believes, or did his former Department just ignore him?

Promises keep getting broken

There were promises of safeguards to come – in secondary legislation that the Commons has no ability to amend. 

The clarion example is the Summary Care Record – which already does much of what the SPR is supposed to do. Prescriptions, notes, major details. The Summary Care Record already has an opt out, with a form in the pack of paperwork that you used to get when you registered with a GP. In 2024 NHS England forced GPs to accept online registrations, and low level officials in NHS England absolutely refused to ask patients whether they wanted such a record. Instead this is the text that is shown to patients who might want to opt out – more punishment paperwork because patients want to express a choice. This is the Digital NHS in practice – digital only if you do what Officials want to make easy.

Choices get watered down in the process.

Unless the SPR has a clear statutory opt out, DH officials will water it down at every opportunity, as is currently happening yet again with the National Data Opt Out reform process – where what Wes Streeting said was outright refused by his officials. 

Former Minister Dr Ahmed argued data “must be used for the benefit of patients” and it seems DH believes that is for DH alone to decide that, not patients. 

Secret?

The House was told that the system will be “Critical National Infrastructure”, but that does not protect any of the data in it from those who can use it.

Government classifies some of its plans for the SPR so that MPs and the public don’t know anything about them until the Bill has passed – will the consolidated single patient record be covered by the Official Secrets Act, so that abusing it to creep on neighbours, campaigners and victims of terrorism will be something Whitehall cares about? 

Unlikely, because DH officials are making the policy guess that in return for the NHS staff being allowed to keep creeping on victims, they’ll get to use the data however they want too.

In practice, it would be entirely in line with what Ministers have said that patient data be accessible to anyone without sanction, but the audit trail could be classified so no patient can ever see it.

We’ll have more on the SPR and the Bill debate shortly