Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

Debate between Jo Churchill and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

I am sorry but I have so little time and I will not give way.

I should mention the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and all the work he does as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, for which I thank him. I did note what he said about Gibside School and the pilot for the visually impaired children. I heard him championing that being rolled out and I will make sure that that Department knows.

The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), is no longer in his place, but I took note of his request for a meeting with the police, the CPS and Ministers, and I will make sure that the Department is aware of it.

The doughty hon. Member for Swansea East came next into our lives with all her colourfulness and her work to help women through that different stage of life, the menopause, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. We thank her for her work highlighting it, and the Government have made sure that prepayment certificates have been brought in to make that journey easier for women. I also noted her football tribute to Gareth Bale, which landed well with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. He pointed out how expanding ULEZ will hit about 200,000 Londoners, when money is tight, how it will go right out to Uxbridge and South Ruislip and how facing charges of £12.50 a day—up to £4,500 a year—is a tough thing for people to afford. I join him in urging the Mayor to step back.

I also join my hon. Friend in wishing success for the Smokefree 2030 ambition—he knows I am keen on that and would love to see us achieve it too. I look forward to his work experience photos. I have had many young people in my office—Teddy came only this week. It is brilliant that they come and see how our democracy works.

We were then taken to the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). I thank her for praising the Home Office, saying that the situation has improved markedly. I am sure everyone will join me in wishing the young lady who has just arrived from Afghanistan well in her new life in Scotland. Please pass on those wishes from us all.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, asked us not to forget the people of Bosnia and the 57 of our men and women who lost their lives. Speeches are always more powerful when they come from a place of personal knowledge, and I am sure that colleagues in the Foreign Office and the MOD heard his remarks, and his shout-out to our hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), whom he praised for his good work as trade envoy.

We went over to the constituency of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), where, I agree, violence against women and girls is completely unacceptable, and then scooted down to Scunthorpe, where my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) welcomed the £19.4 million funding for one of 111 diagnostic centres that we have created. My hon. Friend is known as “Mrs Steel”, and we know that steel is vital to the UK. Ministers are engaging to make sure it has a positive and sustainable future, and I thank her for all the work she does.

We then went over the water to South Antrim. Our focus remains on delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) welcomes the moves to restore the Executive in Stormont; it is our top priority. I know he has regular dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

We then went to the beautiful Cotswolds. The issue of GL43 and SPA is quite complex, so if my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will forgive me, I will say only that I noted his comments and they will have been heard by the Department. DEFRA may decide to modify the GL should the situation change. We are aware of some technical changes to the higher level stewardship and have put support in place, but I have asked the Department to look at extending the deadline as my hon. Friend requested.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of my farmers, who are very troubled by this, as are farmers up and down the country. It would be really welcome if that were to be put back, even by a few weeks.

[Jo Churchill]

I note my hon. Friend’s comments.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray, whom I congratulate on his refereeing skills. He gave a shout-out to Steve Clarke and wished his team well. I noted his comments about Viaplay. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, our right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), is keen to engage with him. Of course, that will be easier if the SNP Government give him the money for the A9. [Laughter.]

Anyway, we move on to Congleton, where we heard about the firm Brit European, whose site is powered by solar, wind and methane from moo poo—that is what I wrote, but I added something in brackets to remind myself what it is. The firm has used those and other innovative solutions to create a sustainable site—it sounds absolutely fantastic, and all power to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton asked for a meeting between the Department for Business and Trade and the company SpanSet, and I will make sure the Department hears that request, but I point out that questions to that Department take place on 14 September.

We whizz to Rutland and Melton, where I am excited about visiting the food market when it is established. I was interested to hear about the medi-hub and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton on securing the MRI scanner. We know how much early diagnoses helps us to change the trajectory of these diseases. I also note that she is glad that we have increased fines for fly tipping in rural areas. It is a blight, so doubling the fines to £1,000 is really welcome. She also welcomed the biggest ever funding for education, and I am sure Sir David would have been warmed by the way she trotted us around what I think was about 32 subjects. I am sure that the Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero heard her comments.

That brings us to Rayleigh and Wickford. All I can say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is that friends are so important, and this place is no different. He misses his friend, and we heard that today. I thank him for his kind words. Moving on, I wish him enormous luck with securing his special school. Education for those with particular needs is incredibly important. Every child has the right to a good education. That is why the high needs funding increasing by more than £10 billion, an increase of some 10.6%, is really welcome. I also have a RAAC school and hospital in Bury St Edmunds, so I know some of the challenges involved; I wish him well with that and with his work with his sheltered housing community.

Off we trotted then to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury; she has got herself a knowledge highway bus and now she is cheekily asking for a bridge before she comes back in two years’ time. I am sure the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, heard her. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury really saved her passion for her comments on CAMHS and children’s mental health and the two-year wait for a diagnosis. We all know how vital it is to have a timely diagnosis and the Government are committed to reducing the delays for those children. It is really important to get a quick diagnosis so that we can help to give children the best education.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on her comments about chalk streams. They are an incredibly important and special habitat. I know the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), makes a particular play in the chalk stream strategy to ensure that we look after that vital part of nature.

Next, we went to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who thanked the Government for the energy bill relief scheme, the household support fund and the uprating of benefits in line with inflation. He painted a very different story from the one we heard from the hon. Member for Newport East, but he did bring up the issue of incineration, and I will ensure that DEFRA hears those comments. He also welcomed the police and the improvements to his St Helier Hospital and the new work—with the Royal Marsden Hospital, I think he said—to see and treat more people suffering from cancer.

Then we went to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and his celebrations on rail, with £239 million for Bank Top station—

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jo Churchill and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

I would make two points. First, the hon. Member is presupposing that there will not be members of those devolved authorities on the committee. If people hold the most appropriate expertise, they may be there as a full member, or they may be co-opted in to look at a particular area of reference. There are other mechanisms that we always use in this place to hold the Minister to account. The Minister is bound to report to this place within three months of parliamentary sitting time. All the mechanisms will be in place, as well as those behind the scenes where we talk to devolved Ministers and so on, to make sure that things are raised in the appropriate way.

Amendment 2, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), would require the committee’s recommendations to respect religious rights, cultural traditions and regional heritage. We have heard the strength of feeling on this matter both here and in the other place, and I assure him that we have listened and decided to support the amendment.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for her careful consideration of my amendment. I think it is a sensible, proportionate amendment that will allow a committee with limited resources to focus on those really egregious areas where animal sentience is being abused, and not run into some of the less important areas. I thank her for accepting the amendment, and I thank all my hon. Friends who supported and signed it.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

rose—

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jo Churchill and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I gently point out that there are plenty of other devices for ensuring plenty of parliamentary time. I am sure that we will unpick that in Committee.

Ministers will remain responsible for balancing animal welfare against other important matters of public interest. We are and will remain fully accountable to Parliament for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon spent some time asking whether the Bill increases the risk of judicial review, and it has been carefully considered and worded to ensure there are only two areas in which we could instigate grounds for judicial review if Ministers fail to fulfil them: by not appointing a committee or by not bringing forward a report in a timely fashion.

I was also asked how the Animal Sentience Committee differs from the Animal Welfare Committee. The latter offers substantive expert advice, whereas the former is a scrutinising body—that is the essential difference. The Animal Sentience Committee is there to give another line of evidence and to help Ministers make decisions, but policy decisions are and will remain a matter for Ministers, for which they are accountable to this House.

Ministers are under no legal obligation to follow the committee’s recommendations. However, there is no point in having a committee that brings forward evidence unless we take it seriously. As I say, it will be balanced in the round to make sure competing interests such as the rural economy or a particular enjoyment, angling or whatever—all those things that are good for people’s mental wellbeing—are considered when we make our decisions.

The key point about the terms of reference is that the Animal Sentience Committee will be classified as an expert committee. It will be funded from within DEFRA’s existing budget and supported by a small secretariat. This will not run and run and be an unsupported Government quango, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. The Bill is drafted to keep sentience at the forefront of policy making and implementation, in line with its statutory functions.

Wide-ranging points were made by colleagues, which flowed into medical research and respect for people’s religious needs. The Bill is tight, and the reason it is a small, tight Bill is that it is important that we are aware that it does not change existing legislation. The committee does not make value judgments.

Hon. Members asked about the inclusion of decapod crustaceans, crabs, lobsters, molluscs, octopus and squid. I want to be absolutely clear about the reasoning behind the effects of that decision. At every point, it is about respecting and recognising animal sentience, and being scientifically led.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I sense the Minister is coming to a conclusion, but she has not answered one of my questions about the composition of the committee. Will she give an assurance that it will take into account rural and agricultural interests?

[Jo Churchill]

As I represent the constituency that I do, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I will give him that assurance. The Opposition made the point that breadth of expertise is extremely important in order to have confidence in this Committee.

Specific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Jo Churchill and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Monday 7th October 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Specific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1247).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I am confident that we all share the intention to ensure that the high standards of food and feed safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country are maintained when the UK leaves the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) stated previously, this instrument and the original instrument, which it amends, seek only to protect and maintain those high public health and food safety standards. Changes are limited to the necessary technical amendments to ensure that the legislation is operable on exit day. I stress that no policy changes are made through these instruments and we do not have any intention of making any at this point.

This instrument amends a previous EU exit SI: the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Further clarity was required in setting out the authorisation process for approving products that can be used to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin. The clarification will ensure that the process is robust and can be applied clearly in assessing the risk in respect of new products.

This instrument needed to be in place to support the UK’s application for third-country listed status with the EU, so that the UK can continue to export animals and animal products to the EU. We anticipate that that is due to be voted on by the European Commission on 11 October.

This instrument has been made using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary amendments to UK regulations to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in retained EU law that arise as a consequence of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The instrument was made on 9 September under the urgent “made affirmative” procedure, which was considered appropriate to meet the deadline for the European Commission’s third-country listing vote on 11 October.

As hon. Members know, the Government have made it clear that our priority is to seek a negotiated deal with the EU, but we are taking sensible action to ensure that we prepare for every eventuality. The UK’s third-country listing application was a particularly important part of our no-deal preparations. Third-country listed status guaranteed that the export of animal products and most live animals from the UK to the EU could continue. That market is worth approximately £5 billion to the UK annually.

I shall expand on the specific detail of the minor and technical changes made by the instrument. The primary purpose of this legislation is to refine an amendment to retained EU law made by the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. We considered that the regulation would benefit from further clarity in describing the authorisation process and the appropriate authority responsible for the process to approve substances that may be used to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin. Lack of clarity might affect implementation and has the potential to undermine the responsibilities for authorisation; this instrument rectifies that.

The new instrument makes it clear that the responsibility for approval of substances that may be used to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin rests with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the appropriate Minister in each of the devolved Administrations. This measure introduces no substantive policy changes to what has already been successfully made and passed in Parliament in March 2019.

Food business operators are not permitted to use any substance other than potable water—or, where permitted, clean water—to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin unless that has been approved. This relates to business establishments that handle products such as meat, eggs, fish, cheese and milk and that do not supply to final consumers.

Currently, approval for such substances is given by the European Commission, but after EU exit this responsibility will be carried out by Ministers. The amendment to Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 made by the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is being further amended to make it absolutely clear that Ministers will be responsible for prescribing the use of any other substances and that the process of consulting the food safety authority is retained. That decision will be based on independent food safety advice from the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland.

If after EU exit any additional substances are proposed to be approved for this purpose, they will be subject to risk analysis by the FSA, which has established a rigorous and transparent risk analysis process for assessment and approval of any such new substances. Any request for substance approval would be subject to thorough scientific risk assessment and risk management, before being put to Ministers for a final decision.

Let me be clear that neither this instrument nor the instrument it amends introduces any changes for food businesses in how they are regulated and how they run, nor does it introduce extra burden. The overall changes to the food hygiene regulations will ensure a robust set of controls, which will underpin UK businesses’ ability to trade domestically and internationally.

It is also important to note that we have engaged positively with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of this instrument. Further, this ongoing engagement has been warmly welcomed. The devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland have provided their consent for this instrument; the Scottish Government have been made aware of these regulations, but have not yet had the opportunity to scrutinise them.

I would like to stress that we would not normally make EU exit regulations under this Act, where the policy area is devolved in competence, without the agreement of all of the devolved Administrations. However, as I have explained, this is a very minor drafting change to the regulation, which the Scottish Parliament has previously agreed. Regrettably, the potential impact should the instrument not be in place before 11 October on the third-country listing vote does not constitute a normal situation and could affect the farming industry across the whole of the UK, including Scotland.

Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in line with informal communications, which the Food Standards Agency has had with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the FSA will, in accordance with the terms of the free issue procedure, be making this instrument available free of charge to those who purchased the earlier exit SI, namely the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

The Government accept that this instrument should have been made available under the free issue procedure at the time it was first made, but that did not happen. That situation will now be remedied. I apologise for that oversight and confirm to the Committee that this will be corrected and the Food Standards Agency will, together with colleagues in the national archives, be taking action to ensure that anyone entitled to a free copy of the instrument under that procedure will, where appropriate, be able to apply for a refund or otherwise obtain a copy.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that by laying this instrument the Government are demonstrating, beyond peradventure, that they will not tolerate any reduction in food safety standards as a result of the UK leaving the EU, contrary to what was asserted by some on television yesterday?

[Jo Churchill]

Indeed, that is so.

The action taken will allow one to obtain a copy of this instrument for free on request, in accordance with the usual terms of that procedure.

In conclusion, this instrument constitutes a minor—technical, but necessary—measure, to ensure that our legislation relating to food safety continues to work effectively after exit day. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment proposed, to ensure the continuation of effective food safety and public health controls. I commend the regulation to the Committee.

Digital Records in the NHS

Debate between Jo Churchill and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Thursday 28th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on bringing this debate to the Chamber.

For me, data hold the key. As we move into new medical landscapes, comprehensive data sets hold vast possibilities for research and care, and we should harness and optimise their potential benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) alluded to. I have been working with individuals, charities, researchers and clinicians to try to understand how to put patients at the centre of everything that is done with and for them.

Recent research by charities into patient responses shows that patients are keen for their data to be used. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds mentioned, Data4Health was launched earlier this year. At its launch, we heard from a patient, Graham, whom my hon. Friend also mentioned. Graham was backed by a clinician, a researcher and a charity, and he spoke about his journey with leukaemia and how research had helped him get the most effective treatment. We also heard from the mother of the youngest patient to be diagnosed using cutting-edge genomics about how we are moving forward. What got those patients to a diagnosis and the correct care was a true understanding of their diseases. Data are a precious gift and we must take care to ensure that everything we do with them is in the patient’s best interest.

If we can speed up data sharing in something as simple as immunisation programmes, for example, it will be more effective. Vaccination coverage is necessary to ensure success, and at the moment data collection is, as a doctor described it to me, clunky in many areas. We still have paper records. Only recently we saw how integrated patient data might have saved a young child’s life. Patient safety and good data are therefore real and ever-present issues.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable in this area. Is she aware of the campaign for the new-generation Bexsero meningitis B vaccine, which was developed by genomics? The NHS was the first health service in the world to allow two-month-old babies to receive that vaccine. The collection of data and the effectiveness of vaccines and drugs can put the NHS at the forefront of what is happening in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

Indeed, and there is a larger point than that: we also lead the world in life sciences, innovation and technology. The NHS is a critical resource; with patients’ permission, we have the ability not only to create great health for our nation, but to save money for our NHS and produce wealth for our economy. There is nothing not to like in that virtuous circle.

How much better would things be for people who go into hospital if the ambulance staff and paramedics who took them there could view their medication and understand their personal situation more fully, and therefore respond more appropriately and not waste precious time? As a doctor said to me, that is particularly important in caring for patients out of hours. Ringing other hospitals is sometimes not an option. Side effects can be worse for some patients than others, and we need to know why in order to target effective treatment. That would avoid waste and reduce the cost for individuals, their families and the system. My hon. Friend alluded to health economics studies that show potential savings ranging from as little as £16 billion to as much as £66 billion if data were deployed properly. We must grab this opportunity. The NHS needs to find cost savings, and we have an opportunity to drive the innovation that would deliver such savings.

That applies across the piece. I have just come from a debate on autism in the main Chamber, and one of the key points that was raised there was that health data are not adequate to link things up so that young children can have effective and timely diagnosis. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we had a powerful debate on meningitis in the House a few days ago, and we would benefit from data on that disease too. We also had a powerful and moving debate on brain tumours recently. Data on such issues should be linked, because the patient is an individual and how they respond to a drug or combinations of drugs is important.

Only this morning I spoke to Mike Burrows of the wonderful Salford lung study, in which a drug is put into a real-world environment and connected with databases so that all of a patient’s health needs can be tracked. The study looks at real life and can cope with all the different variables to see the effects that a drug might have on people. As we move into an environment in which co-morbidities are ever present in our ageing population, we can immediately see how someone who takes a drug for one condition and thereby receives a benefit for another will have their health enhanced.

GlaxoSmithKline is about to produce the results of that study, which will be interesting, but Mike said to me that it has been a winner for the local health service, and that is what is important. The GPs who have been involved have seen the benefits. The hardware alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, which is so often lacking in the system, has been invested in and now, with the integration of the NHS and social care, we have the ability to optimise care for the patient, which is important. The Salford study covers a quarter of a million people, and the learning from it will be rolled out across the broader Manchester landscape as devolution takes place.

The Minister is in a unique position to see data as a solution. On many challenging issues in this data-rich system, we are information-poor. Variations lead to inconsistencies. He can implement the recommendations of the accelerated access review, spearheading how we can best put to use the lessons from large-scale studies such as the Salford study, the Birmingham study mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds and studies from right across London.

There is also much to be learned from some of the devolved areas. I have spoken at length about that with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is the Scottish National party’s lead on health. We have a lot of medical expertise to harness in my party and right across the House, so that we can concentrate minds and ensure that we take the right direction of travel.

Work is going on across the Richmond group and in the pharmaceutical industry. In this place, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), who chairs the all-party group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who chairs the all-party group on life sciences, and I, as chair of the all-party group on personalised medicine, are discussing how we can best develop a combined piece of work in this area, because collaborative approaches always give us the best results. There is a plethora of data in the system, but, as Chris Carrigan of the National Cancer Intelligence Network says, we must harness data effectively.

In this country we have some of the best science in the world. The areas of informatics and genomics will be game changers, allowing us to develop drugs in as little as five months instead of years. We need responsive systems. It is unlikely, if not impossible, that our clinicians will be able to keep up with cutting-edge research without the use of electronics. Last year, a multidisciplinary group looked at data sharing in genetics and concluded that the current arrangements are unsatisfactory.

If we understand why drugs work better on certain groups or in distinct geographical areas, they can be targeted effectively. That is particularly the case in the area of rare diseases. A young constituent of mine who has a condition called tuberous sclerosis and those who suffer from other conditions such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, lupus or rare cancers are in cohorts that are too small to prove efficacy. If there are only a few suffers of such conditions throughout the country, the transferral of knowledge is difficult unless information is held centrally, but the data provide the key.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I would not have intervened on my hon. Friend if we did not have plenty of time. She has developed the interesting theme of the benefit of the life sciences to our economy. She then explained how the better use of data can speed up the development of drugs. By doing that effectively at a time when global drugs companies are looking at where it is best to locate themselves, the NHS could encourage more of them to come to the United Kingdom to develop drugs. Would that not be a huge benefit?

[Jo Churchill]

It would. That is also part of the complex environment covered by the accelerated access review, the early access scheme that my hon. Friend mentioned and so on.

We now know what the landscape for the cancer drugs fund looks like going forward. I started my journey to this place on a personal note, speaking about personalised medicine as a campaigner back in 2010 after my second bout of cancer. My dream is that anybody will be able to have my data to learn what will prevent any of my four daughters from developing any of the cancers that I unfortunately have had in my lifetime. We need to take hold of patients’ ability to gift such data. Alongside that gift, we must drive an industry where we have the ability, the innovation, the technology and—quite frankly—the brains we need. Everybody comes here for our life sciences, to lead the world in that area, and we should grab that opportunity.

As I said, the cohorts are too small to prove efficacy. Unless we hold information in a central place, that creates a problem. As has been said, confidentiality is crucial. Strict safeguards and strong governance are a given, as my hon. Friend said. Confidentiality for participants involved in clinical research is well established, but most data are either aggregated or pseudonymised.

Speaking personally, if my data, particularly on cancer, can make one other person’s journey better than mine, it is a gift. I have spoken to Graham Silk about that, and he agrees, as do the many people I have campaigned with. As Christina and Les say, being the first to gift data makes someone feel that they have done something really special. Even if it gives someone with a complex disease to a small amount of additional time, we have given someone else a very special gift.

It is important that the risks are moderated, but we must also consider the benefits and what we can win. Many patient groups show involvement rates of getting on for 100% when people know that their information will go to others. My hon. Friend mentioned the cystic fibrosis group, which has an involvement rate of 98%. We need strong leadership to draw the strands together, a common understanding and a national agreement to optimise sharing in a safe, transparent and trustworthy way.

The risks and benefits of sharing data have to be explored, but those who talk only of the risks will miss the benefits. I would like to see a chief clinical informatics officer. I look to the Minister to lay out his vision for standardising, resourcing and futureproofing the system; drawing together the ongoing work; and achieving the momentum needed for greater data sharing to improve both the health and the wealth of our nation.