Peter Prinsley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Let me tell Members about two men. The first is Adolfo Hernandez, the chief executive of Capita, who has an annual remuneration, I believe, of £1.6 million. The other is my constituent, a man who gave 33 years of service to the Metropolitan police and, despite giving ample notice of his retirement, did not receive his pension for at least six months. He wanted to fund his daughter through university, but was unable to do so. He took out loans from the police. He then developed cancer and is under treatment at my local hospital. He has finally received a quotation for his pension. This is an utter disgrace and we in this place must surely be able to do something about it. We all came to this place to change things. Surely, this is something that we can change. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to speak in the debate. There have been endless debates on this subject since I became a Member of Parliament. What can be done in Israel-Palestine so that all its inhabitants may live in peace and tranquillity, with none to make them afraid? Those are the lines of the sacred prayer for peace that we say in our synagogues every shabbat. We have prayed in vain for what seems like an eternity, and here in Parliament we have endlessly debated this. Since the dreadful attacks of 7 October, the seizing of hostages and the mass destruction in Gaza, there have been countless debates and questions to Ministers. Last year, the Government recognised the state of Palestine, fulfilling a manifesto commitment. That was controversial at the time as there were still hostages, but I supported it, for the formal recognition of a Palestinian state separate from a secure Israel is the two-state solution that we all know must come and it represented the repudiation of Hamas and its sinister refrain, “From the river to the sea”. Now we have a fresh package of sanctions, internationally co-ordinated. The need to act at a time when we see increasing settler violence and so little progress in Gaza seemed urgent. That, I am sure, is the view of our new Foreign Secretary, for whom I have the greatest respect. However, I worry about the timing of the announcement, for the Knesset is dissolved and there is an election in Israel. I fear that the attitude of the Netanyahu Government will simply harden and the electorate may swing behind Netanyahu in reaction. That is the very last thing we want. What I would like to see is surely what many hon. Members would like to see: a new Government in Israel with a completely new approach. This weekend, we celebrated the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah, for 5787. I wish all hon. Members a happy and peaceful new year. Next Monday is Yom Kippur, a holy day of repentance. Let us politicians pray for progress and pray for peace.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate. What should be at the centre of a discussion about public ownership of water? I think it should be public health. Imagine a family spending an afternoon beside a river. The children are playing near the bank. One asks whether they can paddle. The parent looks at the water and hesitates. Hon. Members might think it is because the river is deep or flowing quickly, and they might be right, but just as importantly, the parent does not know what has been discharged into it. That should concern every one of us. In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the rivers connect our towns and surrounding villages. They should be places that communities enjoy and take pride in, not places from which parents feel they must warn their children away. Yet when we discuss the water and sewerage companies, the conversation too often begins with the company finances and ends with arguments about regulators. I think we should begin with the family beside the river. Julie is the mother of Heather, who was just eight when she died in 1999 after contracting E. coli during a family holiday in Devon. Her family story featured in the Channel 4 drama that we have heard about. Julie continues to speak out, so that Heather is not forgotten and so that other families understand the risks, but behind that campaigning is a mother who should have been watching her daughter grow up. That is why I believe the case for public ownership of our water and sewerage companies must be made in terms of the people this essential service exists to protect. The purpose of the water system should be straightforward: to provide clean, safe water. We need water and sewerage companies that have more actual engineers than financial engineers. Our constituents should not have to become experts in the sewage discharge maps before deciding whether to enjoy their local river. No parent should be left wondering whether an ordinary afternoon outdoors puts their child’s health at risk. We cannot promise that open water will ever be entirely risk-free, but we can insist that preventable pollution be treated with the seriousness it deserves. Water is essential to life, and the way we own and manage it must reflect that.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have cared for patients with advanced cancers of the head and neck, and I have seen patients at the end of their life. It is that experience above all that convinces me that we must introduce this humane and dignified option to assist those who are dying, so that they can die in peace at a time of their choosing and avoid the loss of autonomy and dignity that so many people fear. I fear it; perhaps other hon. Members also fear it, for none of us can know when we will die until we are dying ourselves. This is not a measure that chooses between life and death; it chooses between death and death, between dying and dying. That is the truth of the matter. I did not always think like this, but I have seen the limits of even the most skilful palliative care. I have seen the look in the eyes of the patient reconciled to the end of their days, and the pleading expression of the poor soul who wants to put an end to suffering. That is what we are debating—suffering. Assisted dying is complementary to palliative care; it is not an alternative. Others will say that assisted dying is unconscionable, and I respect that. I am asking the House to vote to support choice; that is all I am asking. We voted for the Bill before, and hon. Members in the other place sought to prevent its passage, but we are not misled or deceived by such a parliamentary device, and neither are the public, who will not forget this moment. I urge Members across the House to support choice. That is all I am asking.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Kingdon review of paediatric audiology services demonstrated terrible shortcomings in that service throughout the country. Poor hearing leads to poor language development and poor brain development and is a catastrophic start to a child’s life. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we must do all that we can to support audiology services? She mentioned a long list of health professionals; I would like to give a shout-out to audiologists.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning I met Julie, the mother of Heather, whose tragic death was featured in Channel 4’s “Dirty Business”. She is an incredible campaigner. With all the debates and discussions about the terrible state of the water companies, does the Leader of the House agree with Julie and with me that public health must be this House’s top priority?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Vaccination Rates: England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the members of the Health and Social Care Committee for securing this debate. Doctors like me do not need any convincing about vaccination, but some of our political opponents do not agree. It is incredible to think that a platform was given at last year’s Reform conference to someone claiming that vaccinations had caused cancer in the royal family, and that the head of the United States Health Department is a vaccine sceptic. That is quite pernicious and wrong—very, very wrong. Doctors like me do not need convincing. Nor do wives like mine who are Rhesus-negative and whose mothers had multiple miscarriages before the discovery of anti-D injections to prevent baby loss, which was first tested in the famous Sing Sing prison experiments. When I was young, every county had a school for the deaf, but they had all closed by the time I was a senior ENT surgeon. Why was that? Maternal rubella, or German measles, in pregnancy had been abolished by simply vaccinating all girls at puberty, just like that—brilliant. There was no longer a need for so many schools for the deaf. A landmark 2026 Lancet study reported no cervical cancer deaths among women aged 20 to 24 between 2020 and 2024: a dramatic drop from the previous five-year period directly credited to the national human papillomavirus vaccination programme. We will see the same fall in the number of deaths from oropharyngeal throat cancer in boys as a result of HPV vaccination. We all know that the national response to the pandemic was not a glorious one. There were costly errors in personal protective equipment and test and trace, but the one thing we did get right was vaccination, which saved countless lives. I recall myself vaccinating the first very elderly patients in Great Yarmouth. Just lately we have seen reports of increased life expectancy in patients with malignant melanoma due to personalised cancer vaccines—brilliant. Doctors like me, unlike some politicians, need no convincing of the crucial importance of vaccination, but there must be a warning here, for we are short of clinical academics who lead medical education and research. We need to incubate the next generation of scientists who will lead these discoveries, for this is the country of Jenner, who discovered vaccination; of Lister, who discovered antisepsis; and of Fleming, who discovered penicillin. We have a great legacy, and we must secure a great future.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. Welcome back from the summer holidays, everybody. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. I will focus my remarks on what the loss of banking services means for rural communities such as those in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. Let us imagine an older resident living in Ixworth, Stanton or one of the smaller villages surrounding our two market towns. A payment that they do not recognise appears on their statement. They are worried that they might have been scammed, and they want to speak to somebody they trust, show them the letter they have received and understand what to do next. For somebody living in a city or a town, that would be a short walk to the nearest branch, but for a person in rural Suffolk, it means arranging a lift, relying on an infrequent bus service or paying for a taxi—only to discover, perhaps, that the bank is closed. That is the reality behind every announcement of another bank closure. We hear that customers are moving online. Revolut, which is now the fastest-growing bank in the country, has no branches. But the fact that most people use an app does not mean that everybody can, and it certainly does not mean that every banking problem can be solved through one. There are moments when people need to talk to somebody. That is particularly important in my constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, where there are large numbers of elderly residents. When a bank closes, the impact spreads everywhere. The planned closure of the Halifax branch in Bury St Edmunds is another reminder of the services that we cannot take for granted. I am happy that the Government have a manifesto commitment to working with the banking industry to deliver 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. Banking hubs are sensible alternatives that give customers access to cash and the opportunity to speak privately with representatives of their bank. However, rural communities must be properly considered when deciding where these hubs are located. Residents in rural Suffolk should not receive a second-class service simply because of where they live.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that managers in the NHS sometimes get a very bad press from the medical profession? I believe that to be wholly unjustified.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady take another intervention, Ms Lewell?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  A fine vintage.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is, obviously, a very interesting discussion. I agree—I actually do—that medical practitioners should not go on strike, but the question is whether that should be the law. I would apply the same question to nurses, a point that the hon. Lady has not answered.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the hon. Member’s experience mirrors mine. Many years ago, it seemed to be easy for general practitioners to ring me up. I often received telephone calls from general practitioners asking for advice about patients. As time went on, general practitioners became busier and busier and seemed to have less time to telephone consultants. When I started my consultant career, I spoke often to general practitioners, and by the time I got elected to Parliament and had to stop, I found that was a very unusual thing. Has her experience been similar?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the invention of vaccination by Jenner centuries ago is the single most important medical invention we have had in this country?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think the new clause refers specifically to the foundation programme—

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The other important fact is that more and more hospital referrals were not coming from general practitioners at all, but from other people working in the general practice such as nurses and physician associates, who are less confident in forming a clinical judgment.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does it actually say that in the new clause?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested in what the hon. Member has to say about strike action. I was involved in trying to get the resident doctors’ strike stopped, but was unsuccessful for many months. I think she is talking about the principle of whether people involved in medical care should ever go on strike. If she were to apply the proposed measure to medical practitioners, would she introduce the same rule for nurses?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member, who is a medical colleague of mine, has to say. Although I think that a fracture liaison service is an excellent idea, there are many, many aspects of medical care that require careful attention, such as the management of people with hearing loss—my own field—or the assessment of people with chronic renal failure. Does the shadow Minister believe that all aspects of each individual disease category require some sort of primary legislation?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his speech. I would like to know whether he is aware of any evidence that mass screening of young people with ECGs will actually improve matters.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am confused by the Opposition referring in their new clause to a requirement to “make regulations” in this respect, as the private sector is already widely used to reduce waiting lists where appropriate. However, we must also be aware of the problem we have with overuse of private facilities. That can have an effect on the provision of NHS services, because the number of available staff is limited. I think particularly of ophthalmology services, as we have created a situation in which the overprovision of private services has disabled the provision of ophthalmology services.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with everything that the Minister has to say—what a surprise—but particularly the fact that when the new Government came in, they did something about these 40 “new” hospitals that were not full hospitals. The people of Bury St Edmunds were delighted to learn that their RAAC-affected hospital, which is tumbling down, will be one of the first to be reconstructed. We look forward to that and are grateful for the decisions made by the Government.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that the single most effective thing that we have done for public health since we were elected is to get the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 passed? The gradual abolition of cigarette smoking will save more lives than anything else we could conceivably do in politics.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to speak about something very simple: the difference between being put somewhere and being welcomed somewhere. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we welcomed Ukrainians into our home, as many here have done. The questions were practical: “Where is the nearest doctor?”, “How does the bus work?”. That is why I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to named community sponsorship. The Government retain control over who enters and in what numbers, and the welcome will come from the community. Canada has a similar system, and we have seen that sponsorship works from Homes for Ukraine. More than 400 Ukrainians were welcomed into west Suffolk; the people of Suffolk are keen to help—they have proved it. I met the parish council and the headteacher at Barnham primary school. They are concerned about the use being made of the RAF Barnham base. That does not make these people uncaring. Their concern is about how this is being done. They deserve to be properly consulted. Named community sponsorship and asylum accommodation are not the same. One offers refugees a safe and legal route, while the other houses people as their asylum claims are decided. The question is simple: do we begin with a site and ask the community to accept it, or do we begin with a community and ask what it is willing to do to help? The second is a much better starting point. For sponsorship to work, communities need training, clear guidance and continuing support. The people of Suffolk do not need lessons in compassion—they have opened their homes—but they must be heard when they raise concerns about RAF Barnham. The Home Secretary’s reforms can combine control with sanctuary, but to achieve that, we must trust our communities and listen to them.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. On Friday I met members of Barnham parish council in my constituency and the headteacher of the adjacent primary school, Amy. They raised concerns about the proposed accommodation of large numbers of asylum seekers at RAF Barnham. They worry about community cohesion, particularly if large numbers of young men are to be transported into neighbouring towns and villages without access to supervised constructive activity. Will the Minister outline what material steps will be taken to address this problem?