Peter Prinsley MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Especially if it were the case that the patient were the data controller. Sarah Woolnough: Yes. Jacob Lant: Whoever ends up being the data controller, the most important thing is that patients have a right to express how their data is used. That is where it is really important to keep things like the national data opt-out up to date, and to ensure that it is clear and accessible for patients to express how their data is used for secondary purposes. That becomes much harder in a direct care scenario. If you restrict the sharing of data for direct care, you could inadvertently create a second-class system for people who are not in that. It is a really clear distinction. For secondary uses, we need a very clear opt-out, where people can understand how their data is used and express a preference.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I would love to amend the figures in my bank account—I would like to be able to go into my Lloyds bank account and add a nought to the end of the balance figure—but I cannot, because the bank controls that. But I am the one who has access to the data. Dr Byrne : I totally support that ambition. Patients and the public having more agency in their care, strengthening that relationship, and them being able to access their information through the NHS app is a great thing. That is hugely helpful, and there is real potential with the SPR to strengthen that. We have landed on agreement.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q So the ICB will commission it, but somebody will have to run it. Who should run a neighbourhood health centre? Maria Higson: If we want to be as open to change as possible, my argument would be that that should be decided locally. Would it not be fantastic if, for example, some of them were led by VCSEs that worked in close partnerships and had clinics where GPs came in? You can envisage a whole number of different scenarios, led by local communities and local organisations. This plays back to the health inequalities point, but that is how you do it, although it relies on you being open to different models and not trying to do a one-size-fits-all, which is really tricky when you are trying to implement.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Which organisations or people do you envisage running the neighbourhood health centres? Will they be run out of general practice organisations, or will the local authorities themselves be best placed to run them, so as to join up hospital care with community services? Councillor Wright: That is quite interesting; I was at a session this morning looking at communities, and there was a comment that for the NHS communities are about buildings, whereas for the local authority they are about people. I think it would be the ICBs and whoever they commissioned to provide neighbourhood health centres. I hope there would be enough input from the voluntary sector, the local authority, adult social care and public health—from everyone—but I see the ICBs as the commissioners and the people who organise them.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am an ENT surgeon. What do you think about giving the patient ownership of the single patient record as well as discretion over whether the information in that record is revealed to the clinical team? Dr Byrne: It is an interesting idea, but I am not sure. I heard your question earlier about data controllership specifically in this regard. You will not necessarily like my answer. There are two ways of answering the question; perhaps straightforwardly, legally, but also clinically. I will start with the legal answer, which in some ways is easier. Data controllership in data protection law is a very technical term; it is determined by who is making the decisions about processing the means of the data. An organisation running and controlling an electronic patient record would be the data controller. Obviously, this is ultimately a question for the regulator and the Information Commissioner’s Office to determine, but that would be the legal position, nevertheless. Clinically, we have to come back to thinking about what a patient record is for. Primarily, it is to provide good care in the context of the clinician-patient relationship. If you prioritise the needs of either side of that relationship, I think it is problematic; the needs of one must not outweigh the needs of the other. The clinical record is there to enable clinicians to record what someone is presenting with, the difficulties they are having, what investigations are appropriate, the findings and what the plan is. It needs to be there for that tool to work. To take you on a slight thought experiment, if it was entirely held within a patient’s control—however loosely we use that term, legally or otherwise—and we could all amend, correct, change or add our diagnoses, findings and treatments, that might be clinically problematic. That may not be the answer you want, but it is the straight answer, if I am honest, from both a clinical and legal perspective.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  We are talking of spending, but modern warfare, like warfare since time immemorial, depends on the bravery of our fighting men and our fighting women. We also need a nimble and effective industrial base, for we used to have arrows, then there were bullets and shells, and now there are drones and tech. How can we be best prepared for the next war and support small and medium-sized enterprises in places such as Suffolk?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Local Plans · Hansard source

  More

  In Suffolk, many villages need new affordable houses, so what can be done to make the rural exception sites more attractive to developers?

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  The question before us this evening is quite simple: are we prepared to rebuild NHS dentistry as a genuine public service? My constituents, and people across the country, demand and deserve NHS dental services that are accessible and available. I commend the campaign Toothless in Suffolk, which has been a tireless advocate, and many of my parliamentary colleagues who are in the Chamber this evening, who have spoken about their very own dental deserts. Families should not have to choose between going private and going without. The Americans talk about English teeth—wonky and yellow. That myth was dispelled, but sadly it is returning; children being admitted to hospitals with dental abscess and decay was once rare, but it is now familiar. Before the election, I spoke of the decay of the nation’s teeth as a metaphor for the decay of the nation—what an outrage! NHS dentistry disappeared in plain sight when the contracts were changed. The dentists simply switched their practice to private and informed their patients—it was not really a choice. This happened to me and, I expect, to many other Members. I was an ear, nose and throat surgeon in the NHS. I was paid to work at the hospital, not per case, but as part of a team tasked with providing a service to the population. The incentive was to work hard to benefit the greatest number of patients; nobody ever said to me that I could switch all my patients to strictly private operations in the hospital and charge a fee per case, yet that is what happened to NHS dentists. Surprise, surprise—private practice became very popular. There are plenty of dentists, although it is true that we could do with more. I welcome the new dental school at the UEA and commend the vice chancellor and his team for their work on it. I welcome the plans to increase the number of overseas dentists by increasing places for the General Dental Council qualifying exam, as there are many dentists who would like to work here. I also welcome the emergency dental appointments now widely available using the underspend in the NHS dental contract to provide sessional dental appointments. I definitely welcome the emphasis on prevention and the toothbrush campaigns.

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my neighbour for his intervention. I agree that there is much that dental hygienists and dental nurses can do, especially in check-up work. There are many positive steps, and I commend our excellent Minister on everything he has done, but we urgently need the new contract and incentives and rewards for NHS dentistry. This debate is to ask the Government when that will happen, and what barriers are preventing that. The teeth of the nation depend on it.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that what is needed is a complete cultural change in our schools, giving equivalence of practical skills to academic pursuits? We have masses of rebuilding in our country after the wreckage of 14 years, including in Suffolk, yet we have no welders. Let’s fix this.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Across the river, we can all see the covid memorial wall with a quarter of a million red hearts—a quarter of a million of our people lost. Few families were unaffected. My son is an accident and emergency doctor, and he was then working at a London hospital. His accounts of A&E were terrifying, and my wife felt that we had sent our son to war. There was inadequate protection for staff, with masks that did not fit and plastic aprons. PPE—personal protective equipment—was an acronym we had never heard before. Our hospitals simply did not have enough ventilators or intensive care facilities, and were forced to triage those who could be salvaged and those who could not. This must not happen again. We must be prepared, for who knows when there will be another pandemic. Let us learn the lessons and never forget those whom we have lost. Still today, there are healthcare workers with long covid and post-traumatic stress disorder. I think especially of our very young doctors and nurses, who were suddenly exposed to death and loss on levels quite unprecedented in our NHS. We must look after them. We must invest in pandemic research and preparedness. Public health is national health, and we must invest in it. Jenner first discovered vaccination in 1796 when he took pus from a cowpox lesion on a local milkmaid called Sarah Nelms and inoculated his gardener’s son, an eight-year-old lad called James Phipps—the first person ever to be vaccinated. Our country has a strong record of medical research, and we are all proud of it. Our scientists developed a covid vaccine that saved countless lives. Let me use this moment to make a further plea to do all we can in this House to support basic and applied medical research, for it is upon such scientific advances that we will all rely.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that we must have a single patient record, not simply federated records from other sources?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Jun 2026 · UK Coastal Waters: Protection · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps his Department is taking to protect UK coastal waters.

• 1 Jun 2026 · UK Coastal Waters: Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Off the tranquil coast of Suffolk lie critical pieces of infrastructure, communications cables and electrical installations. There are alarming reports of munitions that are capable of creating giant tidal waves, threatening our coastal communities and indeed our nuclear facilities. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to protect our coastal waters from hostile foreign activity and truly safeguard our national security?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the shortage of welders. Does he agree that the Government’s plan for construction colleges of excellence, including the one in Bury St Edmunds, will be crucial for the provision of welders?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. I declare an interest as a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, but I speak for myself. The actions of Minister Gvir, seen on the news last night, are an utter disgrace. As a Jewish MP, I was ashamed, for sometimes it is not easy to be a Jewish MP in this House. Does the Minister agree that the actions of certain Israeli Ministers are not the responsibility of the Anglo-Jewish population, and that there can be no excuse for the terrible epidemic of antisemitism we have seen on British streets? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention and agree that the BBC World Service is almost the best example of our country’s soft power. I welcome the extra investment promised by this Government to support its work, but I would like it to be greater. We will do all we can to support the World Service. The duty to protect democracy is a sacred duty of this House. It is a simple wish, and something I am sure we can all do.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to be making a contribution to the debate on the King’s Speech. It touched on what, in my view, is the core foundation of the nation’s future, which is defensive readiness. My remarks will focus on what is a real part of our national defence: the defence of our democracy and our communities from hostile foreign influence. One might be forgiven for thinking that defensive readiness is about the quality of ships, aircraft, cyber-systems and military capabilities, but it is also about whether our elections are secure, whether our public debate is protected, and whether communities in this country can live free from hatred and fear. There is no doubt that foreign interference is a threat. The Rycroft review made clear that this country “faces a persistent problem of foreign interests seeking to exert influence on, and to interfere in, our politics.” That should be of concern to every Member of this House. Our elections are the foundations of our democracy. If hostile states can use online disinformation and covert influence to shape our political debate, they are attacking the public’s right to decide the future of this country freely and fairly. I am proud that this Government are rightly strengthening rules on political finance, including through tighter requirements on company donations and measures aimed at preventing foreign actors from using companies to influence UK politics. Some of that influence is well known, such as the millions of pounds from Thailand and the curious friendship between the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) and the world’s richest man. The Community Security Trust records antisemitic activity, which is now at record levels. I welcomed the eloquent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), neither of whom are now in their seats. Not every antisemitic incident is foreign-directed, but it is clear that hostile foreign actors amplify hatred online and use it to further divide our society. That is why the threat from Iran and the IRGC matters so much. The Security Minister stated that the UK has responded to 20 Iran-backed plots since the start of 2022, presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. That clearly presents a foreign policy and domestic security issue, and I strongly believe that the Government must tackle it head-on. What can we do to ensure defensive readiness? We must ensure strong election security, strong action against foreign online interference, and robust protection for Jewish communities facing real and sustained threats. My constituents, and communities across the country, rightly expect democracy to be protected and all their neighbours to be safe.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Agriculture: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. I am concerned about the mental health of farmers. There is about one suicide a week among UK farmers. Does he agree that we must do everything we can to support the mental health of our farmers?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who came to speak in the debate. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who gave very interesting Back-Bench contributions. I also thank the Minister and the Opposition spokespeople—the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Winchester (Dr Chambers)—for their contributions. It is quite true that the shadow Minister and I grew up on the same street—probably about 10 houses apart, but many more than 10 years apart. This has been an interesting debate, whose purpose was to highlight the plight of foundation doctors. As we have said, if we can fix the foundations, we will be able to fix the problems we have with our young doctors. I definitely think that this industrial dispute, which has been rolling and rumbling on for several years, is solvable. It sounds as though we were close to solving it and particularly to attending to the conditions of young doctors.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Some time ago, when I came here, I had working with me an intern, Dr Harry Dunn, who was a medical student at Cambridge University. He graduated last year. He came top, not only of the University of Cambridge medical student cohort, but of the whole of the University of Cambridge, so he was the top student of his year. He was offered a foundation post in Northern Ireland. He chose not to take it, and has now gone into consulting, having given up medicine. That is an extremely sad example of an unintended consequence of this crazy lottery.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that doctors are only part of a much bigger healthcare system. We certainly need to look after all the people involved in health and social care. Of course, that is more of a problem in geographically remote districts such as the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where I believe it is difficult to recruit professions of all sorts. I do not want only to sound nostalgic this morning, although of course I am. I am not arguing that absolutely everything was better in my time, because it certainly was not, but in one important respect it was better: it was designed around human beings. It understood that newly qualified doctors are individuals, not one of a herd to be simply moved across a map by a computer. It also recognised that pastoral support and clinical teams matter, and that the transition from medical student to doctor is a particularly vulnerable moment in a medical career. Let us come back to that point soon. Today, we have a thing called the foundation programme. In 2024, the foundation programme office replaced the application process with something called preference informed allocation. What happens is that medical students list the foundation schools in order of preference, and are each assigned a computer-generated rank. The rank is not informed by academic achievement, personal circumstance, where the student trained or what they did; it simply works through the ranks and places the student accordingly. The UK foundation programme’s 2026 figures show that of the 10,810 graduates allocated this year, 82% received their first preference. Superficially, that sounds quite reassuring, but I do not really think it is. Every year, a minority of graduates—this year it is roughly 1,900 young doctors—end up somewhere other than their first choice. The minority who do not get their first preference find themselves, aged 22 or 23, packing up their lives for a city where they know nobody. As I put it in the Chamber last month, it is a “crazy foundation lottery that sends a doctor from Norwich to Belfast and a doctor from Belfast to Norwich.” —[ Official Report , 26 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 452.] That is what we mean when we talk about a lottery. It is not a figure of speech, but a literal description of how the system works. There is another reason why this headline figure flatters to deceive: the system incentivises what we call strategic preferencing. The students know the ranking system is random and that a high rank does not protect them tomorrow, so they game it. They preference the foundation schools they think they can realistically get, rather than the ones they actually want. A high first preference rate is, in part, a measure of the student lowering their ambition to protect themselves against a coin toss. That is not a system working; that is a system being worked around. Let me say a bit about couples. Medical students often form a couple with other medical students or other people who work in hospitals, because that is the nature of a hospital. The foundation programme offers something called linked applications, but the unfairness is particularly acute. Two medical students in a relationship can choose to link their applications so that they are allocated together, but the pair is placed using the lower of the two ranks, so that if one of them is lucky in the ballot and the other is not, both are placed in the worst ranked situation. Should the algorithm be unable to accommodate both in a single school, the link is broken. A student cannot unlink once they have applied, and there is no appeal. The system quite simply cannot see that these are two people trying to begin their careers side by side. It just sees two records on a database. That has knock-on consequences throughout the rest of the service. When foundation doctors are disorientated, unsupported and demoralised, their work does not disappear; it flows upwards to the more senior doctors, who take more and more of it on themselves. Young doctors should not be deployed by ballot into strange cities, with only limited account taken of their circumstances—their partners, their dependants, their health or their need to be near home. The claim that the current system is somehow fairer than the one it replaced is, I am afraid, one we cannot accept. Let me talk about how we got here and the recent reform. The old system was not perfect. For many years, medical students competed on a combination of academic decile and a national examination known as the situation judgment test. The SJT was quite unpopular: it was stressful, it had unpredictable validity and there was a documented score gap that consistently disadvantaged candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds. That was a real and serious unfairness, and those who reformed the system were right to try to address it. When the students lobbied against the SJT, they had a good reason to do so, but they did not ask for a random number generator—yet that is essentially what they got. In 2024 the SJT was abolished and academic achievement stripped out. In their place came PIA, underpinned by a computer ranking. It is hard to think of a clearer case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Students asked for fairness, and they were given randomness. Those are not the same thing. Fairness takes account of circumstance; randomness ignores it. Fairness rewards merit and responds to need; randomness does neither. What we have is not a reformed system, but an experiment that has gone wrong. That is not just my view. The medical training review led by Professor Stephen Powis and Professor Chris Whitty, published last October, drew on more than 8,000 responses, 6,000 of them from resident doctors. Its very first recommendation was that “a reform of postgraduate medical education and training is undertaken as a matter of urgency.” It also recommended that recruitment to medical training be reviewed so that it is “fair and equitable to all candidates”. It is not sufficient, on any reading of the report, for allocation merely to be random. Random is not fair. The BMA has taken a big interest in this question, which is not surprising, and I will read out some of its recommendations: “The BMA is calling for: meaningful improvements to working lives with greater access to support services, supervision, rest and mess facilities; increased flexibility in rotations, including the option to swap placements; a guarantee that all UK graduates will be offered a foundation post, with full details provided at least 12 weeks before the start date; and any review of the allocation system to include proposals for a new recruitment process developed with meaningful consultation with students.” There is another group of doctors that we should consider: those who will progress to become academic doctors. There is a crisis in this country of clinical academics, the doctors who teach the next generation of doctors. It has become very difficult to recruit into clinical academia. The career pathway for clinical academics has become very uncertain, and we have an emerging crisis—a real and present crisis—that must be addressed. One way to do that is to think about how we recruit foundation doctors into academic programmes. Here is a straightforward proposal, which I hope colleagues will improve rather than simply accept. Let us return to a firm-based model for the first year of training. The F1 placement should be arranged by the medical schools, not by a centralised national algorithm, with each new doctor placed alongside peers they already know with consultants who have taught them. That is the system we had so many years ago. Medical schools know their students; they know who has the caring responsibilities, who has a linked partner, who has health needs, who has a strong reason to stay close to home. They are in the best possible position to start designing a year that makes sense for each individual. That does not preclude movement later. F2 can broaden horizons, and specialty training will often mean relocation, but in the critical first year, when doctors are doing their first on-calls up at night by themselves, writing their first prescriptions and being present at their first deaths, they should not be alone in a city where they do not know anybody. They should be doing that with the support of their friends, teachers and colleagues they already trust. I do not think that would be particularly expensive; it might even cost less than the centralised allocation machinery we run today. Whatever we do, I offer one principle: medicine is the most distinctly human of professions and it is futile, and somewhat ironic, to try to reform it with an algorithm. The reform must be human. Let me close where I began. Resident doctors have just come off picket lines. I do not think that in this debate we can rehearse the pay dispute, which is a matter for another day, but the strikes are not just about pay. At root, they are about a sense that the profession has been treated as though it does not matter. The individual doctor has become invisible behind the workforce spreadsheet. The Government have taken one very important step, with the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 giving UK graduates the rightful priority for specialist training places—and that matters. Today’s debate is an opportunity to take the next step to fix the starting point itself. We have in medicine one of the most extraordinary workforces in the world. Young doctors are among the best trained, most dedicated and most compassionate professionals. We owe them and, more importantly, the patients who depend on them, better than a lottery. We owe them the fair, well-supported, human start they deserve. I believe that would go a long way to resetting the Government’s relationship with the profession, and towards ending these damaging rolling strikes.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I will wind up, then. I thank everyone very much, and I look forward to seeing success in the future. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Foundation Programme and its role in supporting and retaining resident doctors.