Peter Prinsley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Member has to say. I wonder whether he could present us with a concrete example of where precisely elected local government involvement in the commissioning of services in ICBs has been essential, because it seems to me that what an ICB needs is expertise in commissioning. We need people who know how to commission services. Although I understand the importance of representation, I think that what we really need is expertise in commissioning.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for being a little delayed, Sir Jeremy. I am moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). It would place a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities when exercising functions. Between 2011 and 2021, the UK was one of only five high-income countries where healthy life expectancy fell. Over the same decade, we faced a cost of living crisis, the covid-19 pandemic and economic decline across the post-industrial regions. We cannot shy away from the fact that ill health is rising. Economic inactivity due to sickness is at its highest level since 2012, and we witness a widening disparity in health outcomes. People living in the most deprived areas of the UK, on average, live just 52 years of healthy life. There is now a 16-year gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest parts of the UK. Even within individual constituencies, the life expectancy gap can be as wide as seven years between local postcodes. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that decisions taken at the highest level of the health system consistently reflect the reality that health outcomes differ sharply depending on where someone lives, the conditions that they live in and their opportunities to achieve good health. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve the health of persons in England. The intention is that this duty would include the need to reduce inequalities in health. That is in addition to the duties that are already in the clause, relating to inequalities in access to and outcomes of healthcare. At present, the Bill brings together old duties on the Secretary of State and NHS England to reduce inequality in access to and outcomes from NHS services. Those are too narrow and do not reflect the wider determinants of health that the Government have pledged to tackle through their 10-year plan. The amendment would strengthen the duty to reflect the wider cross-Government goals for health improvement and health inequalities. That would make an important statement of the Government’s commitment to improving health and tackling health inequalities, and would set in train an important step towards achieving them. The amendment also provides a clear definition of “health inequalities” and “general health determinants”. Health inequalities means inequalities in respect of life expectancy or general state of health, which are wholly or partly a result of differences in respect of general health determinants, including housing standards, environmental factors, public transport, economic factors and other wider determinants of life expectancy. The amendment has been drafted to mirror the wording of the newly enacted section 45 duty on combined authorities in relation to health improvement and health inequalities under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. Accepting the amendment would ensure consistent focus on the mission of creating a fairer country where everyone lives for longer, from the top of Government to regions and neighbourhoods. By setting this out explicitly, the amendment would ensure that future Secretaries of State cannot overlook the wider conditions that shape health outcomes. In sum, the amendment would require that when decisions are made, the Secretary of State must consider their impact on health improvement and on distribution of health across the population. The amendment is supported by the Health Equals coalition, including 27 organisations that wrote an open letter to the Minister on 15 June. Those organisations range from the Health Foundation to the King’s Fund, Ramblers UK and the Wildlife Trusts, showing the breadth of support from across the sector. The cross-party Health and Social Care Committee also recommended that the clause be amended in this way. Embedding this duty in legislation would strengthen accountability and ensure that the reduction of health inequalities is treated not as a secondary consideration, but as an integral part of how the health system is led and managed. If accepted, the new duty would ensure clear alignment at national and local levels about the importance of prevention.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate. I want to speak about the impact that the rising cost of heating oil is having on rural communities such as mine in Suffolk. Following events in the middle east, many residents who rely on heating oil contacted me—as I am sure happened to others—with understandable concerns about the sharp increase in prices. That matters because it is an immediate pressure on family budgets, one that many people feel powerless to avoid. This issue is important because my constituency has one of the highest number of households relying on heating oil. About 40% of all properties in the villages are completely off the grid. That means that many residents are exposed to this sudden price shock. Those most affected are those least able to absorb the extra cost, especially residents in council homes and in lower-income rural communities that are disproportionately hit. For many of those households there is no short-term alternative and no flexibility. As the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, the Government have taken some important steps in response. The £53 million emergency support fund is welcome, as is the warm homes plan providing targeted support for low-income households in rural areas. It is right that the money is distributed through local councils, which are often best placed to identify where the support is most urgently needed. I raised the matter locally with Goff, one of the principal suppliers of heating oil. I was pleased to be assured that it will honour the original prices quoted to customers who ordered on 28 February, 1 March and 2 March, at the start of hostilities. That provides immediate reassurance for those residents who acted promptly and should not be penalised. That must be our approach: immediate support for those facing rising costs now; proper oversight of the market; and long-term action to reduce dependence on heating oil. For rural communities in my patch, that is a necessity, which we should all push for.

• 14 Apr 2026 · NHS Dental Services · Hansard source

  More

  May I congratulate the ministerial team, the University of East Anglia and the Office for Students on finally getting the new dental school at the university over the line? It will admit 25 students from September next year and will go some way to dealing with the dental deserts that we inherited in Norfolk and Suffolk. In the meantime, what progress has been made with the General Dental Council to increase exam capacity for dentists coming from overseas to help with the present crisis?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Iran has a network of proxies and lone actors who threaten our security here at home. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking all the volunteers of the Community Security Trust who protect our Jewish places of worship and schools? Never have they been more crucial.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for this important debate. I pay tribute to her political expertise in this area and for everything she has done. Dame Cicely Saunders—much quoted in this debate—was the founder of the hospice movement in this country. She understood that medicine is not only about curing illnesses; it is about dignity and ensuring that people are supported compassionately at the most vulnerable moment of their lives. It was her work that transformed how we think about care at the end of life, and today hospices all over the country continue that legacy. In my own work as an ear, nose and throat surgeon dealing with patients with advanced cancers in the head and neck, I am well aware of the importance of hospices. I also pay tribute to Dr Eric Wilkes, who was a brilliant general practitioner and founder of the hospice movement in Sheffield. He was one of my teachers and one of the first people to understand the importance of integrating end-of-life care into community and hospital settings at St Luke’s hospice. The term “palliative care” was invented only in 1990—some 20 years or so after I first met Dr Wilkes—and the Sheffield model has been completely crucial to this development. I would like to talk about palliative care in my constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, and in particular the remarkable work of St Nicholas hospice, its wonderful chief executive Linda McEnhill and all her staff. The hospice provides essential support for those approaching end of life and for their families and loved ones. What makes that hospice a little unusual is that it sits right on the campus of West Suffolk hospital, an arrangement that facilitates help for the patients in the hospice from all the services within the hospital. If, for example, a patient falls and fractures a leg, or needs an ear surgeon, support is available rapidly and nearby. Most hospices simply do not have access to that level of clinical support, and that is a real advantage for the Bury St Edmunds hospice. St Nicholas hospice also illustrates a wider challenge facing palliative care across the country. As we know, demand for hospice services is increasing. St Nicholas lately increased its capacity by about 33% to meet the needs of patients and families in the local community. To expand, more staff need to be recruited, so we must do something to increase training capacity across the hospice service, particularly because we must ensure that we have a seven-day service. If we need to increase the service from a five-day service to a seven-day service, we need two sevenths more people. Palliative care is a crucial part of a healthcare system. The problem, as we have heard on many occasions, is that hospices rely on charity and legacies. That is obviously admirable, but it raises an important question—one that I think was first asked by Baroness Finlay in the other place. We do not expect a maternity service to require charitable funding. If we needed a new maternity service, we would expect the NHS to put it up. Yet for some reason, if we need a hospice, we expect a charity to raise the funds for it and to run it. Being born and coming to the end of life are just inevitable parts of life, so I think we need a paradigm shift—a philosophical change—in the way we think about palliative care, which must be regarded as a core part of our national health service. If we genuinely believe that dignity at the end of life matters, let us make palliative care core.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Antisemitism · Hansard source

  More

  Interfaith activity has faced significant reduction and in some cases almost collapsed following heightened tensions from the Gaza conflict. Does the Minister agree that measures to support and fund interfaith understanding have a crucial role in restoring community cohesion?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Rural GPs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for securing this important debate. Dr Richard West MBE and Dr Daniel James, general practitioners in Woolpit in my Suffolk constituency, have been awarded the Royal College of General Practitioners East Anglia Faculty GP prize this year in recognition of sustained contribution to rural mental health and community-focused general practice. Does she agree with me that we must do all we can to look after the mental health of the rural population, particularly isolated farm workers?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Community Audiology · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more, given the number of people who have come to me with handfuls of hearing aids on which they have spent thousands of pounds, telling me that they are just not working—and there is no proper follow-up for many of those people. The issue with a hearing aid is that it needs to be looked after: it has a mould, it has batteries and it needs cleaning, so there needs to be an arrangement for follow-up. That is the sort of thing that an organisation such as the Norfolk Deaf Association, or Hear for Norfolk, is able to provide—it knows that that needs to happen. We need to be cautious about the quality of community audiology provision. We must not think that just because we are distributing it to respected private providers such as Specsavers, we are necessarily doing the right thing. It has rightly been said that there is no national lead for audiology. Audiology is in a pickle, and it would be brilliant to get a proper national lead for audiology in the Department of Health and Social Care. There are issues with shortages of audiologists, but when questionnaires ask which healthcare professionals—or even which professionals—have the happiest lives, audiologists come out right at the top. Audiology is a particularly lovely occupation because people come in deaf and you send them out hearing. You hardly ever make them worse; it is not like going to the dentist, where it hurts. There is really nothing not to like about doing audiology, and it is a very interesting career, so I would like us to think of ways of encouraging people into it. There is a bit of a confusion between medical practitioners and audiologists. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred to the issues relating to how we recruit medical practitioners from overseas. I am not aware that we are recruiting large numbers of audiologists from overseas; I actually think that we are not, although we did have audiologists who came from the EU when we were members of it. We can train enough of our own audiologists, but we need to get on and organise it. I could talk about this for the rest of the day but it will be Christmas soon, so I shall sit down. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip again for securing this important debate.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Community Audiology · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this interesting debate, and I declare a series of interests. I am an ear, nose and throat surgeon, so I have been interested in audiology for 40 years. In this place, I chair the deafness all-party parliamentary group. Until I came here, I was the chair of the Norfolk Deaf Association, which is also called Hear for Norfolk, and I will say a bit about that as we go on. I have worked overseas dealing with patients with hearing loss, and I have been a specialist ear surgeon for 30 years or so. Audiology has really been much of my life. As many Members have already said, deafness is a hugely common problem and is often much neglected. The statistics that have been cited regarding the percentage of elderly people who begin to develop hearing loss are quite familiar to me. What happens is that couples age together, but they might not always appreciate that fact. There is the story of the man who decides to test his wife’s hearing. He comes up behind her and says, “Mavis?” There is no response, so he says, “Mavis”, then “Mavis!”. She turns around and says, “For the third time, what is it that you want?” It is very familiar to me that many elderly people have hearing loss. As I think has already been said today, about 2 million people in the country use hearing aids. There are probably about 6 million people in the country who would benefit from a hearing aid and probably about another 2 million hearing aids that are in drawers; they have been distributed to people, but are simply not used. Some people have a lot of hearing aids. They come in and say, “I’ve got all these hearing aids. None of them are any use, doctor.” The story of NHS hearing aids is that we started with great big cream-coloured plastic boxes with little plaited wires that led to earphones; some of us will remember children at school who had those. Then, of course, the so-called BE hearing aids came later. When I was a young ENT surgeon, I never knew what “BE” stood for. A few years later, somebody told me that it just stood for “behind the ear”. Those were analogue hearing aids and they were quite good. They were extremely inexpensive and were distributed in their millions in NHS hospitals, which is how we ran hearing aid services. Then, about 25 years ago, digital hearing aids were invented. They were not immediately available in NHS hospital clinics, because they were a little more expensive, so they started to be distributed by private hearing aid providers that sprung up all over the place. Members will know that in many high streets there is an audiology service and in the window there will be one hearing aid in a little box on a felt cushion. Curiously, hardly anybody ever goes in and out of those services. The reason is that those companies do not need to sell many hearing aids to stay in business because of the difference in cost. The digital hearing aids provided by those private providers often cost in the thousands, so they need to sell a hearing aid only once or twice a week to stay in business. At first, those hearing aids were a bit better than the ones we could provide in the hospitals. Some time later, we began to distribute digital hearing aids through the NHS, which was brilliant. People would come to me and ask, “Do you think I should get a private hearing aid?”, and I would say something like, “Well, you can get a private hearing aid, but it is a bit like a hi-fi.” Someone can go to Argos and get a hi-fi or they can go to Bang & Olufsen and get a hi-fi. There is a big difference in price and they do actually sound quite different. I would say to people, “The hearing aids that we can give you are like John Lewis hearing aids; they are pretty good, and they are good enough for most people. I don’t think you should go and spend £4,000 on two private hearing aids. You should have the hearing aids that I can give you for nothing in my NHS clinic, because most people will be very happy with that.” That was the model we used until a particular Government came along—I cannot remember which one—and decided that we ought to have something called the “any qualified provider”, or AQP, system. Suddenly, all sorts of people could provide hearing aids willy-nilly. We had a different acronym for it: “any willing provider”. Anyone who wanted to provide hearing aids could do so because, as has been said, there was not a particularly close supervisory mechanism. I have a feeling that anybody could set themselves up as a hearing aid provider, if they wanted to. We had this completely variable system in which some people spent large amounts of money on hearing aids that they kept in a drawer, and some people received hearing aids for nothing from hospital services. That was how we went on, until somebody mentioned earwax. As some people may remember, general practices used to remove earwax with large stainless steel syringes that had a spout on the end. Those procedures were done by nurses until about 2012 when it stopped being part of the GP contract. There was a problem with the syringe: the little stainless steel nozzle on its end could become a bit worn, so it would not be completely connected. As a result, when somebody pushed the syringe, the stainless steel nozzle could fly off into the ear. I have repaired numerous eardrums over the years that had been smashed by syringing, so that system was not completely without its problems. Of course, we had aural care nurses in hospitals looking after patients and coming to take out their earwax, or if a patient had undergone an ear operation, the nurse would have to clean out their mastoid cavities. We then, however, began to see all sorts of community providers of earwax services, sometimes set up by people who had been nurses in ear clinics, and sometimes set up by somebody from another occupation—they could have been a Member of Parliament who decided that they were now going to do earwax removal. There was a fee to be gathered from this, and some people did fairly well from removing earwax, but the provision was of very variable quality. I would like to talk about Hear for Norfolk, or the Norfolk Deaf Association, which I chaired for quite a few years before I came here. It is a community-based audiology service that employs qualified nurses who have previously worked in NHS hospitals, and they perform what we call aural care, which includes removing earwax. People can just turn up to have that done; if they are referred by their GP, it is free on the NHS as there is a contract, or they can pay £50. We have vans that go around the district into nursing homes and small villages to do that work. We now have a contract for hearing aid provision from the NHS, meaning that our not-for-profit charity provides thousands of hearing aids and treats thousands of patients in a community-based setting. I think that such a model could be developed and rolled out around the country so we have community-based, county-wide, not-for-profit aural care services that provide hearing aids. I am not confident about simply distributing the contracts for hearing aid provision to a whole lot of private providers—Specsavers is one but there are many others—because the quality of their services is variable, and there will always be an incentive to provide private hearing aids. If someone walks into a service, they will be told, “Well, you can have this NHS hearing aid, but you know what? You could have this private one.”

• 18 Dec 2025 · Community Audiology · Hansard source

  More

  I am very interested in the story of dogs and the shape of a dog’s ear canal; that is such a helpful explanation. I was often brought dogs, particularly spaniels with big floppy ears, who had ear infections and blockages, and I was always puzzled why it was that the dogs got into such difficulties. The hon. Gentleman’s explanation of the right angle at the bottom of the ear canal is so helpful and I thank him for it.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that at the heart of this matter is the question of the truth, and the question of whether the deliberation of the safety advisory group at Birmingham city council was compromised or prejudiced?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Palace of Westminster: School Visits · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. During a recent visit to the Westgate community primary school in Bury St Edmunds, I was asked by a very bright eight-year-old whether Parliament could pass a law to make it snow more often. I was very struck by this suggestion, which was in some ways much more realistic than the proposals made by certain Members of this House. Does my hon. Friend agree that meaningful engagement between Parliament and our children is essential to safeguard our democracy?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My colleague, Professor Malcolm Reed, the former chair of the Medical Schools Council, has been trying to address the serious issue of sexual misconduct in medical schools. When students undertake placements in NHS or other non-university settings, an accountability gap exists, as they fall outside both university and NHS misconduct policies. How can we ensure there is the co-operation required to address this between the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. At a recent church hall meeting in Elmswell—yet another quintessential Suffolk village—a number of my constituents raised concerns about the local railway crossing. This rapidly growing village relies on an outdated level crossing, creating enormous hold-ups that are inconvenient at best and dangerous at worst. In nearby Thurston, passengers can only access the platform by walking across the tracks. Although I welcome Mid Suffolk district council’s recent decision to invest, what action are the Government taking to improve safety and reduce disruption at rural railway crossings?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I support new clause 22, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who is temporarily not in his place. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England. What Members notice when they come to London from rural constituencies, such as my constituency in Suffolk, are all the red buses, all over the place. Routes run from early in the morning until late into the evening, in no small part because of the years of excellent Labour administration that Londoners have enjoyed. Out in Suffolk, we certainly do not have a fully integrated bus service. For a start, there are simply not enough buses. From 2010, a decade of declining public funding left the interwoven jumble of local bus maps looking decisively threadbare. From 2018 to 2024, 18% of bus services in my county council area simply vanished. In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I have been supporting residents fighting to save local bus routes, and I am sure that many hon. Members will have been doing exactly the same in their areas. In Bury St Edmunds, we managed to get the 73 and 73A bus routes retained, which are essential for getting children to school at the Thurston community college. At Marham Park, where residents were in danger of being fully cut off, we did the same, thanks to £8 million of funding from the Government. In the years to come, we will further undo the loss of bus services: some 17 new or improved bus routes are rolling out just this month across Suffolk. If people are lucky enough to live on a route that survived the last 15 years, the problem is that they will be hard pressed to find a bus that goes anywhere after 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Imagine a lady from the village of Honington, in my constituency, who has to attend a 4.30 pm appointment at the West Suffolk hospital about her dodgy knee. The 332 bus runs from Honington to Bury St Edmunds four times a day, so she catches the 2.40 pm bus and arrives in Bury St Edmunds with an hour to spare. She has her appointment and she gets out of the hospital after an hour, so at 5.30 pm she is standing outside the hospital and she cannot get home. She has missed the last bus and she is stuck in Bury St Edmunds. She cannot march 10 miles home, because she has a dodgy knee, and she has no friends, so she gets a taxi. A taxi is £35, but our imaginary lady has no choice—she has to pay that £35. We capped the cost of a bus fare at £3, but we all know that for lots of real people in rural areas, inadequate bus service means that transport costs easily spiral out of control. That is why we need to critically examine the minimum bus service standards required across communities in England. Many Members have spoken about CPRE, which has mentioned that some countries such as Switzerland legally mandate public transport frequencies for communities of different sizes. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire —who still has not returned to the Chamber—will ensure that progress is made towards undoing some of the inequalities that have built up in transport, and will move us much closer to the unified transport model that we all know we need.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Neurodivergent People: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for securing this debate. It is also a pleasure to see so many colleagues from the east of England here. That is not because we have a larger number of more neurodivergent people than anywhere else, but perhaps we care a little bit more. It is a sad truth that far too many neurodivergent people struggle in the workplace. It is an avoidable problem, one that is unfair and unjust in its own right. More than that, it is economically nonsensical. Better support for neurodivergent people would unlock the potential of millions in this country. The technology and engineering sectors show us the way, and the tremendous impact that neurodivergent people can have. The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on employers to provide reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent people, but the reality is that these are inconsistent and inadequate. The problem starts at recruitment: traditional methods such as application forms, timed tests and panel interviews disadvantage neurodivergent candidates. Employers should be encouraged to adopt inclusive recruitment methods—for example, allowing the candidate to see the questions in advance. We heard about the Access to Work scheme, which currently provides vital support, but it is slow, complex and inconsistent. The Government should cast a critical eye over that process and consider how to make it more streamlined. The problem continues in employment: rigid hours, loud workplaces, obstructive technologies and a lack of written instructions all pose significant barriers to neurodivergent people. Simple steps to address problems such as those could be quick and cheap and could have a significant impact. The Government’s own research shows that most adjustments cost less than £75. Furthermore, proper neurodiversity training for managers and HR professionals would go a long way towards ensuring that those reasonable adjustments were widely understood. Sadly, employers do not know where to start, which is why we need a national framework of best practice, co-produced with neurodivergent people. Although there is a long way to go, it is good to see the Government making some progress. As the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I was delighted to see that the Government have allocated £9.5 million to Suffolk county council to provide employment support for 2,700 disabled people. That will certainly help neurodivergent people in our community get into work and stay in work, but there is much more to be done. Making adjustments is not about lowering standards, but about giving people the tools to meet their full potential. Surely that is our duty. Reasonable adjustments must become the norm, not the exception.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Health and Disability Benefits: Spending Estimate · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that we must invest in community mental health services if we are to reduce spending on mental health disability?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak in this debate in memory of David Amess. Like Jo Cox, he was murdered in a previous Parliament, and I know many hon. Members miss his friendship deeply—may his memory be a blessing. Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is a beautiful constituency. Members will of course be aware that its namesake, St Edmund, was until the 14th century the patron saint of England. He ruled East Anglia between 855 and 869 AD until he was killed by Viking raiders. They shot arrows into him until he bristled like a hedgehog, then cut off his head and threw it into the forest. However, when they found his head, it miraculously reattached to his body. This was one of his miracles. It is my hope that when we elect a mayor for East Anglia next May, the new mayor will choose Bury St Edmunds as the site of his new office. Since being elected, I have secured funding for the construction of the much-needed new West Suffolk hospital and saved the Marham Park flyer and the 73 and 73A bus routes, as well as securing £9 million of additional funding for local buses. We have sorted out £11 million for the potholes, and Station Hill in Bury St Edmunds is no longer called pothole alley. We got funding to fix the GP surgery in Ixworth, fixed the dangerous Fishwick corner in Thurston, and opened breakfast clubs in Howard academy and the Priory school. Free breakfast clubs are particularly important. In Stowmarket, we have the brilliant Food Museum, which is running an exhibition right now called “School Dinners”. I visited last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). We sampled flan, new potatoes and beans followed by delicious sponge and custard. Free school meals and breakfast clubs will be one of the most important things that this Government do to help working families. Now we are about to break for our summer recess. All we new MPs have been learning on the job and, as I have just discovered, I have more to learn than many. I wish all my new friends—all 649 of them—a wonderful summer recess and hope that everyone gets a good rest.