Peter Prinsley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  First, may I thank the Minister most sincerely for his statement? His is not an easy task. Eileen and Catherine from Bury St Edmunds lobbied me here in Parliament yesterday, for they feel very deeply about the plight of the Palestinians, as do we all. They asked me what we in this House could do to influence the Government of Israel. I believe that we must support progressive voices in Israel, for this is an election year. Does the Minister agree with me?

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert— “1C Health improvement and health inequalities duty (1) In exercising any functions relating to the health service, Secretary of State must have regard to the need to— (a) improve the health of persons in England, (b) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to their ability to access health services, and (c) reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to the outcomes achieved for them by the provision of health services. (2) Health inequalities ‘between the people of England’ means health inequalities between persons, or persons of different descriptions, living in, or in different parts of England. (3) ‘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. (4) Under subsection (3) ‘general health determinants’ are— (a) standards of housing, transport services or public safety; (b) environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water; (c) employment prospects, earning capacity, and any other matters that affect economic security; (d) access to public services; (e) the use, or level of use, of tobacco, alcohol or other substances, and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, that are or may be harmful to health; (f) any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors.” This amendment would amend clause 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006 to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health improvement and health inequalities.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 7, page 4, line 31, at end insert— “(2) Training under subsection (1)(a) includes training in general health determinants as defined by section 107ZB of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.” This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the health and care workforce is adequately trained in the wider determinants of health such as housing standards, exposure to air pollution, occupational risk, and use of harmful substances like tobacco.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mrs Harris, but I take no pleasure whatsoever in speaking in the debate on this petition. Its manipulative title fits the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, as Lord Pickles has clearly stated. I must register my interests. I am, of course, a Jewish MP—perhaps the only Jewish MP in the Chamber this afternoon. I am a member of Labour Friends of Israel and of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, and a representative on the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Shame on those who have orchestrated this regurgitation of antisemitic tropes. It is ancient just as it is predictable. In 1190, 57 Jews were slaughtered in Bury St Edmunds, then Norwich, Lincoln and York. Our country has a terrible record of anti-Jewish hatred, and all the Jews of England were expelled in 1290. Few people know that. Antisemitism is not new in this country. Just think a little about the title of the petition: “pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy”. It is familiar; we have seen it before. In the ’20s and ’30s, German antisemites and Nazis argued that the Weimar Republic had become verjudet—“Jewified”. In 1941, Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as secretly manipulating London, Washington and Moscow. The idea that Jews exercise hidden influence over politics, democracy and society is not new; it is an ancient conspiracy theory repeatedly used to isolate Jews, undermine social cohesion and stoke hatred. Let me tell the Chamber what really threatens democracy: the funding of political parties by billionaire expats; Elon Musk’s claims that civil war in Britain is inevitable; the vice-president of the United States blaming the terrible murder of Henry Nowak on mass migration; Russian interference in democracies across Europe; and alleged Iranian links to a number of recent attacks on Jewish institutions, synagogues and communities—yet here we are, forced to debate Israel’s role in our politics and democracy. Antisemitism is an ancient hatred repeatedly repackaged to distract people from their real grievances. Once again, it is rearing its head in Britain, reaching appalling levels on our streets, in our workplaces and online. This debate is making those divisions worse, and the terrible conflict in the middle east is no justification for it. Citizens of conscience march with a genuine and heartfelt sense of outrage at the war, and I respect that, but there are those who seek to intimidate. Hon. Members should try being a law-abiding Jew in a British town centre on a Saturday afternoon—for too many Jewish citizens, public spaces are not safe. Let us come to our senses. We must reject antisemitism in all its forms, reject conspiracy theory dressed up as political analysis, and defend a politics based on evidence, decency and truth.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this debate, and the many hon. Members who have given marvellous speeches this afternoon. I am new to this debate in Parliament, but I am not new to this issue, for I remember the very first patients we infected with AIDS. In 1988, I was an ear, nose and throat registrar at the Royal Free hospital, right here in London. The Royal Free has a large haemophilia unit for the treatment of patients with bleeding disorders, which are caused by a lack of clotting factors in the blood, as we have heard. Factor VIII was derived from pooled blood donations from donors in the United States—incidentally, people are paid to donate blood in the US, unlike here in the United Kingdom. I wrote my very first scientific paper on the management of tonsillectomy in haemophilia patients. Who would believe that we would be brave enough to take out the tonsils of a patient with haemophilia? Well, we were able to do so. The patients we saw started dying, not of bleeding disorders but of the HIV with which we had unknowingly infected them. I met such patients over several years and then I stopped meeting them, because they had mostly died. Then we had hepatitis and deaths from cirrhosis and liver cancer, and still we have deaths and many bereaved families. We doctors did not realise what we were doing to our patients until it was far too late. We cannot change history, however much we regret our actions, but there is surely something we can do, and do it we must. Our Government have committed billions of pounds to this scheme, and that is exactly right, but we must go faster. That is why we are having today’s debate. We are informed that thousands have yet to start a claim, and people are dying each week, so it is our duty to sort this out.

• 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 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.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by saying that I support the Government’s direction of travel on this Bill. The focus on children’s wellbeing, both in schools and out, is obviously right, but let me address Lords amendment 38, tabled by Lord Nash, about social media access; it was accepted back into the Bill, with a large majority. It has cross-party support and reflects growing concern not just in Parliament, but among parents, teachers and professionals working with young people. The amendment is quite simple: it is about delaying access to certain harmful social media services until children are 16. It is not a blanket ban or a restriction on everything, but targeted measures aimed at services that are not designed with children in mind. That distinction matters, because some criticism has suggested that the amendment would create cliff edges, but we already have age limits in place today. The issue is not whether limits should exist; it is whether they are properly enforced, and whether they reflect the reality of how platforms operate. There has been a lot of debate about whether age verification actually works. The evidence from countries like Australia suggests that where it is not working, it is often because platforms are not properly enforcing the rules, or young people find ways around the ban through VPNs. That leads to a broader point: the onus must be squarely with the tech companies to implement the safeguards. Where the law sets a clear standard, platforms must meet it consistently and effectively.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I know that some in this Chamber are sceptical about the role of the other place. However, after dinner last night, at about 11 o’clock, I took some visitors into the House of Lords Gallery, and was completely astonished to find a very lively debate taking place in a full Chamber. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the great diligence of our colleagues in scrutinising legislation? However, does he agree that the House of Lords must not obstruct the will of the elected Chamber?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for introducing the debate. This is an issue of intergenerational inequality, of which we should all be ashamed. My university cohort and I graduated without debt. We entered a housing market that was accessible and over time we accumulated assets, property, pensions, savings and security. I served 40 years in the NHS, until that was interrupted by an astonishing election result. Now, the landscape has changed. I see the difference in my own family. My two older children studied under plan 1; their repayment terms were short and less onerous. My youngest fell under plan 2 and she has a huge debt, which is growing despite the fact that she is paying it off. This debate is about aspiration, which, as my hon. Friend said, simply cannot compete with compound interest. It is about whether young people begin adult life with opportunity, or decades of liability. Let us sort this out. Let us increase the repayment thresholds, ensure that interest does not outpace realistic repayment capacity, explore tax-deductible repayments similar to pensions, and improve transparency so that students fully understand what they are signing up for. Education should expand opportunity, not entrench intergenerational unfairness. That is a reality we must confront, and a duty we must uphold, as we deal with this utterly iniquitous system.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I am in awe that my hon. Friend has managed to achieve so much; you see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a new Member of Parliament! Let us encourage clinical trials, for as Lord Vallance has said: “Clinical trials are the route by which promising research can be turned into treatments”, which will save lives.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing it. We have heard many fine and very heartfelt speeches this evening, particularly those recounting personal stories about Members’ families. Our new cancer strategy was announced last week. Sadly, political events of the past few days have somewhat submerged its importance, but we should be talking about it, as it is much the most important political development as far as I am concerned. We have seen little progress in brain tumour care—that is the truth of the matter. Those tumours are devastating; they rob victims of years of life, and wreck families. I have seen such patients over the years, and I can say that diagnosis may be very difficult, even with the help of hindsight. An average general practitioner will see a new brain tumour once every seven years, but they will see thousands of patients in that time, so it is not surprising that the tumours are difficult to diagnose. I hear that a patient with a brain tumour will often have visited their general practitioner five or six times before a diagnosis is made. We must do what we can to raise awareness. In ear, nose, and throat care—which, as Members may know, is my specialty—we see a condition called acoustic neuroma. It is a brain tumour on the nerves that lie between the ear and the brain—the balance nerves. Such tumours are rare, even in ear, nose and throat clinics. I would see only a handful of them each year. Sometimes they present with a little hearing loss in one ear, or with just a little ringing. Sometimes they present incidentally. Some of the other brain tumours we see in the ENT world are very rare. One that sits in the roof of the nose —an olfactory neuroblastoma—is so rare that I probably saw fewer than six or seven cases throughout my career, yet it presents with a loss of sense of smell, which is a very common problem for people who come to see ear, nose and throat surgeons or general practitioners. We must not deceive ourselves that we are dealing with an easy condition, for this is a difficult one. I believe that we must support research into these mysterious diseases. As I have said before in this Chamber, this country is desperately short of medical researchers and clinical academics. Many of our clinical academics are getting towards the end of their careers, and we are not doing enough to recruit new academics in the early part of theirs. I would like us to think about what policies we might develop to encourage that—this is a political problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said that given we have made so little progress, we must be content with the status quo. I beg to differ; we are not content with the status quo, and that is why we are all here this evening to discuss this matter. We know that this is a promising time for some areas of medical research. Genetic research, for instance, is now becoming very important. I am not sure that whole genome sequencing, if that were available for everybody, would solve the problem, but it is the way we are going. Before I came to this place, I was involved in research into a rare ear disease called cholesteatoma. We did genetic research on that—genome sequencing—and we were able to identify some of the genes that probably cause the condition, but that does not make it any easier for us to prevent it, for we cannot choose our genetic code. The problem with brain tumours is that they are deep-seated and inaccessible. We cannot see them or feel them, which is why curative approaches are so elusive. We can debate this in the Chamber until the cows come home, but that debate will not bring the cure, so we must decide what politically we can do to help. I welcome the £32 million boost to brain cancer research, and our new approach to clinical trials. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his Rare Cancers Bill, and I congratulate him on getting it to advance so far. Like me, he is a new Member of Parliament, and I am in awe that you have managed—

• 29 Jan 2026 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  It has been an immense privilege and honour to listen to the many brilliant speeches in the House this afternoon. I thank anybody who said anything kind about me. I have made some notes about what people said—there is no time to go through all of them, but I must mention one or two. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) spoke with such gravitas; I think she has a future as a distinguished rabbi, should she ever wish to go out of politics, which she perhaps will not. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) spoke about Peter Kurer BEM, who is my sister-in-law’s father. He will be so chuffed to learn that he was mentioned here in Parliament, and I thank the hon. Member for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) spoke about the Windermere children. We all know that story, but Samantha, who was a University of East Anglia student, became a close friend. She is one of the granddaughters of a Windermere boy, so it was great to hear about that. We will never forget the Heaton heroes. If there is time, let me quickly explain Bevis Marks, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). Bevis Marks in the City of London should actually be “Bury Marks”, but I have to stop.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. It is lovely to see so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—that is unusual in a Westminster Hall debate. I am a new politician, but I like elections. I like them very much, especially if I can talk about the health service. I like talking about hospitals, about our plans for our hospitals, about getting the waiting lists down and about our plans for neighbourhood health centres and for revolutionising the IT. I also talk up research. However, I do not think that now is the right time for a general election because, as the Health Secretary is fond of saying, although much has been done, there is much still to do. I am sure that we will see great changes as we bring the public with us and renew the NHS, as is our sacred duty. I am an optimist, unlike the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Some will say that we are U-turners, but I say that we are a Government who listen—we listen. We listen to my constituent, Roxane Marjoram of The One Bull, Bury St Edmunds, who met the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then wrote her a personal letter about the difficulties of the rates revaluation for pubs. I understand that we will see some reversal of that revaluation. Just a few minutes ago, in the Lobby, I met farmers from Suffolk who told me they were so happy with what the Prime Minister had said about increasing the threshold for the inheritance tax. This is a Government who listen. Some Opposition Members have been critical of the Prime Minister. They say that he perhaps lacks vision. I am not sure quite what they mean by that. I say that he is the right man at the right time. Mr Boris Johnson—hon. Members may remember him—was previously described as a man with the wrong set of talents for his particular crisis. Our Prime Minister is, I believe, exactly the opposite. The situation of the world at the moment is as hazardous as any of us can recall. I met a man in a dinner jacket at a black tie dinner just a few weeks ago who told me that he is the chairman of a local Conservative association and that, given the way the world is at the moment, he believes that the Prime Minister is doing a brilliant job. I also believe that to be the case, so let us not have a general election right now. The hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches know very well that we must not have a general election.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  I believe I just heard the hon. Member say that there had been a petition with 3 million signatures last year and one with 1 million signatures this year. If that is correct, does that mean that the number of people calling for an election has fallen by two thirds?

• 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.”

• 10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate our own frontline team, because this is a great deal. I came to Parliament partly to speak up for our NHS, and I have spoken in many debates. I have also trained many surgeons over the years, and I know that my fellow surgeons will be up for this deal. College presidents will support it, and I urge all resident doctors to support it, too. I will just issue a word of caution from my son, a resident doctor, who is up there in the Gallery: if we increase the number of trainees, we will also need to increase the number of consultants and GPs. If we do not do that, we will simply push the bottleneck down the road.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Unlike many Opposition Members, I welcome this announcement, for I know that the people of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket will want the Government to get this process right. Does the Minister agree that we are not cancelling anything; we are simply postponing the mayoral elections, so that we can get this right, and so that we see the best of local democracy?

• 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?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Drone Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  We have all witnessed the devastating effect of mass drone attacks, and MPs could see for themselves the sinister looking Iranian Russian drone that was here in Parliament only last week. What measures is the Ministry taking to develop a strategy in this country to defend ourselves from such a mass drone attack?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Yaxley-Lennon, aka T. Robinson, has been fêted in Israel at the invitation of a Government Minister, while the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, aka Dr Peter Prinsley—a British Jew, a member of the Board of Deputies and a vocal supporter of the Israeli people in Parliament—has been banned. What does the Minister think can be usefully done to rectify that?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Leasehold System · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer to the previous question. In my constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, leaseholders are facing soaring service charges and falling standards. Some have told me that they are considering withholding payment. Does my hon. Friend agree that much greater regulation of property managers is urgently needed to ensure accountability and standards?

• 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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), at a congressional hearing and in written evidence, has suggested that the US Government explore possible trade consequences in response to the UK’s Online Safety Act 2023. Would you agree that suggesting that a foreign Government take measures harmful to the interests of this country is not behaviour commensurate with the office of a Member of the UK Parliament? Indeed, would you agree with several constituents of Clacton who have described the Member’s statements as “treacherous”?