Peter Prinsley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a young doctor, I would have found the measures that we are debating completely unconscionable, but now that I am an old doctor, I feel sure that this is an essential change. That is because of what I have seen over 45 years in hospitals. Our patients are at the centre of my thoughts as we consider this profound change. We must of course invest in palliative care, and we have some of the best palliative care in the world in this country. Some will say that there are no limits to the comfort that expert palliative care can deliver, but that has not been my observation, particularly as I think about some of my patients with advanced, disfiguring head and neck cancers, and about the terrible loss of dignity and autonomy that I have seen. That is what people fear, and that is why I believe that we are right to give people a choice—a final autonomous choice. I applaud the Bill Committee, and thank the many witnesses who contributed, for this is not easy work. The House has spent hours debating the amendments. The panel of the legal expert, the social worker and the psychiatrist will ensure oversight and scrutiny, and I have no doubt that this is better than a single judge, no matter how distinguished or wise. Family circumstances, free will and mental state will all be considered. I do not think we will see coercion to undergo assisted dying; families are more likely to talk patients out of it. I call this a Bill to assist people who are dying. The measures are not for people who are not dying. People who are terminally ill may live for a long time. They are not yet dying, and the measures are for them until they are. All of us must make the very best of every day, whether our lives be long or short. Of course, that is especially true for those with a terminal diagnosis. The vulnerable must be protected, and I believe that the Bill will indeed protect them—people who are disabled, and who have mental health disorders. Profound sadness as our lives are ending is quite normal, and clinical depression should be treated, but my observation is that the patients we are talking about are clear-headed and very rational. The idea that we risk opening a floodgate or some sort of mission creep is quite wrong. People will have a choice, and will make arrangements to be used only if needed. That will give final peace of mind—it is a final insurance policy. Let me come back to the patients I have treated over my long career, and to the wise words of the nurse who has been my compassionate colleague for many years. She said this was an essential change. There was the matron who recalled the carotid blow-out of her patient as a student many years ago—an image that never left her. There is the absolute sanctity of human life, but we are not dealing with a choice between life and death; we are dealing with death or death. There is also the sanctity of human dignity, and fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that to the dying?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the barbiturates that we are considering are conventional agents? They have been used in anaesthesia to cause loss of consciousness and suppression of respiration for generations. These are not novel substances.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Spending Review: Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome yesterday’s statement, the funding, and the fact that the funding will go on for several years. Does the Minister agree that we depend on the people in our NHS? Will she join me in congratulating Dr Cameron and all the teams at the West Suffolk hospital, who, by adopting a whole-hospital approach, have abolished corridor care and improved the hospital’s throughput, using a model that could be widely adopted?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Long-term Medical Conditions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Long-term conditions need a long-term plan. We were promised one of those, and it cannot come soon enough. The Chancellor’s statement yesterday, which committed to a 3% real-terms rise in NHS funding each year, gives me enormous hope for the future of our health service. Some 70% of that funding will likely go to the treatment of long-term conditions, so it is incredibly important that we consider how we should treat them. Most of us at some point will collect a few long-term conditions. Some of us are born with them; sometimes, they are serious disabilities. I am sure that we will hear some stories of those challenges. I reached out to the people of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and heard many stories about their experiences of using our NHS. All too often, it is the same story: it is those with long-term conditions, not deadly diseases, who feel most let down now. The reality for many is that by the time they reach my age, they are fortunate if they have never had to visit a clinic or see a nurse about something that is no longer working quite as well as it should. The wheels begin to fall off all of us eventually. Living with a long-term condition has a profound impact on people. It can mean lost work days, missed opportunities and, for many, being pushed out of the workforce altogether. When people are unable to work because of poor health, they are cut off from society and their quality of life obviously declines. That also has a terrible effect on the economy. It is estimated that successfully addressing the crisis in long-term sickness would increase GDP by between £109 billion and £177 billion over the next five years, generating billions of pounds of additional tax revenue. This is a growing trend and as the population gets older it will simply become more pressing. I worry that we have not truly adapted our medical system to deal with this reality. When I was a medical student, a heart attack was managed with morphine and bed rest. Things have certainly changed, and yet the NHS has not changed enough. In 1948, it was created to deal with infectious diseases and acute hospital care, but the health needs of the population have changed completely. People now live long lives with conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and arthritis. We need to focus on keeping those people in the community rather than waiting until they become so unwell that they have to be brought to hospitals. The NHS should not just be a sickness service; it should help people to manage their conditions and live much better lives. During our debate on dementia a few days ago, I heard many moving stories about families challenged by that devastating illness. Dementia fills so many hospital beds, and the cost to society is quite staggering, but the real message of the debate was about the need for better community care and greater investment in technology and research. That is true for dementia, but it is also true for many long-term conditions. We have the time and the ideas; now, we must use them. There is much talk about moving care from hospitals to the community, which is not a slogan but an absolute necessity. I have seen it work in practice: before I came here, I was involved in a project that moved care for people with hearing loss out of hospitals and into the community. Patients benefited from easier and quicker access to specialist NHS audiology and nursing services. We now need to see such an approach rolled out across the country. The neighbourhood practice model advocated by my Suffolk GP colleagues must be part of the answer, with community health hubs open into the evening, resourced with nurses and mental health services and incorporating a pharmacy, with a GP who is known to the patient and to the family. Those hubs would be the place to call when sick—a better option than calling 111 or having a long wait in A&E. They would offer access to multi-disciplinary teams all in one place, a bit like the geriatric day hospitals that my dad, Professor Derek Prinsley, a pioneer of geriatric medicine, introduced into his practice in Teesside in the 1960s. The NHS must be a neighbourhood health service, not just a national health service. That is how we join up care so that patients no longer feel like they are being pushed from pillar to post. Instead of being rushed between different appointments in hospital corridors, people should be cared for in one place, bringing lifesaving continuity of care. It is time to end the fragmented system of the past, where people ended up in A&E simply because there was nowhere else to go, and where we had older people lying in trolleys in the early hours for long-term conditions that could have been managed in primary care. A&E should be for real accidents and emergencies. That is how we must start thinking about the long-term care of long-term conditions. At the centre of our thoughts must be the patient. Health services are all too often designed to deal with patients with a single disease, but for a growing number, that is no longer a suitable model. If I have high blood pressure and asthma, I have to visit the practice three times: once for the blood pressure check and once for the asthma check, and then another appointment to see the GP. I think we can do better than that. How can we truly put the patient at the centre of healthcare? As I have said before, one answer is to embrace the digital transition and change the medical record paradigm. Let the patient have the record. Give them agency over their healthcare. If people knew a bit more about their health, they might care for it a bit better. More than one in five patients with a long-term condition has said they do not have enough information to manage their condition. That is 5.5 million people across the country who are not confident that they can manage their condition, so let us have the doctor ask the patient for the record, not the other way round. That would be a revolutionary change. I would like to talk about medical research. Of course, our country has an incredible record of medical research: Jenner, who devised vaccination; Lister, who invented antisepsis; and Fleming, who discovered penicillin—British doctors who saved unimaginable numbers of lives. Then there is Dr John Snow, who removed the handle from the water pump in Broad Street, near to where we are sitting today, ending the cholera epidemic and founding the field of public health. It is on scientific advances like those that we mostly depend as we fight many long-term conditions. We will hear of artificial pancreas pumps to treat diabetes and genetic treatments to cure sickle cell disease and arthritis, but let us not take that progress for granted. We should support medical innovation and put the best technology into the hands of our doctors. I am proud that the Government are boosting investment in diagnostic machines in hospitals across the country, because I have been told by constituents about the struggle of misdiagnosis—months and years spent unsure what is wrong with them, with doctors unable to shed any light. We are rolling out artificial intelligence and improving diagnostics across the country, and the Government have promised to support that further. Improving researchers’ access to medical data will be part of the approach. Let us imagine the scientific advances we could make if researchers could conduct studies on sample sizes of 67 million people. Scientific and medical advances depend on our brilliant young people, who must be funded and supported as they embark on research careers. The number of clinical academics is in decline, which is a particular worry of mine. We should challenge that and reverse it. The NHS is easily the biggest employer in our country—perhaps one of the biggest employers in the whole world—but what are we doing to ensure that its people can best support us? A failure to tackle long-term conditions is significantly impacting the NHS’s own workforce. Musculoskeletal conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis are leading causes of absenteeism among NHS staff, with ambulance and clinical support staff particularly affected, but we also hear many examples of terrible workforce planning. We learn of nurses and midwives graduating from colleges carrying large debts, after working for thousands of hours on placements for free, only to find a recruitment freeze in the very hospitals that desperately need their skills. Instead, hospitals are spending huge sums on agency staff. This is not a long-term plan; this is short-term thinking of the very worst kind. I am glad that agency spending fell last year. We must make sure that we spend wisely on newly qualified nurses and midwives, which will end up saving the NHS enormous sums. We also ought to do something about their student debt. Why not write it off if they commit to working for five years in our NHS, giving them security? Our health service needs their expertise. What about the young doctors, of whom I have spoken before? We need enough GPs, nurses and clinicians to help people to get well, but every year, thousands of UK doctors qualify with debts of up to £100,000. Many are then sent far from home, family and friends just as they begin their careers, and after two years they face intense competition for higher training against thousands of international doctors who fill up our hospital rotas and keep our services running. Some young doctors find themselves repeating their foundation years or going overseas, and others leave medicine altogether. This is certainly not a long-term plan. We must do better. I have seen for myself that our hospitals can run better with the resources they already have. At my West Suffolk hospital I saw the results: corridor care has been abolished and long-term waits in A&E are now a thing of the past. That has been done by taking a whole-hospital approach to improve the patient experience and ensure that the appropriate health professional is dealing with the patient at the earliest opportunity. That does not cost more, the staff are happier and the service is massively better. That is what happens when we put people first, work together across the disciplines and take real responsibility for change. Mr Blair once spoke of dealing with crime and the causes of crime; today I speak of dealing with diseases and the causes of diseases. Poverty, poor nutrition and poor housing are at the heart of so much of our country’s ill health. Those are not just background factors; they are the root cause of suffering and long-term conditions. If we are truly committed to a healthier society, those are the challenges we must address. The mission of our party and our Government is to lift millions out of poverty, tackle deep inequality and shape people’s health from cradle to grave. We will not accept the shocking housing conditions endured by so many of our fellow citizens. These are not simply political and economic problems; they are the underlying causes of much disease and misery, and many avoidable deaths. There is much for us to do, but I am convinced there is much that we can do to create easier access to NHS services, improve primary care and support those who want to conduct groundbreaking medical research. I hope the Government will look to tackle our long-term conditions crisis.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Dementia Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. We have heard many moving speeches this afternoon, and it has been a great honour to sit and listen to them. We must remember that dementia is not a fact of life, or something that everyone must face as they get older. It is not inevitable as a part of ageing. Dementia is a disease— a dreadful disease at that. Some 1.5 million people will be living with dementia in this country by 2040, so let us treat dementia with the same seriousness that we treat all other deadly conditions. Let us not neglect dementia simply because it disproportionately affects older people. At present, we have a fragmented and complex health system that does not provide a clear enough route for people with dementia. Let us improve specialist dementia support in hospitals and in the community. It is simply our duty to do so. The estimated economic impact of dementia in the UK last year was £42.5 billion. By contrast, we learned yesterday that the defence budget is £58 billion. It is suggested that, by 2040, the dementia budget will be £90 billion, so something must be done. Improving the treatment of dementia in our communities and in primary care settings will certainly help to free up hospitals and care systems, because, as we have heard, people with dementia occupy a quarter of all the hospital beds in the country. Let us move dementia treatment into the communities, with specialist nurses in communities to ease the pressure. Dementia is not inevitable. We must be bold, optimistic and forward-thinking, and prepared to deploy radical advances in science to tackle the condition. Let us support our scientists and researchers as they strive to develop more effective treatments and make progress towards curing the disease. Let us support research by enabling the NHS to empower its clinicians to conduct research and to use patient data. That would help to facilitate medical research and increase the number of clinical academics, whose number has been declining for much too long. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talk about hearing loss. Many members will know that I am an ear, nose and throat surgeon. Hearing loss is absolutely central to the problem of people withdrawing from the society in which they live. The simple testing of hearing and the provision of hearing aids will do much to help. I urge Members of a certain age to consider having a hearing test. I am interested to know what we can do with patient data. If researchers across the country ran studies on 67 million people, we would accelerate progress towards a cure. Artificial intelligence could be set to work analysing datasets and providing rich sources of longitudinal data to inform future research and cures. Artificial intelligence already models the folding of proteins that cause the disease, so to secure those benefits, let us do something about the collection of medical information, and let us prioritise openness by giving patients access to their medical records, allowing them to see how the information is being used to support the NHS. That is something we could do to help.

• 22 May 2025 · Access to NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  Is there a better metaphor for the state of this country than the state of dentistry? Fourteen years of neglect left us with a decayed system of NHS provision, with those able to pay the only ones protected. I see it myself with wards full of children with dental abscesses at the weekend. Residents have told me stories of searching for NHS dental provision that simply does not exist. In my constituency, the number of urgent appointments has increased by 35%, with practices providing urgent dental care services seven days a week and into the evenings, and there are more coming soon, so the Government are making a serious attempt to deal with the decades of decay and drift, but we must go further. We do not have enough dentists and we do not have enough dental service providers, so let us sort out the dental contract, which we have heard about. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is no longer in his place, is quite right that NHS dentists are in fact heroes.

• 22 May 2025 · Access to NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  That is certainly a suggestion that should be investigated. We must increase the number of dentists, as we have only 24 dentists for every 100,000 people in the east of England. We also need to increase the number of training providers and training places, but even with the opening of a dental school it will take ages for there to be new dentists. One suggestion is that we sort out the dental accreditation system. Hon. Members may not know that there are only 600 opportunities to take the accreditation exam each year, but there are 6,000 people planning to take the exam—that will take 10 years. We must get the General Dental Council to increase the number of exam opportunities. We have begun to address this political emergency, but we must go further with a clear and fair offer focusing on what the Minister described as the triangle of patients, practitioners and the public purse, providing a service that ensures that we give excellent, affordable care for all, including prevention, especially for the most vulnerable, and in a way that means we can pay for it. NHS dentistry can be saved. Let us have a sign on the door saying, “Urgent NHS dental appointments available here.” Would that not that be great?

• 20 May 2025 · Spending Review: Cross-departmental Planning · Hansard source

  More

  Some 9,000 UK medical graduates compete with 15,000 overseas graduates for postgraduate training, meaning that many of our own graduates simply cannot progress into higher professional training, and either go abroad themselves or leave medicine. Does the Minister agree that the Treasury has a crucial role to co-ordinate spending on medical university education by the Department for Education and on postgraduate training by the Department of Health and Social Care, so as to ensure that public money spent on medical student education is not wasted?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that while we are seeing record levels of mental health problems in our young people, investment in community services for people with mental health problems must be a priority?

• 6 May 2025 · Eye Care: 10-year Health Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists has stated that the widespread outsourcing of NHS cataract surgery to private, for-profit providers risks the integrity of hospital eye surgery departments meaning that there will be few services to treat patients with preventable blindness. How can we reassure the public that such services will be maintained?

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  As I was born in 1958, my childhood was surrounded by people who had fought in world war two, but as a child it all seemed so long ago. My father was an RAF doctor serving in the middle east and in East Anglia. The fatality rate of the air crews was quite appalling, not least because of all those killed as the planes crashed. I remember stories my dad told us of crawling into stricken planes to extract wounded pilots. Like many who fought in the war, he spoke about it only in his greatest old age, but now that I have grandchildren of my own, it no longer seems so long ago. What tricks time and memory play on all of us. Suffolk was on the frontline defending our country. Our airfields were key to the liberation of Europe. The brave men of the United States air force flew bombing raids from Rougham deep into Europe, and the incredible fighter ace and double amputee Wing Commander Douglas Bader flew from RAF Honington. Vanishingly few of that generation are among us now, but I was delighted to send my congratulations to one of them—Jim Grant, from Stowmarket—on his 100th birthday last year. Jim signed up to the Royal Marines in 1943 and served until 1946. He was present at D-day, firing for the troops at Sword, Juno and Gold beaches. I salute his service. We must also never forget the thousands of extraordinary ordinary citizens who made this contribution to the people’s war for freedom. In Suffolk, we received thousands of volunteers for the women’s land army from all over the country to milk cows, pull potatoes and drive tractors. They were determined and indomitable, and alongside the home guard and the ARP wardens they made a huge contribution to our victory. Many in the House will find it quite unbelievable that war has returned to Europe. As we speak, rockets and drones are being flung at cities, and civilians hide in air raid shelters. Those who start wars do not respect the lessons of history, which, as the great songwriter said, are simply blowing in the wind. They must not be allowed to win. I therefore welcome the Government’s choice to increase defence spending and applaud the commitment to go further—2.5% is really not enough. Eighty years ago, Mr Churchill addressed the Commons from the other place, this Chamber having been hollowed out by a direct bomb strike. On the same day, he reminded us that Britons were the first “to draw the sword against tyranny.” We cannot forget that. It has now fallen to us to safeguard the peace that his generation won, and we must put aside our political differences.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I should like to speak this afternoon about the vital but vulnerable role of clinical academics. These are the people who combine frontline work in the hospitals with teaching and research at the universities. They are essential to the success of life sciences, and central to the training of the future NHS workforce. Clinical academics are employed by the NHS and higher education institutions jointly. Their pay follows the NHS consultant contract, which was updated last year after national negotiations. Universities, however, were not part of those negotiations, and are now required to implement that contract without having received any additional funding. The result is deeply worrying. I understand that 20 out of 26 medical schools may be preparing to offer redundancy to clinical academics because they simply cannot afford them. That would be a disaster. We cannot afford to lose the very people who train the future NHS staff and carry out the medical research that underpins all the innovation in our health service. As the Government rightly expand the number of medical school places, we will depend even more on clinical academics to educate the next generation of doctors. Their numbers are declining. Clinical academics now make up just 5.7% of the consultant workforce—down from 8.6% in 2011. Over the last decade or so we have seen a 6% fall in medically qualified researchers, and a 24% decline at the senior lecturer level. We are marching towards a cliff edge. More than a third of clinical academics are over the age of 55 and approaching retirement, so universities need to provide incentives to get younger clinical academics to come. We did solve this problem previously. When the consultant contract changed in 2003, the then Department of Health provided £15 million to support the medical schools with the implementation of the consultant clinical academic contract. That funding was later embedded in the baseline grants to the universities. That is a model for solving this problem. Unless we act now, we will lose this vital workforce altogether at the very moment when we need them most, and we simply will not be able to run our medical schools.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Well, the Minister’s mother-in-law might not be. I do not think it is such a leap of the imagination to let everybody access their medical information in this way. As we heard from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who has gone for a cup of tea, other countries such as Estonia do this. I urge us to think carefully. One record, one patient—it would simplify so much of our healthcare, and this Bill is the opportunity to do it. I was heartened to hear that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary supports such a proposal. It will be the future of healthcare, so let us simply make it happen.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow my medical colleague, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), in this debate. This is a wide-ranging Bill, but I would like to talk this afternoon about the role of data access in healthcare, and what I think is a transformative proposal for the patient passport. NHS IT and case records are chaotic. I know about this chaos from my own clinics, where I spend—or waste—too much time looking at PDF readers; we also have dictaphones, and we even still have fax machines. Half the consultation can easily be spent opening up websites and computer programs for all sorts of different things. The standard of information kept by different hospitals varies quite widely and IT interoperability is often very poor, so that if I transfer a patient from one hospital where I work to another hospital where I work, the other people in the hospital cannot easily work out what is going on with the patient. Sometimes we are unable to treat the patient because we are unable to access their medical record. Imagine an elderly lady lying on a trolley in a hospital corridor at 3 o’clock in the morning, unable to give a full account of her medical history. If we cannot access her file, how will we best treat her? That is not an imaginary situation; it is an actual situation that is probably happening in our hospitals today. I therefore welcome the measures in the Bill that will standardise information and improve the flow of data between hospitals. Actually, I am pleased that West Suffolk hospital, in my constituency, has very good IT standards, and I hope the Bill will allow more hospitals around the country to follow its example. However, I urge the Government to look further when considering reform to medical data. Here is what I think may be a transformative proposal: we should give ownership of the medical record directly to the patient. Let us make the clinicians ask the patient to see the record, and not the other way around. Nine out of 10 Britons want better access to their medical records, and we should simply listen to them. Let us create a patient passport that has all the patient’s medical data on it. It would be transformative. People organise their lives on their phones, so let us put the passport there. We could just expand the NHS app to become a digital front door for the health service. People are happy to bank on their phones, send emails on their phones and book flights on their phones—

• 27 Jan 2025 · Clinical Academics · Hansard source

  More

  The number of clinical academics is in worrying decline. These are the people who teach our doctors in universities and are conducting groundbreaking research. Consultant clinical academics’ contracts with universities give them pay parity with the NHS. However, the universities do not have the funding to match the costs of the new NHS pay structure for consultants. I have heard that, unable to retain them, 20 out of 26 medical schools in the country are offering voluntary redundancy to their staff, and sometimes not voluntary. Does the Minister agree that we must do all we can to support medical education and research in this country?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Welfare of Doctors · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend, as he will see. There are odd shifts, night duties without hot food, and days and weeks that go by without an opportunity to meet supervising consultants. Short clinical attachments mean that the relationships previously created with senior mentors are rare. Just last week, I received an email from a surgeon who was my consultant in 1986. He had noticed in a surgical journal that I had become an MP, and I remembered him as the brilliant surgeon that he was. These are the relationships that make people feel as if they belong within a wider profession, but I doubt whether the young trainees of today would have the chance to make such lasting connections. There is little security of employment, because doctors are obliged to apply every year or two for another post, probably in another place. The doctors’ mess used to be a place where young doctors could find a sort of surrogate family in an unfamiliar place, but that is now sadly a thing of the past. According to research from the British Medical Association, fewer than 10% of UK trusts or health boards offer hot food after 11 o’clock at night. The demands of the job affect relationships. Many young doctors are in relationships with fellow doctors, but lucky indeed are the couple who can work and live in the same place, or even contemplate raising a young family together. Sadly, relationship difficulties and breakdowns are commonplace. Holidays must be taken at odd times, and rotas are inflexible. Doctors are left unable to take a day off to attend a wife’s graduation, a sister’s wedding or even their own wedding—all true. Progression in a chosen career depends on a multitude of competitive interviews and hugely costly professional exams. There is no security of employment. In a survey called “Fight Fatigue” conducted by the Royal College of Anaesthetists, 50% of respondents said that they had had an accident or a near miss when driving home after a night shift—I recall fatalities like this in my own hospital; 84% were too tired to drive home after a night shift; and only 64% had access to any rest facilities. What would we say if the same were true of airline pilots, to whom anaesthetists are sometimes compared?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Welfare of Doctors · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with exactly what the hon. Gentleman said. In a recent survey, 29% of hospital doctors said they were unable to take any breaks at all during the working day; for GPs, the figure rose to 40%. That is simply not safe, for either doctors or patients. In a 2023 survey conducted by the Royal College of Surgeons, half of respondents cited poor working conditions as the main challenge in their job. It is no wonder that so many colleagues are retiring too soon. The average age for a radiologist to leave the NHS is now 56, yet we are desperately short of these vital specialists. This is happening across many specialties. Just in 2023, 23,000 English doctors left the profession prematurely. We cannot afford to lose our most experienced doctors. Too often they are discouraged from continuing in practice by a bureaucratic and costly appraisal and revalidation process, and they simply throw in the towel. Their experience is a vital asset to the NHS, and we must think carefully about how we retain them or return them to the workforce. One solution will be to create simple routes for experienced doctors to practise flexibly.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Welfare of Doctors · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree. I believe that the Government intend to do something about the somewhat terrible state of GP premises; the Health Secretary confirmed that only yesterday. There are serious questions about the support that individual GPs receive, especially for mental health. At present, GPs rely on the NHS practitioner health service for addiction and mental health support.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Welfare of Doctors · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we must put resources into general practices to deal with the Government’s plan to move care from the hospital out into the community. I am sure that needs to be addressed. The partnership model, which has served us so well, is now surely threatened as fewer young GPs are prepared to take on the responsibility or the financial risk of general practice.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Welfare of Doctors · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak of general practice shortly. My son is an A&E doctor here in London, and I am therefore one of three generations of doctors who have served the NHS continuously since it began; the welfare of doctors is personal for me. This Government have already done much for doctors, who are on the frontline and not the picket line for the first time in several years, but burnout, fatigue and stress are still very real problems that threaten to undermine the efficacy of our NHS. Today’s new doctors graduate into the profession with debts of nearly £100,000. They immediately enter a lottery to be appointed to their first jobs as pre-registration doctors, sometimes ending up miles away from family and friends in places they have never visited before. Now that reminds me of another job that I just started. Young doctors are left immediately responsible for life-and-death decisions, sometimes with insufficient support. They are left scrabbling at the very last minute for somewhere to live—the on-call accommodation that my generation remembers has disappeared—and I have known several of them to sleep in their cars. It has not escaped my notice that the new name for junior doctors is “resident doctors”. Resident doctors? That is the very last thing they are. If they are lucky, there is a place for them to rest, but many a time I have arrived to find a young doctor fast asleep from exhaustion at an office desk.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Welfare of Doctors · Hansard source

  More

  I was not aware that the practitioner health service was not available in Northern Ireland; I certainly agree that it ought to be. The practitioner health service was designed to be used by only 0.5% of GPs, but in fact it is accessed by 10 times that number. Ensuring that such services are fully funded will be important. There is alcohol and drug abuse, loneliness, depression, insomnia, anxiety and, sadly, suicide—including two of those who I graduated with from Sheffield, both in their very first year of medicine; and two doctors, a psychiatrist and a neurosurgeon, from my own road in Norwich. One of my own trainees was rescued at the last minute from a very serious attempt. All doctors know of this problem, but few speak of it. Last week, I informed the House of my former student who described the terrible flashbacks and post-traumatic stress disorder of the young clinical intensive therapy unit staff who witnessed 40 or 50 covid admissions die at a hospital in Yorkshire, and the complete lack of support they received. Many are reluctant to seek help and do not know where to turn. Itinerant junior doctors not registered with GPs are known to self-medicate. We simply cannot leave them on their own. In conclusion, I will respectfully make some suggestions, which have little or no cost implications. In making them, I am thinking especially of our resident doctors. They include to provide identified mentors, not simply people called educational supervisors; simplified contracts, transferable across trusts and between hospitals; clear, early information for doctors about what they will be paid and their rotas, timetables and holidays; hot food at night, and places to rest and sleep; to cover exam fees and make examinations fair and achievable; and to provide parking at the hospital and, crucially, a GP for every doctor and simple access to mental health support. Medicine is a brilliant career—satisfying, interesting and rewarding. Let us look after the doctors who look after us.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Welfare of Doctors · Hansard source

  More

  I agree completely with the hon. Member, which will be no surprise. The training of doctors is under threat. I spoke in the House about how cash-strapped universities are issuing redundancy notices to clinical professors, with no real plan on how to teach the increasing number of medical students or to continue the vital medical research for which our country has such a strong reputation. There was a 31% decline in the number of clinical academics in the country between 2004 and 2022. Something must be done about that. Our GPs are under pressure as never before. Who is looking out for them? They face massive lists of patients and huge demands. We know that we must support them, for they are the front door of our NHS.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Welfare of Doctors · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the welfare of doctors. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Our NHS is described as “broken”. Gigantic waiting lists; ambulance delays; collapsed confidence that the NHS is there when we need it; poor access to general practice, dentistry and pharmacy; and, disgracefully, falling life expectancy in some places—these are all failures of the last Government, who could not look after the NHS despite record funding. Labour must mend the NHS; we have no choice. We invented the NHS. We fixed it before and we will fix it again. In this debate, I speak about the people who work in the NHS. There are nearly 1.5 million of them, all contributing in their own way, but let me speak specifically about our doctors. Doctors in this country are in crisis. They are leaving the profession, retiring too soon and emigrating. Who is looking after our doctors? I come to this place as a surgeon. I am one of the very few surgeons ever elected to Parliament. My dad was an RAF medic, who served in Aden in world war two before joining the newly invented NHS in 1948. He became a consultant physician in Teesside, where I grew up, and then a professor of geriatric medicine in Melbourne. He wrote an excellent account of his life called “New Ideas for Old Concerns”, which is full of fascinating accounts of his medical experiences during the war and later in the new NHS. It was a time of such hope and optimism, and I sincerely wish that we will be able to recreate that hope today.

• 20 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme Review · Hansard source

  More

  I feel doubly blessed this afternoon because the West Suffolk hospital in my constituency is to be rebuilt and the James Paget hospital where I have worked for 30 years is to be rebuilt. Does the Secretary of State agree that our primary care estate is in a terrible situation and that we must also invest in general practice facilities?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Obesity: Food and Diet · Hansard source

  More

  A bariatric bed is a special big, strong bed used in hospitals for extremely obese people. When I was a medical student, there was no such thing as a bariatric bed—not invented, not needed. But then, hospitals did not have food banks for their staff either. So how have we got our relationship with food into such a mess? The epidemic of obesity is a public health emergency costing billions. Millions of our citizens are dying early. The Government simply must act. This cannot be left to the market. We did it with smoking, and now we will do it with obesity. We have no choice. We know that at the heart of the matter is high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt, factory-produced food that is often ultra-processed, cheap, convenient, tasty and very profitable for a few very large food businesses. Nor must we forget that it is our poor citizens who are most affected—those who are cash-poor, time-poor and at high risk of a poor diet. We cannot continue like this. The Government must act to change food habits. This is not the nanny state; this is simply good government. “Smoking kills,” it says on cigarette packets. Some food kills, too, so how about “The food in this packet will kill you if it is not part of a healthy, mixed diet”? Obesity is a massive issue for surgeons, increasing morbidity and mortality. Although we can staple stomachs or inject up to 3.5 million people with anti-obesity drugs, we all know that that is not the answer. Let us use the power of Government to legislate: warnings on food packets, breakfast clubs in schools, which we have already introduced, advertising bans, tax incentives, cooking education and an end to the dependence on the cheap, unhealthy food that blights the lives of so many of our citizens. We have no choice.