Peter Prinsley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are talking about investing in mental health services, and we should consider more widely the causes of the mental health disorders that we are having to approach. If we are spending public money, we may be better off spending it on dealing with the causes of mental health problems rather than the consequences.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am very interested in the increase in the number of people waiting for mental health care, particularly mental health assessments. Does the hon. Member think that that is because the funding is inadequate, or is there some other reason why the waiting list numbers have been shooting up?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Health Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware of the role of governors in some of our NHS trusts and the way in which they are appointed, but governors have said to me that they are sometimes disappointed by the level of influence they can in fact have in their trust. Can the hon. Member think of examples of where governors have particularly influenced the activities of individual trusts? I have not found that to be the case in my experience.

• 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.

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

  More

  I am not entirely clear why there is a problem with the financial incentive. People coming off lists that they have been on for a long, long time may well have a clinical condition that is changing. In my practice, I deal with the management of children with glue ear, who need to have grommets. From time to time, the condition fluctuates and the glue ear goes away. Equally, the reason that we do a tonsillectomy is that people get recurrent acute tonsilitis, but it is actually quite a good idea for people to wait some time because often the recurrent acute tonsilitis simply settles down and they do not need their operation. Sometimes, when a patient comes into hospital for an operation on their tonsils and I ask them, “When did you last have an attack of tonsilitis?” they say, “I can’t remember.” We have to take account of the fact that the condition of the patient may fluctuate.

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

  More

  I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but does she agree that this is yet another reason why we must go full speed ahead to get the single patient record sorted out?

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

  More

  I have received representations from rural dispensing practices in my constituency about the provision of vaccination services. I understand that dispensing general practitioners are having difficulty securing the funding to provide vaccinations, particularly the new meningitis vaccination for young people. Does the Minister envisage that the change being proposed will have any effect on that arrangement?

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 5 Patient involvement and choice

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

  More

  Does the shadow Minister accept that, in order to encourage innovation within the health service, we need to do whatever we can to support clinical academics? It is within the academic departments of universities, where people are working in hospitals and teaching in medical schools, that we see the most fruitful innovations.

• 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

  Does the hon. Member recognise that there are circumstances in which independent provision within a district has the effect of disabling the NHS service? A pertinent example is the ophthalmology world. Services have become difficult to deliver in NHS hospitals because large numbers of NHS staff have chosen to work in the independent sector. That makes the comprehensive provision of a service in an eye department difficult, as the staff are all off operating on cataracts.

• 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.

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

  More

  As the Committee knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) is one of the five medical doctors in the parliamentary Labour party. It is a great pleasure to move the amendment, which she tabled. The amendment is about education and training. My hon. Friend would like us to consider whether there should be an additional subsection after proposed new subsection (1)(a), which is about ensuring that “there are sufficient people with appropriate education and training to meet the workforce needs of the health service”. My hon. Friend would like to include within that specific training about wider health determinants, which, as we discussed earlier this morning, consist of things like housing, air quality, occupation, and substance abuse—tobacco, alcohol and so on. Her opinion is that that needs to be specifically incorporated into the legislation.

• 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.

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

  More

  Does the shadow Minister agree that if we doubled the number of medical students, we would simply not be able to accommodate those people as young doctors unless we also doubled the number of training places? After five or six years, those medical students become young doctors. If we are to correct any problem with the medical workforce, it is insufficient to simply state that we will double the number of medical students.

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

  More

  It is true that the situation in ophthalmology is now quite serious, but is the hon. Lady aware of the problems in radiology and pathology? Some hospitals are unable to recruit histopathologists or significant numbers of radiologists, who provide key services, because the personnel necessary to run those services have been attracted into a private system, although they are contracted to the NHS. That jeopardises the ongoing services for urgent and emergency care.

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

  More

  I am happy with those assurances, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 33. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 50, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, at end insert— “(4) After subsection (2) insert— ‘(2A) The Secretary of State must publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s workforce needs every five years.’”— (Dr Caroline Johnson.) This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish independently audited forecasts of the NHS’s staffing needs every five years. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Forest City: West Suffolk · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for allowing an intervention. I regard this as quite a bold idea, like the NHS; that was a bold idea just after the war. Let us try and use our imaginations: perhaps we will create a shining city—a city not on a hill but in the flatlands of Suffolk—and, just perhaps, a solution to the housing crisis we have in our land.

• 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.

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

  More

  Q I am an ENT surgeon. Why has there been no effective single patient record in the past? If there were such a thing, who would you give ownership of the data to? Sarah Woolnough: We have had developments over many years in the direction of a single patient record. We have shared care records; we have attempts in different parts of the country to move in that direction. On the one hand, we have been held back by legitimate concerns about trust, privacy and the right safeguards, but some practical barriers have also held us back. For example—and this is really important to make the single patient record a success—what does it take to ensure that we achieve interoperability, that the data is cleansed and that penalties are followed through if providers are not sharing data? We need to back up any legislative and policy intent with the resource and measures needed to make it happen. That is perhaps a bit of the history of why it has not happened. Sorry, what was the second part of your question?

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

  More

  Q Who would the data belong to? Would it belong to the patient or to the healthcare provider? Sarah Woolnough: My reading of the legislation is that perhaps this issue is not quite resolved; the legislation does not seek to shift necessarily from having the GP as the data controller. Of course, there will be concerns as the record is brought together nationally. Ultimately, the data should belong to people and patients, but they rightly want to feel that it is protected and safeguarded appropriately through the system. There are a couple of other points to make as we design this. This is a work in progress, so it is not neat in the sense that you cannot say, “This is exactly what a single patient record is, and this is exactly what it will be for evermore.” I think the policy intent is to build and develop it over time. To give one example, patients and the public being able to understand who has access to their records, and for what purposes, might be really helpful in the process of building trust and belief that their data is being well looked after.

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

  More

  I am a retired ENT surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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