Peter Prinsley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know of a quite frail diabetic patient with cancer, who underwent several operations as well as complicated chemo in London. He eventually decided that he was well enough to take a short holiday, so he went to Cornwall on the train. Unfortunately, shortly after arriving he was found in a state of collapse by his daughter, and taken to the nearest hospital late on a Saturday night. The doctors had no access to his medical notes, and no answer when they called the hospital in London, so they were puzzled. That situation is familiar to doctors. Patients are incredulous when they are told that we are unable to see all their medical records: “Surely everything is on the computer?” As a surgeon before becoming an MP, I worked in at least three different hospitals. There was no compatibility between the records, which meant that transferring care was complicated and hazardous. I would be asked to advise on a patient from another hospital, relying on a dictated note from the referring doctor, but I could not access the clinical records, the results of investigations such as the pathology test, scans or, crucially, the operating records. Consultations were delayed as I stared at creaking computers, with numerous software programmes, each individually protected by ever-changing and forgettable passwords, that slowly booted up. That obviously needs to change. I would link the NHS number to an unique single patient record. I would give ownership of the record to the patient, and let the patient be the custodian and the gatekeeper. That is the truly revolutionary idea. If someone could easily look at their medical record, with appropriate physician safeguards, they could monitor everything—blood pressure, heart rate—and perhaps there would be an incentive for them to look after their health a little better. Let us imagine for a moment the power of anonymised medical data for a population of 70 million people. The NHS is perhaps the largest complete set of health data on a whole population in the world. That is a huge resource for informing health policy and medical research. By tracking the health outcomes of millions of our fellow citizens, we can sort out all kinds of diseases, such as heart disease, cancer and mental health disorders. I can think of no greater innovation, or more helpful measure to improve the health care of this nation, than a single patient record.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Rail Renationalisation: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that answer. Greater Anglia has consistently been at the top of the performance scale for our railway operators, but could the Secretary of State tell me whether the nationalisation of the railway will lead to the increased likelihood of a much better commuter service between Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge, which is presently only an hourly service, and what the prospect is of a direct train line from Bury St Edmunds to London?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Rail Renationalisation: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the renationalisation of the railways on rail users in the east of England.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  We spoke about the graduated driving licence scheme in a Westminster Hall debate and referred to the situation in Western Australia and Victoria. Does the hon. Member agree that the lessons we can learn from there have absolute relevance to the situation here?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Community Audiology · Hansard source

  More

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

• 20 Nov 2025 · Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  16. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of bus services in rural areas.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  At a lively church hall meeting in Barningham, which is a quintessential Suffolk village, a number of my constituents raised concerns about the state of rural bus provision. They highlighted not only the infrequency of the services, but the fact that the buses are larger than demand requires; many seats are unused. Does the Minister agree that a more flexible approach, including the use of smaller, more frequent buses, potentially powered by electric motors, would be preferable in rural areas?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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