Budget Resolutions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I welcome much of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in the Budget, but tonight I will speak of our NHS, for we will not grow our economy if we are not well.

Norfolk and Suffolk foundation trust is the mental health trust that serves my constituents, and it has been transformed thanks to its brilliant staff and inspired leadership—I thank all of them. Last week I learned that some of the teams have been early adopters of AI, using it to transcribe patient consultations. More time with the patients and less time staring at computers—imagine that!

Some of us remain suspicious of AI in healthcare, but who here has not asked their phone about a symptom or a medical worry? Many GPs already use AI-assisted triage to tackle the dreaded 8 o’clock rush. I am therefore pleased to hear that we will fund the technology that will increasingly shape our health service. Let us embrace it, not fear it.

I welcome the Government’s approach to healthcare, but much remains to be done. Too many of our patients are being asked to be just that: patient. We have record NHS staffing and resources since the pandemic, yet activity has not increased proportionately. Why is that? How much genuinely improves people’s health? We know that health depends on housing, wealth and much else besides. Falling life expectancy in some of our communities and the problems in maternity services demand urgent political attention.

I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of funding for surgical robots, having heard how they are helping patients at West Suffolk hospital, but frankly, if I were asked where I would invest taxpayers’ money, my answer would be: in primary care and neighbourhood health centres.

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course I respect the hon. Gentleman’s professional expertise, which I do not share, but much of what he has said so far is counterintuitive. My constituents tell me that what they want from the health service is personal interaction—to form a meaningful relationship with a GP, surgeon or specialist. That is how trust is built, not through machines, AI and robots.

[Dr Prinsley]

If the right hon. Gentleman simply listens to the next part of my speech, he may be reassured. Let us build on GP partnerships and shift resources from hospitals to communities. We could have centres that are open in the evening, at which there are specialist nurses, mental health professionals and pharmacists. These would be places where the patients know their doctor, and the doctor knows their patients.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman, a medical professional, recognises the importance of primary care. We spend a fraction of what the NHS spends on chronic care on primary care. Just last night, I hosted a reception for the Independent Pharmacies Association, which I know will be grateful for his words.

[Dr Prinsley]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention.

Keeping people healthy and at home, wherever possible, should be supported by our developing national care service. It is a simple but transformative move, and I am delighted that our Government will fund it.

In Suffolk, seven new NHS dental practices have been announced, including two in Bury St Edmunds. I applaud the organisation Toothless in Suffolk for its advocacy, but the dental contract must be reformed. Why has this been delayed? A new dental school is opening at the University of East Anglia, and we must ensure that graduates choose NHS dentistry, rather than private practice.

It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee for the Health Bill. I welcome the single patient record, alongside the retention of Healthwatch and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. Patient voices and independent safety investigations must remain central. Some of our political opponents suggest that the NHS has had its day and advocate for an insurance-based system. I profoundly disagree. My father joined the NHS at its foundation in 1948, having served as an RAF medical officer. I spent more than 40 years as a surgeon, and my son works as an A&E doctor in London—78 years of continuous family service to the NHS. Perhaps the NHS is in my DNA. It is certainly in the DNA of the Labour party.

Finally, I want to say something about medical research. We celebrate Jenner, Lister and Fleming, but let us remember the extraordinary British scientists of my lifetime, including Nobel prize winners Crick, Hodgkin, Milstein, Nurse, and Hassabis, whose AlphaFold work revolutionised protein structure prediction. There are many others, including the grandfather of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), the unsung Harold Hopkins. Their achievements remind us why supporting scientific research must remain a national priority. I remain a great optimist for our NHS—there is fresh hope for the future—but we must cherish our NHS. We must invest in it and protect it.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Prinsley]

It is my last sentence, but go on.

[Martin Wrigley]

The hon. Gentleman cherishes the NHS; does he agree that the single patient record, of which he speaks so eloquently, must be delivered by sovereign British technology?

[Dr Prinsley]

I do not claim to be an expert on the selection of software programmes for the single patient record, but I believe that a single patient record will be transformative. If we ever lost our NHS, we would never ever get it back.

Performance of Royal Mail

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

In the summer of 1914, as Britain was on the brink of war, Mr Asquith, 62, the Prime Minister, was having an affair with Venetia Stanley, 26. They wrote several letters to each other each day, for there were multiple postal deliveries daily, at a cost of 1d each, the equivalent of 62p today, although as we all know the cost of a first-class letter is now £1.80. Asquith sensibly destroyed the letters, but his letters to Venetia Stanley—all 300,000 words—were retained. When the writer Robert Harris wrote the novel “Precipice”, he invented her letters and used Asquith’s originals. That was an amazing work of a novelist’s imagination, for as we all know letters tell magical stories.

We have heard many passionate contributions. I will call out particularly the amazing contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who is no longer in his seat. We have learned that times have certainly changed for this essential service.

From Beyton to Stanton and from Honington to Rattlesden, villages across my constituency have one thing in common: a completely unreliable service. As we have heard, constituents are missing hospital appointments, bank correspondence and other important communications. Does the Minister agree that that is simply unacceptable? I agree completely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who is also no longer in his seat, that the solution to this issue is to renationalise the service.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Josh Fenton-Glynn—beat that!

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

The situation that the hon. Member described about the loss of UK quantum companies, largely under the previous Government, is exactly why my predecessor was determined to set up the ProQure programme, to ensure that the UK is leading the procurement of quantum computing and enabling the growth of UK businesses to do that. In March 2026, the Government announced a landmark commitment of up to £2 billion for the next stage of the national programme, and our ambition is to see UK quantum companies scale and stay in the UK.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 to hold online marketplaces accountable for the safety of products sold on their platforms.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

My hon. Friend’s question addresses a key aspect of our recent consultations, which proposed a duty for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. The consultation package also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, and my intention is that future regulations will set out strong new duties on online marketplaces, backed by appropriate sanctions.

[Dr Prinsley]

Residents of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, like millions of us across the country, increasingly rely on online marketplaces for everyday purchases. However, the consumer magazine Which? continues to uncover dangerous products being sold on those platforms. Will the Minister ensure that forthcoming regulations place a clear legal duty on online marketplaces to identify and remove unsafe products, backed by meaningful penalties for those that fail to protect consumers?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to the House today, reflecting the changes in preferences of both his constituents and those across the country in how they buy products online and interact with online marketplaces. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Which? for the brilliant work it does in this space. Our recent consultations on modernising the product safety framework included proposals for clear duties on online marketplaces, including a clear duty to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. We also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, including civil monetary penalties to complement the existing criminal sanctions; fines would be set proportionally to risk and respond to an offence appropriately. We are also considering bespoke enforcement measures to ensure that online and international supply chain actors can be effectively addressed. We will respond to these consultations in due course, and I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement in this space.

Steel Tariffs

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member talks of tool steels. As I have said, this is about steels that are made or could be made in the UK. Clearly, for the steel businesses to be profitable, we need to—[Interruption.] Well, the phrase “could be made” is actually quite important, because the Speciality Steel business was unable to compete with subsidised steel coming in from China. If the Opposition say they want our steel strategy set by the Chinese Government, that would be why our steel industry is in the position it is. I am sympathetic to the calls from UK businesses to manage the transition, and I am trying to do that. Understandably, however, I do not believe that our steel strategy should be set by the Chinese Government.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Although I do not sound quite like the distinguished Minister, I did in fact grow up in Teesside in sight of the mighty Redcar works, which closed in 2015 with the loss of 2,000 jobs. The Conservative party did not stop that. Does the Minister agree that we finally have a Government acting to protect our steel industry?

[Chris McDonald]

As my hon. Friend knows, I very much have an emotional attachment to that plant, having worked there myself, and what he says is right. We can contrast the situation in 2015 with the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill that we are passing—opposed every step of the way by the Opposition—and the action we are taking on Speciality Steels. When the plant he refers to closed, I was in the business of looking for a buyer, and I was told by the Conservative Government that I had just 10 days; we have given months of support to Speciality Steels, and we are determined to see that process through.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I start this contribution on a positive note for the steel industry. Last week I visited Kiernan Steel’s fabrication workshop in Llandrindod, Wales. Kiernan Steel is a tremendously successful Irish company that has brought much-needed jobs to Radnorshire, and its success shows how the rural economy can prosper if our businesses are encouraged and enabled to locate there. One thing there is no shortage of in mid-Wales is land, and if we make that land available to businesses that need it, they will create the jobs that our region and economy need.

The steel industry is critical to our wider economy—it is virtually impossible to build anything without steel. However, the steel industry requires a skilled workforce. I was encouraged by some of the Secretary of State’s comments about the skills shortages, because we have serious skills shortages. There are thousands of vacancies for welders alone, and their pay is shooting up as a result. Skills shortages throughout the steel industry are pushing up the price of building anything, particularly infrastructure. That is why the health of our steel industry matters. If we do not look after it, the costs for projects such as HS2 and the cost of delivering all the housing we need will continue to mount.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the shortage of welders. Does he agree that the Government’s plan for construction colleges of excellence, including the one in Bury St Edmunds, will be crucial for the provision of welders?

[David Chadwick]

There are at least 6,000 vacancies for welders, so we absolutely need a lot more of them.

The skills shortages present opportunities to get future generations into well-paid and secure trades. Artificial intelligence cannot do welding yet, because it does not have any arms—yet. Our education system is not producing the skills that our economy needs, and our economy is suffering from that failure. Steel is strategic. It is part of our sovereign capability and part of British power. That is why steel matters.

As has been mentioned, the steel industry is affected by the geopolitical tensions that are so rampant across the world. Our steel industry has been hammered by the Chinese, who have flooded the international market with cheap Chinese steel and have run one of our biggest companies into the ground. China has wiped out our steel industry intentionally, yet today the Conservatives seem to be saying that they do not think the Government should do anything about it. Just yesterday they were complaining about our lack of defence readiness. Well, what do they think tanks and ships are made from?

Today, this Government ask Parliament to move heaven and earth to save steel in Scunthorpe. It is right to act—of course the Government should have the proposed powers—but people in Wales are asking one simple question today: where was this Bill in July 2024, when the blast furnaces at Port Talbot were switched off for the last time? When Welsh communities were crying out for help, Westminster shrugged its shoulders. That was despite Welsh Labour MPs and candidates, in the months prior to the general election, lining up in front of giant election posters that read, “Save our steel.” They said they had a £2.5 billion fund to spend on steel. Given that the Government have admitted to spending £1.3 million a day to keep the Scunthorpe plant going, how much of that fund is left to spend in Wales?

If protecting primary steel production is so important, why did they allow the biggest steelworks in Britain to be turned off? Welsh workers were told that nothing could be done. People in my constituency have lost their jobs because of this. When 2,800 jobs were wiped out in Port Talbot, there was no emergency Saturday sitting, no recall of Parliament, no emergency legislation and no sudden declaration that steel was a vital national—

Royal Mail: Performance

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for introducing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), who has turned private investigator. I was very impressed by his efforts.

There is no doubt that there is a real crisis in the postal service. I have just read “Precipice” by Robert Harris; it tells the story of a love affair between Prime Minister Asquith and a young socialite. It is recorded in the many, many letters delivered between them each day. The book is about the letters between them, half of which survive. The letters to the Prime Minister, I believe, were destroyed, but the letters to the socialite survive and form the basis of the book. Mr Harris invented the other letters—love letters to the Prime Minister: imagine that. Now we have email and texts, and no doubt future writers will look at political emails.

Times have changed, and we must acknowledge that. In Denmark, the letter post has, unbelievably, completely stopped. Here, the universal service remains an obligation, not an option. Our people expect that. I urge the Government to get a grip on this. If the solution is indeed public ownership, let us simply do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing today’s important debate. He spoke about falling confidence in Royal Mail. I think the debate has shown that there is growing anger about failures of service. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Tom Collins), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and others spoke about how, when raising those concerns on behalf of constituents, they heard a completely different version of events in response. That has added to the sense of the frustration, particularly when hon. Members are so connected to their local posties, who understand what is happening on the ground.

I join others in paying tribute to our hard-working posties across the country. The hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and others rightly said that any criticism of Royal Mail service is not a criticism of the posties themselves.

The Government remain absolutely committed to the universal postal service, which is an essential part of our economic infrastructure. It can and should be delivered. Hon. Members have raised concerns about the impact of service failures on the work of democracy. They have talked about bank cards not arriving and the isolation that causes. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about the human impact of missed hospital appointments, and there are also consequences for legal hearings and business deals.

I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) that I am also not getting love letters through the post—

[Peter Prinsley]

Give it time.

[Blair McDougall]

Seriously, though, it is galling that Royal Mail is increasing the price of its services but is not meeting delivery targets. Our constituents rightly expect that, if they are paying more, they should get the service and deliveries on time. It is simply not good enough.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I welcome this Bill, which will address the alarming proliferation of unsafe products in online marketplaces. I would like to talk particularly about the hazards of unsafe toys, which are increasingly being sold online.

As a very recently retired ear, nose and throat surgeon—yesterday actually—I know the very real harm that these dangerous toys cause. I have operated on young children who inhaled small components from unsafe toys, detachable parts or parts that were unsafely secured and were a choking hazard, and ribbon or string that exceeded the legal limits, creating strangulation hazards. These are frightening life-threatening situations that no family should have to put up with.

Those are not isolated incidents. A Which? investigation found that over 90% of toys purchased from some online marketplaces were unfit for sale in the UK. Shockingly, these toys falsely displayed UK and European safety marks, misleading parents into believing that they were buying something safe for their children. The tragedy is that in many of these cases the sellers simply disappear, vanishing from the platform, and the families are left with no way to seek redress from the harm caused.

That is why we must act. I am glad that the Bill will give the Government the opportunity to address this issue. It will give them the power to regulate new and emerging business models and marketplaces, which previous laws did not allow.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Lithium-ion batteries are essential for achieving our net zero goals, but as demand grows for products containing such batteries we need to do more to protect consumers against dangerous lithium-ion batteries. Since 2020, e-bike and e-scooter fires have—

[Helen Maguire]

Does the hon. Member agree that there should be a mechanism to recognise and regulate high-risk products so that we can protect consumers?

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I would point out the particular danger of button batteries—something that is well known to ENT surgeons—which cause perforation of the oesophagus and the trachea by a chemical reaction.

In the last two years, 95% of consumers have purchased from online platforms, with approximately 23 million monthly transactions in UK. We certainly need strong accountability for these marketplaces. Without that, dangerous items will continue to resurface, putting children at risk. I urge the House to ensure that the Bill puts more pressure on the sellers of unsafe toys, forcing them to take responsibility for their actions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

You are an honourable man.

Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for that. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss.

Stowmarket’s high street is called Ipswich Street. It is the central artery of the town, running through Stowmarket from the historic marketplace. Only a few years ago, it was a busy street, bustling with commercial activity. People came to Stowmarket from nearby villages to go shopping. Many of them went on to visit other attractions, such as the amazing Food Museum—which I recently visited—and the John Peel Centre for Creative Arts. However, stores started to close, one after another, and six shopfronts now lie completely empty. It is a familiar scene up and down the country: high streets disfigured, with vacant shops sticking out like missing teeth. That has a terrible effect on local communities. As the stores close, the town centre becomes trapped in a vicious circle: few people want to go shopping, the high street is full of boarded-up shops, footfall declines and more stores close. We have heard about that in this debate. My colleagues will be familiar with the problem of banks vacating the high streets—indeed, we now have more food banks than actual banks in this country. Other shops follow the banks in shutting their doors. The town centre loses the café and the pub that both performed a vital service as focal points for the community.

The Government must find a way to mitigate the effect of these stores closing. Times change, commercial life and society have changed, but let us preserve the high street.