Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

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

14. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure the continued delivery of aid in Gaza and the west bank.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

20. What steps her Department is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend about how incredibly damaging the deregistration of vital international NGOs is. They do incredible humanitarian work, which includes providing, through thousands of staff, lifesaving services worth hundreds of millions of pounds in Gaza. They simply cannot be removed or replaced, and it is extremely destructive to prevent them from operating. That is why I led a joint statement, on behalf of 10 countries, urging the Israeli Government to allow these essential international NGOs to operate in a sustained and predictable way, and we will pursue this as part of phase 2 of the peace process.

[Peter Prinsley]

Last year, my surgical colleague Mr Rahbour, of West Suffolk hospital, spent a month at the Nasser hospital in Gaza. When I met him last week, he gave a graphic description of the situation in and around the hospital. He is one of the brave NHS workers of whom we can all be intensely proud. As we have said, access to humanitarian aid is very difficult, and many internationally recognised agencies have lately been banned—as, indeed, I am myself banned. What further representation can we make to resolve this? Surely it is in the interests of all people in Israel and in Palestine for this fragile peace to be preserved.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to maintain the fragile ceasefire and to make progress towards peace and, ultimately, the two-state solution that is in the interests of the people of Israel and the people of Palestine. I, too, have heard horrendous stories about medical conditions from some of the brave doctors who were operating there, before the ceasefire, in the most difficult and dangerous of conditions. We are very clear that the humanitarian support that still needs to be surged must include medical supplies and healthcare support. Not only is this an issue that we raise continually with the Israeli Government; we are also raising it as part of phase 2 of the peace process.

Iran: Protests

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

US posture and policy towards Iran is, I am afraid, a matter for the US Government.

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

Many in this House are concerned about the malign influence of the ayatollahs in our own country. There has been dreadful slaughter on the streets of Iran, but curiously little protest on the streets of Britain. What a contrast that is to the regular protests—sometimes intimidatory to local Jewish people—about the terrible war in Israel and Palestine. Could the aforementioned malign influence explain this?

[Mr Falconer]

As the Home Secretary has said, we are aware of the very considerable concern that the ongoing protests have caused, particularly in places of real sensitivity such as outside synagogues, and we are taking measures to address it.

Arctic Security

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope that everyone, not just in the United States Administration but throughout the United States, would agree that we should have shared aspirations for our shared security in the Arctic. We should recognise that that includes respect for sovereignty and for collective partnership. Addressing the Arctic security threat, much of which is maritime, depends on countries working together. It depends on an ability to address issues relating to the eastern end of the Arctic, northern Norway, the western end of the Arctic, and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Only through co-operation is it possible to keep the Atlantic safe, and to keep all our countries safe.

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

As possibly the only MP with American grandchildren, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary agrees that whatever disagreements may arise between this Government and the Government of the United States about Greenland, the bonds of friendship and kinship between the peoples of this island and the peoples of the United States are historic, vital and enduring?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the strength of our people-to-people bonds, but also the deep historical bonds and the continuing bonds of co-operation. Even today, the US and the UK have been discussing terrorism threats in northern Syria and the need to tackle Daesh. We have so many shared interests and a shared history, which is why it is so important that we pursue this disagreement in a robust and constructive way.

Venezuela

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

There is a central question here, which can be simply put: if we do not condemn the American actions in Venezuela, what is to stop dictators around the world acting in a similar way against our allies and our interests? Does the Secretary of State agree that rules do matter?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think I have been clear not only that rules matter and that international law matters, but that we need to ensure that we look at the different circumstances of different situations and rightly approach each one in turn. That is why we have today set out our position on Greenland. I caution hon. Members against creating equivalence between different situations in different parts of the world and between very different circumstances in very different countries. We have to be realistic about the differences between them in the approach that we take.

Budget Resolutions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I would normally extend the courtesy of saying that it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), but that speech was all a bit dreich.

I have reflected hard on this Budget, as it is the first since I left my role in the Government as Minister for School Standards. As the first Labour Minister for 14 years, I focused relentlessly on more teachers in classrooms, more support for struggling schools, pay rises that teachers deserve, an inclusive school system, and curriculum reform to transform the life chances of every child. Believe me, I would have given anything to have found a few million, or indeed a few billion, behind the Government sofa, had there been that chance when making some of those decisions, and I suspect the Chancellor has known exactly how that feels over the past few weeks.

To scrutinise public spending and to draw on those experiences of making tough decisions in government about how we spend the public’s money were among the reasons I joined the Public Accounts Committee. I have enjoyed our deep dives, examining how public services are delivered, where schemes fail, making sure that lessons are learned, and ensuring that we spend every pound in the best way possible. Just last week, we looked at clinical negligence—an area with a staggering £60 billion of accumulated liabilities. We have a golden opportunity to cut those costs and deliver better care at the same time, so I encourage the Chancellor to read our report when it lands, because it might come in handy for next year’s Budget.

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

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the cost of clinical negligence claims in maternity services is now greater than the cost of maternity services?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I share those concerns, as I know does the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). We have cross-party interest in making better use of those resources. I thank the Chancellor for her comments about the infected blood contamination scheme, which is proudly delivered from my constituency in Newcastle upon Tyne North. The team there are incredibly proud of the work they are doing, and they will be proud of the announcement that the Chancellor made today.

Working people in Newcastle are feeling worn down by the cost of living. We know that everybody is feeling the squeeze—it is relentless and it is grinding, and I know the Chancellor knows that too, and has sought in the Budget to deliver on that promise of a better life for a hard day’s work. Many measures in the Budget will deliver that, such as the freeze in rail fares, extending the bus fare cap, measures on fuel duty, frozen prescription charges, and the cut in household energy bills.

I also know that the Chancellor cares deeply about children trapped in poverty, too often in families that are working hard and doing their best. I saw those stories at first hand on the Government’s child poverty taskforce. The driving force behind the crisis is the two-child limit. In the north-east alone, tens of thousands of children living in poverty will be lifted out of that by today’s announcement. The limit is both economically foolish and morally wrong, which is why charities and businesses in the north-east have been calling for it to be scrapped. Poverty comes at a price—a price in NHS bills, educational failure, and wasted potential. I strongly welcome the Chancellor’s decision to scrap that limit today.

Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for securing this important debate, which is extremely topical, because this matter is being debated across the United Kingdom at the moment.

There is no doubt that the intentions behind the creation of the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights were noble. In the aftermath of the second world war, Europe lay traumatised by tyranny. It was with the backing of the then Opposition leader—indeed, one of the greatest figures in British and world history—Sir Winston Churchill that the United Kingdom took a leading role in constructing a system intended to ensure that totalitarianism could never happen again.

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not, because time is very limited.

Yet Churchill had the foresight to say, on Europe:

“We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged with and do not forfeit our insular or Commonwealth character…we are a separate—and specially-related ally and friend.”

I agree with Churchill. I believe in a Britain that co-operates, not a Britain that is subordinate to foreign judges and international bodies with no democratic accountability.

Those who claim that by leaving the ECHR we are somehow rolling back on human rights do a disservice to their ancestors, for Britain’s commitment to human liberty did not begin in 1950. It began centuries earlier—800 years before the convention was drafted, there was the principle of habeas corpus. Two decades before common-law courts were housed in the very hall in which we are having this debate today, Magna Carta of 1215 reaffirmed:

“No free man shall be…imprisoned…except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.”

We produced, in succession, the Petition of Right in 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 and the Bill of Rights in 1689, among a long list of other achievements.

We were the first nation in history that not only abolished slavery at home but dedicated the full force of our political, military and economic might to its global abolition. The crowning achievement was the island nation’s establishment of the premise of parliamentary sovereignty under a constitutional monarchy, which has been the envy of nations around the world.

Those achievements were not bestowed upon us by foreign courts or organisations. On the contrary, it was because of these British achievements that the ECHR came into existence, to instil in the nations of Europe that lacked such traditions the same freedoms that Britons had been enjoying for centuries. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) introduced a Bill proposing our withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, which I was proud to sponsor.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked Lord Wolfson to conduct a thorough legal analysis of whether the United Kingdom can properly govern itself while remaining in the ECHR, with five core tests. It clearly indicated that the ability of the Government to control borders, to protect veterans from vexatious pursuit, to ensure that British citizens have priority in public services and to uphold Parliament’s decisions on sentencing and other matters without endless legal obstruction is significantly constrained by our ECHR membership. So a future Conservative Government will withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act, so that the elected Government of the day can implement policies supported by the British people in a democratic election and uphold and strengthen human rights protections through our common law tradition, just as sovereign democracies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand do, based on institutions and principles that originate from this very nation.

This is about democracy. It is this Parliament that should decide, not international bureaucrats or international judges—it is the British people, via a sovereign Parliament. That is the entire history of this country, and to jettison and give away that power is a shameful negation of the democratic birthright of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

The British Council plays a crucial role in supporting UK interests around the world, including helping people to learn English and promote the arts and culture. The Foreign Office is providing £160 million in grant aid to the council this year, which underlines our support. I have already met the vice-chair and the deputy chief executive, and I will meet the chief executive and the chair in due course.

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

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

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is an incredibly thoughtful, long-standing commentator on these issues. Both he and his family have made a great contribution to UK-Israeli relations. It was an act of great foolishness to prevent him from entering Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We called on the Israeli Government at the time, as we did in previous such instances. We cannot prevent the Israeli Government from making decisions that are not in their interests, but that was clearly one of them.

Black History Month

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He describes powerfully the contribution to his community and our country of those from all backgrounds and nations.

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

This week, it was reported that the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who is herself a descendant of Dutch Jews, and whose family lost members during the Holocaust, spoke about the desirability of creating a “culturally coherent” society, and her plan to return many UK residents to their “home”. Such rhetoric fans the flames of racism and division. Does the Minister agree that this is their home?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I think we are all shocked by such sentiments. I am the daughter of two people who came to the UK in the 1960s, and I think that the intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) better reflects the contribution made by immigrants to this country. People must recognise that this is our home, this is our country, and we do belong here.

During the debate, we will hear about the excellent contributions that those from minority ethnic communities have made to civil society, sport, politics, the armed forces, arts, business and much more, because this country’s heritage of black excellence is long and proud. Black History Month is a reminder of the legacy of those whose talent and fortitude took them and this great country forward, often in deeply challenging circumstances. We should remember drivers of change, from Ignatius Sancho, Ottobah Cugoano and Olaudah Equiano in the 18th century, to Claudia Jones, Trevor Carter and Olive Morris in the 20th century; and we celebrate the black change-makers we see today, from Idris Elba and Naomi Campbell on the world’s great stages, to those in Parliament, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who is in her place, and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing her a very happy birthday tomorrow. All are icons, visionaries and change-makers of our time, and we demand that this be a country where everyone is able to get on in life, regardless of their race.

Although fighting injustice has brought progress, the fight has not been without pain and sacrifice. Let me say a few words about where we find ourselves today. We see the growth of right-wing populism in Europe and the United States, and it is for progressives to defend our values of decency, tolerance and respect. We recognise the way people feel today, and the impact of the rise in racism, and together we must send a message that we will fight it once again.

People of colour across the country have told me about fearing for themselves, their families and their future. All of us are coming together as a nation in a coalition that unites, rather than divides. Doing so in Parliament today is crucial. A senior businessman contributing millions to our economy recently told me that when he went for a pub lunch in Buckinghamshire, he was told to “go home”. He was home. We thought those days had gone, but we are reminded that the progress we have made in law, culture and values must be defended, and that today we must consciously make the choices that will build the Britain of tomorrow. That makes it even more important that we remember and continue to tell the stories of those who came before us, and learn from the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

Absolutely. I think the hon. Member and I are advocating the same thing. I have to say—quick plug here—that the NHS app is quite good. If anyone does not have it, I would sign up and get it. If people do not get it and give feedback, we cannot make it any better. I am quite impressed by the app. I was shocked to see how many times I have been to the doctors in recent years, but all the information is there.

One way to achieve what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and I want to achieve is by collecting better data on what is going on. We need mandatory data collection. We need to look at deaths, near misses and complications. We need to report disparities and take action when they are revealed. We also need people to be accountable for taking action. We could look at a whole range of areas to see the disparities and differences that exist in treatment and outcomes between black and white people. We could look at cancer diagnosis timing and survival and mental health, sectioning and treatment, which is a huge issue. We could look at pain management, analgesic prescribing, referral rates to specialists, treatment escalation decisions, patient satisfaction and how we measure that, and complaint patterns. We need data on all these areas so that we can address the issues and take action.

Then we need to look at the workforce. The Government are coming out with a workforce plan later this year, which is hugely needed. There is a shortage in the work- force in some parts of the NHS, in particular maternity services, but the workforce issue is not just about numbers. It is about having staff who understand and respect patients, and this comes back to the cultural issues. It is difficult enough for women being patronised as a patient, but it is even more difficult for black women.

[Peter Prinsley]

Sadly, my experience as a consultant in a rural part of England is that, shockingly, some patients are still reluctant to see black doctors and nurses. Although my hon. Friend is talking about the experience of patients, I think we also must consider the attitudes of patients towards our staff and the way in which staff are treated by some patients.

[Ben Coleman]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and I could not agree more. There is some data out there. Hospital trusts collect data each year on how their staff are feeling about a whole range of things. I looked at my local hospital trust’s data and one question it asks is: “Do you feel that you have suffered more discrimination this year from patients and from colleagues and managers?” I have not looked for a couple of years, but sadly the last time I looked it was getting slowly worse.

This is definitely an issue. If people are foolish enough to think that somebody’s skin colour is going to affect their ability to do their job properly, it makes it more difficult for staff to provide care to the whole population. Black NHS staff need to have safe working environments. They encounter racism, and they should not. It is interesting that you talk about doctors—

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

Before I speak to amendment 10, which stands in my name on the amendment paper, I have a quick reminder: the International Court of Justice made an “advisory” judgment—it has no force in law. Quite why the previous Government sought to enter 11 rounds of negotiation off the back of it is beyond me, but it is even more extraordinary for a Government that is full to the rafters with human rights lawyers. They believe in human rights so much that somehow they are seeking to follow a court that is part of the United Nations in total contrast, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) pointed out, to one of the most basic principles of the United Nations: namely, national self-determination. We thought it mattered so much 40 years ago that we sent a taskforce 8,000 miles away to defend the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands.

I feel great sympathy for the Chagossians. They got a rotten deal 50 years ago, and in many ways they are perhaps getting an even worse deal now. They should be consulted. The fact they are not being consulted is shameful for a Government who go on endlessly about human rights and the international rule of law. That is the human cost of this.

As to the economic cost, well, lots of sums have been bandied about, from £3.4 billion from the Prime Minister to £35 billion, but it all depends on the rate of inflation. If the average rate of inflation over the next 100 years is 3%, it will be over £50 billion, but that may be as nothing to the opportunity loss here. This marine park should have been turned decades ago into the greatest marine tourism site in the world.

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

The hon. Member will be aware that his friend President Trump is in favour of this deal, so would he tell us whether he disagrees with him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Since this House first learned of the disastrous terms of the Chagos surrender deal, there has been significant focus on the spiralling cost and on the defence and security implications—we have heard many such arguments today. The Government’s weakness has compromised our national security. They are surrendering British territory to an ally of China and paying £35 billion—or perhaps as much as £50 billion—for the privilege. Their failure to defend the British national interest is shameful.

Equally shameful is the Government’s failure to consider the impact that the deal will have on environmental protections for marine areas. Members from across the House have reflected on that today, but it is a shame that so few Labour Members came to stand up for our environmental protections in the Indian Ocean Territories. I will address the importance of new clauses 3 and 4, two sensible amendments tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary to strengthen oversight of the marine protected area.

The region of the Indian ocean that hosts the unique and remarkable Chagos Islands is of critical importance to wildlife. The archipelago is a biodiversity hotspot. The 640,000 sq km marine protected area, which has been monitored by the UK for the past 15 years, has kept the surrounding waters in near-pristine condition. The coral reefs in the untouched marine protected area are some of the healthiest in the world. They are a sanctuary for marine life, including endangered species such as hawksbill turtles, green turtles and reef sharks, and they are located along hugely significant migratory routes for species of tuna, whales and seabirds. The remarkable resilience of the reefs to coral bleaching events also makes them highly significant for scientific research to better understand resilience to changing climates.

[Peter Prinsley]

Like me, the hon. Member is a new Member, so I am puzzled: why does he consider that his party started these negotiations, if the whole thing is such a terrible idea?

[Blake Stephenson]

There is a difference between talking with other countries and doing a deal. I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench who formed part of the previous Government were not going to do this deal. They may have been talking, but as we have heard, there was going to be no agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and reflecting that I was not part of the previous Government, but he knows full well that this agreement would not have been made under these terms if the Conservatives were in government now.

The marine protected area is one of the largest untouched marine ecosystems, and it is globally significant. As such, instead of heedlessly driving this hopeless surrender deal through Parliament, the Government should have been ensuring that protections for wildlife and the marine environment were watertight. When answering questions before the Foreign Affairs Committee in June, the Minister would not give any clear assurances or guarantees on the future of the marine protected area. Within his obfuscation about separate agreements with Mauritius, which hope we can “share objectives and values”, he admitted that we can only

“take it on trust that there will be a Marine Protected Area”

after sovereignty has been surrendered.

We absolutely do not need to take that on trust. The Government have failed to secure any meaningful safeguards or guarantees, and are instead hoping—merely hoping—that a memorandum of understanding will somehow protect that pristine ecosystem. How on earth can we have any confidence in that at all?

A simple change of Government in Mauritius, or even just a change of heart, would render the UK powerless to stop Chinese trawlers turning up and devastating the marine environment. Given the evidence of China plundering the high seas, for example in the south Atlantic, just outside the Falkland Islands zone of economic interest, it absolutely will do the same in that territory.

BBC Monitoring Service

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Would the right hon. Member agree that in a world where autocracies are in the ascendency and false news spreads like the speed of light, Government funding for services that bring truth to the world has never been more important?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I could not agree more. May I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman again for the excellent debate on the BBC World Service, which he led on 26 June, if I remember correctly, and which gave me the idea to bring forward the subject of BBC Monitoring separately?

Over very many years, BBC Monitoring had built up the closest conceivable relationship with its United States counterpart, known as Open Source Enterprise, or OSE. Indeed, the two organisations were based on alternate floors of the Caversham Park headquarters, dividing between them the coverage of global broadcasting to the enormous benefit of both countries in the transatlantic alliance. This was the nerve centre of world-beating open source intelligence, yet the BBC decided to evict OSE and sell the Caversham estate.