Community Audiology

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this interesting debate, and I declare a series of interests. I am an ear, nose and throat surgeon, so I have been interested in audiology for 40 years. In this place, I chair the deafness all-party parliamentary group. Until I came here, I was the chair of the Norfolk Deaf Association, which is also called Hear for Norfolk, and I will say a bit about that as we go on. I have worked overseas dealing with patients with hearing loss, and I have been a specialist ear surgeon for 30 years or so. Audiology has really been much of my life.

As many Members have already said, deafness is a hugely common problem and is often much neglected. The statistics that have been cited regarding the percentage of elderly people who begin to develop hearing loss are quite familiar to me. What happens is that couples age together, but they might not always appreciate that fact. There is the story of the man who decides to test his wife’s hearing. He comes up behind her and says, “Mavis?” There is no response, so he says, “Mavis”, then “Mavis!”. She turns around and says, “For the third time, what is it that you want?” It is very familiar to me that many elderly people have hearing loss.

As I think has already been said today, about 2 million people in the country use hearing aids. There are probably about 6 million people in the country who would benefit from a hearing aid and probably about another 2 million hearing aids that are in drawers; they have been distributed to people, but are simply not used. Some people have a lot of hearing aids. They come in and say, “I’ve got all these hearing aids. None of them are any use, doctor.”

The story of NHS hearing aids is that we started with great big cream-coloured plastic boxes with little plaited wires that led to earphones; some of us will remember children at school who had those. Then, of course, the so-called BE hearing aids came later. When I was a young ENT surgeon, I never knew what “BE” stood for. A few years later, somebody told me that it just stood for “behind the ear”. Those were analogue hearing aids and they were quite good. They were extremely inexpensive and were distributed in their millions in NHS hospitals, which is how we ran hearing aid services.

Then, about 25 years ago, digital hearing aids were invented. They were not immediately available in NHS hospital clinics, because they were a little more expensive, so they started to be distributed by private hearing aid providers that sprung up all over the place. Members will know that in many high streets there is an audiology service and in the window there will be one hearing aid in a little box on a felt cushion. Curiously, hardly anybody ever goes in and out of those services. The reason is that those companies do not need to sell many hearing aids to stay in business because of the difference in cost. The digital hearing aids provided by those private providers often cost in the thousands, so they need to sell a hearing aid only once or twice a week to stay in business. At first, those hearing aids were a bit better than the ones we could provide in the hospitals.

Some time later, we began to distribute digital hearing aids through the NHS, which was brilliant. People would come to me and ask, “Do you think I should get a private hearing aid?”, and I would say something like, “Well, you can get a private hearing aid, but it is a bit like a hi-fi.” Someone can go to Argos and get a hi-fi or they can go to Bang & Olufsen and get a hi-fi. There is a big difference in price and they do actually sound quite different. I would say to people, “The hearing aids that we can give you are like John Lewis hearing aids; they are pretty good, and they are good enough for most people. I don’t think you should go and spend £4,000 on two private hearing aids. You should have the hearing aids that I can give you for nothing in my NHS clinic, because most people will be very happy with that.”

That was the model we used until a particular Government came along—I cannot remember which one—and decided that we ought to have something called the “any qualified provider”, or AQP, system. Suddenly, all sorts of people could provide hearing aids willy-nilly. We had a different acronym for it: “any willing provider”. Anyone who wanted to provide hearing aids could do so because, as has been said, there was not a particularly close supervisory mechanism. I have a feeling that anybody could set themselves up as a hearing aid provider, if they wanted to. We had this completely variable system in which some people spent large amounts of money on hearing aids that they kept in a drawer, and some people received hearing aids for nothing from hospital services.

That was how we went on, until somebody mentioned earwax. As some people may remember, general practices used to remove earwax with large stainless steel syringes that had a spout on the end. Those procedures were done by nurses until about 2012 when it stopped being part of the GP contract. There was a problem with the syringe: the little stainless steel nozzle on its end could become a bit worn, so it would not be completely connected. As a result, when somebody pushed the syringe, the stainless steel nozzle could fly off into the ear. I have repaired numerous eardrums over the years that had been smashed by syringing, so that system was not completely without its problems. Of course, we had aural care nurses in hospitals looking after patients and coming to take out their earwax, or if a patient had undergone an ear operation, the nurse would have to clean out their mastoid cavities.

We then, however, began to see all sorts of community providers of earwax services, sometimes set up by people who had been nurses in ear clinics, and sometimes set up by somebody from another occupation—they could have been a Member of Parliament who decided that they were now going to do earwax removal. There was a fee to be gathered from this, and some people did fairly well from removing earwax, but the provision was of very variable quality.

I would like to talk about Hear for Norfolk, or the Norfolk Deaf Association, which I chaired for quite a few years before I came here. It is a community-based audiology service that employs qualified nurses who have previously worked in NHS hospitals, and they perform what we call aural care, which includes removing earwax. People can just turn up to have that done; if they are referred by their GP, it is free on the NHS as there is a contract, or they can pay £50. We have vans that go around the district into nursing homes and small villages to do that work.

We now have a contract for hearing aid provision from the NHS, meaning that our not-for-profit charity provides thousands of hearing aids and treats thousands of patients in a community-based setting. I think that such a model could be developed and rolled out around the country so we have community-based, county-wide, not-for-profit aural care services that provide hearing aids.

I am not confident about simply distributing the contracts for hearing aid provision to a whole lot of private providers—Specsavers is one but there are many others—because the quality of their services is variable, and there will always be an incentive to provide private hearing aids. If someone walks into a service, they will be told, “Well, you can have this NHS hearing aid, but you know what? You could have this private one.”

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman is giving an absolutely brilliant speech. It is such a pleasure to hear a Member of Parliament speaking from direct, personal experience. I want to emphasise one important point that might come out of this debate: a lot of people are paying a lot of money for private hearing aids, but I know from personal experience that, nowadays, NHS hearing aids are perfectly satisfactory.

[Peter Prinsley]

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.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. This is an important debate, secured by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), but it is quite something to have to follow an eminent and experienced ENT surgeon, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), when speaking about hearing and hearing loss—especially as I am just a rudimentary vet.

It is quite common that people bring in a dog that they assume has hearing loss because it can no longer hear its name being called in the park, yet for some reason it can still hear a treat packet or a fridge being opened in another room. On comparative anatomy, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket may be interested to hear that one reason why up to 20% of a caseload in a day of treating small animals can be on ear-related issues is that in humans the ear canal goes straight to the eardrum whereas in dogs it bends around 90° before it gets to the eardrum. Around that corner it is often quite warm and moist, and a lot of bacteria and yeast grow in those conditions.

[Peter Prinsley]

I am very interested in the story of dogs and the shape of a dog’s ear canal; that is such a helpful explanation. I was often brought dogs, particularly spaniels with big floppy ears, who had ear infections and blockages, and I was always puzzled why it was that the dogs got into such difficulties. The hon. Gentleman’s explanation of the right angle at the bottom of the ear canal is so helpful and I thank him for it.

[Dr Chambers]

I am honoured to have educated an ENT surgeon. Spaniels do have worse ear problems, given that there is a lack of airflow, and one thing that vets can get experienced at is taking a swab so that we are not using unnecessary antibiotics or inappropriate antibiotics. With a bit of experience, it is fairly easy to smell the difference between Malassezia yeast, pseudomonas bacterial infection or streptococcus intermedius—to anyone who thinks being a vet is glamorous, I say, “Spend a day sniffing ears to determine what type of microbes are down there, and it will change your mind.”

It is very interesting that many Members spoke today about the impact of hearing loss on dementia. We know that dementia is multifactorial—there is no single cause—but certainly my father had hearing loss for a long time, and he developed dementia. Hearing loss certainly affected his quality of life, dementia aside. He lost the confidence to go out to socialise and barely left the farm unless he had to. We are pretty sure that a significant factor in that was that he felt he could not hear what other people were saying. He could not perform business at the market as he used to, because markets are very noisy places.

The Father of the House touched on the fact that one in three adults have either deafness, tinnitus or some other type of hearing issue. What surprised me was that only 38% of people who suspect that they have hearing loss themselves have contacted a professional about it. I read that stat and was quite surprised, but I then realised that for years my partner Emma and other family members have often said, “Why do you have the TV so loud?”. I have also often noticed in a pub everyone else is talking, and I find it really hard to hear the conversation over any external noise, yet I have never gone along and had a hearing test. Quite clearly, I do not hear as well as everyone else in my vicinity, so I should probably get one. That could be a new year’s resolution for me—to go and work out whether I actually have some kind of hearing issues as well.

I also note the weight given to the importance of community audiology, especially when such a high percentage of hearing loss is age-related. Those people have no need to go to a hospital to get the initial assessment, and community audiology could free up hospital time for children and other people with more acute hearing issues that need to be investigated. Audiology is one of the worst performing diagnostic services in the NHS for speed of assessment, with 40% of patients waiting more than six weeks simply for the initial assessment. That is one reason respondents to the British and Irish Hearing Instrument Manufacturers Association are advocating for open self-referral and expanded community clinics simply to minimise those delays. Delivering audiology services in the community costs 15 to 20% less than from a hospital, so it is an economically sensible model as well.

We often call for more community-based services for a whole variety of medical issues to keep costs down. It should be the default for most people with age-related hearing loss. We also urge the Government to consider trialling hearing tests as part of routine health checks for people over 70 and at-risk groups and to investigate how best to support everyone, from GP surgeries to high street pharmacists and opticians, to deliver free earwax removal. They are already being successfully run by some GP practices with positive impacts on health outcomes, and the cost can be small, especially where GPs co-ordinate to pay for a service that covers a large area.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I will say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything we can to mitigate against harm during the proposed strike dates, but I cannot in all honesty and integrity assure him that no patient will come to harm next week should the strikes go ahead, because the situation is so dire. I really urge the BMA to reflect on that overnight and into tomorrow and to ask themselves—perhaps their members will also ask this of their reps—whether it is really necessary to strike next week, given the offer of an extension to mandate.

To the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, when I was the president of the National Union of Students, I was once asked by a Labour member of a Select Committee that I was appearing before whether I was speaking for my members or for my activists. There is sometimes a difference between the two. I know that lots of people have campaigned hard for pay restoration and that many people are involved in the Doctors Vote campaign in pursuit of that aim. I think there are many doctors, however, who recognise that there has been real progress on pay and that what we are putting forward now is meaningful progress on jobs, too. I say to all members of the BMA: do not let the perfect be the enemy of good, especially when the stakes are so high.

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

I congratulate our own frontline team, because this is a great deal. I came to Parliament partly to speak up for our NHS, and I have spoken in many debates. I have also trained many surgeons over the years, and I know that my fellow surgeons will be up for this deal. College presidents will support it, and I urge all resident doctors to support it, too. I will just issue a word of caution from my son, a resident doctor, who is up there in the Gallery: if we increase the number of trainees, we will also need to increase the number of consultants and GPs. If we do not do that, we will simply push the bottleneck down the road.

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to address bottlenecks and to do adequate workforce planning. He draws attention to his son, in the Gallery, who is a resident doctor and no doubt a voter—it is almost tempting to break the rules and start appealing to voters in the Gallery for a yes vote in the survey.

I would say one thing to any resident doctors who are watching, and not just the immediate members of my hon. Friend’s family. I do listen carefully to what resident doctors say and how they feel, so I know there will be some who are listening to my hon. Friend and thinking, “It’s all right for you and your generation—you’ve had it easy. We are fed up with these consultants and college presidents telling us what to think and feel.” I hope that they know the extent to which my hon. Friend has fought their corner and spoken up for their concerns—not just on the Floor of the House, but in meetings with Ministers. He keeps us anchored in the sentiment and experiences of all parts of the profession, especially resident doctors. I know that my hon. Friend feels a real commitment to ensuring that resident doctors have a bright future and a bright career. I hope they will heed his advice, just as I do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and offer my best wishes to his constituent Ruth in her treatment. I thank him for bringing her story to my attention. I really do appreciate—perhaps more than most—the urgency of the matter. Although I am unable to comment on individual cases, I understand that one of my ministerial colleagues will be writing to the right hon. Gentleman directly on this matter in the very near future.

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

This week we learned about the incredible results of the Galleri trials, which allow the early identification of many tumours by looking at DNA circulating in the blood. Indeed, I was a volunteer in this trial. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising the central importance of medical research?

[Ashley Dalton]

Absolutely. The new progress, particularly around circulating tumour DNA, is really interesting, and we are moving forward with more investment in research so that we can bring forward more such treatment.

Eating Disorders: Prevention of Deaths

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point—it does. The loss of a loved one is harrowing enough without the true cause not being recorded. That is why we are calling for a confidential inquiry into eating disorder deaths.

Given the concerns about under-reporting and inconsistencies in the data, it is even more alarming to read the findings from the Health Service Journal that revealed that between 2018 and 2023, 19 deaths related to eating disorders could have been entirely avoided. These tragic outcomes are attributed to severe failures in care, including missed or poorly managed safety risks, a lack of specialist knowledge among healthcare professionals and unacceptable delays in accessing appropriate treatment. If I were to ask for a show of hands in this room, I am sure many would be raised on that point.

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

As the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I take a great interest in the progress of the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust under the leadership of Caroline Donovan and Zoë Billingham, who I met recently in Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that early intervention is no more expensive and in many cases cheaper than delayed intervention, but is much more effective and saves lives?

[Mr Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his extremely pertinent point. Early intervention saves not only lives but a huge amount in costs to the NHS.

I know the vast majority of NHS staff go above and beyond to support patients, often under immense pressure, and many of us here would like to put on record our thanks to them. However, these failures point to a systemic issue.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we are reforming the Carr-Hill formula and ensuring that funding is based on need. I am delighted to be working closely with the British Medical Association’s general practitioners committee on the reforms that we are making in this and other areas of general practice.

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

I welcome this brilliant plan. I particularly love the double helix that is featured on the front cover, because genetic discoveries have the greatest promise of all. If we all knew a little bit more about our health, we might all look after it a little bit better. Does the Secretary of State agree that the single patient record, with easy patient access, will be transformative?

[Wes Streeting]

Given my hon. Friend’s expertise, I am delighted that he has welcomed the plan so enthusiastically. I wholeheartedly agree with what he said. I give him 10 out of 10 for his product placement of the 10-year plan and, in particular, his remarks on the design of the front cover, which I will pass on to the team.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of those comments and will try to limit my remarks to new clause 13 and some of the amendments to it.

The Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the British Geriatrics Society have all said that there are problems with this Bill, and I have heard nothing from its sponsor, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater)—despite trying to intervene on her a number of times—about what she has done to ensure that their concerns have been addressed. This brings us directly to a fundamental concern: namely, the means by which assisted death would be carried out under new clause 13. The impact assessment for the Bill recognises that

“The safety and efficacy of those substances used for assisted dying is currently difficult to assess”.

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

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.

[Gregory Stafford]

I obviously respect the hon. Gentleman, given his medical background, but as far as I am aware those substances have not yet been used for murdering people, which is what we are going to do here. That leads me neatly on—

Spending Review: Health and Social Care

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the shocking state that dentistry was left in by the last Government. They could have reformed that contract at any time over the past 14 years. We were ready to do that in 2010, but things worked out differently; we left office, and the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives between them did not reform the contract. The Minister for Care is working at pace to ensure that happens, and we will update the House as soon as possible.

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

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?

[Karin Smyth]

I am very happy to thank Dr Cameron and the whole team. As ever, with his vast experience of the health service, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are reliant on clinical and managerial staff to make the system better. I know, and he knows, how low morale has been; Lord Darzi made that point very clear, and we cannot over-estimate how difficult that is for staff. That is why we have reached two record inflation-beating pay settlements for staff, and importantly, we have supported the independent process, because we want to work with staff to make things better at all levels. My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of how, by working with excellent clinical leadership and excellent managers, we can bring the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS.

Dementia Care

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Access to NHS Dentistry

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The point has been made repeatedly that dentists can earn a lot more money in private practice than in NHS dentistry, and that is unlikely to change no matter what happens in the renegotiation. Does the hon. Member agree with the last Government’s review, which suggested that the roughly £300,000 cost of training a dentist should come with a requirement to work for the NHS for a number of years afterwards?

[Peter Prinsley]

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?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I wish I could correct my hon. Friend and say that I have already read in detail the feedback from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but he is right: I have not yet had a chance to do that. However, I can assure him that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Care will look at the Committee’s report. We would be very happy to meet members of the Committee to discuss in further detail their findings and recommendations.

We want to ensure that the Bill is as strong as it can be, given the length of time that has passed since the Mental Health Act was reformed. Indeed, the Mental Health Act is as old as I am. [Interruption.] Thank you for those interventions. I assure Members heaping compliments across the Chamber that it will not affect investment decisions in their constituencies, but I am none the less very grateful.

There is a serious point here: whereas attitudes to mental health have come on in leaps and bounds in the past four decades, the law has been frozen in time. As a result, the current legislation fails to give patients adequate dignity, voice and agency in their care, despite the fact that patients have consistently told us that being treated humanely, and making decisions about their own care, plays a vital role in their recovery.

When patients are detained and treated without any say over what is happening to them, it can have serious consequences for their ongoing health. To quote one of the many patients who bravely shared their experiences with Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review:

“Being sectioned was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life. Sadly, as a result of being sectioned I developed PTSD”—

post-traumatic stress disorder—

“as the direct result of the way I was treated”.

Sir Simon’s review was published seven years ago. It shone a light on a group of people who had been hidden, ignored and forgotten. In the time that has passed since, the case for change has only snowballed. The Bill now takes forward Sir Simon’s recommendations.

The review stressed that legislation alone would not fix the system; culture and resources matter too. This was echoed in Lord Darzi’s investigation into the NHS, which uncovered some hard truths: a dramatic rise in the use of restrictive interventions on children; and 345,000 patients waiting more than a year for their first appointment with mental health services—more than the entire population of Leicester—of whom 109,000 were under the age of 18. This Bill does not solve every problem in our mental health services, but it marks a vital step in our plans to improve the quality of care, combat long-standing inequalities, and bring about a stronger focus on prevention and early intervention in mental health.

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

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?

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. As he has heard many times from this Dispatch Box, we want to see a shift in the centre of gravity in the NHS out of hospitals and into the community as one of the three key shifts that will underpin our 10-year plan for health, which we will be publishing in the not-too-distant future.

The Mental Health Act is designed to keep patients and the public safe, but it is clear to anyone who has seen how patients are treated that it does so in an outdated and blunt way that is unfit for the modern age. It is too easy for someone under the Act to lose all sense of agency, rights and respect. It is sometimes necessary to detain and treat patients, but there is no reason why patients experiencing serious mental illness should be denied the choice and agency they would rightly expect in physical care. Not only should the health service treat all its patients with dignity and respect anyway, but giving people a say over their own care means that their treatment is more likely to be successful. In the foreword to his independent review, Sir Simon Wessely said:

“I often heard from those who told me, looking back, that they realise that compulsory treatment was necessary, even life-saving, but then went on to say ‘why did it need to be given in the way it was?’”

Another patient in the 2018 review said:

“I felt a lot of things were done to me rather than with me”.

We need to get this right. We need to give these patients a voice.