Endometriosis Services

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for securing this important debate. I welcome to the House all the women in the Public Gallery.

I have also heard from many women in my constituency who have lived with the devastating impact of endometriosis. It is shocking that so many have had to endure years of pain, uncertainty, dismissal and a lack of access to timely diagnosis and specialist endometriosis services. According to the charity Endometriosis UK, it takes on average nine years and four months to receive a diagnosis of endometriosis in the UK—nearly a decade of a woman’s life blighted by debilitating pain, missed employment and educational opportunities, declining mental health, difficulties with fertility, and being told far too often that what they are experiencing is normal.

We know that one in 10 women are affected, yet awareness remains far too low among the public and healthcare professionals. The economic cost alone is estimated at £11 billion a year. Behind the statistics, however, are real people, real families and real suffering. My constituent Lucy, who is a teacher, told me that she has been suffering tremendously every month, unable to work on the first day of her cycle due to the pain and side effects. Every single month she has been left unable to stand, doubled over in pain, and with dizziness and vomiting. After nine years of debilitating pain, fertility issues, being refused treatment and being told that some people just suffer, she has finally had a laparoscopy, which revealed that she has endometriosis. She is hoping that she can now grow her family, but it should never have taken so long for a diagnosis.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I can reiterate that point; my partner Emma has severe endometriosis. She is regularly crippled—barely able to get off the sofa and in absolute agony. She has been told for years that this is normal and that there is nothing wrong. She had to fight repeatedly to get the diagnostic surgery that she needed, which confirmed that she has endometriosis. It is a very common story, and it is completely outrageous that people are told that crippling pain, meaning that they cannot get off the sofa, is just a normal cycle.

[Liz Jarvis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important point. Women should not have to fight to get the treatment they need. I have also heard from Kelly, who told me:

“Every month I am in debilitating pain and it is soul destroying. I cannot take days off work every month and there is nothing I can do but suffer. It affects my work, relationships and is ruining my life.”

Then there is Lucy, who has worked in the NHS for 20 years and is now a clinical nurse specialist for endometriosis. She told me:

“I grew up during a time when endometriosis was never mentioned. I was told that periods are painful, so the monthly debilitating pain and heavy periods I experienced were normalised.”

She was finally diagnosed with endometriosis in her mid-30s.

Women should not have to put up with the pain of this debilitating disease, and I urge the Government to take urgent action to tackle the postcode lottery for endometriosis care, address gynaecological waiting lists, improve training and awareness among healthcare professionals, and ensure full implementation of NICE guidelines, with clear referral pathways, so that no woman has to suffer for years without answers or support.

I am sure the Minister agrees that addressing delays in diagnosis, gaps in care and inequalities in access are of the utmost importance. More broadly, this debate highlights a wider crisis in women’s healthcare—from the scandal of unsafe maternity units to the nearly 750,000 women currently on gynaecology waiting lists, over 30% of whom have waited for more than a year from referral to treatment. It must be addressed, because women are being failed and society suffers as a result.

I hope the Minister also agrees that access to mental healthcare should be expanded for women with endometriosis. Dismissed symptoms and diagnosis delays left 98% of respondents to an Endometriosis UK survey reporting an impact on their mental health, and 63% of respondents describing that impact as significant. I hope that the Minister will consider expanding mental healthcare provision to give the countless women dealing with the psychological toll of endometriosis the support that they need. We need a system that is fit for purpose, which validates women, takes their symptoms seriously and provides timely, compassionate and effective care. I do not think that that is too much to ask.

Alongside investment in the workforce, improved access to GPs, continuity of care and a step change in research to address painful conditions that women have suffered from for far too long without remedy, are all absolutely essential.

Ultimately, this debate is about delivering better outcomes and proper support for those affected by endometriosis. I hope that the Government will tackle this issue, showing clear leadership and transparency, to ensure that every woman with endometriosis has access to the right care at the right time.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I also welcome the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) to her position as Minister for Public Health. I had the privilege to serve on the Bill Committee, as other hon. Members did—indeed, I see some familiar faces in the Chamber. One of the things that struck me most was when the chief medical officer gave his evidence: he said that the Bill was not only the most significant piece of public health legislation in 30 years, but probably the single of piece of legislation that will most help to address inequality. Inequality is multifactorial, but one of the main factors in the difference in life expectancy between certain wealthier areas and certain more deprived areas is the rate of smoking. This Bill will have a huge impact, especially on the communities for which we are really trying to improve life expectancy.

I am very pleased that the Government accepted so many amendments in the Lords. Some of the amendments that the Liberal Democrats are really keen on are regarding fixed penalty notices and require all the money from those fines to go to local public health initiatives, as directed by local authorities. We know that public health is so important, yet funding for such organisations is usually extremely limited, given the pressures on local authorities. Without the Lords amendments on fixed penalty notices, the money would go straight back to the Exchequer. We fundamentally believe that if we are serious about making a meaningful difference to people’s lives, that money must be used in local smoking-cessation initiatives.

As the mental health spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I am acutely aware of the benefits of the Lords amendments that support those with long-term mental health conditions, who have higher rates of smoking than the general public. We know that going cold turkey is simply unrealistic and can even be dangerous. The exemption on vape vending machines in secure mental health hospitals ensures that people are supported professionally in quitting in a sustainable and maintained way that will not further damage their mental health.

I welcome the Lords amendments on regulating filters, which have cross-party support. Not only are filters an environmental issue, but they provide a false perception of safety to smokers. Ensuring that there is awareness of the lack of protection that these filters provide and of smoking as a whole is imperative if we are to ensure that people can make informed decisions about their health and wellbeing.

I am very pleased to support this Bill as it goes through Parliament; it is momentous and significant. We really appreciate the Government’s accepting the Liberal Democrat Lords amendments, which will slightly improve how the Bill will be delivered. We are very pleased that this will be a strong and impactful Bill. We hope that it will deliver meaningful change on public health for generations to come and that we will have a smokefree generation growing up.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to her new position and thank her predecessors for all the excellent work that they did in getting this legislation through Committee and in their representations in the House of Lords.

As has rightly been said by Members across this Chamber, this is a seminal piece of legislation that puts Britain at the forefront of smoking cessation. It is a Bill that will be modelled in other nations around the world and that reflects the changing nature of tobacco use in the United Kingdom. I remember that when I was growing up in the 2000s—not that many years ago some might say—smoking was a real problem in schools. Among under-18s in particular, 50% of cohorts were smoking. I am a former schoolteacher, and if we fast-forward to today, that figure has dramatically reduced. However, we see new technologies such as vapes and chewable tobacco taking the place of smoking.

I welcome many of the measures in this Bill and the fact that we are the cheerleaders taking it forward. I also welcome the cross-party consensus in accepting many of the Lords amendments and in accepting proposals from representative groups outside the House. Those proposals include the ban and restrictions on filters, which are evolving as I speak; in many cases around the world, filters are quickly changing, so they still remain a problem.

I accept some of the changes regarding vending machines. One of the big things discussed in Committee was vending machines in mental health and other health institutions as smoking-cessation tools. It is welcome that, as a result of the debate in Committee, we have accepted that vaping remains a smoking-cessation tool. Broadly speaking, until evidence is presented that shows otherwise, vapes are a far healthier product than cigarettes, so they continue to have a place in smoking cessation.

I thank the Government for accepting Lords amendments on the issuing of fines of up to £2,500 by local authorities and the ringfencing of that money for those councils. We know that councils do outstanding work in challenging illegal tobacco. My council in Medway in Kent has one of the most successful track records in identifying illegal tobacco and challenging those who market the product, but we know that that is just the tip of the iceberg. These products contain significant quantities of dangerous chemicals and other types of product that can be severely damaging to people’s health.

I also want to mention restrictions on advertising. We know that there is gamification around tobacco products. We know that tobacco companies have sought to advertise specifically to young people so that they become addicted at ever younger ages. That is not a new technique; it has been happening for generations. I am glad that the Government have accepted Lords amendments on advertising to ensure that we restrict it on television and in other marketing efforts.

This Bill and all the amendments tabled by Members across this Chamber and in the other place, reflecting the views of different organisations in civil society, are broadly speaking extremely sensible, and I am glad that the House is not dividing on the Lords amendments tonight.

Lastly, I pay tribute to all the people working in our health services, who have been the most clear advocates for this Bill. They are the people who have been at the coalface every single day dealing with the consequences of tobacco, be they lung conditions, heart disease or concurrent conditions. It is because of their work over many years that we are here today with this Bill and these Lords amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

I absolutely recognise that. We should make sure that these products are available to adult smokers—children should never start. However, I am afraid that the heavy-handed nature of this Bill risks sending the broad message to the general public that vapes are bad, which is not a message that we want to send to existing adult smokers. That point was ably made earlier by some of the hon. Gentleman’s friends on the Labour Benches. I believe that we would be doing a disservice to, and setting back, the public health aims of the Bill by advancing it as it stands.

Lords amendment 72 rightly protects the advertisement of vapes and nicotine products as part of a public health campaign, but this demonstrates the great irony of the Bill. The Government know that vapes and nicotine products are an effective quit aid and actively promote them for that purpose, but at the same time they are bringing in measures that will reduce their availability and attractiveness to adult smokers.

If Ministers will not listen to Members of this House and peers in the other place, I had hoped that they might at least listen to the hundreds of high street businesses that took the time to write to them. I share those businesses’ concerns about the extra pressures the Bill will place on corner shops, convenience stores and hospitality businesses, and how it will change the face of our high streets. That is where the real impact of the Bill will be felt. Those businesses are already under immense pressure from high energy costs, increasing national insurance contributions, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and changes to business rates—I will admit that the Government are nothing if not consistent. Corner shops and convenience stores now face losing custom due to the generational ban, alongside further compliance burdens through advertising restrictions and licensing schemes. The ban alone is expected to cause 7,680 store closures, to cost 70,000 jobs and to cost retailers £6.52 billion. Those are not my numbers; they are from the Government’s own impact assessment.

[Dr Chambers]

The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate points about the pressures facing small businesses at the moment, but does he not agree that there must be better ways of supporting small businesses than facilitating children to get cancer?

[Jack Rankin]

I am not suggesting that at all, sir. I am suggesting that the generational smoking ban that applies to smoking adults—I have never met a smoking adult who did not know that smoking was bad for them—is an illiberal policy that will create two tiers of adults. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people making decisions that we individually might think are bad for them. The evidence suggests the same, but people should be perfectly able to make those decisions should they choose to do so.

As legitimate businesses struggle, less scrupulous operators will inevitably fill the gap. The rapid growth of seemingly dodgy vape shops is a real concern for my constituents in Windsor, and it will be a concern for the constituents of Members right across the House. On the high street in Windsor, there are eight such shops. This is not a response to the demand for vapes, so we should ask whether fraud, money laundering or organised crime are taking place. We already have much evidence to say that they are. During a mystery shopper exercise in Windsor and Sunninghill, I witnessed the sale of illicit tobacco in three shops—it was alarmingly easy to obtain. The price difference explains why: a pack of illicit cigarettes can cost as little as £3.50, compared with £16.75 at retail. If such activity is taking place openly today, that raises the question of what else might be happening behind the scenes, and where this activity will go under the Bill.

The Bill risks turbocharging an already thriving black market. Tobacco receipts are down by £414 million, or 10%, in the last six months alone, and have fallen nearly 30% over the past decade, far outpacing the decline in smoking rates. More than one in four cigarettes consumed in Britain are now illicit, amounting to about 2 billion cigarettes each year, and the international evidence, including from Australia, should serve as a warning. Members who are sceptical should spend time with their local trading standards office to see the reality for themselves. That is why hundreds of retailers backed an amendment, tabled by Lord Murray of Blidworth, that would have replaced the generational ban with a minimum age of sale of 21. That would have been more enforceable and less costly. Naturally, that amendment was rejected.

Hospitality businesses have voiced real concerns about provisions in the Bill. That sector is so important to the economy in Windsor, and it is already struggling: since the 2024 Budget, job losses in the sector have made up around 50% of job losses overall. UKHospitality has said that many businesses have no capacity to absorb additional costs. Labour has hiked alcohol duty, is banning smoking and is considering health warnings on alcohol. Labour hates fun—it is no wonder that landlords are barring MPs from their pubs.

Amendments tabled in the other place by Lord Sharpe of Epsom would have protected our beer gardens from being designated as smokefree and allowed the advertising of products that do not contain tobacco in age-gated venues, in a similar way to the amendments that I tabled in the Commons. Those amendments would have gone some way towards reassuring pubs and venues that the Government are not completely set on destroying them. Again, those amendments were rejected—or am I to understand that the Government have U-turned on that?

Before I conclude, I will briefly raise one further concern regarding the powers granted to Ministers to prohibit cigarette filters in future. The justification for this measure remains unclear, and it is yet another example of the broad and—I would argue—excessive powers that this Bill contains, including the host of Henry VIII powers it grants. Through this Bill, the Government have teed themselves up to bring in further puritan measures in the coming years without needing to consult this House. Any such steps will simply exacerbate the growth of the black market and the decline in duties collected.

Smoking rates are falling naturally, but this Bill may well reverse that trend, as it limits access to quit aids. It will likely mean less revenue for the Treasury as the black market grows, and it will cost our high street businesses billions. The amendment process has done little to address, or even acknowledge, those concerns. However, I will end on a more positive note by saying that I welcome Lords amendment 80, which requires a review of the Bill within four to seven years of its implementation. I believe that review will vindicate me in many of the concerns I have raised today and provide a future Government with the opportunity to address or, indeed, repeal those aspects of the Bill that prove most unworkable—not that I believe this Bill will get that far. It will not survive a change in Government, which will happen at the next opportunity afforded to the Great British people.

Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 General Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I am very glad to be here to speak about medical devices and life sciences, because not only are they about solving many of the problems we are facing as a country, such as antimicrobial resistance in treating diseases, but they are a fantastic way of growing our economy. We welcome the fact that the Government acknowledged that the initial plans would have disproportionately affected small and medium-sized businesses. Like all SMEs around the country, they are struggling with everything from soaring energy prices to national insurance and Brexit red tape.

It is vital that we reach a balance, and the Minister spoke well on this. It is imperative that funding is sufficient for the MHRA to regulate the market effectively, and we do not want to deter medical technology companies from investing in the UK. That is why we have called continually for a bespoke customs union with the EU to slash red tape and for a major boost to research and development funding, all of which would hugely benefit the life sciences sector.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government are fully confident—with some sort of impact assessment or study to show this—that the adapted fee structure will not be overly punitive to business, and SMEs in particular, and will not end up inadvertently reducing the investment in and growth of medtech in the UK?

Dementia Support: Hampshire

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis]

Of course, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is too much confusion and delay around accessing assessments for dementia patients and their carers, and too much focus placed on ticking boxes rather than determining the most cost-effective options available to families.

Hospital discharge is another major pressure point, as up to one in four beds are currently filled by someone with dementia. I have been contacted by families whose loved ones have spent weeks in hospital only to face discharge into home environments with minimal support. My constituent Nicola told me that the consultant and occupational therapist caring for her father said that he should not be discharged because of his high risk of falls, but that their hands were tied by the county council. She said that the family were told to supervise, rather than to provide care, and to wait for carers to arrive. That meant her father would be left at risk of falls and accidents, or left sitting in soiled clothing, because no one was allowed to intervene. Family carers should not have to go through such endless battles, facing constant uncertainty about support and being stretched to the limit just to get their loved ones the care they deserve.

The ambition in the Government’s 10-year health plan is to move care from hospitals into the community, with greater access to neighbourhood health centres. That ambition is welcome but it will succeed only if dementia specialist support is embedded at its core. Neighbourhood health services must include dementia-inclusive multidisciplinary teams with access to specialist dementia nurses. Changes to the Hampshire carer support and dementia advice service have compounded those challenges. For 12 years, that service was delivered by Andover Mind, which provided advice, guidance and vital emotional support. It was changed with very little notice, as part of Hampshire county council’s ongoing savings programme, which is addressing a projected shortfall of £143 million for the coming year. Chronic underfunding of local government has meant that such non-statutory services are often cut back, despite being lifelines for so many people across the county.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I can empathise with my hon. Friend’s experiences of caring for her mother. My father also died of dementia; we cared for him at home for many years. On a more positive note, I recently visited the St John’s dementia group in Winchester. It is a fantastic group with loads of activities—I joined them in singing “Sweet Caroline”, badly—and it provides vital support for those with dementia and for their carers by giving them some respite. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do all we can, at the local and national levels, to support such community groups, which provide light relief for people in very stressful, chronic situations?

[Liz Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When my mum was first diagnosed with dementia, one of the most important things for her was going to Singing for the Brain sessions, where people are encouraged to remember old songs. That was brilliant for her, but obviously it is not enough. When the condition starts to progress, it becomes harder and harder, yet the care that is needed is often not available, as I am setting out.

Community Audiology

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that we often hear about national screening programmes. It has just occurred to me that if everybody over the age of 70 was sent a text message through the NHS, summoning them into a screening programme, we could make huge advances in this area, particularly with things such as dementia—because, as he made clear, many people are either embarrassed by hearing loss, or not aware that they have it.

[Dr Chambers]

I completely agree. As we approach the busiest and loudest time of the year and every shop and pub has music playing, which is fun for most people, it is a good time to urge people to go for a hearing test in the new year, as I will be doing. We urge the Government to look at supporting community-based services so that everyone can get the hearing assessment they need. People need information to be able to act, and if someone does not know their hearing status, they will not know what other problems they will be dealing with in the future.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. People will be hugely alarmed at the threat of more industrial action right before Christmas, and we cannot forget how we got here. We know that the previous Government under-resourced the NHS. It was overburdened, people felt underappreciated, and the whole system was being held together by the good will of the staff.

Having said that, the timing is terrible, because we have the worst winter flu outbreak in decades, right before Christmas. We have to urge the BMA to work constructively to resolve this dispute in a way that is fair for both patients and taxpayers. Given that resident doctors received a 29% pay rise last year, I think most of the public feel that pushing for another 28.9% this year is unaffordable and unreasonable.

The Secretary of State touched on resident doctors’ legitimate concerns. The previous Government increased medical school places without increasing the facilities to deliver the necessary specialist training placements, so this was a predictable bottleneck that we are now up against. Waiting lists are long, we need more doctors, and we have doctors who have been trained largely at the taxpayer’s expense struggling to find work. We very much welcome the extra 4,000 placements that were announced today, which are hugely necessary. Can we ensure that they will address the acute shortages in general practice and psychiatry? To put those 4,000 places in context, 10,000 doctors applied for 500 psychiatric training places last year, and the Secretary of State said that about 40,000 doctors have applied for 10,000 places this year. Is there work to try to increase places as quickly as possible in the next few months and years?

At Winchester hospital, one in five beds is taken up by people who do not have any social care packages. That is not good for them, because they are stuck in the hospital, and we want to get them home for Christmas, but it will also affect the flow through the hospital right now, during a winter flu crisis.

We welcome this action and urge the BMA to call off the strikes, but can we address the legitimate grievances that the Secretary of State has mentioned?

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his support, as well as for the constructive challenge. He is absolutely right to describe the challenge that we inherited, and we are seeking to deal with it. We have taken a number of steps along the way. For example, we promised to recruit an additional 1,000 GPs to the frontline in our first year. We expanded the additional roles reimbursement scheme in order to do that, and we were actually able to recruit an extra 2,500. The international medical graduate dimension of the deal means that the extra speciality training places go even further.

Although I would never pretend that the steps we have taken in our first 18 months in office have solved everything all at once—there is no shortage of things to solve—I say to those BMA members considering how to cast their vote that we have delivered a 28.9% pay rise, have taken action on international medical graduates through urgent legislation, and have expanded speciality training places. This is real progress. It is meaningful change in people’s pockets and to their lives, working conditions, career progression and prospects. 

The BMA should please not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have a lot of fires to put out on a lot of fronts as a Government, and that does take time. We are committed—and I am personally committed—to working constructively with the BMA on things like workforce planning to address those issues, if it is willing to work with us. That is all I ask. It is all I ask from any part of the NHS workforce. It should work with us constructively, understand our constraints, work through the challenges with us, and we will all get to a better place and create a rising tide in the NHS that lifts all ships.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I thank Members across the House for the constructive way in which they have all contributed towards this long-awaited Bill. In the last 40 years, attitudes to mental health and the treatments available have changed significantly, so these reforms and updates are very much needed and very much supported by everyone here.

On Lords amendment 19B, we welcome the important addition. All children and young people deserve appropriate care and support when undergoing treatment for mental health problems, including the safeguarding of a nominated person. Each and every child going through the system deserves to be properly represented by a responsible adult, so we are grateful for the amendment and we are pleased to lend it our support. While we understand that the remit of this Bill very much focuses on in-patient mental health care, we cannot ignore the wider context in which this Bill needs to operate. Even the best in-patient system will struggle if we fail to invest in the preventive and early intervention services that keep people well in the first place.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned the difference between mental wellbeing and mental health issues, and ensuring that we protect people’s mental wellbeing before they go on to develop mental health issues. If we are serious about preventing people from reaching crisis point, we need to ensure that the many community-based initiatives, which the Minister and others have spoken about, are strengthened. That is why we will continue to champion walk-in mental health hubs, having a mental health professional in every school and a sort of mental health MOT check-up at key points in individuals’ lives.

It has been an honour to contribute to this Bill. I want to thank the Minister for his meaningful engagement with all Members across this House for the best part of a year. My one ask of him tonight is to again consider restoring the suicide prevention grant to voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations, because I keep meeting charities and organisations that have benefited from it. It is really important that we support community organisations that can help identify when someone is reaching crisis point, because so many people who take their own lives are not in contact with NHS services.

Finally, I pay tribute to all the frontline workers in mental health in clinical and community settings. Nurses, counsellors, psychiatrists, doctors, therapists, support staff, carers and charities prop up a system that is complicated, underfunded and challenging to work in, and we want them to know that we appreciate all the efforts that they continually make. The Liberal Democrats will keep pushing until mental health is given the same urgency, care and attention as physical health.

[Stephen Kinnock]

With the leave of the House, I will make some brief concluding remarks. I am very grateful to Members of this House for their contributions both today and throughout the passage of this Bill. I believe that by drawing on the lived experience of both Members and our constituents, we will be able to strengthen the intended impact of this legislation on people with serious mental illness and their loved ones. The passage of this Bill has seen the best of parliamentary commitment and co-operation, and the conduct of Members and peers has been collaborative and well-intentioned throughout.

For too long, mental health reform legislation has sat on the shelf. This Government made a manifesto commitment to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983, and we have delivered that within our first Session, providing an opportunity to transform the way we support those with severe mental illness and providing patients with greater choice and autonomy. I am reminded of what a patient in the 2018 independent review said:

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

This Bill takes forward many of the changes put forward by the independent review, the recommendations of which were rightly shaped by the views of patients, carers and professionals.

Many have asked about next steps and implementation. Post-Royal Assent, our first priority will be to draft and consult on the code of practice. We will engage with people with lived experience and their families and carers, staff and professional groups, commissioners, providers and others to do that. The code will go to public consultation, as well as being laid before Parliament before final publication. Alongside the code, we will develop the necessary secondary legislation. We will then need time to train the existing workforce on the new Act, regulations and the code. We estimate full implementation will take around 10 years due to the time needed to train the workforce and the need to ensure that the right community support is available. This timeframe necessarily spans multiple spending review periods and multiple Parliaments, so we are limited in the detail we can give about future spend and timelines. But we have committed to an annual written ministerial statement on implementation. This commitment will last for the 10 years or until the Bill is fully implemented, whichever is sooner.

Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this debate and for speaking so movingly and emotively.

I can only imagine the mixture of emotion someone feels when they receive a terminal diagnosis. We know that around six in 10 people referred for hospice care have significant psychological support needs, but there is a lack of good, standardised mental health provision for people receiving hospice care. More than 10% of suicides in the UK are in some way linked to either chronic or terminal physical illnesses, so there is a mental health undercurrent running through the heart of end-of-life care.

Like many other Members, I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary hospices in my constituency. I have visited them and taken part in local fundraising events for them. I did 12 hours of exercise for Winchester hospice —I was doing boxing around midnight, and I can still feel it now, even though it was about a week ago. The inspiration I got from seeing so many members of the community raising money for Winchester hospice, or for children’s hospices Naomi House and Jacksplace, is unbelievable; so is the dedication of the staff and the volunteers, working in some of the most emotive jobs possible. It is a lifeline for the families affected by having a relative or a child with a terminal illness.

Hospices across the UK are under immense strain, and only 16% of people attending them believe that their psychological support is adequate. Too many people approaching the end of life are pushed towards the overstretched NHS mental health services. If someone ends up on the conventional mental health path, they may be put on a waiting list that is more than a year long—and, I am sorry to say, they may not have that long to live. We must also recognise the quiet heroism of unpaid carers. They give up work, rest and any sense of normality to care for someone they love, and most of them receive no formal bereavement support at all. Their contribution is vast, but their support is minimal.

As an aside, since many Members here have an interest in hospice and medical care, and a couple are doctors, one of the best books I have read on the subject is Atul Gawande’s “Being Mortal”. It is about the wishes of people who receive terminal diagnoses, how they want to die, the experiences they want to have while they are on that journey, and the amount of fulfilling experiences and the sense of purpose that they can have while suffering from sometimes incredibly painful diseases.

As the Government develop the new modern service framework for palliative and end-of-life care, we want to ensure that mental health is absolutely at its core. That means regular mental health assessments throughout a person’s illness, embedding psychological support in palliative care teams and creating a sustainable, long-term funding model for hospices so that they can plan with certainty. It also means real support for family carers, paid carer’s leave, guaranteed respite and proper access to bereavement services.

This debate is not about dying badly; it is about helping people to live really well and to live really fulfilled until the end. If we truly believe that every life has worth, that worth does not diminish in someone’s final months or days, so mental health support must be built into palliative care, and not bolted on as an afterthought.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As announced in the 10-year health plan, David Lock KC is providing expert policy advice on the rising legal costs of clinical negligence and how we can improve patients’ experience of claims. That review is ongoing, and following initial advice to Ministers and the recent report from the National Audit Office, the results of David Lock’s work will inform future policymaking in this area. I am happy to update my hon. Friend as soon as that happens.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

T3. Reports that one in three adults have been relying on chatbots and artificial intelligence tools for mental health advice and therapy are concerning, because those tools are currently unregulated and potentially dangerous. One reason why people are using them is that mental health waiting lists are so long. What is the Secretary of State doing to reduce mental health waiting lists, so that people can speak to a qualified mental health practitioner instead of relying on unregulated AI tools?

Suicide: Reducing the Stigma

Danny Chambers Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this hugely important debate. I thank all the Members who have spoken today, especially the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who was vulnerable and honest, which can be difficult in a public forum. His example will help a lot of people to understand that no matter what job we do and how much support we have around us, people still have these kinds of thoughts.

Many people know that I was involved in a mental health charity that offers support to the veterinary profession. Vets have a suicide rate about four times the national average. It is a tiny profession, so everyone knows everyone, and everyone has lost friends and colleagues to suicide. Vets have challenges similar to farmers, another demographic who we know struggle quite a lot.

I pay tribute to Mr Pirie for being here today. The most difficult and emotional conversations that I have had since becoming an MP have been with parents who have lost children to suicide and wives who have lost husbands. Amid the frustration and anger that they all experience, they feel that if they had just known how much someone was struggling they could have done more to support them. Even worse are the cases where someone was actively trying to access support, but did not get the right type of support at the right time and so fell through the net.

I think about my own friends, Sarah Brown and David Bartram, two vets who were also trustees of a veterinary mental health charity. When we lose people, it is important that the memory of their life is not defined by how they died. Sarah was one of the funniest people I have ever met. She never missed a night out. David was an ultramarathon runner and one of the best speakers I have ever seen giving lectures. He was a hugely engaging person. It is a real shame that people get remembered for the way they died and not the positive contribution and the fun and happiness that they brought when they were here.

As a mental health spokesperson, I get really concerned when I hear people from other political parties, specifically Reform, belittling mental health issues and saying that it is the new back problem, it is over-diagnosed or people should man up. Are they seriously saying that farmers, who are some of the toughest people we could ever meet, working all hours in all weathers and earning a living in the hardest way possible, and veterans, who have experienced situations that most of us can only ever imagine, are a bunch of snowflakes who need to man up and toughen up? Mental health is a real problem that can affect even the hardest people on the planet, and no one is immune to those sorts of challenge.

Other Members have talked about 2023 having the highest rate of suicide for 25 years. That rate, thankfully, is slightly declining. It is interesting that the World Health Organisation states that depression is the No. 1 global disease. It affects people in all countries; it is a very prevalent issue. We are much better than we used to be at talking about depression and mental health issues, but suicide is the one aspect of such issues that still carries a lot of stigma. People still do not want to talk about suicidal thoughts, or sometimes there is shame in having a relative who died from suicide. It is not talked about as openly as it could be.

I thank the Minister for his diligent work over the last year on the Mental Health Bill. We have all worked closely on that, including the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). It is fantastic work and I know the Minister cares very much about this issue. I also welcome the £3.6 million over three years provided under the men’s health strategy specifically for suicide prevention, although I am concerned that it is very much less than the previous £10 million-a-year suicide prevention grant fund for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. How will the £3.6 million be targeted? Will there be scope to support in other ways the many organisations and charities, such as the Samaritans, that have contacted me to say that the grant is a significant part of their funding to deliver their services to help prevent suicide?

There are so many amazing community groups all over the country. I meet some quite regularly. The Farming Community Network, the Bishop’s Waltham men’s breakfast, the men’s sheds that are everywhere—we have one in Alresford and one in Hambledon—and Winchester Youth Counselling do brilliant work bringing people together. We must do everything we can to keep those organisations viable, running and thriving. It is so much more economic if people are prevented from heading down the route of depression, with a good social network and a lot of community support, than if they end up needing to engage with clinical services.

I also thank all those on the frontline: the clinical staff, the nurses, the counsellors and the carers caring for people who are struggling with mental health issues. The mental health of carers is another huge issue.

[Chris Vince]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I will—the hon. Gentleman caught me two seconds before I finished.

[Chris Vince]

I apologise for that; it happens to me a lot as well. The hon. Gentleman mentioned carers. That is particularly important because tomorrow is Carers Rights Day. I worked for a charity that supports young carers and we have seen an increase in the number of young carers supporting people with mental health issues. There should be recognition of carers, including young carers, so I thank him for mentioning them.

[Dr Chambers]

I thank the hon. Member for intervening just in time. I reiterate how pleased we were that the Minister looked at the amendments to identify children of mental health patients. Sometimes those children are essentially carers as well, and it is really important that we know they exist and that they get the support they need.