(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Members for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this debate. I wish the hon. Member for South Norfolk all the best in his treatment. I have to say, it was hugely brave of him and emotive to hear him talk about the journey he is going through at the moment, and to hear him paying such tributes to all the staff involved in his care. I also thank Zoe’s family for coming here today, because it cannot be easy to hear people talk about this disease after everything they have been through.
Many of us will know, some from personal experience, how frightening it can be to face a possible or actual cancer diagnosis. When words such as “biopsy” or “diagnostic tests” enter the conversation, that provokes deep concern, and yet those tests, as everyone has been reiterating, are absolutely vital. Early diagnosis is the single most important factor in improving survival rates. The sooner any type of cancer is identified, the sooner treatment can begin, and the more likely the outcome will be favourable. The tests are very important for people’s mental health, because sometimes the test is clear: a person knows that, and knows there is no need to worry unnecessarily.
In an ideal world, someone who notices a suspicious mole or mark would call their GP; be seen within two weeks, as set out in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines; if necessary, a biopsy would be taken; and, if cancer was confirmed, treatment would begin within 62 days. In an ideal world, that treatment would be available to everyone, regardless of their postcode.
We know that is not the reality for everyone, either in Winchester or the rest of the country. We know GP access is a growing concern. In Winchester, I regularly hear from my constituents that they are waiting weeks for appointments, which means we are falling at the first hurdle. The second hurdle—treatment within 62 days—is just as worrying. In Winchester, in July 2025, only 73.6% of cancer treatments began within 62 days, well below the operational standard of 85%.
The truth is that, at almost every stage of the process—from initial concern to diagnosis and treatment—we are letting too many people down. It is one of the reasons that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for a two-month cancer treatment guarantee for a long time now: a new target so that 100% of patients will start treatment within 62 days. We must also replace ageing radiotherapy machines and expand provision so no communities are left in what have rightly been called radiotherapy deserts. We do not want anyone to have to travel hours and miles when they are feeling ill for lifesaving care.
The last Government’s decision to close the National Cancer Research Institute, which had co-ordinated cancer research since 2001, was a grave mistake. One oncology professor compared this to
“turning off air traffic control and hoping the planes will be fine”.
We owe it to patients and their families to build confidence in the system, and that means faster access to GPs, earlier diagnosis, better treatment, proper investment in research and a comprehensive long-term plan to boost survival rates. I really welcome all the comments about regulating the private medical sector to ensure they are taking biopsies, as well as the regulation of sunbeds.
I wanted to be here at the beginning, but unfortunately I could not because I had other things to do in the Chamber. I declare an interest—like the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), I am going to get one of mine done very shortly, but in Northern Ireland the wait list is 56 weeks. If it is red-flagged, it is five weeks. There is anxiety and stress for everyone—not for me, but for all the others—because it is not about me but everyone else. Does he agree that the NHS, wherever it may be in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, needs to ensure that those who have melanoma and a biopsy get the urgency that is absolutely critical? The Minister is in her place—there is no better person to answer these questions than her—and I look forward very much to what she says. Does the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) agree that a concerted campaign across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to address those issues might be a way forward?
Dr Chambers
I totally agree with those comments.
I will finish by paying tribute to one of my friends from vet school, Polly Birch. She was diagnosed with a melanoma in 2016 and had it removed, but in 2017, a few months after giving birth to her baby girl, Ada, she discovered it was metastatic, and she passed away. Her final post on social media was beautiful and moving. A couple of days before she passed away, she said:
“Appreciate the people around you, adventure with them, buy less stuff and go out and experience the world…and look after the bees.”
Finally, and perhaps most poignantly, I will quote Mary Schmich:
“If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it.”
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this really important debate.
We have a lot of medical professionals in the room. It might surprise colleagues that, although I am a rudimentary vet, we treat fatty liver disease quite commonly in animals as well. It is most commonly seen in very large, fat cats that are really cuddly and people like to have on their lap. It is really common for them to get fatty liver disease if they stop eating, and it is genuinely very serious and takes intense treatment. The other time we see it commonly in animals is in cows that are in good body-weight condition, immediately after they give birth; often, they end up with hepatic lipidosis, which can be quite difficult to manage.
My first charity visit as an MP—it was the week after I was elected—was to the British Liver Trust in Winchester. I met Pam Healy, its chief executive officer, who is here today. It is a brilliant organisation. I thank everyone for all the briefings we were given; the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) mentioned how much he learned from them, despite being a trained GP. On that note, I know he is doing some social prescribing—when is the comedy show?
Dr Chambers
Fantastic. Hopefully it will improve people’s mental health—and if they leave halfway through, it will probably improve their physical health, too. That is a fantastic initiative.
Other Members have talked about the soaring rate of liver deaths, which has shot up in the last 20 years. The hon. Member for Worthing West talked about it costing the NHS £6.9 billion directly, and some studies show that it has cost the economy over £100 billion in other ways, such as from people being off work.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I suggest to the hon. Member that one of the principal reasons that non-alcoholic fatty liver disease has shot up so radically in recent years is the increasing prevalence of food that is simply bad for people and is causing them damage—in particular, food that is high in fat, sugar and salt. For that reason, the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I am a member, is currently doing an inquiry on food. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to focus on making healthy food more affordable and accessible, and to tackle the advertising and marketing of so much of the unhealthy food that is out there?
Dr Chambers
I completely agree—that is hugely important. The sugar levy has been a huge success: between 2015 and 2019, the amount of sugar in soft drinks reduced by about a third, which reduced sugar intake in our collective diet by 48,000 tonnes. If we expect the Government to pay for people’s treatment when they are sick, as we rightly do, there is also an onus on them to help people to maintain their health. That is both a moral and an economic imperative.
It is often not noted that as well as the direct implications of obesity, diabetes and liver issues related to genetics and diet, there are also indirect costs that affect the NHS, such as the number of hip replacements and knee replacements, and other types of expensive and intense interventions that could probably be significantly avoided if we had healthier diets.
As we know, the issue with many liver problems is late diagnosis. The liver can take a huge amount of abuse in many forms until it stops functioning to the level at which it appears compromised. When symptoms are finally seen, there has often been sustained damage for quite a long period of time. The scanning that is done by the British Liver Trust and others—I encourage everyone to get their liver scanned when they come into Parliament—can pick up diseases such as fatty liver disease before the clinical symptoms are seen, which is absolutely key.
The UK ought to be one of the healthiest countries in the world, but we know we are not. Winchester is a relatively wealthy constituency, yet 54% of adults are overweight or obese, along with 27% of children. We are a country with a long history of world-leading medical research, grassroots sport and high-quality food production, yet over the last 14 years people have been becoming sicker for longer. That is multi-factorial, but it is in part due to the gradual erosion of public health funding by the previous Conservative Government.
The issue of improving health is multifaceted, and obesity is certainly an example of that. Factors such as poor mental health and the broken food system contribute towards the growing numbers of people who are overweight or obese. The hon. Member for Stroud talked about the importance of free school meals in helping to reduce childhood obesity, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) talked about inequality and poverty levels, and the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) highlighted the issues of different demographics and incomes. I spent seven very happy years in Liverpool and have very happy memories; ironically, my liver probably does not, as I was a student there for many years.
There has been a political failure. As has been said, over the past 30 years successive Governments have proposed more than 700 policies to tackle obesity, yet none has ever been successful. We have never had a coherent strategy. We cannot underestimate the scope that must be taken into account when discussing how we tackle obesity. We need to look at every intervention possible, including having a robust, well-supported food production system, ensuring that everyone can afford good-quality, locally produced food, and ensuring that we expand free school meals even further to help to keep children healthy.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is a really good example. When Chris Whitty gave evidence to the Bill Committee, he said not only that it was the biggest piece of public health legislation in 30 years, but that it is probably going to be the most significant piece of legislation to help to address inequalities, because smoking rates are one of the most significant reasons why there is such a difference in life expectancy between some of the more deprived postcodes and the wealthier ones. That type of intervention is not only good for health but really good for addressing inequality.
As other Members have said, we cannot tackle this problem without also ensuring that food is produced to high enough standards, that we have limits on junk food advertising, and that we force big food manufacturers to reduce salt and sugar in their products and have a much better labelling system, so that people can make more informed and affordable choices.
I am so impressed with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for being able to lose 4 stone. I have put on the best part of a stone in the last 18 months, since I was elected, partly because of my increased food intake since I have been here and also because the strange hours mean that I lack time for exercise. I used to have a fairly active job, which I do not really have any more.
Yesterday I went to the Winchester Boxing Club, where a guy called Glyn Parkin gave me a really good workout—I can still feel it today. I did the Compton 10K and the Alresford 10K this year—both big fundraising 10-kilometre events. Despite trying to keep up my exercise, however, it is really hard if I am not focused on food, because about 80% of weight loss is due to diet. At best, perhaps 20% is down to exercise. I am aware that if I do not get on top of my weight, it will affect everything from knees to hips, and in some ways, exercise will become more difficult. If I end up with knee or hip pain, I will end up exercising less—and when I exercise less, I make worse dietary choices as well. We need to encourage people to stay healthy and keep exercising, but if we do not get the diet right, those two things are almost impossible to achieve.
I again thank the hon. Member for Worthing West for securing this hugely important debate, and I thank the British Liver Trust for all that it does. I encourage everyone to go and get scanned by the British Liver Trust when it next comes to Parliament.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate her and the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on being such powerful advocates for health in their region. I was interested that both Members focused on poverty levels and inequality in health outcomes—a hugely important subject. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and I both served on the Mental Health Bill Committee, where we discussed repeatedly the fact that people who live in poverty are three times more likely to have mental health issues than those on an average income.
I also served on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, and I remember Professor Chris Whitty saying that it was not only the biggest piece of public health legislation in 30 years, but one of the biggest interventions to address inequality, because one of the significant factors in differences in life expectancy between more deprived communities and wealthier communities was smoking levels. Despite our economic troubles at the moment, we are still one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, and we can still be one of the healthiest nations on Earth if those resources are deployed in the right way. Everyone should have the right to see a doctor or dentist and to get mental health care as and when they need it.
We have touched on public health. At the moment, two thirds of adults are overweight and 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes and diabetes-related illnesses. That is one reason that the Liberal Democrats are so keen on closing the loopholes in the sugar levy and extending it to sugary milk and juice-based drinks, on restricting the marketing of products high in fat, salt and sugar, on reversing cuts to the public health grant and on legislating for a right to clean air.
It is also why, like the Government, we are so keen on good-quality school meals. The hon. Member for Bolton North East talked about the levels of childhood obesity in primary school and their impact on not only the individual’s health, but the NHS in terms of cost. Having good-quality nutrition in all public organisations, whether schools, prisons or care homes, is an impactful way of not only helping people to have a healthier life, but reducing the burden on NHS services.
I will finish by saying that health is the No. 1 issue that comes up on the doorstep. There is a lot of concern and worry that people may not get healthcare when they need it. Whether in Bolton or Winchester, people need to know that they will be able to access healthcare, free at the point of use, as and when they need it. I commend the hon. Members for Bolton North East and for Bolton South and Walkden on securing this debate and speaking so powerfully on behalf of their constituents.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I begin by thanking colleagues across the House who have worked so constructively on this long-awaited Bill. There has been a shared recognition that the current mental health system is failing too many people and that reform is urgently needed. I thank the Minister for engaging with us so constructively throughout the process, including as recently as yesterday; it is much appreciated.
When I speak to people in Winchester—I know that hon. Members have very similar stories—mental health is one of the issues that comes up the most. We have families waiting months or even years for treatment, we have parents watching their children deteriorate, and we have people languishing on waiting lists when they would rather be working or studying.
The Bill represents the biggest reform of mental health care in over 40 years. It strengthens patient autonomy, modernises detention procedures and rightly removes police stations from the definition of places of safety. These are vital and much needed steps forward and I know that Members on all sides welcome them.
I will speak briefly to several new clauses tabled in my name, each aimed at strengthening the Bill’s impact for some of the most vulnerable people it seeks to protect. New clause 26 would ensure that every hospital has a dedicated liaison service for the carers of patients detained under the Mental Health Act. This is a vital step to support carers during what can be an unimaginably difficult time and to close blind spots that too often exist when someone is caring for a loved one with serious mental illness.
We know that parental mental health concerns are now the most common factor in children’s social care assessments, and that those children are at much higher risk of developing mental ill health themselves. Yet only about a third of mental health professionals in in-patient settings ask whether a patient is a parent. These children and the carers who support them are too often invisible. By identifying and supporting carers properly, new clause 26 would help close those gaps and ensure that no family has to struggle in silence.
We did not discuss this specifically in Committee, but I would be interested to know about the interaction between the independent mental health advocates, which are being expanded and which we all agreed with in Committee, and a new liaison service. I worry about the duplication. Will the hon. Member explain how that crossover would work in practice?
Dr Chambers
That is a prescient point. At the moment, there is no responsibility to ensure that children in particular, and other carers too, are identified. Even if they are put in advance choice documents, if the person making those decisions does not identify them, that will not come about. We would have to be careful that there is not unnecessary duplication; however, the initiative the hon. Gentleman puts forward is not a belt-and-braces approach to identifying young carers and other carers who are struggling.
New clause 7 seeks to end the detention of children on adult wards, requiring the number to be reduced to zero within five years—other Members have discussed that today—and the Secretary of State to set out how that will be achieved. It simply cannot be right that children are still being treated on adult wards. It is unacceptable and can seriously hinder recovery and effective care.
Although the Bill rightly focuses on hospital-based treatment, the process has also laid bare how fragile our wider mental health services have become, with the lack of early support in primary and community care and the shortage of initiatives that help people long before they reach crisis point. That is why new clause 14 would place a duty on integrated care boards to ensure that community services have the resources they need to meet the demand and report on that regularly. Keeping people well in their communities must be at the heart of any modern mental health strategy, because if we get the community care right, we prevent crises, reduce pressure on hospitals and help people live healthier, more independent lives.
Finally, new clause 22 would establish a veterans’ mental health oversight officer. That dedicated role would ensure that those who have served our country receive the understanding and tailored care they deserve when they come into contact with mental health services. Too often, veterans experience mental ill health, sometimes linked to their service, and they find themselves in systems that do not fully recognise their unique experiences. The proposal would help change that by providing proper oversight; encouraging joined-up working across the NHS, veterans’ services and the third sector; and ensuring that compassion and accountability sit at the heart of how the Mental Health Act is applied to veterans.
Taken together, the proposals are about making our mental health system even more humane, more joined up, and more focused on prevention and recovery. I hope the Government will take them in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to strengthen this important Bill, which we very much support, and deliver a system that truly supports those who need it most.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will speak on new clause 35, which sets out the conditions under which community treatment orders can be extended beyond 12 months. Like many across my constituency of Sheffield Central, I know personally how overstretched our mental health services are. My brother lives with complex mental health needs and our family has seen at first hand the impact of a churning workforce, long waiting lists and a lack of community support services, brought about by an unrelenting crisis in funding.
Our system has not been properly expanded or adapted to meet the challenges. Instead, far too many people are detained and restricted, rather than supported to recover. We see this nowhere more acutely than in the overuse of community treatment orders, which were supposed to be a bridge from hospital to home for those who are constantly readmitted to hospital. People have described them as
“a tag that nobody can see, but you know it’s around your mind.”
The evidence shows that they have not met their intended purposes, with three major studies having found no reduction in readmissions or hospital time through their use. Yet despite the previous Government having promised reform, community treatment orders have continued. Reform has been too slow and too narrow in scope.
Dr Chambers
The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, which makes mental health law much fairer and more compassionate. However, reforming detention law is only half the job, because without investment in prevention and community care, the Bill risks becoming an improved way of managing failure rather than preventing it. Without proper early intervention, people deteriorate until crisis is the only door open to them.
Melbury Lodge in my Winchester constituency shows what a good partnership can look like: NHS teams working with citizens advice to help patients sort out debts, bills and benefits before discharge—recovery is impossible if patients return home to a pile of threatening letters and bills. Yet schemes like that are the exception, not the rule. Debt, insecure housing, domestic abuse and bereavement are not side issues—they are often root causes—and care plans that ignore them are not truly caring.
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I pay tribute to the extraordinary people working at the frontline of mental health care—nurses, doctors, counsellors, therapists, support workers, carers and charities—who hold up a system that too often feels as if it is collapsing around them. Their compassion and professionalism are the reason so many people make it through their darkest moments. They deserve much more than just thanks; they deserve a system that supports them as much as they support others.
In my years of campaigning for better mental health, including as a trustee of a mental charity and, in the past year, as the Liberal Democrat mental health spokesperson, I have become more convinced that mental health cannot be seen as the responsibility of NHS services alone. It must be embedded across society, in education, healthcare, housing, farming and even in the way we support small businesses.
I thank the Minister and his team for all their work on the Bill and their cross-party engagement, as well as everyone who served on the Bill Committee and the Members who have turned up repeatedly to these debates. One thing that does unite the House is improving mental health care.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always say that real doctors treat more than one species.
I thank the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing the debate and speaking so emotively, as so many hon. Members have today. I know from personal experience of talking about loss due to suicide in this Chamber that the pain never goes away, no matter how long ago it was. I particularly commend the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for speaking about such a recent bereavement, which is a very difficult thing to do.
Other hon. Members have mentioned that only one in four people who take their own lives are known to clinical mental health services. That is why the charities and community organisations are so important. I recently visited the Winchester branch of the Samaritans, and I met Wayne Fletcher, the director. It was so impressive and inspiring to see the number of volunteers involved in making sure that there is 24-hour access for someone who needs help in the darkest and loneliest times; in the middle of the night and early in the morning, someone can pick up the phone and a volunteer will be waiting to speak to someone. It is incredible.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the Men’s Shed. Two weeks ago, I visited the Men’s Shed in Alresford. Its lease is up, so we will work with the town council to find it a new location. The connection, the friendship, the sense of purpose and the mentorship are vital, and it becomes a lifesaving community.
I had a message from a fellow vet in Winchester, Alison Moores. She said that her 15-year-old son, Sam, took his own life earlier this year. She told me:
“At the weekend I went with three of his school friends and their mums to Sam’s grave. Seeing 16-year-olds crying at the grave of their best friend was heartbreaking. The loss of my son is so horrific I can’t even begin to describe it. We have raised over £30,000 for Papyrus but they still need more. I hope we’ve made a difference in saving another child’s life.”
We know that charity fundraising is harder than ever in the current economic climate, and that all three of the organisations I have mentioned, plus others, rely on the generosity of the public and the people who are working so hard to fundraise for them.
I would like to ask, in the most constructive way possible and with no party-political agenda—because I know all hon. Members care deeply about this issue and that the Minister has a genuine commitment to suicide prevention—about the Government’s decision to end the voluntary community and social enterprise suicide prevention grant. That funding supports organisations such as Samaritans, Papyrus and the Men’s Sheds, which all play a vital role in reaching people who may never come into contact with mental health services. Is there any scope, through cross-party pressure or engagement with Treasury colleagues, to look again at how we can sustain support for those lifesaving organisations at a time when suicides are at a 25-year high?
I finish by paying tribute to Archie Pond, a 19-year-old constituent of mine who took his own life last year. Last month, I met his father, Martyn, who has been relentlessly fundraising for Young Minds. I am always so impressed that someone can turn that sort of heartbreak into something so positive.
One of my core team is a retired clinical psychologist, Peter Wilcock, who helped so much before the general election and has done so especially since I was made the mental health spokesperson. I put on record my thanks to him for his efforts and his invaluable expertise on this subject.
(3 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this important debate, but also for very bravely and emotively discussing his personal experience.
Those of us in this Chamber who have had relatives suffering from these disorders know that it can be so frustrating when someone does not appear to want to help themselves. It causes a huge amount of stress for the family and for the carers who are looking after them. We know that eating disorders kill more people than any other mental health condition. Those who do recover have been robbed of years of life: they have missed their adolescence and have had their school and social life affected. That can have ongoing effects for the rest of their life.
I am reminded of several people I spoke to while knocking on doors in Winchester. Securing mental health care for children seems to be one of the top issues with which people are struggling. In particular, I remember two different mothers saying that they had been told that their daughters, who were suffering from eating disorders, had to reach a lower BMI before they qualified for treatment. We know that that means having to be sicker for longer, so not only is a successful outcome less likely, but it will require longer and more intensive treatment and will be more expensive for the NHS. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) highlighted, with the benefit of his expertise, it is more cost-effective to have early intervention than to treat people once they have been sick for a long period.
The Minister and the Opposition spokesperson both served with me on the Public Bill Committee on the Mental Health Bill. It was a conciliatory piece of legislation with cross-party support; there was genuine intention and passion on all sides to improve mental health in the UK. The disjointed provision of mental health care, especially for eating disorders, was one reason why I tabled an amendment to review how services for eating disorders are delivered. I will never forget a consultant psychiatrist coming to my surgery. He said that he was trying to get mental health care for his own child; it was not specifically about eating disorders, but he was struggling to navigate the system. He said, “If I, as a consultant psychiatrist, am struggling to navigate the system to get healthcare for my own child, what hope does anyone else have?” It is a very confusing situation.
There are plenty of other elements of this topic that are a real cause of concern. I will not repeat what everyone else has said, but I am really concerned that eating disorders are increasing, with hospital numbers doubling in a decade, and yet 24 of the nation’s 42 NHS integrated care boards are due to reduce their spending on under-18s in 2024-25, once inflation is taken into account. It is a really difficult situation: there will be increased pressure and less real-time resource to deliver.
We must all remember that although they are very serious, eating disorders are treatable. No one should be condemned to suffer for years on end because they cannot access treatment. We must all be committed to tackling damaging stigma. We must take an evidence-based approach to preventing eating disorders, which are hugely multifactorial. The factors are often non-clinical; social media has been mentioned already.
Eating disorders are the mental health crisis hiding in plain sight. They carry the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric illness, yet services are being cut, waiting time standards have been abandoned and young people are being left to deteriorate before help arrives. Early intervention saves lives, and we must be bold and move heaven and earth to deliver it. We must reinstate waiting time targets, protect funding and build a properly resourced national strategy so that no child or family is left trying to fight this illness alone.
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberPhlebotomists are paid on an “Agenda for Change” pay scale, which is underpinned by the job evaluation scheme. It is something the Secretary of State and I discussed with the trade union Unison last week; I should declare that I am a member of Unison. It is working closely with the trust in question, but I am happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend further.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Many carers have told me how much they rely on respite care to protect their own physical and mental health so that they can continue to care for their loved ones day in, day out. The wonderful Chesil Lodge day centre in Winchester has recently been threatened with closure, and I have been fighting alongside constituents to keep it open. How will the Department ensure that respite services such as those at Chesil Lodge are consistently available and are not subject to a postcode lottery? Can I also—
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I very much appreciate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) securing this important debate.
We vets often treat liver disease and cancers, but in animals they are rarely caused by excess intake of alcohol. On the few occasions that we use alcohol in veterinary medicine, it is therapeutic. It is quite common for cats to drink antifreeze, which causes kidney damage, and one way of treating that is to hook them up to a drip with vodka, because it is the antidote to antifreeze. That has probably saved the lives of thousands of cats in the UK over the last few years.
I remember that when I was a student there was a particularly vicious boar that everyone was too scared to go anywhere near, but its feet needed trimming. The only way to get anywhere near it was to give it a huge amount of beer. It would get completely drunk and pass out, and then we could safely go and trim its feet. We had to repeat that performance every six months. That is my own experience of using alcohol in veterinary medicine.
The point of this debate—highlighting the link between alcohol and cancer—has been made repeatedly by other Members. Most people are aware that alcohol causes liver problems, but so many people are not aware of the proven link between alcohol intake and cancer. We have listed at least seven related cancers, including breast, bowel and liver cancer. It does not matter whether the alcohol consumed is beer, wine or spirits; the risk it poses is real and increases with consumption.
The mechanisms are well understood. We know that alcohol gets metabolised into toxic chemicals. It damages DNA and has effects on other hormones in the body that increase cell division. These are well-evidenced biological processes. Indeed, the British Journal of Cancer has found that between 2% and 4% of cancer cases in the UK are attributable to alcohol, which means that thousands of lives are affected every year, many of which could be saved through better public health, education and early intervention.
I pay tribute to Professor Julia Sinclair, who lives in Winchester and works at the University of Southampton. She is a professor of addiction psychiatry and focuses very much on alcohol. I have worked closely with her, even before I was elected. We have had roundtables here in Parliament, including with the British Liver Trust; its headquarters are in Winchester, so I have worked closely with it. I have also spoken on panels at the Royal College of Physicians.
All those experts discussed alcohol and alcohol-related harms. There is not only a human cost but an economic cost. Alcohol-related harms cost the NHS £4.91 billion every year, and that is before we even consider the wider cost to families, employers and society. Other hon. Members pointed out that the misery and loneliness of the pandemic resulted in people increasing their alcohol intake, and that intake has not really decreased since that time. That has resulted in alcohol-related deaths increasing by 42% since 2019, which means that over 10,000 lives were lost in 2023 alone.
Along with the Medical Council on Alcohol, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive national alcohol strategy that is properly funded, cross-departmental and informed by the latest evidence and public health expertise. Part of that strategy must be rebuilding and reintegrating alcohol treatment services, ensuring that addiction support is fully joined up with mental and physical healthcare.
We have heard from so many doctors who talk about people being admitted to hospital for their physical symptoms to be treated, but once they have been detoxed, essentially, they are discharged without any automatic mental health support. Of course, that means that they eventually come back in for further physical treatment. They can be treated as many times as they need to be when they get to a physical crisis-point, but we are never treating the underlying mental health issue that needs to be addressed.
We need to restore the public health grant so that social services can run alcohol cessation and early intervention programmes. We also need to invest in digital tools, including a kitemark for apps that are clinically proven to help people reduce their alcohol intake and live healthier lives.
We must recognise the wider context in which alcohol causes harm. Alcohol misuse does not happen in isolation; it is often closely linked to trauma, poor mental health, loneliness and disadvantage. Crucially, alcohol harm is not equally distributed. As the Medical Council on Alcohol’s research shows, rates of alcohol-related cancer, liver disease and premature death are highest in the most deprived communities. This is a matter of health inequality, and it should shame us that we have allowed those disparities to grow.
I was on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee for several weeks. Fascinatingly, Professor Whitty told the Committee that the Bill was not only the single biggest piece of public health legislation in about 30 years, but probably the most impactful piece of legislation in addressing inequalities, because health inequalities between the wealthiest and most deprived postcodes are so large partly because of smoking rates—and, we also know, partly because of patterns of alcohol drinking.
We must see alcohol harm and alcohol-related cancer as preventable public health issues. That means that we need the political will to expand social prescribing to reduce isolation, deliver mental health MOTs at key life stages, open mental health walk-in hubs in every community, and legislate for a cancer survival Act to ensure that patients start treatment promptly and that research is funded for cancers with the poorest outcomes.
Alcohol is a legal product, but it is not harmless. People have the right to know the risks and get support when they need it. We need to stop treating alcohol-related cancer as an inconvenient truth and recognise this as a crisis of alcoholism.
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberI congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Through her leadership of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding, she is working to ensure that families across the country get the right support. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed—my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The number of interventions and contributions has shown how important the issue is and how deeply it is felt across the House. The hon. Member for Chichester asked about the 10-year plan. I will not go into detail about what is in it, but—tick, tock—she does not have to wait long as the plan will be launched on Thursday morning.
I look forward to working with colleagues across the House and the wider health landscape on how we deliver the plan. In that plan, they will see that children’s early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances. That is why the Government are taking a mission-based approach to raising the healthiest generation of children ever and to ensuring that every child has a healthy, happy start to life.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
To reiterate the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and the Minister about all children needing to have a healthy start, we cannot emphasise enough how important gestation and the first six months of life are. The factors that affect gestation and the first six months of life have a bigger impact on long-term health than anything we can do after that—any conscious decisions we make about our health are less impactful than what has happened to us during gestation and the first six months of life.
I agree. The hon. Member will see in the 10-year plan and some of the investments we are making—for instance, to reduce the number of women smoking in pregnancy—that the Government recognise that.
We recognise that infant feeding is critical to a baby’s healthy growth and development, and we recognise the significant benefits of breastfeeding for both mothers and babies. We are fully committed to supporting families to breastfeed should they choose to do so. We know that most mothers want to breastfeed, but many stop before they would ideally like to. While it has been positive to see many more mothers continuing to breastfeed in recent years, we know that they can face complex barriers to achieving their infant feeding goals.
I recognise the concerns raised through the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative report on the UK infant feeding policy landscape. Health is devolved, and I would like to commend Northern Ireland for its performance in this area, which was raised by the hon. Member for Strangford. However, we know through the report that England scores poorly, and we want to change that.
Families need quality services, trustworthy information, affordable options and systems that support them, not hinder them. Midwives and maternity services play a crucial role through the perinatal period in preparing and supporting families around infant feeding. We have committed to training thousands more midwives to better support women throughout their pregnancy and beyond, and there has been an increase of over 1,300 full-time equivalent midwives in the workforce since April 2024. We will publish a refreshed workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service that we will build over the next decade.
To drive forward improvement in maternity and neonatal services, we announced the launch of a national independent investigation into maternity and neonatal care. The investigation will recommend one set of national actions by December. A national maternity and neonatal taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State, will then bring together independent experts to co-produce a national plan to drive improvement.
As families transition from maternity services to the community, it is important that they continue to receive the support they need, and health visitors are key to this. However, we know that health visitor numbers have decreased and there is variation in the level of services across the country, but it remains a universal service, and we are committed to that. In the plan for change, we committed to strengthening health visiting services so that all families can access their support.
We are investing in family hubs and the Start for Life programme, with £18.5 million this year to improve infant feeding support across 75 local authorities in England. Start for Life services are helping parents to access support where they need it and in a location that suits them, whether that is their home, their family hub, a hospital setting or through the many voluntary sector organisations that have been referred to today. Local authorities are working with partners to embed local infant feeding strategies, joining up services for seamless support and tailoring them to their community, with both universal and targeted support. They are building up the workforce, investing in infant feeding specialists, delivering high-quality training and expanding networks of peer supporters. Funding is also helping to train staff to identify complex needs early such as tongue-tie, and to offer timely support.
Although long-term evaluation is needed to understand the full impact of the programme, some promising findings are emerging. For example, ambitious multi-layered integrated infant feeding plans have led to increased breastfeeding rates in Coventry, and local health visitor data shows an increase in breastfeeding at six to eight weeks from 51% to 57% in just 18 months. We are also helping families across the UK to access breastfeeding support 24 hours a day through the National Breastfeeding Helpline.