Danny Chambers MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Global Public Health Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is completely right. The World Health Organisation is at the heart of international disease surveillance, co-ordinating early responses to outbreaks of deadly diseases such as Ebola and highly pathogenic avian influenza, both of which have been in the news in the last couple of weeks. In today’s interconnected world, speed is everything. Without robust early warning systems, outbreaks that might have been contained could spiral into pandemics, just as my hon. Friend said. We also cannot ignore the worsening impact of climate change on global health. Due to changing temperatures, diseases that were classed as tropical when I was at university are now being seen in other parts of the world. The US withdrawal from the Paris agreement has already slowed efforts to tackle climate-driven diseases; now, its retreat from global health co-operation leaves us even less well prepared to handle the consequences. The UK must remain firm in supporting the WHO’s role in pandemic preparedness, not only because it is morally right, but because it is in our national interest. This crisis affects more than just emergency outbreaks; it threatens our ability to manage persistent health threats here at home. Take seasonal flu. Every winter, the NHS faces immense pressure from influenza. Our ability to develop effective vaccines depends on international collaboration, including data from US research centres. If those partnerships are disrupted, how will we prepare for the 2025 flu season? The same applies to broader scientific research. The UK and US have worked closely on the One Health Initiative, studying how animal, human and environmental health intersect. Hundreds of these projects have now stalled, cutting off vital knowledge that could have helped us understand future pandemics. We must explore ways to sustain these collaborations. That includes securing funding for key research programmes and ensuring that our world-class universities remain engaged in global health security efforts. If we do not do those things, we risk falling behind in disease surveillance, vaccine development and pandemic preparedness. I have spoken in this House before about the urgent threat of antibiotic-resistant infections to the NHS. Alongside the UK, the US has been a strong supporter of WHO-led efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance, which experts warn is one of the greatest global health challenges of our time. Antibiotic resistance does not respect borders. Drug-resistant bacteria and fungi travel with people and goods across the world. Without global surveillance, the consequences will be dire. More people will die in NHS hospitals from infections that we can no longer treat. This is not a distant problem; it is happening now. The UK has been helping Ukraine tackle antimicrobial resistance worsened by war. Despite severe funding challenges, collaborations between Chelsea and Westminster hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital, University College London and Ukrainian institutions have made progress. This proves that even in difficult circumstances, proactive partnerships can make a difference. We must apply these lessons to protect our own health security. I pay tribute to the laboratory team and Professor Inada-Kim in our hospital in Winchester, who are helping to lead the national effort to tackle AMR in our NHS. The UK has a proud history of leading on global health. It was here that Sir Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, revolutionising modern medicine. Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine laid the foundation for immunisation efforts that have saved hundreds of millions of lives. British researchers helped eradicate rinderpest in cattle, the only other disease besides smallpox to be wiped out completely. Today, smallpox is gone. Rinderpest is gone. One day, we hope to say the same about polio, but that vision is now at risk. I recently visited the rotary club in Winchester and learned about the long involvement of rotary clubs worldwide in supporting polio eradication over a period of many years. The US withdrawal forces us to consider how we reaffirm our leadership in global health.

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Global Public Health Policy · Hansard source

  More

  You are completely right about that very important organisation, which I shall come on to shortly. We cannot highlight enough to the impact that Gavi has had. The World Health Organisation must adapt. This crisis highlights the need for a more resilient system, one that does not depend so heavily on any single nation. The UK must lead efforts to strengthen the World Health Organisation by broadening its funding base and encouraging greater collective responsibility among member states. At the same time, we must invest in our own global health capabilities, which means strengthening research funding, protecting key collaborations, and engaging with middle-income nations to forge new partnerships. Global health security is not just about pandemics; it is about economic stability, national security, and the long-term wellbeing of our people—and let us be absolutely clear: disease does not respect national borders. A threat anywhere in the world is a threat to the UK. If polio still exists anywhere, it is still our problem. If antibiotic resistance is surging in one part of the world, it will reach our hospitals. If a new pandemic emerges in a distant country, it will be on our doorstep faster than ever before. When it comes to global public health, “nobody wins unless everybody wins.” Those are the words of Bruce Springsteen, but they apply as much to public health as they do to any other struggle. If we allow global health systems to weaken, if we turn our backs on international collaboration, we are not just failing others; we are failing ourselves. However, this is also an opportunity. The UK has a chance to lead the world in global health innovation while strengthening our economy. We have significant human capital available through our universities, businesses, learned societies and research institutions, and if we invest now we can become a global hub for public health expertise, vaccine development, artificial intelligence and cutting-edge medical research. We should also remember the power of our capacity to offer education and training as cost-effective interventions. We can export solutions, shape international policy, and create high-skilled jobs right here at home. The last Government saw universities as a battleground for culture wars. We must see them as engines of innovation, global collaboration and economic growth. They should not be political footballs; they should be powerhouses of discovery, opportunity, and progress. If we get this right, we will not just be protecting global public health, but securing Britain’s place as a leader in the industries of the future. The US has made itself and the world weaker. The UK now has a choice: we can watch as global health security unravels, or we can take decisive action to lead, collaborate, and strengthen the systems that keep us safe. With the UK’s aid budget being stretched thin, not least by the diversion of funds to cover domestic asylum costs, there is growing concern that our leading contributions to the work of Gavi, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), could be significantly reduced. That work has vaccinated over a billion children—over half the world’s children—and supports cutting-edge efforts to tackle major causes of death such as malaria. Let me ask the Minister two questions: how can we justify cutting support for an organisation that has saved over 18 million lives, and will the Government commit to restoring overseas development aid to 0.7% of GDP, to ensure that lifesaving initiatives such as Gavi and other key World Health Organisation initiatives can remain viable? This is not charity. This is global health security, preventing outbreaks before they spread, reducing suffering, and strengthening healthcare systems in some of the world’s most fragile regions. This is a question of national security, moral responsibility and economic opportunity. I urge the House to ensure that the UK does not waver in its commitment to a healthier, safer, and more prosperous and secure world.

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Global Public Health Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the opportunity to speak on a matter of urgent importance: the shifting landscape of global health policy, and the direct threat that shift poses to public health security in the UK and worldwide. In recent weeks, the United States has announced its withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, and is significantly scaling back its support for major global health initiatives. It has also curtailed the activities of key institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, while pausing vital lifesaving programmes run by the US Agency for International Development. These decisions sent shockwaves across the world. For decades, the US has played a crucial role in some of the greatest health achievements in history: eradicating smallpox and nearly eliminating polio; tackling childhood malnutrition; tackling some of the biggest killers in the form of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria; and responding rapidly to emerging diseases with pandemic potential. Now, with this one decision, it has undermined global health security, weakened its own defences and placed millions of lives at risk. The UK and our Commonwealth partners have long benefited from strong global health systems. When the world is healthier and more stable, we are, too. However, as a recent study in public health challenges warned, the breakdown of global collaboration is as great a threat as any infectious disease, and the US retreat forces us to confront that head-on.

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Global Public Health Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a hugely important point. Economic pressures demand efficiency, but let there be no doubt: withdrawing support from the World Health Organisation is a false and dangerous economy. By stepping away instead of seeking reforms from within, the US has thrown global health security into turmoil. This is about not just principles, but consequences. A withdrawal on this scale damages health diplomacy and erodes trust. It allows adversarial states to step in and use disinformation and strategic influence to reshape the global health landscape to their advantage. If the World Health Organisation is weakened, its ability to track, contain and fight disease is also weakened, and that makes us all more vulnerable. Other nations are already considering following suit; Argentina is voicing similar intentions. If more countries withdraw, we risk a domino effect that could collapse the framework we rely on to monitor and respond to health threats.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  As a vet I spend a lot of time driving around rural areas, working with families and livery yard owners in the Meon valley in Hampshire, and in Madam Deputy Speaker’s beautiful constituency of Romsey. Rural crime is a huge issue. It is common, expensive and difficult to tackle. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the provisional police grant report does not specifically mention rural crime once?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Maternal Mental Health · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member and thank her for her important intervention. For years, we have been calling for better community healthcare. We know the demographics who are at high risk of mental health issues: not only women who are within a year of giving birth, but a whole load of other people, such as military veterans and farmers. Those groups of people need proactive help before they reach crisis point. It is more cost-effective to treat them earlier, rather than to pick up the pieces once they are in a crisis. The Government recently announced that they will drop women’s health targets to avoid overspending, but it is clear that women’s health, including maternity care, has been deprioritised for too long. I urge them to reconsider.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Maternal Mental Health · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) for securing this hugely important debate and speaking so eloquently about her friend. As someone who has lost a close friend to suicide, I completely agree that they are not defined by their death, but by the impact they had during their life and the impact they had on other people. Suicide is the leading cause of death among women in the six weeks to 12 months after giving birth, and maternal mental health in Winchester and across the UK is in crisis. As the Lib Dem spokesperson for mental health, I am hearing more and more stories about this from individual women. Every year, 600,000 women give birth, and one in five of those women will experience a perinatal mental health condition. This is a completely neglected mental health crisis, on an extremely large scale. Polling from as recently as December 2024, commissioned by the campaign Delivering Better, representatives of which I am pleased are in the Public Gallery today, found that seven out of 10 women who have a negative birthing experience say that it has had a long-term impact on their mental health. A recurring theme is that women are not being listened to—that has been a theme in essentially every major maternity inquiry. Women are not listened to when they raise concerns pre, during and post labour, not listened to when they raise complaints with trusts about their care, and not listened to by successive Governments who have failed to treat this issue with the seriousness it demands. If this crisis is to be meaningfully addressed, far greater emphasis needs to be placed on the voices and experience of women and birthing people.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Five months ago, the Care Quality Commission reported that two thirds of maternity units in England were unsafe, and years of unsafe staffing levels have resulted in the NHS paying an astonishing £1.15 billion a year in compensation due to avoidable injuries caused during childbirth and sometimes deaths. The previous Conservative Government allowed maternity services to deteriorate to the point where many consider it to be a public health crisis. Will the Prime Minister commit to improving maternity care and women’s health services as a top priority, so that our maternity unit in Winchester and those around the rest of the country are the safest places in the world for women to give birth?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for speaking so passionately on this matter. As the Liberal Democrat mental health spokesperson, something that we are increasingly coming across is that it is not just adults asking children to livestream, but children, peer-to-peer, who do not realise that it is illegal. As the hon. Lady touched on, the mental health impact is huge but also lifelong. Someone can have a digital footprint that they can never get rid of, and children who are uninformed and uneducated to the impacts of their decisions could be affected decades into the future.

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s insightful comment. In both those scenarios, withdrawal from key agencies will reduce global awareness and increase the chances of future global health crises. World Health Organisation-collaborating centres around the world, including those in the US, directly inform the development of our annual influenza vaccine, which is a vital aspect of reducing a significant pressure on the NHS every winter. Meanwhile, it is currently unclear how the US stance on wider public health agencies may shift in the future. Just this week, the World Organisation for Animal Health reported the emergence of highly pathogenic H5N9 avian influenza in poultry for the first time in the US. This is an evolving situation for which the Centre for Disease Control would normally provide crucial updates. How orders to cease communications may impact the service remains to be seen. The UK also invests heavily in supporting capacity building for overseas infectious disease surveillance as part of delivering our own national action and public health plans. I ask the Minister: are there plans to conduct an impact assessment on how the withdrawal of the US from key public health agencies may impact public health security in the UK? Although we totally understand that we cannot replace all that US funding, do the Government envision a requirement or see opportunities for the UK to expand or review its existing programmes to ensure stability of its global public health interests? For so many people in need around the world, UK and US foreign aid has been the difference between life and death. Whether tackling climate change, pandemics or extreme poverty, the Liberal Democrats believe in global solutions to global problems, and in the importance of international development when building a more peaceful and prosperous world, with the UK leading the way. That is why we are eventually hoping to see our international development budget restored to 0.7% of GDP. Not only will that make the world more stable; it will also make the UK a safer and healthier place to live.

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this important debate. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rightly talked about the huge advantages of a trade deal with the US. As a vet who grew up on a farm, I gently point out that not all standards are the same, and we know that in any trade deal the US will be very keen to sell us products such as chlorinated chicken, or beef that has been produced using growth hormones and farming methods that include antibiotics to a higher extent than we would. Not only would such products undermine our environmental and animal welfare standards; they would also put our own farmers at a competitive disadvantage. It is not just vets and farmers who are proud of our high animal welfare standards; the British public are, too. They do not want those standards to be compromised. I urge the Minister to ensure that in any trade deals our farmers and our animal welfare standards are protected. The withdrawal of the US from the World Health Organisation prevents a significant challenge for UK public health, because the US provided about a fifth of the entire WHO budget and its departure creates an immediate funding shortfall. It is not only UK public health that will be affected but global public health. The intent to withdraw from the World Health Organisation will restrict communications from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. These measures are likely to have a significant implication for global and UK public health security. The US plays critical roles in the surveillance of infectious diseases, including giving direct support to develop capacity overseas, monitoring the threat of antibiotic-resistant infectious, and recognising and investigating emerging infectious diseases with pandemic potential. USAID programmes are often heavily involved in ensuring access to vaccines for diseases such as polio, which has almost been eradicated, but while it is present anywhere in the world, is still a threat to the UK.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Child Poverty Action Group has reported that 4.3 million children in the UK are living in poverty. In a classroom of 30, that is nine children living in poverty. Given that the Government have ruled out scrapping the two-child benefit cap, will the Minister commit to publishing measurable targets for reducing child poverty during this Parliament?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As a new Member, and someone who came into politics with a passion for health—specifically public health—and addressing inequality, I am really proud to have been a part of this group. I remember the chief medical officer saying that the Bill will not only have the biggest impact on public health of any legislation in about 20 years, but it will be one of the biggest interventions to help even up inequality, especially in life expectancy. As a new Member, and as part of the Liberal Democrat health team, I am really pleased to be involved in this. Unfortunately he is not here today, but on several occasions the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon pontificated on what the flavour of unicorn milk in vapes might be. I never contributed but, as the only vet here, I could have made some assumptions. Assuming that the unicorn’s horn does not influence the flavour of the milk, we can probably extrapolate that it tastes very much like a horse’s milk. As someone who has regularly had to milk a mare to feed a newborn foal, I can tell the Committee that when the mare does not enjoy that, the milk often sprays everywhere—sometimes into one’s mouth. It does not taste terrible, but I would not advise vape manufacturers that it is a good flavour to put into vapes.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  Farmers and vets will remember the 2022 outbreak, which was the biggest we had seen in the UK and which killed millions of birds worldwide, so this new outbreak is of huge concern for three major reasons. First, there is the impact on animal welfare, not just the birds catching avian influenza and dying or being culled, but their having to be kept inside rather than being free range. Secondly, there is the impact on farmers, their businesses and their mental health. As with any notifiable disease, this is hugely stressful, and it is hugely disruptive to business models. What are we doing to ensure that compensation and support are given to farmers quickly? Thirdly, there is a huge potential impact on public health. While we fully understand that there is a low public health risk at the moment—this is a disease of birds—we have just come out of covid-19. We know that if someone is infected with human flu and potentially gets infected with avian influenza, there is a risk that it becomes more infectious to humans. What discussions is the Minister having with APHA and the Department of Health and Social Care to monitor the genotypes?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Women’s Health Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, in one sentence: the Government’s manifesto rightly said that “Never again will women’s health be neglected”. Can we have assurances that we will not remove the ICB requirement to have women’s health hubs?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Women’s Health Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Nearly 600,000 women are waiting for treatment on gynaecology waiting lists in England; the longest waits are leading to preventable diseases progressing and it is one of the worst specialties for long waits. The Care Quality Commission has investigated and reported that 65% of maternity units are not as safe as they should be. That high number could almost be considered a public health crisis, and it has led to the highest amount of negligent payouts due to avoidable injury and even death. This absolutely needs to be addressed. Many women, such as my partner Emma, have had to fight for years to get just a diagnosis for endometriosis, let alone any treatment, having been told for years that the symptoms are completely normal and do not need investigating. In the Government’s—

• 30 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was absolutely shocked to learn that cigarette butts account for one in five pieces of discarded plastic. When it is predicted that by 2050 there will be more tonnage of plastic in the ocean than fish, we should look at every way possible of protecting the environment and wildlife from plastic pollution. Back in 2019, a third successful dive was made to the Mariana trench—the deepest part of the ocean; it is 36,000 feet deep, which is greater than the height at which jumbo jets fly—and I was surprised that when the people were down there documenting previously unseen life forms, they came across plastic pollution. This is such a serious issue that we need to look at every way possible of reducing plastic pollution. Those tiny cigarette butts in particular can be swallowed by a huge number of creatures, as well as contaminating the environment.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to remember that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Someone said to me a while ago that having a smoking section in a restaurant is a bit like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think that the official Opposition’s amendment is better, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 95, in clause 136, page 77, line 12, at end insert— “The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating external or open spaces as smoke-free in England outside— (a) an NHS property or hospital building, (b) a children’s playground, or (c) a nursery, school, college or higher education premises.” . — (Dr Johnson.) This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to only being able to designate open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, children’s playground, school or nursery. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 136, page 77, line 8, leave out from “smoke-free” to the end of line 15 and insert— “a place in England that is— (a) an NHS property or hospital building, (b) a school, college or higher education premises, (c) a children’s play area or playground, including outdoor public areas and frontages adjoining or surrounding such premises or designated areas.”. This amendment would specify which places the Secretary of State has power to designate as additional smoke-free places in England on the face of the Bill.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is reassuring to hear the Minister talk about consulting before bringing in smoke-free places in specific public outdoor areas. Personally, as a non-smoker and someone who is very concerned about the public health impacts of passive smoking, I think we must also be mindful of the need for evidence-based interventions, and of the trade-offs. A good example is that of some fantastic pubs around Winchester and the Meon valley that have maybe two beer gardens, one to the side and one to the back. There would genuinely be no public health risk if smoking was permitted in one of the beer gardens and not the other. The Liberal Democrats want reassurance on that. One of the reasons we tabled our amendment to clause 136, which is coming up, is simply to get assurances that the hospitality sector will not be impacted by any of these decisions, especially if the public health benefits are negligible.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. To reiterate what I said before, the Liberal Democrats’ aim is to avoid unintended consequences that really damage the hospitality industry that we totally support. Amendment 4 would limit the places where we ban smoking or designate smoke-free to an NHS property or hospital building, a school, college or higher education premises, and a children’s playground or play area. We are not against public health measures; we are trying to ensure that we do not end up with provisions that are a bit over the top and damage hospitality businesses.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Speech and Language Therapy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank Mikey for being here today and for all his hard work to get to the point of having a debate. It takes a lot of campaigning to get as many people involved in a petition as he has done, and that is a fantastic tribute to him. I also thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for introducing the debate. I was struck by his comment that speech therapy is not just a treatment, but a lifeline. That was certainly brought home to me recently. In Winchester last year, I visited an aphasia support group. Its members meet every couple of weeks and they all have speech issues caused by various types of brain damage, which could be caused by a brain injury, a stroke, a brain tumour or dementia. They told me that aphasia affects about 350,000 people in the UK. Jez Hodgkinson, who is part of the group, said: “Learning to live with aphasia takes hard work, luck and lots of support—and this isn’t helped by the lack of knowledge of the condition. I’d never actually heard of aphasia until I had a stroke so hence it’s so important to share our stories both inside the group and with the wider public—including those with a voice in parliament.” I also have personal experience of living with my father who had a series of mini-strokes and then dementia, and really struggled to communicate. He knew what words he wanted to say but he could not reach for them. It made communication difficult, and especially did not help a very independent farmer who had quite a hot temper at the best of times. All people who have difficulty communicating, whether it is the result of a hearing impairment, special educational needs or conditions such as strokes and Parkinson’s, have the right to participate in society fully and independently. Too often, those rights are not fully recognised. Everyone has talked about how fundamental it is for us to be able to communicate, because we are a social species; we function because we can communicate. Even with my veterinary background, I understand how fundamental that need is. Puppies communicate primarily by body language; when they have had their ears cut off or their tails docked, they lose that ability to communicate and cannot socialise—they get psychological issues or behavioural problems that last for their entire lives. And the issue is so much more important for humans who need to communicate with friends and family, access services and interact with strangers on a regular basis to be able to work and get an education. Everyone deserves independence and the opportunity to flourish, with them and their families supported so that they can express themselves and communicate with ease in the most comfortable way for them. Speech and language therapy can make a life-changing difference to the people it supports. It is a vital and overstretched service. In recent years, demand has risen at a faster rate than the number of therapists or the support they can offer. That desperately needs to be addressed. By improving outcomes, speech and language therapy can help to deliver better care, and actually save money for other parts of the NHS. We heard about supporting people who are unable to swallow properly; that can have a significant impact on reducing repeat chest infections. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) mentioned how every £1 spent on speech therapy can save £2.30 of NHS costs. When people ask how we can afford to do this, we have to ask, “How can we afford not to do this?” Children and adults are waiting far too long for the speech and language therapy they need. As the hon. Member for Lichfield has already said, it is a postcode lottery; there are huge differences in outcomes depending on where someone lives. Helping people to swallow, eat and communicate is an essential service, and everyone should be able to expect that support if and when they need it. We, the Liberal Democrats, are pressing for the NHS 10-year plan to address specifically the inadequate access to these speech and language therapies, and how that will be improved. We want the Government to develop a workforce strategy to end the chronic shortage of speech and language therapists, so that everyone can get the support that they need. As a slight aside, but on a related note, we have also long campaigned for more support for those communicating through British Sign Language. We have campaigned for it to have equal official status to the UK’s other languages, and we are campaigning for free access to sign language lessons for parents of deaf children. I visited St Peter’s primary school in Winchester recently. The headteacher was discussing how, since the covid pandemic, they had noticed a sharp rise in pupils struggling to communicate, as their speech and language had not developed as quickly as it did before the pandemic. We need to remember that it is not just people’s educational needs that are affected—both by covid and by speech and language challenges—but their entire social development and friendship groups as well. We are really pleased that this issue has been highlighted, and that we have had this debate today. I urge the Minister to push forward on this issue as fast as possible.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about time spent waiting in A&E, one issue we have found in Winchester is that a significant proportion of the caseload consists of people with mental health issues—sometimes suffering a mental health crisis. Many of them are already on a waiting list, but some mental health waiting lists are hitting 18 months or two years from the point of referral to the necessary specialist treatment. That is putting a huge amount of pressure on our A&E departments, as it takes a huge amount of resources to deal with mental health crises. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that investing heavily in mental health services will also help to reduce A&E waiting times?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To reinforce the point that athletes may be uncomfortable wearing that type of branding, they are not only role models for children, but the epitome of health, fitness and what the human body can achieve. It seems outrageous that they should be advertising harmful products.