Danny Chambers MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  What’s that?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, which was going to be my next one. It is completely accurate. The veterinary profession has been extremely concerned by the lack of recognition of animal sentience in law. We urge the Government to change that as soon as possible. My hon. Friend said that Frank was ugly.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  He is unique; he is a pug cross border terrier. He has a strange underbite and quite buggy eyes. We were at our friend’s house for dinner recently, and one of their children said, “Frank’s really ugly.” The other child said, “You shouldn’t say that because he might’ve been in an accident.” I would like to introduce the concept of one health, which many people will have heard of. It is the fact that human and animal health are completely interlinked, whether we are talking about antimicrobial resistance, risk of pandemics, food security or climate change. There is also the concept of one medicine, which has been driven forward by the Humanimal Trust, based primarily on the work of academics at the University of Surrey’s school of veterinary medicine. We are really pushing not only for animal experimentation to be reduced, refined and replaced by other methods, such as those that hon. Members have mentioned today, but to ensure that when these tests are carried out, humans and animals can benefit from the information gathered. For example, if a drug passes animal trials and then passes human trials, it still does not have a licence for animals, even when we know that the drug worked in those animal trials. It is often cost-prohibitive for companies to then carry out the further trials to produce the body of evidence needed to get the licence for animals. Equally, if a drug passes animal trials but fails human trials, there should be a quick and easy way to make it available for veterinary use, so that the animals that have had to endure experimentation and suffering can also benefit. I am very proud that the Liberal Democrats, in the coalition, were involved in stopping the testing of household products on animals. I know that that meant a huge amount not only to the veterinary profession, but to all dog and animal owners. I would appreciate a meeting with the Minister—perhaps with the Humanimal Trust and academics from the University of Surrey’s vet school—to talk about how we can improve the benefit to animals from drug testing and the other types of testing, such as medical and joint implants, that are being carried out. We want to ensure that companies and academics can, as easily as possible, get licences for the drugs to be used on animals so that they can benefit from them as well.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Scientific and Regulatory Procedures: Use of Dogs · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank everyone who signed this petition—it is a huge achievement to get a debate here in Parliament—and in particular one of my friends, Steph Jones-Giles, who has been a passionate campaigner for animal-free research for years. She has been contacting me for years about this issue specifically. My partner Emma and I have a dog called Frank. He is quite an unusual-looking dog. He is a pug cross border terrier, and he is 15 years old today—I have had an update of him in Pets at Home, choosing his new toy. Thankfully, in 15 years, he has not worked out that I am a vet, because he hates going to the vet—he has no idea. I should also point out that Jennie, who is present today, the guide dog for my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), had her sixth birthday just last week. My reason for bringing that up is that no one thinks it is stupid to celebrate a dog’s birthday. We know that dogs have the same range of emotions that people do. We also know that they are—well, I was going to say “hugely intelligent”, but hon. Members have not met Frank—relatively intelligent, and we certainly know that they feel pain, need to have social interaction, just like us, and need the freedom to express natural behaviour.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is every British citizen’s right to vote, and voter turnout is one demonstration of public engagement with politics. Will the Minister consider scrapping photo voter ID, so that the 777,000 people who said that was the reason they did not vote at the last general election will be able to exercise their right to vote at the next general election?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  It is indeed unacceptable, in respect of patients’ safety but also health and safety at work, because the health of the staff is being put at risk as well. These are not minor inconveniences; they are daily threats to patients’ care and they cost us dear, so why are we not fixing them? Failure on the part of the last Government is no excuse for continued delay, and saying “We cannot afford it” when the cost of inaction is higher is simply nonsensical. The longer we wait, the more it will cost the taxpayer. Much has been said about trust in politics, and we will not forget what happened in our part of Hampshire when Conservatives stood on election manifestos promising to deliver a new hospital for which they never had any funds. There was no funding secured and no shovel-ready plan, but they campaigned on the issue repeatedly, hoping that the voters would not find out until it was too late. Other Members have pointed out that GP surgeries are being particularly neglected. The Budget allocated funds to cover additional upgrades for just 200 GP surgeries out of a total of 6,000. With the Government’s jobs tax hitting GPs, it is becoming harder for those practices to fund their own improvements. However, I was pleased that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) mentioned the importance of primary care and mental health. This is, of course, a debate on hospitals and hospital infrastructure, but I know there is cross-party agreement on the fact that keeping people healthy in the community—whether that involves investment in primary care, mental health or public health services—is much more cost-effective for taxpayers as well as being better for patients. We really welcome the Minister’s warm words on social care. We had a social care roundtable just yesterday, and we heard that every pound spent on social care saves the NHS £3. We urge the Government to hold cross-party talks as soon as possible, because for every year that we delay getting a plan for social care, people are languishing in hospitals on delayed discharge which is costing us a huge amount of money. We have to end the vicious cycle of false economies and fortunes being spent on papering over the cracks. The total repair backlogs at the delayed new hospital sites could reach an estimated £5.7 billion by the time construction starts. Are the Government really of the view that keeping hospitals on life support is a good use of taxpayers’ money? Repairing and replacing crumbling NHS buildings is not just about treating more patients; it is about reviving and boosting our economy. Here is the truth: we will not grow our economy unless we reinvest in the services that support it. Let us change course. We urge the Government to reverse the long delays in the new hospital programme, because many will not be open until the 2040s on the current timeline, and those hospitals have to be kept functioning until then; to set out a 10-year investment plan to fix hospitals and GP surgeries; to urgently release funds that have already been committed, to start construction straightaway; and to publish a plan to recruit and retain a skilled workforce to carry out the work efficiently. That is what investing to save looks like. It means improving care, lowering long-term costs and building a stronger, healthier economy. The Conservatives chose to cut investment, which led to higher costs. Our plan is to increase investment now so that we can lower costs in the future. We urge the Government not simply to patch over the damage done to our NHS. As the Liberal politician William Beveridge, who was a visionary behind the formation of the NHS, said: “A revolutionary moment…is a time for revolutions, not for patching.” Let us be bold, and let us invest now. It will be better for the taxpayer, it will be better for patients, and it will boost our economy.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  It seems that Members on both sides of the House have been experiencing similar problems in the hospitals that they represent. Years of under-investment has left many hospitals with leaking roofs, for instance. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) spoke of sewage in clinical areas—I thought that sewage was the subject of the next debate; it is outrageous that we should be discussing its presence in our hospitals—and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) told us about a room full of incubators which had to be removed because the ceiling was at risk of collapsing. It is crazy that operating theatres and hospital rooms are unused not because of a lack of staff, but because they are not safe enough for people to work in. Like many other Members, I regularly meet hospital leaders and managers—in my case, at our local hospital in Winchester—to discuss the problems that they are experiencing. Despite the heroic efforts of the staff at the Royal Hampshire County hospital, they are facing a set of issues similar to those that have been raised time and again this afternoon, including, again, leaking roofs over treatment areas. Like the hospital mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), ours has old, outdated lifts that fail, making it difficult to transport patients from wards to the operating theatre. It has no back-up power generators, so there is a risk to patients’ safety during power cuts.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T10. When it comes to global public health, we know that nobody wins unless everybody wins, and that an infectious disease elsewhere on the planet can affect us here as well. What steps is the Department taking to secure funding for overseas development projects involving diseases that will specifically be a risk to the UK, including in relation to antimicrobial resistance?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Male Suicide in Rotherham · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for speaking so eloquently about this difficult and sensitive subject. On that point, it is known that those living in poverty are three times more likely to take their own lives or have mental health issues than people on the average wage. Linking into that, 85% of homeless people are men, and their homelessness is often related to mental health issues. I appreciate all the work that he is doing to highlight poverty.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only vets and farmers who are extremely proud that we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, but the British public? We should not compromise those farming standards and any trade deals that may occur in the future should not undermine them either.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  Some of the greatest challenges facing civilisation right now include climate change, how we feed 8 billion people and give them energy sustainably, the risk of pandemics, and antimicrobial resistance. Does my hon. Friend agree that barriers to research are not only damaging our universities and industries, but hindering the tackling of these huge problems?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), for securing this hugely important debate. This is not a niche issue. As has been said, with three out of 10 children living in poverty, many of them going to school hungry, this is a matter of national shame. It has made me reflect on how privileged I was. I went to the local state school, which was a perfectly fine school. I never went to school hungry, and I always had a roof over my head. If I had gone to school hungry, there is no way I would have concentrated to get the grades I needed to go on to study veterinary science at the University of Liverpool for seven fantastic years. I could not have achieved that. We know that in this country we are short of vets, doctors and engineers. A huge amount of talent is being wasted because children cannot reach their full educational potential. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) touched on the economic benefits of universal free school meals, and rightly mentioned the PwC study showing that for every £1 we put into free school meals, we get £1.71 in economic growth. There are a variety of reasons for that, including the fact that children end up getting better jobs and paying more tax—more than £18 billion over a 20-year period. There is less childhood obesity, costing the NHS less; people are less likely to end up on long-term benefits because they are getting better jobs and are healthier. We also know that the prison illiteracy rate is several times the national average. It costs £51,000 a year to keep someone in prison, yet apparently we cannot afford to give children free school meals that might prevent them from going down that path in the first place. Not only do we have the heartbreaking moral argument for ensuring that children go to school well fed, but we also have the economic argument that doing so will grow our economy if we are brave enough to provide those meals. I visited the tiny Itchen Abbas primary school—a little like the one I attended. The school has only 60 or 70 children, and I heard how by the time the school pays staff to come in an hour early and covers heating costs, while receiving only 60p, 70p or 80p per meal, it costs a lot to provide those breakfast clubs. The school wants to do it, but it is not feasible at the moment. I totally support breakfast clubs, and I think they are a fantastic idea. However, we have to make sure that not only are they affordable for schools, and not costing extra, but they are providing good, nutritious food for children. Clearly, when we factor in all the added costs, 60p or 70p per meal will not provide a nutritious meal and will cost the school a lot of money. Despite the best efforts of Liz Truss and the last Government, we are still one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. There is no reason for any child to go to school hungry. If we make the right choices over the next few years, we can ensure that every child reaches their full educational potential, we can regrow our economy and we can ensure that every child enjoys being at school.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Domestic Abuse Offences · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend for speaking so eloquently and movingly about his personal experiences. There is a recognised link between animal abuse and domestic abuse. I pay tribute to organisations such as the Links Group that train veterinary professionals to recognise when the cases they are seeing may be indicators of abuse or domestic abuse, which ties in exactly with what he is saying. If there is no specific offence of domestic abuse, it is really hard to signpost and give guidance to everyone in the community on how to proceed, so that people are identified and helped at an early stage.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I wish to follow on from what the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said about trade deals. We know that trade deals, particularly the potential ones with the US, threaten to undermine our high animal welfare standards that we have spent years working so hard to establish. If we allow products that are produced to lower standards—such as hormone-treated beef or chlorine-washed chicken—to become the norm, that will undercut our farmers. This is not about protectionism, but about fairness. Not only are vets and farmers proud of our high animal welfare standards, but the British public are, too. We should not in any way be looking to compromise those. The UK has already made significant strides in reducing antibiotic use in livestock without compromising animal welfare. Our veterinary and farming sectors have worked together to promote the responsible use of antibiotics. We are setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. As the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance report in 2024 highlighted, sales and usage of antibiotics in food-producing animals remain low. In fact, the past 10 years has seen a 59% decrease in the use of antibiotics in animals and livestock. Long-term antimicrobial resistance surveillance carried out by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate shows that multi-drug resistance in animals is at its lowest level in a decade. Such encouraging statistics are a product of years of work and dedication between scientists and the farming community. This is a huge public health issue, and we should be ensuring that trade deals do not force our farmers to compete with countries that do not have the same judicious use of antibiotics as we do. On Saturday, I visited the NFU in Hampshire at Ben Robinson’s farm where, like many lowland farmers, they are about to start lambing. This is the hardest time of the year for sheep farms—I grew up on a sheep farm. Those farmers will be working all day and all night. In farming, the amount of effort, time and work that farmers put in does not always result in profit, because so many factors are out of their control—international disease outbreaks, geopolitical events that put up fertiliser prices, poor weather, changing Government policy, and potential trade deals. I pay tribute to the Farming Community Network, which works so hard to support the mental health of farmers.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Mental Health Support: Educational Settings · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way on this hugely important subject. As I am sure is the case for other Members across the House, I find that children’s mental health is one of the subjects that comes up most frequently on the doorstep, with parents really struggling to get the mental health care that their children need. One of the questions that is asked most frequently is: how can we afford to increase mental health care? Does he agree with me that it is actually more cost-effective to provide timely mental health support than to end up treating people when they have been sicker for longer?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  International events have pushed national security right up the agenda, and I am sure that we have cross-party acknowledgment that food security is a vital part of national security. Given the changing geopolitical situation, has an impact assessment been undertaken on changes to and stressors for farming budgets and cash flow, such as the removal of SFI, and their effect on food security?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Maternity Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing the debate. She spoke movingly and eloquently, and reminded everyone that these are not just statistics, but people. I will make three points very briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) touched on maternal mental health. As the mental health spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I was as shocked as anyone to know that the No. 1 cause of death for women in the 12 months post giving birth is taking their own life. That is tragic, and it is one reason why my team are organising an event in Parliament in April with the group Delivering Better to bring together women who have experienced mental health challenges during pregnancy and after childbirth. The event will provide a platform to share stories, raise awareness and discuss how we can improve support and services for mothers across the country. I recently attended the 120th anniversary of the vet school at Liverpool, where I went to university. I spoke to the pro-vice-chancellor, Professor Louise Kenny, who is a consultant obstetrician and has done a lot of research on health during gestation and the months after birth, and we discussed the latest research. We have not touched on that today, but I will do so briefly now. Healthy gestation is the foundation of a person’s lifelong health, and it has a far greater impact than any lifestyle changes in adulthood. We need to look not just at birth itself, but at the care of the mother before birth—everything from stress to nutrition.

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this hugely important debate. As has just been noted, this is an issue about which we all receive a huge amount of correspondence every day, from parents who are at their wits’ end. Supporting children and young people with special educational needs is not an act of charity; it is a fundamental responsibility of government, and yet we find that parents are repeatedly battling to access the complicated system. I will briefly give an overview of Dr Warwick-Sanders, a constituent I met in Winchester recently. He is a psychiatrist and his wife is also a medical professional. Their son was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in 2002 and referred to the child and adolescent mental health service. Despite being medical professionals, they said that they just did not know where to turn for help. Although CAMHS is the cornerstone for child mental health services, it has a shocking 150 week wait in our area. Dr Warwick-Sanders’ son is stuck in a system where the ADHD medication he needs is out of reach until an assessment is completed. He said, “If medical professionals like me cannot navigate the system, what hope do others have?” If we are to give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential, we must prioritise our investment in SEND services. My question for the Minister is, how do we streamline this process for accessing support so that everyone—including medical professionals, but also people who have no experience of dealing with such organisations —can get the help they need, when they need it?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. It was good to briefly chat to Kim Campbell outside the Chamber. She has done a great job in getting this petition debated. This issue is something that thousands of parents around the country are agonising over. We live in an era when social media connects us instantly, but that often comes at quite a cost. As the Lib Dem spokesperson for mental health, I knock on a lot of doors and speak to a lot of parents, headteachers and teachers. At the moment, one of the top issues that is brought up, often unprompted, is people’s struggle to get access to treatment for their children’s mental health. Nearly everyone seems to agree, throughout society, in whatever area, that children’s mental health issues are increasing in incidence. Everyone is reporting an increase in anxiety, depression and body image issues, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned. All those things are on the rise, and many people believe that that is fuelled by platforms designed to capture and keep children’s attention at any cost. The risk goes far beyond self-esteem: social media is an open door for strangers to make contact with vulnerable children. Grooming, exploitation and harmful content are just a few clicks away. As several Members have mentioned, parents, despite their best efforts, struggle to keep up with the rapidly evolving digital landscape. We know that children are often much quicker, more adaptable, and quick to circumvent any safeguards with workarounds. They can quickly access restricted content and bypass age limits with ease. We also know that once one child in a cohort has managed to get hold of that content, they can send it to other children quickly and easily. That is why, along with nearly everyone present, we support reviewing the minimum age for social media access. We are in an environment where online bullying is relentless and inescapable. Bullying has always taken place in schools, but people went home. Now, when a child gets home, though they might be in bed or having dinner, the bullying can continue. They might even wake up in the morning to bullying that has come in overnight. We must ensure that restrictions are not just appropriate and evidence-based, as far as they can be, but properly enforced. There has been a lot of discussion about what age should be the minimum for social media access, but the age does not matter if the restriction is not enforced by anyone. At the moment there is a minimum age, and we know that people younger than that are accessing this content anyway. That is one reason why, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) will speak about shortly, the Liberal Democrats are calling for more of a public health approach to children’s social media use. I have just spent a month sitting on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, going line by line through that legislation, which is one of the most impactful pieces of public health legislation in decades. It will have a huge impact on public health by creating a smokefree generation. As a Government and as a society, we recognise that potentially harmful behaviours such as smoking and gambling need to be appropriately regulated. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) reminded everyone very eloquently about the supposed research that tobacco companies carried out for years to try to obfuscate the real situation. They pretended to add scientific value and knowledge, when it was really about trying to confuse the situation and slow any regulation of their products. Just like the tobacco companies that prioritised profit over people’s health, social media companies will prioritise profit and engagement over young people’s mental health. Tech giants must be held accountable for the impact of their platforms on young minds. We need stronger protections, real enforcement of age limits, and proper digital education—not just for young people but for parents and teachers. All children will have to receive education in online safety and safer screen use to ensure that they are equipped with the skills to safely navigate the digital world, because when they finally hit whatever age is deemed appropriate, they need to be prepared and have the skills to engage critically, safely and responsibly with online content. This is not about restricting freedom; it is about protecting young minds and improving the mental health of young people. We have allowed the digital world to move faster than our policies. Now we must act to keep up, because everyone agrees that our children deserve better.

• 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.