Danny Chambers MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I spent the summer visiting all the villages in the rural areas outside Winchester, and the common theme that came up was speed limits, and the speed at which traffic goes through small villages; people sometimes go through at 60 mph. All these villages, including Littleton, Crawley, Hambledon and Droxford, want to be able to decide whether to have a 30 mile per hour speed limit in their village, yet Hampshire county council will not even consider that. Those villages that have self-funded traffic-curbing measures do not have permission to implement them. Will the Minister consider granting a debate on how, through the local government and devolution reforms, we can empower local communities to set the speed limit in their village?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Small Businesses in Hampshire · Hansard source

  More

  A couple of weeks ago, I visited a business called Squeaky Clean in Winchester. What was striking about that business was the number of students, young people and sixth-formers it employs, giving them their first job, getting them a CV and teaching them what it is like to work—to turn up on time, to take responsibility—before they go on to university and do other things. The owner told me that the single biggest difficulty she faces in keeping that business going is the rise in national insurance. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be looking at this as a matter of urgency, not just for those businesses but for young people’s opportunities?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Support for Pig Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  No, I used to play football matches with them. They were a lot of fun, and I learned that of all livestock, they are potentially the most intelligent and certainly some of the most affectionate animals. I had a particularly interesting visit to Sparsholt agricultural college in Winchester with the National Pig Association. I used to love going there when I was a vet to treat the animals; now I go there as an MP to look at its teaching and facilities. It has a fantastic indoor, high-welfare unit that delivers piglets without the use of farrowing crates, and I pay tribute to the staff there for their teaching and the welfare standards that they maintain. To touch on something that many Members have spoken about today, one of the top issues threatening the pig industry is biosecurity at the border. I have been to Dover and met the vets and border inspectors there who look at the potentially illegal meat coming in and the tonnes of it that get seized. The crazy thing is that currently, if I were caught smuggling meat into the UK, I could not be arrested and my vehicle could not be seized, but the meat would be confiscated and my vehicle would have to be cleaned, because it would be a biosecurity risk. The only deterrent to trying to smuggle illegal meat into the UK would be that I might get my van cleaned for free at the taxpayer’s expense. That is absolutely ridiculous. I totally understand that enforcing biosecurity at such a busy border is difficult and comes with huge challenges, there are not even suitable deterrents in place for people who get caught. I urge the Minister at the very least to look at implementing some. One thing that the pig industry has done phenomenally well is to reduce antibiotic use by 72% since 2015—just over 10 years. That is hugely important, not only for animal welfare, but for public health. Antimicrobial resistance is like a slow pandemic; it never gets media attention, but it will kill 39 million people by 2050 if we do not take action. It is important that we do not undercut our high animal welfare and farming standards with products from countries that have lower standards. Countries that use antibiotics as growth promoters are not only farming with lower welfare standards, but contributing to this huge public health crisis, so we must do our bit to tackle that issue. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned labelling. It is hugely important that we can identify where meat has been produced. Consumers are currently being hoodwinked; they believe that they are buying products from animals reared in the UK, but it turns out that they were only processed in the UK. They want to support British farmers and high animal welfare standards, so it is completely wrong that they are being hoodwinked into buying products that potentially undermine UK standards. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made a very important point about the lack of small abattoirs in the UK. Their closure is a huge animal welfare issue, as animals have to be transported further than necessary to be slaughtered, and a huge economic problem too. I urge the Minister to see how the Government can work with the pig industry to move away from the CO 2 stunning of pigs. It is a big welfare concern, and the British Veterinary Association and others are keen for the industry to make a sustainable transition away from it. It causes a lot of concern to a lot of constituents, and it really upsets me as a vet. Finally, I urge the Minister to meet the National Pig Association as soon as possible to look at supporting UK farmers, maintaining high animal welfare standards and improving our nation’s food security.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 15 would require that the Secretary of State lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require that the arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing be laid before the House to be voted on. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that, by 2036, the UK-US pharmaceuticals deal will have cost as much as £9 billion. That money could be transformative for the NHS. It could be put towards ending corridor care, as the Committee discussed earlier, or towards hiring thousands of ward staff, buying countless radiotherapy machines and starting to deliver high-quality care and help at home for the elderly and disabled. To make matters worse, Trump’s ambassador hauled in the head of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—the expert independent body that considers value for money in the NHS—to rebuke him over his opposition to the deal. It is utterly outrageous that a British public servant has been dressed down by a foreign regime for putting the interests of British patients and the British taxpayer first. It is crazy that billions of pounds of NHS funding is being spent to placate Trump, at the expense of the patient wellbeing. We want to support the British life sciences sector. That should be a domestic matter for the UK Government to address holistically, through negotiations with the sector; it should not be dictated from Washington. Hiking payments for medicine is the wrong approach for patients who badly need investment in frontline staff, hospitals and equipment. The lack of transparency over the full cost has already created great uncertainty in the sector, and it is astonishing that such a major decision will be made without the say of the British people via a vote in Parliament. The Government refused even to publish an assessment of the impact of the deal, which has raised suspicion and caused some to think that something is being hidden. Through the people who elected us, this House—not the White House—decides on matters of national importance. The Liberal Democrats have tabled these new clauses to allow the House to have a proper vote on the deal.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her comments. It is good to hear cross-party recognition of how important the life sciences sector is in the UK, to universities and businesses as knowledge transfer partnerships. This is a huge opportunity not only to improve the health of the nation and the treatments available, but to boost the economy. We will withdraw new clause 15, but I thought the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spoke extremely well about his concerns relating to the trade deal.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members for their contributions to the discussion. The hon. Member for Lichfield made the good point that a committee of 70 people may not be that efficient. He should come to the Lib Dem parliamentary party meetings, which are incredibly efficient. We have incredibly insightful discussions, which is what makes us such an effective force, so I would not knock a committee of 70 people. I appreciate the Minister’s acknowledgment of the important of cross-party work for public health. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 15 Impact of trade deals on the NHS “(1) Any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. (2) Before laying regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment about how the trade negotiation will affect NHS frontline services and patients.”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clauses 16, 17 and 18 together. They relate to the duty on integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers. Certainly, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for mental health, and having been a carer myself—like many people in this room—I have a particular interest in the mental health of carers. Sometimes we forget that, as well as the patient, the carer also needs a huge amount of support, as what they do can be very draining. Unpaid carers are essential to the sustainability of the NHS and social care system, but carers consistently experience poorer physical and mental health outcomes than non-carers, and frequently struggle to access support for their own health needs. There are approximately 4.7 million unpaid carers in England. They provide support valued at an estimated £152 billion annually—equivalent to the annual NHS budget. Evidence consistently shows that unpaid carers experience worse health outcomes than non-carers. The GP patient survey 2025 showed that 72% of carers report a long-term condition or disability compared with 61% of non-carers. The Office for National Statistics reports that one in four adults providing unpaid care described being in “not good health”, compared with one in five adults who are not providing unpaid care. The probability of reporting being in “not good health” was higher for people providing more hours of unpaid care. Some 49% of unpaid carers reported at least one adverse health effect from providing that care. Low mental wellbeing was more common among unpaid carers, at about 20%, than among those not providing unpaid care, at 15%. An academic study analysing GP patient survey data found that, for those caring for more than 50 hours a week, the health impact of being a carer is equivalent to losing 18 days of full health every year. A study has also found that carers cancel medical treatments and appointments because nobody is available to step into their caring role, and that, because of their caring responsibilities, carers cannot find appointments at times when they can attend. A more targeted approach to support unpaid carers could help to prevent the onset of deteriorating carer health and wellbeing as a result of their caring roles. Although ICBs have broad duties relating to population health and inequalities, there is currently no explicit statutory duty requiring ICBs to improve the health and wellbeing of unpaid carers specifically.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that. Just to reiterate, I am talking specifically about the trade deal with the United States, not about every single trade deal. We completely accept that primary legislation is not necessarily the best way to scrutinise a trade deal, but given the lack of options at the moment, we must use every political mechanism available to create transparency.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s mentioning an update to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966; after 60 years, it is much needed to make the Act fit for purpose to regulate new business structures and paraprofessionals such as physios, and to protect the title of veterinary nurse. Could we have an assurance that, with the change of Administration, the update will remain a priority and will not be kicked into the long grass? It is much needed right now.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This subject is of particular interest to me. For quite a few years I was a trustee of a charity that supported evidence-based medicine and quality improvement. The hon. Lady talked about a no-blame culture. We now tend to use the term “just culture” but it is the same kind of thing: we must have a safe space for people to come forward, like in the airline industry. We want to encourage reporting not only of mistakes but of near misses so that improvements can be delivered without tragic incidents having to take place. If we are to create a culture in which people will come forward to admit even potential mistakes and near misses, they cannot in any way fear punitive punishment under regulations. Does the hon. Lady agree that folding HSSIB into the CQC will make it difficult to create a culture in which people feel confident enough to want to come forward with and overtly discuss mistakes and errors?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would not always object to that, because the whole point of the new clause is that such a contract would come to Parliament and then might well be approved if it turned out to be the best system and in our national interest. The thrust of all three new clauses is to ensure that we do not get exposed and make ourselves vulnerable, which could affect the functioning of the NHS and compromise people’s data. A future Government could set up their own AI system in the UK. How would data be used by that system? We are looking at future-proofing people’s privacy and future-proofing the ability of our country to deliver a service properly. There is also an economic opportunity. We should always prioritise domestic suppliers where possible, and even cultivate them, and help them to innovate and develop, because spending potentially tens of millions of pounds with foreign companies will not do anything to grow our own economy. Given the world-beating talent in our country, we see no reason why the long-term effect of domestic options to foreign systems could not be developed with sufficient Government support. As such, where a contract is signed with a foreign supplier, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to support domestic alternatives. We recognise the complexities involved with NHS procurement, and our new clauses represent one vision built on the core principles of domestic resilience and digital sovereignty. I have a few questions for the Minister, which I would appreciate some comments on. How do the Government intend to build trust in the single patient record to make sure that it is not undermined, rather like the federated data platform has been? Does the Minister agree that the poor reputation of Palantir and distrust has been an important element in the slow roll-out of the federated data platform? Has she considered undertaking a risk assessment with a national security focus of current NHS digital and tech contracts? Does she agree that, in an ever more turbulent world, building domestic capability in this area is central to the security of our country? Does the Minister agree that the domestic life sciences and tech sector is more than capable of developing and scaling many of the systems that we rely on foreign companies for at the moment? The Government have very much positioned AI and technology as the NHS’s white knight. We agree that the potential is huge, but do the Government not think that the NHS needs a long-term digital strategy to support a joined-up development and roll-out of these systems and technology? An analogy to this is how the defence investment plan and future defence procurement can help prioritise and boost economic growth in the UK. We think this is another way that economic growth could be nurtured.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is not about closing off markets or shutting off the potential to use foreign companies if they are most appropriate. It is about prioritising and investing in UK technology and our economy to solve some of our domestic problems while also providing security. Saying that we are closing off domestic markets is misunderstanding the thrust of the new clause.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clauses 3 to 5 are related to the publication of risk assessments of contracts between NHS organisations and suppliers based outside the UK. They would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prioritise domestic, UK-based suppliers in the case of technology systems and contracts involving the handling of NHS patient data, and place restrictions on the signing of such contracts with non-UK-based suppliers. New clause 5 would require the Government to publish an NHS digital sovereignty strategy setting out how they intend to address risks to relevant information systems posed by foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies, including by supporting the use of domestic technologies. We had a Westminster Hall debate on this subject recently. The lack of transparency in how some contracts are awarded is one of the central concerns about Palantir’s involvement with the NHS. We are particularly concerned about the national security considerations of offshoring the whole of our nation’s health data to any foreign company, which makes us vulnerable to political and economic changes in other countries, but especially to companies of questionable integrity in an increasingly authoritarian jurisdiction with little respect for privacy and sovereignty. We should all be worried that our health data has been so closely linked with such an organisation, which has shown itself all too eager to work closely with Donald Trump’s Administration. We know that his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has been using health data to identify people’s immigration status, and there is a lot of concern that people are not coming forward for medical treatment as a result. Doctors and patients have already voted with their feet and shown that they do not trust Palantir and its system for this very reason, which is also a key reason for the limited uptake of the federated data platform so far. As such, we have tabled various new clauses to try to address those concerns, to ensure that they do not plague the single patient record, which we absolutely support and want to help the Government to deliver, along with any other vital technology or data system. New clause 3 would ensure that a risk assessment is conducted of all non-UK tech and data suppliers, with particular regard for national security. It is centrally important that doctors and patients trust the systems that hold their health data and that, as a country, we trust them to be safe and secure. We should not trust rogue actors with our nation’s health information. New clause 5 deals with how we mitigate that risk. It would require the Government to publish an NHS digital sovereignty strategy, setting out how they intend to address the risks of foreign interference and reliance on foreign technologies. Our potential answer to both those questions lies in new clause 4, which would prioritise domestic suppliers that handle sensitive or confidential NHS data. We recognise that that will not always be possible, but where domestic capability does not exist and it is therefore necessary to work with foreign suppliers, to ensure the transparency and effective oversight of a contract with a foreign supplier, it must be brought before Parliament. Should a contract be signed with a non-UK supplier, it would also be subject to consultation with patient groups, national security experts and staff unions to make sure that the system is onside. If it is not, uptake of it will be stunted, as we have seen with the federated data platform.