Danny Chambers MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Sepsis Awareness Month · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for so vividly highlighting his personal experience of sepsis. He gave a very emotional speech and it is good to see him in the Chamber looking so healthy. Around one in five deaths worldwide are associated with sepsis—that is 11 million deaths a year. I recently met Ron Daniels, founder and chief medical officer of the UK Sepsis Trust, to discuss the new sepsis modern service framework. I very much welcome its ambition to reduce deaths, life-threatening complications and the long-term impact of sepsis by at least 25% over the next decade, but if we are serious about achieving that, we need to get much better at detecting infection early. Sepsis is the body’s extreme response to infection, whether viral, bacterial or fungal. It can cause organ failure, permanent disability and death. Crucially, patients can deteriorate incredibly quickly. There is no single diagnostic test for sepsis; its symptoms overlap with many other conditions and clinicians are often having to make decisions with incomplete information. That is why rapid diagnostic tests are so important. I recently held a meeting at Winchester hospital for local GPs, the local authority, laboratories and manufacturers of various rapid diagnostic tests to look at the barriers to implementing rapid diagnostic tests, and at how people can have them in the community for earlier diagnosis and the prevention of hospital admissions. Better diagnostics mean earlier treatment. They mean being able to use the right antibiotic for the right infection; they mean preventing patients deteriorating into sepsis; and they mean using fewer unnecessary antibiotics, which ultimately can result in antimicrobial resistance developing and is another huge growing public health concern. Prevention matters too. We must reverse the falling vaccination rates that we have seen in recent years to prevent infections occurring in the first place, as well as ensuring that hospitals have the facilities to isolate and care properly for infectious patients. Crucially, it also means tackling corridor care and long waits in A&E, because when somebody is deteriorating in those conditions, every hour matters, as we know. In the case of corridor care and long waits, that means that diagnosis and treatment is more likely to be delayed. I wish to talk specifically about one group of patients—cancer patients. We rightly focus on treating the cancer itself, but infection, often sepsis, is the second-biggest cause of death for people with cancer. That may seem surprising, but cancer can cause a reduction in people’s immunity. Chemotherapy and various treatments cause people to become immunocompromised, weakening their immune system and making them more prone to getting infections. That also means repeat infections, which means that they are more likely to have repeat uses of antibiotics and to have antibiotic-resistant infections. The consequences of infection for people with cancer can be even more serious. That is why I find one omission from the Government’s national cancer plan quite striking. It is an 86-page strategy setting out how we are going to transform cancer care by 2035, yet infection is mentioned only once, and that is just in the foreword. That is not a minor oversight; it is a glaring omission that risks undermining the entire cancer strategy. We would never produce a cancer strategy that treated radiotherapy, chemotherapy or surgery as peripheral to cancer care, so we need to ensure that we are treating infection, which is the second-biggest killer of cancer patients, as integral to cancer care. Infection prevention, rapid diagnostics, antimicrobial stewardship and surveillance need to be absolutely central to cancer care, not an afterthought. If we fail to address infection properly, we are setting the entire new cancer strategy up to fail. Sepsis contributes to tens of thousands of deaths in the UK each year, as well as leaving many survivors with life-changing physical and psychological consequences. I have one specific request of the Government. Will the Minister commit to updating the national cancer strategy to incorporate infection control, sepsis and rapid diagnostic tests as being absolutely integral to cancer management? We welcome the new sepsis modern service framework; we just need to deliver it.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Vaccination Rates: England · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on securing this important debate. It seems that every time I open my social media feed or emails, I am being sold some supplement or superfood to boost my immunity. We know that the most effective way of boosting our immunity is vaccination. Vaccines can achieve something even more extraordinary: they can actually eradicate diseases from the face of the earth. During the 20th century alone, we lost hundreds of millions of people to smallpox until it was eradicated in 1977. Rinderpest, a cattle disease, was wiped off the face of the Earth by vaccination—the second disease to be removed from our planet. Polio is on the brink of eradication. I recently spoke at a Winchester rotary event about polio eradication, organised by two of my constituents, Gillian Russell and Professor Kordo Saeed, both of whom contracted polio when they were children and have lifelong disabilities as a result. It is important to remind everyone that this is about preventing not just deaths, but disability and ill health that can last a lifetime. We saw the power of vaccination during the covid-19 pandemic. A century earlier, during the 1918 influenza outbreak, which killed 50 million people, there were no flu vaccines or antiviral treatments. There were not even antibiotics to treat the secondary infections. During covid, we initially had only the same blunt tools—isolation and restriction on gatherings—to try to control the disease, but then the vaccine came out. It saved a huge number of lives and gave us a route out of lockdown. We got back to seeing our families, socialising, going back to work, running our businesses and just living our lives. But there is a danger that vaccines can become a victim of their own success. We have become so unfamiliar with some diseases that we have forgotten how serious they really are. That is why falling childhood vaccination rates should particularly concern us. When politicians like Donald Trump and parties such as Reform platform anti-vaxxers, parents rightly become worried. They all want to do the best for their children, but when dangerous, provocative and downright false information is platformed, the truth is pushed further and further away from those looking for answers. Centuries ago, hospitals were filled with iron lungs for children with polio, and graveyards were filled with children under five years old who died from entirely preventable diseases. Vaccines have saved more lives than any other medical intervention in history. They are the closest thing that we have to a safety blanket from disease, and we must not allow dangerous and divisive figures online or in politics to drive people away from science and evidence-led healthcare. Science produces solutions, answers and evidence, but politicians and politics can determine whether they are trusted.

• 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 am grateful to the shadow Minister for that intervention. Unless something changes significantly by the time we get to vote on new clause 76, which I understand will not be today, we will press it to a vote for transparency’s sake, but we will withdraw new clause 15. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 16 Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers “After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert— ‘Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers (1) Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to improving and maintaining the physical health, mental health, and wellbeing of carers within its area. (2) In exercising its duties under this section, an integrated care board must have regard to— (a) reduction of health inequalities experienced by carers, (b) prevention of deterioration in carers’ physical and/or mental health, (c) involvement of carers in decisions relating to the care of persons for whom they provide care, and (d) the need to ensure carers are able to access appropriate preventative and other health services and support. (3) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area— (a) consider the health and wellbeing needs of carers in care planning and discharge processes, (b) involve carers appropriately in decisions relating to care and treatment, and (c) provide carers with information about support available to them for their health and wellbeing. (4) In preparing a Joint Forward Plan, an integrated care board must include— (a) an assessment of the health and wellbeing needs of carers within its area, (b) steps the integrated care board proposes to take to improve outcomes for carers, and (c) measures for reducing inequalities experienced by carers. (5) In this section, “carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.’”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  For over 50 years, there has been a statutory independent patient voice in the health and care system. The creation of Healthwatch was, in part, a direct response to the issues raised by the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffs. In a 2024 Healthwatch poll, almost a quarter of NHS patients said that they had experienced poor care in the past year, but 56% of them—more than half—took no action. Of that 56%, 20% said that that was because they were scared that giving negative feedback directly to NHS services would affect their ongoing treatment. Women, people living in areas of greater deprivation, disabled people and unpaid carers were significantly more likely to give the fear of retribution as a reason for not speaking up. The Government are stripping patients of their voice in our NHS. Rather than being able to go to an independent body and express how the NHS can work better for them, patients will now be able only to give feedback to the same organisation that might have failed them. I have had experience of that in the past few weeks. My partner Emma has endometriosis, which has been an ongoing condition. She was worried that speaking to the local hospital trust specifically about the treatment she received might affect her treatment going forward. The Government have argued that the changes will bring patient insight closer to decision making, making it much more effective at securing change. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), stated that patients do not need “ventriloquists”. That blatantly disregards the vital role played by Healthwatch in advocating not only for vulnerable patients who, understandably, do not feel confident navigating health services with often complex or combative systems, but for whole communities with a pre-existing distrust of the system. We believe that removing Healthwatch leaves the health service to mark its own homework, which creates a conflict of interest. It will significantly undermine public trust, as independence is removed. Will vulnerable people who have suffered harm or poor experiences in the health and care system really have faith in a system headed by a director in the Department of Health and Social Care, which is the very organisation running the system that caused them harm in the first place? On a local level, will they have faith going to the same ICB that oversees the providers that have failed them? One need only look at the long list of maternity failings in Mid Staffs to see that internal functions can fail catastrophically. We know all too well that the NHS default is sometimes to cover up. The public knows that, too, so independence is everything. Healthwatch has been keen in spotting and exposing challenges in the health service, such as widespread failures in the NHS referral process, yet there will be no incentive for the new system to investigate such issues, which are invisible in the main NHS performance metrics. The system does not always know what questions it needs to ask, so an independent route for unsolicited feedback is important. We also think that the provisions disadvantage hard-to-reach communities and those who may have a distrust towards the NHS and public authorities, making it harder to gain the feedback and concerns of those communities. That risks inadvertently further baking in inequalities. More widely, clarity has not yet been provided on how those functions will be funded. The reform is coming alongside major reductions in ICB running costs. Healthwatch currently receives almost £26 million a year; that is already 60% less in real terms than the original DHSC estimate to fund the network. There is a risk that the money will be absorbed into wider budgets and never spent on the patient experience infrastructure. If people want to see the value of Healthwatch, they need look no further than the Cabinet Office briefing notes on the King’s Speech, which reference a May 2025 Healthwatch report on missing medical records to make the case for the single patient record. Fundamentally, the Government are conflating patient voice with patient involvement in decision making. While greater patient voice in commissioning and decision making is needed, it is not a replacement for the advocacy and other functions of Healthwatch, which helps vulnerable people to navigate a complex health and care system and performs signposting functions. Splitting local healthwatch functions across ICBs and local authorities once again separates health and care and reinforces existing gaps between them. As we know, many issues span both areas and need a joined-up investigative approach. How will the new model ensure a joined-up view of people’s experiences across the NHS and social care? We urge the Minister to reconsider this decision. We have seen overwhelming support for Healthwatch across the sector, and it is becoming increasingly clear that many people in the NHS and the medical profession think that this is a huge mistake. Healthwatch England has played a central role in escalating the findings of local healthwatch organisations and in advocating nationally. We have three examples. The first is the call to publish research highlighting inequalities in waiting times for disadvantaged groups, and for a demographic breakdown of waiting lists, which the NHS obliged with last summer. The second example arose after Healthwatch Sunderland supported a patient with a learning disability who had received accessible screening information but risked missing care because of inaccessible follow-up letters. Healthwatch England raised that gap with national bodies and highlighted inconsistencies in communication, and, as a result, the national easy-read templates were introduced across the cancer pathway, which improved accessibility and reduced risk. The third example is that Healthwatch feeds back patients’ horrific stories of corridor care—including that of a pensioner who was left in a corridor—to NHS leaders, and lobbies for increased transparency and oversight when it comes to corridor care. I have several questions in three forms. Is the Minister genuinely sure that a director of patient experience in DHSC will be eager to advocate for patients and flag issues at a national level given that they will essentially be flagging to their bosses where work is not up to scratch? Is she sure that the level of persistence that has so often been needed to advocate for change at a national level would be forthcoming from a director employed by DHSC? What will be the mechanism for escalating local concerns that indicate national or systemic issues? Will the Minister explain where the Government envision the new director sitting in the DHSC structure, and what the reporting lines will be? How will the Government ensure that they have the resources and sense of operational independence to investigate and raise concerns nationally? Healthwatch England has often flagged issues to MPs and to the Health and Social Care Committee as a way of applying pressure on NHS leaders and Ministers to enact change.