Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Danny Chambers and Peter Prinsley

Committee stage
Thursday 16th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Twelve young people die every week from undiagnosed heart conditions. One of those was Clarissa Nicholls, who died just before her 21st birthday, while on a year abroad in France. Her mother and friends have campaigned tirelessly not only to provide electrocardiograms to young people, but to raise awareness about early detection of heart conditions. Finding a heart condition does not mean that exercise must stop or that life goes on hold; it just means that appropriate alterations can be made to keep a person safe, active and healthy.

Such a scheme has been rolled out in Italy and has been hugely successful. The new clause would push the Government to look seriously at having ECGs for young people as an early identifier for potentially fatal conditions, so that we do not lose up to 12 young people a week due just to a lack of testing.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for his speech. I would like to know whether he is aware of any evidence that mass screening of young people with ECGs will actually improve matters.

Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Danny Chambers and Peter Prinsley

Committee stage
Thursday 9th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

New clause 14 is about healthy life expectancy. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years, setting out how the target would be achieved. New clause 79 would establish a public health committee and health creation unit to promote public health and cross-Government policymaking. New clause 80 would place a duty on all Ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties. All three new clauses are closely related.

Over the last 100 years, life expectancy in the UK has been increasing for a variety of reasons, including vaccination, improved hygiene and medical advances, but worryingly, between 2022 and 2024, it decreased by 1.8 years for men and 2.5 years for women. That is the first time it has decreased in a while. There is an 11.1-year gap between the highest and lowest life expectancies, which is partly due to demographics and different socioeconomic situations. Socioeconomic disparity is causing a very significant difference in life expectancy.

We need wider whole-of-Government working to address the root cause of and contributing factors to ill health. DHSC, the NHS and social care deal with too much in silos, which is a problem across the whole of Government. There is too much siloed working. All Departments should be working with at least one eye on the health of the nation. That is what our new clauses seek to foster. A healthy life expectancy target would provide the basic metric for that aspiration, forcing wider thinking on prevention and ill health, rather than on waiting lists and hospital performance, as important as they are.

New clause 80 would place a duty on all Ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties. That should aim to focus the minds of non-DHSC Government Departments that have a central role to play in the promotion of good health and longevity, whether that be housing standards or environmental regulations. We included health protection—areas such as clean water, for instance—as well as health promotion, which includes areas such as active travel.

New clause 79 would create a public health committee and a health creation unit to support its work, especially between Departments. This is an idea originally introduced under the coalition Government, designed to tackle obesity, alcohol abuse and other public health problems. Although we recognise that it was not perfect, given the Tories’ lack of engagement and spotty attendance, the desire to foster cross-Government thinking was definitely right.

[Dr Prinsley]

Would the hon. Member comment on what I consider to be almost the most successful and important Bill that our new Government have passed, on the effective abolition of cigarette smoking? As time goes by, that will save more lives than anything else we could possibly think of. I recognise that it was the initiative of the previous Government, but the fact that the new Government have managed to get it over the line is a massive achievement. That is very much underappreciated and certainly not spoken about anything like enough. We will never do anything as important as the abolition of cigarette smoking.

[Dr Chambers]

Yes, I sat on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee for six weeks, going through the legislation line by line. One of the most interesting things about that Bill is not only that it will improve public health and life expectancy, but that it is probably one of the single most impactful pieces of legislation in terms of improving inequality and especially socioeconomic health outcomes. So many of the disparities in life expectancy between wealthy people and those living in relative poverty are due to levels of smoking—it is not just smoking, but that is a significant factor. It is good of the hon. Gentleman to highlight that.

During the coalition, the Tories recognised that the approach I described would send a powerful message that public health is the responsibility of all Government Departments. When it was scrapped, the then shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), said that we could tackle Britain’s looming obesity crisis only if all Government Departments pulled together. We completely agree with that statement.

New clause 79 tries to address some of the issues that occurred back then, including by placing requirements on ministerial attendance and giving the Liaison Committee oversight to drive accountability. I am sure the Minister will agree that greater cross-Government working is needed. What are the Department’s plans to support that? If we want to tackle the various public health crises facing our country, we cannot do so without proper cross-Government working.

In my professional life, I was made an honorary lecturer at Bristol University veterinary school in the area of One Health, recognising that animal health, human health and environmental health are completely interlinked. It is difficult to improve one without looking at the factors that improve the others, and we need that kind of approach throughout all Government Departments.

Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Danny Chambers and Peter Prinsley

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

The size of the contract would be pretty much irrelevant; what matters is the implications arising from the contract being signed. Does a contract potentially compromise our data sovereignty? Alternatively, if a contract failed for any reason, whether it was because of the action of a state actor or a non-state actor, would the service continue to function?

[Dr Prinsley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for taking my intervention and I am sorry that it is late in the afternoon. The question we are faced with is this: what is the best system to serve our patients? If the best system turns out to be a system that is procured from another country, would he in principle always object to that?

[Dr Chambers]

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.

Health Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Danny Chambers and Peter Prinsley

Committee stage
Thursday 2nd July 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

Amendment 9 would place the mental health investment standard on a statutory footing, requiring ICBs to increase mental health spending at least in line with the growth in their total programme funding. Amendment 10 would enable the Secretary of State to implement financial penalties if ICBs failed to comply. New clause 27, tabled by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), is similar. It is quite reassuring to see that the policies of the Liberal Democrats and of the Health and Social Care Committee are fairly well aligned.

The Darzi report highlighted that 20% of the NHS caseload is mental health, yet at the time it was receiving just under 10% of the NHS budget in funding, and now it is receiving 8.4%. To put that in the context of real lives, when I was first elected in 2024, there were just over half a million children and young people on mental health waiting lists; as of last week, there were 1 million. While the Government have done commendable work in reducing waiting lists for physical conditions, mental health cases are increasing—and fast.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I am very interested in the increase in the number of people waiting for mental health care, particularly mental health assessments. Does the hon. Member think that that is because the funding is inadequate, or is there some other reason why the waiting list numbers have been shooting up?

[Dr Chambers]

I would happily speak for several hours on the multifaceted reasons why young people in particular are struggling with mental health. One of my passions is ensuring that people get intervention and support before they require clinical care, but at the moment that is not happening. For a whole variety of societal reasons, including young people applying for 300 or 400 jobs and not even getting a response, more and more people are ending up on mental health waiting lists.

The mental health investment standard has been widely hailed for bringing about positive change in the health service. It protects funds and provides certainty for services that are seeing dramatically rising demand and, importantly, it provides certainty about future finances. Placing it on a statutory footing in primary legislation would make it more transparent and prevent it from becoming a political football. It would also help to stop the watering down of targets that seems to have happened over the last few years. Claire Murdoch, NHS England’s national mental health director, essentially resigned over those changes.

To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the Milburn report and the report by the Children’s Commissioner this week showed that the number of children referred to mental health services in England has risen by over 10% in just one year—it is now at more than a million. The pressures on NHS services and funding are clear. If funding is not protected, there is a real risk that it will be cut due to competing demands.

One thing I found when speaking to staff at Winchester’s A&E department is that when mental health patients turn up, having been unable to get support and often having already been on a waiting list, sometimes for more than 18 months, the average time they spend in A&E is more than 18 hours, during which some of them require constant supervision. So, we are badly supporting people with mental health issues in the most expensive part of the NHS. We cannot afford to let the mental health crisis in this country continue slipping out of control, and funding for NHS mental health services is an essential part of stopping that.

New clause 33 would require the Secretary of State to

“conduct and publish an annual review into the number and length of delays for patients’ receipt of mental health treatment across rural and urban areas.”

Something I found interesting growing up on a farm and working as a vet is the almost unrecognised mental health issues in rural areas. That is partly because many people who work in rural vocations have minimal contact with people outside their workplace. Sometimes the vet and the postman might be the only people that a farmer sees in one, two or three weeks. There are a lot of questions about why disparities in accessing treatment in rural versus urban areas exist. Alternative approaches are needed, and some of the ideas floated have included mental health support officers for rural GP surgeries, or training vets up as mental health first aiders, because they might be a point of contact for a farmer and recognise when they are struggling.

Different communities require help in different ways, and farming communities often feel overlooked. They are vital for keeping the nation fed and fit and healthy, but they have a job that involves working from before 5 or 6 in the morning until late at night. If services are provided that do not fit with that person’s lifestyle and job restrictions, they can often struggle to access them, which, when coupled with having virtually no mobile signal and poor broadband, means that people in rural areas are sometimes cut off in more ways than one.

The Mental Health Act 2025 had a fairly limited focus on providing care to those with the most acute mental health problems. We need to look at preventive measures to ensure that people are supported through difficult times in their lives. These new clauses will require a report from local authorities so that we can ensure that they are providing tailored support to those in need. The Liberal Democrats strongly believe that early intervention and preventive services are key to tackling to mental health issues. These new clauses would urge mental health service providers to look beyond putting out the fire. This is about moving from crisis management to ensuring that people are supported in their local communities so that they do not reach the point of crisis. We need to treat mental health as seriously as we treat physical health. I know the Minister agrees with that; we think these new clauses will enable the Government to deliver on that ambition.

Community Audiology

Debate between Danny Chambers and Peter Prinsley

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. This is an important debate, secured by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), but it is quite something to have to follow an eminent and experienced ENT surgeon, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), when speaking about hearing and hearing loss—especially as I am just a rudimentary vet.

It is quite common that people bring in a dog that they assume has hearing loss because it can no longer hear its name being called in the park, yet for some reason it can still hear a treat packet or a fridge being opened in another room. On comparative anatomy, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket may be interested to hear that one reason why up to 20% of a caseload in a day of treating small animals can be on ear-related issues is that in humans the ear canal goes straight to the eardrum whereas in dogs it bends around 90° before it gets to the eardrum. Around that corner it is often quite warm and moist, and a lot of bacteria and yeast grow in those conditions.

[Peter Prinsley]

I am very interested in the story of dogs and the shape of a dog’s ear canal; that is such a helpful explanation. I was often brought dogs, particularly spaniels with big floppy ears, who had ear infections and blockages, and I was always puzzled why it was that the dogs got into such difficulties. The hon. Gentleman’s explanation of the right angle at the bottom of the ear canal is so helpful and I thank him for it.

[Dr Chambers]

I am honoured to have educated an ENT surgeon. Spaniels do have worse ear problems, given that there is a lack of airflow, and one thing that vets can get experienced at is taking a swab so that we are not using unnecessary antibiotics or inappropriate antibiotics. With a bit of experience, it is fairly easy to smell the difference between Malassezia yeast, pseudomonas bacterial infection or streptococcus intermedius—to anyone who thinks being a vet is glamorous, I say, “Spend a day sniffing ears to determine what type of microbes are down there, and it will change your mind.”

It is very interesting that many Members spoke today about the impact of hearing loss on dementia. We know that dementia is multifactorial—there is no single cause—but certainly my father had hearing loss for a long time, and he developed dementia. Hearing loss certainly affected his quality of life, dementia aside. He lost the confidence to go out to socialise and barely left the farm unless he had to. We are pretty sure that a significant factor in that was that he felt he could not hear what other people were saying. He could not perform business at the market as he used to, because markets are very noisy places.

The Father of the House touched on the fact that one in three adults have either deafness, tinnitus or some other type of hearing issue. What surprised me was that only 38% of people who suspect that they have hearing loss themselves have contacted a professional about it. I read that stat and was quite surprised, but I then realised that for years my partner Emma and other family members have often said, “Why do you have the TV so loud?”. I have also often noticed in a pub everyone else is talking, and I find it really hard to hear the conversation over any external noise, yet I have never gone along and had a hearing test. Quite clearly, I do not hear as well as everyone else in my vicinity, so I should probably get one. That could be a new year’s resolution for me—to go and work out whether I actually have some kind of hearing issues as well.

I also note the weight given to the importance of community audiology, especially when such a high percentage of hearing loss is age-related. Those people have no need to go to a hospital to get the initial assessment, and community audiology could free up hospital time for children and other people with more acute hearing issues that need to be investigated. Audiology is one of the worst performing diagnostic services in the NHS for speed of assessment, with 40% of patients waiting more than six weeks simply for the initial assessment. That is one reason respondents to the British and Irish Hearing Instrument Manufacturers Association are advocating for open self-referral and expanded community clinics simply to minimise those delays. Delivering audiology services in the community costs 15 to 20% less than from a hospital, so it is an economically sensible model as well.

We often call for more community-based services for a whole variety of medical issues to keep costs down. It should be the default for most people with age-related hearing loss. We also urge the Government to consider trialling hearing tests as part of routine health checks for people over 70 and at-risk groups and to investigate how best to support everyone, from GP surgeries to high street pharmacists and opticians, to deliver free earwax removal. They are already being successfully run by some GP practices with positive impacts on health outcomes, and the cost can be small, especially where GPs co-ordinate to pay for a service that covers a large area.