Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Debate between Jim Shannon and Danny ChambersWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. It is 2025, and we find ourselves discussing whether the United Kingdom will continue supporting an organisation that has saved millions of lives. This is an important and timely debate, and it should remind us how much progress we have made, and how much we stand to lose if we step back now.
When I spoke earlier this year about the US cutting funding to the World Health Organisation, I said then, and will repeat today, that global health is not charity; it is security and self-interest. Supporting international health systems does not just save lives overseas; it keeps us safer here at home. Stronger systems abroad mean fewer outbreaks reaching our shores, more stable trading partners and a healthier global economy, which Britain depends on. Investing in the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is not only the right thing to do morally but the smart thing to do economically and strategically.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am very much informed by my constituents in Strangford, where local church groups undertake fantastic work to support those in other countries plagued with the likes of malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS. I think specifically of the Ards Elim church in Newtownards in Strangford, which sends groups out every year to support those facing the devastating impact of those diseases. Does the hon. Member agree that more must be done, either by helping to fund their work or working in partnership with them, to ensure that we are doing everything necessary to help them do their bit to help others?
Dr Chambers
The hon. Member is completely right about the work that voluntary and church groups do on global public health.
Moles: Histological Testing
Debate between Jim Shannon and Danny Chambers(6 days, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Members for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this debate. I wish the hon. Member for South Norfolk all the best in his treatment. I have to say, it was hugely brave of him and emotive to hear him talk about the journey he is going through at the moment, and to hear him paying such tributes to all the staff involved in his care. I also thank Zoe’s family for coming here today, because it cannot be easy to hear people talk about this disease after everything they have been through.
Many of us will know, some from personal experience, how frightening it can be to face a possible or actual cancer diagnosis. When words such as “biopsy” or “diagnostic tests” enter the conversation, that provokes deep concern, and yet those tests, as everyone has been reiterating, are absolutely vital. Early diagnosis is the single most important factor in improving survival rates. The sooner any type of cancer is identified, the sooner treatment can begin, and the more likely the outcome will be favourable. The tests are very important for people’s mental health, because sometimes the test is clear: a person knows that, and knows there is no need to worry unnecessarily.
In an ideal world, someone who notices a suspicious mole or mark would call their GP; be seen within two weeks, as set out in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines; if necessary, a biopsy would be taken; and, if cancer was confirmed, treatment would begin within 62 days. In an ideal world, that treatment would be available to everyone, regardless of their postcode.
We know that is not the reality for everyone, either in Winchester or the rest of the country. We know GP access is a growing concern. In Winchester, I regularly hear from my constituents that they are waiting weeks for appointments, which means we are falling at the first hurdle. The second hurdle—treatment within 62 days—is just as worrying. In Winchester, in July 2025, only 73.6% of cancer treatments began within 62 days, well below the operational standard of 85%.
The truth is that, at almost every stage of the process—from initial concern to diagnosis and treatment—we are letting too many people down. It is one of the reasons that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for a two-month cancer treatment guarantee for a long time now: a new target so that 100% of patients will start treatment within 62 days. We must also replace ageing radiotherapy machines and expand provision so no communities are left in what have rightly been called radiotherapy deserts. We do not want anyone to have to travel hours and miles when they are feeling ill for lifesaving care.
The last Government’s decision to close the National Cancer Research Institute, which had co-ordinated cancer research since 2001, was a grave mistake. One oncology professor compared this to
“turning off air traffic control and hoping the planes will be fine”.
We owe it to patients and their families to build confidence in the system, and that means faster access to GPs, earlier diagnosis, better treatment, proper investment in research and a comprehensive long-term plan to boost survival rates. I really welcome all the comments about regulating the private medical sector to ensure they are taking biopsies, as well as the regulation of sunbeds.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wanted to be here at the beginning, but unfortunately I could not because I had other things to do in the Chamber. I declare an interest—like the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), I am going to get one of mine done very shortly, but in Northern Ireland the wait list is 56 weeks. If it is red-flagged, it is five weeks. There is anxiety and stress for everyone—not for me, but for all the others—because it is not about me but everyone else. Does he agree that the NHS, wherever it may be in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, needs to ensure that those who have melanoma and a biopsy get the urgency that is absolutely critical? The Minister is in her place—there is no better person to answer these questions than her—and I look forward very much to what she says. Does the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) agree that a concerted campaign across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to address those issues might be a way forward?
Dr Chambers
I totally agree with those comments.
I will finish by paying tribute to one of my friends from vet school, Polly Birch. She was diagnosed with a melanoma in 2016 and had it removed, but in 2017, a few months after giving birth to her baby girl, Ada, she discovered it was metastatic, and she passed away. Her final post on social media was beautiful and moving. A couple of days before she passed away, she said:
“Appreciate the people around you, adventure with them, buy less stuff and go out and experience the world…and look after the bees.”
Finally, and perhaps most poignantly, I will quote Mary Schmich:
“If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it.”
US Global Public Health Policy
Debate between Jim Shannon and Danny Chambers(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
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.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I cannot imagine that any Member on either side of this Chamber will not be concerned about the prospect that we face, but we have to live with the reality. Given the withdrawal of the US from the World Health Organisation, it is essential that lines of communication on global health issues remain open and consistent. Does he agree that we must be proactive in establishing a new method of co-operation and information sharing as a matter of urgency? I think that is what he is looking for. If we can meet somewhere in between, that might be the way forward.
Dr Chambers
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.
Healthcare: Hampshire
Debate between Jim Shannon and Danny Chambers(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Chambers
We never opposed a new hospital—that was something the Conservatives were saying about us. We support a new hospital, we want a new hospital, and we want modern healthcare services in Hampshire. However, we were very concerned that the proposed location of the new hospital is not suitable when we look at how healthcare is delivered throughout Hampshire. Sites just north of Winchester were identified as suitable; when we look at a map of Hampshire, it is clear that those proposed locations would be much more suitable for people throughout Hampshire, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, to reach emergency services.
Our current A&E department, like other A&E departments, is hugely busy, especially as we head into winter. We know that many people attend A&E because they cannot get the primary care they need. Up to 20% of people who turn up at A&E are there because they cannot get a doctor’s appointment. People who are in a mental health crisis—many are often already on a waiting list—are going to A&E. They take up a huge amount of time and staff resources, often needing 15 to 18 hours of constant monitoring before they can be taken to a place of safety. We also have people turning up with dental issues because they cannot access an NHS dentist.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. While there are other hon. Members in the Chamber know the issues well, does he agree that the ability to bring healthcare into communities is vital, particularly for people in isolated communities who cannot hop on a bus every 15 or 20 minutes, or even every hour, to get to their appointments? Some areas simply cannot have centralised care or a new hospital; they do need localised facilities. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for that, then he is asking for the right thing.