Ben Spencer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to reflect for a moment on the title of the Bill. It could easily have been called something a bit more prosaic, such as the Revocation of Citizenship Bill or the Withdrawal of Citizenship Bill, but the notion of deprivation is far more evocative. When we talk about deprivation, it is often in the sense of going without something that is fundamental to our existence, such as food, shelter, water or liberty—the very things that we rely on for life itself. I believe that “deprivation” in this context is flawed terminology, as it seems to equate citizenship with an essential right. I apologise if I am damaging his future career by saying so, but I very much agree with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons). Citizenship is not a right; it is a privilege. To those who receive that privilege, through our immigration system or otherwise, we must be clear that it comes with duties and responsibilities. We welcome those who come to the United Kingdom lawfully, ready to participate in the freedoms that we offer and equally ready to take on the obligations that go hand in hand with them. But when an individual who has had the privilege of citizenship bestowed on them uses it to threaten our national security, that privilege should rightly be revoked until the Secretary of State has exhausted all avenues of appeal in regard to his or her decision. Citizenship of our country is to be prized, not abused—and not reduced to some sort of transactional process or tick-box citizenship test. The “Life in the UK” test is well worth a look, for those who have not seen the poverty of knowledge and scrutiny that it requires. We should not be defending the importance of citizenship only at the point at which a person has it removed. Everyone, whether they are a citizen through birth or through our immigration system, should receive an education in how precious the covenant between country and individual is to promote understanding and appreciation of our value system and the fundamental principles that underpin it: tolerance and respect, the right to equality before the law, the duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom—or, as an absolute minimum, a deep and abiding respect and commitment to the conventions and values that make up the British way of life—and, of course, the right to freedom of enterprise and aspiration. It is important not only to create wealth and opportunity, but to look at how our talents can be harnessed by making a contribution within our families and communities, whether that is through performing care obligations for young children and moulding them as the citizens of the future, caring for elderly or dependent family members, or leading local charities or community or faith groups. Those values, and the rights and duties through which they are lived out, form part of our social contract—the ties that bind us as communities, societies and nations. They have supported our past flourishing and, if re-embraced, will also secure our renewal. Those who reject these values and seek to undermine and destroy them should not be citizens of our country. Although I agree with the measure contained in the Bill, my challenge to the Government is to ensure that respect for our national values and the rights and duties that underpin them is also at the heart of their forthcoming reform of our immigration system.

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Sensory over-stimulation can be a particular issue for those with autistic spectrum disorders. I have been concerned when I have looked after patients, and I have thought carefully about the challenges, particularly in general adult wards, of catering to the needs of people with autistic spectrum disorders or a learning disability. I would argue that that would apply broadly to anyone in a general adult hospital, irrespective of diagnosis—everyone has particular needs and sensitivities and we need to be mindful of that. I suspect this is something that the hon. Lady and I will disagree on, but I would consider an autistic spectrum disorder and a learning disability to be a mental disorder. It certainly is under the ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. One problem with how this issue is framed in the Bill is, for example, where Rett disorder, which is also a pervasive developmental disorder, would come into it. Does it come under the term “autistic”? Where does a not otherwise specified pervasive developmental disorder come into it? I am not sure whether how the terms in the Bill will operate in real life has been thought through. I do not understand why we are not pushing for such a provision for every disorder and condition that people have when they come into hospital. That is why we are not focused on something like a treatability test, or otherwise. This has a specific real-life fall-out. If people need to be in hospital after 28 days and there is a deprivation of liberty, that is going to happen. It will not stop happening; with the best will in the world, and even with this Bill, it will keep on happening. People will either be detained under liberty protection safeguards, or they will end up being detained with anxiety related to their ASD or learning disability, which would place them within scope of the Mental Health Act. A further challenge and disparity in the Bill is that it does not affect forensic provisions. People could be keener to pursue a criminal prosecution of people with ASD or an LD because that would enable a longer stay in detention than 28 days. That is why in the pre-legislative scrutiny we suggested that there should be an option to get a pre-authorisation for detention beyond 28 days by going to a tribunal, which we thought might deal with some of the concerns raised. Personally, I like the idea of pre-authorisation in general beyond 28 days, and it is something that Professor Richardson spoke about in her review back in the late ’90s. The Government recognise that there are challenges with this area, which is why these changes are in the schedules. There is a recognition that, frankly, this is not workable, and we will see as the Bill progresses that there are broader concerns about how it operates. Another area of concern is nominated persons and parental responsibility. The Bill changes “nearest relative” to a “nominated person”, which means that people can choose who performs that important role under the 1983 Act. The nearest relative or nominated person can discharge someone from the powers of the Act, which would inevitably mean that they would be discharged from hospital—there are powers to bar people, but it is quite a high threshold. This measure is important because it will allow someone under the age of 18 to choose someone who is not their parent to have that important statutory power. We raised this issue in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. We could have a situation in which a 16-year-old with competence who is detained under the 1983 Act in hospital chooses their mate, or somebody else—not their parent or someone with parental responsibility—to have the power to discharge them from measures under the Act, which would inevitably mean them leaving hospital. The parent, who in such situations is often responsible in some way for the after care, would lose that power. I am concerned, as were the Lords, about the impact of that measure on the Children Act 1989. I think there is a serious problem in changing this area of law—we do not have this in physical health—and introducing the ability to give a statutory power to a non-parent. I know the Minister will look into that in the Bill Committee, but I think the Government will have to row back on that. They could easily amend the Bill to say that if someone is under the age of 16, the nominated person must have parental responsibility unless there is a good reason for them not to have it. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are a bit different, especially when people start getting close to 18 and there are other children’s rights, but I cannot see why we should legislate to let someone under 16 choose someone who does not have parental responsibility to have that important power. The third problem is that the Bill is silent on deprivations of liberty in A&E, which are ongoing. It has been a while since I worked in A&E, but there has always been the challenge of what to do with someone who turns up to A&E if the doctor thinks that they will probably need detaining under the Mental Health Act because they are suicidal or very unwell, and wants to keep them there while the assessment takes place. We can get through it using the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but it is messy. It would be a lot clearer for everybody if we said, for example, that section 5(2) of the 1983 Act, which allows for temporary detention, could apply to an A&E setting. There is a bunch of technical stuff about the interaction between deprivation of liberty and the Mental Capacity Act, but I suspect you will start giving me the evil eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and telling me to move on if I start— [ Interruption. ] Madam Deputy Speaker says no, but I suspect that Members across the House might start doing that, so I will move on. Let me flag two things in the Bill. It allows for a discharge from hospital under supervised conditional discharge to a deprivation of liberty. That is in response to the case of Secretary of State for Justice v. MM, which involves a problem with how the law currently operates. As far as I know, in mental health law we have never had a situation where deprivations of liberty in the community were authorised under the Mental Health Act—someone had to be in a registered hospital. That is a big Rubicon to cross. I see why the Government need to tidy up this area of law, but I am not convinced that we have realised what a big Rubicon this is to cross. The operation of the Mental Health Act has always meant that someone was detained in hospital, but when they are in the community they are in the community. Someone might have certain restrictions placed on them by a community treatment order, or otherwise, but they are not deprived of their liberty in their home or in some other community setting that is not a registered medical hospital. I think that measure needs a bit more reflection. I believe that the majority of those who will undergo compulsory treatment under detention, certainly for a long period of time, under this legislation will be people with psychosis, such as schizophrenic forms of psychosis, schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder, but lot of the debate and focus has been on non-psychotic illnesses. That is not to say that those illnesses are less important—they are certainly not less important, especially for those who experience them—but I am concerned that people with schizophrenia always get a raw deal. They are often marginalised by society and in terms of the amount of advocacy they have. In fact, a lot of the evidence that we reviewed in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee focused on non-psychotic disorders, perhaps because sadly people often turn their backs on people with psychotic illnesses. Sometimes those people find themselves in a situation where their illness is so debilitating that they cannot advocate for themselves, so there tends to be a bias towards disorders such as dementia, ASD and LD, where there is someone to advocate, such as CAMHS or families who might push a little bit more. I am not saying that any condition is more important—I really want to stress that—but as parliamentarians, we do not necessarily understand that the bulk of the conditions that the Bill focuses on concern psychosis. Finally, I have spoken a lot about how psychosis can lead to people being detained in hospital and about the impact of that. Psychosis is a pretty terrible disease but it does not need to be: lots of people get better and it is one of the most treatable diseases. The Bill will help people to get better and we cannot lose sight of that.

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is of course very knowledgeable given his background as a mental health nurse. I would like to see in the Bill a provision setting out that, in order to detain someone for the purposes of health or safety, they must lack decision-making capacity for the detention to be authorised. For the prevention of harm to others, there are reasons to overcome autonomy in decision-making capacity, but I would like to see an additional component specifying that if the detention for assessment and treatment in hospital is purely based on health and safety and not on risk of harm to others, the patient must also lack capacity. Otherwise, people who have full and intact decision-making capacity can nevertheless come into the scope of the powers. The liberty protection safeguards are a bit of a mess, quite frankly, and the DoLS were clearly a substantial mess. It is interesting that the legislative scrutiny of the Bill points out that it is a missed opportunity not to tidy up some of the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act—a point that I will come to a little later in my speech. In terms of parity of esteem, bringing forward fusion law and gelling the Acts closer together needs to be the direction of travel. I hope that we do not have to waste another 20 years until we get the opportunity something like that. There is something else that we need to reflect on. It comes to my other points about the focus in the Bill, but I will reiterate it. The core focus of the Bill is on reducing detentions of people from black and minority ethnic groups, who are over-represented in detention. One of the key focuses in fixing that must be on socioeconomic deprivation—where we see socioeconomic deprivation, we see severe mental disorder following—but I worry that the Bill is a missed opportunity and will not do what is required to deal with those disparities. There are three problems with the Bill, and two things that I wish to flag. I am sensitive to the concerns that have been raised about people with autistic spectrum disorders and learning disabilities, and the advocacy regarding such people being in hospital. Being in a general adult ward is a challenging environment as it is, and it is particularly challenging for someone with an ASD or a learning disability. People can get stuck in hospital not really going anywhere. That concern applies to most disorders—I do not think it is unique, given the lack of community support services. I disagree, however, with the focus on ASD and LD above all other conditions. If we want to talk about non-progressive conditions, I do not understand why a brain injury, or Korsakoff’s dementia for example, are not within the scope of this measure. I do not understand why, rather than using the Bill to take people out of section 3 of the Mental Health Act, something like a bolstered treatability test is not used, which is what was in the Act before it was modified in 2007.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Transport (Duty to Cooperate) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a duty on transport authorities and other specified persons to cooperate to reduce transport disruption and to ensure the effective operation of transport networks; to provide for reporting requirements in connection with that duty; to require the publication of assessments of expected transport disruption resulting from maintenance, construction, and other works related to transport infrastructure and ancillary services; and for connected purposes. As the Member of Parliament for Runnymede and Weybridge, my mission is to keep them moving. We rely on our transport networks to get to work, school or college and doctor’s appointments, or just to see friends and family, whether by road, rail or even air. We are dependent on our transport networks. Discussions about critical infrastructure often focus on big, apparently unprecedented events, such as the recent power failure at Heathrow, but even the smallest road is critical infrastructure if someone cannot leave their house because of an engineering diversion route. We all welcome work to improve our roads and transport network, and we of course recognise that this may cause some disruption. We understand that there will be temporary disruption for unexpected emergency works, such as a power cut or a gas leak. However, all too often our transport infrastructure in Runnymede and Weybridge is brought to a halt due to multiple planned works happening at the same time, or planned utility works causing recurrent disruption through multiple providers—gas, electricity, water, broadband—digging up the same road over and over again. Disruption should be avoided and minimised, by authorities and providers talking to each other and co-ordinating works. Ensuring co-ordination when road and rail works take place is the purpose of my Bill. Sadly, in Runnymede and Weybridge, we have loads of examples where co-ordination has not taken place, despite repeated assurances that authorities do co-ordinate and discuss issues regularly. We have had full M25 closures coinciding with mainline rail engineering work, despite reassurances otherwise. Roads in some areas of Chertsey have been repeatedly dug up, often under the guise of urgent works, from gas to water to electricity. Perhaps most infuriatingly, authorities or utilities sometimes do not adequately staff works or leave them unattended, meaning that when the signals failed at Painshill roundabout, and separately in Weybridge, it took hours to resolve because the right equipment and staff were not on site to fix the problem. We understand and expect there to be some disruption, but I believe better planning and co-ordination can prevent and avoid much of what we have seen locally. Surrey county council has been working hard to address issues on our local road network. I thank the council, and in particular Councillor Jonathan Hulley for his leadership and work on this issue. Surrey has established a new taskforce to drive better co-ordination and communication of works across our road network. Surrey, along with National Highways and six major utility providers, has called on the Department for Transport to make changes to systems and processes to reduce the negative impact of emergency utility works across the county. It has called for changes to digital services used to manage highways works in England to enable prior notice of urgent works where possible, improving communication and co-ordination. Surrey has also called for, among other things: mandatory onsite signage for emergency works to explain delays, the lead agency to improve information for road users, and of course, a requirement for swift completion of works to reduce disruption and support economic productivity. I fully support the proposals, which could resolve many local issues, but they alone cannot achieve the co-ordination required across networks to address all the issues I have highlighted. That is why I am bringing forward the Bill, calling for a statutory duty to co-ordinate. Under the duty, National Highways could not have informed me that it was unaware of the impact excess trains on the Chertsey branch line would have on level crossings and the local road network on the same weekend as a motorway closure, because it would have been required to communicate, co-ordinate and assess the likely impact of its actions. Under the duty, Network Rail would not have been able to inform me that while it usually does communicate with other authorities, on “this occasion” it forgot. Combined with the work undertaken by Surrey county council, under the duty, utility companies would not have been able to place repeated and unannounced works alongside major diversion routes with impunity. When utility companies dig up the road, they would need to check if anything else needed to be fixed at the same time. Our transport links are the lifeblood of our communities and our economy. In 2021, National Highways estimated that total delays on its network alone cost £3 billion each year. Add to that the cost of delays on local road networks—hours missed from work, goods stuck in transit—and the value of addressing the issue is clear, if not just for the benefit to our communities but to the UK economy as a whole. I ask the Government and colleagues across the House to support the Bill and the work of colleagues in Surrey to address these issues, and to ensure our national transport infrastructure operates effectively and efficiently for all. Let us keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Question put and agreed to. Ordered , That Dr Ben Spencer, Rebecca Paul and Gregory Stafford present the Bill. Dr Ben Spencer accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed (Bill 216).

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Our planning system is critical and should protect against inappropriate development, including on the green belt and flood plains. It needs to protect and enhance biodiversity, and it needs local democratic and community input. Rather than dictating to communities, the Government should work with them. We need not only houses but homes, and that means infrastructure, roads, schools, health services and sewers. Whether through “infrastructure first” or making them all statutory consultees, it has to work. Planning enforcement must also work, but it is an ongoing issue in my patch despite recent changes and improvements. On the changes proposed to the NSIP system and development consent orders, I will speak about the experience in my constituency because we have had DCO complete, have one ongoing and hope to have one in the future. I will start with the one that has finished, which is the Esso pipeline project. It ended up blocking access to homes and ripping up green spaces, with poor communication and no compensation to the residents affected. When I asked for compensation, the answer was, “Well, it’s not in the DCO.” Reform must ensure greater protections for communities affected by a DCO project. The M25/A3 DCO, which many Members will know about because of the M25 closures, one of which over the weekend, is a fantastic project that will improve local connectivity, but it has wreaked havoc through diversion routes and problems at the Painshill roundabout, which National Highways admitted was deprioritised in favour of the works. It has caused problems with kids getting to school and to their exams. When I tried to raise this to get enforcement, including through, among others, the Office of Rail and Road, no formal investigation was even opened, and it has been pretty much impossible to find a meaningful way to get enforcement when things go wrong. We hope to have—we must have—a DCO in the future with the River Thames scheme, which will massively reduce my constituents’ flood risk and make it far less likely that we see a repeat of the impact of the 2014 floods. We have had countless rounds of consultation. I am concerned that, because of the current system, perfect has become the enemy of the good, and I am worried about the problems with local council reform and the impact they will have. Will the Minister in his wind-up explain and give advice to people putting together a DCO as to what they should do given the Bill’s impact when it gets Royal Assent?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to rehash the previous debates. Clearly, the Committee has made its decision, no matter how disappointing that is. I just wanted to pick up the Minister’s previous point about the use of common sense in arbitration decisions when it comes to access to protected same-sex spaces. I fully support using common sense, but how does that play out in a situation where somebody has gone through a digital verification service that has used data that is held by a local authority, but that has been changed at a later date—that is, in effect, gender data? How will that be resolved?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for speaking so eloquently in this important debate, and for securing it. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee. Hospices are fantastic places, and all of us in this country are lucky to have them. People go to hospices not to die, but to live the last few days or weeks of their life. While I am pleased that the assisted dying Bill has led to a renewed interest in hospice and palliative care, I am sad that so much of the focus has been on death and the dying process, rather than on the broader support and care offered by hospices and palliative care providers—sometimes over many years—to people who have illnesses that may be life-limiting, and who require certain types of medical intervention to manage their symptoms. That is a very important part of the work that hospices and palliative care teams do, but as I say, much of the focus is often on the death process, rather than the treatment given to those with chronic conditions. Speaking as a former consultant psychiatrist, it would be remiss of me not to mention the psychological support and mental health interventions by palliative care teams and hospices. They are experts in pain relief. Palliative care teams brought a lot of relief to me when, as a junior doctor, I tried to manage very difficult situations in patient care. They are experts in analgesic components. It is important to recognise the palliative care teams working in not only hospices but hospital settings and the community to alleviate people’s symptoms. I pay tribute to the fantastic local hospices and care teams in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency, at Woking & Sam Beare hospice, which I have visited and is a fantastic place, and at Princess Alice hospice, based in Esher. We also benefit from Shooting Stars, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I hope to visit that one day. I thank all the teams who work in those hospices for delivering care and support, but also for keeping the hospices running, and for their vital fundraising. Many people support hospices in lots of different ways, including through direct donations and organising fundraising events, and I am pleased to have been to fundraising events for Woking & Sam Beare hospice. In fact, a week or two ago, I went to the Chertsey panto, which has been running for 12 years. It supports the Woking & Sam Beare hospice. The performances, if one can call them that, have raised £60,000. The panto has to be seen to be believed; one will never forget the Chertsey panto after one has gone to it. The team who organise and run it are absolutely fantastic. It is a fantastic institution and raises a lot of good money for the hospice. We also have charity shops. There is a great one in Weybridge that has been raising money for quite some time. I pay tribute to everybody for what they do, no matter how big or small, to support our hospices and our palliative care sector.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Debates such as this, about the horrors now happening in Ukraine, are always very important and very difficult to speak in. I very much appreciated listening to some of the harrowing stories, to remind myself just what the Ukrainians are experiencing, but also why all of us must push back Putin’s war machine. I am most proud of the leadership that our country has shown over the past few years in the international response to support the Ukrainians to stand up against Putin. A key part of that was bringing together the international community to multilaterally, not unilaterally, support the Ukrainians in their plight. Early in this conflict we saw the weaponisation of oil and gas prices. We saw, and continue to see, hybrid warfare, which has been going on for some time. I very much supported, at every stage, the full-fat embargo of Russian oil and gas. Indeed, this House strongly supported the sanctions, which have been an important part of our support for the Ukrainians. As tempting as this motion is—and it is very tempting when we read it—I must say that, like Members on both sides of the House, I am cautious and have some concerns and reservations about it. It is important to consider the impact on the international financial order and the rule of law. What differentiates us from Putin and the Russian state is that we do consider and debate this—we have this place where we can consider the rules-based order. Putin thinks that makes us weak, but he is wrong; it makes us strong, and it is what we stand for and what we believe in. If we are to look at seizing assets, there are two important considerations. First, this focuses on state assets, as opposed to those of individuals and companies, as there is currently no judicial process for individuals and companies who have had their assets frozen, and to go ahead with seizing those assets is a much bigger step. Members have mentioned individuals and companies as well as the state, but the focus has to be specifically on Russian state assets, for which the legal framework is stronger. Secondly, as with how we led from the beginning of the conflict, there has to be a multilateral approach. This has to be linked through the G7 and our partners in Europe. It has to be done together in unison, and we have a history of doing that. I say to the Minister that I am very proud of how we have done that. If we are to do this, we must do it multilaterally. We also need to look at these assets being used for military use, as opposed to just general economic support. My understanding is that the interest money that has now been freed up has been restricted from use for military interventions, and this also needs to be considered as part of the process. Finally, we also need to ensure that our current sanctions are effective. Just before Christmas I mentioned my concerns about the oil and gas embargo, particularly the idea that crude oil derivatives could be finding their way into the UK economy despite the embargo. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to some of my specific questions on that, but I hope he will look carefully at the effectiveness of the proofs of origin under the rules of origin, particularly when it comes to petrochemical derivatives such as plastics and other products that can be manufactured through the use of Russian oil and gas. We must ensure that, in our economy, our oil and gas embargo of Russia is as effective as possible before we even start looking at the next measures to take.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. As was clear from his speech and his diligent, razor-sharp focus on targeting the delivery of gigabit broadband in different parts of his constituency, he is a true community champion. His constituents are lucky to have him. That is a theme of the debate. All Members have spoken about individual parts of their constituency where broadband is a challenge. That goes to show how important our digital backbone is in the United Kingdom. I will resist the temptation to mention parts of my constituency, such as Queen’s Road or Ellesmere Road in Weybridge, where we have done work to deliver gigabit broadband. The debate demonstrates how important the issue is. It is one that inevitably and invariably gets the attention of Members of Parliament, so that they advocate for their constituents and try to deliver it. Project Gigabit demonstrates simply that where there is a will, there is a way. Back in 2019, 7% of properties had what is defined as “gigabit access” or 1 gigabit per second. In April 2024—the last official stats we have—that had reached 81%. In fact, it is believed that the 85% target, due to be reached in ’25, has already been reached. That is a huge roll-out of gigabit broadband to households over the past five years of a Conservative Government. There are of course people who do not have gigabit broadband, and it is critical that we work to ensure that they can have that vital accessibility. That is absolutely not just about being able to watch this debate in HD—to listen to my dulcet tones and to see the spots on my face; it is about industry and connectivity, and the events of covid showed just how important that is. Look at the £5 billion investment allocated to the project; some data shows that that is probably a £60 billion contribution to the UK economy. How do we go about rolling out the delivery of gigabit broadband across the country? We as Conservatives know that the way to do it is to get industry involved and work with it. That is why 80% of the gigabit broadband target is linked to industry bringing it through, although we recognised that to get to the further 20% of roll-out, we needed to bring in subsidy and break down barriers. That is where we move from the initial phase of Project Gigabit, which was to do with industry delivering, to now, with the public subsidy we have seen over the past few years. A great concern, however, is future inequalities, in particular in delivery to rural areas versus urban areas. The great concern is that over the next six months to a year, there will be a reallocation of priority away from rural areas to urban areas.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that, sadly, suicide is the No.1 cause of death among young men. My understanding, although the stats change all the time, is that below the age of 45, suicide is the No.1 cause of death among both men and women. It is absolutely right that we look at sex-specific approaches to intervention. Factors affecting health in men will be different from factors affecting health in women. I want to go back to the social elements of mental health care, which the hon. Member for Ashford mentioned, and a smoke-free society and banning tobacco. Certainly when I was practising, 50% of tobacco was consumed by people with a severe mental illness. That raises a whole host of concerns and issues about what is happening with tobacco consumption and people with a mental disorder. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) was absolutely right, given his experience, about something he has mentioned many times in the House: the importance of delineating mental wellbeing and mental illness. I tend to think about it in this way: we all have mental health, but we need to separate mental wellbeing from mental illness. The two are different and need different approaches, as was echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the new hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who gave rise to a very fertile discussion on his views on the area. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who is no longer in his place, rightly pointed out inequalities in detention and outcomes for those from minority ethnic backgrounds. That is a very important issue. That brings me on to our record in Government over the past 14 years; there are a few things I want to pick out. One is that we set parity of esteem in law through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which was a big step forward. We still need parity of esteem in outcomes, but nevertheless that was a very important step. We expanded access to psychological therapies and I am particularly pleased by the expansion of individual placement and support, which has been shown to help people get into work, particularly those with a chronic and enduring mental illness. We have seen more people take up maternity care, and we also invested in the mental health estate. In fact, in my own constituency, we have a new mental health hospital. The Abraham Cowley Unit is being rebuilt, which will provide world-class care for people living in my patch. Perhaps most important of all, given the conversation that we have had today, is the decrease in in-patient and out-patient suicide that we have seen over the years. Of course, I recognise that there are a variety of factors driving that but we should be pleased that things are moving in the right direction on suicides, although there is more to be done. Today is World Mental Health day and it is a very broad topic, but in my time I would like to focus specifically on one area that, as it certainly was in my former career, is often neglected—psychosis. It particularly affects people suffering from schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder. It can be a very disabling illness and has been responsible for quite a degree of disability and health concern in the UK. Often debates such as these, and debates in the media, do not focus on psychosis and I think a big part of that comes from the stigma attached to it. People who work in the sector, and those with expertise here, will know that it is an area of great need both in terms of community mental health teams and in-patient settings. The hon. Member for Stroud was absolutely right and I am glad he pointed this out: the 10 to 15 years of life lost following a diagnosis of psychosis is something that we have to fix. I believe that we also need to improve access to treatments such as clozapine, which is an excellent treatment for schizophrenia. I am pleased to have previously worked with Clozapine Support Group UK in its campaign to try to get more access to clozapine for people for whom it is indicated. We have also seen the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, which the former Prime Minister Theresa May kicked off with the Wessely review. I was part of the working groups on the Wessely review, particularly looking at helping with the tribunal system, and I was on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee as well. How we look after people detained for treatment in the absence of consent is very important, and I am pleased that this Government have committed to take forward the work on reviewing that Act. I thank everyone who works in the care and treatment of people with mental illness. As we have heard today, that is a very broad sector; it is not only people who work in the NHS but those who work in the third sector in a variety of organisations and institutions. That is very important work.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing something so personal in his intervention, and for sharing his experience of the impact of suicide. Many Members have shared personal experience in this debate. That is very important. I am mindful that there will be people in the Gallery or watching at home who may be affected by the topics we are discussing, and I take a moment to point out that there are a variety of services to help people in their recovery, if one can call it that, after a loved one has tragically died from suicide, or to help people who are in crisis, such as local crisis services, the Samaritans or Mind. There is a variety of third sector and charity helplines that can help. Men’s Sheds is one organisation I know of that is very helpful. I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised this issue. I will finish with a few questions for the Minister. The Government do not have a mental health care and treatment strategy or a psychosis strategy and, following an answer to a written parliamentary question I tabled, I understand that there are no plans for a mental ill health strategy to be brought in. Given today’s debate, I wonder whether the Minister will reconsider that position. What are the Government’s plans on taking forward our suicide prevention strategy, or a specific psychosis or mental ill health strategy—however he wants to cut the cloth? Secondly, when does he expect the Mental Health Bill to have its First Reading in this place? All Members are going to want to extensively debate and scrutinise that Bill. When does he expect it to come forward? What is his appraisal of the challenges that the Bill needs to answer when it comes to the interaction between the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the deprivation of liberty safeguards? What about the MM case on deprivation of liberty in the context of a restricted patient in the community, and the interaction with the Children’s Act 1989 on when children can choose a nominated representative? I realise he may not have the answers to that immediately, but I would be grateful if he could write to me. Community mental health teams are the core of psychiatric teams in the community and our psychiatric care and treatment service. What is his plan to support them? Finally, what is his appraisal of integrated care systems and their commissioning of mental health services? The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned the challenges with her ICS. What is the Minister’s appraisal of that commissioning and how integrated care systems can be held to account to make sure that is being delivered?

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I believe that tributes have not yet been paid to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for his fantastic maiden speech—I apologise if I did not notice that. I want to put on the record what a wonderful speech he gave, particularly his personal story, his campaigning for those who have suffered child loss and his work for the north. I hope that we have seen a future Minister for the north in him. I thank my constituents for returning me to the re-formed Runneymede and Weybridge constituency. Since then, several people have asked me, “Ben, you’ve been a Back Bencher in the party of government, and now you’re a Back Bencher in opposition. How’s your job going to change?” I said, “Actually, the main job won’t change that much.” I am here to support the Government to succeed. I want them to succeed—we all need them to succeed. I do not want the Labour party in power, but I want the Government to succeed. I am here to hold the Government to account and to work with them to ensure that things go well. My mission continues to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving—something that I am sure my constituents were sick of hearing during my re-election campaign. I look forward to continuing to deliver for people locally. I am proud to represent Runnymede and Weybridge constituents. One of the best things about the area I live in and am proud to represent is our wonderful communities. Under the boundary changes, we have taken in Cobham, Downside, Oxshott and Stoke D’Abernon, which have fantastic local communities. If hon. Members will indulge me, I want to talk about one of our community champions, Councillor Charu Sood, who sadly is very poorly with cancer and is undergoing treatment in hospital. Charu is a councillor for St George’s Hill and is the embodiment of a local community champion. In the years since her election in 2018, she has achieved a huge amount: setting up Weybridge in Bloom and Sew Weybridge, which prepared personal protective equipment during the crisis, supporting Ukrainian refugees and raising funds for various charities. She is an amazing community champion, and I pay tribute to her and wish her well in her ongoing treatment. In the two minutes I have left, I would like to talk about amendment (g), which stands in my name, to the motion on His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech. Sadly, my amendment was not picked for a vote, but I see it as the first stage in the battle against the Government’s awful policy to tax education. Like many people across the UK, and in Runnymede and Weybridge, where one in five children are educated in the independent sector, as a family we have also chosen independent education for our children, so I declare a financial interest as part of this campaign. I have spoken to many independent schools in my patch, which have told me that 5% to 10% of kids will move back to the state sector as a result of the policy. Most parents who send their kids to independent schools are not the mega-rich magnates characterised by the Government, but, like all parents, people who make difficult budgeting decisions on how to spend their money. The policy of taxing education, which we have never done before and never should, will only put more pressure on the state sector. There will be more disruption for the kids who are forced to move out—disruption that the covid generation of children just do not need. I sincerely hope that the Government will look at the challenges, the problems and the fact that a lot of children with special educational needs in independent education do not have education, health and care plans, and are thus saving the Government money, and think again about this awful policy. I will hold them to account, as will many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches.