Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I have some criticisms of the specifics of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, but I entirely support him and congratulate him on the passion with which he spoke about them. As I remember, his maiden speech touched on a number of these issues. Whether they are within the scope of the Bill is for the Clerks and the Committee to decide, but he made several extraordinarily good points that I hope the Government will take away. If the Bill is not the appropriate place for them, there should be another avenue. The lead amendment is about the ICB register. It would insert a new subsection to extend the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register for those at risk of detention to cover all children and young people who meet certain risk criteria. As drafted, the duty to maintain a register under clause 4 may not explicitly include all under-18s. Therefore, the amendment would ensure that children and young people are proactively identified and supported before reaching a crisis point that might lead to detention. Clearly, there are positives. As the hon. Member stated, early intervention might help to prevent unnecessary detention by identifying risk earlier, which is especially important for children. Likewise, there is a strong argument about equity and care to ensure that young people receive the same proactive planning as adults. That would clearly lead to improved safeguarding through better tracking of vulnerable minors in the mental health system. A corollary to that would be better data collection on youth mental health needs, which I think we would all support. We would be able to use that information to support more informed policymaking and resource decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth highlighted, however, and as I highlighted in the debates on other clauses, there would clearly be a resource demand, especially on ICBs, from expanding registers and services. Likewise, there is the complexity of implementation, because defining who qualifies as being “at risk” may be subjective. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Winchester, when he sums up on the amendments, to give us some indication of how “at risk” would be defined, or whether that would simply be down to the mental health professional or some other medical professional. There are also, of course, privacy and consent concerns related to maintaining a register for minors. Again, the hon. Member may have thought about some practical things that could assuage my concerns about that. There may also be a risk of stigmatisation. We have to be very careful, especially with children and young people, because being labelled or treated differently due to being on the register would not help their mental health. We would have to have some really strict privacy and data-sharing controls to ensure that they were protected within the proposed system. As I said in my intervention, I entirely support the aims of amendment 47 because it would specify the risk factors for detention for those on the register of people at risk of detention under clause 4. The criteria for identifying such individuals are left to be defined in regulations as the Bill stands. The amendment would mandate in law specific evidence-based risk factors—which I agree are risk factors for the issues that the hon. Member is talking about, particularly those linked to trauma and social disadvantage—rather than leaving them to discretion. At a general level, the amendment recognises the role of trauma and social determinants in mental health crises—I congratulate the hon. Member on clearly explaining some of the factors. Going back to our debate on the previous group of amendments, that would improve the early identification of individuals at risk, promote preventive care, strengthen equity and provide clarity and consistency. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, I am concerned about prescribing a relatively small list and therefore limiting the clause’s flexibility—there may be risk factors that are not listed in the amendment or ones that we have not even thought of.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Lady; that is my understanding, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that when he sums up. The flexibility in the clause is one of its strengths.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am doing my best—I will get it right by week three, I promise. New clause 24 would allow people who have attended or been brought to hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to pursue an application for admission under the Mental Health Act. As other Members have mentioned, section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act allows for the detention of individuals who are already in-patients. However, there has been ambiguity about whether that applies to individuals who are on hospital grounds but not yet formally admitted; for example, those who arrive voluntarily or are being brought in during a crisis. New clause 24 seeks to close that gap by explicitly allowing applications for detention to be made in such circumstances, ensuring that a timely intervention can occur when necessary for safety or treatment, according to my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull West and Shirley and for Runnymede and Weybridge. I listened carefully to my hon. Friends on the benefits of the new clause, and I accept some of them. However, I have some concerns about deterring people from turning up to a hospital setting, either for some other treatment or to visit friends or relations. I am worried that people would be concerned that they would be forcibly sectioned or detained without their consent by just turning up. There is a real risk of overreach in new clause 24. If we go back to the point about autonomy, people need to have assurance about when and where they will potentially be detained when they seek voluntary help. The line between voluntary attendance and involuntary detention is the nub of the new clause. While I accept the arguments that have been made by my two hon. Friends, I am not thus far convinced that the balance in the clause is correct, but I am hopeful that the Minister can give some clarity.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member’s argument. I do not disagree with anything in it; I just fail to see how the amendment fits with the clause that we are discussing, which I think may be the point that the hon. Member for Ashford is making. As far as I can tell, clause 4 is about producing a register of people who have a learning disability or autism, who are at risk of being detained for a mental health episode and for whom those risk factors are active, for example because they have been sectioned before or have presented at A&E. Those are specific incidences. What the hon. Member for Winchester is talking about is more wide-ranging; it is not about touchpoints in the same sense. I can see how he could potentially say, “Well, domestic abuse has led to a mental health episode and therefore to a presentation at A&E or in the system.” However, if we put in societal factors, for want of a better phrase, we could end up putting most people on the list, because most people will have experienced a bereavement. I get what the hon. Member is trying to do, but I fail to see how the amendment matches the overall purpose of clause 4.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for new clause 11, which could potentially solve funding issues I have raised. He mentioned the NHS 10-year plan. Will he suggest that the Minister looks at ensuring that, if new clause 11 is not passed today, the details in it are fed through into the plan? When it is published, which the Minister has indicated will be relatively soon, the information and outcomes my hon. Friend is trying to achieve through the new clause could be in it.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right; although a number of the Liberal Democrats are entirely worthy, there are some concerns about the drafting, which could give rise to ambiguity, legal loopholes and definitional issues. In that example, I do not think that “seek to ensure” is helpful. When the hon. Member for Winchester is summing up, perhaps he might explain how “seek to ensure” can be robustly defined within the law, or if it cannot be, suggest a different form of wording that he may wish to use in a future amendment if this amendment fails to be agreed. Part II of the Mental Health Act 1983 covers the powers to detain individuals for assessment and treatment. Detention can clearly be traumatic, especially for children and young people. Amendment 9 reflects a growing consensus that detention should be the last resort— I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that—and that community-based preventive and therapeutic alternatives should be prioritised. Again, I think it would be very hard to disagree with that ambition. On the positive side, community-based care is clearly better than detention in most cases, and, if we can get to a point where people are assessed earlier, as is the intention of some of the other amendments, clearly—hopefully—that would lead to community-based care and not detention. The amendment would also protect children’s rights and support the trauma-informed approaches to mental health that were raised previously regarding amendment 47. The amendment could also reduce the long-term harm associated with institutionalisation and potentially coercive treatment. As we have heard from Members on both sides, that would align with best practice in child and adolescent mental health services and it would promote and encourage a system of accountability by making ICBs and local authorities responsible for proactive care planning. All of that is extraordinarily laudable. On the potential downsides, there is an ambiguity about the enforcement of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said, because of the lack of legal force or clarity in some of the phraseology. There would be also resource implications and, if there are resource limitations at the ICB or local authority level, that might hinder their ability to provide adequate, community-based alternatives. I do not say that as an excuse for not supporting the amendment, but the hon. Member for Winchester has to understand the reality of the world we live in. Although I want local authorities and ICBs in every area to be entirely fully funded and resourced—and frankly, I do not think the Government’s cut of 50%, or indeed more in some ICBs, will do anything to help community-based care—there would be resource challenges. There would also be implementation challenges in areas where mental health services are already underfunded or overstretched that could lead to delays in care. This is the key question that I ask the hon. Member to respond to in his summing up. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that all people of all ages get the best, most appropriate mental health care as early as possible. But in an imperfect world, if there are potential delays in care because community services are struggling to find alternatives to detention, the unintended consequence could be that someone may not be treated at all because of the onus on defined community-based care rather than detention. Will the hon. Member explain how that would work? I draw my remarks to a close by saying I, certainly, and the Opposition, entirely agree with the ambitions of the amendments. However, some practical and legal issues would need to be ironed out before I could wholeheartedly support them.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Furniss. I was coming to my closing remarks on amendment 47. Suffice it to say that some of the concerns that I raised on amendment 8 about the administrative burdens, the data sharing, and the potential safeguarding and privacy concerns transfer through. Again, perhaps the hon. Member for Winchester could give some reassurance on that when summing up. Amendment 9, as far as I can tell, would extend the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. My understanding of the amendment, for which I have a lot of sympathy, is that the mandatory training will be around appropriate care in the settings listed. I think he is talking about manual handling or data protection stuff. As someone who worked in the NHS for seven years, I entirely agree that there is a lot of “mandatory training” that could be scrapped to make the NHS much more efficient. The amendment is specifically about ensuring that there is appropriate training for those who are working in the settings listed. I hope that he is not saying that he does not think that there should be training for mental health professionals. I am sure he is not saying that, but that is how it is coming across.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Given that we have discussed the proposed new sections in depth, I do not intend to dilate upon this clause for long. Suffice it to say that the Opposition, notwithstanding the questions asked by the shadow Minister, support the clause, which is essential to ensure the safeguards and progress that we are trying to achieve through the Bill. Clearly, the clause is prevention-focused and helps avoid unnecessary and traumatic hospital admissions. It leads to better planning because it supports tracked admission of services tailored to individual needs. It also has an element of legal accountability, given that it makes it a legal duty for ICBs to monitor and support at-risk individuals. It is also data driven because it encourages the use of real-time data to inform care decisions. That being said, a number of the concerns that we raised during debate on the amendments apply to the clause itself. In the Minister’s summing up, can he touch once again on the privacy concerns, as well as the resource demands and the risk of stigma? By that, I mean that being placed on a register could be seen as labelling or pathologising. How do we ensure that the register does what it is supposed to without that risk? Can he also touch on some of the vague criteria and definitional phrases, such as “at risk”, and how they might potentially lead to inconsistent application?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I accept that we should aim for the pinnacle and the best. What I was trying to say was that because the amendments restrict us, rather than giving us the space to, hopefully, reach the pinnacle, or to explore other options if we cannot, they could have unintended consequences if we cannot reach that pinnacle.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is not true. Any member of the Committee can move the Adjournment.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thrilled.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Once again, the hon. Lady tempts me to make a party political point, but I shall resist. On her general point, there are factors, such as the ones she described, that would not necessarily fall within the list in amendment 47. [Interruption.]

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Chair said that we must be back here at 20 minutes to 6, and that the Committee would be suspended until that point. We have not been suspended since then.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Ms Furniss, your ruling, as I am sure Hansard will show, is that we were required to come back at 20 minutes to 6. Opposition members of the Committee were back at 20 minutes to 6, and few others were here. You did not suspend the Committee again when the House divided on Third Reading because you were not here, and therefore the 15-minute rule cannot apply.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his extraordinarily helpful intervention. I was not aware of the changes, and I certainly had not heard of fusion before, or about what is going on in Scotland. Of course, if the new clause had already been enacted in another part of the United Kingdom in some form, I would be much more comfortable with it. But, as I said in relation amendments 52 and 53, if the new clause is to pass in its current form in this Bill or in some future form in another Bill, there has to be a focus on proper training and guidance. Because there is potentially such a legal quagmire, we must ensure that people understand the legal framework within which they can do this.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To touch on his point about social media, it is a very useful tool, but is deeply pervasive and can cause the bullying, harassment and mental health issues that he describes. As far as I can tell, the risk factors in amendment 47 would not cover something like that unless it was part of something else—for example, part of domestic abuse, armed conflict and so on.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Just in case my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is not following this Bill in Hansard , I will pass on the hon. Lady’s compliments to him. Like her, I have great respect for him; I am not trying to denigrate his great work on the amendments and the new clause. All I am suggesting is that, from a layperson’s perspective, there are some elements that need tightening up, if not changing altogether. I take the hon. Lady’s point about pre-legislative scrutiny, but obviously these amendments and the new clause were not part of that because they have only just been tabled. I therefore think it is entirely appropriate to be debating them now.

• 9 Jun 2025 · New Unitary Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps her Department is taking to help prevent new unitary authorities from requiring exceptional financial support.

• 9 Jun 2025 · New Unitary Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  The rushed local government reorganisation means that Waverley borough in my area will be forced to join other authorities that are debt-ridden, such as Woking. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that residents in my area do not pay a financial price for the woes of other authorities?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this debate. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, the situation is stark. Although I welcome the fact that we have secured a temporary banking hub in The Shed, in Bordon, on the Hampshire side, it rapidly needs to have a permanent location. In Liphook, there is no banking hub, no agreed plan and no clear process for securing one. Across the border in Surrey, in Haslemere, we are fortunate to have one of the 100 national hubs up and running, but in nearby Farnham, Barclays has just gone and Santander goes next month. All this means that more than 100,000 people across my constituency have not a single bank and only one building society. Constituents are right to be concerned. Link, the UK’s main cash access body, has stated that Santander’s closure will have, “no significant impact on the community”. I strongly disagree; it absolutely will. This cannot continue to be a postcode lottery. Banks were once embedded in towns and communities but now they are being erased with little left behind. Banking hubs are a partial answer, but the system needs reforms. The process is slow, the criteria too narrow and the scope of services too limited. Hubs must be located centrally, open five or six days a week, accessible to those with limited mobility and reachable without a car. They should serve both individuals and small businesses and, crucially, offer face-to-face banking, not just cash points and machines.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a very convincing point. When we are dealing with something as vital as personal finances, it should not be too much to demand to see a person face to face. The legislation we rely on to manage access to banking, including the Financial Services and Markets Act, remains focused almost exclusively on access to cash, not access to banking services. That distinction matters. Depositing takings, seeking support with financial abuse and getting advice are all services that cannot be delivered by a machine. Even when residents are confident and willing to bank online, they are often held back by something much simpler: their connection. In many parts of my constituency, mobile coverage and broadband access are so poor that digital banking is unreliable, if not impossible. The digital divide is no longer just a social challenge but a financial one too. Older people, disabled people, rural residents and small businesses all deserve access to a banking system that works for them, not just for those who are already digitally fluent or living in better-connected areas. That means that physical services, in-person advice and real access to cash must remain part of the infrastructure of modern life. Will the Minister work with Link, Cash Access UK and local authorities to accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs? Will she expand the remit of the Financial Services and Markets Act to protect access to full banking services, not just to cash? Finally, will she meet me to discuss how we can support the roll-out of permanent, accessible banking hubs in Liphook and Farnham? No one should be excluded from essential financial services because of their postcode, their age, or the strength of their wi-fi signal.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Since July, health services in my constituency have got worse. The Chase hospital may close, the promised health hub in Bordon has not arrived, and this week we have learned that in-patient wards in Haslemere are being closed because of a lack of GP cover. The Prime Minister promised hundreds more GPs. Could he possibly send one or two of them to Farnham and Bordon?