Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate. We have learned this week that rather than the Government ensuring that funding reaches the frontline, spending on staff at the Department of Health and Social Care and seven other arm’s length bodies has increased by more than 10% since Labour came to power, while GPs, social care providers and hospices are forced to do more with less. The situation is further compounded by rising financial pressures. Despite repeated promises that additional funding would improve patient care, the chief financial officer of NHS England has confirmed to the Select Committee that all the extra money allocated to the NHS will be swallowed up by national insurance increases, inflation and pay settlements, which means that none of it will go towards real improvements in frontline care. The rise in national insurance contributions was supposed to bolster the NHS and social care. In reality, it has landed like an extra tax on providers themselves. GP surgeries, care homes, hospices and community services are all grappling with the additional payroll costs, just as they struggle with surging demand and chronic workforce shortages. The Institute of General Practice Management estimates that the average GP practice now pays an extra £20,000 a year in national insurance alone. Across the nearly 6,500 practices, that adds up to around £125 million a year—money that could otherwise pay for more than 2 million GP appointments, at a time when patients are struggling to be seen. Adult social care providers face an equally stark reality. The Nuffield Trust projects that employers will shoulder nearly £940 million in extra national insurance costs in this financial year, on top of the £1.85 billion required to cover the rise in the national living wage. Local councils already face a £665 million shortfall in delivering their legal social care duties. The Government have promised a 3% real-terms rise in NHS revenue spending each year to 2028-29, reaching £232 billion by the end of that financial year, yet despite the headline increases, capital investment is being held flat in real terms. NHS leaders have made it clear that it will not be enough to rebuild or modernise our hospitals, or to fund the facilities required to support more care in the community. The Health and Social Care Committee’s recent inquiry, “Adult Social Care: the Cost of Inaction”, has drawn attention to the enormous human and economic toll of the Government’s failure to reform the care sector. From the burden of unpaid carers to the economic impact of people leaving the workforce due to unmet care needs, the system is under severe and unsustainable strain, but rather than tackling this issue, the Government have once again kicked social care into the long grass and are waiting for a report from Baroness Casey that will probably not emerge until the very end of the Session. The cross-party talks that this Government promised have been scrapped again. Although the spending review includes £4 billion in additional adult social care funding and an increase in the NHS minimum contribution to the better care fund, there remains little clarity on how the Government will fund their commitment to deliver a fair pay agreement for care workers. It is also far from clear that the better care fund is currently structured to meet the real needs of the care sector, rather than simply alleviating pressures in primary care. These estimates are not abstract figures; they translate directly into longer waits for elderly patients, overstretched family carers and staff driven to exhaustion. Can the Minister confirm exactly how much funding the Government will allocate next year to tackle the social care workforce emergency, reduce waiting lists for assessments and services, and ensure that councils can meet their statutory obligations? What concrete recruitment and retention measures will be put in place to attract and retain carers, nurses and support workers in this vital sector, and how much new capital investment will be committed to help providers to modernise facilities and expand capacity to meet the needs of our growing and ageing population? When will the cross-party talks that the Government promised on social care happen? They must happen; otherwise, all the good effort—from Members on both sides of the House—on this issue will be lost. Finally, with social care vacancies entrenched and NHS productivity still trailing pre-pandemic levels, will the Minister set out what credible workforce and capital investment plans will be included in the forthcoming NHS 10-year plan to address these challenges once and for all? I pay tribute to all the health and social care workers—employed or voluntary—across this country. This Government, with their massive majority, have a real opportunity to make real changes. They must start doing so now, and quickly.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Incontinence · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your place today. It is an honour to speak in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing it. Her speech included the wealth of experience that she brings to the topic, and I especially congratulate her on putting this issue so clearly on the agenda today in the House. It was a powerful and wide-ranging speech that demonstrated the wide range of issues and conditions that can lead to incontinence. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) told us earlier, incontinence is a condition that affects around 14 million people across the UK, yet too often it remains misunderstood, under-discussed and—worse still—dismissed. One in three women experience urinary incontinence, and half a million adults live with bowel incontinence. Incontinence does not discriminate; whether bladder or bowel, temporary or chronic, or mild or severe, it touches people of all ages, backgrounds and walks of life. It affects new mothers, people recovering from surgery, those with neurological conditions, the elderly, and even children. However, too many suffer in silence, held back by stigma, isolation, or the belief that nothing can be done. Like other Members, I received some heartbreaking stories from my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. Incontinence is a medical issue, not a personal failing. It is not something to be ashamed of; it is something to be addressed through compassion, awareness and proper care. The impact of incontinence can be profound. It affects people’s confidence, their work, their relationships and their mental health. That is why Continence Week, which we are currently marking, matters. We cannot expect people to reach out for help unless we first create a culture where they feel safe and supported in doing so. We also need to ensure that services are in place to respond when they do seek help. That means better access to continence nurses, urologists, and physiotherapists, such as the hon. Member for Dudley. It means investing in community support, and in research and innovation, and recognising that continence care is a core part of our health system, not an afterthought. I therefore welcome the Government’s stated ambition to tackle inequalities in women’s health and to address conditions such as incontinence more seriously, but warm words and long-term ambitions are not enough when so many continue to struggle. For example, the “Excellence in Continence Care” guidance, first published in 2018, was a groundbreaking piece of work, but we now need clear next steps, funding and measurable outcomes. We must not allow this to drift for another seven years while millions suffer in silence. Under the previous Conservative Government, we delivered real and lasting progress in this area. In 2022, we published England’s first ever women’s health strategy, a genuine turning point shaped by listening to more than 100,000 women’s voices. That strategy committed to trauma-informed care, expanded research and, crucially, improved the quality and accessibility of information on the NHS website so that women could make informed choices about their own health. Under our leadership, women’s health hubs were launched with a clear mandate to exist in every integrated care system, bringing services closer to communities and breaking down barriers to care. We also ensured the creation of specialist mesh centres across England, delivering multidisciplinary, regionally-based care for women facing the severe consequences of surgical complications. At a recent roundtable I attended with lecturers from Bath University on mesh, Primodos and valproate, it was clear that there is still more work to do to support these women and to learn from the past. I thank the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for raising the mesh scandal so passionately earlier. On incontinence, the Conservative Government backed National Institute for Health and Care Research funding for vital research into patient-reported outcome measures, empowering patients, improving clinical care and ensuring that the lived experience is properly reflected in decision making. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) so powerfully elucidated earlier, men are often forgotten in this area. On the Opposition Benches, we support any culture and any steps that will help men with incontinence. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, we men are pretty poor at going for diagnosis and treatment, and that needs to change. The scale of the issue remains significant. Nearly half of women experience incontinence after childbirth and one in 10 experience faecal incontinence, yet only 17% seek help. That is often because they are told subtly or directly that it is simply part of ageing or the price of motherhood. That attitude was unacceptable then and must not be tolerated now. When a third of women suffer pelvic floor disorders after giving birth and still face barriers to care, when men living with incontinence are afraid to leave their homes, and when people are forced to depend on charities for access to basic hygiene products, it is clear that we have a public health problem that transcends mere inconvenience. Will the Department commit to publishing an updated “Excellence in Continence Care” strategy this year, with clear timelines and accountability? Will we see dedicated funding to expand women’s health hubs further, so that continence care is a core service, not a bolt-on? Will the Minister also bring forward a plan for better health services for male incontinence? Will NHS England guarantee national consistency of access to continence services and products, ending the unacceptable postcode lottery? Will the Government protect and grow funding for continence research to improve treatments for men and women? Finally, I pay tribute to the organisations, including Bladder and Bowel UK, Prostate Cancer UK and the Urology Foundation, that are breaking taboos and supporting patients so tirelessly, but it is not their responsibility alone; the Government must lead. We Conservatives made a start, and we now need the current Government to have the same urgency, ambition and delivery to ensure that these hard-won improvements are built upon so that no one is left to struggle in silence.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Endometriosis · Hansard source

  More

  What commitment can the Minister give that the community diagnostic centres programme, which was started under the Conservative Government—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I’ll start again. What commitment can the Minister give that the community diagnostic centres programme, which was started under the last Government, will be used effectively to treat and diagnose not just endometriosis, but all the conditions listed in the women’s health strategy?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clauses 22 and 23 and to Liberal Democrat new clause 4. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, the Opposition support clauses 22 and 23 generally. Clause 22 addresses the concern that community clinicians—essentially, those responsible for overseeing a patient’s care outside hospital—have historically had limited formal input into decisions about community treatment orders, even though they are central to the patient’s ongoing care. It ensures that community clinicians not only are consulted but, in some cases, must provide written agreement before key decisions are made. It aims to improve continuity of care, ensure decisions reflect the realities of community-based treatment, and reduce inappropriate and poorly co-ordinated use of CTOs. The benefits of the clause are obvious, but they are worth restating. Clearly, it improves the continuity of care and ensures that clinicians with direct knowledge of the patient’s community care are involved in those key decisions. It enhances safeguards, adding an additional layer of professional oversight before coercive measures are imposed or suggested. It promotes collaboration by encouraging joint decision making between the hospital-based and community-based clinicians, and it reduces the risk of inappropriate CTOs by ensuring they are used only when genuinely appropriate and supported by those delivering care. However, I ask the Minister to touch on three points. First, requiring a written agreement or consultation could delay urgent decisions if not managed efficiently, so will he explain how, under the clause, any potential delay—a disagreement or just administrative inertia—can be removed to ensure treatment is not delayed? That moves me on to the administrative burden. Clearly, the clause adds a level of complexity and requires more documentation and co-ordination. Although I understand that that is a necessary outcome, I would again be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on how to ensure effective and speedy implementation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, the ambiguity in the roles of the two clinicians may create confusion or disputes over responsibilities if they are not clearly defined or agreed. My reading of the clause is that there is no such clear definition; will the Minister look to provide one through other agencies, or will he put something into the clause in Committee or later in the Bill’s proceedings? Clause 23, on the conditions of community treatment orders, addresses the concerns that the threshold for imposing conditions on community treatment orders has been too low, allowing conditions that may be clinically unnecessary or overly restrictive. By removing the “appropriate” test, the clause will tighten the legal standard to ensure that only necessary conditions are imposed. Additionally, the clause will empower tribunals to play a more active role in scrutinising CTO conditions by allowing them to recommend that clinicians review specific conditions, even if the patient is not discharged. This reflects the Bill’s broader aim of enhancing patient rights and removing unnecessary restrictions. The clause is a welcome addition. It will ensure that CTO conditions are imposed only when strictly necessary, meaning that there are stronger safeguards, and it will enhance the role of tribunals in protecting patient rights without requiring full discharge. It will reduce clinical overreach by preventing the use of overly broad or vague conditions that may not be clinically justified. However, as with the previous clause, I have some questions. First, the tribunal power is limited in that it can only recommend, not require, the reconsideration of conditions. Is that the intention, or will the Minister strengthen the clause at some point to ensure that the tribunal can require a reconsideration of conditions? If he will not, what issues does he see arising from there not being a reconsideration? Secondly, as I mentioned in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, I have a concern about the potential ambiguity in the shift from “appropriate” to “necessary” leading to uncertainty or dispute over interpretation. As we touched on in relation to other clauses, clinicians will need additional guidance or training to apply the revised standard consistently. Where will that revised training and guidance be located, and what is the timeframe for its implementation? We need to ensure that all clinicians are fully trained and ready to use this new power. I will briefly touch on new clause 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, because although I understand that the hon. Member for Winchester may not press it, somebody else might. It would place a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community have the necessary level of resource to meet demand such that the provisions of the Bill function as intended, and to assess and report on this every two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned, the Opposition generally support the overall aims of the new clause, but as ever, there are some issues with the detail, so I have five questions for the hon. Member for Winchester if he responds, or for the Minister to answer in his summing up. First, if we imposed a statutory duty on ICBs to ensure sufficient resources for the CTOs, what mechanisms would there be to monitor and enforce compliance? Secondly, what would be the consequences if an ICB failed to meet this duty? Would there be formal accountability or a sanction process? Thirdly, how would the duty interact with existing NHS budgetary constraints and competing priorities? Would it become a statutory obligation with no clear means of redress if unmet? Fourthly, could the duty set a precedent whereby Parliament mandates resource guarantees without providing additional central funding? Finally, what constitutes “sufficient” resources in the context of the CTOs? Who defines that standard, and it is defined locally or nationally?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support clauses 36 to 40. Clause 36 addresses a legal gap identified in case law, which held that the Mental Health Act 1983 did not permit the imposition of conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty for conditionally discharged patients. The clause provides a clear statutory basis for such conditions, but only under strict safeguards. It aims to balance public protection with patient rights, ensuring that DoL conditions are used only when absolutely necessary and proportionate. This is a positive step, because it clarifies the legal authority, resolving any uncertainty, following court rulings, about the legality of DoL conditions in conditional discharges. It protects public safety by ensuring that high-risk patients can be managed safely in the community, under appropriate restrictions. It includes safeguards that require DoL conditions to be justified and proportionate, with a focus on patient welfare, and it aligns with notable human rights law, especially the definitions and principles from the Mental Capacity Act and the relevant case law. However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. My view is that there is potential for overuse. Without robust oversight, there is a risk that DoL conditions could be used too readily. What safeguards is the Minister putting in place to ensure that that does not happen? There is clearly an impact on patient liberty, and we need to get the balance right. Even with the safeguards, these conditions significantly restrict individual freedom and therefore must be carefully monitored. How is the Minister ensuring that that will happen? In relation to the legal thresholds, determining whether conditions meet the legal test may require detailed clinical and legal assessment. We have talked about the practical implications of this Act on numerous occasions. I again ask the Minister whether he is certain that we have the relevant clinical and legal assessors out there to ensure that we can push that forward. Clause 37, entitled “Transfers of prisoners and others to hospital: conditions”, will update the legal framework for transferring individuals from prison or immigration detention to hospital under the Mental Health Act. The previous wording of the Act required that treatment be “available”, but did not specify that it must be appropriate for the individual’s condition. This clause will align the criteria with more modern clinical standards and broader reforms in the Bill, which emphasise person-centred care and treatment suitability. It will also ensure that immigration detainees are clearly included in the scope of these provisions. Again, it is positive, because it updates and consolidates the list of immigration-related detention powers covered by the Act. It supports human rights compliance, because it aligns with principles of lawful and proportionate deprivation of liberty under article 5 of the European convention on human rights; it brings the Act in line with the current clinical and legal terminology; and, most importantly, it ensures that transfers are made only when appropriate treatment—not just any treatment—is available. I have just a couple of questions for the Minister on this clause. I see potential for disputes. Determining what constitutes appropriate treatment may lead to disagreements between clinicians and authorities. What are the Minister’s thoughts on those potential disagreements? There are also some resource implications. It may increase demand for secure hospital beds if more transfers are approved under the revised criteria. I would welcome any thoughts from the Minister on how to ensure that we have the right number of secure hospital beds, not just as a totality, but in the specific regions and areas where people may be being detained. Clause 38 is also about the transfer of prisoners and others to hospital, but specifically about time limits. It responds to a long-standing concern about delays in transferring prisoners and immigration detainees to hospital for mental health treatment. Under the current system, there is no statutory time limit, and individuals can wait weeks or months in prison, despite being assessed as needing urgent psychiatric care. That has been criticised by mental health professionals, legal advocates and human rights bodies. The clause will introduce a legal framework for setting and enforcing time limits, aligning with the Bill’s broader goals, which I think we all agree with, of improving patient rights and dignity and timely access to care. Again, I support the clause, because it will reduce delays. It will help to ensure that mentally unwell detainees are transferred to appropriate care settings without unnecessary delay, and will introduce clear expectations and accountability for decision making. It enables some flexibility, I think, because it allows for tailored regulations, to accommodate different case types and operational realities. Again, however, I have some questions. I think there will be some implementation challenges. Services may struggle to meet the deadlines without sufficient resources —an issue that I mentioned in relation to the previous clause. Also, time limits may be difficult to apply in complex or borderline cases without clear guidance. Does the Minister see a need for explicit guidance in the code of conduct, or in some other form, to ensure that the risk of a rigid application does not make things more complicated or, more especially, mean that a potential patient is sent to the wrong care simply because we are focusing on the time rather than the appropriateness of the care? Of course, I would welcome his thoughts on how any new tracking systems and co-ordination between prisons, hospitals and the Ministry of Justice might work in this case. Finally, I will briefly touch on clause 39. This is a technical update regarding the term “remand centre”, because that is no longer used in law or in practice; instead, young people are remanded to youth detention accommodation. Given that the clause is purely technical, I support it.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in favour of clauses 42, 43 and 44, which together strengthen the duty to inform patients—whether detained in the community or conditionally discharged—about how to make a complaint about their treatment and the outcome of that complaint. The Mental Health Act has long included duties to tell patients their rights, but too often that information has been patchy, hard to understand or buried in paperwork. The clauses tackle that by requiring clear, repeated information about not just detention, but treatment and the complaints process. Clause 42 relates to information about complaints for detained patients. Section 132 of the Mental Health Act 1983 originally required hospitals to inform detained patients of their rights, but that was often inconsistently applied. This clause responds to long-standing concerns about transparency and patient empowerment, aligning with the broader goals of the Bill to enhance autonomy and dignity in mental health care. Specifically, there is an expanded duty of information. Hospital managers must now ensure that detained patients understand how to make complaints, not only about their detention, but about their treatment, along with the outcomes of any complaints. There are some timing requirements, i.e. that the information must be provided as soon as practicable after detention begins and be repeated annually for restricted patients, or after each section 20 report for others. That will improve patient’s awareness of their rights and how to seek redress. It will promote accountability and mental health services by encouraging feedback and complaints, and support better outcomes by addressing grievances early and constructively.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but I shall continue in the same vein unless I am told to do otherwise. Clause 27 will ensure that when community treatment orders are considered, with all the restrictions they bring, the nominated person’s voice must be heard and an objection must be properly countered with evidence. Clause 28 addresses hospital transfers, recognising that being moved to another hospital can uproot fragile support networks and compound distress. By embedding a consultation duty here, too, the Bill will make it harder for patients to be moved arbitrarily or without explanation. In summary, the clauses and the schedule empower patients, embed transparency and build trust, but they do so through a lens rightly focused on adults—capable, consenting adults who make choices freely. That brings me to my fundamental point: we must be absolutely certain that this approach will not inadvertently erode a bedrock of child protection: that a parent is the default legal protector for their child. For an adult, autonomy means freedom of choice, but for a child, especially one under 16, autonomy must never mean being left alone to navigate a labyrinth of legal forms and healthcare powers without the protection of a parent. That is why I strongly support amendments 54 and 55, which would ensure that for under-16s, parents remain the lawful decision makers and the first safeguard for their child’s welfare. Let us imagine for a moment a vulnerable 14-year-old who, in the confusion and fear of a psychiatric admission, is persuaded by a well-meaning adult—or, worse, someone with a hidden agenda—to appoint them as the nominated person. That child may be separated from their parents—the very people who know the child best and have a legal duty to care for them—while an outsider gains rights to object to treatment or discharge decisions. Once that nomination is made and witnessed, it carries weight in law and could marginalise the very people who brought that child into the world and have a moral and legal duty to protect them. This is not just theoretical. We know from real cases in family courts that unscrupulous individuals can exploit vulnerable young people. The risk that the new system could unintentionally open the door to manipulation must be taken seriously. Let us not be naive about how exploitation works: groomers, traffickers and abusers thrive in grey areas of the law; they will find loopholes and drive a coach and horses through them. If we do not make it crystal clear that no child under 16 can override parental responsibility without a court’s explicit order, we risk creating an invitation for abuse. Can the Minister assure the Committee that no child under 16 will be permitted to override parental responsibility simply by nominating someone else without a full and proper process? Schedule 2 does include fall-back arrangements and eligibility checks, and those are welcome, but unless the law is explicit that only a court can displace a parent’s right to act for their child, those safeguards are not watertight. Amendment 54 addresses a related area, the notification of incidents. It would require the Secretary of State to review whether the law should be strengthened so that all admissions of children and young people for mental health treatment trigger mandatory incident reporting, and whether the timeframes for that reporting are still appropriate. It would require the Secretary of State to review whether incident reporting requirements are robust enough for all under-18s in mental health settings. Are all incidents of restraint, seclusion, injury or absconding being reported promptly and comprehensively? If not, what must change? We have seen far too many tragic cases in which harm or abuse in children’s mental health units came to light only after a scandal broke, because the system did not catch it in time. Proper oversight is not an optional extra; it is essential for the trust of families. In my view, a review alone is not enough, so I urge to the Minister to confirm that, if the review finds gaps, the Government will legislate swiftly to close them. In the meantime, what interim steps will be taken to ensure that no child is left unprotected? Amendment 55 is the final safeguard in this suite of amendments. It would allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to other laws to implement the Bill cleanly. That is good housekeeping, but it must not become a blank cheque. When it comes to parental rights or child safeguarding, no technical tweak should be done behind closed doors by negative procedure; Parliament must approve it in full daylight, on the record. Will the Minister confirm without ambiguity that any consequential amendment that touches on parental powers or child protections will come before both Houses under the affirmative procedure? To illustrate things in the starkest terms, let me paint one more scenario for this Committee. A 15-year-old girl, already vulnerable, is detained following a self-harm incident. Her parents, distressed but committed, wish to be involved in her care plan and discharge, but in her fragile mental state the child is persuaded by an older friend—perhaps well-meaning, perhaps not—to nominate them instead. That friend, now a legally recognised nominated person, blocks discharge, disagrees with treatment and excludes the parents from updates. The clinicians are caught in a legal tangle. The child is caught in the middle, and the parents must fight in court to reclaim their rightful role. As I said before, that is not a theory; it is the sort of real-life pitfall that sloppy drafting can enable. If we see it coming and fail to stop it, we will have failed as legislators. I wish to be clear that I support clauses 24 to 28 and schedule 2 because they modernise mental health law for adults in a way that is respectful and empowering. I support amendment 54, because it would strengthen transparency and accountability where children’s lives and safety are at stake. I support amendment 55, because it would keep our statute book coherent, but it must never be misused to erode rights by stealth. Above all, I support the amendments because they ensure that the new nominated person system does not inadvertently weaken the oldest and strongest protection we have, which is the legal responsibility of parents to care for their own child. I urge this Committee to adopt the clauses, the schedule and amendments 54 and 55 as essential guardrails to ensure that what we pass here is not just legally sound, but morally right. Let us modernise this law and strengthen patient voice, but let us never allow a child to lose their parents’ protection by accident or bureaucratic slip. Let us be in no doubt: when the state removes or limits parental rights, it must do so under the strictest scrutiny of a court of law, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. A signed piece of paper at a bedside should never be enough. That is the dividing line between a humane, modern health system and one that risks creating new injustices in the name of progress. I ask the Minister again: will the Government enshrine in this Bill or elsewhere that parents are the legal representatives for under-16s unless a court directs otherwise? Will he guarantee rigorous checks to prevent the manipulation of young minds at their most vulnerable? Will he commit that any necessary changes found by the incident review under amendment 54 would be acted on without delay? I commend this package of reforms to the Committee, and I trust that the Government will listen carefully to these warnings and act to make the legislation watertight.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have some brief questions for the Minister about this important clause, which has serious implications for patient liberty and for public protection. We must ensure that decisions are clinically and legally sound. First, how will the proposed changes to initial and renewal detention periods help conditions and services and manage public risk more effectively, particularly in forensic or high-risk cases? Secondly, do longer detention periods after revocation of a community treatment order reflect a higher perceived risk, and if so, is there clear clinical evidence supporting that extension to six months? Thirdly, are we confident that the new timelines strike the right balance between protecting the public and ensuring patients are not detained longer than necessary? Finally, and as an adjunct to that, what other considerations are there in the clause or the Bill to keep the public safe and to make sure that decisions are correct in the context of clause 29?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause is a necessary reset— [ Interruption. ] Goodness, what a background noise! If only I had such a response to everything I said. The clause is rooted in the central recommendation of the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, that the criteria for detention are too broad and being applied too inconsistently. Too often we hear stories of people being detained not because they pose a real and present danger, but because services are stretched, community alternatives are not available, or there is simply a lack of clarity on when detention is justified. This clause is necessarily corrective. It raises the bar by introducing a clear and structured risk threshold that requires the possibility of serious harm to health or safety, rather than vague concerns or subjective impressions. The inclusion of terms such as “likelihood” and the focus on actual risk mark a clear move towards the evidence-based practice that we want to see and away from overreach. For me, the key strengths of the clause include, first, a higher threshold for detention. Under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, detention for assessment is permitted only if serious harm may occur. That means that professionals must assess the nature and the degree of harm, as well as the likelihood, injecting rigour and proportionality into decision making. The clause also clarifies the treatment criteria. Under section 3 of the Act, detention for treatment is allowed only if serious harm may occur without it and if treatment is necessary, and, crucially, it must be available. That prevents people from being detained without any therapeutic benefit, a concern that has long plagued the system. The clause also aligns measures across the Mental Health Act: the new threshold applies not only to the initial decision to detain, but to emergency detentions and renewals. That brings consistency and coherence across the different parts of the legislation. The final key point among the strengths of the clause is the definition of the authorised person, which is vital. It ensures that those tasked with detention powers are properly trained and equipped to deal with the complex and often volatile realities of mental health crises. Whether a doctor, an approved mental health professional or a specially trained nurse, the provision ensures that detention is exercised by someone with relevant expertise, not by default by the police. Taken together, the changes significantly strengthen the legal framework around detention, reduce the risk of misuse and reaffirm the principle of least restriction, the idea that coercive care should be used only when no other alternative exists. The problems I have with Government amendments 26 to 29 are as follows. The Minister proposes to delete references to “a constable or other authorised person” from the clause. On the surface, that may appear to be technical, but in fact I think it is a profound and problematic shift. The amendments would weaken the very safeguards that the clause is trying to strengthen. We must be careful about how we frame this. The amendments risk undoing the clarity and purpose of the clause by making it ambiguous who can lawfully detain someone under the Mental Health Act. Instead of defining the responsibility clearly and ensuring that it is held by trained professionals, the amendments will strip the clause back to vague flexibility, with no guarantee that the right expertise is present in real-time decisions. The power to detain and to move individuals to a place of safety, in particular under sections 135 and 136 of the Act, is largely restricted and falls under the responsibility of police officers. These provisions, while designed to protect the public, can often result in the criminalisation of people in acute mental health crises, even when there is no threat of violence or risk to others. Furthermore, the clause as passed by the House of Lords would relieve police officers of responsibilities that fall outside their core expertise, while also reducing the stigma and trauma associated with police-led interventions. It would streamline the process, ensure that individuals are supported by professionals trained specifically in mental health care, and maintain police involvement only where there is a clear and present risk to safety. In doing so, it would significantly strengthen the system and place mental health crises more firmly within the domain of health rather than law enforcement. Let me set out the key problems with Government amendments 26 to 29. First, I think that they will blur the lines of responsibility. The clause rightly states that detention must be carried out by a constable or other authorised person, namely someone who has been designated and trained to carry out this high-stakes task. The Government amendments will remove that requirement. In doing so, they risk creating confusion on the ground about who is permitted to act. In a moment of crisis, ambiguity costs time, and time costs lives.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s request to the Government for a review two years after implementation. Does he agree that it needs to be cross-governmental? The Home Office and other bodies such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the NHS will need to be involved.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I confess that I do not entirely follow the hon. Lady’s argument. My understanding is that the people she has listed—for example, hospital security staff—are not covered at the moment, so I do not think that that is the case. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, there are situations, in a number of settings, in which mental health professionals act in the capacity of restraining. With the correct and appropriate training, which is what I think all Opposition Members want, I do not think that the issue that the hon. Member for Thurrock is raising would necessarily arise. Having said that, if she really feels that the wording needs to be tweaked, I look forward to seeing and potentially supporting her amendment to the subsection, and I hope she tables it. The second key problem is the risk of returning the burden to police officers. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House in the debate, and from police forces up and down the country for years, that the police do not have the expertise, training or capacity to be the first responders to mental health emergencies. Clause 5 finally reflects that reality, helping to move the response from law enforcement to healthcare. The Government amendments would muddy that distinction. They would result in the police once again becoming the default responders—not because it is right but because it is unclear who else is meant to act. Thirdly, the amendments introduce legal and safe-guarding risks. Without a clear definition of who can detain, one risks inconsistency, poor practice and potentially unlawful deprivation of liberty. The amendments offer no alternative safeguards—just the deletion of the existing ones. That is not reform; it is abdication of responsibility. Finally, they undermine the spirit of the Bill. The Bill aims to modernise mental health legislation by making it more humane and effective, and more rooted in health than enforcement. The amendments point in the opposite direction. They strip away clarity, increase reliance on the police and risk compounding trauma for those already in crisis. It is not just about legislative precision; it is about protecting people. When someone is in acute mental health crisis, they are at their most vulnerable. Turning up with police officers, sirens and handcuffs does not calm the situation; it escalates it. It creates trauma, damages trust and can lead to long-term disengagement from mental health services. Clause 5 offers us a path out of that pattern. It allows approved professionals—such as paramedics, mental health nurses and crisis practitioners —to intervene early, with care and dignity. It does not exclude the police, where there is a genuine risk to safety, but it rightly repositions them as the last resort, not the first response. The Government amendments may be well intentioned, but they threaten to unravel that balance. We cannot allow vague flexibility to become a smokescreen for inadequate planning or under-resourced services. If the Minister pushes his amendments to a vote, and, as the parliamentary maths suggests they will, those amendments pass, what will he do to sort out the problem that we, on both sides of the House, have talked about today? He is currently planning to keep the status quo, which we all seem to agree is not appropriate. At least we and our noble Friends in the other place have attempted to improve the situation. What will he and his Department do? The clause is part of a broader rethinking of how we response to mental health need. It supports community-based care. It pushes for better training. It honours patient autonomy and it places the right people—clinicians, not constables—at the centre of care delivery. We all want a system where people in distress are met with compassion, not criminalisation. Clause 5 helps us to get there. The Government’s amendments drag us backwards. Clause 5 is one of the most thoughtful and necessary parts of the Bill. It raises standards, reduces harm and finally begins to close the gap between what the Mental Health Act allows and what good mental health care demands.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise briefly to dilate on clause 6, on Liberal Democrat amendment 11 and on Government amendment 30. Those of us on the Health and Social Care Committee recently had a fascinating panel about the disparities for black and minority ethnic groups in maternity, and it does not end there, as we can see from the evidence raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and by the hon. Member for Shipley. When CTOs were introduced—for good reasons—the elements of controversy that hon. Members have raised were not predicted. The overuse of CTOs, especially among black and minority ethnic patients, should give us all concern, although I have to say that there is some limited evidence of effectiveness in reducing relapse or readmission. Will the Minister give us the Government’s view on that and how they might seek improvement going forward? What we are trying to achieve in the clause is to bring legislation in line with the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, which recommended tightening the use of CTOs, or indeed abolishing them altogether for some groups. I support the clause because it brings in stronger safeguards, a clearer commitment and time limits to reduce the risk of indefinite or inappropriate use. It also improves patient involvement, because it requires a consultation and review, promoting shared decision-making, and increases accountability because it aligns with the code of practice and introduces external oversight. It focuses on the reality, ensuring that CTOs are used only where truly needed. I am slightly concerned about Government amendment 30, which will remove the detailed provision that would have introduced new statutory limits and review procedures for community treatment orders, specifically under subsection (3), and inserted new subsections (8) to (11) into section 17B of the Mental Health Act. The implication of removing subsection (3) is that essentially we will maintain the current legal framework, which does not impose a fixed maximum duration or the same level of structured review currently written into the clause. I am afraid that that would not bring in the safeguards and oversight mechanisms that would, at least to some degree, start to tackle the problems that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been talking about. It may be seen as taking a step back from what campaigners and professionals who are advocating for stronger patient rights and accountability on the use of CTOs would like to see. I ask the Minister for the same reassurances that the hon. Member for Shipley asked for in this area. If the Government are to move Government amendment 30 successfully, we will need to see how they intend to deal with these issues going forward. Liberal Democrat amendment 11 would ensure that people subject to a CTO receive information about their right to advocacy. That is an entirely laudable aim, but I ask Liberal Democrat Members to answer a few questions. First, how do they see the administrative burden on clinicians to ensure that both oral and written communications are documented? Secondly, what additional training do they think those professionals might need to ensure that the information is both consistent and correct? Thirdly, might there be delays in issuing a CTO if, for some reason, advocacy information is not immediately available?

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

  More

  On the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford about local authorities, given that the Government are devolving and reorganising local government structures across parts of the country, how will the Minister ensure that the standards around this issue—and other health and social care issues—are maintained? That restructuring means that we will have a whole load of new local authorities that do not necessarily have experience of dealing with this area.

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

  More

  To take that point slightly further, given that pretty much every local authority has a different set of criteria by which to determine people’s housing needs, how would, for example, an ICB that potentially crosses multiple local authorities with differing housing needs be able to understand the complexities within the current structure, and ensure that the patient is served best?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. As I have indicated, I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments, but some practical constraints need to be teased out. Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that housing needs are explicitly considered during a care, education and treatment review meeting. I can see the pros of that. Clearly, a holistic approach recognises that stable housing is fundamental to mental health and recovery, especially for vulnerable individuals. Addressing housing barriers may reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. Likewise, it could lead to improved discharge planning, ensuring that patients are not delayed in hospital due to a lack of suitable accommodation. All Governments, of every colour and political party, want to see collaboration between health, social care and housing services, and the amendment brings those things together. As I said in an intervention, however, local authorities and NHS bodies such as ICBs may face challenges to co-ordinating housing assessments within the CETRs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned, his constituency crosses a number of local authority boundaries, while my seat of Farnham and Bordon, with two thirds of it in Surrey and one third in Hampshire, has that same issue. The county councils are wonderful and Conservative run, but Waverley is run by Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Winchester, who moved the amendment, recognised the issue of implementation capacity, but there are also likely to be resource constraints. These days, local authorities spend most of their money on social care, education and the bits of health that sit within their remit, so there may be insufficient housing stock or funding to meet the identified needs that the amendment would bring forward. There are therefore practical implications.

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

  More

  I agree entirely. That could be the unintended consequence of amendment 51: in essence, if the housing provision is not there, discharge will be delayed. From my understanding of the amendments in the group, those who tabled them are trying to speed up and improve discharge. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to think about the practical implications of the Bill. The amendment would require co-ordination among health, social care and housing services, which may be challenging in under-resourced areas. Frankly, because parts of those organisations are not used to working in the ways that the amendment would require, it might fall over without suitable training, the necessary lead-in time and a practical understanding of how it will work. Amendment 4 would ensure that housing needs are formally considered during the care and treatment review meetings for adults with autism or a learning disability, without an EHCP. I understand that the aim is to support more effective discharge planning and reduce the risk of unnecessary or prolonged hospital stays. That is entirely in keeping with what we should be trying to do in the Bill. Holistic care planning reduces delays in discharge, improves cross-sector collaboration and supports community-based care, which we all support. Once again, however, there is potential for complexity in the implementation. New processes may be required to involve the housing authorities. Resources and local housing shortages could limit the amendments’ practical impact. Another layer of complex review processes could add to that administrative burden. If there is inconsistent local capacity, the effectiveness of the amendment will almost certainly vary depending on the local housing infrastructure, which could lead to a postcode lottery, for want of a better phrase, in who receives the adequate care and housing. Amendment 2 would ensure that children and young people with autism or learning disability, as well as their nominated persons and independent mental health advocates, receive a copy of the care, education and treatment review meeting report. I have a lot of sympathy with that. It potentially increases empowerment and transparency, ensuring that patients and their advocates are fully informed, which could enable better participation in care decisions. It has a legal and ethical alignment with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, both of which emphasise supported decision making. It might also improve advocacy, as independent mental health advocates can more effectively represent a patient’s interest when they have access to the full report.

• 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.

• 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.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Across my constituency I hear the same thing from parents, school staff and youth workers: early signs of offending behaviour are often missed or not acted on until it is too late; and in rural areas, stretched services and limited access to youth provision make the problem worse. Given the success of the Haslemere youth hub, will the Lord Chancellor consider expanding community-based justice schemes to ensure young people are not drawn into the criminal justice system when they do not need to be?

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate. Keen observers of Westminster Hall debates will have noticed that she responded on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to the debate that I had secured this morning, so there is a nice symmetry in the fact that I am responding to her debate this afternoon. My hon. Friend gave an excellent summary of the current system and the impact that the changes that happened overnight will have on adopters and carers and, of course, on the children they support. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have powerfully demonstrated the impact that the changes are having on their constituents, and the situation in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, is no different. Hon. Members will have to forgive me; because so many Members have spoken in the debate, I will not be able to mention all their contributions. However, I pay special tribute to those Members who referred to their personal experiences in this matter. First, I want to note the strong record of the previous Conservative Government on supporting kinship carers, adoptive families and some of the most vulnerable children in our society. While others have made promises, we took action. However, there is no doubt that there is more to do, which is why I welcome this debate. The Conservatives have a strong record of prioritising and increasing adoption and strengthening kinship policymaking, including by introducing the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provided financial support to local authorities and regional adoption agencies to pay for essential therapeutic services for the most vulnerable children. The Government’s decision to cut the fund was a retrograde step, and it has placed significant stress on the near 17,000 applicants in 2023-24 alone who utilised services such as family therapy, parental training and creative therapeutic intervention. It is highly regrettable that the Government failed to provide clarity about the continuation of the fund before its expiry on 31 March. Despite repeated calls for assurance, including from practitioners and sector leaders, Labour delayed its announcement. When it finally came, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) stated, it confirmed a 40% reduction in the fair access limit, capping support at £3,000 per child per year compared with the £5,000 that families could access previously. The reduction places pressure on local authorities to bridge a shortfall of almost £34 million, using already stretched children’s services budgets. The Minister has stated previously that additional support can be provided above the cap, but only at the discretion and financial behest of local councils. As hon. Members have said, many local authorities are not in the position to do so, but even if they are, this approach risks creating a postcode lottery, with some of the most vulnerable children supported but others left out.

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

  More

  Despite having worked in healthcare for most of my career and serving on the Health and Social Care Select Committee, having listened to the speeches thus far this evening, I feel in awe of the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). I also commend the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan), who I know is supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), for his extraordinarily powerful speech. This Bill is essentially about the duty of care not only to those who have mental health issues, but to the public, including the family, friends, carers, public servants and everyone else who interacts with those individuals. The duty of care also exists to protect those individuals from themselves. As many Members have said, our hope and ambition should be that as few people as possible find themselves in a crisis situation. I therefore entirely endorse and support the comments about ensuring that we have proper and well-funded mental health services, both in the community and in the acute setting.

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

  More

  I am sorry if I was not clear for the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had made it very clear that I was talking about situations in which there was no risk to other professionals. Clearly, in the situations he describes, the police are entirely the right people to be involved. The second area that I want to touch on is that of strengthening safeguards for vulnerable children. What I would like to see introduced is an essential safeguard for children and young people within the mental health care system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned, the current legislation allows for a nominated person to be appointed to represent the child’s interests. In my view, though, it does not provide adequate protection against the risk that that person could be coercive, abusive or in other ways inappropriate, particularly in cases involving looked-after children or those with complex family dynamics. As such, I would like to see amendments made that address that gap by establishing clear criteria for who can be appointed as a child’s nominated person. For looked-after children, the local authority would automatically become the nominated individual, ensuring oversight by a public body accountable for the child’s welfare. For other children, only individuals with legal parental responsibility—such as a guardian or someone named in a court order—should be appointed. Such measures would ensure that no vulnerable child would be exposed to undue influence during what may be one of the most difficult or disorienting times in their life. They would align mental health law with broader child protection standards and reinforce the principle that safeguarding must be at the heart of any mental health intervention involving children. Finally, I want to see amendments made that would introduce more patient voice and accountability. I accept that in its current form, the Bill makes steps in the right direction, but I would like to see an amendment made mirroring the one that was tabled in the other place by the noble Lords Howe and Kamall. Such an amendment would introduce the valuable and forward-looking provision of a mandatory debrief session within 30 days of discharge from detention under part 2 of the Mental Health Act. That session would be led by an independent mental health advocate, and would provide patients with the opportunity to reflect on their experience, raise any concerns about their treatment, and offer feedback in a safe, supportive and non-judgmental setting. That would be more than just a procedural addition; it represents a shift in culture, which I think we would all agree with, towards embedding patient voice and accountability in the mental health care system. It recognises the importance of empowering individuals after detention, supporting their recovery and learning from their lived experience to improve future services. Mental health charities and third sector organisations have strongly endorsed the proposal, so I hope the Minister will give some indication in his wind-up that he would support a similar amendment. Taken together, these reforms prioritise professional clinical opinion, safeguard children from inappropriate influence during periods of acute vulnerability and elevate the patient voice in the post-care process. In doing so, they align the Mental Health Act closer to modern standards of care, international best practice and evolving public expectations. These amendments are essential to strengthening the Bill, ensuring that our mental health system becomes not only more effective, but more compassionate, responsive and just.

• 1 May 2025 · Parkinson’s Awareness Month · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in this most important debate. I commend the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing it and for his heartfelt and impassioned speech. I was particularly moved by the recitation of Bobbie’s poem and the highlighting of the amazing “Movers and Shakers” podcast. I thank all hon. Members for their heartfelt contributions on behalf of their constituents and those across the country living with Parkinson’s. We heard inspiring stories such as that of Jagdeep, as raised by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), and John and Anne of Something Old, Something New, as raised by the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). I note that, as a result of other events in the country, our debate has had a relatively Scottish flavour, but Parkinson’s Awareness Month is UK-wide and a time to focus national attention on the condition that affects over 150,000 people here in the UK. That number that continues to rise. The disease impacts not just individuals but families, carers and communities. It challenges both body and spirit, demanding a comprehensive response from all sectors of society. We often learn about Parkinson’s from friends, family and colleagues, as was highlighted so powerfully by the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson). For me, it is a deeply personal issue. A close family member was initially diagnosed and treated for Parkinson’s disease. More recently, that diagnosis was revised to progressive supranuclear palsy, or PSP, which is a rarer and unfortunately more aggressive condition. That journey from uncertainty to diagnosis and then living with a progressive neurological condition has profoundly impacted my family. I have witnessed at first hand the critical importance of early diagnosis, specialist care, emotional support and, above all, hope. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have spoken to many constituents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages affected by Parkinson’s. I have been inspired by their bravery and strength in responding to the cruel difficulties that life has thrown at them. Parkinson’s has no cure, as hon. Members have said, and that is one of the many challenges that people and their loved ones face on diagnosis, but thanks to advances in research and medicine, there are ever improving treatments to help manage and relieve symptoms. As a result, many people with Parkinson’s can have a normal or near-normal life expectancy. Physiotherapy, occupational therapy and medication can help relieve symptoms and enable people to stay living independently at home for longer. In my constituency, people with Parkinson’s have benefited from free membership of local leisure centres in Whitehill and Bordon and in Haslemere, helping them to keep active and manage their symptoms, but there is so much more to do, whether on research, diagnosis, treatment or—hopefully—a cure. Last month, ahead of World Parkinson’s Day, like the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I met Parkinson’s UK and individuals affected by the condition. I heard powerful accounts from volunteers about the daily challenges they face from mobility issues and speech difficulties and the emotional toll on themselves and their families. I commend Parkinson’s UK for its tireless work in providing advice, support and advocacy at every stage of the Parkinson’s journey. Help is available via its website and helpline. I encourage anyone who needs support to reach out. However, as the hon. Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) mentioned, there are still many who do not know what support is out there; that must change. I praise the local charities and volunteers across my constituency and across the country, as raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and the work they do. Like the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), I have experienced working in healthcare, and during my tenure with the NHS Getting it Right First Time programme I was involved in the publication of the neurology national speciality report. The analysis in that report highlighted significant variation in neurology services across England, particularly in managing conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. Key conclusions included the urgent need for timely access to specialist neurology services, the development of standardised care pathways for chronic neurological conditions, the expansion of the neurological workforce, including advanced practitioners, and much better data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) mentioned. Those recommendations are essential to reducing disparities and improving outcomes. Will the Minister commit to addressing those three priorities in more detail beyond general references to cutting waiting lists and updating the workforce plan? Medical research in the UK is funded by both public and private sectors as well as charities and non-governmental organisations. In 2022, nearly £250 million was spent on neurological research including Parkinson’s and other neurodegenerative conditions across 1,873 individual projects. Parkinson’s UK and Cure Parkinson’s alone contributed £2.6 million. Under the previous Conservative Government, we invested more than £79 million in research into Parkinson’s disease between 2019 and 2024. In 2022-23, the National Institute for Health and Care Research enabled 114 studies related to Parkinson’s through its infrastructure. We also rolled out a new treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease through the NHS, starting in February 2024, offering an additional option for patients whose symptoms were no longer responding to oral medications. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm the Government’s plans to continue with that momentum. What research funding will be maintained or increased? What new treatment options are being supported or explored? We also made progress in workforce planning, recruiting record numbers of doctors and nurses, and publishing the first ever NHS long-term workforce plan. That plan recognised the need for more specialist nurses and clinicians in areas such as neurology. The new Government have committed to updating that plan. Will they therefore retain that level of detail and maintain the focus on specialist roles needed for Parkinson’s care? I want to raise constituents’ concerns regarding recent shortages of medications, such as amantadine and apomorphine. That has real, distressing consequences for people trying to manage their condition. The Government have rightly acknowledged those supply constraints, but what action is being taken to restore and secure access to those medications? We have also heard concerns about the potential impact of President Trump’s proposed pharmaceutical tariffs. What assessment has been made of the risks that could pose to access and affordability of Parkinson’s treatments? Turning to the Labour Government’s record to date, I believe that Parkinson’s has yet to be identified as a strategic priority. Will the Minister confirm what level of funding is being allocated to Parkinson’s research this year and how that compares with recent years? There are also wider concerns about the implications of tax and benefit changes in the Budget, as the hon. Member for Strangford raised, including the national insurance rise. Many people with Parkinson’s rely on social care services, which are not exempt from the national insurance rises. Has any assessment been made of those extra costs for local authorities, charities and self-funders? Charities such as Parkinson’s UK do extraordinary work, but they too are affected by those rising costs. How are Ministers engaging with the charity sector to understand how higher taxes and squeezed funding may threaten support services or reduce research investment? We know that neurology waiting times are already among the longest in the NHS. Will the Minister outline a targeted plan to specifically address that? Will the Government also publish a long-term strategy for neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s, with clear plans for service integration between the NHS and social care? A multidisciplinary, multi-agency approach is vital for people with Parkinson’s to live full, independent lives. Finally, what guarantees can the Minister offer that recent restructuring in NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care will not worsen access to Parkinson’s services, delay initiatives or harm continuity of care? With 50% cuts to integrated care boards, will the Minister reassure people with Parkinson’s and their families that they will not be disadvantaged? The House is united in wanting to improve treatment, support and outcomes for people with Parkinson’s. We hope that the Government will listen carefully to today’s contributions and respond with clear commitments that include action on workforce, waiting times, integration, support for carers and access to research and innovation. Parkinson’s is a relentless condition that robs individuals of independence and dignity, but with research, investment, compassionate care and community support, we can fight back. The Conservative party stands ready to work constructively with the Government and with Members from all parties to ensure that progress is not only continued but accelerated. Let us match awareness with action, for only with action comes hope.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are significant concerns in Whitehill and Bordon in my constituency about changes to healthcare provision and meeting the needs of the rapidly growing local population. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 28 January about this issue, specifically about the future of the Chase community hospital. I have sent follow-up emails, but—three months to the day later—I have still received no response to that letter. The refusal of the Secretary of State to engage with my constituents on this matter is concerning. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on securing a ministerial response to the proposals.