Jen Craft MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2025 · Registration of Births (Inclusion of Deceased Parents) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the inclusion of a parent’s details on a child’s birth certificate where that parent has died before the birth of the child; and for connected purposes. For the vast majority of parents, registering the birth of their child is a straightforward process. It is a simple piece of paperwork that marks a special moment and brings important recognition of their new family, along with notable legal rights. Yet, for a number of women every year, what should be an uncontroversial step in their journey as a parent becomes a protracted and traumatic legal battle. The law dictates that it is the duty of the parents to register the birth of a child within 42 days. For married couples, there is a presumption of paternity for the husband under the law. That means either parent may register the birth unaccompanied by the other, with both still recorded on the birth certificate. Therefore, in the terrible event that their husband dies before the child is born, a widowed mother can still ensure their name is on the birth certificate, which is common sense. However, if the couple are unmarried, the law does not recognise their relationship in the same way. The fact that the mother does not have a ring on her finger means there is no automatic recognition of paternity. If an unmarried woman experiences the unimaginable tragedy of losing her partner during pregnancy, there is no provision for her to register them on the child’s birth certificate. Unless both parents can be present, the registrar is deemed unable to verify the paternity of the father. While suffering the grief of losing a loved one and facing the new reality of parenthood alone, bereaved mothers leave the register office with a blank space on their child’s birth certificate, instead of their partner’s name. In order to amend the birth certificate, bereaved mothers have to seek a declaration of parentage through a lengthy, costly and traumatising legal process in the family courts. In some respects, this is a legal loophole—the effect of improper and outdated legislation that has failed to provide for a certain set of particularly tragic circumstances—but it speaks to a deeper inequality in the legal system: unmarried couples are held in lower regard. The law in this area has not kept pace with societal change. The charity Widowed and Young first brought this injustice to my attention. It is an organisation that provides fantastic support to those who have experienced widowhood earlier in life. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) who secured an Adjournment debate on this issue, and spoke powerfully and movingly of her own experience of bereavement, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who first exposed the shortcomings of the legal process in Parliament in 2016. The Bill seeks to legislate for Widowed and Young’s “Blank Space” campaign to come into existence, to provide a clear and simple process for unmarried and bereaved mothers to register their partner on their child’s birth certificate. Through the charity, I have heard the stories of brave and inspiring women, some of whom are in the Gallery today to watch the proceedings. I would like to share their experiences, which illustrate the emotional impact of this issue. When Kelly’s partner, Jordan, died suddenly in 2020, she went from planning their future to planning her fiancé’s funeral. Shortly after she gave birth to their daughter, Kelly’s battle began to prove that Jordan was the father. As Kelly said, he had wanted “nothing more out of his life than to have kids”, so she was determined that his name would be on Maisie’s birth certificate. Kelly used a C63 form to apply for a declaration of parentage through the family courts, which comes with an immediate cost of £365. While having to provide DNA from Jordan’s mother and paying out hundreds of pounds in legal fees, Kelly was also asked demeaning questions, such as whether she had had any other partners. After fighting for two years, Kelly received a birth certificate for her daughter Maisie with Jordan’s name on it. She now keeps 12 copies of it around the house and one in her purse at all times. Orlanda and her partner Julian were on holiday when he unexpectedly collapsed. Just a day after discovering they were expecting a baby girl, Julian died from a heart attack. When the registrar told Orlanda that Julian would not be named on her daughter’s birth certificate, she said it felt as if he had been “ripped from our history”. Her process through the courts took two years and four hearings. Many of the judges she encountered had never even come across a situation like hers, and she was often asked at hearings if Julian would be attending. As an ambassador for Widowed and Young, Orlanda says she is determined to make things easier for women who follow in her path. Let me turn to Sophie, who is still in the midst of this torturous process. The sudden death of her partner Lawrence while she was pregnant with their daughter Kinley turned her world upside down. Despite their having two children together, and Lawrence being legally registered as the father of both, Sophie was told that Lawrence would not be registered as Kinley’s father. She was devastated. Registering their son together in 2016 was one of Lawrence’s proudest moments. As Sophie said, “he will always be her dad”, and he should be recognised as such. Sophie entered the uphill battle of amending the birth certificate, and was bounced between Departments and advisers until someone at the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service intervened on her behalf. Her hearing is at the magistrates court on 3 July and will hopefully bring her some closure on this issue. Sophie said the experience has been “exhausting, confusing and emotionally draining.” I add my personal thanks to the women who join us today for sharing their brave stories, and for allowing me to share them with the House. Kelly, Orlanda and Sophie’s stories show how traumatic and unnecessarily complex the process is. Widowed and Young estimates that this issue affects as many as 200 women each year. While the women who join us today have persevered through the family courts, many mothers will give up out of frustration, leaving that blank space on their child’s birth certificate. The system for registering births is governed by section 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, which make provision for those requiring a declaration of parentage. Neither of those Acts provide for the specific circumstances in which one parent is deceased and a child is born outside of marriage. A declaration of parentage is not intended to prove the paternity of a deceased partner, but rather to resolve disputed parenthood. This legal framework is unfit for purpose. When the Births and Deaths Registration Act became law in 1953, 95% of births registered in the UK were within a marriage. That figure has reduced steadily ever since, and only half of children are now born within marriage. Times have changed and society has moved on, yet the law has not kept pace. This Bill would drag the legislation into the 21st century, and provide a clear and simple process for registering a deceased partner’s name on a birth certificate. We can achieve that by placing greater reliance on a registrar’s professional judgement. With the right evidence, registrars are allowed to amend a birth certificate, so we can similarly empower them to correct the absence of a deceased parent, provided that they receive sufficient evidence of intended parenthood. Across Europe—in Switzerland, France and Germany—unmarried parents are encouraged to register their parentage at antenatal appointments. A similar system could be created here, and a declaration of intended parentage could be made during pregnancy. I do not contest the importance of having a rigorous process for proving intended parenthood, but that importance is an argument in support of a change in the law, not against it, because that process is currently non-existent. Officials are often unable to advise women on how to register their deceased partner as a parent, because there is no guidance. While there remains no clear route to proving intended parenthood, bereaved unmarried mothers are being denied a basic right. The anachronistic legal framework is causing immense trauma for mothers and children. This Bill would take direct action to address that injustice, providing a clear process for bereaved mothers to follow, and allowing the registrar to include a deceased partner on their child’s birth certificate. That small change in the law would make a huge difference. It would spare grieving women a needlessly painful legal process, and ensure that no mother or child has a blank space on their birth certificate where their parent’s name should rightly be. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Ms Stella Creasy, Caroline Voaden, Alice Macdonald, John Grady, Chris Vince, Abtisam Mohamed, Kirith Entwistle, Dr Marie Tidball, David Burton-Sampson, Daniel Francis, Charlotte Nichols and Jen Craft present the Bill. Jen Craft accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July , and to be printed (Bill 263). Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A( 9 )), That the Order of 10 March 2025 (Crime and Policing Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted. (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. (3) Proceedings on Consideration— (a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and (b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table. ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings First day New clauses and new Schedules standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown; amendments to clauses 1 to 165 and Schedules 1 to 18, other than amendments relating to abortion. Three hours before the moment of interruption on the first day. New clauses and new Schedules relating to abortion; amendments relating to abortion. The moment of interruption on the first day. Second day Remaining new clauses and new Schedules; amendments to clauses 166 to 172, other than amendments relating to abortion; remaining proceedings on Consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. (4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.— (Dame Diana Johnson.) Question agreed to.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Sign Language, I know that the thousands of BSL first-language speakers in this country are very supportive of the introduction of a new BSL GCSE. However, I understand that progress on that has slightly stalled, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on the roll-out.

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

  More

  There seems to be some circular talk about the level of risk that clinicians and medical professionals can be expected to shoulder. I notice that clause 5(7), inserted in the other place, specifies that they would “not be put at unnecessary risk”. Is there not an inherent risk involved in detaining people who need to be detained under the Mental Health Act? Those people are not in a position to give consent and quite often do not wish to be detained. By stipulating that the police will not be involved in situations or by making medical professionals the first responders, is there not a risk of putting them in harm’s way?

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

  More

  On clause 5(4), the amendment in the other place inserted the phrase “by a constable or other authorised person” which relates specifically to the phrase “unless the patient is immediately restrained from leaving the hospital”. What the hon. Gentleman describes as a level of ambiguity in the subsection allows that to be done by people who are not necessarily listed as an authorised person, such as a medical practitioner. I think we would all agree that we would not expect to see a nurse, doctor or other clinician immediately and physically restraining a patient, and that when a police constable is not available, other people, such as hospital security staff, can carry out the task. The clause says, “immediately restrained”. The specification in the list of words proposed in the other place can leave people at risk of harm, particularly clinicians.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the Lampard inquiry, and highlighting the impact of the treatment that the inquiry is looking at on the lives of the patients who were subject to it. I do not wish to get ahead of the inquiry because it is still under way, but I have met with some of the families involved, and there is a feeling that there has been a complete breakdown of trust in the care of patients in our part of the world. That trust is difficult to rebuild, particularly for people in a locked mental health setting, who have no choice but to trust that the providers of their care are acting in their best interests. The lack of trust is almost harmful to their continued recovery. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that particular point. As I was saying, for too long the focus in a locked setting has been on management of risk and harm reduction, rather than actually treating the condition that the patient may have. Clause 8 looks almost to reverse that. It advances the idea that therapeutic care is the aim of detention under the Mental Health Act and that it is fundamentally important, when someone is deprived of their liberty, that there is a therapeutic benefit to the patient, and it places that aim in a prominent position at the start of the Act, so that it is not buried further down. Although I understand that the Minister will probably state that the clause advances the principle of “therapeutic benefit”, I believe it also touches on two of the other key principles developed by the independent review: the principles of seeing “the person as an individual”, and of “least restriction”. We can all appreciate that if someone is in a setting for their own therapeutic benefit, rather than just being contained because of the risk that they might pose to themselves or others, then they are being less restricted, in a way that is real and important to them, and will have the benefit of being seen as an individual. For some individuals who have spent a significant amount of time in a locked unit, the prospect of them receiving therapeutic care is very low, and the prospect of them receiving therapeutic care that leads to them recovering sufficiently to leave those units is about nil. The talking therapies taskforce highlights that some of the most severely complex patients with personality disorder—the most severe 1.5%—make up nearly one third of the annual spend on in-patient treatment costs. That group of people have very little prospect of receiving appropriate therapeutic care in an in-patient setting. A system-wide change looking at community-based care, sometimes intensive community-based care, would be much more effective than what they currently receive. The cost was looked at in areas in the south-west—in Devon—and in London, and it was found that a third of spending from hospital trusts was going towards this very tiny group of people. That is not to say that we should always look at the cost of care, because that can seem reductive to someone as an individual, but clearly, these people are not getting effective treatment that is good value and makes sense for them. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on developing system-wide and community-based change for some of the most complex cases in an in-patient setting. How does he see the clause interacting with that? Does he believe that providing therapeutic benefit for all patients in a secure setting will have a positive impact on that complex 1.5% group of patients? I will speak briefly to amendment 12, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I may have slightly misunderstood the intent of the amendment. It was my understanding that naming the setting where medical treatment takes place—putting it on an equal footing with the treatment—was aimed at looking at the impact on people with learning disabilities and autism. For that specific group, detention in a secure unit is often counter-productive to their recovery. A review undertaken by Baroness Hollins found that there was no therapeutic benefit for long-term segregation of patients with a learning disability, and that attempting to deliver a therapeutic benefit for some of those patients in a locked setting is all but impossible. Although I support looking at whether a specific setting is appropriate for certain groups of people, there needs to be heightened awareness of the impact that a locked setting can have on people with a learning disability or autism. I spoke about this on Second Reading. If someone is sensitive to over-stimulation and has an increased sensory need, need for routine and need for familiarity, taking them away from a place that feels safe and putting them in a ward with strip lighting—autistic people talk about strip lighting as being particularly harmful—that is noisy, unfamiliar and completely out of their routine can feel extremely harmful. Therapeutic care in that setting may never be effective enough for that group of people to be released. Not to read this against the earlier clauses that take autism and learning disability away from the definition of a mental health condition, which I strongly welcome, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on capturing how, for this specific group of people, detention in a secure mental unit is probably more harmful to them than it is for the majority of the population. I cannot, however, support amendment 12, because of the catch-all nature of looking at the setting in which a treatment takes place. I speak as someone who has had lived experience of this issue and I have to say that quite often a secure unit is probably not conducive to anyone’s mental health; indeed, it is often a place of last resort, and I think that it poses a risk. If we have to take the accommodation into consideration, that might mean that it would never be an appropriate setting for someone to receive therapeutic care, even though we know that quite often it is the only setting where someone can be for a short period.

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

  More

  I rise to speak in support of clause 8, and I will briefly speak to the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 12. I have already flagged my concerns with the Opposition’s amendments 44 and 45. Clause 8 introduces and puts front and centre the notion of therapeutic care for those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. I strongly welcome clause 8, as drafted. For far too long, for people who have been deprived of their liberty and detained in a secure mental health setting, the main focus has been risk management and harm minimisation rather than therapeutic care.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. That concludes what I was trying to get at: the importance of a clause in the Bill that is focused on patient experience. Understanding and acknowledging the sheer importance of that person’s experiences, and the value that brings to their care plan, cannot be overestimated. I hope that members of the Committee will support the clause, because it represents quite a sea change in how people subject to treatment under the Mental Health Act are treated.

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

  More

  I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. On Tuesday we discussed clauses on who can be detained and when, and earlier today we discussed the necessity of detention, and there was some debate about the amendment in the other place. Other bits of the Bill focus on when it is necessary to detain an individual for public safety and not just for their own treatment; I will not re-litigate who should be performing that function, but earlier clauses deal with that. The importance of this clause is the patient perspective. There is a significant stigma associated with severe mental illness. I have been reticent about my own conditions in the past because of that, and because of how I would be perceived. It has been particularly hard to be open about the fact that I might be subject to in-patient mental health treatment; I probably see that as a likelihood in my future at some point, although I hope it is not and I work very hard every single day to avoid that. However, it is important that there is a part of the Bill that speaks to me as an individual. I speak to the Committee today as an articulate individual—I do not want to say intelligent; I will not blow my own trumpet—who can say what treatment option I would like. It is incredibly important to recognise that people who are subject to detention under the Bill are individuals who have opinions on their treatment. I have lived with these conditions for the best part of two decades, and the biggest expert on them is me. If I was in a mental health crisis, I might not be in a place to articulate the best treatment for me, but right now I can say what works. I will not go into that, because it is private, but I know that the best course of care for me would involve someone taking advantage of my knowledge of my condition and working with me to allow me to get the care I need to get better. The point is that the clause’s stand-alone focus on the patient experience deals with some of that stigma. It puts the patient’s experience at the heart of treatment, it speaks to some of the issues mentioned about what happened in Essex, which is now the focus of the Lampard inquiry, and helps to deal with some of that. It sees us as individuals.

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

  More

  On a point of clarification, I note that the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister specifically say “recovery from any childhood trauma”. Why has he opted for the word “childhood”, rather than general trauma-informed care? A number of female in-patients in mental health units are recovering from past sexual trauma or domestic violence—I know such abuse is not committed exclusively against women, but it tends to be more prevalent in that group—and the mental health unit can potentially exacerbate that traumatic experience. I seek clarification on why childhood trauma has been made so prominent, as opposed to general trauma.

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

  More

  I rise to speak in support of this important clause, which puts patient experience and individual choice at the heart of treatment. It is a brilliant focus on seeing the individual as a person, and ensuring that they have a strong role to play in deciding their treatment pathway going forward. I very much welcome the development of a clinical checklist that includes looking at a patient’s past and present wishes and feelings. That is important because, when someone is in a mental health crisis, they might not be in the best possible place at that moment to articulate what their wishes are. Looking at how they may have acted in the past, or may have opted for treatment when not at a crisis point—including, I note, through the introduction of advance choice documents, allowing people to choose how they would like to be treated if they have lost the ability to make those decisions for themselves about the best way forward and, indeed, if they have to be detained—and taking their wishes into account, as well as their beliefs and values, is important in developing an individual treatment plan that allows them to be seen as an individual deserving of care, in order to achieve the best possible outcome for them. Across the House, we have noted the important fact that, when patients are involved in developing their treatment plans, they are much more likely to engage and have significantly improved outcomes. I do not want to get ahead of the Minister, but I want to address a few points that the shadow Minister raised. I want to say this as someone with lived experience of severe mental illness; it is important to have someone on the Committee that can speak to that, so I probably should when I can. This clause speaks to the patient experience. There are other parts in the Bill that deal with potential risk to the public and risk of harm. In the first example the shadow Minister gave, he mentioned that the woman in question said that her wish was to be admitted to a secure unit. I would say that, under this clause, had they had regard for her wishes and how she wanted to be treated, that would have mitigated some of the risk. I know that there are times when people will act in a way that may be at odds with the risk that they pose to the public, but these matters are properly addressed elsewhere in the Bill. What the clause speaks to, and what we should try not to dilute, is the patient experience.

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

  More

  I do not want to speak outside the scope of the clause, but I would very much welcome a commitment from the Minister on ensuring that people with learning disabilities and/or autism are part of the process of the consultation to produce guidance on what good community services look like, and that they are engaged with from the start in a very real and meaningful way.

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

  More

  On a small point of clarification, the six-month criteria are based on the current NHS guidance around CETRs. It is loose guidance; it is not statutory. The reason that it is six months as opposed to 12 months is that that would bring us closer in line with the guidance.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for reflecting on the fact that mistakes were made by the previous Government—acknowledgment of that is often sorely lacking. I respect the fact that he says that the debate has moved on, but does he accept that while the debate may have moved on, policy to enact actual change for people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, particularly those with learning disabilities and autism, has not kept pace? The number of people in locked units, under detention, has remained solid, without much wavering, for the past 14 years. Despite the acknowledgement that this is a scandal, and we should all hang our head in shame that it continues to this day, not much has been done to get them out of those units. While we look back on the history of the past 14 years, focusing specifically on the people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, let us remember that Lord Darzi pointed out in his report that some of the facilities are more redolent of the Victorian era than of a modern mental health care service. Perhaps those who were in government in those 14 years should reflect on why that is the case.

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

  More

  I think there is a concern about having a prescriptive mandate in primary legislation, rather than using a vehicle that could implement real change. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how to ensure that those working in a mental health environment have sufficient training on learning disabilities and autism. We need to make sure that those with a specialism in learning disabilities and/or autism are present and people have access to them, so that things like diagnostic overshadowing do not continue to occur.

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

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill makes allowances for the Secretary of State to introduce appropriate risk factors via regulation, and that it is more appropriate to list the risk factors that ICBs should take into account in secondary legislation issued by the Secretary of State than in primary legislation, as amendment 47 seeks to do?

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

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

  More

  I have a question about the list of risk factors that has been provided. Is there not a concern that it might be too prescriptive or restrictive, and that putting it in primary legislation prevents local authorities or ICBs from widening it, from having registers and risk factors that might be appropriate to their areas, and from focusing on what the appropriate level of care is that they are best placed to meet?

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

  More

  I will be reasonably brief, as Members have covered a lot of what I was going to talk about. The intent behind amendments 10 and 24 and new clause 11 is to address the issue raised by a number of organisations, such as Mencap, the National Autistic Society and the NHS Confederation, around the delay in particular clauses being switched on for people with autism or with a learning disability due to insufficient community services. The concern is that there is not, as yet, an articulation of what sufficient community services look like or how we will know when we have reached that point, so that we can turn on parts of the Act. There is a sufficient community backing in place for that to happen. Therefore, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we will know that we have reached the point where we can address the issues that clause 3 looks to tackle. As the Conservative Members mentioned, there are concerns about funding and access to fairly scarce resources, and a concern that rolling out this provision could put undue burdens on people who are unable to deliver certain parts of it. However, it would definitely be welcome to have an understanding of where we are heading, what “good” looks like and how we are going to get there, and what the Minister might see as a road map for community services to reach the point where clause 3 can be switched on, so that autistic people and people with a learning disability do not need to be detained under the Mental Health Act purely because there is insufficient support for them in the community to enable alternative provision. I would welcome any thoughts from the Minister about how those concerns about the operability of the Bill can be addressed. If they will not be addressed via these amendments, how will they be taken forward?

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

  More

  I rise to share a few brief reflections. I appreciate that the intent behind amendment 25 is to make sure that the relevant training is in place. I assume that the hon. Member for Guildford has in mind something similar to the Oliver McGowan training provided across hospital trusts, which mandates that all healthcare providers spend a certain amount of time training with someone who has lived experience of autism and of learning disabilities, in order to make sure that the very different ways in which people with autism or learning disabilities might present do not overshadow what they are attending hospital to demonstrate. Particularly for mental health, we all know that diagnostic overshadowing can be fairly significant. In a locked setting, someone with a learning disability or autism may be unable to demonstrate behaviours that show they are improving or getting better, which can undermine the care they receive. I would just question whether primary legislation is the best vehicle by which to provide for this. We have spoken at length about how the NHS workforce plan and the 10-year plan are coming forward. I wonder whether this would be better placed within that wider framework. Training could be taken forward either as part of continual professional development, or for medical professionals at the start of their career.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Neighbourhood Policing · Hansard source

  More

  13. What recent progress her Department has made on improving neighbourhood policing.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Neighbourhood Policing · Hansard source

  More

  This week, I will be meeting eight new community police officers who begin their roles on the beat thanks to the Government’s investment through the national policing guarantee. Does the Home Secretary agree that investing in community policing is the best way to tackle so much of the crime that blights our communities? Will she join me in wishing these vital officers all the best as they begin their new roles?

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

  More

  I will come to that point a little later, but that confinement is detrimental to their mental health. It can sometimes be hard to pick apart a co-existing or co-occurring mental health condition from the behaviour exhibited within that environment. This is part of the reason that it is all but impossible for some detained individuals, in the circumstances they are in, to demonstrate the behaviour change they need to prove they have become sufficiently well to be released. My attention was drawn last year to the case of a young woman called Bethany, who was detained for the best part of half a decade under the Mental Health Act. She is an autistic young woman whose parents believed that her entering a secure unit was the best choice. However, she ended up being locked up for days, weeks and then months on end in a room with only a mattress on the floor. She was unable to see her family or her support network, and her parents were absolutely devastated at being unable to get her out of that environment and seeing her continually deteriorate. It is hard to imagine the anguish of people seeing someone that they love go through this. When this happens to someone or their family, how on earth can they ever again trust the system that put them there? Learning disabled people and autistic people who have been through that have their confidence in accessing support taken away. In turn, that can create a vicious cycle. I strongly welcome the moves that this Bill makes towards removing learning disability and autism as a reason alone for detention. However, similar to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), I note that the Government have said that these changes to detention criteria will only be switched on when systems can demonstrate a sufficient level of community support. That is a source of real concern. As the NHS Confederation has warned, the “success of the reforms will be dependent on the wider infrastructure to support” the Bill. As others have said, there is no clarity on what a sufficient level of support means in practice. We do not know where we are heading or when we will have got there. The most successful support for learning disabled and autistic people to live independently in their communities is integrated care that encompasses health, housing, occupation and much more besides. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances on how that will be delivered in the timescales set out and how we get from where we are now to where good is. The continual detention of people in this way should shame us all, and an end to that cannot come fast enough. I sound a note of caution—I think this is fairly similar to that of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—that the legislation continues to allow for the co-occurrence of mental health conditions to be a reason to detain someone with a learning disability and autism. That in and of itself could lead to this continual cycle where people are detained for longer than is necessary for their treatment while in an environment that is entirely counterproductive to them becoming well. We also need those with a specialism in learning disability and autism to be present in assessing whether an individual also has a co-occurring mental health condition. Finally, I put a plea in to the Minister that there is a real need for those who live with a learning disability or autism to be properly consulted. A number of disabled people’s charities that are run by people with a learning disability, such as the “Bring People Home from Hospital” campaign, which is operating under the auspices of Inclusion London, do not feel that they have had sufficient opportunity to input. A very minor point is that some relevant documents related to this legislation have not been printed in easy read. If they have, it has taken a while for them to arrive. People who have a lived experience of these conditions are unable to contribute in a meaningful way. More broadly, I welcome the legislation’s attempt to make progress in putting patient voice at the heart of care, particularly through advance choice documents, but there is scope to go further. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is advocating for a statutory right to an advance choice document, which the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee also recommended. That would ensure that all patients who would benefit from one would get one, with the aim of reducing detentions and involuntary treatment. While I recognise the importance of this step and this legislation alongside the Government’s investment in mental health crisis centres, a pledge to recruit 8,500 mental health staff and the Secretary of State’s commitment to the mental health investment standard, there is a desperate need to transform community mental health services to put patient voice and experience at its heart and avoid the need for detention orders in the first place. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I have had the privilege of hearing from some extraordinarily courageous individuals who shared their experience of living with a serious mental illness. It is in that same spirit that I will share my own experience now. I hope that it offers an insight into the limitations of our current system. I was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder as a teenager, and with bipolar disorder in my 20s. In two and half decades with these conditions I have received good care, but sadly that is the exception and not the rule. I have never been asked what it is that I want from treatment, what it is that I want for my life, and how I can be helped to get there. I have received care that is patronising, reductive, inconsistent and non-existent. During mental health crises I have had to tread a fine line between proving that I am ill, and sometimes extremely ill, and proving that I am not so ill that I need to lose my liberty, because I know that more often than not, treatment is based not on therapeutic care but on risk management. Like thousands of others, I have had to create my own care package and my own route to treatment, because I made the decision that I deserved to live, and I deserved to live well—and also that my children deserved their mum. However, I am very aware that my ability to do this is based on a number of privileges, in no small part a very supportive family, which so many do not have. While I welcome the Bill for its advances in reducing the amount of detention and increasing the agency of those who are detained, I must call for a significant overhaul of community mental health services to prevent crises from occurring in the first place. We know that we can and must do better. I ask all Members to note that when we discuss people’s serious mental illnesses, we often talk as though they were “others”, which they are not. Let me say this: “There is someone standing here among you, a Member of Parliament, who has a serious mental illness. It does not prevent me from doing my job or from living my life; in some ways, it makes me better at it.” While the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, can we please bear in mind that we are talking about individuals, and individuals who will be affected by it, and that what we seek to do—and what I hope we will accomplish—is give people who live with serious mental illnesses the ability and the right to live the best lives that they possibly can, with all the support that we can make available?

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

  More

  I am sure the hon. Member will want to come in on this.

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

  More

  Does the Secretary of State agree that a proper community treatment plan for those with learning disabilities and autism is not just reliant on the actions of his Department, but a cross-Government effort and an integrated care system at a local level?

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

  More

  The Mental Health Bill is a long overdue update to the Mental Health Act 1983, and I hope it will be the start of a much wider overhaul of a mental health system that is often not fit for purpose and has historically been treated as secondary to the physical health system. It is a system where too often patient voices are ignored, injustices are common and the use of detention is relied upon in the place of person-centred community care. Too frequently, those in acute mental health crisis cannot access the right support. They are refused help in the community, forced to rely on accident and emergency, and detained against their will as their mental health deteriorates. Incidence of detention is three times higher in the most deprived areas. Black British people are detained at 3.5 times the rate of white people, and those with learning disabilities and/or autism are at a unique and increased risk from detention and the impact that it can have on their lives. I will initially focus on that latter group. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability. Under the 1983 Act, as we have heard, learning disability or autism in themselves can be a reason for detention. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said that we will disagree on this, and I am afraid that we will, because I do not think that learning disability or autism are necessarily conditions of the mind. A number of these conditions are genetic and also affect the physical health of a person.