Jen Craft MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · NHS 10-Year Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The heart, soul and lifeblood of our NHS are the people who work in it. I doubt there is anyone in this House who does not owe a personal debt of gratitude to a health care worker. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the fingerprints of NHS workers are all over this 10-year plan, and that it has been designed and produced with all their valuable inputs?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The changes to the grant scheme, and the uncertainty over its future, present significant challenges for historic churches in need of maintenance, as my hon. Friend has just set out so well. These include the grade I listed St Nicholas church in Ockendon, in my constituency of Thurrock, which, as the warden told me this week, carries a significant burden in repair work due to its age. Can my hon. Friend assist me to understand what support is available for parishes facing these challenges to ensure that they continue to thrive at the heart of communities, as they have done through hundreds of years of history? I will be lobbying DCMS as well.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  10. What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the potential impact of the £25,000 cap in the listed places of worship grant scheme on levels of church repairs.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A couple of weeks ago, I held a meeting in my constituency with the new owner of the State cinema in Grays town centre. This is a wonderful art deco building that has been closed for the best part of my life. I have never, unfortunately, set foot in it, despite turning 40 a couple of weeks ago and despite being born, bred and living in that place my whole life. There is hope, finally, for the State cinema that it might once again be somewhere that people in the town centre can view with pride and visit, bringing their children and grandchildren. However, there are a number of other derelict buildings in my constituency: the Jack O’Lantern pub in Ockendon, the Calcutta Club in Tilbury, the Bricklayers Arms in Grays—I could go on. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on how we tackle the blight of derelict buildings in our town centres?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Gravesham: River Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) for securing this debate. We call each other our sisters across the river, as we are separated by a small stretch of the River Thames. I want to very briefly add my contribution on the importance of the Tilbury ferry, as we call it on my side of the river. My hon. Friend has spoken at length about the history of the Tilbury ferry, and it does have a long and proud history. We always refer to it as having been granted to us by Henry VIII. It ran continuously for the best part of 500 years until bankruptcy by a Tory council in Thurrock took it out. I am really determined to see its return. The ferry is personal and special for me. I have many childhood memories of taking the Tilbury ferry across the river to Gravesend to spend a delightful day on my hon. Friend’s side of the river going to the cafes and there is a lovely shop that sells boardgames—in case hon. Members cannot tell, I have a penchant for geekery and boardgames are very much up my alley. There is a lovely pub called the Three Daws, where I have spent many a happy time. Sadly, we are no longer able to visit, because it would mean a 45-minute to an hour trip over the Dartford crossing and around. Indeed, there is congestion daily on the Dartford crossing. When there are more severe issues, as there are today—my husband rang me to say he had to get my daughter from school as her bus cannot pick her up due to traffic backing up right into my constituency—it is a huge issue for us. Many of my constituents will tonight be sat about 10 minutes from their house, unable to get there because of the issues with congestion. Clearly, that needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about why we do not feel that the lower Thames crossing is necessarily the way to answer the problem of congestion, but I would like to add my voice to say that the Tilbury ferry provided a public transport alternative to using the roads. That is the direction of travel we should be looking at: making public transport open, accessible and easier to use. When the Minister rises, he may say that the Government are not in the habit of funding boat and river services. My answer would be that we should perhaps explore the art of the possible, and look at what it is possible to do and how we can restore this service. The ferry was not only something wonderful, cultural and historic; it was actually a key part of public transport infrastructure in my part of the world. We share a lot of health services, so people would take the ferry over the river for that; I used to see my orthodontist in Gravesend when I was a teenager, which was something I looked forward to less than day trips out and visiting the cafés, shall we say. However, it was important. Some of my constituents commute over to go to the grammar schools in Kent. We also have quite a lot of people who take the river to travel to work; I understand that the Port of London actually puts on a small boat for their staff who live either side of the river. Indeed, my brother lived for a time over the river, just a short hop on the ferry away—again, that is no longer possible. It is really quite upsetting and sad for a lot of us. Within about a week of starting a petition to try to bring back the Tilbury ferry, I had received 500 signatures; it now stands at a little over a thousand. We asked people to share their memories and share why they want to bring the ferry back. If we are looking at someone coming on board—a potential private partner—we want to show that there is an appetite for the ferry and that it will be used, because it was always used. There was never an empty ferry when it was running; it was always busy throughout the day, any day of the week that it was running. People have shared things like wanting to go on the ferry one more time before they die—things that are really quite moving. They have shared memories of taking their grandchildren and great-grandchildren on it and going on day trips out, as well as travelling for work. Someone said, “We don’t have lots of nice things in our part of the world—the things that we do have, we want to keep, and the things that we did have, we want back.” It was absolutely delightful. Coincidentally, the Tilbury ferry is exactly the right amount of time that any child can spend on a boat before going mad and getting bored: five minutes. They see the boat, get on the boat, and are excited; then they want to leave the boat, but by then the boat is at Gravesend—brilliant. It is a fantastic day out. My plea to the Minister is to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham has said, particularly in relation to using some of the money that will be generated by the lower Thames crossing; a minuscule proportion could fund the running of this service in perpetuity. It would alleviate that congestion—the congestion that will still exist after about five years of the lower Thames crossing’s operation. In the meantime, the Government should look at other ways to support the return of this absolutely vital, crucial service for my constituents and those of my hon. Friend.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Gravesham: River Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  On that specific point, my hon. Friend and I have asked in the past whether it would be possible to use some of the bus funding, which has received an uplift, to fund the Tilbury ferry. The answer has been that it would not be possible, because it is not a bus—it is fairly obvious that it is not a bus. Will the Minister perhaps consider reclassifying the Tilbury ferry as a river bus?

• 24 Jun 2025 · War Memorials · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on securing this important debate. Knowing their history, I always find war memorials particularly poignant places to visit. Our local memorials all tend to stem from the example set by the Cenotaph as a place of remembrance. I understand that more than 1 million people passed by the Cenotaph in its first week, when it was just a temporary structure. What always strikes me is that these places were usually erected by public subscription and because of the will of local people. We should bear in mind that war memorials were built as places where people could go to remember the fallen from their town—their brothers, fathers, uncles, nephews or sons—because the possibility of travelling to the final resting places in France or beyond would have been outside the realms of reality for most working-class people at the time. I prepared for today’s debate by listing some of the war memorials that I knew around my constituency; I realised that if I were to list them all, we would be here for quite a while. It is extraordinarily poignant to see these memorials in the place where I now live and am very proud to call home, and to imagine people more than 100 years ago having no way to go to their loves ones’ resting places; these memorials were the only places that they could go to remember. When we passed the memorial in the town centre, my oldest daughter asked, “What is that?” and I explained, “It’s a place to remember and say thank you.” [In British Sign Language: T o remember and say thank you]. She signed that back to me, and really brought home that this is what they are: places to remember with deep gratitude the sacrifice that was made. I will touch on a few of my war memorials as others have, because I want to highlight the proud history they brings to my area. In Purfleet-on-Thames the existing war memorial, which lists the names of the men who gave their lives in the two world wars, has been joined by a memorial to the Gurkhas, of whom we have a sizeable population in my constituency. I was recently very honoured to attend the Gurkha Regiment home in Kent and to see the real proud history and bond between the Gurkha Regiment, our armed forces and our country. I felt a real sense of honour and pride to have that memorial so close to my home. I would encourage people, if they are ever around my area, to visit it; it is a beautiful remembrance of people who have given their lives in the service of our country. In Tilbury, in the civic square, there is a war memorial that stands proud, maintained by members of the Royal British Legion. Little Thurrock, with a smaller memorial, is visited every 11 November by a jogging group who pay their respects as they pass by. In Aveley village, in the corner of the war memorial gardens, sits a unique memorial to Lance Corporal Nicky Mason, who died in Afghanistan in an act of service in 2008, illustrating the ongoing nature of conflict and our gratitude for those who serve. In Ockendon, I met a woman approaching her centenary whose brother is on the war memorial. She said with great pride, “I’m going to be buried quite close to him any day now.” That is some of the spirit of the people in my patch. In Chafford Hundred, the war memorial is just on the corner of a road. On Remembrance Sunday, residents give up a portion of their front gardens so that the local brass band can unite us all in song. I conclude by briefly touching on something that the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) mentioned: those who are not recorded on our war memorials. I found it quite shocking to learn that women from both world wars who died in service are not actively recorded on war memorials as a matter of routine. One woman, Grace Mary Potter, was born in Thurrock and served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. While serving in Kent, she died as a result of a bomb blast, yet her name does not appear on any war memorial to this day. I hope the Minister will reflect on that in her closing remarks. Will she meet either me or representatives who are working to get women’s names on war memorials? I would be very grateful.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My apologies; they are both lovely places. My hon. Friend spoke earlier about the impact that mental health treatment can have on people in regard to race and ethnicity, and the importance of including demographic data. We know that black people are disproportionately subject to use of force and restraint, which is why recording this data in a mental health unit is acknowledged as important. However, if a patient is subject to restraint outside a mental health unit, there is currently no mechanism to record that. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to publish annual statistics on how restraint has been used outside a mental health unit. I believe that the Minister’s predecessor agreed to look at closing this loophole. To date, however, action has not necessarily been forthcoming. People continue to be subject to the use of force or restraint, and we have no means of knowing how often it has occurred, to whom it has occurred or whether it has taken place inappropriately. I encourage the Minister and other members of the Committee to consider how we can ensure that the use of restraint and force is appropriately recorded in all medical settings, not just in mental health units.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments. I am reassured, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam will be, to hear that he accepts the need to do more about the use of restraint, regardless of the setting in which it occurs. I am also pleased to hear about the measures by which he is seeking to do so in parallel with the passage of the Bill. I am content with what the Minister said, and I imagine my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam will be, too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 55 Power of Secretary of State to make consequential provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. The long-term implications and impacts of restraint on health and wellbeing have been widely documented and acknowledged. It is vital, if a patient is subjected to these measures, that their use is recorded and the patient, in turn, can understand why. The Committee has spent significant time talking about the importance of patient inclusion in their treatment plans. Earlier clauses, which I will not revisit at length, deal with the importance of enabling patients to select how and where they are treated, as well as advance choice documents. They are vital to the patient experience, because they involve and include them in how they are treated. We acknowledge that such involvement has a massive impact on the patient’s ability to heal, get better, recover from their mental illness and, in some cases, get well enough to go home. It is vital, if people are subject to restraint and the use of force, that it is recorded in an appropriate manner. This new clause seeks to mandate the recording of its use by staff, as well as information such as the member of staff who applied the force, whether they are medical, and, vitally, demographic data. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Leigh—I hope I have that right—

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I will speak briefly to the new clause, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake). Its aim is to close a loophole in the current framework by which use of restraint is recorded. Currently, the use of restraint is governed by the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, which mandates that where force or restraint is used in a mental health unit, that must be recorded and reported. There are, however, a number of patients who are treated outside mental health units and therefore do not fall within the scope of the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam has spoken about the issue, to which her attention was particularly drawn in the context of the treatment of patients with eating disorders. This happens quite often, either where there is a shortage of beds in a mental health unit or where the patient in question has co-occurring physical health conditions that require treatment outside such a unit. Restraint is used regularly and often on patients with eating disorders, by which I mean restraining them to force them to eat, but there is currently no mechanism by which its use must be recorded. If a patient, particularly a young person, who is in hospital but is not in a mental health unit is subject to this restraint, which may be deemed necessary to preserve life and in their best interests, there is currently no mechanism by which that is recorded.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The crucial purpose of the new clause is to ensure that the use of restraint is recorded at all times, as well as highlighting that quite often the restraint may be carried out not by a member of the medical staff, but by hospital security, for example. I think we can only imagine the real horror and force involved in that.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department for Education · Hansard source

  More

  I would like the Minister to clarify that the additional support and ambition that she is talking about is to improve the SEN side. For Members who are not aware, the statutory bit is the SEND side, and there will obviously be improvements in that; but if we improve the SEN side, which is the bit that children do not need an EHCP for, parents will not need to go through that adversarial legal battle, and there will be fewer reasons for people to have to go through what can at times be a truly horrific system.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department for Education · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Government’s investment in education, as demonstrated through the estimates that have come out today. In particular, I want to touch briefly on the increased investment in SEND and high-needs provision to the tune of £1 billion—something I am sure Members are aware is very close to my heart. However, I would like to sound a note of caution and echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and I thank her for her work on the Select Committee on this matter. Investment alone will not solve the SEND crisis. It is the biggest issue facing schools. It is one of the biggest issues facing councils. Dare I say it, it is one of the biggest issues facing local healthcare authorities—not to get ahead of the next estimates debate. Money alone will not solve it. We need institutional root and branch reform of how the SEND system works. I have said it before and I will say it again: if we fix the SEND system, we fix the education system for every single child. What we need is investment in early years provision. Every time I visit a primary school, I am confronted by headteachers who say that the level of high-needs SEND provision in key stage 1 has skyrocketed in recent years. We can discuss the reasons behind that. The covid pandemic proved the value of early years intervention in that, by and large, it did not take place for four to five years and we have seen the impact that that has had on young people coming through. So, we need early and quick intervention and investment in early years services. I take umbrage with Members, unfortunately on both sides of the House, who have spoken about over-diagnosis of conditions such as ADHD and autism. We need quick and accurate diagnosis and a treatment pathway to conditions that are on the rise primarily because of historical under-diagnosis. Finding out who the children are who struggle with those conditions and putting in early interventions as quickly as possible, such as speech and language therapy, will save us money in the long run. If we are able to identify children who are in need of additional support in early years, that will save an awful lot of money overall. It will save money in education, health and local authorities. I very much support the Government’s direction of travel in trying to get as many children in mainstream as possible. I firmly believe that early exposure to children who are different from yourself can only be better for society, by and large. However, I would like to press the Minister for a timescale on when the SEND White Paper will come out. I would welcome her assurances that parents, carers and young people themselves will be meaningfully involved in it. I would also welcome her thoughts on how we ensure all schools share an equal load when it comes to SEND provision.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in opposition to the Bill. Today, we are voting not on the principle of assisted dying, but on a piece of legislation. We do not exist in a vacuum; what happens in this House has real-world consequences. I am all too aware of how unequal our society, our medical system and our institutions are in their treatment of disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft) spoke at length, very movingly, of her journey towards finding that she could not vote for the Bill due to her experience and prolonged engagement with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. I know from my own experience that the value our medical establishment places on certain lives is less than on others. When I was given the diagnosis of my daughter’s Down’s syndrome, the first thing the midwife said to me after, “I’m so sorry,” was, “I can book you a termination within 48 hours.” That is a choice that so many women make because they are ignorant of the value of disabled lives. I have had to fight for so many things for my daughter, because the establishment does not see her life as valuable. In this country, someone can terminate a pregnancy up to 39 weeks and six days if they have a condition that is so horrific, such as Down’s syndrome, cleft palate or limb difference, because of the value we place on different lives. I support the principle of assisted dying, yes, but I cannot support this Bill because we cannot legislate against discrimination and we cannot legislate out inherent bias. What we can do is legislate for safeguards and for safety. We can legislate over those treating the people we love and over those offering assisted dying. We can legislate to make sure that the most vulnerable in society, such as my daughter—people who I know the medical establishment and institutions and society already view as second-class in so many ways—do not have to face a decision after being coerced or given bad advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) has been at pains to point out to me and others, we do not have the adequate safeguards in place.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid I will make progress, but I thank her for her interruption. [ Laughter. ] Her intervention, my apologies. We have been told that there are panels that will provide a safeguard and take into account all of someone’s circumstances, and whether they have capacity. However, those panels may in exceptional circumstances—the Bill does not set out what those are—opt not to even meet the person whom they are discussing. We know that the panels do not allow for family members and carers and those who know that person—if they have limited capacity, a learning disability or are unable to make certain decisions themselves—to play a role in that process or have any right of appeal. My plea to Members across this House, if you have not yet decided or if you think, “I support this in principle, but I am concerned about this, have worries about this or think that might be okay,” is that it is not our role to send a Bill to the other place and out into the world, hoping that others will do our job for us and that it will all just come out in the wash. That is a dereliction of our duty as Members of Parliament. If you have any concerns about this Bill, now is the time to vote against it. You must do that. You must not think that someone else will do your job for you. It is our decision. That is what we are voting on today. I urge all Members of this House to vote against this Bill.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Having looked at new clause 21, I have a rather large concern about consent. The hon. Lady is setting out what the integrated care board would have a duty to do, including giving information about a “person’s condition and recovery” to “the family or carers of the person discharged”. I have a significant concern that the person being discharged may not have the kind of relationship with their family or carers that would make that helpful. The clause, as drafted, does not seem to make allowance for consent, except where “the person is at future risk of detention” under part II of the Mental Health Act. I would welcome the hon. Lady’s thoughts on that.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak briefly to clause 45, Government amendments 32 and 33, Lib Dem amendment 18 and Opposition amendment 46. I am very supportive of clause 45. The ability to make an advance choice document is incredibly important to people who may come under the scope of the 1983 Act and be subject to detention under mental health legislation. We have spoken at length about the importance of patients’ input into their care and the improvements in outcomes when they feel that they have been involved and their wishes and feelings are taken into account. An advance choice document allows someone at risk of being detained under the Act to set out their choices, thoughts and opinions before becoming so unwell that they may need to be admitted to hospital. Other hon. Members have spoken about how an advance choice document can help prevent detention in a mental health unit, as it can stop issues escalating to the point where there is no option but detention, to ensure patient safety or the safety of others. I am broadly supportive of clause 45, and I urge the Committee to be. I turn briefly to Opposition amendment 46. I have heard the thoughts of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth. My understanding is that clause 45, along with Government amendments 32 and 33, will effectively create the rights for those who should have an advance choice document to be able to take advantage of them. Government amendments 32 and 33 will go further in ensuring that people who may benefit most from an advance choice document are informed of their ability to do so. I note that Government amendment 32 will put a duty on an integrated care board to bring information to such people as it deems appropriate. I welcome the duty being on an integrated care board or commissioner locally, particularly because there are such nuances in localised care and localised populations. There are areas of the country in which the prevalence of things like learning disability and autism is higher than in others. The amendment will allow an ICB or local commissioner to consider what may be appropriate for the population in their area.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would welcome the hon. Lady’s thoughts on where clause 45 or the Government’s amendments allow for selective provision. My understanding is that they place an onus on mental health commissioners to make sure that all those who are deemed appropriate to be in receipt of an ACD should be given the ability to make one. I do not think that is selective; it is very much related to the purposes of the Bill, and it spells out who may come under the provision.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree on the notion of a right; where we vary is that I think that the Bill as written, and Government amendments 32 and 33, enshrine the notion of a right without it having to be spelled out as such. Local variation includes localised populations, such as those from marginalised communities. We might consider different translations of support that is available. That will not be the case across the board—it will vary from area to area. This does not remove people’s ability to make an advance choice document; it simply gives local commissioners the ability to determine what is most appropriate for their area, how that support should look and how it will be targeted. Without getting ahead of the Minister, I hope that he will say what guidance on best practice for local commissioners and ICBs will be set out, particularly in relation to those with learning disabilities and autism. We have spoken about easy-read documents, for example, which should probably be made available, as should advice on how commissioners can best make sure that all those who might benefit from an advance choice document are meaningfully engaged and informed of their right and ability to do so. The Minister has agreed previously to make sure that he works with disabled people’s organisations, including those run by and for people with learning disabilities and autism, on bringing forward a code of practice on the Mental Health Bill. Input on patient experience into how best to contact and meaningfully engage people who would benefit from an advance choice document would be particularly beneficial. Very briefly, the aim of Liberal Democrat amendment 18 is to include consideration of financial circumstances in an advance choice document. I have looked into this—in my opinion, it is outside the scope of what an advance choice document does. An advance choice document sets out how an individual would wish to be treated if they became so unwell that they were unable to make those decisions for themselves. I am not fully sure how one’s financial circumstances fit into how one would be treated relative to detention or, potentially, in a community-based setting. I understand that financial circumstances have an impact on people’s mental health—we have talked about that in debates on other clauses—but they do not necessarily have a place in this specific part of the Bill. I encourage the Committee to support clause 45 and to adopt Government amendments 32 and 33. This is, once again, a big step forward in ensuring that those with serious mental illnesses are able to input into their care and treatment in a real and meaningful way.

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

  More

  I am glad that the Minister is explaining how capturing feedback and experience is being allowed for in other parts of the Bill. To clarify, in my own head I feel that the clause aims to capture the experience immediately after it has happened, just as hospitals offer women who have just given birth the opportunity to talk through their experience. It is healing for the patient to understand what happened to them, and it provides immediate feedback to the hospital. Is that kind of level captured in other parts of the Bill?

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

  More

  I am equally confused; I did not think we were talking about an amendment. I thought we were talking about a clause. Apologies.

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

  More

  Like many Committee members, I was deeply confused about how we were proceeding. On the face of it, the clause broadly seems as if it should be part of any Act about mental health care, including post discharge. I have spoken about my own experience of interacting with the Mental Health Act as it stands. I might have found the clause fairly helpful post discharge and others might have found it useful as well. However, I have just heard the Minister’s description of the limitations of the clause, and the speech that I was about to make has been thrown into complete disarray by the confusion just now. But I implore the Minister to consider the fact that, when it comes to encouraging participation, understanding, and co-designing and co-producing services, capturing the experience of those recently detained under the Mental Health Act can be extraordinarily useful. Clause 35, which was added by an amendment from the Lords, seems a fairly useful way to do that.

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

  More

  Without wanting to sound abrupt, we all have the explanatory notes and are reading them, so in the interests of brevity might the hon. Member consider getting to the point about what he would add to or take away from the Bill? We all know what the clauses aim to do; the Minister has already set that out.