Neil Shastri-Hurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Space Weather · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of space weather on the UK. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. There are debates in this House that deal with the visible challenges of our time, such as conflict, inflation and public services, and then every so often, there are those that deal with the dangers not yet on our doorstep, but hurtling towards us all the same. This is such a debate. The threat that I raise today does not wear a uniform, cross borders or sail across oceans. It travels from the heart of our solar system, faster than sound, silent and invisible. It is called space weather, and it poses one of the gravest risks to our modern way of life. I will start with a simple truth: the sun, for all its warmth and majesty, can also be a menace. It gives us energy, light and life, but without warning it can unleash waves of electromagnetic fury so powerful and indiscriminate that they can bring nations to a standstill in a matter of minutes. This is not speculation or science fiction; it is based on history and science, and it is an urgent question of national resilience. In 1859, a solar storm known as the Carrington event ignited telegraph wires, shocked operators and lit up the skies from Canada to the Caribbean. In the 21st century, such a storm would do more than send sparks down copper wires. It would knock out GPS, disable satellites, crash the grid, blind radar systems and paralyse entire regions. In 1989, Quebec’s power grid collapsed in under two minutes; schools shut, hospitals faltered and 6 million people were left in the dark. In 2012, a storm of Carrington magnitude missed Earth by just a matter of days. After that, NASA estimated that the global cost would have exceeded $2.6 trillion. In short, we are not speculating about what might happen; we are merely observing what has already happened, just not to us—or at least not yet. In effect, we are living between bullets: one already fired, another having just missed, and a third, we must assume, now chambered. We live in a nation defined by connection. Our power grid, transport system, banks, hospitals and military platforms are all linked, all digital and all dependent on space-borne technology. It is one of the great marvels of modern Britain. But it is also, if we are frank, one of our greatest vulnerabilities. A severe solar storm would not simply inconvenience us; it would disrupt the essential machinery of civilised life. High-frequency radios used by pilots and the armed forces fail. Satellites are disabled. Navigation systems go dark. Power lines are overloaded by geomagnetic surges, and cascading failures begin. The Met Office, supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering, has warned that a major event could leave parts of the UK without electricity for days or even weeks. When the power goes, everything else follows: the supermarket tills, the mobile networks, the ventilators and the pumps that keep our water flowing. The digital backbone of our modern state is silenced. It is not just a problem for astronomers or scientists in their white coats, but a matter of national security, public health, financial stability and strategic foresight. The United Kingdom does not enter this debate empty-handed. In 2021, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy produced the severe space weather preparedness strategy, which was a forward-looking and well-considered document. It identified three pillars: first, assessment to improve forecasting and monitoring; secondly, preparation to support resilience planning in key sectors; and thirdly, response and recovery to co-ordinate emergency action across Government, industry and services. Those are the right foundations, but as we all know, strategies do not defend countries; implementation does, and in that sense we are not yet where we need to be. Let me identify four urgent areas for action. First, preparedness must become mandatory, not voluntary. We rightly legislate to ensure that our infrastructure can cope with floods, so why not do the same for solar storms? We have the regulators—Ofcom, Ofgem and the Civil Aviation Authority—and we need them to require, not merely recommend, that resilience plans are in place. When the warning comes, it will not arrive with some sort of grace period. Secondly, we must harden our defence capability. Our armed forces are increasingly reliant on satellite-enabled systems, whether that is for communication, targeting or navigation. Every major platform, from Type 26 frigates to F-35 jets, integrates space-dependent systems. We must invest in hardened equipment and train to operate in degraded space conditions. We must fund research into back-up navigation systems and sovereign capabilities. The reality is that our adversaries are already preparing for such an environment and we must not be found lagging behind. Thirdly, we must strengthen civil contingency planning. Local resilience forums are charged with keeping our communities safe. They plan for floods, pandemics and cyber-attacks, but in many areas, they do not yet plan for solar storms. They must be given the data, the scenarios and the authority to act. Fourthly, we must lead international co-ordination. This threat does not respect borders; the response must be global. The United Kingdom should press for a framework through NATO, the G7, the UN or the European Space Agency to share data, align early-warning systems and co-ordinate national preparedness. We have led the world in tackling threats before. Let us now do the same in the case of space weather. This is not a matter of national pride; it is a matter of global necessity. Let me bring the reality home to this House. Imagine that it is mid-January. The temperatures are freezing and the skies are dark. The sun erupts and a geomagnetic storm is en route. Local hospitals are now running on back-up power, ambulances are offline, phones are down and the grid is being rationed. Supermarkets are unable to take card payments, petrol pumps do not work, water pressure drops and air traffic is grounded. Our farmers cannot access the satellite data they need, small businesses grind to a halt, trains are suspended and mobile coverage is patchy or lost. The elderly, who are already vulnerable, are now cut off, isolated and invariably frightened. That is not fiction or dramatic exaggeration; it is foreseeable and preventable. All of that happens not because we lack the knowledge, but because we failed to act on it. Governments are judged not only on whether they see crises coming, but on how they respond to them. There are threats we cannot foresee, but there are others, like this one, where the science is established, the risk is understood and the warning is clear. This is precisely the kind of threat that distinguishes those Governments that react from those that prepare. The storm may come next year or not for a generation but, when it does, it will be too late to start preparing then. This is not the moment for drift or delay; it is the moment for decisive leadership. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to address six critical questions; they are not intended to catch anyone out but to encourage action. First, will the Government publish a delivery plan with clear targets and funding to give force to the 2021 strategy? Secondly, will Ministers bring forward statutory requirements for critical infrastructure operators to mitigate this risk? Thirdly, are the Government satisfied that our armed forces are equipped and trained to operate in the event of a space weather blackout? Fourthly, what investment is being made in forecasting capabilities, including support of the ESA Vigil mission and co-ordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and others? Fifthly, will the Cabinet Office require local resilience forums to prepare for this threat, as they do for other category 1 emergencies? Finally, will Britain now lead efforts to build an international framework for preparedness, starting with NATO or the G7? The case is clear, the risk is real and the time to act is now. Let us not be the generation that read the reports, saw the warnings, nodded thoughtfully and then did nothing. Let us instead be the generation that looked beyond the horizon, recognised the scale of the threat and acted with the seriousness it demands. The sun may well be 93 million miles away, but its reach is far closer than we think. When the next storm comes, let it not find us asleep at the wheel. Let it find us ready and prepared. Let it find a country that saw the storm and stood firm in the face of it.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Brilliant organisations such as citizenAID, which was co-founded by two of my former bosses, Major General Tim Hodgetts and Professor Sir Keith Porter, provide brilliant education about civil resilience and emergency preparedness. In an increasingly uncertain world, will the Leader of the House commit to Government time for a debate on that really important issue, so that we are upskilling our citizens in case of serious incidents?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  In response to an earlier question, I was pleased to hear the Minister commit to seeking to compress the timetable between delivery and the in-service date. I believe I heard the Minister say that the delivery date was the back end of the 2020s. Can she confirm the anticipated in-service date?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about court backlogs. Another factor is having the appropriate magistrates, legal advisers and so on to hear these cases. The Magistrates’ Association has raised concerns that the spending review allocation is insufficient to tackle that. Does he share those concerns?

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  Today this House is quite properly considering the scale and seriousness of the threats we face, from those requiring conventional deterrence in Europe to those of strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific. The case for strengthening our armed forces is not just compelling but essential. However, we must be honest about how we fund this renewal, and what we are willing to sacrifice to do so. Let me be clear: the case for increased defence spending is self-evident. Like many others, I have long argued that we must invest more in our sovereign capability, critical munitions, advanced deterrence and national resilience, including by expanding both the remit and the resourcing of the national armaments director. The strategic significance of that role has grown substantially. In today’s volatile security environment, the national armaments director is not merely a procurement official; they are the principal architect of our defence industrial strategy, responsible for ensuring that our armed forces are equipped not just adequately, but decisively. Their portfolio spans capability planning, acquisition reform, exportability and the stewardship of our defence supply base, from the factory floor to the frontline. In an age of contested logistics, technological disruption and rapid rearmament by authoritarian regimes, the role is fundamental to preserving both operational readiness and sovereign capability. Delivering a credible deterrent in today’s world means accelerating procurement cycles, building in modularity and adaptability, strengthening domestic supply chains, and driving long-term collaboration between government, industry and academia. It means ensuring that we can surge production in a crisis, replenish stockpiles at speed and invest in the innovation that gives us the strategic edge. That cannot be done in isolation or as an afterthought. That work must be led, co-ordinated and embedded across defence planning, not in spite of fiscal pressures, but because of them. If we are serious about resilience, readiness and regeneration, we must empower the national armaments director with the authority, capacity and resources to act not simply as a technical overseer, but as a strategic enabler at the heart of defence policy. Only then can we translate increased spending into real-world capability, and ensure that British power is not only credible on paper, but deliverable in practice. However, this investment must not come at the expense of our international development commitments. Funding defence by slashing foreign aid is a false economy. Worse, it risks undermining the strategic posture that we seek to build. Aid is not an indulgence. It is not a soft option, and it is certainly not a luxury for easier times. It is an instrument of national strategy—a projection of British values, a tool of soft power, and a forward-deployed asset in the defence of the realm. When Britain pulls back from the world, our adversaries do not hesitate to step in. China in particular has understood this dynamic. It does not wait for crises to send in troops; it sends in investment, infrastructure and influence, often to the very regions from which we have retreated. When we reduce aid, we do not save; we cede ground and create vacuums that others are all too willing to fill. Let us be frank: foreign aid and defence are not in conflict. They are complementary. One builds resilience, prevents crises and supports our allies; the other protects us as those crises unfold. A truly strategic posture requires both, because real security does not start when the first shot is fired. It starts in the classrooms of conflict zones, in the clinics of fragile states, and in the partnerships we forge before troubles take root. If we choose to retreat from the world, we shall find that the world does not retreat from us.

• 24 Jun 2025 · China Audit · Hansard source

  More

  Given that China represents one of the defining geopolitical challenges of our age, I am somewhat sceptical about reports this morning that this much-touted, long-awaited year-long audit has significantly downgraded that challenge. Under this Government, there has been a significant increase in ministerial engagement and visits with China, a policy that is at best incoherent and at worst incompetent. Given that actions speak louder than words, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister will no longer be making his proposed trip to China?

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Given the scale of foreign-influence operations, particularly those of China, does the Minister accept that Britain’s societal resilience remains far too limited? Without clear Government messaging, how can institutions or the public properly play their role? Will the Minister commit to expanding the defending democracy taskforce to include public education, support for free media, and curbing People’s Liberation Army-linked speakers at taxpayer funded events?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a strong point about having a review to ensure that the regulator is operating effectively. Does he share some of my concerns that a one-off review may not demonstrate ongoing oversight and scrutiny of the performance of the regulator?

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

  More

  The new clause is underpinned by noble intentions, but does the hon. Gentleman believe that patients would be better served if such a process were in guidelines rather than in the Bill? That would ensure that it is deliverable.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about transparency, but it is not just about that. Does he agree that it is also about having an evidence base that allows reform and improvement of the regulator?

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  When organisations such as Palestine Action break into military bases, damage secure facilities and put our personnel at risk, they are not just protesting but sabotaging. With that in mind, if any other extremists had carried out those tasks they would rightly be described as domestic terrorists. Does the Minister agree that this is not legitimate protest, it is domestic terrorism and that any attack on our armed forces’ infrastructure should be seen thus?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I want to speak in support of amendment 46. It is eminently sensible and would give all eligible patients the statutory right to create an advance choice document to record their treatment preferences in a formal legal document. Those preferences would be enjoyed only in the event of a future mental health crisis or detention under the Mental Health Act. The amendment would give important control to patients and to those around them to know that their future care decisions would be applicable at the point at which they become incapacious. It would quite rightly place a requirement on NHS England—for as long as it continues to exist—and ICBs to ensure that those individuals are aware of their rights and, more importantly, that they are not just aware of them but are supported in creating an advance choice document if they so wish. The amendment is all about empowering patients. The more we can empower patients who face these challenges, the better. It would increase their autonomy and help with the planning of their future care. It would help both in the understanding and the honouring of patients’ wishes. Critically, it would reduce conflict. In these circumstances, tensions are high and pressures are acute, so conflict can arise in the most unintended of ways. Having an advance choice document minimises that risk. If the Government will not support amendment 46, what reassurances can the Minister give in relation to the code of practice? How will this be accounted for in the code of practice to ensure consistency in the information imparted to patients across the country by NHS England and the ICBs? We must ensure that there is not a postcode lottery and that everybody, regardless of where they live in the country, gets the consistency of care that they are entitled to.

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

  More

  That is an invitation that I will remember as we go on in this Committee. On this occasion, I have just two questions. First, will any interim guidance be issued while the review is ongoing? Secondly, can the Minister commit that the consultation will be undertaken on a wide basis, and include patient advocates, child psychologists and safeguarding boards? Because I cannot count, I will add a third question: did the Government consider an alternative to a two-year review period, either through an immediate extension of regulation 18 or perhaps a shorter period, so that these important changes can be put in place without delay?

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

  More

  I fear that I may test your patience a little further on this occasion, Mrs Harris, but I rise to address clause 48. Although much of the Bill aims to modernise and humanise our mental health framework, and in many ways it does so commendably, clause 47 presents not only an opportunity, but a challenge: to ensure that we get the balance right between liberty and protection. The clause will make an amendment to section 72(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983. As the Minister said, it will shift the burden of proof in tribunal proceedings concerning patients who are subject to a guardianship order. Under the current legal framework, it is the patient who must demonstrate that the criteria for guardianship are no longer met, by showing either that they are no longer suffering from a mental disorder or that continued guardianship is no longer necessary for their welfare or the protection of others. Clause 48 would reverse that burden. It would place the onus instead upon the local authority to demonstrate, in the mental health tribunal, that the individual still meets the statutory test. The tribunal would be required to direct a discharge unless the authority can prove otherwise. Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the principle of this reform. On the contrary, I believe that there is a strong case for rebalancing the legal dynamics in favour of the individual, particularly when we reach situations in which their liberty and autonomy are at stake. The principle of least restriction is not, or should not be, merely aspirational; it should be foundational to any mental health regime in a liberal democracy. I say with equal conviction that the practical operation of such a change requires careful thought and adequate resourcing. It must be done under clear legal parameters. Precisely on those fronts, I seek clarification from the Minister and, if I may be so bold, I seek some improvements to this aspect of the Bill. First, we must consider the legal principle at play. A reversal of the burden of proof in this context is not technical or incidental; it marks a constitutional shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Traditionally, as the Minister well knows, the burden of proof lies on the party making an assertion that departs from the status quo. In this case, that would ordinarily be the patient applying for discharge from the guardianship. However, when the state exercises more coercive powers—particularly powers that have an impact on an individual’s liberty and private life—it is appropriate that the state be required to justify those powers afresh, especially when challenged. That is the logic that clause 48 seeks to embrace. In broad terms, as I say, I support it. The approaches are reinforced by our obligations under article 5 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to liberty and security of the person. It is clear that any deprivation of liberty must be justified not just initially, but on an ongoing basis. Jurisprudence from Strasbourg has repeatedly emphasised that periodic review mechanisms must be substantive and not merely procedural in nature. The state must show continuing justification and must not rely on past assessments or presumptions in its favour. Clause 48 helps us to move closer to compliance with those principles, but the legislation, as drafted, does leave some important questions unanswered. What, precisely, is the standard of proof that local authorities must meet? Is it the civil standard on the balance of probabilities, or is it something higher, given the gravity of what is at stake? If we are to take this shift seriously, we must also give tribunals clear statutory guidance on how to interpret the new burden. Otherwise, we will fall into the trap of risking inconsistency in decision making, confusion among professionals and a potential increase in appeals and legal challenges. Secondly, and crucially, I would like to press the Minister on the question of practical implementation. Changing the legal burden is not merely a matter of legislative drafting; it requires a systematic adjustment in how evidence is gathered, how professionals prepare for tribunal hearings, and how decisions are reviewed internally within local authorities. As hon. Members will know, local authorities are already operating under intense financial and operational pressures. Mental health social workers are often working with caseloads that stretch the limits of what may be considered reasonable. Legal teams within councils are often overstretched and under-resourced; if we now place them under a legal obligation to present a comprehensive, evidentially sound case for continued guardianship—perhaps at multiple intervals across an individual’s care pathway—we must ensure that they are adequately supported to do so. What assessment have the Government made of the financial and operational impact of clause 48? Will local authorities receive new funding to enable them to meet that duty? Will social care professionals receive specific training on the evidential requirements now expected of them? Without such support, we risk not only undermining the intent of the clause, but creating a perverse outcome in which discharges may occur not because the patient no longer meets the criteria, but because the local authority lacks the capacity to make the evidential case in time. I also caution against the risk of overcorrection. Although I fully support the principle that individuals should not bear an unfair evidential burden, we must not move so far in the other direction that we weaken the legitimate protective mechanisms that should be in place. Guardianship is not detention; it is a community-based measure designed to provide oversight and structure for individuals who may struggle to live independently due to serious mental illness. It is used infrequently and only where strictly necessary.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman speaks with a huge amount of experience and knowledge in this area. Of course, what he describes would be the default setting, but there may be scenarios in which a qualified healthcare worker is in the vicinity and can provide the support that that individual needs before the police can get there. The clause seeks to provide that flexibility. I acknowledge the split in the Committee on this, but the clause has some significant advantages: reducing police involvement in mental health crises, where that is most appropriate; improving response times, as I have just touched on; and supporting de-escalation. I accept that there are operational and legal questions to be addressed, but we are here to look at all the potential scenarios. The Minister has clearly set out the consequences of removing the clause from the Bill, but it is perfectly possible that a Government Member on the Committee will choose to support it, and I therefore seek some clarification from the Minister on the operational and legal challenges around training, oversight and the uniformity of authorised roles were the clause to remain part of the Bill. How would training standards be mandated for authorised persons and who would accredit them? How would consistency in practice be ensured across NHS trusts and ambulance services? Will the Minister also clarify the liability position in a case in which an authorised person used force or restraint during a removal?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Having taken your clear instructions, I will be very brief in speaking to clauses 46 and 47. Clause 46 is a positive step in principle, but there are concerns that the recommendations remain non-binary and may therefore lack the practical effect—or the teeth —without enforcement or review mechanisms. I have three questions that I hope the Minister will address. First, will he clarify whether there are any plans to give legal weight to tribunal recommendations, perhaps by requiring a written response or justification where those recommendations are not followed? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that resource-constrained local authorities can implement recommended aftercare plans promptly and fully? Thirdly, could he please provide data on the expected impact of this provision on readmission rates? Clause 47 clearly sets out and improves on the legal clarity, which is welcome, but I have a couple of questions. What steps will be taken to ensure that frontline practitioners understand and consistently apply the revised ordinary residence test? Has the Department conducted an assessment of the administrative burdens or delays that may result from the implementation of the clause? Apart from those questions, I welcome the provision.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am doing no such thing. I hope that I am doing my constitutional duty, which is to scrutinise the legislation and put some respectful challenges to the Minister about the operability of the clause were it to remain part of the Bill. Call me old fashioned, but I think that is what we are here to do. The intent behind clause 50 is to support a more health-led response to enabling trained healthcare or crisis responders to act. That aligns with the Bill’s broader goals of reducing the perception of criminality around mental health illness and improving patient experiences.

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

  More

  I rise to speak briefly to clause 50, which expands the authority to remove individuals under Mental Health Act powers by allowing trained and authorised non-police personnel to carry out removals that previously could be carried out only by police constables. A couple of key changes arise from the clause. First, the clause provides for the inclusion of authorised persons by amending sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act. That will allow individuals other than police officers, if they are authorised—“authorised” is the important word—to remove and transport people under Mental Health Act powers. That provides wider operational flexibility, and includes removals under warrant, by virtue of section 135, and without a warrant in public places. It is predicated on the fact that those authorised persons are appropriately trained and designated. Prior to the clause being inserted into the Bill, only police officers could carry out removals.

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

  More

  I ask for a series of clarifications from the Minister about all three clauses. On clause 51, how will the courts be supported in identifying community-based alternatives to remand? What training or guidance will be provided to judges in applying the provisions effectively? What assurances can the Minister give that support pathways will be available before and after the changes have taken effect? I accept that clause 52 is a technical a change to the legislation, but it is an important clarification none the less. It will require some robust co-ordination between jurisdictions and clearer procedural safeguards. How will the Government monitor the implementation of proposed new schedule A2 to ensure that patients’ rights are preserved during transfers? Will guidance be issued to courts and practitioners in the UK and the Crown dependencies about the new procedures, particularly their cross-jurisdictional nature? What consultation has taken place, and will continue to take place, with authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man before the measures are implemented in law? Finally, I recognise that clause 53 is arguably a sensible safeguard. The challenge will be to ensure compliance on the frontline, especially where legal duties to share information and duties to protect confidentiality can butt against some degree of tension. With that in mind, what support or training will be given to health and care professionals to navigate overlapping legal duties? Will the Minister publish sector-specific guidance on data sharing as a consequence of the Bill? How will the Government assess whether the legal framework strikes the right balance between patient safety and privacy?

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

  More

  You will be pleased to know that I will be briefer this time, Mrs Harris; I want to leave room for my Opposition colleagues. The intent of the clause is entirely sound: to treat mental health as a health issue, not a criminal one. However, the capacity of NHS services to provide timely and suitable alternatives remains in question. With that in mind, I have three questions that I hope the Minister will be able to address. First, will the Government commit to publishing the implementation plan for ensuring adequate numbers of health-based places of safety across regions before the clause comes into force? Secondly, what contingency measures are currently in place or foreseen if no place of safety is available and police powers have been limited? Thirdly, can the Minister commit to an annual publication of data on hospital-based places of safety, their capacity and their use?

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

  More

  You will be disappointed to know, Mrs Harris, that the notable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Chester South and Eddisbury and for Farnham and Bordon mean that my contribution will be even briefer than usual. [ Interruption. ] Rapturous support across the Committee—exactly the consensus-building that we are seeking to achieve. I rise to speak in support of new clause 12. It necessarily addresses the inappropriate placement of children on adult wards, which is not just distressing but deeply damaging to those involved. The issue is about having child-centred safeguards. It is essential that we ensure that children under 18 are placed on adult wards only when it is absolutely necessary and there is no alternative. The new clause would not only support best practice—it aligns with clinical guidelines on age-appropriate care—but provide welcome legal clarity. It would strengthen and clarify the existing provisions within the Mental Health Act. For those reasons, I encourage all hon. Members to support it. On clause 54, the Minister would be disappointed if I did not put a couple of questions to him.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendments 54 and 55, which propose that where a nominated person is appointed to represent the interests of a patient under the age of 16, that individual must hold parental responsibility. At face value, that is a concise and apparently straightforward proposal. However, as with much in the Bill and in our mental health legislation more broadly, what appears simple can raise intricate legal and ethical questions. I therefore wish to probe both the merits and the challenges of these amendments. I do so not to come down firmly on one side of the argument or the other, but in the hope of assisting the Committee to think through the implications of the amendments. I hope to prompt the Minister to provide further clarification as our consideration of the Bill proceeds. I will start by setting out the case in favour of the amendments. There is an intuitive and, I would argue, legally grounded rationale behind amendment 54. It rests on the principle that serious decisions concerning a child’s mental health—decisions that might involve treatment without consent, or even deprivation of liberty—ought to be taken, or at least overseen, by somebody who already holds recognised legal responsibility for that child. Parental responsibility is not merely administrative. It carries statutory and common-law duties to protect, support and advocate for a child’s welfare. By requiring the nominated person to have such responsibilities, the amendment seeks to ensure a level of legal legitimacy and continuity. It would strengthen the position of those with a formal bond to the child and might help to guard against the risk of unsuitable or ill-informed individuals stepping in to play such a critical role. In that sense, amendment 54 reflects what many would see as good legal hygiene. It would bring new legislation into closer alignment with the Children Act 1989 and with broader child welfare practice. It would create a baseline expectation that only those with legal authority over a child should make, or help to make, decisions of such magnitude. It would also offer reassurances to families. For parents and guardians already concerned about the complex and sometimes opaque processes of mental health detention, the amendment offers a clear signal that their role cannot be set aside lightly. That reassurance may be particularly important when children are subject to long-term care or involuntary treatment. However, questions begin to surface at precisely that point, because although the principle appears sound, the practice is far from straightforward. It is therefore important that we probe both the advantages and disadvantages of the amendment.

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

  More

  I rise to speak in support of clauses 36 to 40, which provide critical legal clarification and technical refinements to the 1993 Act. While differing in scope and impact, each of these provisions is underpinned by a clear shared commitment to enhance public protection, uphold patient rights, and ensure that the legal framework reflects both current clinical practice and developments in case law. Let me begin with clause 36, which addresses a long-standing lacuna in the legislative architecture governing conditionally discharged restricted patients. It follows the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Secretary of State of Justice v. MM, where it became clear that the existing Mental Health Act did not permit the imposition of conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty as part of conditional discharge. The decision created uncertainty for clinicians, tribunals and, most crucially, risk-managed patients living in the community. It is therefore pleasing to see that clause 36 seeks to address that gap. The clause introduces new statutory powers for both the Secretary of State and the first-tier tribunal, in respect of imposing deprivation of liberty conditions in the community. It does so with some stringent safeguards.

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

  More

  I will speak briefly on schedule 3, which makes a number of important amendments to the 1983 Act concerning the role of independent mental health advocates. The schedule implements several practical reforms to provide consistent and accessible advocacy and support for individuals receiving mental health care. It builds upon existing statutory provisions by extending the right to advocacy beyond detained patients and setting out clearer expectations of how and when advocacy services should be made available. One of the most notable changes is the extension of IMHA eligibility to include informal patients—individuals receiving voluntary treatment rather than under compulsion. This responds directly to the recommendations made in both the independent review and the 2021 White Paper, which identified disparities in support available to different patient groups. Under these reforms, access to advocacy is no longer limited to those detained under the Act. Instead, all qualifying patients, including informal ones, will be eligible for IMHA support where appropriate. This change reflects the recognition that voluntary status does not necessarily equate to full understanding or confidence in navigating care decisions. To ensure that eligible individuals are aware of and able to use this support, hospital managers will now be required to notify advocacy services when a patient becomes eligible. This automatic referral mechanism removes the onus from patients themselves to initiate contact, many of whom may not be aware of their rights or may face barriers to asserting them. In turn, advocacy providers will have a duty to arrange an interview with each referred patient to establish whether they wish to use the service. This helps to close the loop between eligibility and engagement, and ensures that advocacy is offered in a timely and structured manner. Schedule 3 also sets out clearer responsibilities on both hospital managers and advocacy providers. Clearly, that will improve co-ordination and ensure the consistent application of the policy across different care settings and regions. In practice, it should help to reduce gaps where eligible patients might otherwise miss out on support due to ambiguity around who holds the responsibility for initiating contact. It is worth noting that these reforms complement the broader set of changes proposed in clauses 41 to 44, which collectively aim to strengthen patient rights, increase transparency in decision making and improve the overall quality of patient experience in mental health services. This approach has a number of potential benefits. First, it is likely to improve access to advocacy for groups who have historically been underserved. These include informal patients, individuals with communication difficulties and those less familiar with the mental health system. Secondly, it enhances procedural fairness by ensuring that patients are supported in understanding their options, raising their concerns, or appealing decisions where necessary. Thirdly, it brings the statutory framework into closer alignment with human rights principles and best practice standards, particularly in terms of informed participation and supported decision making. There are, however, three specific practical challenges that I wish the Minister to acknowledge. First, these reforms will require sufficient resources for advocacy services, particularly as demand is likely to increase once eligibility is broadened. Secondly, effective implementation will depend upon robust co-ordination between hospital managers and external advocacy providers, which may vary in capacity and capability across regions. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s approach to ameliorating that. Thirdly, there is a risk of inconsistency in delivery without clear national guidance and adequate oversight mechanisms, so I would be grateful if the Minister could address the mechanisms that are intended to be put in place. These are not insurmountable issues, but they highlight the importance of a carefully planned implementation strategy, supported by training, monitoring and adequate funding. Schedule 3 represents a targeted and proportionate set of amendments that support the underlying aims of the Bill to ensure that all individuals receiving mental health care, whether formally detained or not, are able to access independent support, understand their rights and participate more fully in decisions about their treatment. [Interruption.]

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

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very valid point. There is that mechanism, but this is also about ensuring that the quality of the information that has been imparted—not just the process of it being done—is recorded. An audit process must ensure that the important conversations and information are imparted in a way that the patient and their family understand, in sufficient detail and as part of a process whereby, if there are concerns or doubts, they can be addressed in a ready manner. I take his point that there are metrics by which to measure things, but it is not just about capturing data; it is about capturing quality data in order to ensure that that is being fulfilled. To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury about regional variability, consistency across the board is important not only in the regions, but in the delivery methods and capacity that underpin this crucial service. Finally, on potential confusion and legal information being communicated in inaccessible ways, it is important that legalese does not get in the way of clarity for individuals who will have to navigate the information. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how we can ensure that the information is imparted in an accessible way for all those concerned—importantly, not just for patients and their families, but for clinicians who have to impart the information. They need to feel comfortable navigating their way around what can often be a complex set of regulations and legislation. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Taiwo Owatemi.)