Sojan Joseph MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that section 136 is used when the police are alerted to a disturbance in a public place? If I saw a disturbance outside the Palace of Westminster, I would call the police, not a mental health professional. If the police arrive and think that the person is suffering from a mental illness, they will use the power under section 136. How can we give powers to health professionals to attend a public disturbance?

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

  More

  What the hon. Member read is absolutely right. I was talking about sections 135 and 136. I am talking here about sections 2, 3 and 5. I absolutely stand by what I said about sections 135 and 136, and I am happy to come to that. As a former mental health nurse, I certainly would not support giving the police greater powers under sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act. I am also opposed to the amendments passed in the other place because I believe that the extension of legal powers held by the police to other healthcare professionals would represent a major shift in the roles and responsibilities of healthcare and care professionals, placing significant additional pressure on the NHS and social care providers. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association are among the health and social care organisations that have warned against such an extension, saying that it is “a radical proposal with a number of serious and potentially dangerous consequences”. Those organisations also point out that the proposed extension has not been properly tested with relevant health and social care professionals and has been given minimal serious consideration during the eight years in which reform of the Mental Health Act has been under discussion. The majority of assessment under the Mental Health Act already happens without police involvement. However, where the police may be required to make a detention, I know from my experience working in mental health that the presence of officers can often ensure that an otherwise risky situation remains contained and everyone remains safe. Entering someone’s home without permission is fraught with huge risk and currently is done only with the assistance of police intelligence. Under section 135, health professionals ask the court for an order to remove somebody forcefully from their residence and the police use that order to do so; sometimes, they have to break in. That is the power that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth spoke to earlier. Without it, health and social care professionals would be expected to enter homes without police help, and without crucial intelligence that could ensure their safety. As Dr Lade Smith, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: “It is well known that at times, people experiencing a mental health crisis cannot be safely reached and cared for without the assistance of the police. Delegating police powers without proper consultation or planning is likely to disproportionately affect those from minoritised backgrounds and would increase risk to patients and compromise the safety of others. It sets a dangerous precedent.” I am also concerned that the amendments passed in the other place granting police powers to authorised persons risk damaging their therapeutic relationships with patients. They would have the effect of lessening clinicians’ ability to treat patients, and I fear that patients would be less likely to attend an appointment if they thought they might be forcibly detained by the clinician.

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

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that, since detentions under sections 2, 3 and 5(4) of the Act often happen in clinical settings, are completed by consultants, psychiatrists and social workers, and do not involve police, we do not actually need police presence on these occasions?

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

  More

  I rise to support the Government amendments, which will simply remove the words “by a constable or other organised person”. On Second Reading, I highlighted my concern about the amendments made to the Bill in the other place that sought to extend police powers of detention under sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act to other organised persons, including medical practitioners, approved mental health professionals, mental health nurses or doctors and further healthcare and social care professionals. I know that the noble Lords who introduced the amendments intended to remove the need for the police to be present at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk. However, they would grant the police greater powers; as an unintended consequence, they would also apply to detentions under sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act, where the police currently do not have power to intervene. A section 2 application is completed by two doctors and a social worker, and the patient may already be in a clinical setting. Section 3 relates to somebody who is already receiving treatment or already has a known diagnosis in a clinical setting. Doctors’ powers extend to that section; the police currently do not have any role in completing a section 3 application. Section 5(4) provides nurses with a holding power for a patient who is already in the clinical setting, where the nurse believes that the patient is at immediate risk; again, the police have no role. If we did not make the Government amendments, we would give more power to the police to get involved under those sections of the Mental Health Act and put more pressure on police services.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this Second Reading debate. Prior to being elected to this House, I worked for 22 years in NHS mental health services, and I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health. This is an issue I care about deeply. It has been widely accepted that the Mental Health Act is outdated, and the need to modernise it has been talked about for some time. I pay tribute to Baroness May who, when she was Prime Minister, commissioned Professor Sir Simon Wessely to undertake an independent review of the Act, and I commend this Labour Government for introducing the Bill without delay. As Members will be aware, last week was Mental Health Awareness Week. The discussions I took part in showed how far we have come in removing much of the stigma around mental ill health, but I fear that a lot of stigma remains when it comes to discussing severe mental ill health, such as cases of schizophrenia. I therefore welcome the importance that the Government have attached to the Bill, and to updating the law so that it is fit for the 21st century. I hope that, through our deliberations, we can play our part in ensuring that severe mental ill health is treated with the respect and understanding it deserves. The Mental Health Act provides the legal framework for the detention of people when their mental ill health means that they are at risk to themselves or others, so that they can receive appropriate treatment. The Bill looks to modernise that legal framework. I welcome clause 1, which adopts the four principles of treatment proposed in Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review. By adopting those principles, the legislation will give patients greater choice, enhanced rights and support, and ensure that being treated with dignity and respect is an integral part of their treatment. This reform is long overdue. We talk a great deal about wanting to deliver personalised care in our health service. That should be the guiding principle in every part of the service, especially for the most vulnerable. Adopting the principles is about redressing the balance of power away from the system, so that the patient has more autonomy, and more say over their treatment. That will help to ensure that those in society with the most severe mental health conditions get better, more personalised care. I also welcome the statutory role that clauses 24 to 28 will give a nominated person, who will have a greater say over the patient’s treatment and care. Replacing the old hierarchical list of relatives with a person who has been selected by the patient, albeit that there will be certain safeguards in place, is an update to the legislation to reflect today’s world. Clause 3 deals with the application of the Mental Health Act to autistic people and those who have a learning disability. The clause modifies the definition of mental disorder by introducing new definitions of autism, learning disability and psychiatric disorder. As a result, people with a learning disability or those who are autistic can no longer be detained or made subject to a community treatment order unless they have a co-occurring psychiatric disorder. This is a welcome and long overdue change. Under the Mental Health Act, autistic people and those with a learning disability have experienced inappropriate care, over-medication and extended periods of detention. As we look to modernise the Act, it is wholly appropriate to ensure that they cannot be detained unless they have a co-occurring psychiatric disorder. However, concern has been expressed in parts of the learning disability and autism sectors that the change may have unintended consequences. For example, it may lead to an increase in alternative routes to detention. In particular, concern has been raised that people with high-risk behaviours who require treatment in appropriate and safe hospital environments may end up having to be dealt with by the criminal justice system if they cannot be detained under the Mental Health Act. These concerns were debated when the Bill was considered in the other place, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the Government have given any further consideration to those points. I would also be grateful if he could give an assurance that he and his officials will engage with the learning disability and autism sectors as the Bill continues through this House. In the other place, the Conservatives were successful in amending the Bill to allow the extension of police powers of detention under sections 135 and 136 to other specified healthcare professionals. The amendment provoked serious concern from representatives of healthcare professionals, and I understand it is not supported by the police either. The “right care, right person” model, put in place in 2023, has already reduced the time the police have to deal with mental health patients. Will the Government look into overturning that amendment? I would also be grateful if he said how the Government will build on the Bill to ensure wider reform of, and investment in, mental health, and how we can ensure that the aims of the Bill are accompanied by high-quality mental health services, especially community services for people experiencing poor mental health. In preparation for today’s debate, on Thursday, as chair of the APPG on mental health, I was pleased to organise for a small group of Members a visit to the mental health centre at the St Charles hospital in Kensington. During our visit, we were able to spend time in the mental health crisis assessment service. This excellent facility is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for anyone in the area who is experiencing a mental health crisis. I recommend that such facilities be instituted across the country, especially in my constituency. In Ashford, there are no mental health emergency facilities. Over 2,600 people whose primary issue was recorded as mental ill health presented themselves at the A&E department at the William Harvey hospital in 2024. Such facilities would help to prevent that. I press for more support to be put in place, alongside the Bill.

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

  More

  Sections 135 and 136 of the current Mental Health Act give the police the power to break into someone’s property or detain somebody in a public place where there is the possibility of the involvement of weapons. Does the hon. Member think that health professionals would be able to manage those kinds of situations? Would the police not be the best people to deal with those situations?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Restricted patients are mentally disordered offenders who are detained in hospital for treatment and are subject to special controls by the Justice Secretary. What additional support is my right hon. Friend’s Department providing to help mental health trusts to treat and rehabilitate these patients, so that they can be released from this secure environment in a timely manner?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Court Waiting Times: Kent · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) on securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss an issue of great concern to many of my constituents in Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages. He made an excellent speech and offered many suggestions. Many of the issues that he spoke about not only impact his part of the county, but are unfortunately only too evident in east Kent. The record and rising court backlogs that this Government inherited from the Conservatives are a threat to the integrity of our justice system. As a result of the decisions taken under the last Government, justice is simply not happening quickly enough in Kent, as in so many other parts of the country. Criminal cases are taking too long to come to trial, family court proceedings are being repeatedly adjourned and civil disputes are dragging on. The delays have a real-world impact on our constituents. To cite one example, a victim of domestic abuse contacted me because the enforcement of a child arrangement order was taking weeks to come before the family court instead of being heard urgently, as we would normally expect in such a case. I perfectly understand my constituent’s deep frustration that the delay in the family courts meant that they were not able to properly protect children who are victims of domestic abuse. Another constituent contacted me to explain the delays in a civil case that he and his wife were pursuing against a builder, which had been dragging on for a number of years. As a result of the delay, and what my constituent felt was the mishandling of his case, he and his wife believe they have been completely forgotten by the justice system. Timely and effective justice is key to increasing confidence in the system, but the delays that this Government inherited are preventing that. The scale of the delays means that this situation was not going to be addressed overnight. Indeed, the latest data from the Ministry of Justice shows that, in December, there were just over 2,900 open cases in magistrates courts in east Kent. The system is overburdened and, in some places, close to breaking. This is a result of decisions taken by the Conservatives to cut the number of courts, including the courts in Ashford, and their failure to invest in the rest of the justice system. When I previously raised the issue of court delays in Justice questions, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), told me that the Government were providing extra funding to ensure that more cases were heard, and as a result Crown courts in Kent were on track to sit for nearly 3,000 days during the financial year that has just ended. I would be grateful if the current Minister could provide an update on that, and also on what is being done to reduce delays in magistrates courts in Kent. The Government have spoken about consistently investing in the recruitment of judges and tribunal members across all jurisdictions. That is, of course, to be welcomed. What is being done to ensure that these new recruits receive the necessary training, especially in dealing with cases involving sexual violence or domestic abuse, where delays do untold harm? What is being done to put victims at the heart of the judicial process, including giving them greater support while they navigate the system and ensuring they are getting regular updates on what is happening with their cases? Finally, in civil cases, what steps are being taken to ensure that cases that need to go to trial are dealt with more quickly, including the increased use of digitised court processes and remote hearings? Court delays have real human costs. They have a detrimental impact on the mental health of victims seeking closure and families in crisis. They also undermine confidence in the justice system for communities that depend on law and order. Justice delayed is truly justice denied. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that justice will be delivered in a timely manner in Kent.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to contribute to this discussion based on my experience as a mental health nurse. I worked in mental health services for 22 years, including managing a medium secure forensic unit. I have worked with many homeless people and people who were detained under the Mental Health Act by the criminal justice system in those medium secure units and who had been involved in criminal activities. With my experience, I can categorically say that that group of people is very vulnerable. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, self-harming and suicidal tendencies are very high among that group. As part of the risk assessments that we carry out in the mental health system, one of the questions is whether they are homeless. That question is asked to identify that vulnerability. These amendments bring up the importance of a psychosocial assessment, which was highlighted in many pieces of our oral evidence. If we are looking to bring more safeguards into this Bill, that is something we should consider to safeguard this group of people. I want to make one more point about what the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said: not all homeless people are homeless in the same way; some people choose to sleep rough. I am not clear whether, if somebody is sleeping rough and is diagnosed with a terminal illness, we are looking to bring them back into an NHS bed to assist them to die. I do not know whether there is a provision to identify how we would manage those sorts of situations.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Professor Owen, written evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that 65% of psychiatrists “are not confident that consent can act as an adequate safeguard”. On mental capacity, it says: “These decisions are opinions with a margin of error and are time specific. A person’s capacity can change”. What is your view? Professor Owen: That is important evidence, because it comes from a body of practitioners who are very used to doing mental capacity assessments. I think that the vast majority of that sample were consultant psychiatrists, so the pool, as it were, was one of considerable experience. That conveys questionable confidence in the consent processes, of which mental capacity is part, in relation to the decision to end one’s life. It is significant evidence about the confidence that is out there among experienced practitioners. It is true that psychiatrists—liaison psychiatrists particularly; I have had experience with this myself, clinically and in relation to Court of Protection matters—will be involved with assessing capacity to make decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Those decisions can be quite vexed and can go to the court, and the court can struggle with them. An important question for the Committee is the distinction—or the similarity and difference, but I think that there are key differences—between the decision to refuse a treatment that is life-sustaining, of which the Court of Protection does have experience, and the decision to decide to end one’s own life. They are conceptually different decisions. I can outline some of the similarities and the differences now, but it might be helpful to take submissions specifically on that question, because it is very important and I think that there is some confusion about it. If you would find it helpful, the complex life and death decisions group could write a statement to elaborate on some of the issues. In summary, I think that that evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists is significant, in terms of the confidence.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to come to you, Michael. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has given a written statement, which says: “Mental disorders, such as depression, are more common in people nearing the end of their life. Delirium is more common… Hopelessness is a common symptom of depression…And people’s capacity and consent can be affected when they are going through this condition.” In the last few days, we have heard much evidence that expressed concern about capacity assessment and that said, as Dan mentioned, there should be an advocacy service available. Rather than having the current model of two doctors and the court, if we have a panel with experts on it who can consider psychosocial assessment and capacity, would that make the Bill stronger, with more safeguarding being introduced to it? Dr Mulholland: Sorry—can I check whether that was a question for me at the Royal College of GPs or a question for the Royal College of Psychiatrists, because I think that statement was in their evidence?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I would like to come to you, Dr Hussain, specifically on why you think ethnic minority people would be disproportionately affected when the law is the same for everyone. There will be capacity assessments. There will be two medical assessments. There will be a court review. If you think that is going to be an effect, what would you suggest we include in the Bill to safeguard those people? Dr Hussain: First, we need to understand the current context. We know already that people from ethnic minority groups and those who come from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds are less likely to access palliative care, they are less likely to say that the care that they have received at the end of life was good and they are more likely to have poor outcomes—that is, they are more likely to die in hospital and spend more time in hospital in the last year of life. What drives that are multiple reasons, but not least discrimination. We have heard about ableism, but racism is also a specific issue within palliative care. We did a survey, post-covid, of staff across the nation working in palliative care. More than 1,400 people responded. The vast majority—more than 80%—were white British, but 40% said that they had witnessed or experienced racism within the end-of-life care sector. For ethnic minority groups, that is much higher. That leads to mistrust. I work in Bradford. We have lots of patients who are ethnically diverse in the hospital. Almost every week, one of the first things I have to reassure patients about is that I cannot legally do anything to shorten their life. This is front and centre of the fear for those patients and we see it all the time. What happens when we add assisted dying into that context? I work deep within community groups; with not only ethnically diverse communities, but those who are socially disadvantaged. I have taken this Bill to them and they have made it really clear—this is not just one community, but several, and I am not speaking on my behalf, but on theirs—that they are really fearful because this is what happened to them in covid. It affected everyone, but it affected some communities disproportionately because our services are not equitable. That could profoundly affect their healthcare, and not only in terms of end-of-life care. They are saying, “We will not even come to hospital ourselves, because we are worried that this would happen.” This is not an academic or theoretical risk. We saw it happen in covid in Bradford. There were communities so worried that their loved ones were dying in hospital that they stayed at home and died earlier. It is not a theoretical risk. They also identified people within the community who they thought would have assisted dying but, invariably, without exception, every single one of those cases was from the most deprived and disadvantaged people in their community. With the 40-year-old woman who had lost her children, is sofa-surfing and an alcoholic, and had recently been diagnosed with cancer, they said, “She probably would want to go for it,” but that is because she cannot get the mental health and social care support she needs. I do not think it is clear. Would I have to safeguard that person and get her that support or, as these communities asked me, would the only thing on offer be assisted dying? It has really profound implications for these communities. We only have to look at covid and vaccine hesitancy. As you said, that was a brilliant intervention and highly effective, but it disproportionately impacted these communities. That is why my recommendations—I will put them in writing—are that we have not only to strengthen the Bill but to strengthen those conditions. I think it is manageable, but it takes a different kind of leadership. That is probably the key thing, but I genuinely think we can get there.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Crown Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that victims of crime have the swift access to justice that they deserve, so I welcome the extra funding from this Government that will lead to more than 106,000 sitting days in Crown courts this financial year. That includes nearly 3,000 in the Crown courts in Kent. Does the Minister agree that dealing with the court backlog left by the Conservatives is essential to make sure that offenders are quickly brought to justice and faith is restored in the criminal justice system?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Crown Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps her Department is taking to reduce the backlog of Crown court cases.

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in the House as the first ever Labour Member of Parliament for Ashford. I am delighted to be called to speak in this important debate. I congratulate all new Members who have delivered their maiden speeches today. I am beyond grateful and deeply proud to have this opportunity to do so, and I am excited to represent a community such as Ashford, which is waiting upon change—not just any change, but change that speaks volumes. I was excited to commute to London after I was elected, but I was shocked at the expense of £93 for an hour-long train journey. That is the same as it would cost me to get my weekly groceries at a bargain shop in Ashford. Luckily, we have more and more bargain shops opening for business in Ashford. I intend to press for the implementation of policies that will maintain and restore our town’s natural beauty, as well as introducing more local businesses to help Ashford to thrive and bring back its prosperity. I take joy in representing such a diverse community as ours and, coming from Kerala, a southern state in India, I am proud to have been selected by the people of Ashford. Ashford has been a market town since the middle ages and is home to a hospital named after the renowned physician William Harvey. It is a major hospital for those within east Kent. Many rely on that establishment to deliver many forms of healthcare, but recently it has been overcrowded yet understaffed. Having worked in the NHS as a mental health nurse for the past 22 years, this is a subject I hold close to my heart, and it is certainly something I would like to look into. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Damian Green, and the work he has done for Ashford over the past 27 years, as well as acknowledging his impressive record in the House, having been First Secretary of State, Minister for the Cabinet Office, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice and, finally, Minister of State for Immigration. I have great respect for the successes he had, such as working on a cross-party basis with local councillors to bring an excellent skills-focused college to Ashford, attracting more keen students to the heart of the town. He also supported work to convert the previously derelict Newtown Works into a film studio and he has helped to protect the Kent countryside, both of which I value dearly, as protecting the beauty of the constituency is vital. I would also like to acknowledge Damian Green’s efforts in campaigning to bring back services to the continent from Ashford International train station, which is a personal target of mine. I believe Ashford would benefit from restoring that international travel, as it previously heightened tourism and the number of businesses, both foreign and local, situated in the town. I am pleased that the King’s Speech highlighted the idea of a better relationship with Europe through the creation of a new policy, which will assist in bringing international travel back to Ashford. Ashford has great connectivity to London, thanks to the development of HS1. As a result, more people have chosen to move towards Ashford and make it their home. However, the infrastructure has simply not caught up. GP surgeries, dentists, housing, roads and schools need improvement, and I will campaign on these issues as the new Member of Parliament. As there have recently been boundary changes to my constituency, I would also like to pay tribute to my other predecessor, Damian Collins, who represented the parts of Folkestone and Hythe that are now within the new Ashford constituency—namely, Hawkinge and surrounding villages. I am glad to embrace the natural beauty and historic significance of these areas. RAF Hawkinge was important during the second world war and, as the closest operational airfield to France, it was used during the battle of Britain to defend against enemy aerial attacks. I could go on and on about the constituency’s unique and vibrant towns and villages. As the House can tell, I am very content and very proud to represent these areas. Our farmers play a valuable role both locally, in rural areas of the constituency, and in the wider economy. Importantly, they help to provide food security, stabilising the agricultural sector. However, they also face workforce shortages and are being hit hard by increasing energy costs. I am pleased that the King’s Speech contains a Bill to create the publicly owned Great British Energy, which will reduce energy bills in the long term. It is clear that our public services are in decline. The NHS faces many problems. Staff lack morale, and mental health services, in particular, are deteriorating. My career background is in the NHS and mental health, so this is close to home. I have seen children as young as nine years old self-harming, and I have seen many people, young and old, end their life while waiting for treatment. This is a serious issue, and it must be addressed. It is clear that, in recent years, the importance and value of our NHS has not been highlighted, so its maintenance has not been prioritised. We face an ever-growing yet ageing population, leading to hospital overcrowding and a heavy dependence on social care, which is itself hanging by a thread. Yet the hospitals are severely understaffed and hugely underfunded, to the point that we can no longer fulfil people’s demands or catch up with these growing issues. After hearing His Majesty’s Speech, I am reassured that a new Bill will be introduced to address mental health and learning difficulties, and that the Government have already taken the initial steps. This is a necessary step towards reaching a better NHS and a better future in which we can get people back to work, supporting economic growth. Finally, I thank the members and supporters of Ashford Labour party for their work to secure this historic victory in Ashford, as well as extending my thanks to my wife, Brita, and our three children. I am incredibly proud to be standing here on behalf of my constituents, and I look forward to working with those around me, from all parties, to make the change that our country desperately needs.