Zöe Franklin MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In June, the Department made the welcome announcement of legislation to allow proxy voting and remote attendance, which will help to drive up the diversity of councillors across the country, but the Government have not yet set out a timeline. Will the Minister advise the House on when a timeline will be shared, and whether the Government have considered including the changes in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Police: Professional Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate speech on behalf of his constituents on this difficult issue. As other Members have, I pay tribute to my police force, Surrey police. They do great work, but sadly things sometimes do go wrong. I have had to deal with a number of cases in my constituency office where the process has not worked in the way we would all like it to. People have gone to the police with complaints, only to find themselves in distress and unable to trust the outcomes because, in effect, the local force—although also in another case with the Met—has marked its own homework. The complaint has stayed with that force, which does not fill people with the confidence they need for their case. Does my hon. Friend agree that serious consideration is needed? If we want people to trust our fantastic police forces up and down the country, we need to look seriously at the current situation so that we can move to one where other forces review some of the most serious complaints.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  There are some tragic stories of horrendous errors with EHCPs in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly important that accountability is maintained in the system? If we cannot get it right now, how will we be able to—under the potential threat of EHCPs no longer existing—ensure that families and children are protected and get the support they need, and that the accountability of county councils and local authorities is maintained?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Supporters of the switch-off argue that most homes will have gigabit broadband by the 2030s, but of course theoretical access does not guarantee adoption by households. Around 13 million to 19 million adults are estimated to be living in digital poverty, and the switchover risks pushing more households into such poverty. We know that it is not just older people and people living in rural communities who do not have or will not be able to access digital television. We also know that one in five children is affected by digital poverty, which can have a huge impact on their educational outcomes. So I really am concerned that the proposed switch-off risks extending the digital divide, with unequal access to entertainment and educational resources, as well as to unbiased news. We need to be clear about the cost of the switchover. Terrestrial television currently accounts for just 3% of the licence fee. By contrast, switching entirely to internet-only delivery could cost £2.1 billion up front and £1 billion annually. I want to ask the Minister who is fronting those costs. For the 4.3 million households who rely exclusively on terrestrial TV, it could mean an extra £218 per year simply to access content that today is free to air. All this comes at a time when one in four households already struggles to afford their communication services, and when millions have had to cancel broadband contracts to make ends meet during the cost of living crisis. Once again, the switchover has risks. I think we can all agree that in the current world, terrestrial TV has an important role as a trusted source of information. Research shows that 96% of people trust the information that they receive on terrestrial TV. In this age of misinformation, that is not a luxury; it is a necessity in a healthy democracy and civic society. Broadcast television is a shared civic space where the nation comes together, whether it is for the coronation, the Olympics, the “Gavin and Stacey” finale or the women’s Euros, which reached more than 22 million on the BBC alone. Terrestrial broadcasting is not just about culture. It underpins our critical national infrastructure, supporting radio, emergency alerts and communication during crises. Are we comfortable discarding such resilience in our world, which is sadly encountering growing global instability and increasing informational interference from hostile foreign Governments? I am not arguing against digital innovation. Streaming offers flexibility and choice for those who can afford it, but it needs to complement, not replace, terrestrial broadcasting. That is why Ofcom has recommended a hybrid model combining digital, terrestrial and IPTV to give guaranteed universality and resilience. I ask the Minister: who will bear the burden of the annual cost of switching off terrestrial television? Will it be taxpayers, the vulnerable or both? How will the Government preserve emergency broadcasting if the network is dismantled? Does the Minister acknowledge that abandoning terrestrial TV risks widening the digital divide, raising household costs and potentially weakening our national resilience? Terrestrial television remains one of the last universal and accessible public services, and we should not dismantle that before every household has a real, affordable alternative.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a privilege to speak in this debate honouring the legacy of Sir David Amess—an MP who tirelessly advocated for his constituents. I could feel how all colleagues who have spoken are also deeply passionate about their communities, and it is a privilege to be part of the debate. Sir David Amess’s Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 was ahead of its time in recognising that action on energy poverty and environmental policy are two sides of the same coin. Today, I want to speak in that same spirit about one of the defining challenges of our time: the climate and nature emergency. Despite the suggestions from Reform MPs and some Conservatives that policies on the environment are a waste of governmental time and money, residents from across my Guildford constituency have spoken clearly, urgently and passionately about the crisis facing our environment. What is striking is not just how much people care, but how much they believe that the Government are falling short. Sixty-five per cent of Surrey residents do not think the Government are doing enough on climate and nature. Polling by Surrey county council’s resident insight unit shows that climate change and environmental policy consistently rank in the top five public concerns, alongside healthcare and NHS privatisation. The determination to see action begins young, as was clear when my constituents from Burpham primary school wrote to me recently about their concerns about deforestation and the heartbreaking loss of animals, birds and plants that comes with it. They understand that cutting down trees fuels global warming, destroys animal habitats and wipes out potential medical solutions that could one day save human lives. Tormead school eco club wrote to me about the challenge of sewage pollution in our waterways—one of our country’s most shameful current environmental failures. Although I welcome the pledge to halve sewage pollution by 2030, action is happening far too slowly, but collectively we can do better. Community actions groups such as Zero Carbon Guildford are doing the kind of work in my constituency that we should back at a national level. Zero Carbon, in work with the Water Rangers and the River Wey Trust, regularly tests our precious waterways to monitor sewage pollution. Nearly 500 residents are trained in citizen science, nine water-testing hubs are now active, and a new community water lab has been opened, in partnership with the University of Surrey in my constituency. That is proof that local people are not just waiting for change; they are making it. But they should not have to do it alone. They tell me that they want the Government to match their urgency. They want visible leadership on nature protection, tougher laws to stop sewage polluting our rivers, green spaces protected from poor planning decisions and support to make their homes warmer and cheaper to run. On that point, the evidence already shows that insulating and retrofitting homes could slash energy demand by the equivalent of six nuclear power stations. It could cut household bills by a quarter, save the NHS £1.5 billion a year, and prevent nearly 10,000 deaths caused by cold and damp housing annually. This is not just an environmental policy; it is a health and cost of living policy, too. I say to colleagues across the House that if residents are that engaged and schoolchildren are that active, what excuse do we have not to act with a level of urgency matching theirs? I will end by highlighting one of the most visible ways in which we can lead: by supporting sustainable transport. Residents are asking for better, greener transport options. They want joined-up infrastructure that serves people, not just cars. That is why I am pushing for a new train station in Guildford, and I am calling for the Government’s support to make that happen. Guildford’s residents have been waiting for more than a decade for a decision on that. Given the major housing development taking place locally, the appetite among local businesses and residents for greener ways to travel, and the Government’s commitment to rail travel, I say simply that now is the time. Let this summer recess not be a pause in our work but a call to action for when we return. Let us deliver the cleaner air, safer streets and low-carbon transport systems that communities are calling for. If we do not act, we are not just failing future generations; we are failing this one. I hope that we have the restorative recess that we all need, particularly those of us who have spent our first year in this place. I say an enormous thank you to all the staff across the House, whether they work for us or help to make the House function. Without them, we would not be able to serve our residents in the way we do. I wish everyone a very good recess.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Public Service Delivery · Hansard source

  More

  10. What support his Department is providing to local partnerships to improve public service delivery.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Public Service Delivery · Hansard source

  More

  It is really good to hear about that partnership working with local communities and local government. In June, I had the privilege of going to the launch of a new innovative partnership between the University of Surrey and Guildford and Waverley borough councils, which is seeking to apply the university’s global research expertise to real-world problems faced by local communities, from creating better housing to addressing the shortage of planners. How will the Government support important initiatives like this, which seek to deliver on the Government’s aim to innovate and improve public service delivery and which matter even more as local government reorganisation progresses across Surrey?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Generative Artificial Intelligence: Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this important debate. AI use in schools has reached a critical juncture. According to Ofcom, 50% of children aged eight to 17 have already used AI tools. The Alan Turing Institute and LEGO report that 60% of teachers actively use generative AI. We have heard many colleagues across the Chamber today reference that. AI is everywhere, whether through explicit choice or integration into Google Workspace, Microsoft 365 Education and countless educational tools. The Government have funded AI development for teachers to speed lesson planning and reduce workloads, positioning AI as central to educational transformation. Yet, as 5Rights highlights, no statutory standards currently govern genAI use in schools. The Government’s own AI opportunities action plan fails to address children and their rights and development needs, despite encouraging schools to “move fast and learn things” when piloting these technologies. With AI’s undeniable rise, the Government really need to address this head on, hence today’s debate is incredibly important. We have heard across the room today that AI presents genuine opportunities for education. For teachers struggling with budget cuts from the last Conservative Government, AI can ease the burden of lesson planning, marking and administrative tasks. For students, responsible engagement with these technologies prepares them for tomorrow’s world of work. Those who understand technological change and harness AI effectively will thrive in today’s and tomorrow’s economy. They will be prepared for an AI-dominated world where critical thinking and analysis become even more vital. However, serious concerns are emerging about generative AI’s impact. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology research indicates that “over-reliance on AI tools could lead to the erosion of teaching, writing and reasoning skills”. The MIT Media Lab recently released a study that was so urgent, it published it before peer review. The study showed that students using ChatGPT showed dramatically lower brain activity than those writing without AI. Brain scans revealed a 32% drop in cognitive load. After just weeks of use, 83% could not even remember what they had supposedly written. That is really concerning information. We can understand why it was so keen to publish it, despite the fact that it had not yet been peer reviewed. The voices of concern grow louder, UNESCO warns that AI roll-out is “outpacing the adaptation of national regulatory frameworks.” Even industry leaders in the Alan Turing Institute acknowledge we have “limited evidence on the impact of AI use in education on learners’ development”. Evidence mounts about the negative effects of an unsafe online world. Research by 5Rights and the London School of Economics found that “EdTech products used in schools are highly invasive of children’s privacy and rely on the extensive collection of children’s data.” As we heard earlier, the NSPCC has documented cases where generative AI created deepfakes of children in schools, and the Children’s Commissioner has called for urgent action. This is particularly concerning given that many AI tools have not been developed with the younger audience in mind. We Liberal Democrats call for a public health approach to the online world, including AI, to ensure that children remain safe online and can enjoy their childhood as intended. We also call on the Government to introduce a safer screens taskforce that would be empowered to ensure a public health approach to children’s social media across all Government Departments, and lead research into social media’s impact on children. We believe that the UK must lead the world in building a future where AI is developed and deployed ethically, transparently and in the public interest. We favour a workable and well-resourced framework for AI that can promote innovation and protect individual rights and freedoms. We call on the Government to establish a cross-sector AI regulator, combining flexible, ethical oversight and technological expertise to ensure that the UK keeps pace with rapid technological advances. As Liberal Democrats, we also believe that we should modernise our curriculum to face 21st century challenges, offering an approach that allows students to explore pathways in science, maths and the arts without prejudicing their learning in other disciplines. Such a curriculum must embed digital and data literacy throughout children’s learning experience, preparing every single student for a future shaped by AI and new technologies. I have a few questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer in his remarks. What skills audit has been done to ensure that we have the right skills for AI, and for working alongside AI, such as critical thinking? We welcome DFE guidance that pupils should only be using generative AI in education settings with appropriate safeguards in place, such as close supervision. But where is the implementation guidance, and where are the resources for schools to achieve this? Finally, how will this Government prevent AI from widening inequality between those with access and those without? Once again, I am grateful for being able to take part in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for bringing it to this Chamber. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, which I hope will be just the start of an ongoing conversation on this incredibly important issue, as we look to the future of our young people.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. I wish to raise the case of my constituent whose 89-year-old father was subject to serious abuse through a lasting power of attorney. It took two years and significant legal costs to get the power of attorney removed through the Court of Protection. The father tragically died, homeless and penniless. Does the Minister believe that the current LPA protections are sufficient to prevent such abuse, and will the Government consider an urgent review and reform of the system?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for outlining the PCREF and the focus that it will have in addressing these issues. I was particularly interested in the explanation of the iterative approach that it will allow. I also thank the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh for his insights into the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 2 Mental Health Crisis Breathing Space “(1) Any person detained under sections 3, 37, 41 or 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 must be offered support from the mental health crisis breathing space debt respite scheme.” —(Dr Chambers.) This new clause ensures that MHCBS, a debt respite scheme, is offered and available to patients detained under sections 3, 37, 41 and 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments; it was really helpful to hear about how he sees the timings in our new clause fitting with the ongoing work to implement the Mental Health Act and the commissioning of the independent review. I am concerned about his comment that the work will be dependent on funding. I hope that the funding for the important independent review will be ensured. However, on the basis of the Minister’s comments, I am happy not to press any of the new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 16 Transfer of patients: out of area placements “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) After section 19 (transfer of patients), insert— ‘ 19A Transfer of patients: out of area placements (1) The Secretary of State must reduce to zero, within five years of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, the number of patients transferred to a hospital outside of the area in which the patient is ordinarily resident. (2) The Secretary of State must publish, within six months of the passage of the Mental Health Act 2025, a report to outline how the duty under this section will be met, including how provision for treatment under this Act will be increased.’”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the transfer of patients to hospitals outside of their area to be reduced to zero within 5 years, and for the Secretary of State to produce a report on how this will be achieved. Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. New clause 1 seeks to ensure that racial disparities in the use of community treatment orders are properly understood, monitored and addressed. We have known for many years that black individuals are disproportionately subjected to coercive powers under the Mental Health Act 1983, including detention, restraint and community treatment orders, yet progress has been painfully slow. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review within 12 months of the Bill passing and to publish the findings within 18 months. It would look specifically at whether certain racial or ethnic groups are over-represented among those who are subject to community treatment orders, and whether there are disparities in outcomes—including treatment effectiveness and patient experience—across racial groups. The aim is not just to collect data, but for meaningful scrutiny of how coercive community powers are applied and whether they are serving all groups equally. The 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act found that black individuals were more than eight times more likely to be placed under a CTO than white individuals. That is not a minor discrepancy, but a structural injustice. The review also raised concerns that CTOs were not necessarily used because they are clinically effective, but because they are seen as a way to manage risk, particularly where racialised assumptions come into play. We must ask, are CTOs truly supporting recovery, or are they disproportionately used to control and surveil? Are they fostering trust or fear in mental health services? The new clause would give Parliament the information we need to answer those questions. It would set a timeline for transparency and create a foundation for future policy reform that is rooted in fairness and equality. In the absence of this new clause, we risk continuing a system where racial injustice is baked into mental health practice, without sufficient oversight or accountability. If this Government are serious about tackling racial inequality in mental health, they will have no objection to this basic measure of review and reporting. We have discussed specific disparities in previous clauses, but new clause 3 aims to ensure that systematic and sustained action is embedded in the way that mental health services are run. The disproportionate detention and coercive treatment of black and minority ethnic people under the Mental Health Act has been evidenced for decades, yet progress on addressing these inequalities has been too slow and too inconsistent across the country. New clause 3 takes a structural approach. It would require each mental health provider to appoint a dedicated senior lead to take responsibility for reducing inequalities within their services—not in name only, but through published plans covering staff diversity, culturally appropriate advocacy care planning and the use of advance choice documents. It would also ensure that frontline staff receive ongoing training that equips them to recognise and respond to disparities and uphold anti-discriminatory practice, with regular refreshes to ensure that this learning stays live. Importantly, it would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report breaking down how the Bill is used across racial and other demographic groups, and what progress is being made to close those gaps. This is not about creating more paperwork; it is about requiring leadership, transparency and accountability at every level, from clinical teams through to Government. If this Bill is to earn the title of a reform, it must act decisively on the most pertinent inequalities in the system. I urge the Committee to support the new clauses.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would introduce a dedicated veterans’ mental health oversight officer, recognising that those who serve or have served in the UK or Commonwealth armed forces face distinct mental health challenges that are not always adequately met by the current system. Far too many veterans experience post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety or substance misuse that, sadly, is linked to their service. Yet they are often treated within a system that does not fully take account of those experiences, and they are sometimes detained under the Mental Health Act without the benefit of trauma-informed, veteran-specific pathways of care. New clause 9 seeks to change that. It would create an independent officer, tasked with monitoring the use of the Mental Health Act in relation to veterans, advocating for tailored assessment and care linked to veterans’ service history, promoting alternatives to detention where appropriate, particularly through veteran-specific services, and reporting annually to Parliament on outcomes including rates of detention, recidivism and systemic barriers. It is not just about oversight; it is about respect and responsibility.

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

  More

  When it comes to enabling the Mental Health Act to function, having an understanding on the ground of the picture across our communities regarding mental health wellbeing is very important. That is why we tabled the new clause, which would allow us to get community care right. That would then feed into the crisis care that we are discussing in this Committee.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 19 would require the Secretary of State to report on mental health outcomes for LGBT patients detained or treated under the Mental Health Act 1983, and to publish clear guidance to improve staff training, patient safety and inclusive care for that group. We all deserve appropriate support when experiencing poor mental health, and that support must be fair and respectful, no matter whether the patient identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Members of the LGBT community should have confidence that they will be treated with dignity and should not face unequal or inappropriate treatment because of who they are. Unfortunately, we know that that is not always the reality. Stonewall’s “LGBT in Britain—Health” report revealed deeply concerning findings: almost one in four LGBT individuals had heard discriminatory or negative remarks about them from healthcare staff, one in eight had experienced unequal treatment, one in 10 had been outed without their consent in healthcare settings, and one in seven had avoided treatment altogether for fear of discrimination. That is unacceptable anywhere in our health system, but it is especially alarming in mental health settings, where patients are already in distress and often detained, and may not be in a position to advocate for themselves.

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

  More

  I see them as absolutely sympathetic to each other and working in concert. We want to ensure that veterans have specific, tailored mental health care, as is outlined in the Bill. That is why the new clause would ensure that veterans’ unique needs are not just recognised but actively addressed. It is a practical and overdue step to improve care, safeguard rights and deliver the joined-up service that veterans deserve. After all, they give so much to our nation through their service. I hope that the Minister will support the new clause, but if he does not, I hope that he will outline for the Committee how the Government will ensure that the aims of the new clause will be addressed through the Bill and its accompanying documents as they stand.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments. In particular, I was interested to hear about the mental health centre pilot schemes. I look forward to their further roll-out. They will be crucial in addressing the issues that we sought to address in the new clause. I was also very pleased to hear about the focus on a meaningful partnership between local government, national Government and mental health providers. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 7 Funding and reporting “(1) For each financial year until all sections of this Act have come into force, of the total health service expenditure by the bodies (taken together) in subsection (2), the proportion which relates to mental health spending— (a) under the Mental Health Act 1983, and (b) under this Act or which, in future, would be made under provision inserted into the Mental Health Act 1983 by this Act, (taken together) must not decrease. (2) The bodies are the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and integrated care boards.”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require that mental health spending as a proportion of health service expenditure must not decrease in the implementation period of the Act. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  New clause 15 calls for an independent review of whether the legislation achieves one of its core aims: reducing unnecessary detention under the Mental Health Act. People with learning disabilities and autistic people are still far too often detained in hospital settings, sometimes for months or years, despite clear evidence that community-based support would be more effective and humane. The Bill’s provisions—including those on grounds for detention, care and treatment planning and aftercare—are supposed to address that, but if we do not review their impact, there is a risk that they remain warm words without real change. The new clause would ensure that the Government must review how well the new law is working, in particular for those most vulnerable to inappropriate detention, and then act on that evidence within a year. If we are serious about reform, which I believe the Government are given the content of the Bill, then the new clause would ensure serious scrutiny and accountability. I turn to new clause 18. Eating disorders are complex, often misunderstood and frequently mismanaged in the mental health system. Too many patients face delayed interventions, inappropriate detention or a lack of tailored care, particularly when their condition does not fit into a narrow clinical threshold. The Bill introduces reforms to detention criteria, treatment decisions and care planning, but we must ensure that the changes actually work for people with eating disorders. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months that assesses the Bill’s impact on patients with eating disorders, including whether it is has improved access to appropriate treatment, safeguarded against unnecessary detention and strengthened aftercare. This is a matter not just of policy but of real people’s lives. We owe it to this vulnerable group to ensure that the reforms deliver real change, and that they are not left behind in a system that is still too often shaped by other conditions. Finally, on new clause 23, children and young people in temporary foster care are some of the most vulnerable in our system. They often face multiple disruptions in care, placement and support, all of which can significantly impact their mental health. The new clause asks for a focused impact assessment on how the changes in the legislation will affect them. In particular, the new clause looks at whether the ordinary residence rules delay or block access to mental health treatment, whether placement changes disrupt continuity of care, and whether the provisions in section 125G of the Mental Health Act unintentionally harm this group. Foster children should not fall through the cracks of bureaucracy. If we are serious about improving mental health services for all, we must understand and address the unique risks that face those who are moved frequently, often with little warning or support. An impact assessment is a necessary first step to ensure that their needs are not overlooked. I commend all the new clauses to the Committee and look forward to hearing from the Minister.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments—particularly about Op Courage, Op Nova and the armed forces covenant—and for his commitment to the veterans who have served this country and their courage, even when they face challenges with their mental health. The Liberal Democrats are willing to withdraw the amendment, but we will observe the passage of the Bill closely to ensure that it serves our veterans well across the UK. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 11 Costed plan to ensure community provision for individuals with learning disabilities and autism who are at risk of detention “(1) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a fully costed plan for how Integrated Care Boards and local authorities will ensure provision of adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people who are at risk of detention under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. (2) As part of the development of that plan, a formal consultation process must take place to determine how the decision to enact the relevant parts of this Act will be made. (3) The consultation must include input from relevant stakeholders, including— (a) individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people; (b) carers for people with learning disabilities and autistic people; (c) healthcare professionals; and (d) advocacy groups.” —(Dr Evans.) This new clause requires a costed plan to ensure that ICBs and local authorities are able to provide adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people at risk of detention under Part 2 of the 1983 Act, informed by a consultation with a range of stakeholders. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments, for the recognition that individuals in the LGBT community clearly have concerns about the way that mental health care is provided, and for the commitment to addressing those. I hope that at some point he will be able to advise on the timeline for looking to resolve the issue of the unreliability of data; it is crucial that we have accurate data in order to ensure good outcomes and improvements in mental health care. However, in the light of the Minister’s comments and commitment on the issue, we will not press the new clause, although I look forward to observing closely, as this Bill continues through the House, how it will address the current inequalities for the LGBT+ community. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 22 National strategy on mental health units “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) In Part VIII (Miscellaneous Functions of Local Authorities and the Secretary of State), after section 118, insert— ‘ 118A National strategy on mental health units (1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of the Mental Health Act 2025, publish a national strategy to set out how the Government will ensure that all relevant mental health units meet or exceed ‘good’ safety standards as assessed by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). (2) A strategy issued under this section must address the following matters— (a) recruitment, retention and training of mental health staff, (b) patient-to-staff ratios, and (c) safe staffing levels during crises and night shifts. (3) Following publication of the strategy, a report on implementation progress must be laid before Parliament annually. (4) For the purposes of this section, a ‘relevant mental health unit’ is a facility used for treatment under this Act.”— (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy, followed by an annual progress report, on how the Government will ensure that all mental health units used for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 are rated “good” or above by the CQC. Brought up, and read the First time .

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require local authorities and commissioning bodies to promote and report annually on mental health wellbeing in regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State.

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

  More

  The hon. Member makes a really good point. There is definitely a place for ensuring that we work on this further to make sure that it covers that. I will come on to that later, if she will allow me. We know that early intervention is key. We know that families, carers and those around an individual are often the first to spot the warning signs, and that they need to feel empowered, not sidelined. I hear time and again, as I am sure hon. Members across this Committee Room have heard, from people who have been left out of the discharge planning for their loved ones. They say that they have received no clear information and that they feel unsupported and unable to fully support their loved one when they return home. Importantly, the new clause sets out a process whereby, if a family member wants to raise a concern, the team must consider whether that individual should be added to the register of persons at risk of detention under part II of the Mental Health Act. We believe that this is a sensible, joined-up approach to prevention, spotting risks early and acting before a crisis point is reached. Finally, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish national guidance and ensure consistency and clarity across the system. We often speak of carers as the invisible workforce of our NHS. The new clause would make their contribution visible by recognising their role and giving them the information and support they need to fulfil it well.