5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The hon. Member makes a pertinent point. As I said, the word “competition” seems to refer to the sort of flyaway league we have discussed; are one-off friendlies competitions under the terms of the Bill?
I appreciate the desire to legislate for bad owners, but is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about good owners who might find money very tight? They have assets beyond the home ground and team itself that they might have to consider selling, including a training ground, to remain financially viable and therefore be on the right side of the regulator in their business plan. Is he not concerned that, by extending even further the regulator’s purview into all properties, he might overly constrain good owners from doing what they want to save their clubs?
The Minister knows—I have approached her about this—that a club in my constituency of Spelthorne has gone into administration. It has no home ground, but it does have a training ground, which is a community asset. I am intrigued to know whether, in the potential conflict between the purview of the regulator and the enactment of companies law in dealing with the administration of the company, the provisions in the clause give the regulator power to influence the administrator on the manner of the administration and whether clubs’ training grounds can be bought or sold. What is the hierarchy of legislative authority between companies law and the clause?
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I do not know whether the Minister has ever run a company that was approaching either administration or insolvency, but had she, she would know that a number of incredibly onerous and important duties are placed on the directors of such companies, which are literally minute by minute, in terms of them being shown to be acting responsibly. That can include, potentially, having multiple board meetings during a day, which are minuted, in order to revisit the “going concern” statement that the company does indeed have sufficient resources to meet its obligations as they fall due. The penalties for failing to act responsibly and in accordance with the Insolvency Act 1986 in such circumstances can include being barred as a director of any company by the Secretary of State for a number of years, whereas the jeopardy in this Bill is possibly losing the ability to own a football club or to be an officer thereof. On the basis that we can all become millionaires or start-up billionaires and buy a football club, it is very concerning that we are putting in law the ability to override the directors of said companies’ obligations under the Insolvency Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government have taken any legal advice on the specific question about the potential conflict between obligations on directors under the Insolvency Act and obligations on owners and officers under the Bill.
The shadow Minister is making a completely reasonable amendment. We have the emblem, colours and name. Does he agree that it would be helpful if the Minister explained why the name has been taken out for different treatment from the emblem and the colours?
I welcome the fact that the Minister is saying, “Let’s trust existing organisations to do it”, rather than bringing it within the purview of a higher regulator. On the basis that the FA has exercised such responsibilities when it comes to names, why cannot it be trusted to have the same consideration for emblems and colours?
I am intrigued to know whether, with all his experience, his chairmanship of the football all-party parliamentary group and his background with the Bill, the hon. Gentleman thinks he has yet received an adequate explanation from the Minister on why emblems and colours are treated differently from the names of clubs.
Again, I am concerned about the clash of duties. The Minister has already told us that her team and the insolvency team have met and considered this issue. In a period of liquidation, not putting additional debt into a company, or indeed spending cash, is one of the directors’ responsibilities, but this will undoubtedly cost the club. Has the Minister sought and received reassurances that this approach is consistent with the Insolvency Act?
I want to clarify whether the Minister is entirely comfortable that the Government are in no way able to control the amount of money spent by the regulator. If, in fulfilling its duties, the regulator decided it was important to fly business class to meet UEFA and FIFA once a month—if I were the regulator, I could probably make the case that I was fulfilling my duties by doing that—it would create a huge cost and involve hiring additional staff. Are the Government really prepared to give the regulator a blank cheque?
I agree with the Minister—my understanding of what she just said is the same—but that leaves a tiny bit of clarity still to be given. Will all the normal running costs of the regulator be met by the levy, and none by the taxpayer?
Let me provide some context. I will not name the team, but there is a team in the National League whose cash at hand in 2020 was £25,000, and by 2022 that had reduced to £9,802. We are talking about clubs with an incredibly tight financial structure. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister that changes may be minor to the regulator, but they will not be minor to such teams.
I do not know whether the Minister has ever conducted a judicial review, but we could not get one done for £9,000.
Lky7 Sports is a small cycle and nutrition business in Ashford in my constituency. It has been hammered by the loss of small business rate relief, and wrote to me yesterday saying: “The Government say that they are helping small business, but this is a joke when our business rates have gone from nothing to £1,800. We are seriously considering closing the shop down.” What advice does the Minister have for that boss?
It is a pleasure to follow such excellent contributions from Members from all parts of the House in this important debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this vital debate. I pay tribute to the parents, the carers, the schools and all those who have battled tirelessly to secure funding for SEND students. I was one of those SEND students who benefited from my parents tirelessly campaigning for me to have the disability support I needed in school. It has only taken me this long to finally say thank you. Such support plays a vital role in children’s long-term success. Members from all parts of the House have raised this issue today because they can see the merits in fighting for children’s chances, particularly in primary school, to increase their success overall. We know that finding the right provision can be difficult and bureaucratic for children with SEND and their families. Securing the right assessment of a child’s needs, getting their education, health and care plan, and finding the right provision takes huge effort and far too long. Many parents who have come to me have been absolutely choked and suffocated by the system. Too often, children with SEND face a postcode lottery, with suitable provision too far from their home or, in the worst cases, no suitable provision at all. According to the 2024 data, we now have 1.67 million children who have been identified as having SEND— 18.4% of all school pupils. We know that the number has grown significantly over the last few years, which is why the Conservatives opened 108 new specialist schools, committed to a further 92 and delivered over 60,000 new special needs school places. The growth in children with SEND is why getting the distribution of funding correct really does matter. We know that not enough of the funding is reaching schools and the children who need it the most. We know that as the number of children with SEND has increased, the deficit from the high-needs block has become financially unsustainable, as many Members have alluded to today. That is why we must confront the challenges facing local government when the statutory override ends in March 2026, and we would like to hear what assurances the Minister can give on how councils can address the deficit.
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that excellent point. Many Members have raised this issue, and perhaps we can have another debate in Government time on how SEND funding can follow the student, rather than just having it allocated. The needs of a SEND student will change over time, which is why parents often change educational providers. Children may go into independent school settings and then come back to state settings, and parents are constantly battling the system. It is worth looking at whether we can have a model in which the funding follows the student. Many parents have come to me, and I am sure to other Members, to ask for VAT not to be charged on independent school fees, because over 100,000 pupils with SEND who were being supported in that educational setting now have to go back into the state sector, which cannot cope with rising costs and the number of students entering the system. I ask the Government to urgently look at that and to U-turn on the policy of charging VAT on school fees, because SEND children are falling through the cracks as a result. For SEND students in primary school, it is very important that they have educational support through teachers. Primary school teachers are some of the most important teachers. They changed my life and helped me cope with my disability, and I would not be here today if I had not had them. The Government claimed that they would recruit 6,500 more teachers, but we have now heard that they will not do so. The truth is that there are now 400 fewer teachers than there were a year ago. Promises have been made, but this promise seems to have been broken. However, it is even worse than that. When it comes to SEND, primary schools play a vital role, but this Government have had to quietly drop primary school teachers from their promise to recruit 6,500 teachers, and I honestly want to know why that is. Primary schools are where children with hidden SEND will first present. If there is early intervention, the journey to provide them with the right support is much easier. Having that support yields high levels of return, but if it is not put in place in time, we see high levels of exclusion and ultimately see children disengage from education and learning.
The hon. Member makes a wonderful point about the fact that early intervention is underfunded, but such funding actually reaps huge benefits for students. I should declare that I worked at the Centre for Social Justice, where we looked at early intervention as one of the most important ways of turning around the lives of children. Especially for children with special educational needs, early diagnosis and early intervention can make all the difference in their not falling behind when they enter main education. It is rare that I support additional funding, but I do for early intervention because it is life-changing. The years during which we can change a child’s life are those from four to seven. It is such a small window during which we can erase trauma and help with any disability, but that will help them for the rest of their lives, so early intervention makes all the difference for such children in the long term. I ask the Government to listen: to listen to the children, families and schools telling them that SEND funding is not making it to the children who need it; to listen to the local authorities that need clarity urgently on the future of high-needs blocks and the statutory override; to listen to the parents of children at independent schools who are being ripped from settings that work for them because of an Education Secretary who will not listen to the evidence that those schools are the right place for those students at this time; and to listen to the primary schools that are now short of teachers, but are trying to provide SEND support for these children at the most vital stage of their education. It is time for the Government to listen and to make the changes our children with SEND so desperately need.
It is common ridings and festival season in the Scottish Borders, a spectacular and ancient tradition dating back to the battle of Flodden in 1513, bringing together each of the Borders communities to celebrate, so may we have a debate on the importance of the Scottish Borders common ridings and festivals? Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Selkirk’s Royal Burgh standard bearer, Darren Knox, and to wish him very well for this week’s Selkirk common riding?
When it comes to bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis and the jobs at risk there, there is not an elephant in the room—there is a Chinese dragon. The company is in competition not with commercial organisations from China, but with entities of the Chinese state. What representations will the Secretary of State make to the Prime Minister in an attempt to level a playing field that is currently about as flat as the Galloway hills?
I thank the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee for his hard work. It is really heartening that the report has received cross-party support on the Committee and across the House. This is about growth and the economy, which affect every single one of our constituents. Does he agree that the word “practical” is absolutely right in this case? The industrial strategy cannot simply be a Soviet-style tractor production statistics list—it cannot be self-congratulatory. Our report is practical and provides almost a blueprint, and its implementation is absolutely key. The right hon. Gentleman has done an excellent job of setting out the potential that is within our reach. The trick is to make it within our grasp.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I rise to add my support to the amendment that the shadow Minister discussed very well and clearly. The point is that the list set out in clause 37(2)(a) to (f), which gives examples of things that would prevent a potential owner from having the requisite honesty and integrity to own a football club, is missing a provision about their being a member of a proscribed organisation such as a terrorist organisation. In football, which is the most international sport and which has very international ownership, it seems particularly sensible to have that provision. I do not think a terrorist offence is captured by someone being “convicted of a criminal offence”, because, as we know, the Terrorism Act 2000 was put in place to introduce various provisions relating to terrorism where it had not necessarily been identified that a perpetrator had committed a criminal offence. The provision in the amendment would therefore be a fair addition to that list. Of course, clause 37(2)(g) is a catch-all measure that refers to “such other matters”. Nevertheless, the point is that this matter is particularly important and we do not want to leave it to be swept up in a catch-all measure. Of course, if it is argued that it could be swept up in a catch-all measure such as clause 37(2)(g), why have the list in clause 37(2)(a) to (f) at all? I support the sensible and non-controversial amendment.
Can the hon. Member explain what the process the football regulator should go through would look like? The amendment does not specify any standards for what acceptable oversight of the consultation process would be.
The chief executive of UKHospitality estimates that there will be an extra £1 billion of costs on employers for new workers—774,000 of them—coming in to the national insurance contributions regime, on top of £2.4 billion in other costs. If, by the next Budget, it turns out that the previous Budget is crushing the hospitality sector, will the Government consider tax reliefs in order to power our hospitality industry?
As the House will know, we have incoming news of a terrible disaster involving a flight out of Ahmedabad in India. I know that the Leader of the House will want to say a few words, but, from the Conservative Benches—I am sure that I speak for the whole House—let me wish everyone involved and their families the very best. It would be a bad day this week if I did not mention the fantastic news of the knighthood of Sir Billy Boston—it is nice to be able to do that. I hope you will admire my restraint, Mr Speaker, in not mentioning your birthday and therefore not giving any incentive to any other Member of the House to mention it in their remarks either. I had the dubious pleasure, as you did, Mr Speaker, of listening to yesterday’s spending review in this Chamber. It brought to mind President Abraham Lincoln’s immortal line about managing to compress the greatest number of words into the smallest amount of content. I am afraid that the statement was somewhat worse than that. It was, in both its design and delivery, an exercise in distraction and sleight of hand—a document not of economic strategy but of political evasion. We should be clear from the outset that this was a spending review, not a Budget. Unlike a Budget, it was not subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Chancellor’s figures have, therefore, not been externally verified. Her assumptions have not been stress-tested, and her projections have not been independently reviewed. She was not required to publish the full fiscal implications or to give the embarrassing numbers in her own remarks—and, of course, she did not. Even within the confines of departmental budgets, the presentation was, I am afraid, somewhat disingenuous. A final year outside the actual spending review period was included, filled with speculative figures designed to suggest rigour and restraint in budgetary control. This is the illusion of discipline without the reality of delivery. In case any Member is interested, this is on page 13 of the document. Elsewhere, baseline figures were conveniently shifted; most comparisons began from the year 2023-24, not the current year, which had the effect of inflating the apparent scale of any increases. Sizewell C is a classic example. The document trumpets a near 16% increase in investment. In truth, spending over the period is falling by 3.7%. That is on page 44. Similarly, on police funding, the Chancellor was very careful in her language to say that there would be an increase in “police spending power”, but what she meant was that there would be an increase in the local authority precept: in plain English, a tax rise. The same obfuscation was at work with overseas development aid. The Chancellor has always said that ODA cuts were needed to fund defence, but the reality is that defence increases are almost entirely in capital spending, while ODA is a cash line. Far from funding our national defence, what has actually happened is that overseas development aid has been cut to prop up other Departments’ day-to-day budgets. The most obvious case is defence spending: we were told in grand rhetoric that it would rise to 2.5%, and later 3%, of GDP at some undefined moment when fiscal circumstances allow. In fact, it is unlikely that even 2.5% will be reached this Parliament. The 2.6% quoted includes the single intelligence account, which suggests that the number is below 2.5%. The defence investment plan—the plan that will release the money—is unlikely to appear until the end of the year. That is nearly 18 months after the 2024 general election—this at a time of war in Ukraine, and with China potentially positioning itself for conflict over Taiwan by 2027. On Monday NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, echoed yesterday by no less than Lord Robertson, said that unless NATO members raise defence spending to 3.5%, with an additional 1.5% in wider support, we may as well “start learning Russian”. That is the strategic context. The Government’s response has been to dither and delay. The Chancellor’s U-turn over the winter fuel payment badly damaged whatever credibility she ever had. Yesterday’s statement has compounded the problem for her and the Government. No mention was made of the estimated 5% annual council tax increases now expected, as flagged by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. No admission was made that the review will add £140 billion in new borrowing. That is an extra £10 billion a year in interest payments, at current rates, by the end of the period. Meanwhile, the supposed efficiency savings of nearly £14 billion are widely regarded as illusory. As the Chancellor herself said about the spending review, these are her choices. But the truth is plain: there will be a tax cut for the people of Mauritius. For the rest of us, the spending review was a gigantic speculative splurge of spending, presented via smoke and mirrors, which will end up, as it always does with Labour, with higher taxes, and British taxpayers will have to bear the impact.
20. What steps he is taking to help reduce employment costs for employers.
The Minister seems to be in denial. As a former entrepreneur, I visit lots of businesses in my constituency, and I talk to them about their fears. Not a single one has anything positive to say about the Employment Rights Bill—indeed, they are concerned that it will reduce employment, not increase it, and it has been estimated that it will increase costs by more than £5 billion. The Minister has been asked this before, so he has had a lot of time to think about it: can he name a single business that publicly supports the Employment Rights Bill?
Will the Minister confirm that the funding envelope that she set out in a letter to the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn in April stands unchanged after this spending review?
4. What steps he is taking to help reduce employment costs for employers.
Yesterday, Scotbeef announced the closure of its abattoir in Inverurie in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, with 90 job losses and another blow to agriculture in north-east Scotland. It blamed rising costs. In April the increase to national insurance contributions came in—a huge tax rise on businesses—and the Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that 109,000 jobs were lost in May, which was the highest monthly figure in five years. It cannot be a coincidence that that happened the month after the NICs increase. How is the Minister’s Department supporting businesses and jobs in sectors such as agriculture, which are having to deal with huge cost increases because of his Government’s decisions?
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s request to the Government for a review two years after implementation. Does he agree that it needs to be cross-governmental? The Home Office and other bodies such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the NHS will need to be involved.
Before my hon. Friend moves on to the amendments, I want to press him on the point about training, which my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley brought up. I support the change to the thresholds for detention but, given that it is potentially quite a significant change, what level of training will be required? Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have any suggestion about how long it will take to train the relevant professionals so that there is consistency when the Bill becomes law? Does he feel that there should be a period of cooling off or training time before this part of the Bill is implemented, so that the training can catch up?
I think, from what my hon. Friend has said and what the Minister said at the outset, that Members on both sides of the Committee want the same thing, which as far as possible is to keep the police out of the making of these decisions, unless of course—I made this point on Second Reading and was intervened on by the hon. Member for Ashford—someone with a mental health issue has a firearm or something like that. The clear point of dispute is about whether the phrase that was placed in the Bill in the other place achieves that. Would my hon. Friend not agree that someone who has served as Home Secretary and Prime Minister and the noble Lords, who have vast experience in healthcare over many years, have probably got the definition right, which is why the Government should support the wording currently in clause 5?
I agree with my hon. Friend. I think we agree on both sides of the Committee that, where appropriate, police should not be the first responders to this issue, although, obviously, there will be situations where they should be. If the Government push ahead with removing the amendments, is there any indication in the Bill, or indeed elsewhere from the Government, of what they will do to achieve what Members on both sides of the Committee seem to want, which is to avoid, as far as possible, having the police as the detainers and responders? If there is nothing else, I cannot see why the Government would want to remove the amendments made by the noble Lords in the other place.
I am interested in the hon. Member’s argument, but it seems to be entirely the opposite of the one he made when he intervened on me on Second Reading. He said then: “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?”—[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 815.] In that intervention, the hon. Member was pressing for police involvement; now, he seems to be arguing that he wants to take the police out of these settings. I am a little confused by his stance.
My hon. Friend is making a clear point, but I want to add that there are clearly places and situations in which non-police professionals, such as mental health professionals, deal with extremely dangerous and violent patients. They are appropriately trained to do so. It is not in isolation that non-police public professionals are dealing with dangerous people. It is about the right situation, the right place and the right training.
The clause is a necessary reset—[Interruption.] Goodness, what a background noise! If only I had such a response to everything I said. The clause is rooted in the central recommendation of the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, that the criteria for detention are too broad and being applied too inconsistently. Too often we hear stories of people being detained not because they pose a real and present danger, but because services are stretched, community alternatives are not available, or there is simply a lack of clarity on when detention is justified. This clause is necessarily corrective. It raises the bar by introducing a clear and structured risk threshold that requires the possibility of serious harm to health or safety, rather than vague concerns or subjective impressions. The inclusion of terms such as “likelihood” and the focus on actual risk mark a clear move towards the evidence-based practice that we want to see and away from overreach. For me, the key strengths of the clause include, first, a higher threshold for detention. Under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, detention for assessment is permitted only if serious harm may occur. That means that professionals must assess the nature and the degree of harm, as well as the likelihood, injecting rigour and proportionality into decision making. The clause also clarifies the treatment criteria. Under section 3 of the Act, detention for treatment is allowed only if serious harm may occur without it and if treatment is necessary, and, crucially, it must be available. That prevents people from being detained without any therapeutic benefit, a concern that has long plagued the system. The clause also aligns measures across the Mental Health Act: the new threshold applies not only to the initial decision to detain, but to emergency detentions and renewals. That brings consistency and coherence across the different parts of the legislation. The final key point among the strengths of the clause is the definition of the authorised person, which is vital. It ensures that those tasked with detention powers are properly trained and equipped to deal with the complex and often volatile realities of mental health crises. Whether a doctor, an approved mental health professional or a specially trained nurse, the provision ensures that detention is exercised by someone with relevant expertise, not by default by the police. Taken together, the changes significantly strengthen the legal framework around detention, reduce the risk of misuse and reaffirm the principle of least restriction, the idea that coercive care should be used only when no other alternative exists. The problems I have with Government amendments 26 to 29 are as follows. The Minister proposes to delete references to “a constable or other authorised person” from the clause. On the surface, that may appear to be technical, but in fact I think it is a profound and problematic shift. The amendments would weaken the very safeguards that the clause is trying to strengthen. We must be careful about how we frame this. The amendments risk undoing the clarity and purpose of the clause by making it ambiguous who can lawfully detain someone under the Mental Health Act. Instead of defining the responsibility clearly and ensuring that it is held by trained professionals, the amendments will strip the clause back to vague flexibility, with no guarantee that the right expertise is present in real-time decisions. The power to detain and to move individuals to a place of safety, in particular under sections 135 and 136 of the Act, is largely restricted and falls under the responsibility of police officers. These provisions, while designed to protect the public, can often result in the criminalisation of people in acute mental health crises, even when there is no threat of violence or risk to others. Furthermore, the clause as passed by the House of Lords would relieve police officers of responsibilities that fall outside their core expertise, while also reducing the stigma and trauma associated with police-led interventions. It would streamline the process, ensure that individuals are supported by professionals trained specifically in mental health care, and maintain police involvement only where there is a clear and present risk to safety. In doing so, it would significantly strengthen the system and place mental health crises more firmly within the domain of health rather than law enforcement. Let me set out the key problems with Government amendments 26 to 29. First, I think that they will blur the lines of responsibility. The clause rightly states that detention must be carried out by a constable or other authorised person, namely someone who has been designated and trained to carry out this high-stakes task. The Government amendments will remove that requirement. In doing so, they risk creating confusion on the ground about who is permitted to act. In a moment of crisis, ambiguity costs time, and time costs lives.
I confess that I do not entirely follow the hon. Lady’s argument. My understanding is that the people she has listed—for example, hospital security staff—are not covered at the moment, so I do not think that that is the case. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, there are situations, in a number of settings, in which mental health professionals act in the capacity of restraining. With the correct and appropriate training, which is what I think all Opposition Members want, I do not think that the issue that the hon. Member for Thurrock is raising would necessarily arise. Having said that, if she really feels that the wording needs to be tweaked, I look forward to seeing and potentially supporting her amendment to the subsection, and I hope she tables it. The second key problem is the risk of returning the burden to police officers. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House in the debate, and from police forces up and down the country for years, that the police do not have the expertise, training or capacity to be the first responders to mental health emergencies. Clause 5 finally reflects that reality, helping to move the response from law enforcement to healthcare. The Government amendments would muddy that distinction. They would result in the police once again becoming the default responders—not because it is right but because it is unclear who else is meant to act. Thirdly, the amendments introduce legal and safe-guarding risks. Without a clear definition of who can detain, one risks inconsistency, poor practice and potentially unlawful deprivation of liberty. The amendments offer no alternative safeguards—just the deletion of the existing ones. That is not reform; it is abdication of responsibility. Finally, they undermine the spirit of the Bill. The Bill aims to modernise mental health legislation by making it more humane and effective, and more rooted in health than enforcement. The amendments point in the opposite direction. They strip away clarity, increase reliance on the police and risk compounding trauma for those already in crisis. It is not just about legislative precision; it is about protecting people. When someone is in acute mental health crisis, they are at their most vulnerable. Turning up with police officers, sirens and handcuffs does not calm the situation; it escalates it. It creates trauma, damages trust and can lead to long-term disengagement from mental health services. Clause 5 offers us a path out of that pattern. It allows approved professionals—such as paramedics, mental health nurses and crisis practitioners —to intervene early, with care and dignity. It does not exclude the police, where there is a genuine risk to safety, but it rightly repositions them as the last resort, not the first response. The Government amendments may be well intentioned, but they threaten to unravel that balance. We cannot allow vague flexibility to become a smokescreen for inadequate planning or under-resourced services. If the Minister pushes his amendments to a vote, and, as the parliamentary maths suggests they will, those amendments pass, what will he do to sort out the problem that we, on both sides of the House, have talked about today? He is currently planning to keep the status quo, which we all seem to agree is not appropriate. At least we and our noble Friends in the other place have attempted to improve the situation. What will he and his Department do? The clause is part of a broader rethinking of how we response to mental health need. It supports community-based care. It pushes for better training. It honours patient autonomy and it places the right people—clinicians, not constables—at the centre of care delivery. We all want a system where people in distress are met with compassion, not criminalisation. Clause 5 helps us to get there. The Government’s amendments drag us backwards. Clause 5 is one of the most thoughtful and necessary parts of the Bill. It raises standards, reduces harm and finally begins to close the gap between what the Mental Health Act allows and what good mental health care demands.
I rise briefly to dilate on clause 6, on Liberal Democrat amendment 11 and on Government amendment 30. Those of us on the Health and Social Care Committee recently had a fascinating panel about the disparities for black and minority ethnic groups in maternity, and it does not end there, as we can see from the evidence raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and by the hon. Member for Shipley. When CTOs were introduced—for good reasons—the elements of controversy that hon. Members have raised were not predicted. The overuse of CTOs, especially among black and minority ethnic patients, should give us all concern, although I have to say that there is some limited evidence of effectiveness in reducing relapse or readmission. Will the Minister give us the Government’s view on that and how they might seek improvement going forward? What we are trying to achieve in the clause is to bring legislation in line with the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, which recommended tightening the use of CTOs, or indeed abolishing them altogether for some groups. I support the clause because it brings in stronger safeguards, a clearer commitment and time limits to reduce the risk of indefinite or inappropriate use. It also improves patient involvement, because it requires a consultation and review, promoting shared decision-making, and increases accountability because it aligns with the code of practice and introduces external oversight. It focuses on the reality, ensuring that CTOs are used only where truly needed. I am slightly concerned about Government amendment 30, which will remove the detailed provision that would have introduced new statutory limits and review procedures for community treatment orders, specifically under subsection (3), and inserted new subsections (8) to (11) into section 17B of the Mental Health Act. The implication of removing subsection (3) is that essentially we will maintain the current legal framework, which does not impose a fixed maximum duration or the same level of structured review currently written into the clause. I am afraid that that would not bring in the safeguards and oversight mechanisms that would, at least to some degree, start to tackle the problems that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been talking about. It may be seen as taking a step back from what campaigners and professionals who are advocating for stronger patient rights and accountability on the use of CTOs would like to see. I ask the Minister for the same reassurances that the hon. Member for Shipley asked for in this area. If the Government are to move Government amendment 30 successfully, we will need to see how they intend to deal with these issues going forward. Liberal Democrat amendment 11 would ensure that people subject to a CTO receive information about their right to advocacy. That is an entirely laudable aim, but I ask Liberal Democrat Members to answer a few questions. First, how do they see the administrative burden on clinicians to ensure that both oral and written communications are documented? Secondly, what additional training do they think those professionals might need to ensure that the information is both consistent and correct? Thirdly, might there be delays in issuing a CTO if, for some reason, advocacy information is not immediately available?
On a point of order, Mr Vickers. Just to be clear, I counted six Noes, and I think you announced five. Can we just check on that?
Further to that point of order, Mr Vickers. I should say it was the Liberal Democrats who pointed it out to me; I do not want to take the credit from them.
We are trying to future-proof the Bill as much as possible. Does my hon. Friend think that the clause has enough future-proofing to deal with mental health issues that we are currently unaware of, or issues whose nature or treatment we do not fully understand?