5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

   I have sympathy with the aims of the amendments, but I also have a few questions. I wonder whether the wording in the Bill about “requisite honesty and integrity” might cover the issue that the hon. Member for Cheltenham is trying to deal with in new clause 8. I note that amendment 75 would do more that protect against owners with a record of human rights abuses, because it would require them to promote human rights. I obviously have no problem with people promoting human rights, but the amendment would put a duty on an owner to do something positive to show that they are fit and proper. I wonder whether that is really the hon. Member’s intention.

   Hansard source
2. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

   Once again, I have some sympathy with the aims of the new clause and I see where the hon. Member is trying to go with it. However, as it is currently drafted, it has a lot of breadth and contains vagaries that could throw up all sorts of issues. I will just deal with those issues briefly. By the way, I like the idea of identifying “material change” to the extent that someone who may once have been considered fit and proper is no longer considered fit and proper, because of something that has happened or something that has been identified. I have a problem with imposing a duty, particularly on some of the groups set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (2). For example, there would be a positive duty on “club employees”, which would include some very junior members of staff. In English law, imposing a duty on someone to do something is fairly exceptional. Although I could probably tolerate imposing a duty on “officers and board members”—if people have attained that level within an organisation, they should expect duties to come with it—I could not tolerate imposing a duty on all “club employees”. That is a difficulty I have. Also, that list is not exhaustive. Subsection (1) refers to: “ Individuals or organisations associated with a regulated club”. That could capture a lot more people than those listed in subsection (2). I am also slightly concerned that the duty for notification applies: “when they”— that is, the person— “have evidence or information that a material change in circumstances has occurred”. I suspect that that could open the floodgates and be misused as a means to try and potentially smear someone, or raise questions about whether they are fit and proper, based on some pretty spurious “evidence”. Such evidence could be pretty much anything—even a trivial matter. I would have hoped that there would be some sort of threshold, such as evidence that points to a strong or compelling case. “Evidence” on its own is a very, very low bar and could encourage all sorts of minor allegations that could make the job of the football regulator far bigger than it is intended to be. Otherwise, I broadly support what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve.

   Hansard source
3. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Mass Transit: West Yorkshire

   It is very good to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. As everyone else has done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate. West Yorkshire and the city of Leeds have long been underserved by transport connections; that is common ground across this Chamber. Research from the Centre for Cities in 2022 found that just 38% of the population can reach the city centre within 30 minutes by public transport. That is a very low percentage for a city the size of Leeds. As the former Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities made clear in his 2024 policy paper, that leads to below-average productivity in the area, and a critical catalyst for improvement must be better transport connections. The hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley was also right to allude to a long history of promises, half promises, schemes and plans to improve transport in Leeds, going back many decades. He was generous enough to say that it was a failure of Governments of multiple different colours. I will go back just to the 2000s, when there was the supertram proposal, which the hon. Member might remember. It was a 17-mile system with 50 stations, but it was cancelled by Alistair Darling in 2005 because of cost overruns. In the interests of time, I will not read out the juicy quote from the leader of Leeds Council, but I am sure the hon. Member is familiar with it. In 2007, that proposal was replaced by the bus rapid transport scheme with FTR. That had some of the benefits of the supertram, but with lower initial capital costs, and it was replaced in 2012 by Wright StreetCars. Also in 2012, the trolleybus network proposal was approved by the Government. The scheme was allocated £173 million of public money to be in operation by 2018. From memory, it involved two park and rides and a bus system into the city centre. That, in its turn, was dropped in 2016—again, because of cost overruns and delays. Then we jump forward to 2021, to the West Midlands combined authority and the mass transit scheme with light rail and tram-trains, or bus rapid transport. I am pleased to say that in 2023, it was given the go-ahead by the Conservative Government of the time, and £2.5 billion was allocated for the mass transit system, funded in full for Leeds and West Yorkshire by the Secretary of State’s predecessor Mark Harper. That was a firm commitment supported by the Treasury at the time. On last week’s announcement by the Chancellor of £2.1 billion for the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, I can see how the constituents of the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley might feel a little sceptical—they have been burned more than once. The plan now is to get the spades in the ground in 2028. It is almost as good as the previous Conservative Government’s plan, which was to get spades in the ground in 2027. The number is remarkably similar to what was then Network North policy. It is worth looking at the numbers. In 2023, it was announced that £2.115 billion would be allocated, so it was a bit of a surprise that last week it was £2.1 billion. The Chancellor has knocked off 15 million quid, but it is absolutely a re-announcement of existing policy.

   Hansard source
4. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Mass Transit: West Yorkshire

   The answer is that this is spending from 2026 to 2031, so of course we do not have the allocation in 2023. We will have it in 2026, however, and it is part of the Government funding process. If the hon. Lady asks me where that money is coming from, it is from the savings made through the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2. In rail terms, that was £19.6 billion.

   Hansard source
5. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Mass Transit: West Yorkshire

   That is an interesting point. If it is fantasy money, this is a fantasy announcement from last week. I suspect that the Treasury has realised that it is not fantasy money. It is the scheduling of capital expenditure in five-year periods, a bit like we have with road networks and the road investment strategy. In the RIS system we have a five-year forward allocation of resources, and this is just the same, so there is a little political sleight of hand here. A report by Steer suggests that a light rail vehicle with a capacity of 200 operating every three minutes can carry up to 4,000 people per hour in each direction. That is equivalent to about 50 fully laden buses. The aim now is to get it up and running in the mid-2030s. But if the past is any guide, the biggest risk to the project is delay and cost overruns. With that in mind, I ask the Minister these questions. What steps is she taking to ensure that costs are contained and deadlines do not slip? Has the West Yorkshire combined authority set out a timeline for the environmental and technical work to enable the development to proceed on time? Can she outline what discussions she has had with the mayor to ensure that upgrades to heavy rail infrastructure, such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade, are fully integrated? Can she provide assurances that tomorrow’s transport budget will not see cuts in other areas? Will this scheme actually be delivered? We shall wait and see. I certainly wish it well, but I understand why the residents of West Yorkshire feel sceptical.

   Hansard source
6. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   Topical Questions

   T9. Research from Centrica, which is headquartered on my patch, shows that Hive has saved domestic customers half a billion pounds on their energy bills since its inception. Does the Secretary of State agree that smart data, which gives consumers the ability to control their energy use without the need for top-down bans, taxes and mandates, should be a key plank of the warm homes plan?

   Hansard source
7. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Rosebank Oilfield

   Cabinet Office guidance states that Government Departments should aim to publish a response to a consultation within 12 weeks of the consultation closing. The consultation on environmental impact assessments closed on 8 January, which is 22 weeks ago tomorrow. When will the Department publish the guidance, because it is causing delays to projects in the North sea today?

   Hansard source
8. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member’s argument. I do not disagree with anything in it; I just fail to see how the amendment fits with the clause that we are discussing, which I think may be the point that the hon. Member for Ashford is making. As far as I can tell, clause 4 is about producing a register of people who have a learning disability or autism, who are at risk of being detained for a mental health episode and for whom those risk factors are active, for example because they have been sectioned before or have presented at A&E. Those are specific incidences. What the hon. Member for Winchester is talking about is more wide-ranging; it is not about touchpoints in the same sense. I can see how he could potentially say, “Well, domestic abuse has led to a mental health episode and therefore to a presentation at A&E or in the system.” However, if we put in societal factors, for want of a better phrase, we could end up putting most people on the list, because most people will have experienced a bereavement. I get what the hon. Member is trying to do, but I fail to see how the amendment matches the overall purpose of clause 4.

   Hansard source
9. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I have some criticisms of the specifics of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, but I entirely support him and congratulate him on the passion with which he spoke about them. As I remember, his maiden speech touched on a number of these issues. Whether they are within the scope of the Bill is for the Clerks and the Committee to decide, but he made several extraordinarily good points that I hope the Government will take away. If the Bill is not the appropriate place for them, there should be another avenue. The lead amendment is about the ICB register. It would insert a new subsection to extend the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register for those at risk of detention to cover all children and young people who meet certain risk criteria. As drafted, the duty to maintain a register under clause 4 may not explicitly include all under-18s. Therefore, the amendment would ensure that children and young people are proactively identified and supported before reaching a crisis point that might lead to detention. Clearly, there are positives. As the hon. Member stated, early intervention might help to prevent unnecessary detention by identifying risk earlier, which is especially important for children. Likewise, there is a strong argument about equity and care to ensure that young people receive the same proactive planning as adults. That would clearly lead to improved safeguarding through better tracking of vulnerable minors in the mental health system. A corollary to that would be better data collection on youth mental health needs, which I think we would all support. We would be able to use that information to support more informed policymaking and resource decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth highlighted, however, and as I highlighted in the debates on other clauses, there would clearly be a resource demand, especially on ICBs, from expanding registers and services. Likewise, there is the complexity of implementation, because defining who qualifies as being “at risk” may be subjective. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Winchester, when he sums up on the amendments, to give us some indication of how “at risk” would be defined, or whether that would simply be down to the mental health professional or some other medical professional. There are also, of course, privacy and consent concerns related to maintaining a register for minors. Again, the hon. Member may have thought about some practical things that could assuage my concerns about that. There may also be a risk of stigmatisation. We have to be very careful, especially with children and young people, because being labelled or treated differently due to being on the register would not help their mental health. We would have to have some really strict privacy and data-sharing controls to ensure that they were protected within the proposed system. As I said in my intervention, I entirely support the aims of amendment 47 because it would specify the risk factors for detention for those on the register of people at risk of detention under clause 4. The criteria for identifying such individuals are left to be defined in regulations as the Bill stands. The amendment would mandate in law specific evidence-based risk factors—which I agree are risk factors for the issues that the hon. Member is talking about, particularly those linked to trauma and social disadvantage—rather than leaving them to discretion. At a general level, the amendment recognises the role of trauma and social determinants in mental health crises—I congratulate the hon. Member on clearly explaining some of the factors. Going back to our debate on the previous group of amendments, that would improve the early identification of individuals at risk, promote preventive care, strengthen equity and provide clarity and consistency. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, I am concerned about prescribing a relatively small list and therefore limiting the clause’s flexibility—there may be risk factors that are not listed in the amendment or ones that we have not even thought of.

   Hansard source
10. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I agree with the hon. Lady; that is my understanding, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that when he sums up. The flexibility in the clause is one of its strengths.

    Hansard source
11. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To touch on his point about social media, it is a very useful tool, but is deeply pervasive and can cause the bullying, harassment and mental health issues that he describes. As far as I can tell, the risk factors in amendment 47 would not cover something like that unless it was part of something else—for example, part of domestic abuse, armed conflict and so on.

    Hansard source
12. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    Once again, the hon. Lady tempts me to make a party political point, but I shall resist. On her general point, there are factors, such as the ones she described, that would not necessarily fall within the list in amendment 47. [Interruption.]

    Hansard source
13. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    Thank you, Ms Furniss. I was coming to my closing remarks on amendment 47. Suffice it to say that some of the concerns that I raised on amendment 8 about the administrative burdens, the data sharing, and the potential safeguarding and privacy concerns transfer through. Again, perhaps the hon. Member for Winchester could give some reassurance on that when summing up. Amendment 9, as far as I can tell, would extend the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.

    Hansard source
14. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    My hon. Friend is right; although a number of the Liberal Democrats are entirely worthy, there are some concerns about the drafting, which could give rise to ambiguity, legal loopholes and definitional issues. In that example, I do not think that “seek to ensure” is helpful. When the hon. Member for Winchester is summing up, perhaps he might explain how “seek to ensure” can be robustly defined within the law, or if it cannot be, suggest a different form of wording that he may wish to use in a future amendment if this amendment fails to be agreed. Part II of the Mental Health Act 1983 covers the powers to detain individuals for assessment and treatment. Detention can clearly be traumatic, especially for children and young people. Amendment 9 reflects a growing consensus that detention should be the last resort— I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that—and that community-based preventive and therapeutic alternatives should be prioritised. Again, I think it would be very hard to disagree with that ambition. On the positive side, community-based care is clearly better than detention in most cases, and, if we can get to a point where people are assessed earlier, as is the intention of some of the other amendments, clearly—hopefully—that would lead to community-based care and not detention. The amendment would also protect children’s rights and support the trauma-informed approaches to mental health that were raised previously regarding amendment 47. The amendment could also reduce the long-term harm associated with institutionalisation and potentially coercive treatment. As we have heard from Members on both sides, that would align with best practice in child and adolescent mental health services and it would promote and encourage a system of accountability by making ICBs and local authorities responsible for proactive care planning. All of that is extraordinarily laudable. On the potential downsides, there is an ambiguity about the enforcement of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said, because of the lack of legal force or clarity in some of the phraseology. There would be also resource implications and, if there are resource limitations at the ICB or local authority level, that might hinder their ability to provide adequate, community-based alternatives. I do not say that as an excuse for not supporting the amendment, but the hon. Member for Winchester has to understand the reality of the world we live in. Although I want local authorities and ICBs in every area to be entirely fully funded and resourced—and frankly, I do not think the Government’s cut of 50%, or indeed more in some ICBs, will do anything to help community-based care—there would be resource challenges. There would also be implementation challenges in areas where mental health services are already underfunded or overstretched that could lead to delays in care. This is the key question that I ask the hon. Member to respond to in his summing up. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that all people of all ages get the best, most appropriate mental health care as early as possible. But in an imperfect world, if there are potential delays in care because community services are struggling to find alternatives to detention, the unintended consequence could be that someone may not be treated at all because of the onus on defined community-based care rather than detention. Will the hon. Member explain how that would work? I draw my remarks to a close by saying I, certainly, and the Opposition, entirely agree with the ambitions of the amendments. However, some practical and legal issues would need to be ironed out before I could wholeheartedly support them.

    Hansard source
15. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I accept that we should aim for the pinnacle and the best. What I was trying to say was that because the amendments restrict us, rather than giving us the space to, hopefully, reach the pinnacle, or to explore other options if we cannot, they could have unintended consequences if we cannot reach that pinnacle.

    Hansard source
16. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for new clause 11, which could potentially solve funding issues I have raised. He mentioned the NHS 10-year plan. Will he suggest that the Minister looks at ensuring that, if new clause 11 is not passed today, the details in it are fed through into the plan? When it is published, which the Minister has indicated will be relatively soon, the information and outcomes my hon. Friend is trying to achieve through the new clause could be in it.

    Hansard source
17. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. My understanding of the amendment, for which I have a lot of sympathy, is that the mandatory training will be around appropriate care in the settings listed. I think he is talking about manual handling or data protection stuff. As someone who worked in the NHS for seven years, I entirely agree that there is a lot of “mandatory training” that could be scrapped to make the NHS much more efficient. The amendment is specifically about ensuring that there is appropriate training for those who are working in the settings listed. I hope that he is not saying that he does not think that there should be training for mental health professionals. I am sure he is not saying that, but that is how it is coming across.

    Hansard source
18. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    Given that we have discussed the proposed new sections in depth, I do not intend to dilate upon this clause for long. Suffice it to say that the Opposition, notwithstanding the questions asked by the shadow Minister, support the clause, which is essential to ensure the safeguards and progress that we are trying to achieve through the Bill. Clearly, the clause is prevention-focused and helps avoid unnecessary and traumatic hospital admissions. It leads to better planning because it supports tracked admission of services tailored to individual needs. It also has an element of legal accountability, given that it makes it a legal duty for ICBs to monitor and support at-risk individuals. It is also data driven because it encourages the use of real-time data to inform care decisions. That being said, a number of the concerns that we raised during debate on the amendments apply to the clause itself. In the Minister’s summing up, can he touch once again on the privacy concerns, as well as the resource demands and the risk of stigma? By that, I mean that being placed on a register could be seen as labelling or pathologising. How do we ensure that the register does what it is supposed to without that risk? Can he also touch on some of the vague criteria and definitional phrases, such as “at risk”, and how they might potentially lead to inconsistent application?

    Hansard source
19. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    That is not true. Any member of the Committee can move the Adjournment.

    Hansard source
20. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    On a point of order, Ms Furniss. I called for a Division on the Adjournment before several members of the Committee who are now in the room came back. What is your ruling on whether members who were not here when the Division was called will be allowed to vote?

    Hansard source
21. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    Ms Furniss, your ruling, as I am sure Hansard will show, is that we were required to come back at 20 minutes to 6. Opposition members of the Committee were back at 20 minutes to 6, and few others were here. You did not suspend the Committee again when the House divided on Third Reading because you were not here, and therefore the 15-minute rule cannot apply.

    Hansard source
22. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    The Chair said that we must be back here at 20 minutes to 6, and that the Committee would be suspended until that point. We have not been suspended since then.

    Hansard source
23. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I am interested in the points that my hon. Friend is raising. Could he give any examples of the situations he is talking about? It would help the Committee, and certainly help me, to understand the practical realities of what he is talking about.

    Hansard source
24. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I rise to speak to amendments 52 and 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. Clearly, both my hon. Friends have significant clinical experience, and I bow in many ways to their expertise. However, the amendments cause me some concerns. Amendments 52 and 53 “would add to the grounds for admission to hospital for assessment or treatment that the patient must lack the capacity to consent to that admission, if they would not be detained due to being a risk to others.” Clearly, both amendments would introduce a capacity-based distinction in the grounds for detaining a person for medical treatment under the Mental Health Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned. That would ensure that, for patients who lack capacity or competence, detention is justified if serious harm may be caused to themselves or others unless they receive that treatment. For patients who have capacity or competence, detention is justified only if serious harm may be caused to others unless they received that treatment. The amendments build on the principle of autonomous individuals, which we have talked about and which, as my hon. Friend said, is in the Bill. People should not be detained solely for their own protection if they are capable of making informed decisions about their care. As my hon. Friend said, that aligns with the Mental Capacity Act and broader human rights principles, aiming to ensure that detention is used proportionately and, most importantly, ethically. Where the two amendments improve the current legislation is around the strengthening of patient autonomy by limiting the detention of capable individuals to cases where others are at risk. The amendments align the Bill with the human rights principles and the Mental Capacity Act, and clarify a number of legal thresholds for detention, reducing ambiguity in clinical decision making. That will help clinicians to make more sensible and consistent judgments when it comes to who should or should not be detained. Obviously, the amendments promote a proportionality element in the use of coercive powers, and support the person-centred care that we want. However, I am concerned that the amendments may increase complexity when assessing capacity in applying the correct legal tests. It will absolutely require training and guidance. Government Members have been concerned about mandatory training, and I make no apologies for hoping there would be significant training on this for clinicians when acting in this role, to ensure consistent application of these services. While I accept that the provisions clarify the legal thresholds, I think there is a potential for legal challenges if the distinction is misapplied or misunderstood, hence the need to return to my point about having the correct training. I hope the Minister is able to address some of those concerns, rather than just dismissing the amendments outright. New clause 24 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and West Shirley—

    Hansard source
25. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I am doing my best—I will get it right by week three, I promise. New clause 24 would allow people who have attended or been brought to hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to pursue an application for admission under the Mental Health Act. As other Members have mentioned, section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act allows for the detention of individuals who are already in-patients. However, there has been ambiguity about whether that applies to individuals who are on hospital grounds but not yet formally admitted; for example, those who arrive voluntarily or are being brought in during a crisis. New clause 24 seeks to close that gap by explicitly allowing applications for detention to be made in such circumstances, ensuring that a timely intervention can occur when necessary for safety or treatment, according to my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull West and Shirley and for Runnymede and Weybridge. I listened carefully to my hon. Friends on the benefits of the new clause, and I accept some of them. However, I have some concerns about deterring people from turning up to a hospital setting, either for some other treatment or to visit friends or relations. I am worried that people would be concerned that they would be forcibly sectioned or detained without their consent by just turning up. There is a real risk of overreach in new clause 24. If we go back to the point about autonomy, people need to have assurance about when and where they will potentially be detained when they seek voluntary help. The line between voluntary attendance and involuntary detention is the nub of the new clause. While I accept the arguments that have been made by my two hon. Friends, I am not thus far convinced that the balance in the clause is correct, but I am hopeful that the Minister can give some clarity.

    Hansard source
26. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    Just in case my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is not following this Bill in Hansard, I will pass on the hon. Lady’s compliments to him. Like her, I have great respect for him; I am not trying to denigrate his great work on the amendments and the new clause. All I am suggesting is that, from a layperson’s perspective, there are some elements that need tightening up, if not changing altogether. I take the hon. Lady’s point about pre-legislative scrutiny, but obviously these amendments and the new clause were not part of that because they have only just been tabled. I therefore think it is entirely appropriate to be debating them now.

    Hansard source
27. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I thank my hon. Friend for his extraordinarily helpful intervention. I was not aware of the changes, and I certainly had not heard of fusion before, or about what is going on in Scotland. Of course, if the new clause had already been enacted in another part of the United Kingdom in some form, I would be much more comfortable with it. But, as I said in relation amendments 52 and 53, if the new clause is to pass in its current form in this Bill or in some future form in another Bill, there has to be a focus on proper training and guidance. Because there is potentially such a legal quagmire, we must ensure that people understand the legal framework within which they can do this.

    Hansard source
28. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I support the comments of the Minister and the hon. Member for Winchester on the issue. On a cross-party basis, I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has taken a close interest. Could he also be included in those discussions?

    Hansard source
29. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    On the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford about local authorities, given that the Government are devolving and reorganising local government structures across parts of the country, how will the Minister ensure that the standards around this issue—and other health and social care issues—are maintained? That restructuring means that we will have a whole load of new local authorities that do not necessarily have experience of dealing with this area.

    Hansard source
30. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve with these amendments. My question is about how she would ensure, within the context of the provisions, that the patient’s confidentiality would be maintained where it needed to be.

    Hansard source
31. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    Moving on from the confidentiality point, if there is going to be sharing—again, I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments—how would the hon. Lady ensure that disagreements between family members and the patient are safeguarded against?

    Hansard source
32. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    To take that point slightly further, given that pretty much every local authority has a different set of criteria by which to determine people’s housing needs, how would, for example, an ICB that potentially crosses multiple local authorities with differing housing needs be able to understand the complexities within the current structure, and ensure that the patient is served best?

    Hansard source
33. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. As I have indicated, I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments, but some practical constraints need to be teased out. Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that housing needs are explicitly considered during a care, education and treatment review meeting. I can see the pros of that. Clearly, a holistic approach recognises that stable housing is fundamental to mental health and recovery, especially for vulnerable individuals. Addressing housing barriers may reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. Likewise, it could lead to improved discharge planning, ensuring that patients are not delayed in hospital due to a lack of suitable accommodation. All Governments, of every colour and political party, want to see collaboration between health, social care and housing services, and the amendment brings those things together. As I said in an intervention, however, local authorities and NHS bodies such as ICBs may face challenges to co-ordinating housing assessments within the CETRs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned, his constituency crosses a number of local authority boundaries, while my seat of Farnham and Bordon, with two thirds of it in Surrey and one third in Hampshire, has that same issue. The county councils are wonderful and Conservative run, but Waverley is run by Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Winchester, who moved the amendment, recognised the issue of implementation capacity, but there are also likely to be resource constraints. These days, local authorities spend most of their money on social care, education and the bits of health that sit within their remit, so there may be insufficient housing stock or funding to meet the identified needs that the amendment would bring forward. There are therefore practical implications.

    Hansard source
34. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I agree. Even if the Government build the number of houses that they propose—I have some scepticism—there will always be the potential conflict or disagreement on prioritisation in the housing register and list. As my hon. Friend says, that might well lead to local authorities having to change their criteria, which are not necessarily consistent across local authorities, and, as in his example, potentially pitting a homeless person against someone with mental health needs. The amendment would also have the potential for scope creep. I have a lot of sympathy with what it is trying to achieve, but expanding CETRs to include housing might dilute their focus and overburden the process. I am interested to hear from the mover and supporters of the amendment how they would ensure that the CETR continues to have that core focus on the health and wellbeing of the individual, rather than potentially be bogged down in the mire of housing issues. Moving on, amendment 51 would ensure that the care and treatment of individuals with autism or learning disabilities explicitly considered the impact of accommodation and relocation in the planning and decision-making process. Again, I have a lot of sympathy with that. It would promote holistic care planning, reduce trauma and disruption, support continuity of care and, I think, align with the person-centred principles throughout the Bill, which all of us support. Again, however, amendment 51 might complicate discharge planning, if suitable accommodation were limited.

    Hansard source
35. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I agree entirely. That could be the unintended consequence of amendment 51: in essence, if the housing provision is not there, discharge will be delayed. From my understanding of the amendments in the group, those who tabled them are trying to speed up and improve discharge. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to think about the practical implications of the Bill. The amendment would require co-ordination among health, social care and housing services, which may be challenging in under-resourced areas. Frankly, because parts of those organisations are not used to working in the ways that the amendment would require, it might fall over without suitable training, the necessary lead-in time and a practical understanding of how it will work. Amendment 4 would ensure that housing needs are formally considered during the care and treatment review meetings for adults with autism or a learning disability, without an EHCP. I understand that the aim is to support more effective discharge planning and reduce the risk of unnecessary or prolonged hospital stays. That is entirely in keeping with what we should be trying to do in the Bill. Holistic care planning reduces delays in discharge, improves cross-sector collaboration and supports community-based care, which we all support. Once again, however, there is potential for complexity in the implementation. New processes may be required to involve the housing authorities. Resources and local housing shortages could limit the amendments’ practical impact. Another layer of complex review processes could add to that administrative burden. If there is inconsistent local capacity, the effectiveness of the amendment will almost certainly vary depending on the local housing infrastructure, which could lead to a postcode lottery, for want of a better phrase, in who receives the adequate care and housing. Amendment 2 would ensure that children and young people with autism or learning disability, as well as their nominated persons and independent mental health advocates, receive a copy of the care, education and treatment review meeting report. I have a lot of sympathy with that. It potentially increases empowerment and transparency, ensuring that patients and their advocates are fully informed, which could enable better participation in care decisions. It has a legal and ethical alignment with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, both of which emphasise supported decision making. It might also improve advocacy, as independent mental health advocates can more effectively represent a patient’s interest when they have access to the full report.

    Hansard source
36. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    My hon. Friend makes a key point that I was about to address. Clearly, where there is a supportive family structure with the best interests of the individual at heart, the amendment will work extraordinarily well. However, we have to be realistic about the practical implications. Not every patient has a strong family structure around them. Unfortunately, some patients may even have family members who, for financial or other reasons, actively do not have their best interests at heart. There is a potential concern around confidentiality. I ask the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford how they would balance that conflict in practical terms, especially when the CETR includes sensitive clinical information that could be used in a way that is not beneficial to the patient by someone who does not have their best interests at heart. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury points out, disputes can happen if patients or families disagree with professional assessments or recommendations. Finally, although this is probably not the strongest point, we should think about the administrative burden. Given the increased workload that we are putting on all our health and care workers and services, there will clearly be an administrative burden in sharing these reports.

    Hansard source
37. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I knew it began with S and was somewhere that is not Surrey or Hampshire—because where else would you want to be, Mr Vickers? The amendment would potentially increase the workload, because more frequent reviews place additional pressure on professionals and services.

    Hansard source
38. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We operate in a resource-confined area. It does not matter what the resource envelope is; it will always be confined. If we use resource to service the very laudable aims of the amendment, it will take resource and money away from another area.

    Hansard source
39. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    My hon. Friend attributes to me a level of clairvoyance that I do not possess, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Winchester or the hon. Member for Guildford will pick up that point. The resource implications are not just about the funding. They are about increased workload and the pressure put on the professions and services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said, the amendment would divert attention away from delivering care, if it is not balanced properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth is right to ask, “Why six months?” Why not nine months, eight months or any other period? Is there a clinical basis for six months?

    Hansard source
40. 10 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I thank the hon. Member for her helpful intervention. If that is correct, I will draw my comments on that point to a close. Amendment 6 concerns CETR frequency. It seeks to change the timetabling of these reviews. The same issues, both positive and negative, run through it as in amendment 3. Amendment 7 would strengthen the legal obligation on integrated care boards and local authorities by requiring them to implement recommendations from the care, education and treatment reviews rather than merely considering them. That would ensure that review outcomes lead to concrete action and improved care. I do not think that anyone in the Committee could possibly disagree with that point. It would lead to greater accountability and would ensure that CETR recommendations are not ignored or delayed. That would clearly improve outcomes, because it would increase the likelihood that patients receive timely and appropriate care. The amendment would also introduce stronger legal clarity. By removing “must have regard to” and replacing it with “have a duty to carry out”, it would remove ambiguity around the responsibilities of the ICBs and local authorities, supporting the rights-based care and the principles of transparency and enforceability in service provision that we all support. I hope that the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford will be able to clarify the problem of resource pressures, which applies to all these amendments. Local authorities and ICBs may struggle to implement all the recommendations due to funding or capacity constraints. What would be the legal sanction for ICBs and local authorities if, through no “fault” of their own—although one might argue that they should have the necessary resources in place—they genuinely do not have the resources to implement all the recommendations? I would hope that such a sanction did not put them into further financial difficulty. The reduction in flexibility concerns me. It may limit professional discretion in cases in which recommendations are impractical or outdated. It may require new systems for monitoring and enforcement, and if recommendations are not implemented it could increase the likelihood of legal challenges.

    Hansard source