Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

   Support for Veterans

   A group of Army veterans who feel totally let down by this Government have started a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which has so far amassed nearly 87,000 signatures in just over a week. Assuming that they successfully obtain the further 13,000 that are required, may I ask whether we can then debate, in Parliament, the question of why Labour wants, via its proposed remedial order, to make it easier for Gerry Adams to sue the British Government, while legally abandoning our brave veterans and throwing them to the wolves?

   Hansard source
2. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

   Support for Veterans

   Labour could have appealed those judgments to the Supreme Court but chose not to. Labour MPs and peers have already voted for this barmy process in the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26 February. Labour will now be expecting all its MPs to vote for it again this autumn. Given that many of the young soldiers who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland were recruited from “red wall” seats—from Barnsley to Blackpool, and from Bolton to Burnley—how on earth do this Government expect any Labour MP to do Gerry Adams a favour at the expense of the veterans who opposed him, and then to go back to their own seats and look their constituents, including veterans and their families, in the eye?

   Hansard source
3. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

   Gender Self-identification

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I am grateful for the many thoughtful contributions from Members today. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee; I recognise the important reflection of trans voices that she brought to the Chamber. It was compassionate and absolutely right to recognise strong feelings and concerns on all sides. Friends, constituents and colleagues are affected by today’s debate. Dignity, understanding and respect are crucial. I am always mindful that we are talking about people in this debate or any debate, and listening to people, parents and communities is crucial. Last month’s Supreme Court ruling importantly clarified the law as per the Equality Act. As we have heard today, many real practicalities still need to be agreed and implemented. Many constituents, including several of mine, have been in touch with their MPs to ask what the judgment means for them. The judgment rightly calls for the rights of trans and non-binary people to be upheld as per the Equality Act. It is no surprise that this wider uncertainty has resulted in this petition. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss where the Opposition sit on this matter and where the Government must simply do more in light of the concerns. I agree that it is important to lead the discussions in the right tone, and that is always my approach. As the shadow Minister for Women, I believe that we must ensure that we work for a future in which women do not have to fight for their rights every time, and nobody has to keep fighting for all their rights every time. That reflects the comments of the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), which summed up this afternoon’s tone and approach. Let me affirm on behalf of my party that we strongly believe that every individual should live a life of dignity, be free to live their lives and be safe—safety has been very much raised today. They should be supported in that. We are an inclusive party that is focused on equality. We will always stand up for the rights of women and girls, too.

   Hansard source
4. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

   Gender Self-identification

   I think that it is a matter of fact that biological sex is crucial when it comes to correct service delivery and approach. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but when it comes to the understanding of treatment, it is important for there to be a distinction. But I understand the point. Consider single-sex spaces such as refuges and NHS provision—screening programmes, for example: the protection and privacy of people, including women and girls, is paramount. However, as the hon. Lady just said, that must be balanced by the needs of others, so third spaces and understanding are also important. As I have already said, practicality is important. As many Members have said, this is not a zero-sum game for anybody, whether that is women and girls, and their safe spaces. As we have also heard, there must be suitable spaces for disabled people. This issue is about rounded equality for all. I truly believe that is vital. We know that the Labour Government have not always necessarily agreed with the judgment in the recent case. Of course, Scottish Labour backed the SNP’s self-ID plans in Holyrood. Those were challenged in the Supreme Court and shown to be incompatible with the Equality Act 2010. As we have heard again today, some people still have strong views about self-ID, which I recognise. However, for those concerned about the gender recognition certificate process, I highlight that that had already been reformed following feedback, which was rightly listened to. The then Government agreed with the GRC process, because it was hoped that it would create a balance between significant checks and balances within the system. But as we have heard today, different people take different stances. In light of the ongoing debate and the Supreme Court judgment, it is now for this Government to find a way to clarify how they intend to implement their manifesto commitment to modernise and simplify the GRC process without compromising the rights of women and girls. Those buzzwords signify an intent to change, but what people living this right now want to know is the detail. Hopefully, the Minister will today start to clarify matters or begin to set a timetable for proposals to be scrutinised by the House, the public and all the different voices in this debate. That is crucial, because there is public concern that the Government may be introducing self-ID by the back door—not deliberately, but perhaps through processes that some may see as careless and others may see as suitable. I address a specific point. It is a concern that Government Ministers have admitted that the Passport Office does not accurately record sex. A passport is one of the most recognised and commonly used Government issued IDs with a sex marker. Can the Minister say why the Government have not sought to remedy the situation? It clearly leaves a potential route for self-ID, creating uncertainty for service providers trying to comply with the law under the Equality Act. Today, we are talking about clarity; all concerned need clarity.

   Hansard source
5. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

   Gender Self-identification

   The previous Government commissioned Professor Alice Sullivan to ensure that the collection of data on sex and gender was consistent across Government. As I was saying, it would be good to know whether the Government will set out a timeline for implementing fully the recommendations from the Sullivan review. I understand the point made by the hon. Lady and other Members, but it is important for people to understand data collection.

   Hansard source
6. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

   Gender Self-identification

   Perhaps the hon. Lady can ask the Minister about the Sullivan review and we will get some clarity on that. Additionally, the Government should be issuing schools guidelines at pace to seek consistency, as we have just been talking about, and understanding across the education landscape. Teachers and headteachers need to have confidence that they will not be open to challenge, that self-ID will not operate in the school system, and that parents are involved at every stage of their youngster’s education. I look forward to the Minister’s response on the matters raised not just by me, but by Members across the Chamber and in the petition. It is important to ensure that women and girls have a safe and fair experience in life, that there is equality for all, and that we get the practical understanding that trans people need urgently, as the petitioner and many Members have raised. As we have heard today, this should not be a zero-sum game. There should be no failings in duties and people should be able to deliver on the judgment, but ultimately there should be a reassurance that all will be able to thrive in life respectfully and positively, with good guidance and support.

   Hansard source
7. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

   NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service

   This appears to be another rather muddled decision from the Government. The Minister has acknowledged that these volunteers provide a vital service, but if they want to continue they now have the inconvenience of going to the new portal, registering and so on. Would it not have been better at least to maintain the current arrangements until a new alternative was in place? By the time we have provided extra support to medical professionals and so on during the interim, will it have saved any money at all?

   Hansard source
8. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Defence Procurement: SMEs

   I do not wish to end the Defence Secretary’s glittering career here on the Floor of the House, but may I praise him as my new favourite Minister—alongside the Defence Procurement Minister—for today announcing the new £400 million investment in my Shropshire constituency for Rheinmetall to build a new gun barrel factory? I thank him and his Defence Procurement Minister for working with me, across parties and in the national interest, to ensure that the UK has the very latest and most technologically advanced Challenger 3 tank—the best in NATO.

   Hansard source
9. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   National Security Act 2023: Charges

   As President Trump seeks to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, may I ask the Home Secretary, along with senior Ministers across Government, to work with Five Eyes partners and the National Security Council and National Security Adviser team in the White House to ensure that any deal is comprehensive—it must not exclude ensuring that Iran cannot continue to work in proxy form, whether through criminal gangs or other states—in order that we do not have sanctions lifted without further action in the areas that she has discussed today?

   Hansard source
10. 19 May 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    Support for Veterans: Operation Banner

    13. What steps he is taking to support veterans of Operation Banner.

    Hansard source
11. 19 May 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    Support for Veterans: Operation Banner

    Operation Banner defeated the IRA militarily and paved the way for the Good Friday agreement, so why are this Labour Government now pushing two-tier justice, to the obvious detriment of our brave Northern Ireland veterans and to the advantage of Gerry Adams and his Sinn Féin fellow travellers? Where is the justice in that?

    Hansard source
12. 19 May 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Defence Procurement: SMEs

    On behalf of the official Opposition, we send our best wishes to the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on his ascent of Everest. On defence procurement, we will all have enjoyed the Red Arrows fly-past as part of our VE Day celebrations, but the fact is that the Hawk jet needs replacing. Given that one of the publicly stated roles of the Red Arrows is “supporting British industry”, will the Secretary of State guarantee that the next jet for the Red Arrows will be designed and manufactured in the United Kingdom?

    Hansard source
13. 19 May 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    UK-EU Defence and Security Agreement

    I have previously raised, during Defence questions, my deep concern about the possibility that the Government would give away our fishing rights in order to gain access to the European Union rearmament fund, but in fact it is far worse than that. Is not the truth that we have surrendered our fishing grounds for at least 12 years and will become a passive rule taker, and that all we have in exchange is a glorified talking shop with not a penny of guaranteed defence funding?

    Hansard source
14. 19 May 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Topical Questions

    On the highly topical subject of fishing rights, the Secretary of State will no doubt share my profound concern at reports that last week Mauritius and Russia agreed to deepen their co-operation on fisheries and other maritime issues. Does that not show that Labour’s policy of spending billions renting back a military base that we already own is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money but a major risk to our national security?

    Hansard source
15. 19 May 2025·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Topical Questions

    The Chagos chaos continues, as multiple reports now suggest that No. 10 has put the whole £18 billion Chagos nonsense on hold. It has done that for fear that Labour MPs, who are being whipped to withdraw winter fuel payments from up to 10 million pensioners, will not vote for it. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it is still the Government’s policy to stand by their crazy Chagos deal, or has he finally decided to give it all up?

    Hansard source
16. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    Despite having worked in healthcare for most of my career and serving on the Health and Social Care Select Committee, having listened to the speeches thus far this evening, I feel in awe of the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). I also commend the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan), who I know is supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), for his extraordinarily powerful speech. This Bill is essentially about the duty of care not only to those who have mental health issues, but to the public, including the family, friends, carers, public servants and everyone else who interacts with those individuals. The duty of care also exists to protect those individuals from themselves. As many Members have said, our hope and ambition should be that as few people as possible find themselves in a crisis situation. I therefore entirely endorse and support the comments about ensuring that we have proper and well-funded mental health services, both in the community and in the acute setting.

    Hansard source
17. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more can be done to help people in crisis. What I would say, however—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge also made this point—is that there are people who are at such a point that, unfortunately, they need to be incarcerated in order to be able to help themselves. Hopefully, they spend their time incarcerated not just away from society but being treated effectively and appropriately. That brings me to the point that this is a balancing act and a difficult situation. I think all of us of all parties are clear that the current Act is no longer fit for purpose, especially when we think about forensic mental health. As such, I am glad that the Government are taking forward this legislation, which was started under the previous Government. The cross-party consensus we have heard this evening reflects the fact that this piece of legislation has come from both of the major parties. I am likely to be on the Bill Committee after the Whitsun recess, so I will not test the patience of the House by going through every single bit of the Bill I have some interest in or concerns about, but I will briefly raise three important areas, which I am pleased were raised by Members in the other place. A number of Opposition amendments were tabled in the other place which would have strengthened the Bill, and I hope they will be made in Committee in this place. The first area is reducing unnecessary police involvement. The noble Lord Kamall and Baroness May tabled some amendments that in my view represent a very significant and much-needed shift in how detentions and removals under the Mental Health Act can be managed. Under the current framework, the power to detain individuals and move them to a place of safety—particularly under sections 135 and 136—is largely restricted and falls under the responsibility of police officers. Although those provisions are designed to protect the public, they can often result in the criminalisation of people in acute mental health crisis, even when there is no threat of violence or risk to others. The amendments tabled in the other place would have allowed authorised and qualified health professionals such as paramedics, approved mental health professionals or specialised nurses to carry out those detentions and to move individuals under sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Act. That would relieve police officers of responsibilities that fall outside their core expertise while reducing the stigma and trauma associated with police-led interventions. It would streamline the process, ensuring that individuals were supported by professionals trained specifically in mental health care and would maintain police involvement only where there was a clear and present risk to safety. That would significantly change and strengthen the system, placing mental health crises more firmly within the domain of health rather than law enforcement.

    Hansard source
18. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I am sorry if I was not clear for the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had made it very clear that I was talking about situations in which there was no risk to other professionals. Clearly, in the situations he describes, the police are entirely the right people to be involved. The second area that I want to touch on is that of strengthening safeguards for vulnerable children. What I would like to see introduced is an essential safeguard for children and young people within the mental health care system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned, the current legislation allows for a nominated person to be appointed to represent the child’s interests. In my view, though, it does not provide adequate protection against the risk that that person could be coercive, abusive or in other ways inappropriate, particularly in cases involving looked-after children or those with complex family dynamics. As such, I would like to see amendments made that address that gap by establishing clear criteria for who can be appointed as a child’s nominated person. For looked-after children, the local authority would automatically become the nominated individual, ensuring oversight by a public body accountable for the child’s welfare. For other children, only individuals with legal parental responsibility—such as a guardian or someone named in a court order—should be appointed. Such measures would ensure that no vulnerable child would be exposed to undue influence during what may be one of the most difficult or disorienting times in their life. They would align mental health law with broader child protection standards and reinforce the principle that safeguarding must be at the heart of any mental health intervention involving children. Finally, I want to see amendments made that would introduce more patient voice and accountability. I accept that in its current form, the Bill makes steps in the right direction, but I would like to see an amendment made mirroring the one that was tabled in the other place by the noble Lords Howe and Kamall. Such an amendment would introduce the valuable and forward-looking provision of a mandatory debrief session within 30 days of discharge from detention under part 2 of the Mental Health Act. That session would be led by an independent mental health advocate, and would provide patients with the opportunity to reflect on their experience, raise any concerns about their treatment, and offer feedback in a safe, supportive and non-judgmental setting. That would be more than just a procedural addition; it represents a shift in culture, which I think we would all agree with, towards embedding patient voice and accountability in the mental health care system. It recognises the importance of empowering individuals after detention, supporting their recovery and learning from their lived experience to improve future services. Mental health charities and third sector organisations have strongly endorsed the proposal, so I hope the Minister will give some indication in his wind-up that he would support a similar amendment. Taken together, these reforms prioritise professional clinical opinion, safeguard children from inappropriate influence during periods of acute vulnerability and elevate the patient voice in the post-care process. In doing so, they align the Mental Health Act closer to modern standards of care, international best practice and evolving public expectations. These amendments are essential to strengthening the Bill, ensuring that our mental health system becomes not only more effective, but more compassionate, responsive and just.

    Hansard source
19. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I thank the Secretary of State for bringing the Bill before Parliament. The last update to the Mental Health Act, in 2007, took eight years following the Richardson review, and this Bill has been a similarly long time in the making, so I welcome the speed with which he has moved on it since taking office. Although we may tussle on occasion, as I have said since the election, we on the Conservative Benches will not oppose for the sake of opposition. We will be constructive, working to improve legislation and supporting the Government where we believe they are doing the right thing, and I recognise the Secretary of State’s constructive approach to the Bill. At the outset, let me join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the families of Calocane’s victims in Nottingham for what they have done subsequently—their campaigning, their dedication and their work, including on this legislation—and for the incredible dignity with which they have conducted themselves in unthinkable circumstances. As the Secretary of State mentioned, the Mental Health Act 1983—I will not miss the opportunity to allude to his youthfulness—governs the compulsory detention and medical treatment of people with severe mental illness for the safety and protection of themselves and those around them. He also set out that sadly, all too often, those with learning disabilities or autism have been conflated with that group. We must take this opportunity to address that, and the Bill rightly seeks to do so. In the more than 40 years that have followed the 1983 Act, healthcare, treatments and, crucially, our understanding of mental health illnesses have come on in enormous strides. It is not only important but right that our laws are updated to reflect the modern world and the knowledge that we have today. We are debating measures that impact those with the most severe mental health issues and their families, but as was highlighted in interventions on the Secretary of State, we should not forget the broader context, the challenges posed by mental health issues more broadly, or the importance of continued investment in this space. We should also recognise the many organisations that do amazing work both to educate society about mental ill health and to support people with mental health illnesses. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who has just left the Chamber, for the work that he did on mental health as Secretary of State. I think it is fair to say that, away from the to and fro of party politics, the current Secretary of State shares my right hon. Friend’s passion and determination to address these issues. As he said, we have done much, but I believe we can and must continue to strive to do better. Keeping legislation up to date is particularly important for a measure such as the Mental Health Act, which gives the state the power to deprive people of their liberties in order to protect the safety of the individual and those around them and to carry out treatment. Those powers should only ever be used when absolutely necessary, and it is therefore right that they are reviewed and updated to ensure that they remain relevant, proportionate and appropriate. The most recent update to the Mental Health Act, in 2007 under the last Labour Government, introduced community treatment orders and independent mental health advocates and changed the detention criteria. Since then, as the Secretary of State alluded to, trends have emerged that have raised concerns. The overall number of detentions under the Act has been rising steadily. There were around 52,500 recorded detentions in England in 2023-24, including 963 of children aged 17 and under. That is a 2.5% increase on the previous year and around 14% higher than in 2016-17. In the same year, 2023-24, black people were 3.5 times more likely than white people to be detained under the Act, and seven times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. The reasons for that are likely to be complex, and I will return to them later. That is why in 2017, just 10 years after the previous update, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May—now Baroness May—commissioned an independent review of how the Mental Health Act was used and how it could be improved. The review considered not only the trends in detentions, but wider concerns about whether some processes were out of step with what should exist in a modern mental health system, including the balance of safeguards, patient choice and patients’ agency in their own care, and the effectiveness of community treatment orders. Sir Simon Wessely published the report of his review in 2018, and I take this opportunity to put on the record again our thanks for his important work.

    Hansard source
20. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    The previous Government published a draft Mental Health Bill based on the recommendations in the report, giving others the opportunity to have their say. The draft Bill was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament, allowing Members of both Houses to thoroughly review it and make recommendations before the final version was introduced. Given the importance of this area of policy, which can have such a profound impact on people’s lives, I believe it is right that we took the time to get this right. The work to update the Mental Health Act started under the previous Government and we had a commitment in our election manifesto to update the law in this area, and that has been carried on by the new Government. We continue to believe that this is the right thing to do, so I put on the record our in-principle support for the Government on the Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his work in this space as a shadow Minister. Not only does he have professional expertise, but he has brought it to the House’s deliberations on this legislation. I suspect that we may hear from him a little later. There are many areas of the Bill that we welcome, including the strengthening of the patient’s right to express a treatment preference, the expansion of access to independent mental health advocates, and the removal of police and prison cells as places of safety so that patients can be treated in an appropriate setting. That said, of course we will not stand back without scrutinising and seeking constructively to improve the Bill as it passes through the House. Part of our role as the Opposition is to engage constructively in the scrutiny of legislation—to ask questions, to probe further, to seek to prevent unintended consequences, and to identify potential problems and ensure that they are aired in Committee—in order to improve it for everyone’s benefit, and that is what we shall do. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) will approach the Public Bill Committee in that vein. We very much welcome efforts to improve patients’ voice and involvement in their own care, including through greater use of advance choice documents. In its current form, the Bill places a duty on NHS England and integrated care boards to make patients aware of their option to have such a document, but this could be as simple as having a poster on a noticeboard, for instance. It does not necessarily require a conversation. Introducing it as a legal right for patients who are being treated or for someone who is at risk of detention would mean that they have to be specifically told about the option, allowing them to make a deliberate decision. I suspect that in Committee we may gently press the Minister to go further in strengthening the patient’s right to have their voice heard. I have been on a number of Bill Committees, and gently hinting to the Minister areas where we might press further may make his and his officials’ lives a little easier when amendments are tabled in Committee. We were pleased that peers passed an amendment to better protect children who require a nominated person, removing the discretion where a court order regarding parental responsibility is in place. However, we believe there is more we can do to support and protect children, particularly regarding age-appropriate settings for treatment. I hope that when the Minister for Care winds up, or in Committee, he will explore in greater detail the steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of children being treated on adult mental health wards and to ensure that lessons are learned at both national and local service provider level. Thirdly, we are conscious that a number of elements of the Bill will require additional resources to be put in place. The removal of police and prison cells—sensibly—as places of safety will require sufficient alternative capacity for people to be treated when they are detained. What approach do the Government intend to take in addressing this? Increasing the frequency with which patients can apply to the mental health tribunal to have their detention reviewed and widening automatic referrals will potentially increase demand and pressure on the system. We know that the legal system is already under pressure, and the impact assessment acknowledges that there will be impacts and costs, so is the Minister confident that the system has the capacity to handle the additional demands? If not, what steps are being taken with the Ministry of Justice to address that?

    Hansard source
21. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight both the costs and the investment that is needed, but the cost does not detract from the importance of and need for the measures set out in the legislation. He points out that as a proportion of overall health spending, mental health spending has fallen slightly in the latest figures. I hope that the Minister in his wind-up will address how the Government will ensure that this legislation, which enjoys broad support across the House, has the resources behind it to deliver the outcomes we all wish to see in practice?

    Hansard source
22. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I will regret doing so, but of course I give way to the Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
23. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Edward Argar

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    The Secretary of State was kinder than he normally is, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging the reduction in the proportion of mental health spending—it is slight, but it is none the less a reduction. I hear what he says more broadly, but I hope that he and the Minister will reiterate their commitment to ensuring that the legislation succeeds, which we all wish for, and that the pressures it may place on parts of the system will be addressed and not simply be absorbed within the system. I suspect that the Minister will come to that in his concluding remarks. While it is the right principle to direct more mental health patients away from in-patient hospital settings and to community treatment settings where clinically appropriate—this is key, and goes to the Secretary of State’s point—we must ensure that the NHS has the capacity to provide community treatments when the Bill is on the statute book. The Government accepted that the reforms will take a number of years to implement, given the need to recruit and train more clinical and judicial staff, but what is the plan and how much will it cost? Will it be phased in over a number of years? The NHS workforce plan will nearly double the number of mental health nurses by 2031-32, but the Secretary of State has said that he intends to update the plan. It would be helpful if, during the Bill’s passage, he or the Minister could tell either the Bill Committee or this Chamber what the changes that he envisages making through this legislation will mean for the workforce. We recognise the significance of the provisions limiting the detention of patients with a learning disability or autism. Under the Bill, they can be detained for treatment only if they have a co-occurring mental health condition that requires hospital treatment and meet the criteria in the Mental Health Act 1983. Autism alone would no longer justify continued detention under the 1983 Act; in theory, this will ensure that those with autism receive the appropriate support in the right setting, as we would all wish. What steps are being taken to ensure that there are sufficient services, with sufficient capacity, to properly support people with autism and learning disabilities? Can he confirm that under this legislation, there will always be a central role for professional clinical judgments on these matters? This debate in part follows on from concerns being raised about racial disparities in the application of the Mental Health Act. Can the Secretary of State or the Minister provide more evidence to help the House better understand this issue? What research has been undertaken, or is being planned, to enable us to understand what is behind the statistics? We welcome this important opportunity to look again at how we treat and protect people with the most severe mental illnesses, and to ensure that our laws remain relevant and proportionate in the modern world, empowering people and treating them humanely. Updating the Mental Health Act is the right thing to do, and we will work constructively with the Government to improve the safety, treatment, agency and, crucially, dignity of mental health patients who are detained, and of the wider public.

    Hansard source
24. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    A rough road is not the same as a collapsed bridge. Both slow you down, but one stops you entirely. There is a simple distinction that is often missed in the public discourse: the difference between mental wellbeing and mental health. Every one of us faces challenges that affect our mental wellbeing, such as stress, burnout and grief, but fortunately not all of us experience diagnosable mental health conditions. Recognising that nuance helps us talk more openly and responsibly about what support is needed, for whom and where. At the heart of this Bill are the most vulnerable people in our society. Tonight we have debated not how Parliament serves the powerful, but how it protects the most vulnerable while upholding freedom, how it safeguards the public without surrendering to fear, and how it balances the need for control with the imperative of compassionate care. Mental incapacity may dim a person’s ability to choose, but the law must never let it extinguish their right to matter. Reform of mental health law must recognise that protecting someone from themselves or others is not carte blanche to own their life, but simply involves borrowing the reins for a time to steer the person to recovery, and handing them back when agency is restored and they are fully equipped to chart their path once more. We have heard personal testimonies in today’s debate. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) talked about her mother being sectioned, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) talked about his mother being sectioned for schizophrenia, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) talked about his friend who died of suicide, and the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) talked about his friend who was murdered. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) spoke about her personal experience with OCD and bipolar, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) talked about her post-natal depression and the suicide of a friend, the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) talked about his friend Sam who died from suicide, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) spoke about his close relative who was sectioned for psychosis. It shows that this discussion has got to the top of the nation and that it is at the very heart of every part of our communities. The hon. Member for Winchester talked about the problems of suicide for the professions, particularly doctors, vets and farmers. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said that he has had a ride-along three times with the police. I am pleased he is getting on so well with the police, but, more importantly, he made the very valid point that that is not a role for the police. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) talked about autistic people and learning difficulties, using her specialist abilities from her professional aspect as chair of the APPG. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), whose CV is as long as the Bill itself, talked about compassionate treatment, how to use the legislation and, most importantly, the scope of the powers, in essence because of the need to be precise when using such powers. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) talked about the importance of support for learning disabilities and autism. It is really important that this is about community, given that last week was Mental Health Awareness Week, for which the theme was community. The hon. Member for Dorking and Horley spoke passionately about Fiona’s campaign for Christopher’s case, and we will look closely at that amendment in Committee. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) is a nurse who also brings his professional experience to this House. He and I both came into this House to try to change the NHS, and while we chose different sides, there is clearly passion there. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) talked about his experience of improving the system and policies to improve mental health care. The hon. Member for Thurrock—a member of the Health Committee, as I was—talked passionately about OCD and bipolar, and how important it is to show that people can achieve whatever they put their mind to, no matter how high the barriers in front of them. The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) told a passionate and moving tale about Declan, and the tragic story, which really helped bring to life what can, unfortunately, go on in this country. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) spoke about the higher level of suicide in his area, and the importance of making sure that that is identified. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about the racial discrepancies, which is really important. The key thing is evidence of why that is happening, and to make the legislation effective off the back of that. The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) talked, as a mental health care nurse and chair of the APPG, about personalised care, which is so important. That leads me to the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), who also talked about putting the patient at the centre. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) talked about local services such as Lighthouse and No Limits, again showing the community support, and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) talked about the placement of children, at which we will be looking very closely in Committee. The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) pointed out the impact that social media can have on young people’s minds. The mental wellbeing of this House would not be the same without hearing the dulcet tones of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) from the back Bench. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) talked about the mental health charities that he has seen at first hand and about how people suffer. The hon. Member for Aylesbury rightly shone a spotlight on maternal health, which often gets missed in this conversation. The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh talked about men’s mental health—a passion of mine—and he was right to point to the men’s mental health strategy that the Government are bringing forward, and in which I encourage everyone to take part. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) rightly talked about learning from others, and we have definitely done that in this debate. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) talked specifically about the men’s shed, and I look forward to seeing his campaign on Labour for lawn mowers in its next manifesto. The hon. Member for Stroud and I have both seen more than a handful of patients with mental health issues in our time, and I love his idea, which I hope will be brought forward, about having management plans already decided by the patient, so that when they are in crisis, that has already been dealt with. Last but not least, the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) talked about the accumulative attention across this House that has led us here today, which is really important. We heard that the first mental health Act was introduced in 1959, but I am shocked—not once, but twice—to find I am the same age as the Mental Health Act 1983 and that I share the same year as the Health Secretary. In 2007, the previous Labour Government introduced community treatment orders and independent mental health advocates, all aiming to increase the support for people at risk of being detained and allowing patients who have been detained to be discharged to communities if certain conditions allowed. However, valid concerns were raised, and Members on both sides of the House have agreed that more needs to change. I am pleased that the Bill builds on the work of the previous Government, who made significant strides in addressing the long-standing disparity between physical and mental health. As has been mentioned, former Prime Minister Baroness May commissioned the independent Wessely review into the 1983 Act. I, too, pay tribute to their work in this journey. His report built on the principles of choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and people as individuals. The Conservative Government worked to create a draft Bill, which as we heard underwent significant scrutiny—we even have Members here who were part of it—recognising the need to get it right. Much of the Wessely report’s recommendations are here in front of us tonight, built around advance choice documents, improving advocacy, reform of community treatment orders, and changes around autism and learning disabilities, to name some of the 150 recommendations. On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I am pleased to stand here today and say that we support the principles behind the Bill. We will work constructively with the Government to scrutinise and improve it in Committee, and ensure that we pass good legislation that will do what is intended. The Minister understands that progress in principle must become progress in practice, so I would like to jog his memory about some of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar). Does the Minister believe there are enough treatment facilities, particularly in the community? Are there adequate places of safety for people being detained once police and prison cells are removed? Does the mental health tribunal system have capacity to deal with more cases? And what will happen following the abolition of NHS England, which commissions specialist mental health services? Does he believe in hitting the mental health investment standard? Will he commit to doing so going forward? To that end, will he set out a timetable for this House, the services and the public to all work towards, to be held account to? There is little greater moral burden than deciding for someone who cannot decide for themselves where care ends and control begins. Make no mistake, this is what this House is grappling with tonight and throughout the passage of the Bill. Involuntary care should never be the first instinct or answer, but a resort to prevent harm to both the individual and those around them. Compassionate care, therefore, demands precision. Without precision, we simply have sentiment. As His Majesty’s Opposition, we will endeavour to ensure that the Government’s sentiment becomes a commitment.

    Hansard source
25. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, although it was pretty disappointing to hear her deliver it as written. Before I had seen her statement, I drafted one of my own. In it, I was clear that I would limit my party political remarks, and thinking that the Minister would devote a significant part of her statement to condemning the immoral, malicious, criminal actors who are responsible for this attack, I intended to begin with strong words of support for what she said. However, if Members listened closely, they would have heard that she devoted most of her time to party political attacks, and managed barely one sentence of condemnation. I suggest that she looks at her statement when she leaves the Chamber, and reflects on that. I will say what the Minister should have said to all those worried by what has happened, including those who may be victims of fraud as a result, and taxpayers who will pick up the bill: we should never lose sight of the fact that whatever the role of any Government, past or present, in unsuccessfully defending against such attacks, the primary responsibility for this lies with the despicable criminals who carried it out. This was not just an attack on a digital system; it was an attack on some of the most vulnerable in our society. Their data is deeply personal in some cases, given that sensitive medical records have been exposed. It is utterly appalling. We welcome the fact that the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Security Centre are involved, and I hope that the Minister will agree that those behind this breach must be brought to justice. Nothing should stand in the way of full accountability for this crime. Addressing the actions of those behind the attack is paramount. The Minister may seek to focus blame on a previous Government, but I have questions about this Government’s response. First, why was the decision taken not to inform the House and the public about the breach when it was first discovered on 23 April? We now learn that the impact may extend to those who made applications as far back as 2010, and that more than 2 million pieces of information have been accessed. The delay of nearly a month in notifying the public and/or understanding the nature of the attack could have hindered individuals from taking necessary steps to protect themselves from potential harm, such as fraud or harassment. Secondly, the Minister mentioned taking systems offline that are crucial for legal professional payments. Can she provide a clear update on the operational status of those systems? If they are not yet fully functional, what is the estimated timeline for their restoration? She mentioned contingency plans; could she tell us more about their nature? Thirdly, can she share any information about the origin of this attack? Is it believed to be a state-linked criminal enterprise? Fourthly, has the Ministry of Justice initiated a thorough risk assessment of its other digital systems, and digital systems across Government more widely? She says that the Government believe that the attack is contained, but on what basis has she reached that conclusion? Fifthly, the Minister talked about the £20 million set aside for delivering improved systems. She will know the challenges that previous Governments faced in attempting to upgrade those systems. What specific improvements will be achieved by this funding, and when? Finally, will the Minister give a commitment to full transparency for the House, through regular updates as the investigations progress? She mentioned seeking to make the public more aware of the issue, so that people know if they might be affected. Will she ensure that those affected by this breach are directly contacted and offered appropriate support? Will she reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that those responsible are brought to justice? The security of our justice system, public confidence and the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals depend on a robust and transparent response to this serious incident.

    Hansard source
26. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement regarding the volunteer and care service.

    Hansard source
27. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. At the start of the covid pandemic, NHS volunteer responders were set up to support vulnerable people. Following its success, the previous Government expanded the scheme into adult social care, forming a joint NHS and care volunteers programme. That service has mobilised more than 750,000 ordinary citizens who have completed more than 2.7 million tasks and shifts, including more than 1.1 million telephone support calls, 1 million community response tasks and almost 400,000 steward shifts. I saw at first hand as a volunteer and doctor during the pandemic that NHS and social care teams benefit from volunteer support, and I put on record my thanks to all those who give up their time to support those around them. Out of nowhere, the Labour Government have decided to cancel this service at the end of the month. No tasks allocated after 31 May will be completed, seemingly leaving patients in the lurch. Has the Minister thought about the real-world implications of the additional pressure placed on NHS local authorities, the loss of institutional knowledge and the impact on vulnerable patients? What alternative measures are being put in place to support the people who were supported by volunteers? The Minister said that something would be put in place later this year, but when? Why leave a gap? The telephone helpline is open only until 31 May, so what happens if people need support after that? Will the Minister explain why the decision was taken so suddenly and which Minister signed it off? The volunteer website says that the decision was taken due to financial pressures, so can the Minister tell us how much the scheme costs? What is that cost as a proportion of the total NHS budget? The Public Accounts Committee report published last week on the reorganisation of NHS England was damning. The Secretary of State said he would “devolve more resources and responsibility to the frontline, to deliver…a better service for patients.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1286.] However, cancelling the volunteer programme takes services away from the frontline. This seems to be yet another example of Labour rushing into decisions without thinking them through properly, and yet another promise broken by this Government at the expense of the most vulnerable people.

    Hansard source
28. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the response to the urgent question that you were kind enough to grant, we still have no idea how long the gap in the service will last, or what will happen to the most vulnerable people who are using it. What other parliamentary mechanisms could I use to secure the answers to these questions?

    Hansard source
29. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I rise to speak in support of the Bill. To begin with, I need to make a couple of declarations. I have a family member who is a consultant psychiatrist. I am now a non-practising general adult psychiatrist with an endorsement and years in psychiatry, and I previously worked as a consultant psychiatrist. I took part in the 2018 Wessely review as a panel member on the tribunal working group, and I was on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee in the last Parliament. In a declaration of a more personal nature, this is an area that I feel passionately about. It is a great privilege to speak to this important piece of legislation and reforms going forward. The United Kingdom reforms its mental health legislation every 20 years or so. I did not want to correct the Secretary of State, but the first Mental Health Act was in 1959—I hope that was substantially before he was born, with reference to his earlier comments. The legislation has gone through various iterations from the original Lunacy Act and similar legislation in the 19th century. In the UK, we have always been at the forefront of reform to the law and to provisions and powers in this area. It is important in this Second Reading debate to focus on what the Mental Health Act is and what it does. Members have talked more broadly about the challenges of delivering mental health care currently, but it is important to reflect that the Mental Health Act is very specific and precise. It is about the regulation of detention—sometimes for assessment, sometimes for treatment—of people with mental disorder, and has a range of powers on aftercare and guardianship. It is focused on detention and assessment, or treatment, of people with mental disorder. We need that because there are times when people with severe mental illness become so unwell that they are unable to recognise their illness. Their illness puts their health at risk—predominantly through self-neglect or non-treatment. It puts their safety at risk, again through self-neglect, as well as through suicide. And, less commonly but critically, it puts them at risk of causing harm to others. The legal framework allows us to regulate compulsory treatment in that regard. It is absolutely critical that we have those powers so that, when people are so unwell that they do not recognise it and they lose agency, we can, as a compassionate society, take them into hospital and treat them, with a view to getting them back to themselves. I have used the 1983 Act countless times, applying it both to assessments and, as a section 12-approved doctor, to treatments, and I have used it as a responsible clinician. I suspect that I am one of the few Members of this House—certainly in this debate—who has had those roles and responsibilities. In terms of framing, it is important to reflect that one of the key changes in the 1983 Act, which is such an important piece of legislation, was that it was about restricting powers and ensuring that there were strong procedures for reviewing detentions. As a former health professional in this area, I am certain that all professionals working in it are mindful of the scope of powers that the Act provides. When applying restrictions, people do not use these powers in anger or without a great degree of thought and contemplation. The most intrusive intervention available to us in the health service is to detain and treat people in hospital or in secure hospital settings. Those powers are not taken lightly. A lot of concern was expressed at the start of the debate—and I am sure it will continue—about the way in which people have been treated in hospital. There have been some very high-profile scandals in which things have not worked well, to say the least, and care and treatment have been atrocious and abusive. However, people working in health and care in the UK are doing so because they want to see the best outcomes for their patients. Sometimes, they are limited in that because of the resources available. They do not use the Mental Health Act with a view to harming people, but with a view to helping them. Being detained under the Mental Health Act is not a prime facie harm; it is a treatment and a good thing. If someone needs to be detained and treated in hospital, they need to be detained and treated in hospital. If I became so unwell that I needed to be detained under the Act, I would want to be detained. Thankfully, I am not in that position today—[Interruption.] At least I believe that I am not, although the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), might have a different view on that. [Laughter.] Should I get to the point where I am so unwell that I cannot consider my own care, I would want the powers of the Mental Health Act to be used quickly, particularly if I were posing a risk to myself, my family and others, so that I can get better and back to living my life. I pay tribute to Baroness May of Maidenhead, who kicked this off, and to Professor Sir Simon Wessely—a good friend—Stephen Gilbert, Sir Mark Hedley and Rabbi Baroness Neuberger for their work in the 2018 review. There is a lot of good work in the Bill, from the greater focus on advance care planning and the more frequent detention reviews, which I recognise may bring a workforce burden, to the provisions on nominated persons. I will not go into the detail in this Second Reading speech, but I will focus on a few general points on which I think a bit more work needs to be undertaken. In some ways—I will have to message Sir Simon after this to ask his forgiveness—the Bill is a missed opportunity in that we have are not moving towards fusion law. For the benefit of those who are not all over the detail, at the moment the UK has two pieces of legislation regulating how to treat people in the absence of consent. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 came about from case law in the ’80s and ’90s and was codified in 2005. That Act broadly regulates physical health treatments for people who lack the capacity to consent—we have focused quite a lot on capacity in the recent debates on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The principles of the 2005 Act are autonomy and the functional capacity and best interests tests for people who lack capacity, meaning that we test someone’s capacity, and only if they lack capacity can we intervene in their best interests, sometimes by using deprivations of liberty. The Mental Health Act arose from a very different pathway. In its first days, it was more about the regulation of asylums. The Act is about status and risk. The gatekeeper conditions for the current Mental Health Act are that a patient has a mental disorder of a nature and a degree that requires assessment in hospital because of the risk to their health and to the safety of others. Capacity does not feature whatsoever. We have two pieces of legislation. One applies to the most severe mental disorders and deals with status and risk, and the other deals with autonomy and best interests. I strongly believe that the two need to be merged. We should use capacity and best interest frameworks to regulate treatment of mental disorder in the absence of consent—there are ways of doing that. I like the fact that we are starting to incorporate a bit more in the Bill.

    Hansard source
30. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Member is of course very knowledgeable given his background as a mental health nurse. I would like to see in the Bill a provision setting out that, in order to detain someone for the purposes of health or safety, they must lack decision-making capacity for the detention to be authorised. For the prevention of harm to others, there are reasons to overcome autonomy in decision-making capacity, but I would like to see an additional component specifying that if the detention for assessment and treatment in hospital is purely based on health and safety and not on risk of harm to others, the patient must also lack capacity. Otherwise, people who have full and intact decision-making capacity can nevertheless come into the scope of the powers. The liberty protection safeguards are a bit of a mess, quite frankly, and the DoLS were clearly a substantial mess. It is interesting that the legislative scrutiny of the Bill points out that it is a missed opportunity not to tidy up some of the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act—a point that I will come to a little later in my speech. In terms of parity of esteem, bringing forward fusion law and gelling the Acts closer together needs to be the direction of travel. I hope that we do not have to waste another 20 years until we get the opportunity something like that. There is something else that we need to reflect on. It comes to my other points about the focus in the Bill, but I will reiterate it. The core focus of the Bill is on reducing detentions of people from black and minority ethnic groups, who are over-represented in detention. One of the key focuses in fixing that must be on socioeconomic deprivation—where we see socioeconomic deprivation, we see severe mental disorder following—but I worry that the Bill is a missed opportunity and will not do what is required to deal with those disparities. There are three problems with the Bill, and two things that I wish to flag. I am sensitive to the concerns that have been raised about people with autistic spectrum disorders and learning disabilities, and the advocacy regarding such people being in hospital. Being in a general adult ward is a challenging environment as it is, and it is particularly challenging for someone with an ASD or a learning disability. People can get stuck in hospital not really going anywhere. That concern applies to most disorders—I do not think it is unique, given the lack of community support services. I disagree, however, with the focus on ASD and LD above all other conditions. If we want to talk about non-progressive conditions, I do not understand why a brain injury, or Korsakoff’s dementia for example, are not within the scope of this measure. I do not understand why, rather than using the Bill to take people out of section 3 of the Mental Health Act, something like a bolstered treatability test is not used, which is what was in the Act before it was modified in 2007.

    Hansard source
31. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Sensory over-stimulation can be a particular issue for those with autistic spectrum disorders. I have been concerned when I have looked after patients, and I have thought carefully about the challenges, particularly in general adult wards, of catering to the needs of people with autistic spectrum disorders or a learning disability. I would argue that that would apply broadly to anyone in a general adult hospital, irrespective of diagnosis—everyone has particular needs and sensitivities and we need to be mindful of that. I suspect this is something that the hon. Lady and I will disagree on, but I would consider an autistic spectrum disorder and a learning disability to be a mental disorder. It certainly is under the ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. One problem with how this issue is framed in the Bill is, for example, where Rett disorder, which is also a pervasive developmental disorder, would come into it. Does it come under the term “autistic”? Where does a not otherwise specified pervasive developmental disorder come into it? I am not sure whether how the terms in the Bill will operate in real life has been thought through. I do not understand why we are not pushing for such a provision for every disorder and condition that people have when they come into hospital. That is why we are not focused on something like a treatability test, or otherwise. This has a specific real-life fall-out. If people need to be in hospital after 28 days and there is a deprivation of liberty, that is going to happen. It will not stop happening; with the best will in the world, and even with this Bill, it will keep on happening. People will either be detained under liberty protection safeguards, or they will end up being detained with anxiety related to their ASD or learning disability, which would place them within scope of the Mental Health Act. A further challenge and disparity in the Bill is that it does not affect forensic provisions. People could be keener to pursue a criminal prosecution of people with ASD or an LD because that would enable a longer stay in detention than 28 days. That is why in the pre-legislative scrutiny we suggested that there should be an option to get a pre-authorisation for detention beyond 28 days by going to a tribunal, which we thought might deal with some of the concerns raised. Personally, I like the idea of pre-authorisation in general beyond 28 days, and it is something that Professor Richardson spoke about in her review back in the late ’90s. The Government recognise that there are challenges with this area, which is why these changes are in the schedules. There is a recognition that, frankly, this is not workable, and we will see as the Bill progresses that there are broader concerns about how it operates. Another area of concern is nominated persons and parental responsibility. The Bill changes “nearest relative” to a “nominated person”, which means that people can choose who performs that important role under the 1983 Act. The nearest relative or nominated person can discharge someone from the powers of the Act, which would inevitably mean that they would be discharged from hospital—there are powers to bar people, but it is quite a high threshold. This measure is important because it will allow someone under the age of 18 to choose someone who is not their parent to have that important statutory power. We raised this issue in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. We could have a situation in which a 16-year-old with competence who is detained under the 1983 Act in hospital chooses their mate, or somebody else—not their parent or someone with parental responsibility—to have the power to discharge them from measures under the Act, which would inevitably mean them leaving hospital. The parent, who in such situations is often responsible in some way for the after care, would lose that power. I am concerned, as were the Lords, about the impact of that measure on the Children Act 1989. I think there is a serious problem in changing this area of law—we do not have this in physical health—and introducing the ability to give a statutory power to a non-parent. I know the Minister will look into that in the Bill Committee, but I think the Government will have to row back on that. They could easily amend the Bill to say that if someone is under the age of 16, the nominated person must have parental responsibility unless there is a good reason for them not to have it. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are a bit different, especially when people start getting close to 18 and there are other children’s rights, but I cannot see why we should legislate to let someone under 16 choose someone who does not have parental responsibility to have that important power. The third problem is that the Bill is silent on deprivations of liberty in A&E, which are ongoing. It has been a while since I worked in A&E, but there has always been the challenge of what to do with someone who turns up to A&E if the doctor thinks that they will probably need detaining under the Mental Health Act because they are suicidal or very unwell, and wants to keep them there while the assessment takes place. We can get through it using the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but it is messy. It would be a lot clearer for everybody if we said, for example, that section 5(2) of the 1983 Act, which allows for temporary detention, could apply to an A&E setting. There is a bunch of technical stuff about the interaction between deprivation of liberty and the Mental Capacity Act, but I suspect you will start giving me the evil eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and telling me to move on if I start—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker says no, but I suspect that Members across the House might start doing that, so I will move on. Let me flag two things in the Bill. It allows for a discharge from hospital under supervised conditional discharge to a deprivation of liberty. That is in response to the case of Secretary of State for Justice v. MM, which involves a problem with how the law currently operates. As far as I know, in mental health law we have never had a situation where deprivations of liberty in the community were authorised under the Mental Health Act—someone had to be in a registered hospital. That is a big Rubicon to cross. I see why the Government need to tidy up this area of law, but I am not convinced that we have realised what a big Rubicon this is to cross. The operation of the Mental Health Act has always meant that someone was detained in hospital, but when they are in the community they are in the community. Someone might have certain restrictions placed on them by a community treatment order, or otherwise, but they are not deprived of their liberty in their home or in some other community setting that is not a registered medical hospital. I think that measure needs a bit more reflection. I believe that the majority of those who will undergo compulsory treatment under detention, certainly for a long period of time, under this legislation will be people with psychosis, such as schizophrenic forms of psychosis, schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder, but lot of the debate and focus has been on non-psychotic illnesses. That is not to say that those illnesses are less important—they are certainly not less important, especially for those who experience them—but I am concerned that people with schizophrenia always get a raw deal. They are often marginalised by society and in terms of the amount of advocacy they have. In fact, a lot of the evidence that we reviewed in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee focused on non-psychotic disorders, perhaps because sadly people often turn their backs on people with psychotic illnesses. Sometimes those people find themselves in a situation where their illness is so debilitating that they cannot advocate for themselves, so there tends to be a bias towards disorders such as dementia, ASD and LD, where there is someone to advocate, such as CAMHS or families who might push a little bit more. I am not saying that any condition is more important—I really want to stress that—but as parliamentarians, we do not necessarily understand that the bulk of the conditions that the Bill focuses on concern psychosis. Finally, I have spoken a lot about how psychosis can lead to people being detained in hospital and about the impact of that. Psychosis is a pretty terrible disease but it does not need to be: lots of people get better and it is one of the most treatable diseases. The Bill will help people to get better and we cannot lose sight of that.

    Hansard source
32. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    rose—

    Hansard source
33. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I appreciate the hon. Member giving way. There is a logical inconsistency, which is that people with autism and learning disability are looked after under mental health services for autism and learning disability. If the argument is, “Well, those conditions should not be within the scope of Mental Health Act”, one could make an argument that they should not be within scope of mental health services full stop.

    Hansard source
34. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    National Security Act 2023: Charges

    We understand that the three individuals concerned entered the country illegally and then claimed asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that this country is particularly attractive to those who wish to claim asylum because it is relatively easy to be successful in that endeavour compared with, for example, France, so it makes sense to claim asylum here? Does she attribute any of that to the Human Rights Act? If so, how does she plan to amend it? Does she have cause for concern that those who are tasked with making decisions are sometimes guilty of overzealous application of the law in respect of asylum?

    Hansard source
35. 19 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

    In her zeal to have a pop at the previous Government, the Minister implied that this country was peculiarly vulnerable to cyber-attack. There will be people listening to her out there who may be encouraged by that, so will she correct the record and reflect upon the International Telecommunication Union’s global cyber-security index, which found Britain to be right at the very top of the league table for cyber-security, along with countries known to be experts, such as Estonia and Germany? Does she agree that while we must not be complacent, it is important to tell the whole truth?

    Hansard source
36. 19 May 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    National Security Act 2023: Charges

    Can the Home Secretary explain why the British envoy in Tehran was summoned by the Iranian authorities at the weekend? More importantly, does this not signal a complete disconnect from reality on the part of the Iranian state?

    Hansard source
37. 19 May 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

    In recent months, the UK has experienced a number of very high-profile cyber-attacks right across the public and private sectors. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to update the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to enhance cyber-resilience through strengthened legal protections for cyber-security researchers? If her answer is yes, which Department is responsible for bringing about that change?

    Hansard source
38. 19 May 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Gender Self-identification

    I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I will not set a time limit, but if hon. Members keep their speeches to around seven minutes, everyone will get to make a meaningful contribution.

    Hansard source
39. 19 May 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Gender Self-identification

    I call Martin Rhodes, and I assure Dr Arthur that, after I leave the Chair, he will be called.

    Hansard source
40. 19 May 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Topical Questions

    Land at Eastriggs in my constituency, formerly part of MOD Eastriggs, was declared surplus, and 18 acres were successfully leased to a rail business that provided important jobs in the constituency. However, the plans for the remainder of the site seem to have got bogged down. I hope that Ministers can expedite a decision, so that more valuable jobs can be created in my constituency.

    Hansard source