Mental Health and Wellbeing Plan

Debate between Lord Beamish and Rachael Maskell

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the mental health and wellbeing plan.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

It is now 11 years since there was a major debate in Parliament on mental illness, when I and many other hon. Members spoke about their own experiences. That debate changed attitudes in this place towards mental illness and wellbeing, and both the press and members of the public have made great strides in being able to speak about mental health. We also now have members of the royal family speaking about their own mental illness, and it is heartening to see the Prince of Wales taking mental health and wellbeing as one of their charity initiatives. Unfortunately, however, there is still a lot of progress to be made in delivering timely treatment, particularly prevention and early intervention.

In England, the numbers speak for themselves. Around 1.7 million people are in contact with mental health services, and according to NHS England’s monthly statistic dashboard, 26,000 of them are occupying hospital beds or have a hospital bed open to them. We have also seen severe pressures on ambulance services and the police due to people in mental health crisis asking for help. However, according to the National Audit Office, there could be around 8 million people with mental health needs that are not currently being met by mental health services.

I am sure the Minister will tell us shortly that the Government are delivering record levels of investment in mental health services, but according to research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, almost a quarter of people are waiting more than 12 weeks for any form of treatment. Some 43% of mental health patients say that longer waiting times make their conditions worse, and 78% resort to attending A&E because they cannot access services. I am sorry, but that is unacceptable. It shows that despite the amount of money going into mental health—I would argue that there needs to be more—much more needs to be done on prevention. We need a joined-up approach across Government to reduce the demand on services and to get people more timely treatment and intervention.

That is why I welcomed the Government’s announcement of the development of a cross-departmental 10-year mental health and wellbeing plan last year, and it was also broadly welcomed by everyone in the mental health sphere, including many charities. It was launched with a great fanfare of publicity as a major initiative by the Government, who said at the time of the launch that

“now is the right time to think about bold, long-term actions to build the mentally healthy society that we want to see in 10 years’ time.”

The then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said that

“our new 10-year plan will set an ambitious agenda for where we want the mental health of our nation to be in a decade’s time.”

Over 5,200 individuals, organisations and stakeholders responded to the discussion paper. Charities such as Mind said that a truly cross-Government plan will play a key role in making sure that support for our mental health starts to rebuild, post pandemic, to the same level as our physical health, so it was a bit of a shock when the 10-year plan was quietly scrapped in January this year. Instead, the Government say that mental health will be addressed in their major conditions strategy. As I have already stated, it is clear from the number of people requiring interventions that mental health should be included in any such strategy.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I completely concur with his concern. There is a challenge. We know we are very interconnected beings, and our mental health and physical health are joined up. If we do not provide the focus required around mental health, it can get subsumed into other priorities, with mental health not having its day, its funding or real impact.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but that is what was so good about the 10-year mental health plan. That was going to do exactly what my hon. Friend suggests. It was going to look at the interconnections between physical and mental health, and some of the reasons it occurs in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Personally, I would not call it emotional intelligence; I would call it emotional robustness and I will come on to say more about that. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of trying to make sure that young people are as robust as possible in dealing with the situations that face them now in modern life.

The discussion paper for the 10-year plan mentioned no fewer than 18 disparity factors relating to mental health, including financial insecurity, discrimination, the criminal justice system, poor quality of work or employment, living standards—the list goes on. It is important to acknowledge those factors, because the Government themselves said that they needed to be addressed in mental health and wellbeing plan. Colleagues will know that I have often been on the record saying that the way to tackle mental health and wellbeing is to make sure that we hardwire into Government policy consideration of mental health and resilience across Departments. That is why I welcomed the approach in the plan.

However, building consideration of mental health into a major conditions strategy means that only one disparity factor is likely to be taken into consideration, which is physical health. Many other disparity factors, which are often complex, obviously relate to people’s wellbeing, but I fear they will be sidelined in the strategy.

Let us just take one of those other disparity factors, which is financial insecurity. According to the Office for National Statistics last autumn, around one in six adults experienced moderate or severe depressive symptoms. That increased to one in four for those who find it difficult to pay energy bills, or rent or mortgage payments. And according to a YouGov poll for Barnardo’s, almost a third of parents said that children’s mental health has worsened during the cost of living crisis.

We know that the effect of wellbeing on health includes its effect on mental health, which is substantial. This was such a key priority for the Government that they outlined its importance in their levelling-up agenda. The levelling up White Paper said that

“wellbeing has a bearing on all four of the UK Government’s objectives for levelling up”.

The 10-year plan discussion paper specifically said that

“a new plan for mental health is needed to deliver the Government’s levelling up mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy between local areas”.

However, we now have no mental health 10-year plan, so where does that leave those good words that were in the levelling up White Paper?

We also need early intervention and prevention, which are so important. We know for a fact that around 50% of mental health conditions are established by the time that a child reaches the age of 14 and 75% of them are established by the time someone is 24. However, it is estimated that 60% of children and young people who have diagnosable mental health conditions currently do not receive NHS care. I share the very valid concerns raised by mental health charities and others that scrapping the 10-year plan and merging mental health into the major conditions strategy means that the people who will be at most risk will be children and young people, who are less likely to have chronic physical health conditions, but are most likely to benefit from early intervention, for example counselling or psychotherapy.

I have spoken before about the importance of making sure that we get children and young people’s mental health right. Rates of probable mental health disorders in children aged between six and 16 have risen from 11.6% in 2017 to 18% in 2022. That equates to one in six children aged between six and 16 having a probable mental health condition. And as has already been mentioned, 700,000 children have accessed mental health services in the last 12 months.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Government need to take on board the important point that addressing the scale of mental health challenges in young people will not just be about health and looking at that major conditions strategy and how it interrelates with other health conditions, but about looking at what society offers, such as the education system, the digital community and so much more, which put so much pressure on young people. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why we need this focus?

[Mr Jones]

That was the beauty of the 10-year plan; it was going to do that.

Coming back to children’s and young people’s mental health, referrals have increased according to the Children’s Commissioner, but waiting times are growing and fewer children are receiving treatment. We need universal access to counselling for children, which we do not have at the moment. That is why I support providing special mental health support in every school. I stress that schools are not islands, separate from their communities. We also need clear links between the support given there and in the community.

I have already spoken about having a joined-up approach to mental health, but there is another issue: to use a Bill Clinton quote, “It’s the economy, stupid.” If media reports are correct, the Chancellor will stand up later today to deliver what he is calling a back-to-work Budget, but unless we take proper joined-up action on mental health, any ambitions he announces today will not be achieved. Adults with mental health conditions are more likely to be out of work or in lower paid work. The total annual cost to the Government is estimated to be between £24 billion and £27 billion a year, and the overall loss to the economy to be between £70 billion and £100 billion. That is money people could contribute to our economy, so this is not just about people’s wellbeing, but about ensuring the economy benefits from good mental health and wellbeing.

England is the only nation in the UK that does not have a 10-year plan. The Government’s current approach of scrapping the previous 10-year plan risks, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, sidelining mental health and short-changing future funding and policy decisions. It shows the lack of a coherent focus and risks losing the momentum that has been built over the past few years in mental health and wellbeing. Whether it is tackling disparities and the many complex drivers of mental health, or pursuing prevention and early intervention in children’s mental health, long-term planning is desperately needed in this sector. I cannot understand why the Government have put this to one side.

As I said last year to mark the 10th anniversary of speaking about my own mental health in the House of Commons, we need a dedicated public health strategy for dealing with mental health and wellbeing. We need a mental health strategy that is hard-wired into not just the Department of Health and Social Care, but every single Department and into local government. When the Government launched their paper for a dedicated 10-year plan on mental health and wellbeing last year, they said to

“challenge us to be ambitious”.

I am urging the Minister today to be ambitious.

Fire Safety: Retirement Communities

Debate between Lord Beamish and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I very much agree and will come to some of what the Government must do. Local fire boards and fire brigades will need extra enforcement powers.

I expected McCarthy & Stone, as the builder of the retirement community, to show an interest in rectifying its possible mistakes. I believed—foolishly—that it would be horrified at the risks that it might have inflicted on the residents through a litany of fire safety defects and that it would contact FirstPort, the new operator, to co-ordinate ways in which to rectify the situation. I was therefore disappointed when it simply said that the operation of the building had been passed to a new provider and that the warranty period on its construction work was up—it basically washed its hands of the situation.

It is unclear why the new operator, FirstPort, did not discover some of the structural building defects earlier as part of its due diligence when it took over Cestrian Court from McCarthy & Stone. It is also unclear why, given that Cestrian Court had five inspections during its construction, the National House Building Council failed to identify these issues.

On receiving the compliance report, I immediately contacted the chief fire officer at County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, who did an audit of the building. Of most concern was the “stay put” policy in place for residents in the event of a fire, which effectively said, “In the event of a fire, do not worry. Stay in your flats. Your flats are fireproof.” Nothing could have been further from the truth. Since construction 11 years ago, residents have been under the impression that “stay put” was the best policy to save them in the event of a fire. That was on the misguided assumption that the fire would be contained. With no fire-proof doors, gaps in cavity walls and loft spaces with missing or dislodged fire safety structures, that advice might have had fatal consequences. Residents were not protected, and we have been lucky that we have not had a national tragedy at this building.

The chief fire officer also found that the fire alarm system did not work, which again calls into question the “stay put” policy for residents in the event of a fire. He therefore escalated the advice from “stay put” to “full evacuation” in the event of a fire at the premises. Unsurprisingly, he also confirmed that the problems had to be treated with such urgency to mitigate the risk that the work would have to be done within three months. In the meantime, the fire risk was so bad that residents would have to pay for someone to stay on the premises 24 hours a day to alert them to possible fires, costing each two-bedroom flat £1,000. I want to formally thank Stuart Errington, our chief fire officer, and his team for the speedy way in which they dealt with this matter.

There have been cases throughout the country, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, of fires in retirement communities. There is evidence to suggest that if those fires had taken place at different times of day, they could have had fatal consequences. One fire took place at the Beechmere retirement complex—a four-storey complex of 132 extra-care sheltered flats in Cheshire—in August 2019. The fire rapidly spread through the cavities in the walls and the roof space. The fire service was unable to prevent total loss of the flats, but it was able to prevent any deaths. However, there is evidence that if the fire had taken place during the night, the consequences would have been completely different.

In 2017, a fire took place at the Newgrange care home—a two-storey care home in Herefordshire—resulting in two fatalities. The fire service had to rescue 30 people. Finally, in June 2020 in Sunderland, a fire started in the roof of the Croft care home and quickly spread. Some 27 residents had to be evacuated—some from upper storeys. Again, if the fire had occurred at night, we would have had a large number of fatalities.

Turning back to Cestrian Court, I was told in April this year that full remedial work would cost residents £87,000—around £3,000 per resident. Let me say very clearly that it is plainly wrong that residents are having to pay for remedial work that was the responsibility of McCarthy & Stone, which built the properties in the first place.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have the same issue at Guardian Court in my constituency, which is owned by Anchor Hanover. Just putting a new fire alarm system in these rented properties would cost £114,000. Along with the residents, I lobbied to reduce the cost and the labour costs to £98,500, but this is extortionate for people who have no additional means.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. These people are on fixed incomes and cannot just lay their hands on this type of money.

Let’s get this in perspective. Before its £647 million buy-out by private equity in February, McCarthy & Stone was listed on the FTSE 250. It handed out multimillion-pound bonuses in 2019. The chief executive officer earns £658,000, and the company has an annual turnover of £725 million—FirstPort has a turnover of £88 million. I have to say that £87,000 is small beer compared with the amounts being paid to the executives of McCarthy & Stone.

The remedial works at Cestrian Court have now been done, but the cost has fallen on the residents, and that cannot be right. It is also causing a huge amount of distress to those individuals, knowing that for the past 11 years they have been living in a building that could have been a tinderbox. I urge the National House Building Council and the two companies I have mentioned to put in place a scheme to compensate my constituents.

Interestingly, I have had one letter from McCarthy and Stone, but I think I have had five phone calls in the past few days, with it suddenly wondering why it is going to be raised in this debate. In the correspondence, McCarthy and Stone and the NHBC clearly have a dangerous misunderstanding of each other’s roles. I urge McCarthy and Stone and FirstPort to look, along with the NHBC, at who is responsible for this. Again, McCarthy and Stone’s attitude is, “It’s not our problem. It’s gone away”, but I think it is.

In conclusion, the Minister needs to consider new clause 1 to the Building Safety Bill, which calls on the Government to establish a review of construction industry payment practices. The current legislation contains no protections for residents such as those at Cestrian Court, given the height of the building. I understand well why the emphasis to date has been on the height of a building, but I urge the Minister to consider some of these buildings, and look at how we can better co-ordinate fire safety at a local level, and ensure that the inspection of new properties does not leave residents vulnerable.

I urge the Minister to take Cestrian Court as a case study that demonstrates the disjointed system for leasehold arrangements in this country, and the impact of that on fire safety. Residents of Cestrian Court have been fortunate that there was no fire, but one wonders what would have been done without their persistence in raising this issue and arguing that things should be done. Companies such as McCarthy and Stone portray the dream of a retirement for the elderly through glossy brochures and TV adverts, but all they have sold in my constituency is a potential nightmare. If a fire had taken place in that building, there would have been a need for some prosecutions.

Importantly, anyone living in a McCarthy and Stone property today should ask what fire certificates and regulations have been put in place. Indeed, I urge every fire authority to go into McCarthy and Stone properties to check that we do not have the horror story that we have at Cestrian Court. I thank the residents of Cestrian Court for their doggedness and determination in raising this issue. I feel heartily sorry for them as they have been left in this position through no fault of their own. It is another example of where people make money out of developments, but those individuals who have often put their life savings into wanting a happy retirement are left out of pocket. I am sorry, but that cannot be right.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Debate between Lord Beamish and Rachael Maskell

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Streeter.

It is vital that we remember, and that is what today’s debate is all about; indeed, it is what the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is all about. I thank the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) for securing this debate. This has been a very informative debate, with contributions from across the House about the importance of the commission’s work. That work is not only about maintaining the graves that we have heard so much about today, but about the way that the commission is taking history into the 21st century, by using web technology to help us look through our past and consider our own history, and of course so that we can take that knowledge and pass it on to the next generation. It is vital that we remember, and in particular that we remember the lives that were given for our freedom.

Of course, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does phenomenal work. This year, we are remembering the losses in Jutland and, as we have already heard, the losses in the battle of the Somme in July 1916. The commission’s work continues day in and day out, and we must acknowledge it.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and, of course, very grateful for the work of the commissioners, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). The contributions this afternoon have really reflected the importance of the commission’s work.

Maintaining and upgrading 23,000 cemeteries and memorials across 154 countries is no mean feat. That work includes replacing around 20,000 graves a year. Of course, there is also the important work of building on 100 years of record-keeping. It is important that we recognise the outstanding work that the commission does, and of course quality is at the forefront of all that work.

That work can only be achieved because of the total dedication of the 1,300 people who work across the world for the commission. Many of them work here in the UK but others are employed to provide vital skills and services right across the globe. Of course, the commission’s work is dedicated to the memory of the 1,700,000 men and—as we have heard today—women from across the Commonwealth who were killed. The commission’s staff work so hard to maintain the highest standards, but above that to maintain the memory and dignity of each young life that was lost—and it was predominantly young lives that were lost. The staff keep alive the memory of those who were lost, gathering more information and historical knowledge over time, to share that collective memory and collective story that speak of a Europe that was once divided against itself. They ensure that that is never forgotten.

Although we often recall less peaceful times at formal ceremonies at the memorials and cemeteries, it is the individual care that the staff show to the families and friends of the lost that causes them to stand out. They enable people to move on but also to cherish their memories. When people walk into one of the commission’s many cemeteries—as I have on a number of occasions—scan the thousands of pristine graves and start to read the names, ages and ranks of those who fell, they are taken on a journey of sacrifice: the sacrifice of parents and families, of their children and of the many young who gave their lives. It is a reminder to us, and to all who hold power—not least in this place—that our responsibility to their legacy is to find political solutions, no matter how difficult that is, to the challenges we face in our globe today.

The commission does not just keep history alive, it presents the past in such a way that we will never forget. As the commission reaches 100 years next year, we must mark its excellent work, as the right hon. Member for Broadland reminded us. But the commission is not just an organisation; it is the sum of its many parts. By that I mean the dedicated staff, many of whom have spent all their working lives there—indeed, for some of those I met, generations of their families had worked in the organisation—and make the commission what it is. Nevertheless, they look to us to provide them with the support they need when their terms and conditions and pay need to be addressed, and it would be remiss of me not to raise that today.

I have met the trade unions—the Public and Commercial Services Union, Unite and Prospect—and I must declare an interest as secretary of the Unite group here in Parliament and as a former national official of that union. I have also met the commission’s staff and have listened closely to the issues they have raised, and I know that they want their voice to be heard in this place this afternoon.

We believe that deals can be brokered, to give the workforce greater morale. We know that there have been difficult discussions about pensions and that pension schemes have been challenged, but the staff have outstanding questions about what happened and it is only right that we look to find solutions to the challenges that they have identified.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

May I make the offer to my hon. Friend that I have already made to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), that if she wants to meet the commission’s management to talk about personnel, I can certainly facilitate that?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that offer and I will certainly follow it up with him.

Commission staff have outstanding questions about their pensions, but that takes us on to the issues that are pertinent—particularly this week—regarding their pay. Over time, the staff have accepted lower rates of pay and less favourable terms and conditions—that came out in the Towers Watson global grading and pay review—and we have heard about the inconveniences to family life, whether that is taking children out of their schools or spouses not being able to have a career because of moves. The value of the jobs was also recognised in the review—for instance, the learning of a foreign language, not superficially but in a way that means being able to negotiate deals, employ staff and manage contracts. The staff’s dedication, and the quality and standard of their work, means that they should be remunerated at an appropriate rate. That is what the review says. Public sector workers are seeing a 1% increase in their pay but the commission is offering half that to its staff. We should seriously look at what the deals mean for the staff and ensure, as we enter this time when staff are working over and above what is expected of them so that the public can remember and commemorate 100 years since the battles of the first world war, that the staff’s battles today are well recognised and that staff are remunerated appropriately.

Labour wants a clear win-win solution and we believe that one can be found. I therefore urge the commissioners present and the Minister to find such a solution. We must remember that the staff are public servants and want to give the best they can, and the respect we show them will, therefore, be reflected in the excellence of their work.

As we move towards its 100th year next year, it is vital to ensure that the commission’s work and its vision for the future—building on Fabian Ware’s initial vision—is strong, including the commitment not only of its staff but of the public, in the way that it celebrates what has been achieved, and also to ensure that it continues to remember the ultimate price paid by the 1,700,000 people whose graves it cares for day in, day out, around the globe.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Rachael Maskell

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell]

It is really important to calculate the real cost of check-off. The cost is absolutely nominal, and many trade unions are actually subsidising local authorities, the NHS and other public bodies with the amount that they pay for the levy.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. This shows my age, but the process used to have to be done manually, which meant that there was a cost. My hon. Friend is quite right that, with modern-day computer payroll systems, for example, the cost is very difficult to determine.

I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, oppose the Bill as a whole, but given the compromise that we have got because of the EU referendum, we are in a good place. However, I would just issue a final warning. I hope Conservative Members will not, once the EU referendum is over, bring in legislation to fill in what has been left out of the Bill. That would not only be another attack on trade unions, which are among the most highly regulated sectors in our country, but would show the vindictiveness that still exists in a section of the Conservative party. I look forward to the introduction, not long after June, of a Bill exploring total transparency in party funding in this country. If trade unions can have openness in terms of their money, we should decide it is time for other donations to political parties to have the same type of scrutiny and transparency, so that people can make up their own minds when they go to the ballot box.