Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Vince and Jen Craft

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jen Craft]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue in more detail with him, although we will probably continue to disagree. People with learning disabilities and autism can suffer from mental health conditions as much as the rest of the population, but they have a unique set of challenges. I point out as a note to policymakers in general that they should not conflate learning disability and autism as one and the same thing. That is vital.

At the end of January 2025, 2,065 in-patients in locked mental health facilities were autistic or living with a learning disability. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, the average length of stay for these patients is nearly five years. For those with a learning disability or autism, a locked mental health ward can be a living hell. For someone with sensory issues, a reliance on routine, a need for a specialist diet or equipment or myriad other needs, being in a busy, over-stimulating environment—often with strip lighting and minimal privacy—often means they are set up to fail from the very beginning.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech, and I know that her experience in this issue is almost second to none. She is making a point about how those with learning disabilities being confined in the way she suggests could add to their mental health issues. Supporting them in the community would alleviate a lot of those mental health issues. In the long term, that is better for them and for the community.

[Jen Craft]

I will come to that point a little later, but that confinement is detrimental to their mental health. It can sometimes be hard to pick apart a co-existing or co-occurring mental health condition from the behaviour exhibited within that environment. This is part of the reason that it is all but impossible for some detained individuals, in the circumstances they are in, to demonstrate the behaviour change they need to prove they have become sufficiently well to be released.

My attention was drawn last year to the case of a young woman called Bethany, who was detained for the best part of half a decade under the Mental Health Act. She is an autistic young woman whose parents believed that her entering a secure unit was the best choice. However, she ended up being locked up for days, weeks and then months on end in a room with only a mattress on the floor. She was unable to see her family or her support network, and her parents were absolutely devastated at being unable to get her out of that environment and seeing her continually deteriorate. It is hard to imagine the anguish of people seeing someone that they love go through this. When this happens to someone or their family, how on earth can they ever again trust the system that put them there? Learning disabled people and autistic people who have been through that have their confidence in accessing support taken away. In turn, that can create a vicious cycle.

I strongly welcome the moves that this Bill makes towards removing learning disability and autism as a reason alone for detention. However, similar to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), I note that the Government have said that these changes to detention criteria will only be switched on when systems can demonstrate a sufficient level of community support. That is a source of real concern. As the NHS Confederation has warned, the

“success of the reforms will be dependent on the wider infrastructure to support”

the Bill. As others have said, there is no clarity on what a sufficient level of support means in practice. We do not know where we are heading or when we will have got there.

The most successful support for learning disabled and autistic people to live independently in their communities is integrated care that encompasses health, housing, occupation and much more besides. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances on how that will be delivered in the timescales set out and how we get from where we are now to where good is. The continual detention of people in this way should shame us all, and an end to that cannot come fast enough.

I sound a note of caution—I think this is fairly similar to that of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—that the legislation continues to allow for the co-occurrence of mental health conditions to be a reason to detain someone with a learning disability and autism. That in and of itself could lead to this continual cycle where people are detained for longer than is necessary for their treatment while in an environment that is entirely counterproductive to them becoming well. We also need those with a specialism in learning disability and autism to be present in assessing whether an individual also has a co-occurring mental health condition.

Finally, I put a plea in to the Minister that there is a real need for those who live with a learning disability or autism to be properly consulted. A number of disabled people’s charities that are run by people with a learning disability, such as the “Bring People Home from Hospital” campaign, which is operating under the auspices of Inclusion London, do not feel that they have had sufficient opportunity to input. A very minor point is that some relevant documents related to this legislation have not been printed in easy read. If they have, it has taken a while for them to arrive. People who have a lived experience of these conditions are unable to contribute in a meaningful way.

More broadly, I welcome the legislation’s attempt to make progress in putting patient voice at the heart of care, particularly through advance choice documents, but there is scope to go further. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is advocating for a statutory right to an advance choice document, which the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee also recommended. That would ensure that all patients who would benefit from one would get one, with the aim of reducing detentions and involuntary treatment. While I recognise the importance of this step and this legislation alongside the Government’s investment in mental health crisis centres, a pledge to recruit 8,500 mental health staff and the Secretary of State’s commitment to the mental health investment standard, there is a desperate need to transform community mental health services to put patient voice and experience at its heart and avoid the need for detention orders in the first place.

As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I have had the privilege of hearing from some extraordinarily courageous individuals who shared their experience of living with a serious mental illness. It is in that same spirit that I will share my own experience now. I hope that it offers an insight into the limitations of our current system.

I was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder as a teenager, and with bipolar disorder in my 20s. In two and half decades with these conditions I have received good care, but sadly that is the exception and not the rule. I have never been asked what it is that I want from treatment, what it is that I want for my life, and how I can be helped to get there. I have received care that is patronising, reductive, inconsistent and non-existent. During mental health crises I have had to tread a fine line between proving that I am ill, and sometimes extremely ill, and proving that I am not so ill that I need to lose my liberty, because I know that more often than not, treatment is based not on therapeutic care but on risk management. Like thousands of others, I have had to create my own care package and my own route to treatment, because I made the decision that I deserved to live, and I deserved to live well—and also that my children deserved their mum. However, I am very aware that my ability to do this is based on a number of privileges, in no small part a very supportive family, which so many do not have.

While I welcome the Bill for its advances in reducing the amount of detention and increasing the agency of those who are detained, I must call for a significant overhaul of community mental health services to prevent crises from occurring in the first place. We know that we can and must do better. I ask all Members to note that when we discuss people’s serious mental illnesses, we often talk as though they were “others”, which they are not. Let me say this: “There is someone standing here among you, a Member of Parliament, who has a serious mental illness. It does not prevent me from doing my job or from living my life; in some ways, it makes me better at it.” While the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, can we please bear in mind that we are talking about individuals, and individuals who will be affected by it, and that what we seek to do—and what I hope we will accomplish—is give people who live with serious mental illnesses the ability and the right to live the best lives that they possibly can, with all the support that we can make available?

British Sign Language Week

Debate between Chris Vince and Jen Craft

Thursday 20th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered British Sign Language Week.

[In British Sign Language: I beg to move, That this House has considered British Sign Language Week.]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank those who have supported today’s debate: the hon. Members who sponsored my application to the Backbench Business Committee; the members of the newly formed all-party parliamentary group on British Sign Language, who had ideas for how to celebrate Sign Language Week; and the British Deaf Association, which campaigns tirelessly to promote the interests of the deaf community. I am delighted that we have live British Sign Language interpretation today, and I am grateful to the House authorities for supporting it. It means that we are able to have members of the deaf-signing community join us in the Public Gallery. [In British Sign Language: Welcome to Parliament, and I hope you enjoy the debate.]

As the theme of this year’s Sign Language Week captures well, BSL is more than a language. For the 87,000 first-language signers in the UK, it represents culture, community and belonging. It is symbolic of a unique way of life—one that empowers deaf people to overcome the barriers they face from birth. It provides connection, not only in the deaf-signing community, but to their loved ones. Sign language creates special moments that other families might take for granted. The first time a parent tells their deaf child, “I love you,” might be using sign.

My daughter has Down’s syndrome and experiences hearing loss, so my husband and I use sign-supported English, which is a form of BSL, as part of our toolkit to communicate at home. To any BSL first-language speakers who are watching, I am going to attempt some BSL throughout this speech, so my apologies. [In British Sign Language: I am trying.]

It is with a real sense of personal pride that I open this debate. It is an opportunity to celebrate Sign Language Week and the rich culture it commemorates, while discussing how we as MPs can go further to improve access and the inclusion of the BSL community. The progress that has been made to date is testament to the determination of deaf campaigners, but British Sign Language is not a new phenomenon; it has existed for hundreds of years. There are printed accounts of a national language of the hand dating back as far as the 17th century, but it was only in 2003 that BSL was officially recognised as a language, and it was not until the British Sign Language Act 2022 that this nominal recognition was translated on to the statute book, with legal recognition of BSL. I pay tribute to the former Member for West Lancashire, Rosie Cooper, for leading that private Member’s Bill through Parliament.

The Act was a watershed moment in galvanising public support, and Rosie Cooper’s exceptional campaigning has left an enduring legacy. The Act legislated for the promotion and inclusion of BSL in Government, and led to the creation of the BSL advisory board, which has done excellent work to put the experiences and voices of deaf signers at the heart of Government. It placed a duty on Departments to prepare and publish reports on the use of BSL in their communications. From May 2023 to April 2024, BSL activity in Government communications doubled, and the overall number of Government Departments that said they had not produced any BSL communications halved, from 11 to five. However, there is still much further to go. Five Government Departments is still five too many.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

[In British Sign Language: Will my hon. Friend give way?]

[Jen Craft]

I will.

[Chris Vince]

My hon. Friend is giving a passionate and knowledgeable speech. Does she agree that, in terms of Parliament, this is a question of accessibility? We want people with BSL as their first language to be able to not only access politics but be a part of it as well.

[Jen Craft]

[In British Sign Language: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.] As people will see, we have tried to learn some parliamentary signs ahead of this debate. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is a question of accessibility. If someone is a British Sign Language first-language speaker, there are barriers to taking part in this House. There absolutely should not be. This is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. There are 87,000 BSL first-language speakers and they absolutely deserve their place here as much as hearing people do. Too frequently, Government consultations, including on the national health service 10-year plan and the welfare reform Green Paper, have BSL interpretation as an afterthought, if it exists at all.

In wider society, we need to see a renewed focus on the needs and interests of the deaf community. Some 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, but support to learn BSL is based on a postcode lottery. Across the country, there is a patchwork of sign language services, with a mix of local authority and third-sector provision. According to research by the National Deaf Children’s Society, almost half of local authorities neither provide, fund nor commission any courses in sign language for families.