Meningitis Outbreak

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I share my condolences with those families and communities affected by this outbreak. I cannot begin, as the Secretary of State said, to imagine what they must be thinking and feeling during this time. I also thank those staff who have been involved in the response. I echo the Secretary of State’s hope that from this tragedy will come greater public awareness, but may I add that there should be an increased laser-like focus on vaccination and immunisation from the highest levels of Government? He may be aware that the Select Committee did a one-off inquiry into vaccination and immunisation. I have to be honest with him: our letter to the Department is one of the strongest we have ever sent. We have deep concerns. We use words such as “complacent”, although I do not think that applies to this specific case. I believe that UKHSA has taken this matter incredibly seriously and the mobilisation has happened, although that is despite, not because of, the level of underlying resilience in the system. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look at what we have sent him and his Department? Will he undertake to lead the response himself, not just on this incident but on all vaccination trends in this country from now on?

[Wes Streeting]

May I first welcome what the Chair of the Select Committee has said about the response to this incident? She is right to press more broadly on vaccination. The winter campaign that we have just run was more successful than last winter’s, but on her point about complacency, I would be the first to say that even with that improvement, we are still not doing well enough as a country on vaccination rates. I am particularly concerned about childhood vaccination. I can give her the assurance that I and our new public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)—I welcome her to the Front Bench—will look at that issue carefully. We take it seriously, and we will reply directly to the Committee with actions and with the seriousness that the letter warrants. To reassure the Chair of the Select Committee, I am already talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education about what more the Department for Education, the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care can do together to ensure that we improve childhood immunisation as well as wider vaccine uptake across the population.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

On Friday, I visited Young Devon, an early support centre in the heart of rural North Devon, where I met young people who told me heartbreaking stories of how they felt left out and let down by the system. Young Devon was quite literally a lifeline for them. It has an open-door, person-centred approach. I am delighted that its funding has been continued for one more year, but it is only one year, and those who run the centre told me that this makes it incredibly difficult for them to plan. Can the Secretary of State clarify what the longer-term plan is for these early support hubs, how they sit alongside Young Futures hubs, and how he can help organisations like Young Devon thrive into the future?

[Wes Streeting]

I join the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee in paying tribute to Young Devon and the work it is doing. As she will know, I have enormous sympathy for the challenge she raises about medium-term certainty on funding. As was demonstrated on the Floor of the House yesterday by the Education Secretary, my Department and the Department for Education are working closely together to make sure we are better joining up education, health provision and support for young people. There is more to do. I accept the challenge that she sets down around medium-term certainty on funding; that is why we are doing more through, for example, the medium-term planning framework. I accept, in the spirit of this exchange, that there is lots done, but lots more to do.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I absolutely give the hon. Member that assurance—the Bill covers medical graduates from the UK and Ireland, for very obvious reasons. I welcome the broad support that the Bill appears to have across the House, because for the changes to benefit applicants in the current round—for posts starting this August—it must achieve Royal Assent by 5 March. Any delay will risk vacancies in August and disrupt planning in NHS trusts, which rely on their new trainees to deliver frontline care. Doctors also need sufficient time to find somewhere to live, sort childcare and arrange other aspects of their lives before their posts start. I am grateful that Parliament has agreed to expedite the Bill’s progress, and confident that we will be able to work at pace with our majority in this House, and with cross-party support in the other place.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I sense that the Secretary of State is about to reach the end of his remarks. We are keen to start the debate, but it would be helpful to get clarity on one thing before we begin. When will we see the workforce plan? It has been delayed a couple of times. We wrote to the Department in November asking for an explanation as to why it has been delayed and when we can expect it. Can the Secretary of State give us some clarity, because that is the context in which the narrow technical measure that we are discussing needs to happen?

[Wes Streeting]

That is a fair question from the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. We are taking longer than I would have liked with the workforce plan. I hope it reassures the hon. Member and the House that we have taken more time because that is what the royal colleges, trade unions, and clinical and NHS leaders asked us to do. Their strong urging was to get it right, rather than rush according to a political timetable, which I thought was a fair challenge. It will be published this spring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I broadly welcome this common-sense Bill. I am left rather flummoxed that we got to this point, but here we are. It is self-evident that if we pay to train doctors, they should be prioritised and encouraged in all manner of ways to stay in the UK. I understand why we must expedite the measures: talks with the BMA are ongoing and we want to avert strike action. I sincerely hope that the BMA and all resident doctors hear this debate and see that Parliament is listening to them, and that, together, we can avert industrial action, which does nothing to help the recovery of the NHS—fingers crossed that this works.

I will talk about the fears that I have heard about in my postbag. We are here in part because of the lack of a big joined-up workforce plan. We have been talking about such a plan for many years, but the previous one was clearly flawed, no matter which way one looked at it. It is in that context that we are bringing forward this very specific and quite technical point.

However, for resident doctors—formerly known as junior doctors—and for medical students, this is not technical at all; it affects their lives. Marco, an Oxford medical student, wrote to me last year to say that he was

“particularly concerned about the prospect of unemployment from being unable to secure a training position.”

He pointed out that countries such as Canada, the US and Australia already have structured approaches, while England has fallen behind.

Yasmin, another constituent, said:

“I studied for six years and graduated with over £70,000 of debt. I completed my foundation programme in a crumbling district general hospital, where I was routinely overworked and trying to care for patients in corridors under conditions that felt increasingly unsafe. I worked extremely hard to provide the best possible care despite these circumstances. Yet now, after two exhausting years, I find myself unemployed.”

Yasmin told me that many of her colleagues had been forced to take non-medical jobs—in administration, hospitality and other sectors—simply to survive. Some will never return to medical practice at all.

If our brightest and most committed young doctors are worried about unemployment, or are leaving the profession altogether, the system is clearly fundamentally broken and needs reform, so the Bill is a necessary step. Notwithstanding the good reasons to support the Bill, we must be mindful that it may well have unintended consequences if it is not implemented fairly. I am particularly concerned about the impact on overseas doctors who have already made significant life decisions based on the current rules.

Lamia, one of the many medical graduates in my postbag this week, said:

“Over the past two years, I have organised my professional life around the UK’s published requirements, completing examinations, securing GMC registration, and investing significant personal and family savings, even incurring debt. I also declined a stable job opportunity abroad to focus on the MSRA based on the rules at that time.”

She feels that to suddenly change things retrospectively is an injustice. The Government must clarify what “significant experience” means, because this will have an effect on people’s life choices. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that today—are the Government looking at one year, two, five or 10?

There is also the issue of British universities’ overseas campuses, which we have heard about from a number of Members. Graduates of institutions such as Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia, Queen Mary University of London in Malta and St George’s in Cyprus are excluded from the Bill. The vice-chancellor of Newcastle University, Professor Chris Day, wrote to me to say:

“these graduates complete the same medical degree, receive the same accreditation, and the majority then go on to train and work in the UK.”

As these students studied in English to UK standards, they transition into the NHS as quickly and effectively as home-based counterparts. He makes the point that they are incredibly effective very quickly within the NHS.

The Secretary of State explained why these students are being excluded: the Government cannot determine how many overseas campus places these universities will provide. However, to flatter my friend on the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman)—he is not here, but I know he will appreciate the flattery—he is absolutely right that the Minister could include a tightly drafted exemption for those who have already started those courses. I heard what the Secretary of State said about the fact that the terms and conditions on the website never guarantee a post, but we all know how this works. If we buy a product, understanding that for years and years it has worked a certain way, it cannot suddenly change halfway through. It would only take a year or two for this to wash through the system, so that we do not exclude those who have made the commitment and spent huge amounts of money in good faith, thinking that it would help. There could be some movement here, for a relatively small number of people. I hope the Government are listening to those voices. I am not sure it is a necessary battle, and it could be sorted in future regulations.

The other concern I have, which I have raised with the Minister and with the Secretary of State when he made a statement on the strikes before Christmas, is the signal that the Bill is sending to our overseas doctors. The more that we can all say this, the better: they are absolutely critical to our NHS. The chief executive of the GMC, Charlie Massey, gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee last week, and he was clear: doctors who qualified overseas make up around 42% of the medical workforce. Of course, we are not talking about that number, but if even a small proportion now might not want to work in our system, it will leave gaps that we simply cannot fill. Any conversation about prioritising UK graduates should explicitly recognise the immense contribution they make.

I want some concrete answers on this issue. We can keep talking about it, but will any measures be put in place? How will we show our appreciation? We must bear it in mind that these are highly mobile individuals to have come here in the first place. I understand the mantra that this is prioritisation, not exclusion, but if they find themselves excluded from some of the more popular specialisms, they may decide that they would rather leave the country and pursue that specialism elsewhere than stay in this country. We need them. There are potential unintended consequences in the short term. Has any modelling been done of how this might feed through the system? If the impact is negligible, what does that mean in concrete terms? Our Committee’s concern is that losing even a small number could have adverse consequences down the line.

My final point is on the workforce plan. I am confident that the Committee’s letter to the Minister is on her desk, and I hope it will be expedited soon. It would be better to flesh out some of the detail. The Secretary of State set out what the delay is and said the plan will be published in spring. I know that these things change, but we need to know exactly what is happening behind the scenes, so that we can get an understanding of the issues that are now being incorporated that were not there before. I agree we have to get this right. It was not right first time, and we have already had so many workforce plans that I understand why there is scepticism among the Royal Colleges and elsewhere that this one will work. Let us get it right—absolutely—but in the interim, by making such changes without the bigger picture, I fear we will end up doing more damage. England has 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people, but the OECD average is 3.9, and it is 4.5 in countries like Germany. The BMA estimates that we need another 40,000 additional doctors, so the 4,000 places announced by the Secretary of State do not even begin to get there.

The other issue, of course, is the leaky bucket: retention. Every time I meet anyone in the sector they say, “How do you solve the workforce issue?” I understand why the Government focus on training—it is an issue they can dial up when they can—but the thing that really matters is retention. Having a conversation about training places and inputs is essentially turning on the drip of a tap when we have a big hole at the bottom of the bucket. For GPs, we had a session on the shift to community, and if we are going to deliver that, boy do we need home-grown doctors as part of it—I totally get that. According to a survey by the Royal College of General Practitioners, one-third of GPs might leave in the next five years, with stress being the leading factor, and with 44% citing unmanageable stress, and 73% saying that patient safety as a result of the high work load was causing them moral injury. That is mimicked across all the different specialisms, and it is something we need to address. I appreciate that it is not an issue for this Bill, but it has a material effect on whether these measures will solve the problems that the Government say they will.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and urge the Government to think again about overseas campuses, even in a short, time-limited, tight way. Let us also say again how much we value our international doctors, and how much we want them to stay. I am looking forward to hearing more from the Minister than just the warm words that I am sure she will provide. What else could we do to ensure that doctors believe that the NHS is a place where their career can thrive, not just make it slightly more bearable than it was before? We all want the NHS to succeed; I am sure they do too and that they want to stay and be part of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

An Oxford midwife recently told me that sewage regularly rises through the floor and drips down through the ceiling on to a hospital maternity ward. This has become so common that it is now standard procedure for midwives to move the clinic whenever it happens so that patients are none the wiser. Obviously if the hospital had the money to fix the problem it would have already done so, but equally obviously, the staff should be looking after mothers and babies, not shovelling sewage. Can the Secretary of State confirm that when the Amos review has done its work, there will be a flexible pot of money so that specific issues such as this in specific hospitals can be dealt with to improve patient safety and staff retention?

[Wes Streeting]

Without pre-empting Baroness Amos’s work, let me say that the hon. Lady is absolutely right. We need to give staff the tools that will enable them to do the job to the best of their ability, and they need the right facilities and environment in which they can work and patients can be cared for. It is completely unacceptable that on top of the other challenges that staff and families face at such an important time—the unique moment of bringing new life into the world—they are having to do so against the backdrop of crumbling estates that the hon. Lady has described. We are putting the largest ever capital investment into the NHS, but she has made a powerful point about the need for capital investment in this area, which was impressed on me at Queen’s hospital in Romford during one of my recent visits, and I will be looking at the issue very closely.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

This is just not the time for a strike. As much as we have huge sympathy with many of the grievances of resident doctors, we understand that the next few weeks will be critical for how the next few months will be for the NHS, so I echo calls for the BMA to listen to reason. However, I spare a thought, and I hope the Secretary of State does, for the overseas doctors we rely on so heavily, because there is an acute workforce shortage. How, through this plan and this legislation, will the Secretary of State avoid creating a two-tier system that risks undervaluing the critical work that overseas doctors do to prop up our NHS?

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that contribution, which is really important on two fronts. First, she is absolutely right that this really is not the time for this kind of disruption, and I think the BMA knows that. I do not think that those I am dealing with are bad people. I think they are frustrated with me and this Government—they do not think we have gone far enough—and I am equally frustrated with them, and the fact that they do not recognise how far we have come, and how fast, but that is the nature of the dispute. With the extended mandate, there is an opportunity for us all to park this and, in the worst-case scenario, revisit it in January. I hope, even now, that the BMA will seize that opportunity. I think it would do it the world of good in the eyes of the public, and in the eyes of its members and the wider NHS family.

I am really glad that the Chair of the Select Committee raised the point about international medical graduates and the overseas workforce. The NHS has always been an international employer. We have been so fortunate as a country that, since 1948, people have come from around the world to help us build and sustain a national health service. Without them, it would collapse, and we never want to be a country that closes the door to international talent.

What is extraordinary is that many of those overseas doctors, when they see the competition ratios and compare our approach to that of their home country and other countries, think we have lost the plot. They cannot believe we do not already do this, so I think they will understand what we are doing and why. I hope they will be reassured that international recruits who have given service to the NHS will also be able to apply for specialty places, because we want to recruit and retain great talent, but they will also recognise how this is a game changer for the ratios for homegrown talent. I think they will understand that. I think they will respect that. Not least, I have been at pains as Health Secretary, given some of the ugly rhetoric that has come from one corner of this Chamber, to emphasise that, while some people in this House might tell those international recruits to go home, as far as we are concerned they are home.

Budget Resolutions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

The Secretary of State was absolutely right: the NHS does need to innovate and renew—and indeed any investment in any Budget is welcome—but how this renewal happens and what is prioritised also matters. While I of course agree that the focus on hospital waiting lists is right, I can also be concerned that the focus on physical health risks deprioritising an under-loved but equally important area: mental health.

Today, the Health and Social Care Committee published its report on community mental health services, with a focus on severe mental health. The report is clear: we must take a radical new approach to mental health and its funding. Although parity of esteem has been enshrined in the NHS constitution for over a decade, we have not made enough progress. As Lord Darzi outlined, although mental health accounts for over 20% of the disease burden, it receives less than 10% of NHS spend. Worryingly, the share of NHS spending on mental health has fallen again this year. For five years it went up, slowly but surely, from 8.05% in 2018 to 9% in 2023. That may not sound like much, but it represents billions in extra spending. That started to make a bit of a difference, particularly in workforce numbers, but anyone who uses the system knows that we have a long way to go.

I am bitterly disappointed that the mental health investment standard, which is the principle of increasing the share of ICB spend on mental health each year, has been watered down to be based on flat, real funding growth—just keeping up with inflation. This is an unwelcome finessing of the definition, and it is a backwards step. The Committee urges the Government to change course and, further, to enshrine the original definition in law.

Why spend all that money? There are so many reasons. There is a strong link between mental illness and demand for social care. People with severe mental ill health die on average 15 to 20 years earlier. A Care Quality Commission survey showed that up to 90% of people with mental health issues want to work, but only 37% are working. For people with severe mental illness, that figure falls to 8%. They are not lazy; they are sick. Investing in mental health grows the economy and boosts productivity.

Of course, money is not everything. It is right that we do this for the people—something that I know only too well as the proud partner of someone who happens to have a bipolar diagnosis. They fall through the cracks, denied care for being too well, too ill or not in crisis. They wait years for services, and, unlike for physical health, there are no targets. We need national access and waiting time standards now. The consequences of the system can be tragic—just ask Dianne, one of my constituents. Her son Leon was discharged from the community and he deteriorated. Despite desperate pleas, doctors would not review his case, and he completed suicide.

There is a ray of hope in the system: 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres. Such centres are open access, with an integrated, holistic model, rooted in communities—everything that our experts asked for. One staff member said:

“This place helps people feel like a skilled person, not just an ill person.”

We need the funding for those centres to continue, and for them to be rolled out across the country. I urge the Government to be bold, take on the leadership and ensure that the money is there. If they do, our Committee will back them every step of the way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Diethylstilbestrol, or DES, was prescribed to women until the 1980s to treat miscarriage. Those who took it were themselves at greater risk of breast cancer, and their daughters have a higher risk of rare cervical cancers. It is estimated that a whopping 300,000 women have been affected. Two weeks ago the Secretary of State made an apology to victims, but they rightly want more than “sorry”, and they have pointed out that the current screening regime is insufficient. Will the Secretary of State meet me, and campaigners and victims, in order to understand how this was allowed to happen, who will be held accountable, and how those women can go about securing compensation for this egregious scandal?

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for raising that extremely serious issue. I am glad that she has drawn it to the House’s attention. I have apologised, on behalf of the state, for the failure that occurred and for the harm that has arisen as a result. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) has been campaigning diligently, and the DES Justice UK campaigners have done a magnificent job in raising public awareness. I am always delighted to meet the Chair of the Select Committee because I know which side my bread is buttered on, but I should be particularly delighted to meet her to discuss this specific issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ahmed]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting this issue. The best way to do that is to beef up NHS digital services, as we are doing to the NHS digital app, so that women and all patients can have confidence in the advice that they receive.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

16. What steps he has taken to support the virtual ward programme.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee back from parental leave and greatly look forward to working with her again. Virtual wards allow patients to get hospital-level care in the comfort of their own home, speeding up their recovery while freeing up hospital beds for the patients who need them most. We are rolling out virtual wards further, so that they become the norm for managing many conditions at home.

[Layla Moran]

Earlier this year, I visited the “hospital at home” team at the John Radcliffe hospital, who run an incredible virtual ward. I saw them deliver care to Mavis, who is 91. She was so emotional and grateful for the work they did—we all ended up in tears. Imagine my disappointment that while I was off, we got an email from the team saying that the funding for that incredible service is no longer there and that they face closure. This is an example of the best of the NHS. We want it rolled out to the rest, but if the funding is not there for these nascent services to find their footing, how can we ensure that best practice can be spread across the whole of Oxfordshire and beyond?

Jhoots Pharmacy

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

The case of Jhoots is clearly hugely unfortunate given the incredible work that community pharmacies do up and down the country for our constituents. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that this case will not negatively affect the funding settlement, but it is set against the backdrop of a very precarious sector where actors who want to do good by our communities and do a high-quality job often find that they simply cannot make ends meet, and bad actors find a way to move in. When the Committee looked last at this issue, the workforce was a key plank to why the sector is not sustainable. What update can the Minister give us on the inclusion of pharmacists in the workforce plan?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Lady and pay tribute to her work as Chair of the Select Committee. I am very proud of the fact that we delivered a £500 million uplift to pharmacy—19% across the two-year period. It was the highest uplift of any sector, not just of my portfolio but the entire NHS. I am also very proud of the fact that we are taking forward hub-and-spoke legislation to enable pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to operate at the top of their licence. The day before yesterday we signed off on a statutory instrument to improve the ability of technicians to do more in the area of dispensing. We are looking to empower the workforce and enable them to operate at the top of their licence. That is a fundamental part of the shift from hospital to community that is at the heart of our 10-year plan.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Layla Moran Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a decrease in the proportion of the mental health investment standard for the first time in, I believe, nine years. It is incredibly concerning. It was hard-won, cross-party support that made that proportion go up over time. It was incremental, but it was starting to make a difference to the system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Government clarified whether that will continue in 2025-26? When Baroness Merron came to our Committee, she could not confirm that. If there is not going to be a continuation, the system needs to know by now, frankly, so that it can prepare adequately for it.

[Dr Evans]

The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee is absolutely right. A simple answer from the Minister today, on Report, would go a long way to alleviating those fears from the mental health sector. I look forward to his response on that.

Amendment 40 would add a simple but important requirement that each care and treatment plan must include an assessment of the levels of risk to public safety posed by the patient in the community. The purpose of the Bill is right; the Government want to make the system more compassionate, therapeutic, patient-centred and modernised, and we strongly agree with that ambition. However, modernisation must go hand in hand with public confidence, and the public and patients themselves must know that every plan for treatment and discharge is rooted not only in care, but in safety.

In Committee, I argued that the framework still omits one dimension, which is public safety. As far as I can see, there is still no explicit requirement in the Bill for clinicians to assess and record the level of risk posed to the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

To squeeze in a few more Back Benchers, the speaking limit is now three minutes.

[Layla Moran]

This is a long-overdue and very welcome Bill, but frankly it will not even touch the sides of what most of our constituents and communities need when it comes to the wider mental health landscape. I support many of the amendments to improve it, not least those laid by my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I need to make a couple of quick points, because we want the Bill to succeed.

The Minister will know that since December the Health and Social Care Committee has been conducting an inquiry into community mental health services, because we recognise that unless we start tackling these matters upstream, we will not achieve the Bill’s aims. For so many, it feels like they are walking through an NHS desert: they simply cannot get the appointments they need; they do not feel supported; and no one can navigate this complex system.

Just a few weeks ago, while still on maternity leave, I decided to have a keeping-in-touch day and the Committee decided to visit an oasis in this desert—the incredible Barnsley Street neighbourhood mental health centre in Tower Hamlets. Unfortunately, the centre is one of only six pilots set up to this level across the country, but we heard some amazing stories of how people had been diverted away from in-patient mental health units by an approach that truly puts the patient at its centre. It was inspiring. However, we heard from the centre that its funding will not continue beyond April. It is only just starting to gather the data it needs; system change is desperately needed in this space, but the concern is that the system will change without robust data behind it. My question to the Minister is, will the centres be funded beyond April? If not, how can the Department make decisions about the system based on data that does not represent a full calendar year?

I also want to speak in support of amendment 9. I pay tribute to Cyril and Dianne whose son Leon suffered from schizophrenia for many years and sadly completed suicide in January 2019. He was let down by community mental health services. Leon’s mother, Dianne, saw the illness get worse and worse, and when she tried to re-refer him into the system after he had been detained, she was told, “Computer says no.” This Bill will improve the lives of families like Dianne and Leon’s, because Dianne’s pleas would have been heard under the new nominated persons provisions. Amendment 9 would be an extra step, ensuring that the plan is shared with parents and carers—with the nominated person. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned so doggedly for the inclusion of nominated persons in the Bill.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I am no expert on mental health law, but I do have decades of experience in the health and care sector, and my sister is a psychiatrist. I know that the decision to detain someone with severe mental illness is never taken lightly, and that psychiatrists must weigh up a range of factors and information to come to a final decision. I tabled amendments 43, 44 and 45 and new clause 34 after a number of conversations with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has expressed concern about the wording used in the detention criteria.

Taken together, the purpose of my amendments is to ensure that the detention criteria are aligned with good clinical practice. It is important that they are reflected in the primary legislation, rather than simply relying on a code of practice. They would remove from the detention criteria mention of the terms “likelihood” or “may be caused” to allow psychiatrists to make a straightforward, holistic assessment of individual risk in the context of significant mental disorder. The risk is that “likelihood” suggests that it is possible for clinicians to predict serious harms such as violence or suicide when it is not possible to do so, while the idea of causation neglects the fact that complex background conditions can be the genesis of a harm. There is a risk, too, that the language may lead to preventive detention—more detention, not less. It is always easier with hindsight, when unexpected harms have happened, to oversimplify causation and ask, “Why was this person not detained?