Children’s Wellbeing and Mental Health: Schools

Debate between Norman Lamb and David Nuttall

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Given that I was responsible for that report, I feel very strongly about its absolute importance. I chaired a commission for the Education Policy Institute that reported last November, and we were pleased that the Secretary of State for Health came to speak at the launch, which I thought was important in itself. We looked at what has happened since “Future in mind” and in some parts of the country they are doing great work, but in others very little is happening. Very little has changed, with the bulk of the money still going to the acute end of the spectrum and not being reinvested in preventive care.

Critically, in many areas of the country, as the YoungMinds survey showed, 50% of clinical commissioning groups are not spending all the money—the additional investment secured in the coalition Government’s last Budget. They are not spending the full allocation on children’s mental health. I think that is scandalous. It amounts to theft of money solemnly pledged by the Government for children’s mental health, yet in many areas it is being diverted to prop up local acute hospitals. We cannot tolerate that. The Government have to find ways of ensuring that all that money is spent as intended. I know that the Government plan to have greater transparency, with Ofsted-style ratings for CCGs, but frankly there needs to be more than that. When a CCG is under financial stress, it is just too easy to shave a bit off children’s mental health to spend it where the public are clamouring for action, because ambulances are stacked up outside the A&E department.

In the first year after “Future in mind”, the system that we designed meant that local areas would get the money only if they produced a transformation plan to show how the money would be spent on changing the system to focus more on prevention. My proposition to the Government—the EPI commission report said this—is that every year the money should be tied to a commitment from the CCG that every penny of it is spent on children’s mental health. The CCG must also demonstrate that it has stuck with the plan from the previous year and that it has a plan to continue the change in the subsequent year. Unless we use the money to drive change in local areas, it will not happen because the system is under so much strain.

The other point argued for by the Education Policy Institute commission was that the Prime Minister should launch her own Prime Minister’s challenge on children’s mental health, as the former Prime Minister did on dementia, because that sort of prime ministerial stamp of importance for this subject would be incredibly valuable. Yesterday was a start, but I challenge the Prime Minister to go further and launch a formal challenge of that sort.

My final point—I am conscious that other Members wish to contribute to the debate—relates to the importance of ensuring that when a child needs specialist treatment, they get it on time. This goes to what I regard as a discrimination within the NHS, because anyone who has a physical health problem benefits from a maximum waiting time. Whatever their issue is, they know that a standard maximum waiting time applies nationally. It is accepted that those standards are under strain, but at least they exist, and I know that they drive the system, from the Secretary of State’s office downwards, in looking at every individual hospital’s performance across the country.

On mental health, however, apart from the two maximum waiting time standards that we introduced in the last two years, there are no other maximum waiting time standards. There is no standard for children. Families across the country can be left waiting, sometimes for months, to get any treatment at all, and when they get referred too often they have to clear high thresholds. In other words, someone has to prove that they are really sick before they get any help at all. That dysfunctional and irrational approach completely contradicts the principle of early intervention.

When you have a child aged 15—as I did, a girl—who had an eating disorder and was turned away from treatment because her body mass index was not low enough, and who then got admitted as a crisis case two months later because the problem had been neglected, you are left in a state of despair. We need to ensure that children with mental health problems have the same right to timely, evidence-based treatment as anyone with a physical health problem does, and that they should be treated close to home rather than being shunted sometimes hundreds of miles away.

These are the burning injustices that exist for many families across the country who cannot pay to opt out of the system. We have a duty and a responsibility—the Government, in particular, have a duty—to ensure that those children get the treatment they need on a timely basis.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

Five Members wish to speak in the debate and I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at 10.30 am, so if Members could keep their remarks, including interventions, to about seven minutes each, I calculate that we should get everyone in and share the time equally.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Norman Lamb and David Nuttall

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I want to speak in support of new clause 10 and to make a brief comment on amendment 7. The new clause seeks to reinstate in the Bill, as brought from the Lords, the provision to allow votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in local government elections. As a matter of principle, I support the idea of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, whether in national elections, local government elections or referendums. I supported the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the Scottish referendum. I have also argued the case, along with many others, for them to be able to vote in the European Union referendum, because it is their future that we will be debating.

In the context of the Bill, I strongly support the case for 16 and 17-year-olds having a say, for goodness’ sake, in the election of their local councillor. I find it extraordinary that the Government oppose the proposal so strongly. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has indicated that there is a debate to be had on the subject, and that we might explore it more fully on other occasions, but how long does this have to take? Those 16 and 17-year-olds can join our armed forces to defend the country, they can marry and they can pay taxes on their income if they are in work, yet they cannot have a say on how those taxes might be raised, on the extent of them or on how they might be applied. As citizens they ought to have the same rights as the rest of us enjoy, and I urge the Government to think further on this.

We often make points about the low turnout among those young people who are entitled to vote, and about the low engagement in the political process. I made the point in our previous debate on the issue that young people are very interested in a range of political issues, but there is no doubt that in many cases many of them are disengaged from the political process. If we are to seek to change that, surely giving these young people the right to a say in the political process would help. The turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish referendum, at about 75%, is indicative of a level of interest in the issues, which the Government ought to recognise.

David Willetts, the well respected former Minister in the coalition Government, has made a point about the breaking of the generational contract. This is a serious concern. Political parties tend to focus a lot of their attention on the interests of older people, who of course tend to vote. I would argue that there is a lack of attention being paid to the interests of young people, particularly 16 and 17-year-olds, who have no vote at all.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am getting confused. A few seconds ago, the right hon. Gentleman was trying to convince the House that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote because such an enormous number of them had turned out to vote in the Scottish independence referendum. Now we are told that we are ignoring them because they do not turn out to vote. Will he just clarify which of those two arguments he would like us to accept?

[Norman Lamb]

We saw in the Scottish referendum that, if you seek to engage with young people, they will respond. They turned out in record numbers. I understand from the study that took place following the referendum that the turnout was 75% among that age group. I also made the point, however, that there is a lack of engagement with the political process as a whole among young people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me on that. I believe that it is incumbent on all of us to change that by getting young people to feel part of the process and to participate in it. If we give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, it sharpens their minds and focuses their interest because they have an opportunity to participate in the political process.