Budget Resolutions

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chancellor on delivering a Budget that protects the national health service, reduces the national debt and eases the cost of living. I warmly welcome her decision to find money to reduce energy bills, freeze rail fares and freeze prescription charges. I also welcome her decision to help to lift 2,600 children out of poverty in my constituency.

It is pleasing to see the announcement in the Budget of millions of pounds of new investment to upgrade technology in healthcare. Providing funding for new digital technology to automate administrative tasks and allow swifter access to patient information will improve NHS productivity. Instead of spending time on admin, NHS staff will be able to focus more on caring for patients.

Since being elected to this House, I have pressed for more to be done to shift healthcare to the community and help to take the burden off hospitals, such as the William Harvey hospital in Ashford, so I welcome the announcement of neighbourhood health centres in the 10-year health plan. I am delighted that the Budget provides funding to ensure that the first of those will be rolled out across the country.

The Budget also provides support for young people taking the crucial first step into long-term employment through apprenticeship funding. That initiative builds on the Labour Government’s small businesses plan, which brought prioritised investment in apprenticeships and digital training by working with local colleges and providers. Ashford college in my constituency is doing excellent work in that area.

This Budget and its priorities stand in stark contrast with what is happening in my local area of Kent. While Labour chooses to invest in public services, rejecting the failed Tory policies of austerity, Reform-led Kent county council is continuing with reckless cuts and fantasy economics. The council, the leader of which said that it would be a “shop window” for how Reform would govern nationally, recently revealed that it had a £46 million overspend.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to turn the clock back. She has argued that the Chancellor should not have made the choices that she did in the Budget, including more than doubling the fiscal headroom. That choice has been welcomed by the financial markets and will provide greater financial resilience, but the Conservatives rejected it, arguing instead that we should return to the days of austerity and cut spending instead.

As someone who worked in the NHS, I saw the damage done by the Conservative Government’s approach to our health service and other public services. It also meant that pay for NHS workers, teachers and other public sector workers was frozen for years, which had a detrimental impact on staff morale, recruitment and retention.

Suicide: Reducing the Stigma

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to her constituent, who is in the Gallery to support this campaign.

It is important to reflect on the progress that has been made in this country to remove some of the stigma around suicide, but more progress still has to be made. The more we discuss this issue in this House and in our constituencies, the greater the impact we can have in removing the stigma completely.

This Government inherited a mental health crisis—there are nearly 1.8 million people on NHS waiting lists for mental health treatment. At the same time, after decades of decline, suicide rates have increased since 2007. Worryingly, the suicide rate is now higher than at any time in the 21st century. In my local area of Kent, although the suicide rate has been coming down in recent years, it is still higher than the national average.

As is the case in the rest of the UK, suicide rates in Kent are significantly higher among men than among women. Across the country, 100 men die by suicide each week and men account for approximately three quarters of all suicide deaths in the UK. This trend has been consistent since the mid-1990s. While men are more likely than women to die by suicide in all age groups, that difference is most pronounced among middle-aged men—suicide is the biggest killer of men aged under 50. I welcome initiatives such as Movember, Andy’s Man Club, the Campaign Against Living Miserably and other similar schemes for the work that they do to help men. I particularly welcome the fact that today the Government published the first ever men’s health strategy, as part of which they will be working with the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide initiative. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more about that, and about what will be done to remove the stigma around men’s mental health.

Suicide rates among young people are the lowest of all age groups, but over the past decade there has been a concerning 22% increase. A rise in the number of young people feeling disconnected and isolated after the pandemic lockdowns and an escalation in online bullying are reported to be contributing factors.

Another sector in which the silent tragedy of suicide is all too prevalent is the farming and agriculture industry, in which an average of three people die by suicide every week. Mental Health First Aid England reports that, between 2021 and 2023, suicide deaths among farmers increased year on year.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about young people and farming. Those two issues overlap in rural areas such as mine. Our child and adolescent mental health services are centralised in Dorchester, so someone living in the extremities of Lyme Regis, Beaminster or the surrounding villages could be looking at a 30-mile round trip to access them. Given that our part of the country is famous for its unreliable bus network, that is pretty difficult for a lot of young people and for those living in isolated communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improving access to things like CAMHS is vital if we are to protect young people in rural communities?

[Sojan Joseph]

As someone who worked in mental health services for 22 years, I absolutely agree. We need access to mental health services, and not just for young people; everyone is important. Getting help early is key to preventing suicide among young people.

The situation is worse among men working in the farming industry. The likelihood that a male farm worker will die by suicide is three times higher than the national average for men. Earlier this year, a Farm Safety Foundation report revealed that over 90% of farmers said that poor mental health is the biggest hidden problem in the industry.

What is contributing to that poor mental health and the increased risk of suicide among those working in the agricultural sector? It is driven by a combination of isolation—many work alone in remote areas—and financial pressure from market volatility, debt and rising costs. Long working hours, often exceeding 60 hours per week, lead to exhaustion and poor mental health. There is also a strong stigma around seeking help, which means that many farmers suffer in silence.

The connection between suicide and mental illness is well documented, but reducing the stigma of suicide should not be viewed solely as a mental health issue. Many individuals who die by suicide have never engaged with mental health services or displayed obvious symptoms, and not all have a diagnosed condition. People at risk often face a complex mix of personal, relational, community and societal factors. As the suicide prevention strategy highlights, common risk factors include physical illness, financial hardship, gambling, substance misuse, social isolation, loneliness and domestic abuse. Although mental health support is important, the strategy stresses that reducing stigma extends far beyond that. Focusing only on mental health risks overlooking those in acute distress who do not meet the diagnostic criteria. It also places the burden on mental health services, when in reality reducing the stigma of suicide requires a collective effort from local authorities, employers, schools, the justice system and society at large.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

One of my constituents, Steve, founded the Jordan Legacy after he lost his son to suicide. Its work involves outreach to schools, universities, employers and community groups. I echo the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he, like me, think that there should be more support for the fantastic work of such charities and organisations?

[Sojan Joseph]

I absolutely agree. Charities do a brilliant job. Youth groups in our communities used to be very good places for young people to go, and I would love to see them coming back into our communities.

Effective prevention means prioritising early intervention in schools, universities, workplaces and community settings, which are also important. Every suicide is a tragic event that has a devastating impact on the family and loved ones, and this impact can be felt across the community. That is why we must break the silence and dismantle the stigma around suicide. Every conversation matters. When people feel safe to speak, they are far more likely to seek help, and that can make all the difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Absolutely—we believe the sky is the limit. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, we are clear that we see this as the first step. Clearly, premier league clubs are high profile, so hopefully people will look at the partnership, learn from it and say, “Yes, that is something that we can do.” Fingers crossed that it takes off.

As part of the men’s health strategy launch, we also announced the suicide prevention support pathfinders programme for middle-aged men. The programme will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide. It will support new ways of embedding effective, tailored support for middle-aged men and create clearer, more joined-up pathways into existing local suicide prevention systems. For over a decade, middle-aged men have faced the highest suicide rates of any age group. They account for around a quarter of all deaths by suicide in England. That is a shocking statistic, and it is why middle-aged men are identified as a priority group in the suicide prevention strategy for England.

It is important that we do not simplify the picture. The national confidential inquiry into suicide and safety in mental health found that of men aged 40 to 54 who died by suicide, 67% had been in contact with health and partner agencies in the three months before they took their own life, and 43% had been in contact with primary care services in the three months before they died. That tells us something vital: a significant proportion of men do reach out, presenting an opportunity to make the most of every interaction with men who may be at risk of suicide. Our responsibility as a Government is to ensure that when men take that step, the services they encounter are accessible, joined up and genuinely equipped to meet their needs. That is what the pathfinders programme will do.

By improving engagement with healthcare and improving access to the right support, we can begin to dismantle the stigma that continues to cost too many men their lives. In April this year, NHS England published its “Staying safe from suicide” guidance, which strengthens the approach to suicide prevention across mental health settings. It promotes a holistic, person-centred approach, rather than using stratification tools to determine risk. The guidance directly aligns with the aim of our suicide prevention strategy and reflects our commitment to continually improving mental health services, particularly by identifying risk assessment as an area where we must go further.

The implementation of the guidance has been supported by a new NHS England e-learning module, which launched in September, to help ensure that staff across services are confident and equipped to apply the guidance in practice. The NHS medium-term planning framework, published last month, states that in 2026-27, integrated care boards must

“ensure that mental health practitioners across all providers”

undertake the e-learning

“and deliver care in line with the Staying safe from suicide guidance.”

The Minister with responsibility for women’s health and mental health, who sits in the other place, wrote directly to crucial stakeholders across the sector—including the chief coroner, the Charity Commission, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, and the British Psychological Society—to promote the guidance and the e-learning module, and I am pleased to say that the response has been overwhelmingly positive. By way of example, the Charity Commission circulated information about the e-learning to around 5,000 charities involved in suicide prevention or mental health support—an encouraging demonstration of the sector’s commitment to improving safety and support for those at risk.

More widely, we are improving mental health services so that people are met with the right support. We recognise that expanding and equipping the workforce will take time, but I am pleased to say that we have hired almost 7,000 extra mental health workers since July 2024. Mental health remains a core priority for the NHS. That is why we are investing £688 million to transform services, including £26 million to support people in mental health crisis.

As part of the 10-year health plan’s commitment to transforming how the whole health and care system works, we are introducing neighbourhood mental health care for adults, which will bring community, crisis and in-patient care together in a single, seamless offer. Six neighbourhood mental health centres are already operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, offering open-access support to anyone who needs it. Co-delivered with primary care, the voluntary and faith sectors, and local specialist services, the centres make it easier for people to seek help in their own communities, without judgment or barriers.

[Sojan Joseph]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am very tight on time, but I will give way briefly before wrapping up.

[Sojan Joseph]

A recent study shows that many people are reaching out to artificial intelligence chatbots to seek mental health support. The Government are putting so many new initiatives in place; does the Minister agree that we need to publicise them more, so that people do not seek incorrect information from AI chatbots?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I absolutely agree. This is a human challenge, and humans need to take it on. That is what we will do. There is nothing more human that going to a premier league football match, so I hope that that will be a good way of raising awareness, just as my hon. Friend says.

As we reflect on the lives lost and the families forever changed, we reaffirm our commitment to tackling stigma, improving support and ensuring that everyone feels able to speak up, ask for help and be heard. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park again for raising this crucial issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that we provided £100 million—an unprecedented amount—in capital funding for hospices, and £26 million a year and £80 million over three years for children’s hospices. We recognise that hospices benefit from being rooted in their communities, with amazing charity and philanthropy support, but of course we know that the Government need to do their bit as well, and that is precisely what we were doing. I was very pleased to visit Noah’s Ark children’s hospice in Barnet last week and to speak to the chief executive, who warmly welcomed the stability and certainty that the three-year allocation has provided.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

T6. After a decade of under-investment in our NHS under the Conservatives, I welcome the progress that has been made on reducing A&E waiting times under this Government, but there is no immediate fix. Just last month, a coffee shop at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford was converted into an emergency ward to treat A&E patients. Will the Secretary of State visit the hospital to see the continuing problems with corridor care, and will he update the House on what the Government are doing to ensure that the hospital can manage winter pressures and maintain safe, high-quality care?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. It is appalling for coffee shops to be commandeered as spaces for the care of patients, and we will not accept it. I am happy to look at the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We will also be publishing figures on corridor care so that we can hold the system to account, and the public can hold us to account, to improve the situation that we inherited.

Postural Tachycardia Syndrome

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith]

Absolutely; that is a very good point. When someone is not believed by medical professionals for so long, it can affect their mental health—I recognise that.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Some reports suggest that 50% of PoTS cases have been misdiagnosed as mental health conditions, adding pressure on the individuals themselves and on mental health services. Does she agree that there needs to be more support for people with PoTS?

[Cat Smith]

Absolutely—I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I very much agree with him.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

NHS England recently introduced six pilots for the transformation of community mental health services. Some of that work is being delivered by my local mental health trust—the Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS foundation trust—and I think it shows promise. As we consider these amendments to the Bill, I would be interested to see how the learning from those pilots can be taken forward to further improve community mental health services.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Similarly, a community service called Mental Health Together has been introduced in my area. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole mental health system is so complex, with different practices in different parts of the country, and that not having continuity and a standard across the country is a big issue for mental health?

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his intervention. Part of the issue around poorly reported waiting times is that it is less easy to see that differential access than it would perhaps be in physical health services. Indeed, over the years when specialist teams have been set up—for example the early intervention and psychosis teams and assertive outreach teams, which I know my hon. Friend knows well given his professional background—they have been introduced with very good intentions and to target specific needs, but they sometimes make it more difficult for patients to get overall care rather than very specialist care for individual conditions.

I will not take any more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will just say that the mantra of investment and reform applies to mental health services, as it should apply to all our health services. For us to make further progress in pursuing parity of esteem between mental health and physical health, we not only need to consider these amendments today and pass the Bill to modernise the legislation, but ensure the Government have sufficient political priority on producing and improving mental health services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both he and I made those points in Committee. I am surprised that the Minister does not see the risks here. The safeguard that my hon. Friend talks about must be beyond any doubt. The amendment in his name provides exactly that clarity. It would prevent unrelated or loosely connected individuals from stepping into a role that rightfully belongs to those with both a legal duty and an emotional bond—the parents or guardians—and it would preserve the fundamental principle that parents should not find their role diminished by accident or administrative oversight.

As I was saying, this is not an abstract risk; it is a very real and foreseeable consequence of the unclear drafting. These amendments do not weaken the rights of patients. They strengthen the protections around them. They ensure that in modernising this law, quite rightly, we do not inadvertently undermine the oldest and most important protection of all: a parent’s duty to safeguard their child. We must ensure that the state can only curtail that right under the strictest judicial scrutiny, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. In doing so, we will make this legislation not only legally sound but, in my view, morally right.

New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), would require local authorities and ICBs to supply a fully costed plan to ensure they are able to provide adequate community services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I support that entirely. As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and from speaking to groups in my constituency such as Last Wednesday and Growing Hope, I know that the process around SEND is complicated and not fit for purpose. Fortunately, we have a chance to help it slightly with this Bill, so I ask the Minister to support new clause 31.

[Sojan Joseph]

I would like to speak in support of new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). On Second Reading, I warmly welcomed the changes that this legislation will introduce regarding autistic people or those who have a learning disability. As a result, it will no longer be possible for someone to be detained in a mental health hospital indefinitely simply because they have autism or a learning disability. In the current system, autistic people and those with a learning disability have experienced inappropriate care, over-medication and extended periods of detention because of a lack of facilities in the NHS and social care, so this change is welcome and long overdue.

The Government have confirmed that the changes will be implemented once the necessary community provision is in place. Establishing strong support in the community is essential for not only enabling safe discharge from hospital settings but preventing unnecessary admissions in the first place. I recognise that the Government are working on setting out what strong community services look like and what resources they require to implement them. From serving with the Minister in Committee, I have no doubt about his commitment to ensuring that this community provision is introduced in a timely manner, but I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that there should be a road map in the legislation that will provide a clear framework outlining how those services will be introduced. After all, ending inappropriate detention requires robust community-based alternatives to ensure that people with autism or a learning disability who would have previously been detained do not fall through gaps in the system.

Having a road map developed in conjunction with autistic people, people with learning disabilities, their carers and healthcare professionals will help to identify and address any gaps in service provision and workforce capacity. I also believe that it will help to reduce the risk of people with autism or a learning disability needing police intervention or emergency hospital care because the support is inadequate. By putting in place a road map, new clause 37 would help to ensure that we end all the sooner the injustice of people with autism or a learning disability being detained.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I will speak to amendments 24 to 28 and 36 to 38 in my name, which address gaps in crisis provision and accountability for autistic people and people with learning disabilities.

On Second Reading, I told this House about Declan Morrison, my constituent who died aged just 26 after spending 10 days in a section 136 suite that was wholly inappropriate for his complex needs. I remind the House that section 136 suites are designed for 24-hour stays, or a maximum of 36 hours in extreme cases. The coroner who investigated Declan’s death found that

“there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken.”

The timeline of what happened in the run-up to Declan’s death shows a cascade of systemic failures. Declan’s family, Graeme, Sam and Kaitlyn, have asked me to ensure that Parliament learns from what happened. These amendments in my name reflect those lessons and the coroner’s recommendations.

In Committee, the Minister made several points about earlier versions of these amendments, which I have tried to address in these revised versions. In particular, on crisis accommodation, the Minister argued that existing duties on ICBs already cover crisis provision and that the amendment was too prescriptive, potentially restricting ICBs in designing provision, emphasising the importance of flexibility for ICBs to meet local needs. I understand the desire not to be overly prescriptive, but in Declan’s case, over 100 places were contacted and no suitable accommodation could be found anywhere in the country. Flexibility failed Declan.

The revised version of the amendment allows for regional solutions beyond the ICB, but I suspect that the Minister will still find it too prescriptive. However, the fundamental question remains: should there not be a duty to ensure that provision exists somewhere? The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB established a crisis service after Declan’s death that operated at 98% capacity, demonstrating both need and viability, but it closed when funding was withdrawn, highlighting the challenge with voluntary provision.

Suicide Prevention

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing the debate, and I congratulate him on his very touching speech. The clear message coming from the House today is that suicides are preventable. Defeating stigma is essential, and the more that we can raise this issue in Parliament, the more we can do to help remove that stigma.

This Government inherited a mental health crisis. More than a million people who are in need of mental health support are not getting the care that they so desperately require. The suicide rate is now higher than it has been at any time in the 21st century. The pledge by Ministers to ensure that mental health gets the same attention and focus as physical health is an important one. It was talked about for 14 years when the Conservative party was in power, but there was little progress. I genuinely hope that under this Government things will finally change. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend the Minister update the House on the progress being made to tackle mental health waiting lists? Research from Rethink Mental Illness has shown that 12 times as many people have to wait 18 months or more for mental health treatment compared with the wait for treatment for physical health.

It is necessary to discuss mental health provision in this debate; after all, the link between suicide and mental illness is well established.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also look at the impact on people’s mental health of online gambling, which is responsible for between 117 and 496 suicides a year—figures repeated in our Health and Social Care Committee report? My constituent Jack lost his son Arthur to gambling-related suicide aged only 19, after only six months. It is a tragic situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that gambling should be seen as a public health issue, that in future it should be regulated not by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but by the Department of Health and Social Care, and that the DHSC should launch a public health strategy to tackle gambling as a cause of suicide?

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree with my hon. Friend that not all suicides are linked solely to mental health. I was about to say that various social issues need to be tackled as well. It is it is important that we do not see suicide prevention solely through the prism of mental health. Indeed, many of those who die by suicide have either had no contact with mental health services or shown no signs of mental ill health. It is also important to point out that not everyone who dies by suicide has a diagnosed mental illness. For those at risk of suicide, a complex range of individual, relationship, community or societal factors can be at play.

As the suicide prevention strategy makes clear, common risk factors that are linked to suicide include physical illness, financial difficulty and economic adversity, gambling, alcohol and drug misuse, social isolation and loneliness, and domestic abuse. Although addressing suicide prevention can include mental health, the strategy emphasises that it also goes well beyond these issues. If we see suicide prevention just as a mental health issue, those people in our communities who may not meet the criteria for a mental health diagnosis but are still in acute distress can end up being forgotten. Perceiving suicide just as a mental health issue also puts the responsibility mainly on mental health services, when in reality local authorities, employers, schools, the criminal justice system and wider society all have roles to play. When we talk about suicide prevention, we should therefore also talk about early intervention in schools, universities, places of work and community groups.

It is worth mentioning the great work done by charities—many names have already been mentioned. I congratulate the recently opened Ashford Safe Haven, which is based at William Harvey hospital. It offers a walk-in service every evening for people who are in crisis or feel they are heading towards crisis. A few months ago, I visited the safe haven and met some of the staff to hear about the support they provide and how they help to create staying well and crisis plans, as well as supporting people to access other services and organisations that may be useful to them. It is a great resource for people in our community and I hope that the East Kent hospitals trust is successful in its bid for funding for a round-the-clock walk-in service. Working with suicide prevention charities can complement the services offered by the NHS and bridge gaps in provision. We should also ensure that the health system becomes more effective in signposting the services that are offered by suicide prevention charities.

While I will always lobby for meaningful change in the mental health system, I also know that talking about suicide prevention just as another issue for our mental health services risks narrowing the conversation and excluding others who might need help. I hope that today’s debate has helped to make it easier for those watching who might need help now or in the future to get the right help at the right time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to help reduce waiting times at A&E departments.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to help reduce waiting times at A&E departments

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

This Government inherited an intolerable situation in A&E, where over a decade of Tory failures left patients waiting in pain. We are doing the hard work needed to start repairing that damage. Our new urgent and emergency care plan is backed by nearly £450 million, which will mean 800,000 fewer A&E patients waiting more than four hours this year, new urgent treatment centres, mental health crisis centres and almost 400 replacement ambulances. Those are just some of the steps that we are taking to rebuild our national health service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

One of my first visits after being elected last year was to the A&E department at the William Harvey hospital in my constituency, where 19 patients were being treated in the corridors and others faced long waits for treatment. I therefore welcome the progress that has been made so far on reducing A&E waiting times. However, too many people end up at A&Es like the one at the William Harvey because they have no other option. What are the Government doing to increase care options in local communities, including the use of virtual wards to ensure that more people are treated closer to home and that patients in A&E are those in an emergency?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is unacceptable that corridor care became the norm under the Conservatives. We will not accept it as normal; it is not acceptable. Ahead of this winter, we will require local NHS systems to develop and test plans to significantly increase the number of people receiving urgent care services outside hospital, including more paramedic-led care in the community, more patients seen by urgent community response teams, and better use of virtual wards. Together, we will improve our emergency services and make sure that people get the right care in the right place and at the right time.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support with the plan, which I am sure is in no way connected to the fact that he wants some money out of us for that neighbourhood health centre. I will take his question as the first bid we have had from those on the Opposition Benches, and I look forward to receiving those representations from him.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know how important improving mental health support is to me. I hope that what the 10-year plan says about access to mental health provision will help to address the long waiting times for mental health services that the Government inherited. I particularly welcome what he said about using the NHS app for patients to self-refer for various treatments. I hope that that will cover talking therapies as well. Does he share my belief that opening up access to talking therapies in that way will enable more people to get that effective treatment at the right time, so that they can better manage their condition?

[Wes Streeting]

I thank my hon. Friend for his service to our country and our NHS. We are so lucky to have his expertise in the House. I am really proud that this Government will deliver mental health support in every primary and secondary school in the country and neighbourhood mental health services in every community. We will also ensure that people who are in mental health crisis do not end up in busy, noisy, overwhelming A&E departments, but will instead go to new mental health emergency departments, which we aim to roll out across 50% of type 1 A&E departments—either co-located or, if not, certainly nearby. I look forward to working with him on that.

My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise the importance of talking therapies. That is how we not only help people to achieve their best when they are young and in education, but ensure that people are supported to stay in the world of work or to find work. We know there is a demonstrable link between mental health and wellbeing, good work and good outcomes. That is very relevant this week.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that section 136 is used when the police are alerted to a disturbance in a public place? If I saw a disturbance outside the Palace of Westminster, I would call the police, not a mental health professional. If the police arrive and think that the person is suffering from a mental illness, they will use the power under section 136. How can we give powers to health professionals to attend a public disturbance?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with a huge amount of experience and knowledge in this area. Of course, what he describes would be the default setting, but there may be scenarios in which a qualified healthcare worker is in the vicinity and can provide the support that that individual needs before the police can get there. The clause seeks to provide that flexibility. I acknowledge the split in the Committee on this, but the clause has some significant advantages: reducing police involvement in mental health crises, where that is most appropriate; improving response times, as I have just touched on; and supporting de-escalation.

I accept that there are operational and legal questions to be addressed, but we are here to look at all the potential scenarios. The Minister has clearly set out the consequences of removing the clause from the Bill, but it is perfectly possible that a Government Member on the Committee will choose to support it, and I therefore seek some clarification from the Minister on the operational and legal challenges around training, oversight and the uniformity of authorised roles were the clause to remain part of the Bill. How would training standards be mandated for authorised persons and who would accredit them? How would consistency in practice be ensured across NHS trusts and ambulance services? Will the Minister also clarify the liability position in a case in which an authorised person used force or restraint during a removal?

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Sojan Joseph Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s point. It would be interesting to know if that advice came when the Bill was debated in the Lords, because these clauses were not in place, but were introduced through the Government’s amendments. This is an extension to that. Our amendment to give a right to a patient would be a further strengthening. I entirely agree that the Bill is a good step forward, but if we are not going to address this again in the next 40 years, the Opposition would like that right to be enshrined. To be offered the opportunity is the key bit here—no mandation. It is good practice to let people know their rights, and we are affirming that. The worry is that while there is good intention to allow it based on the system, what happens if times are stretched? The amendment would give someone a statutory chance to say they have that right, and that it is upheld in law. That is what the Opposition are pushing for.

In essence, we are both trying to solve the same problem, but taking different approaches. The key distinction between the approach of the Government and that of the Opposition is that the Government’s creates a duty on the system, but no individual entitlement, while the Opposition’s proposes a patient right matched by a clear responsibility to inform and support the individual. The Government’s clause says that NHS England and ICBs must make arrangements as they consider “appropriate”. We say all eligible patients should have an informed right to create one. I anticipate that the Government might turn around and say, “Well, this is too rigid,” or that it imposes unfunded burdens on the ICB. I argue that it is targeted; we are not extending the right to everyone with a mental health condition but only to those at the most risk of future detention.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

As a clinician, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand what I am trying to say. There are many mental health patients who do not have any insight into their illness and often refuse to take medications. It is important that, as the clause says,

“‘qualifying person’ means a person who has capacity or competence to make the statement,”

so that people do not make inappropriate decisions in their advance choice documents. It is important to keep the clause as it is, whereby a qualifying person is someone who can make a competence decision.

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on. We do not want people making decisions about their care when they do not have capacity. The whole point of what we are trying to do—as is the Government’s intent—is to allow people to make advance care decisions when they have capacity, so that when they are not lucid in the future and come back into contact, their preferred decisions are already set out. The clause does allow for a handbrake mechanism for clinical safety, to overstep them. However, what I am worried about is finding ourselves in a situation where patients never even find out that they have the right to create one of these ACDs.

The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do from my time, that good clinical practice is to ensure that patients have a plan. We do that for asthma: we expect patients to have an emergency plan for what happens, who they contact, where they go, what they take and what it looks like, personalised to them. Why should mental health be any different? My amendment actually gives ACDs legal footing, rather than simply saying that the system should offer it to them.

The amendment is cost-effective. Evidence suggests that ACDs can reduce the use of coercive powers, prevent relapse and improve continuity of care. That reduces costs, not adds to them. It is already good clinical practice; many mental health trusts already encourage care planning conversations. Our amendment would simply raise the standard across the country.

The Opposition understand that the Government have the numbers on this Committee. Will the Government clarify the role of the code of conduct? Do the Government intend to issue national guidance or benchmarks to ensure that ICBs do not apply widely different criteria for who is appropriate to be informed or held? Could the Government explain further, in response to the letter and in this Committee, why they do not accept ACDs as a basic right, narrowly defined, for only the most vulnerable individuals to be offered this opportunity? What mechanism will be used to monitor compliance with these new duties? How will patients know whether they are being fulfilled?

To my eyes, Government amendments 34 and 35 will do the same as amendments 32 and 33, but covering the Welsh system and local health boards, so I will not rehearse the arguments that we have just had. However, I would be interested to know whether this creates an issue for data collection on compliance across the two countries. We touched on this in relation to clause 2, but if different health authorities take different approaches to monitoring data, does that not risk making it even more opaque when we try to see both good and bad performance? Could the Minister address that point?