Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chambers]

My apologies, Sir Desmond. I thought amendment 49 was included in the debate on clause 24.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to clauses 24 to 28 and the Government amendments to them. They cover an important and long overdue reform, which introduces a new statutory role: the nominated person, replacing the outdated concept of the nearest relative. I think, cross party, we all agree that this is about protecting some of the most vulnerable people in society and children.

The clauses and amendments make important changes to the current Act, which too often forces an individual to rely on someone they may not trust or even have contact with, just because of their family relationship. As the Minister said, the White Paper found that the vast majority would choose their parents, but we must have legislation that reflects the diversity of society and families. Growing up in a single parent family, it would have been inappropriate for my other parent—who is one of my nearest relatives, but who I did not live with, know or particularly trust—to be my representative or make decisions on my treatment and care. In my upbringing, the people who knew me best were not always my closest blood relatives.

The nominated person model gives individuals the right to decide who should speak for them when they are at their most vulnerable. That might seem like a small change, but it is a powerful one and aligns with the Bill’s overall goal of placing patient voices at the heart of mental healthcare. Having someone a person trusts—someone who knows them and can advocate for them—is vital. I was contacted by a constituent whose brother was sectioned and assessed at hospital as needing ongoing support in sheltered accommodation. His social worker challenged the decision and recommended private accommodation. That confusion, despite his sister continually challenging the recommendation, meant he was discharged, with nowhere to go, in the middle of the night.

It is crucial that safeguards will remain. Where an individual cannot nominate someone themselves, a person can still be appointed on their behalf, but with far clearer guidelines and recourse if concerns arise. It is not about removing protection; it is about modernising it to reflect the society we represent. Mental health legislation must reflect the value and diversity of the society it serves, and the clauses and amendments before us bring us a step closer to that.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to support amendments 54 and 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but I will first briefly speak to clause 24, which is an important and long-overdue step towards modernising the Mental Health Act 1983, crucially strengthening the rights, dignity and autonomy of individuals subject to it.

The reform of the existing nearest relative provisions, replacing them with a new system that allows for the appointment of a nominated person, is an important part of ensuring that individuals get the right support, and modernises an outdated system. The current model is based on a rigid and outdated hierarchy in which the role of the “nearest relative” is determined by law, not by the wishes of the patient. This one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for the complexities and nuances of individual relationships. It can result in someone unsuitable, or even actively harmful, being placed in a central role in a person’s care and treatment journey. Indeed, the limitations of the system have been acknowledged by practitioners, patients and policymakers alike. It is too often disempowering, and the patient can lose agency at a time when they need to be empowered to feel in control of the situation as much as possible.

As the shadow Minister says, clause 24 is the cornerstone of the reforms. It is an important change to the current legislation to reaffirm the commitment to patient-centred care, to dignity and to the principle that those receiving treatment under the Mental Health Act should have a voice in decisions about their support network. The aim of the clause—to put the patient first—is important. It acknowledges that the person best placed to advocate for the patient may not be their closest relative. In some cases, family dynamics are fraught. In others, the designated relative may hold views about treatment that conflict with the patient’s wishes or medical advice. We have seen real-world examples in which the imposition of the “nearest relative” role has led to tension, distress and, ultimately, a breakdown in trust. That is not the kind of environment in which recovery is fostered.

Amendments 54 and 55 would address the specific issue of nominated persons and those with parental responsibility for children under the age of 16. It is important that we consider situations in which a young person may be in a vulnerable position and their decision on who their nominated person should be may not be in their best interests. We have a particular duty to ensure that children are safeguarded. Clause 24 as it stands will allow under-16s to choose someone who is not the parent to have significant power, including the ability to discharge the child from hospital.

We must listen to and actively try to support any young person who needs that kind of intervention—it is not that their views should not be considered. However, there is a very real risk that a vulnerable child or teenager might be coerced by or under the control of an older partner, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth pointed out. Perhaps they might choose an older friend. We need to consider that a decision made by the nominated person, such as an older friend, may have implications for those with parental responsibility. For example, that older friend may decide to discharge a child from hospital and into the care of the parents, who would not provide advocacy or be part of that decision making.

The Minister said that safeguards will be put in place, but can he expand on that? There are some real concerns here. Let us consider a situation in which there has been a decision by a court to determine which parent has responsibility for the child. If complex family issues have already been considered by the family court, it is right that the decision be followed. I respectfully ask the Minister to reconsider this point. We must respect the fact that parents of those under 16 are best placed to advocate for, support and act for their children. This is about capacity, consent and, ultimately, safeguarding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the need for investment in the accident and emergency at Queen’s hospital in Romford. As she alluded to, that department serves my constituents, too, so this will be a rare occasion at the Dispatch Box where I urge and encourage her to lobby the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), because in such decisions I must recuse myself. However, she will know where my sympathies lie.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

2. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of access to NHS dental services.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

9. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of access to NHS dental services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

Rebuilding our broken dentistry system is a priority for this Government. We are already rolling out 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments a year, as promised in our manifesto; we have launched a supervised toothbrushing scheme for three to five-year-olds; and we are committed to reforming the dental contract and making NHS dentistry fit for the future in the long term.

[Rosie Wrighting]

In Kettering, we know the scale of the challenge facing NHS dentistry after 14 years of Tory failure. My constituents regularly tell me how impossible it is to get an appointment. Some are driving tens of miles to see a dentist, and it is simply a scandal how many children are admitted to hospital with tooth decay. While it cannot be rebuilt overnight, in Kettering we welcome the extra 17,000 urgent appointments, which are a vital first step. Can the Minister confirm that it is this Government who will make NHS dentistry fit for the future?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. After 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence, far too many people are still struggling to find an NHS appointment. This Government are tackling the challenges for patients trying to access NHS dental care by delivering 700,000 more urgent dental appointments a year and by recruiting new dentists to areas that need them. My hon. Friend’s local integrated care board has been asked to deliver nearly 17,000 of the additional urgent appointments. I am in no doubt that she will continue to campaign tirelessly on behalf of her constituents.

New Hospital Programme Review

Rosie Wrighting Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I plan to run this statement until 6 o’clock, so I ask Members to please help each other out by keeping their questions and answers short.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

My predecessor told my constituents that the work on Kettering general hospital was ready to go. It is shameful that, in reality, the Conservatives had no credible plan, and the money was going to run out in March this year. Does the Secretary of State agree that people in Kettering are right to be angry at the previous Government for breaking their promises, and can he reassure my constituents that they will see a realistic, deliverable timeframe for the rebuild of our hospital?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue consistently and persistently with me since she was elected. I can reassure her and her constituents that pre-construction work will begin from 2028 to 2030, with construction starting in 2031 and lasting until 2032. I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend’s constituents were led up the garden path; I rather feel that they have already rumbled the Conservatives by sending her to Parliament, but for as long as there is a Labour Government, we will deliver for the people of Kettering.