Jen Craft
MP for Thurrock · Labour · United Kingdom
“On a visit to Basildon hospital last week, I was told by staff how dealing with the unprecedented demand due to the heatwave was compounded by working in a building that is fundamentally unfit to cope with extreme heat, not least with A&E working above capacity, with absolutely no windows.”
“My local hospital, Basildon university hospital, is in the 40th worst trust for delivering hospital care. Does my hon. Friend agree that not having the right community equipment, such as community disability aids and home adaptations, can quite often be a leading cause of delayed discharge?”
“Many colleagues have spoken about the importance of sports, activity and physical health, and how it is not just a nice to have or an add-on, but something that is absolutely vital if we are to deliver our goals, particularly on creating a healthier ageing population and a healthier population in general.”
“I very much welcome the report and Baroness Amos’s work to highlight the failings across our maternity system. It is pure and utter medical misogyny that has led us here. The value that we place on the lives and experiences of women has been brought to the fore, and it is very, very low.”
“If someone’s kid decides that they are going to start legging it towards the massive ring road that goes around the side of the rugby field, we are all running after them. No one is left out, and parents do not need to arrange 5 billion different support workers just so that their kid can take part.”
“In my constituency there are some fantastic groups that look to address that shortfall, such as JTD Arts and the excellent Ace network. Disability sport for young people is very important, and I believe that we should try to address the lack of accessibility on a national level.”
The complete record
Every one of 498 lines we hold for Jen Craft, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 10.
“I rise to speak briefly to clause 45, Government amendments 32 and 33, Lib Dem amendment 18 and Opposition amendment 46. I am very supportive of clause 45. The ability to make an advance choice document is incredibly important to people who may come under the scope of the 1983 Act and be subject to detention under mental health legislation. We have spoken at length about the importance of patients’ input into their care and the improvements in outcomes when they feel that they have been involved and their wishes and feelings are taken into account. An advance choice document allows someone at risk of being detained under the Act to set out their choices, thoughts and opinions before becoming so unwell that they may need to be admitted to hospital. Other hon.”
“I understand that financial circumstances have an impact on people’s mental health—we have talked about that in debates on other clauses—but they do not necessarily have a place in this specific part of the Bill. I encourage the Committee to support clause 45 and to adopt Government amendments 32 and 33. This is, once again, a big step forward in ensuring that those with serious mental illnesses are able to input into their care and treatment in a real and meaningful way.”
“Input on patient experience into how best to contact and meaningfully engage people who would benefit from an advance choice document would be particularly beneficial. Very briefly, the aim of Liberal Democrat amendment 18 is to include consideration of financial circumstances in an advance choice document. I have looked into this—in my opinion, it is outside the scope of what an advance choice document does. An advance choice document sets out how an individual would wish to be treated if they became so unwell that they were unable to make those decisions for themselves. I am not fully sure how one’s financial circumstances fit into how one would be treated relative to detention or, potentially, in a community-based setting.”
“Without getting ahead of the Minister, I hope that he will say what guidance on best practice for local commissioners and ICBs will be set out, particularly in relation to those with learning disabilities and autism. We have spoken about easy-read documents, for example, which should probably be made available, as should advice on how commissioners can best make sure that all those who might benefit from an advance choice document are meaningfully engaged and informed of their right and ability to do so. The Minister has agreed previously to make sure that he works with disabled people’s organisations, including those run by and for people with learning disabilities and autism, on bringing forward a code of practice on the Mental Health Bill.”
“I agree on the notion of a right; where we vary is that I think that the Bill as written, and Government amendments 32 and 33, enshrine the notion of a right without it having to be spelled out as such. Local variation includes localised populations, such as those from marginalised communities. We might consider different translations of support that is available. That will not be the case across the board—it will vary from area to area. This does not remove people’s ability to make an advance choice document; it simply gives local commissioners the ability to determine what is most appropriate for their area, how that support should look and how it will be targeted.”
“I would welcome the hon. Lady’s thoughts on where clause 45 or the Government’s amendments allow for selective provision. My understanding is that they place an onus on mental health commissioners to make sure that all those who are deemed appropriate to be in receipt of an ACD should be given the ability to make one. I do not think that is selective; it is very much related to the purposes of the Bill, and it spells out who may come under the provision.”
“Having looked at new clause 21, I have a rather large concern about consent. The hon. Lady is setting out what the integrated care board would have a duty to do, including giving information about a “person’s condition and recovery” to “the family or carers of the person discharged”. I have a significant concern that the person being discharged may not have the kind of relationship with their family or carers that would make that helpful. The clause, as drafted, does not seem to make allowance for consent, except where “the person is at future risk of detention” under part II of the Mental Health Act. I would welcome the hon. Lady’s thoughts on that.”
“Without wanting to sound abrupt, we all have the explanatory notes and are reading them, so in the interests of brevity might the hon. Member consider getting to the point about what he would add to or take away from the Bill? We all know what the clauses aim to do; the Minister has already set that out.”
“But I implore the Minister to consider the fact that, when it comes to encouraging participation, understanding, and co-designing and co-producing services, capturing the experience of those recently detained under the Mental Health Act can be extraordinarily useful. Clause 35, which was added by an amendment from the Lords, seems a fairly useful way to do that.”
“Like many Committee members, I was deeply confused about how we were proceeding. On the face of it, the clause broadly seems as if it should be part of any Act about mental health care, including post discharge. I have spoken about my own experience of interacting with the Mental Health Act as it stands. I might have found the clause fairly helpful post discharge and others might have found it useful as well. However, I have just heard the Minister’s description of the limitations of the clause, and the speech that I was about to make has been thrown into complete disarray by the confusion just now.”
“I am glad that the Minister is explaining how capturing feedback and experience is being allowed for in other parts of the Bill. To clarify, in my own head I feel that the clause aims to capture the experience immediately after it has happened, just as hospitals offer women who have just given birth the opportunity to talk through their experience. It is healing for the patient to understand what happened to them, and it provides immediate feedback to the hospital. Is that kind of level captured in other parts of the Bill?”
“(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.— (Dame Diana Johnson.) Question agreed to.”
“ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings First day New clauses and new Schedules standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown; amendments to clauses 1 to 165 and Schedules 1 to 18, other than amendments relating to abortion. Three hours before the moment of interruption on the first day. New clauses and new Schedules relating to abortion; amendments relating to abortion. The moment of interruption on the first day. Second day Remaining new clauses and new Schedules; amendments to clauses 166 to 172, other than amendments relating to abortion; remaining proceedings on Consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.”
“Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July , and to be printed (Bill 263). Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A( 9 )), That the Order of 10 March 2025 (Crime and Policing Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted. (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. (3) Proceedings on Consideration— (a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and (b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.”
“This Bill would take direct action to address that injustice, providing a clear process for bereaved mothers to follow, and allowing the registrar to include a deceased partner on their child’s birth certificate. That small change in the law would make a huge difference. It would spare grieving women a needlessly painful legal process, and ensure that no mother or child has a blank space on their birth certificate where their parent’s name should rightly be. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Ms Stella Creasy, Caroline Voaden, Alice Macdonald, John Grady, Chris Vince, Abtisam Mohamed, Kirith Entwistle, Dr Marie Tidball, David Burton-Sampson, Daniel Francis, Charlotte Nichols and Jen Craft present the Bill. Jen Craft accordingly presented the Bill.”
“A similar system could be created here, and a declaration of intended parentage could be made during pregnancy. I do not contest the importance of having a rigorous process for proving intended parenthood, but that importance is an argument in support of a change in the law, not against it, because that process is currently non-existent. Officials are often unable to advise women on how to register their deceased partner as a parent, because there is no guidance. While there remains no clear route to proving intended parenthood, bereaved unmarried mothers are being denied a basic right. The anachronistic legal framework is causing immense trauma for mothers and children.”
“That figure has reduced steadily ever since, and only half of children are now born within marriage. Times have changed and society has moved on, yet the law has not kept pace. This Bill would drag the legislation into the 21st century, and provide a clear and simple process for registering a deceased partner’s name on a birth certificate. We can achieve that by placing greater reliance on a registrar’s professional judgement. With the right evidence, registrars are allowed to amend a birth certificate, so we can similarly empower them to correct the absence of a deceased parent, provided that they receive sufficient evidence of intended parenthood. Across Europe—in Switzerland, France and Germany—unmarried parents are encouraged to register their parentage at antenatal appointments.”
“While the women who join us today have persevered through the family courts, many mothers will give up out of frustration, leaving that blank space on their child’s birth certificate. The system for registering births is governed by section 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, which make provision for those requiring a declaration of parentage. Neither of those Acts provide for the specific circumstances in which one parent is deceased and a child is born outside of marriage. A declaration of parentage is not intended to prove the paternity of a deceased partner, but rather to resolve disputed parenthood. This legal framework is unfit for purpose. When the Births and Deaths Registration Act became law in 1953, 95% of births registered in the UK were within a marriage.”
“Sophie entered the uphill battle of amending the birth certificate, and was bounced between Departments and advisers until someone at the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service intervened on her behalf. Her hearing is at the magistrates court on 3 July and will hopefully bring her some closure on this issue. Sophie said the experience has been “exhausting, confusing and emotionally draining.” I add my personal thanks to the women who join us today for sharing their brave stories, and for allowing me to share them with the House. Kelly, Orlanda and Sophie’s stories show how traumatic and unnecessarily complex the process is. Widowed and Young estimates that this issue affects as many as 200 women each year.”
“As an ambassador for Widowed and Young, Orlanda says she is determined to make things easier for women who follow in her path. Let me turn to Sophie, who is still in the midst of this torturous process. The sudden death of her partner Lawrence while she was pregnant with their daughter Kinley turned her world upside down. Despite their having two children together, and Lawrence being legally registered as the father of both, Sophie was told that Lawrence would not be registered as Kinley’s father. She was devastated. Registering their son together in 2016 was one of Lawrence’s proudest moments. As Sophie said, “he will always be her dad”, and he should be recognised as such.”
“After fighting for two years, Kelly received a birth certificate for her daughter Maisie with Jordan’s name on it. She now keeps 12 copies of it around the house and one in her purse at all times. Orlanda and her partner Julian were on holiday when he unexpectedly collapsed. Just a day after discovering they were expecting a baby girl, Julian died from a heart attack. When the registrar told Orlanda that Julian would not be named on her daughter’s birth certificate, she said it felt as if he had been “ripped from our history”. Her process through the courts took two years and four hearings. Many of the judges she encountered had never even come across a situation like hers, and she was often asked at hearings if Julian would be attending.”
“I would like to share their experiences, which illustrate the emotional impact of this issue. When Kelly’s partner, Jordan, died suddenly in 2020, she went from planning their future to planning her fiancé’s funeral. Shortly after she gave birth to their daughter, Kelly’s battle began to prove that Jordan was the father. As Kelly said, he had wanted “nothing more out of his life than to have kids”, so she was determined that his name would be on Maisie’s birth certificate. Kelly used a C63 form to apply for a declaration of parentage through the family courts, which comes with an immediate cost of £365. While having to provide DNA from Jordan’s mother and paying out hundreds of pounds in legal fees, Kelly was also asked demeaning questions, such as whether she had had any other partners.”
“It is an organisation that provides fantastic support to those who have experienced widowhood earlier in life. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) who secured an Adjournment debate on this issue, and spoke powerfully and movingly of her own experience of bereavement, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who first exposed the shortcomings of the legal process in Parliament in 2016. The Bill seeks to legislate for Widowed and Young’s “Blank Space” campaign to come into existence, to provide a clear and simple process for unmarried and bereaved mothers to register their partner on their child’s birth certificate. Through the charity, I have heard the stories of brave and inspiring women, some of whom are in the Gallery today to watch the proceedings.”
“While suffering the grief of losing a loved one and facing the new reality of parenthood alone, bereaved mothers leave the register office with a blank space on their child’s birth certificate, instead of their partner’s name. In order to amend the birth certificate, bereaved mothers have to seek a declaration of parentage through a lengthy, costly and traumatising legal process in the family courts. In some respects, this is a legal loophole—the effect of improper and outdated legislation that has failed to provide for a certain set of particularly tragic circumstances—but it speaks to a deeper inequality in the legal system: unmarried couples are held in lower regard. The law in this area has not kept pace with societal change. The charity Widowed and Young first brought this injustice to my attention.”
“That means either parent may register the birth unaccompanied by the other, with both still recorded on the birth certificate. Therefore, in the terrible event that their husband dies before the child is born, a widowed mother can still ensure their name is on the birth certificate, which is common sense. However, if the couple are unmarried, the law does not recognise their relationship in the same way. The fact that the mother does not have a ring on her finger means there is no automatic recognition of paternity. If an unmarried woman experiences the unimaginable tragedy of losing her partner during pregnancy, there is no provision for her to register them on the child’s birth certificate. Unless both parents can be present, the registrar is deemed unable to verify the paternity of the father.”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the inclusion of a parent’s details on a child’s birth certificate where that parent has died before the birth of the child; and for connected purposes. For the vast majority of parents, registering the birth of their child is a straightforward process. It is a simple piece of paperwork that marks a special moment and brings important recognition of their new family, along with notable legal rights. Yet, for a number of women every year, what should be an uncontroversial step in their journey as a parent becomes a protracted and traumatic legal battle. The law dictates that it is the duty of the parents to register the birth of a child within 42 days. For married couples, there is a presumption of paternity for the husband under the law.”
“As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Sign Language, I know that the thousands of BSL first-language speakers in this country are very supportive of the introduction of a new BSL GCSE. However, I understand that progress on that has slightly stalled, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on the roll-out.”
“There seems to be some circular talk about the level of risk that clinicians and medical professionals can be expected to shoulder. I notice that clause 5(7), inserted in the other place, specifies that they would “not be put at unnecessary risk”. Is there not an inherent risk involved in detaining people who need to be detained under the Mental Health Act? Those people are not in a position to give consent and quite often do not wish to be detained. By stipulating that the police will not be involved in situations or by making medical professionals the first responders, is there not a risk of putting them in harm’s way?”
“The specification in the list of words proposed in the other place can leave people at risk of harm, particularly clinicians.”
“On clause 5(4), the amendment in the other place inserted the phrase “by a constable or other authorised person” which relates specifically to the phrase “unless the patient is immediately restrained from leaving the hospital”. What the hon. Gentleman describes as a level of ambiguity in the subsection allows that to be done by people who are not necessarily listed as an authorised person, such as a medical practitioner. I think we would all agree that we would not expect to see a nurse, doctor or other clinician immediately and physically restraining a patient, and that when a police constable is not available, other people, such as hospital security staff, can carry out the task. The clause says, “immediately restrained”.”
“On a point of clarification, I note that the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister specifically say “recovery from any childhood trauma”. Why has he opted for the word “childhood”, rather than general trauma-informed care? A number of female in-patients in mental health units are recovering from past sexual trauma or domestic violence—I know such abuse is not committed exclusively against women, but it tends to be more prevalent in that group—and the mental health unit can potentially exacerbate that traumatic experience. I seek clarification on why childhood trauma has been made so prominent, as opposed to general trauma.”
“I rise to speak in support of clause 8, and I will briefly speak to the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 12. I have already flagged my concerns with the Opposition’s amendments 44 and 45. Clause 8 introduces and puts front and centre the notion of therapeutic care for those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. I strongly welcome clause 8, as drafted. For far too long, for people who have been deprived of their liberty and detained in a secure mental health setting, the main focus has been risk management and harm minimisation rather than therapeutic care.”
“If we have to take the accommodation into consideration, that might mean that it would never be an appropriate setting for someone to receive therapeutic care, even though we know that quite often it is the only setting where someone can be for a short period.”
“Not to read this against the earlier clauses that take autism and learning disability away from the definition of a mental health condition, which I strongly welcome, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on capturing how, for this specific group of people, detention in a secure mental unit is probably more harmful to them than it is for the majority of the population. I cannot, however, support amendment 12, because of the catch-all nature of looking at the setting in which a treatment takes place. I speak as someone who has had lived experience of this issue and I have to say that quite often a secure unit is probably not conducive to anyone’s mental health; indeed, it is often a place of last resort, and I think that it poses a risk.”
“Although I support looking at whether a specific setting is appropriate for certain groups of people, there needs to be heightened awareness of the impact that a locked setting can have on people with a learning disability or autism. I spoke about this on Second Reading. If someone is sensitive to over-stimulation and has an increased sensory need, need for routine and need for familiarity, taking them away from a place that feels safe and putting them in a ward with strip lighting—autistic people talk about strip lighting as being particularly harmful—that is noisy, unfamiliar and completely out of their routine can feel extremely harmful. Therapeutic care in that setting may never be effective enough for that group of people to be released.”
“I will speak briefly to amendment 12, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I may have slightly misunderstood the intent of the amendment. It was my understanding that naming the setting where medical treatment takes place—putting it on an equal footing with the treatment—was aimed at looking at the impact on people with learning disabilities and autism. For that specific group, detention in a secure unit is often counter-productive to their recovery. A review undertaken by Baroness Hollins found that there was no therapeutic benefit for long-term segregation of patients with a learning disability, and that attempting to deliver a therapeutic benefit for some of those patients in a locked setting is all but impossible.”
“The cost was looked at in areas in the south-west—in Devon—and in London, and it was found that a third of spending from hospital trusts was going towards this very tiny group of people. That is not to say that we should always look at the cost of care, because that can seem reductive to someone as an individual, but clearly, these people are not getting effective treatment that is good value and makes sense for them. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on developing system-wide and community-based change for some of the most complex cases in an in-patient setting. How does he see the clause interacting with that? Does he believe that providing therapeutic benefit for all patients in a secure setting will have a positive impact on that complex 1.5% group of patients?”
“For some individuals who have spent a significant amount of time in a locked unit, the prospect of them receiving therapeutic care is very low, and the prospect of them receiving therapeutic care that leads to them recovering sufficiently to leave those units is about nil. The talking therapies taskforce highlights that some of the most severely complex patients with personality disorder—the most severe 1.5%—make up nearly one third of the annual spend on in-patient treatment costs. That group of people have very little prospect of receiving appropriate therapeutic care in an in-patient setting. A system-wide change looking at community-based care, sometimes intensive community-based care, would be much more effective than what they currently receive.”
“Although I understand that the Minister will probably state that the clause advances the principle of “therapeutic benefit”, I believe it also touches on two of the other key principles developed by the independent review: the principles of seeing “the person as an individual”, and of “least restriction”. We can all appreciate that if someone is in a setting for their own therapeutic benefit, rather than just being contained because of the risk that they might pose to themselves or others, then they are being less restricted, in a way that is real and important to them, and will have the benefit of being seen as an individual.”
“As I was saying, for too long the focus in a locked setting has been on management of risk and harm reduction, rather than actually treating the condition that the patient may have. Clause 8 looks almost to reverse that. It advances the idea that therapeutic care is the aim of detention under the Mental Health Act and that it is fundamentally important, when someone is deprived of their liberty, that there is a therapeutic benefit to the patient, and it places that aim in a prominent position at the start of the Act, so that it is not buried further down.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the Lampard inquiry, and highlighting the impact of the treatment that the inquiry is looking at on the lives of the patients who were subject to it. I do not wish to get ahead of the inquiry because it is still under way, but I have met with some of the families involved, and there is a feeling that there has been a complete breakdown of trust in the care of patients in our part of the world. That trust is difficult to rebuild, particularly for people in a locked mental health setting, who have no choice but to trust that the providers of their care are acting in their best interests. The lack of trust is almost harmful to their continued recovery. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that particular point.”
“I know that there are times when people will act in a way that may be at odds with the risk that they pose to the public, but these matters are properly addressed elsewhere in the Bill. What the clause speaks to, and what we should try not to dilute, is the patient experience.”
“I do not want to get ahead of the Minister, but I want to address a few points that the shadow Minister raised. I want to say this as someone with lived experience of severe mental illness; it is important to have someone on the Committee that can speak to that, so I probably should when I can. This clause speaks to the patient experience. There are other parts in the Bill that deal with potential risk to the public and risk of harm. In the first example the shadow Minister gave, he mentioned that the woman in question said that her wish was to be admitted to a secure unit. I would say that, under this clause, had they had regard for her wishes and how she wanted to be treated, that would have mitigated some of the risk.”
“Looking at how they may have acted in the past, or may have opted for treatment when not at a crisis point—including, I note, through the introduction of advance choice documents, allowing people to choose how they would like to be treated if they have lost the ability to make those decisions for themselves about the best way forward and, indeed, if they have to be detained—and taking their wishes into account, as well as their beliefs and values, is important in developing an individual treatment plan that allows them to be seen as an individual deserving of care, in order to achieve the best possible outcome for them. Across the House, we have noted the important fact that, when patients are involved in developing their treatment plans, they are much more likely to engage and have significantly improved outcomes.”
“I rise to speak in support of this important clause, which puts patient experience and individual choice at the heart of treatment. It is a brilliant focus on seeing the individual as a person, and ensuring that they have a strong role to play in deciding their treatment pathway going forward. I very much welcome the development of a clinical checklist that includes looking at a patient’s past and present wishes and feelings. That is important because, when someone is in a mental health crisis, they might not be in the best possible place at that moment to articulate what their wishes are.”
“If I was in a mental health crisis, I might not be in a place to articulate the best treatment for me, but right now I can say what works. I will not go into that, because it is private, but I know that the best course of care for me would involve someone taking advantage of my knowledge of my condition and working with me to allow me to get the care I need to get better. The point is that the clause’s stand-alone focus on the patient experience deals with some of that stigma. It puts the patient’s experience at the heart of treatment, it speaks to some of the issues mentioned about what happened in Essex, which is now the focus of the Lampard inquiry, and helps to deal with some of that. It sees us as individuals.”
“It has been particularly hard to be open about the fact that I might be subject to in-patient mental health treatment; I probably see that as a likelihood in my future at some point, although I hope it is not and I work very hard every single day to avoid that. However, it is important that there is a part of the Bill that speaks to me as an individual. I speak to the Committee today as an articulate individual—I do not want to say intelligent; I will not blow my own trumpet—who can say what treatment option I would like. It is incredibly important to recognise that people who are subject to detention under the Bill are individuals who have opinions on their treatment. I have lived with these conditions for the best part of two decades, and the biggest expert on them is me.”
“I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. On Tuesday we discussed clauses on who can be detained and when, and earlier today we discussed the necessity of detention, and there was some debate about the amendment in the other place. Other bits of the Bill focus on when it is necessary to detain an individual for public safety and not just for their own treatment; I will not re-litigate who should be performing that function, but earlier clauses deal with that. The importance of this clause is the patient perspective. There is a significant stigma associated with severe mental illness. I have been reticent about my own conditions in the past because of that, and because of how I would be perceived.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. That concludes what I was trying to get at: the importance of a clause in the Bill that is focused on patient experience. Understanding and acknowledging the sheer importance of that person’s experiences, and the value that brings to their care plan, cannot be overestimated. I hope that members of the Committee will support the clause, because it represents quite a sea change in how people subject to treatment under the Mental Health Act are treated.”
“I have a question about the list of risk factors that has been provided. Is there not a concern that it might be too prescriptive or restrictive, and that putting it in primary legislation prevents local authorities or ICBs from widening it, from having registers and risk factors that might be appropriate to their areas, and from focusing on what the appropriate level of care is that they are best placed to meet?”