Lord Bradley (Lab)

My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. In Committee, I moved an amendment that would require a specified accountable person to be appointed by the relevant referring body to ensure that the specified 28-day transfer period is met. This proposal was based on the fact that many agencies are involved in arranging prison transfers. From my experiences in helping to develop services across health and justice, I believe there could be significant merit in creating a single role: a dedicated official whose primary function would be to ensure efficient transfers, with the ability and power to liaise and intervene with the various agencies at the most senior level where necessary. As I said in that debate, the amendment would clarify and enhance accountability and transparency, and “support the desire expressed in the impact assessment” of the Bill to increase “‘accountability for all agencies involved in the transfer process to meet’ … the deadline”. It is important to note again that this is supported by “Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review, which stated that it would help … ‘unblock the institutional barriers and … give … the teeth it needs to push the transfer through’”.—[Official Report, 27/1/25; col. 61.] At the conclusion to that debate, first, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, from the Opposition Front Bench, commented that my amendment “again, speaks to the point of implementation” of provisions in the Bill, and said that this “could be a sensible way of holding providers to account and working with them to address the shortcomings in patient transfers”.—[Official Report, 27/1/25; col. 66.] Secondly, and most importantly, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson, helpfully reminded the House that the previous Government had run a public consultation seeking views on the effective way to establish this role, but no consensus was reached. Further, a cross-agency working group was established to scope out the role, and that work “continues between health and justice partners” on this issue. He suggested that a non-statutory approach “will ensure that the interests of patients are considered while providing the flexibility required, given the complexity of the process”.—[Official Report, 27/1/25; cols. 67-68.] Very helpfully again, the Minister offered to meet to discuss this further and for that to be undertaken before Report. I am very pleased that such discussions have taken place, and thank not only the Minister but the excellent officials in both the Ministry of Justice and NHS England for their very constructive engagement with me. I still strongly believe that we need effective oversight of the transfer process, hence I tabled Amendment 38, which proposes that either an accountable person “or body”—a slight extension to my original amendment—is established for the purpose and, of course, to ensure accountability and transparency to Parliament on this matter. I hope the Minister will now support this proposition. I look forward to his response at the end of this short debate and will listen carefully to it. I beg to move.