Chamber and committees

Thank you. That was helpful.

Good morning. I have an interest in how clinical trials are conducted. Treatments of rare conditions in particular require clinical trials to be drawn from beyond our borders. It is to the benefit of any new drug that we draw from as diverse a population as we possibly can, surely. Are we aligned with the rest of the world on that, and can we pool clinical trials to determine the efficacy of new medicine?

In relation to the gathering of data, it sounds like there is an opportunity for an entrepreneur.

I have a question for Sir Michael Ferguson, who raised the issue of spin-off companies from new businesses—that sort of growth in small and medium-sized enterprises.

That was a really helpful answer.

Let me just put together a scenario from the perspective of practicalities. If a debt adviser recognises a potential issue with a client and contacts mental health services, and there is a delay, as there often is, in accessing that kind of help, what happens in the interim? How do we deal with the period between the recognition that there could be a problem and the diagnosis of that problem?

Thank you.

I will bring in Becca Stacey now. My concern is whether money advisers will be able to take this work on. It seems to me that the system is set up in such a way that, if you are on a compulsory mental health treatment order, this will kick in. However, as we have discussed, mental health does not work in a linear fashion. What if the money adviser has concerns about the client with whom they are working? Are we suggesting here that money advisers should have the capability to contact mental health services to ask for advice?

To follow on from that, is there a global data network that we can tap into to pull people into clinical trials?

Does anyone else want to jump in before I move on to my next question?

Good morning. I want to move the conversation on from what my colleagues have been discussing with you to discuss the practicalities of what is proposed in the bill. Mental health is such a sliding scale and what we are trying to do here is almost to put it into a black and white box, if you like, with regard to who is eligible. It strikes me that, to get to this stage, someone will have to, first, recognise that they have a mental health issue and, secondly, be prepared to go and ask for help. We know that access to mental health care is difficult at the moment, as the NHS and especially mental health services are under extreme pressure, and then, on top of that, the person will have to access money advisers. I wonder whether the decision about who is eligible for the moratorium comes down to what the system is practically capable of, because resources are limited, and whether we will be missing a section of people who should be able to use the moratorium.

I apologise.

I will broaden out the discussion to include legal capacity. We have talked about those who are under compulsory orders and those who do not have legal capacity because of a power of attorney, which can, itself, be quite tricky to obtain. It strikes me that mental health is a sliding scale, but that we have been focusing on things that we can identify in black and white. We can identify those who are under a compulsory order or who are under a power of attorney, but mental health is a sliding scale. How does the bill address that?