Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I support the introduction of a commissioner. There seem to be three basic arguments that suggest it would be a good measure to take at this stage.

The first is the proven value and quality of work done by other independent commissioners, particularly the Children’s Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner, as already mentioned. The second is the need for a commissioner to oversee the prolonged implementation of this Bill when it is enacted and the wide-ranging scope of work to be covered by the new legislation. Thirdly, a commissioner will enable standards of good practice to be maintained and raised. The existence of a dedicated commissioner should in fact remove, or at least reduce, the need for periodic statutory reviews of specific areas of work and functions in the field of mental health.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 47, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and I raised this issue at Second Reading.

A powerful case has already been made for a mental health commissioner, so I am just going to make one comparison here. At the same time as this Bill has been going forward, in the other Chamber I have been dealing with the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. An Armed Forces ombudsman was created, which in some ways has parallels with the Chief Inspector of Mental Health and the CQC. It was found that that was not effective or strong enough, and now the Government themselves are going for the Armed Forces commissioner model.

There is another parallel. One of the reasons why it is felt so strongly that there needs to be an Armed Forces commissioner model is that members of our Armed Forces do not have the same rights. They have certain responsibilities laid on them and are treated differently from other members of society, which is why they need a special advocate. The parallel with people who are potentially subject to the Mental Health Bill is obvious.

In the health space, I have been heavily involved over the years with the Patient Safety Commissioner, which was initially resisted by the Conservative Government of the time. Eventually the fight was won, and it is now seen to be a huge success. This is a model that we can see working and that is seen to be necessary.

The Government have expressed a desire to get rid of arm’s-length bodies and make decisions themselves. The Government devolve decision-making to those so-called quangos—the arm’s-length bodies—but that is not the case with the Patient Safety Commissioner; there is no parallel here. They are a person who is there as an advocate and to have oversight; they are not making decisions. I do not think the Government can shelter under that umbrella.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for, as others have said, the eloquent way in which she introduced her amendment.

I know this is a topic that noble Lords across the House feel strongly about, and I appreciate the arguments in favour of the creation of a commissioner. Indeed, as other noble Lords have said, it was a recommendation of the pre-legislative Joint Committee.

Having listened keenly to what the noble Baroness has said, and having discussed this issue with her and her noble friends, I have to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, when he says that the landscape has changed. We are now at a time when the Government are looking to reduce duplication and arm’s-length bodies—something that I believe a responsible Opposition should support. We believe it should not be necessary to have a new, separate, independent mental health commissioner.

We were going to group this amendment with the ideas about strengthening the CQC, but that has been ungrouped and we will talk more to it in the next group. When I had some conversations with those who supported the independent mental health commissioner, they said I should look to Children’s Commissioner as an example. I looked at the Children’s Commissioner; it does a great job, but it has a staff of 25, a temporary staff of 31, and expenditure of £3 million. That may not sound a lot of money but I wonder whether that amount of money could be better invested in strengthening the CQC. One of the things about any bureaucracy is that they grow and have more non-essential roles as other bits of legislation bring them in. I worry about the cost and duplication of functions.

I completely understand the argument from those who say that the CQC has not been doing its job and those who have criticised it for being ill-equipped. That is why we tabled our amendment, which will be discussed in the next group, about strengthening CQC functions. However, rather than saying all that now and repeat it in the next group, I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I believe there should be a comprehensive review of the CQC and proper accountability, and I hope we can achieve that without an independent commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 48 and 49 are in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding her name to Amendment 49.

As debated throughout the passage of the Bill, a primary driver of the review into the Mental Health Act was the shocking racial injustices in the use of that Act. The figures are well known to us: black people are disproportionately more likely to be detained and put on a CTO, and experiences and outcomes for people from racialised communities are, on average, worse. One of the main policy objectives set out in the Bill’s impact assessment is to

“reduce racial disparities under the MHA and promote equality”.

That is great but, given that, I have found it surprising from the outset that race and racial disparity were not mentioned anywhere in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes.

Instead, there has been an expectation that non-legislative programmes—in particular, the patient and carer race equality framework, which is a contractual arrangement—and some of the Bill’s broader reforms will reduce racial disparities without specific legislative requirements. I was grateful to the Minister for organising a helpful recent round table on reducing racial disparities. I learned a lot about the operation of the PCREF, if I might call it that; I will return to it shortly.

I believe there is currently insufficient collection and reporting of data on the experiences and outcomes of people from racialised communities under the Act. That in turn hinders the ability to scrutinise progress being made in reducing racial disparities. I know from our deliberations on Monday that further thought is being given to this and that new research is being commissioned. I very much welcome that, so what would my amendments do?

In brief, my Amendment 48 would require the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers

“to review and report annually on the use of treatment and detention measures”,

broken down by detected characteristics. This would enable us to understand whether these reforms are fulfilling their intended purpose of bringing down inequalities and to identify any further action needed. However, I firmly believe that this needs to be accompanied by Amendment 49, which would introduce a new responsible person role at hospital level in mental health units to tackle and report on racial and other inequalities, as recommended by the Joint Committee.

The Minister has expressed concerns that a responsible person role may duplicate existing roles and duties, such as those under the Equality Act. I do not believe that will be the case. Where there are people performing similar roles, they can take this on but, in many places, local PCREF leads do not exist. Where they do, they can take on the responsible persons role and that is absolutely fine. I think this role would actively assist providers in complying with PCREF and their Equality Act duties. It would also help to drive implementation of other measures in the Bill, such as advance choice documents and opt-out advocacy. These important measures are much more likely to succeed if someone is clearly tasked with ensuring that the mental health unit implements them, everyone knows who is in charge and who is accountable.

There is a model for the use of a responsible person at unit level, in the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018. Under that legislation, the role is accountable for ensuring that the requirements of the Act are carried out. It is a senior role which may be carried out by an existing member of staff, such as a medical director or director of nursing. That would be a good model to follow. Giving an existing senior clinician with the necessary clout the responsibility to make things happen and creating clear accountability would really help to bring down disparities at local level.

The scope of the PCREF, which is NHS England’s anti-racism framework, is rightly much broader than the Mental Health Act. The responsible person in my amendment would be accountable for ensuring that the voices and interests of detained patients and their carers are properly reflected in the PCREF.

Finally, I was very grateful to the Minister for our recent correspondence following the helpful round table I referred to. I was very struck by the acknowledgement at that event of the big difference that a responsible person could make in enabling the patient and carer race equality framework to reduce both racism and racial inequalities in the way the legislation operates. As the Minister knows, I have made the—hopefully—helpful suggestion that some form of pilot of the responsible person role could considered at an appropriate time when the PCREF has bedded down and with some idea of how effective, or otherwise, it might be. Any assurances the Minister could provide would be much appreciated. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I have attached my name to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 49. As the noble Baroness said, like Amendment 48 it addresses one of the primary reasons for reviewing the Mental Health Act in the first place. Black people are over 3.5 times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act than white people, and over seven times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. Their experiences and outcomes are worse. All of those are facts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, the Bill somehow does not seem to be addressing that. We are taking an overall systemic view but not addressing the issues of a particular population. The reason I chose to sign Amendment 49—we are going to come shortly to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, looking at the resources being put into the Mental Health Act—is that this is another way of putting resources into what everyone agrees is a crucial issue. This is a different way of allocating resources.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has made the case that PCREF is not the same thing. The Care Quality Commission does not have the same kind of situation. We are talking about people at a local trust level here; that is where the responsible person would be. As the noble Baroness said, if there is already someone, because of local arrangements, fulfilling this role, they can simply adopt this along the way. It does not have to be any kind of duplication. I note that the campaign group Mind very strongly backs this amendment. It delivers where we started from on this whole Bill.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 61, which calls for a review into the causes and consequences of the huge spike of diagnoses of mental disorders. It should also investigate the impact of this on the availability of services that we envisage treating people with a mental disorder that this Bill seeks to help.

If, in our best efforts to provide alternatives to detention for the severely ill, we hope to ensure that adequate care in community settings exists, we must look at the phenomenon that threatens to squeeze out those who most need access to such services. Implicit to this endeavour is to ask if, inadvertently, some aspects of policy set in train a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rebranding any deviation from the norm, troublesome behaviour, anxiety or even, according to the Government’s curriculum review, GCSE exam stress, under the therapeutic language of mental health has consequences. As Tony Blair has noted recently:

“you’ve got to be careful of encouraging people to think they’ve got some sort of condition other than simply confronting the challenges of life”.

Yet the young especially are prone to internalising the narrative of medicalised explanation and adopt an identity of mental fragility and illness. This can create a cohort of citizens demanding official diagnoses, NHS intervention and treatment.

This week, the media has featured the new book by Dr Alastair Santhouse, a neuropsychiatrist from Maudsley Hospital. In the book No More Normal: Mental Health in an Age of Over-Diagnosis, Dr Santhouse argues that it has become crucial to reassess what constitutes mental illness:

“so that we can decide who needs to be treated with the limited resources available, and who can be helped in other ways”.

He worries the NHS has

“buckled under the tsunami of referrals”.

Other state services are straining to the point of dysfunction as well. Despite the fact that the number of children with education, health and care plans has more than doubled in less than 10 years, parents are still desperately complaining about waiting for years for autism and other assessments. In other words, the demand is just galloping.

All of this is leading to at least 18 councils being at risk of insolvency, according to the Guardian on Monday. The present row over PIPs and the welfare system collapsing under the costs of ever greater numbers claiming disability payments for mental disorders is now a major political issue. I have been partly inspired to table this amendment by the Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s concern about overdiagnosis of working-age adults leading them to be “written off”, as he said. It is especially tragic that this is happening overwhelmingly among young people.

My concern, and the point of this amendment, is that this can skew NHS provision. A Savanta poll of 1,001 GPs for the Centre for Social Justice’s report Change the Prescription reported that four in five, 84%, of GPs believe that the ups and downs of normal life are now wrongly being redefined by society as mental disorders. Of those GPs, 83% now believe that anti-depressants are too easily prescribed to patients. But the GPs are under so much pressure from patients demanding treatment that they prescribe them. Similarly, in 2013 and 2014 just 1,800 adults were prescribed drugs for ADHD, but last year 150,000 adults were prescribed with ADHD medication. Waiting lists keep growing and lots of anger continues.

When I last spoke on this topic in the Mental Health Bill debate, the media picked up on it and I was inundated with emails, largely from people furious with me for challenging overdiagnosis; I had a tsunami of hate mail. There was even a formal complaint sent to the standards committee of the House. People said, and I understood it, “How can you say there is an issue with overdiagnosis when I can’t get a referral for myself” or “for my child” and so on. It is true that a GP cannot formally diagnose ADHD as it requires specialist assessments. The average waiting list for an ADHD referral on the NHS is now three years. This lack of formal diagnosis is not necessarily stopping service provision becoming overwhelmed and distorted, and I think this mood will have a very damaging impact on what we want this Bill to do.

I will finish with an apocryphal tale from the University of Oxford’s disability report from 2022-23. It reveals that the university has, under pressure from students, agreed to

“accept a wider range of disability evidence”

as a key to giving 25% more time in exams and the use of computers in exams. The university’s explanation is telling. It talks of

“a wider context of extensive and ever-growing waiting times for ADHD and autism diagnostic assessments”,

so it aims to reduce “administrative burdens and barriers” for disabled students.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, this Bill has been years in gestation, and we have heard, in Committee and on Report, that it is going to be years in implementation. The Government, not unreasonably, have pointed to two principal rate limiters for that: workforce and funding. As we have just heard in the powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, her Amendment 50 is responsive to the staffing constraints and concerns, and my Amendment 59 tackles the funding question. I am grateful for her support and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.

In a nutshell, as the noble Baroness says, this amendment does not seek to tell the Government, or indeed the House of Commons under its privilege, how much to spend on the NHS. All it says is that there should be a floor on the share of that total going to mental health for a time-limited period while the Act is being implemented; in other words, the Government would continue to decide the size of the NHS pie. The Government, of whichever complexion, could decide to grow or shrink it, but the slice of that pie devoted to mental health would be protected for a time-limited period, not only at the local ICB level but nationally.

We had a debate on this in some detail in Committee, so I will not repeat the arguments in favour, but I will update the House on two developments since then. First, in consultation with the Public Bill Office, this Report amendment is more tightly drawn, focusing specifically on the mental health services that are in scope of this Bill and are required for its implementation. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has just noted, since we debated this point in Committee, new evidence has emerged, sadly, as to precisely why this amendment is needed. Previously, Ministers have argued, in good faith, that the Government are committed to protecting the mental health share anyway, whereas last Thursday, the Written Ministerial Statement disclosed that the Government now intend to shrink the share of NHS funding on mental health services in the year ahead.

The Written Ministerial Statement says:

“This is because of significant investment in other areas of healthcare”.


That is not a justification; it is a mathematical tautology. It reveals a preference entirely antithetical to what will be required over the years to get this Bill implemented.

It may be argued that it is a small percentage reduction, even though it is an important negative new precedent that has been set. However, a small percentage reduction on a large pound note number itself constitutes a large pound note number. Mental health services will be missing out on hundreds of millions of pounds more, not only in the year ahead but over the decade that it will take to implement the Bill. If that is not corrected in subsequent years, over £1 billion of funding has, in effect, been removed from mental health services and the implementation of the Bill as a consequence of that decision.

In summary, there are, sadly, real grounds for concern about whether the implementation of this Act will be properly and expeditiously resourced. If the Government want to argue that this amendment is unnecessary, because they are going to do what it says anyway, it is not clear why they would therefore object to its inclusion in the Bill. But if the Government’s argument is that they do not support the amendment because they would like the flexibility to cut mental health funding shares, then, to my mind, that really points to the necessity of the amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I rise briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. We saw in Committee multiple amendments all trying to address the resource issue. We have focused on this one because it is both an elegant solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, just outlined, and it is—emanating from the Cross Benches—a moderate solution that can and I think will attract wide support from around the House.

As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said, parity of esteem has never been achieved and, on the current figures, is currently going backwards, in the wrong direction. We have to focus on the fact that the waiting lists for community mental health care for adults and young people and children are twice as long as those for physical healthcare. That is the outcome of the inequality of esteem with which mental health is being treated. I note that the Rethink Mental Illness Right Treatment, Right Time report found that most people living with a severe mental illness experienced worsening mental health while waiting for treatment, with 42% requiring urgent care and 26% being hospitalised. We are aiming to shift from hospital care—in-patient care—to community care, but we are actually forcing things in the other direction because people reach such a state of crisis. I have to preface the horror of what I am about to say with a warning. The Right Treatment, Right Time report found that 25% of people whose mental health deteriorated while waiting for treatment attempted suicide, which highlights how the lack of funding for mental health care impacts on that awful statistic.

This is a step to create a framework that heads in the right direction. As noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, how could you possibly oppose this?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, very briefly, I will say that I absolutely support this amendment. I think it is worth clarifying what I said earlier about overdiagnosis. The danger is that that can be interpreted as meaning that I want cuts; what I actually want is targeted intervention for the right people, rather than saying, “Oh, everybody’s been calling themselves mentally ill, so let’s cut the services”.

I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, that, if we do not sort out the amount of community provision, what we have done over the last few weeks, never mind the years preceding it, will have been a waste of our time, because the Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on—that is the danger. It is very tempting, in a period of intense economic difficulties, to suggest that this might be one of the first things to go—so I do think this is a very good amendment.

I will remind the House of a discussion we had late the other evening on the plight of prisoners. If there is no community resource for people leaving prison—ex-prisoners—they will deteriorate and end up becoming very ill in the community and being incarcerated again. I discussed that in great detail. In other words, this is essential if we are serious about saying that we do not want to lock people up but, instead, want to treat them appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

63A: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to implement preventative policies for mental disorders(1) The bodies listed in subsection (3) must implement policies which take a preventative approach to the management of mental disorders which are likely to lead to detainment under the Mental Health Act 1983.(2) The policies must be adapted to the needs of the local community that those bodies serve.(3) The bodies in subsection (1) are integrated care boards, local health boards and local authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that ICBs, LHBs and local authorities take a preventative approach to the management of mental disorders which lead to detainment and adapt their approaches to the needs of their local area.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am acutely aware of the hour so I will be very brief. My Amendment 63A would provide for a duty for ICBs, local health boards and local authorities to implement preventive policies for mental disorders.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in regretting how the debate on this crucial Lords-starter Bill has been squeezed. However, I am in a lovely position because, in responding to the group beginning with Amendment 48, the Minister essentially supported my amendment. She said that if support can be provided much earlier, mental ill-health can be prevented. That is essentially what this amendment seeks to do.

I am obviously not going to divide the House at this stage of the evening, but I have spoken over the years to so many public health professionals, consultants and directors in local authorities, and they continually express the frustration that everyone knows that investment in preventive healthcare is the way to take pressure off the NHS. Understandably, when someone turns up with an acute mental health crisis or a broken leg, we have to treat that, and that is where the resources go.

This amendment is an attempt to write into the Bill—I hope it might be revisited in the other place—the duty of prevention. And it has to be a duty. This aligns very much with the Government’s rhetoric and their approach to public health. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I hope this can be the start of a discussion.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, because of the lateness of the hour I will be very brief. These Benches support the aim of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It is important that, throughout all this, there is an element not just of treating the acute phase of mental ill-health but trying to ensure that prevention is there within the health service and across the whole of government, national and local. We believe on these Benches that a mental health commissioner would have been really helpful for that, as they could highlight elements that could help with prevention—but the House has made its decision on that.

I have only one question for the Minister. One of the three shifts of the Government is towards prevention. How do the Government see prevention of mental ill-health fitting into that shift, not just in NHS services but, as I said, across the whole of government, including local government, to determine how they can use their resources and levers to bring about what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is trying to achieve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her detailed response and the positive mention of Trieste. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in thanking the Minister for her genuine engagement in the debates on this Bill. On this final point, it is worth noting that a very small number of noble Lords put in an enormous amount of work into the Bill. It would be nice to see a wider engagement across the House rather than the weight being carried by such a small number of people.

On the amendment, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his expressions of support for the general intention at least. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, on whether the duty should potentially rest with the Secretary of State rather than locally, we come back to some of the debate that we had in the earlier group when we were talking about a responsible officer. It is about laying duties down at the level where services are delivered, which is why I took this approach.

None the less, given the hour, I shall stop there. The Bill is now going to the other place, and I hope that we see a real level of attention and focus there as well, as there has been in your Lordships’ House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 63A withdrawn.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in Committee, a number of us stressed the importance of those sections of the Bill relating to its application for prisoners suffering mental disorder. I continue to push to ensure that the parts of the Bill that relate to the responsibilities of the MoJ in relation to the Department of Health and Social Care are not neglected once the Act becomes law.

In Committee, I focused on calling for a government review of the impact of the Bill on prisoners, but, from listening to the thoughtful response from the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, I saw that this could become yet another bureaucratic report. I therefore commend Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, as an elegant way of ensuring that the crucial provision of a transfer to hospital within 28 days is more than an “if only” paper aspiration.

My Amendment 40, which I am delighted is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is also a practical proposal. It is designed to tackle problems that directly pertain to the Bill, broadly because, regardless of this legislation, the reality is that there will continue to be large numbers of prisoners suffering mental disorders who are incarcerated within the prison estate rather than in secure hospitals. The question then is what happens to their mental health care when they are released. If this aspect is neglected, these ex-prisoners could well become increasingly unwell and deteriorate, and therefore be in need of future detention.

It would be a real mistake to neglect any policy or practice associated with this Bill that fails to address the need for bespoke, ongoing support in the community, in which ex-prisoners’ mental health is not allowed to fall further, creating new risks to both them and the public. This is a real risk. Estimates from a 2023 report from the Centre for Mental Health, based on a survey of 75% of prisons and young offenders’ institutions in England, found that one in seven prisoners receive mental health support while in custody—the figure is one in four among women. However, continuity of that care collapses after release. Research led by the University of Manchester recently found that, of 53 prisoners who had been in touch with in-house services due to severe and enduring mental health conditions, only four were in touch with community health services six months after release.

It is perhaps understandable why this happens. When leaving prison, both the authorities and prisoners may focus on practical challenges, such as lack of housing and how to earn money and a living, and therefore mental health support can and does slip down the priority list. It is also the case that leaving prison can present a shock to the system, and that affects this. Prisoners will be leaving a structured environment, focused on routine, and, in many instances, returning to more disorganised and chaotic conditions. Freedom may mean an arbitrary end to an effective course of treatment, someone having waited perhaps months or even years to access services, such as therapy or specialised groups, in which they have started to open up about traumatic experiences—all in-prison services. Suddenly, on release, there is an abrupt end to such support. Targeted interventions, prescribing regimes and the access to medication inside are no longer guaranteed on the outside.

I understand that ensuring continuity of care can be incredibly difficult. People leaving prison often have multiple and complex needs, and can be wary of accessing care in the community because of a lack of trust in state institutions that means that they are less likely to proactively seek out help. Ex-prisoners report that they fear that disclosing mental health challenges to, for example, probation staff will draw attention to their vulnerabilities. Then there is the dread of recall—an especially acute fear for IPP prisoners: a fear of being sent back to prison if they appear too ill to cope, or a dread of that other detention mechanism, sectioning.

All that this amendment seeks is to ensure a smooth handover between prisoners and community services. Without such ministerial reassurance, I fear that this will undermine core parts of the Bill unless it is taken into account. The stock reply to such concerns is that prison mental health services send on information to prisoners’ GPs, but in the real world this is often nonsense. Prisoners often do not have a fixed address on release, so they are discharged with just a medical letter. Prison nurses explain that they do not know where their patient will be released to, beyond a hostel somewhere, making it impossible to connect that person to even primary care. Prison-led medical staff complain that often they are not informed of the impending release until very shortly beforehand—sometimes a week or days—and this is especially acute in relation to the present early release scheme. There is not enough time to set up appropriate community provision, to communicate with services or even to conduct proper assessments of individual patients before their release. Clinical needs are therefore deprioritised, and prisoners fall through the net of statutory services.

What is needed, and what this amendment envisages, is that a relevant detention authority is responsible for discharge packages which will, for example, register prisoners with GP services in the precise area a person is discharged to, and liaise with relevant third-party organisations and community provision to make arrangements. Prisons and health authorities would work together to prevent deteriorating mental health and the potential for behaviour on the outside that would mean yet more contact with the criminal justice system for the ex-prisoner and, possibly, emergency intervention and detention.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and have added my name to it—probably not a combination that you will see very often. This amendment, as the noble Baroness set out with practical, clear evidence, makes such a lot of sense that I had to back it.

My particular interest when it comes to prison policy is women in prison. More and more shocking figures are emerging all the time about what is happening in our women’s prisons. A third of women in prison are now self-harming, which is a 29% increase in the last quarter, and 82% of women in prison report mental health problems. As the noble Baroness said, one in four women in prison are receiving help from mental health services. That is not to say that there are not enormous issues around male jails as well—the figure for male jails is one in seven—but I want to take a moment to paint a picture.

Six in 10 female prisoners are serving sentences of less than six months. Their life is torn apart and they are put into prison, where maybe they start to get help from the mental health services. Here are some other figures: seven in 10 women in prison report being victims of domestic violence; 53% report that they were victims of child abuse. We have a huge and often acute need for mental health services here, yet, as the noble Baroness set out, these women are thrown out, virtually on to the street, and the chances of continuing care and support being there are utterly unrealistic.

I suspect the Minister will say that the Government are trying to improve the situation. I respect and understand that. None the less, this is a practical, sensible measure that it would be common sense for the Government to take on board.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I want to make a couple of contributions to the debate. In so doing, I reflect on that fact that we have not spent much time talking about the criminal justice side of this Bill. I wonder why that is.

On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, it makes eminent sense to ensure that there is an accountable person or body responsible for ensuring that transfers to hospital occur within 28 days. I have a simple view of the world: if you want to make sure that some things get done, you need to ensure that someone is in charge and that that person is held to account. As the Minister knows, I am quite keen on responsible people, particularly in relation to this Bill, to ensure that things get done—hence, I support the amendment.

I was very interested in the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her amendment, focusing on ensuring that prisoners treated for a mental disorder have access to continued mental health treatment once they are back in the community. That is such common sense and such an obvious thing to do, if we are to stop repeat admissions and detentions and the whole thing becoming a revolving door. We all know that it is not easy in the community at the best of times to get access to the treatment that you need, particularly mental health treatment. It is particularly difficult for people who have recently been released from detention. Further, we all know the episodic nature of many mental health conditions, so this amendment is just good common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with all three amendments that we are considering at this moment, but in particular I support Amendment 51 and agree respectfully with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. He has set it out extremely carefully and clearly.

Despite meeting the most helpful Minister to discuss this and other matters in the Bill, I absolutely cannot understand why the Government do not realise that the absence of any information to help medical professionals looking at a 14 or 15 year-old who has mental health issues, which are why they are in hospital, but who appears otherwise to be very bright, is an issue. How on earth are they to judge whether that child has the degree of competence necessary for the professionals to listen carefully to what the child has to say? If you are over 16, you are included in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but under-16s have not been included.

I emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that Gillick is very long-winded. It would be unreasonable for any medical professional looking at a child of 13, 14 or 15 to settle down and read the judgments of the then House of Lords to find out that they say that Gillick should be applied but absolutely do not say how.

This is why we have this amendment. The Government might decide that they are not prepared to accept it. I did not see the letter that the Minister sent to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but I cannot understand why there is any confusion. I cannot understand why a form of advice to mental health professionals on dealing with under-16 year-olds in mental health conditions might be applied in any other circumstance in any other litigation. It does not apply.

I have spoken not only to the Minister but to the very helpful team who surround her, and I have been completely unable to understand what on earth they are really worried about. I would be—and I would like the Government to be—much more worried about anyone over 16. There is primary legislation telling anyone how to judge that someone over 16 has the ability to make decisions, but there is nothing to tell anybody about someone under 16.

In my view, there will be a serious lacuna in the law that is very unhelpful, particularly to mental health professionals. What on earth are they going to do with a child who, as I say, is bright and cheerful despite what his or her mental health problems are? How on earth are they going to approach judging whether that child has the sort of competence that over-16s have?

I find it difficult that what is contained in this excellent proposed new clause by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is seen as somehow confusing or that it will be used in the wrong circumstances, or anything like that. If Amendment 51 is not going to be accepted, what on earth is the help that the Minister expects to give to mental health professionals dealing with under-16s?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I say humbly and briefly, following that expert explanation of Amendment 51 from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and its powerful reinforcement by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that I attached my name to this amendment simply because I thought it was such an important one, following our debate in Committee. I felt that it should have a full slate of signatures from as broadly around the House as possible. I do not claim any particular expertise here, but my intention to do this was strengthened by the joint briefing from the Law Society, Mind and the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition. It is quite notable and I am sure many noble Lords will have received it. That briefing is explicitly on Amendment 51, which just shows the level of concern on this issue among NGOs.

It is worth saying—it is kind of stating the obvious—that, as the briefing notes:

“We consider that the test should be on the face of the Bill, not in a Code of Practice as the Government suggests. This is because the courts have made clear that codes of practice should reflect the law and cannot create law”.


That sets out clearly to me, as a legal lay person, where we are. As the joint briefing then says,

“a clear and consistent approach to assessing a child’s competence can only be achieved by including a test in the Bill. The Code is not the right place”.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will also say briefly that I too added my name to Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. In Committee, I pondered this issue long and hard. At one stage, I thought that perhaps more consultation was required, but having listened to the arguments and heard from people in the sector, which was very helpful, along with the briefings we have received, I am now firmly of the view that this is a real gap in the current Bill.

We have this opportunity and, as has been said two or three times so far today, we do not get such an opportunity very often. It might be once every 10 or 15 years that we get the opportunity to look at mental health legislation such as this. I have therefore come strongly to the view that we need to make the most of this opportunity so that there is a proper test for decision-making for under-16s—a sort of competence test—within the Bill.

In coming to that view, I have taken two or three things into consideration. One is that it would apply only when the Bill requires that a child’s competence is to be considered. Then, very importantly I thought, the amendment is concerned only with the question of a child’s ability to decide, not what happens once that has been determined. Finally, this excellent amendment explicitly limits this test to decision-making under the Bill and the previous Mental Health Act 1983. In short, it applies only to children who fall within the scope of this legislation, so it is tightly drawn. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out so powerfully the need for this and the case for it, in a way that I could not possibly do. I just wanted to explain how my thinking had evolved since our discussions in Committee.

Briefly, while I am on my feet, I was always very supportive of the amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for strengthening safeguards for children admitted to adult wards and out-of-area placements. This is a really important issue and I shall be interested to hear what he has to say on the subject. I was also interested to hear the Minister talk about the amendment that she has put forward in relation to this, so I hope that progress is being made in this important area. I will be interested to hear what the noble Earl’s reaction is to that.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I start this group on community treatment orders by thanking the Minister and her team of officials for dealing not just with this issue but with most issues in the Bill on a collaborative basis, which should be a blueprint for how Ministers should deal with people with different opinions to those of the Government. It is genuine thanks from these Benches.

I also thank my noble friend Lady Parminter for giving her lived experience of community treatment orders. In Committee, there was a huge divide in this House about whether they should continue rather than pragmatism on how we deal with the problem. My noble friend Lady Parminter focused our minds on that.

My amendment tries to deal with what I see as the major flaw of community treatment orders, whether or not we have a review of them, and that is their potentially indefinite nature. As for the way that these community treatment orders are implemented, whether they are effective or not, there seems to be a revolving door which some people find impossible to get out of. This has led to a number of issues about whether they have therapeutic benefit and whether the treatment is actually effective. There have also been huge issues to do with racial disparities in their use and the length of time that people are on a community treatment order.

Even if we agree Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 62, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to have a review of their effectiveness, something needs to be done now to ensure that the initial community treatment order is time-limited—I suggest 12 months—then if it is to be reviewed, it has to be reviewed by not just the consultant who is treating the individual but also by another GMC psychiatrist who has to agree in writing that there is therapeutic benefit for the community treatment order to continue. That review should take place every six months. That would not stop community treatment orders, but it gives an absolute, firm process, which needs to be in the Bill—not in the code of practice—to ensure that individuals who are on a community treatment order have certainty about the length of time and review. It would also require a second doctor’s written agreement about the therapeutic benefit of reviewing and continuing the treatment order.

I understand that the Minister will probably and quite rightly say that the Bill has moved forward and that there are certain elements which help with the review of treatment orders and the people being put on them. For example, the community doctor has to be consulted. However, there is a difference between being consulted and giving agreement. That is why my amendment talks about the agreement of a second doctor. Consultation in itself does not mean that community treatment orders cannot be indefinite, as they are in some cases. My amendment is practical and solves this problem. As my noble friend Lady Barker said, we tend to get legislation about the Mental Health Act once every 15 years, and we cannot wait another 15 years to deal with this anomaly.

I and others on these Benches would be supportive of a review of community treatment orders and of the evidence about whether they are effective in the grand sense. However, the practical pragmatism is that people will continue to be put on community treatment orders, that, even with the changes that the Government have put in the Bill, people would still be there indefinitely and that the second doctor’s opinion would not necessarily have to be taken into consideration if the order were to continue to ensure that there was therapeutic benefit.

I will not say much more, but I believe that my amendment is practical, needed and will get the correct balance both for service providers and for those who are on a community treatment order to deal with some of the unintended consequences we have found since they were introduced. It is a practical step to ensure that we get them right, if reviews take place. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and to agree, in essence, with everything he said. Amendment 11 is truly important; it would immediately affect the well-being of some very vulnerable people in our community. Should the noble Lord decide to divide the House, the Green Party will support his amendment.

I will chiefly speak to my Amendment 23, which also relates to community treatment orders and calls for a statutory periodic review of them. I can see quite a few noble Lords in the House, so it is worth very briefly going back a little over what we discussed in Committee. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill concluded that CTOs should be abolished for people under Part II, the civil sections. For people under Part III, the Joint Committee recommended a statutory review of CTOs with a provision to abolish them unless the Government legislated to keep them.

My amendment does not go that far, but it starts from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned, citing the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: it is likely to be at least 15 years before legislative attention returns to the Mental Health Act. That is a very long time—especially for the health of people who are going through certain experiences. I stress that it is not my own initiative that brought this amendment forward; the organisation Mind encouraged me to do so. I will quote from a couple of people who Mind has spoken to about CTOs, because we have to consider what the actual lived experience is like. One person said:

“Being on a CTO is like being cornered … It is good that you are out of hospital but only a little better because it is so intrusive”.


Another person who had been on a CTO said that it can feel like:

“A tag that nobody can see but you know it’s around your mind”.


Throughout the debate on this Bill, we have considered getting rid of CTOs entirely. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made the very powerful case that there may be circumstances and conditions where they are indeed appropriate. However, my amendment simply calls for a statutory review, so that we do not wait 15 years and then say, as we have been saying about so many aspects of what we are trying to fix now, “This has been terrible for so long. We really need to do something about this”.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that I am still planning to arrange the Trieste meeting; I am afraid I have not got there yet. Looking at community alternatives has to be the way forward. There are models around the world where that is achieved. If we were to have a review, as my amendment would require, then everything in proposed new subsection (3)—which looks at

“the impact … on people from different ethnic minority backgrounds”,

preventing readmissions and whether CTOs provide “therapeutic benefits”—would be considered within a reasonable period. We could affect and improve people’s treatments within a foreseeable period and not sentence them to another 15 years.

It is not my intention to divide the House. I very much hope that the Bill will continue to work on this, and that the arguments for including a statutory review will become evident as the Bill progresses. On that basis, I urge noble Lords, particularly the Minister, to consider that, and I echo the points that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made. My engagement between different stages of the Bill tends to be limited by the fact that I am juggling a great many Bills at the same time. However, I have heard reports of how the Minister has been engaging with noble Lords, and I hope that she and the department will bring an open mind to the idea that we should not sentence people to another 15 years of CTOs without a statutory review, because there have been so many questions and concerns about them. On that basis, I hope that we can move forward as the Bill progresses.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will very briefly speak in support of this very important set of amendments. As my noble friend Lord Scriven set out on Amendment 11, which I very strongly support, the case for having some conditionality around community treatment orders is overwhelming, including making them time limited and having a second doctor’s certification to confirm their therapeutic benefit. Both are very hard to argue against. They get the right balance between, as we heard in earlier stages, those who want to get rid of the orders altogether and those who feel that we need to tighten up the conditions. The other two review amendments are also very important.

Finally, we need to remind ourselves, as we did at Second Reading and in Committee, that black people are seven times more likely to be on a community treatment order than other members of the population. That is why this is so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I will first reflect on the introduction to this group from the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I found it deeply moving. As many of your Lordships know, I am a mental health nurse. I have worked in locked units and acute units. Some of the things that he just described happened 30 years ago. What is so sad is that they are still happening now.

I will speak to the three amendments in my name, Amendments 14, 42 and 43. I thank other noble Lords who have added their names to them. These amendments have been drafted with help from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and are supported by several mental health patient and user groups and charities that work with the Mental Health All-Party Group in particular.

Amendments 14 and 42 would ensure that advance choice documents within the Mental Health Act are aligned with the existing best practice on providing such documents. Amendment 43 would ensure that clinicians and relevant bodies have a responsibility or duty to consider the information that is provided in the advance choice documents and use it to inform care and treatment orders given under the Mental Health Act. This is important. Clinicians, nurses and social workers need time to undertake the responsibility of sharing what is in those documents and trying—even if they are not always able to—to design care that reflects what people have asked for before. We continue to have a shortage of staff in mental health and very tight budgets compared with some other parts of the health service. If this is put as a duty in the Mental Health Act, it will help to resolve some of those issues.

I hope that the Minister can support the amendments, so that the rights of some of the most vulnerable patients from all ethnic groups in this country are strengthened within the documents, with the right to ensure that staff have enough time to deliver what is in the documents.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that short but extremely powerful contribution, informed by so much professional experience. I think that the whole House would like me to acknowledge that.

My Amendment 63 is about the powers of tribunals to determine challenges against treatment decisions. In many ways the argument for this follows on from the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, just said. Things go wrong. However much we are trying through this Bill to improve the treatment of people with serious mental illness, I am afraid that we all acknowledge that things will continue to go wrong. Again, I have tabled this amendment at the request of Mind, which feels that there should be something like this. The amendment would not create any automatic right. It says that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about appeals. It would set up the framework to make this possible.

We had extensive discussion on this in Committee. I will not rehash all of that. We are trying to create mechanisms of common justice, ways forward and possibilities. We all acknowledge that so much of what is in this Bill will not be delivered within a month, a year or even two years, but it is trying to create the frame to make that possible. This is a very strong argument for that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, powerfully made the case for Amendment 14. I added my name to it as it is so important that it should have a full slate.

I will briefly address Amendment 13, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to which I have also added my name. All through Committee, it kept occurring to me, though I never found the place to reflect it, that the word “trauma” does not appear once in the Bill. I was really surprised about that. I thought about several debates that I have had, going back to the Domestic Abuse Act and the Schools Bill under the previous Government that never became an Act. There was a lot of discussion about the need for trauma-informed environments and trauma-informed care. There is a general sense of intention from your Lordships’ House that this is one of the things that we are thinking about, but there is nothing about it in the Bill.

Therefore, this amendment would add the words

“seeks to minimise the patient’s distress”

and promote their

“recovery from any childhood trauma”.

That is possibly a bit narrow. The Minister might take away and think about the fact that nothing in the Bill talks about the fact that so many of the patients we are talking about will have been through hideous traumas: childhood abuse, domestic abuse, war situations, torture—all kinds of circumstances. This is a chance to ensure that we put in the Bill, perhaps even more broadly than in this amendment, an awareness of the need to think about trauma. I think we are all thinking this, but let us ensure that it is written down in law.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s points about trauma.

I will speak to Amendment 53. I credit my parliamentary scholar with writing it. His experience as a practicing psychiatrist confirms my experience of many years ago, before I retired as a psychiatrist. The code of practice is too often ignored or inconsistently applied, leaving vulnerable patients without essential safeguards. A thematic review of independently chaired reviews into the use of long-term segregation, which I oversaw for the previous Government, found that around a third of providers were not reviewing long-term segregation in line with the current code’s requirements. Unfortunately, this problem extends beyond LTS and is evident across other settings, including acute care for individuals with personality disorders.

There is often a disconnect between what we assume guidance and policy achieve and the reality of front-line psychiatry. As the strategist Helmuth von Moltke said, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. In this context, no guidance survives contact with the complexities and pressures of day-to-day clinical care. That is precisely why guidance alone is not enough. Despite the requirement to have regard to the code, breaches frequently go unchallenged. Again and again, we see that statutory law, not just guidance, is needed to ensure compliance and protect patients’ rights. Also, detained patients are not in a position to take a provider to court if their treatment is not in line with the code.

That is why this amendment seeks to introduce a statutory accountability mechanism for non-compliance with the code of practice. It would establish enforceable obligations on providers, ensuring that failure to adhere to the code carried real consequences, that compliance is not optional, and that hospitals would be held accountable when failure to follow the code resulted in harm or breaches of a patient’s rights.

Legislation typically drives funding priorities. We have seen time and again that, where the law mandates action, resources follow. Section 2 of the Mental Health Act limits detention to 28 days. If this timeframe was merely guidance, would it be as strictly adhered to? Without a statutory requirement, would the same level of resource be dedicated to mental health tribunals? When the maximum detention period under Section 136 was reduced from 72 hours to 24 hours under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, we saw an immediate and dramatic change in practice across the country. If this had been guidance alone, I doubt we would have seen such swift and universal compliance.

Prior to the Mental Health Act 1983, patients could be detained indefinitely, with minimal safeguards and little external oversight. The introduction of statutory time limits and legal protections under the 1983 Act marked a turning point, contributing to the decline of long-term institutional care and supporting, importantly, the rise of community-based mental health services and rights-based community care. Without statutory backing, there is no guarantee that revisions to the code of practice will be implemented or enforced.

Soft Drinks Industry Levy

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising this very important point. The Food Standards Agency is considering very carefully the findings of the review mentioned in the media, to which she referred. In the meantime, parents are strongly encouraged to follow the advice that slushy drinks should not be given to children under four years old. Retailers are also advised to make adults fully aware of this guidance if they seek to buy them for children. In addition, although the symptoms of intake are usually mild, it is important that parents are aware of the risks, particularly at high levels of consumption. I thank the noble Baroness for shining a light on this matter.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, research by the First Steps Nutrition Trust shows that parents believe that baby foods are strongly regulated. In fact, there is no legal threshold for the amount of sugar in baby foods in the UK; there is only a threshold for the amount of added sugar. If a large quantity of concentrated fruit juice is added, we end up with baby foods that have implicit labels on them suggesting that they are healthy but they contain more sugar than Coca-Cola. In the UK, 61% of two to five year-olds’ energy comes from ultra-processed foods. Will the Government look to get significant, important regulation for baby foods?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Baroness raises. This is one of the areas that we are looking at. She also raised ultra-processed foods. As she may be aware, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has reviewed evidence and stated that further research is needed as to whether ultra-processed foods are unhealthy due to processing or to an unhealthy nutrient content. We have discovered that we need to separate the two. That will also assist on the point that she raised about baby foods.

Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

I hope that this is an opportunity to give us, and through us the public, the wider reassurance that I am seeking with these comments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I echo her concerns about the labelling of GMOs, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer on that. I am afraid that I somewhat disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, regarding the rights of the nations of these islands. They surely should have the right and ability to say that they want healthier food and the right to set higher standards for food than England may choose to.

Coming to the general point, I find it a little surprising that we have heard considerable celebration about reductions in red tape at a time when there are grave concerns among the public about the safety of our food supply, particularly the impacts of ultra-processed foods, which contain many of the substances that will be covered by these regulations, and in a society that has huge problems with the overall level of public health. Surely it is better to have so-called red tape than for people to become ill as a result of the food that they buy without knowingly putting themselves at risk.

As the Minister set out so clearly—I thank her for that—there are two chief changes here. The first is to remove the requirement for reauthorisation for certain products every 10 years. These are products that have previously been identified as high risk, which is why they are on the list: feed additives, and food and feed containing GMOs or smoke flavourings. We are taking away actions to monitor products that have been regarded as high risk. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, we are removing parliamentary scrutiny by not requiring SIs. Building on what she said, will there be an accessible list somewhere that can easily be found by Members of the House and members of the public?

When we do not have the automatic 10-year authorisation, what will happen when an issue arises? I do not think that this has been covered very clearly at all. How will the Government alert the House to that issue? We have seen this happen in many areas before, and I expect that NGOs and researchers in universities would come to an individual Member of the House and they would have to batter away at trying to establish the issue, how big it is and what is happening. However, we and the NGOs have only limited capacity. How will the Government keep us and the public informed about what is happening when this starts to be an issue?

I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for a very comprehensive piece of work on this SI. It is seven pages of quite detailed scrutiny, which contain a considerable number of expressions of concern. The committee is concerned that the Explanatory Memorandum did not fully explain the mechanisms to detect and monitor the risks in absence of a renewal process, which essentially addresses the issue I just raised about how we know.

Some of the discussion is about what happens in the testing of products if technology and our understanding change. We are in a period of rapid, massive change in our understanding of the operations and the biology of the human body. I have talked in other contexts about microbiotoxicity, where products impact on the human microbiome. That is a sentence that would not have made any sense 10 years ago, which reflects how fast our understanding of human biology has changed. We are just starting to get into understanding the virome—I recently hosted an event on phages—the bacteria and fungi in our body and how they interact with viruses and food. It is a very complicated and fast-moving area.

I have focused on the Food Standards Agency, which has a total of 1,582 members of staff in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the Minister has said, it is struggling with the number of applications that it is getting and, essentially, it does not have enough staff. If that is the case and there is this flood of new applications, how can we be reassured that attention will be given to things in that “Already done, don’t really have to think about it” pile, particularly when there are so many other biosecurity risks facing our country?

I declare that my comments have been informed by Beyond GM. It highlights that the Government Chemist, which is part of DSIT and hosted by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist—which is now, curiously, a privatised organisation—

“expressed the view that the renewals process”

needs to make sure that it has

“necessary scientific checks on the currency of validation methods”.

This is not just the biology changing but the understanding of our testing.

Finally, I offer a reflection on what we have seen happen in so many areas of public safety related to chemicals. Teflon is not a food additive, although it is an additive that has been unintentionally put in our food. PFAS were discovered in the 1930s; by the 1970s, companies including DuPont and 3M were aware of the risks and hid them. It was only in the 1990s that regulators and the public started to become aware of them. We have to be aware that we cannot trust giant multinational companies to declare to the Government and identify when a problem first starts to emerge. This has to be done by people acting for public good, not for private profit.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this SI does two things. It removes the requirement for 10-yearly renewals of regulated product authorisations and removes the requirement for regulated product authorisations to be prescribed in secondary legislation, instead allowing them to come into effect following a ministerial decision, presumably based on appropriate advice from the FSA.

As is not unusual, and as has been mentioned before, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its 17th report of this Session, was critical of the Explanatory Memorandum. The efforts of this hard-working committee, which I admire very much, have filled in many of the gaps; however, I feel that it should not have been necessary for it to do this had the department provided a fuller and more helpful explanation of the protections. Is it not for officials to predict the concerns that might arise about new regulations, explain why the Government feel that they have been addressed and put that in the Explanatory Memorandum?

The Government assure us that the changes are intended to simplify the authorisation process and would create

“a more streamlined and effective regulatory regime”.

They cover three regulated product regimes: feed additives; food or feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms; and smoke flavourings. I believe that all these product groups may be subject to new evidence of health or environmental effects—either benefits or dangers—as time goes by. The FSA and the FSS have responded that they

“would continue to assess products at initial application stage to authorise them as safe to be placed on the market, and would maintain their powers to carry out safety reviews of authorised products already on the market at any time if new evidence or risks emerge”.

The words “at any time” are key, because they mean that those organisations do not have to wait 10 years to spot and assess a problem. This is reassuring.

However, as we have heard, Beyond GM was concerned that, in future,

“greater emphasis would be placed on the FSA’s post-market monitoring activities to ensure new evidence and risks are detected before harm occurs”.

I am familiar with the FSA system of horizon scanning in another context. It is thorough, gathering intelligence from international regulators, global networks and its own scientific advisory committee for horizon scanning. It also keeps abreast of analytical methodology and has a well-used incident reporting mechanism. As we speak, revocations of authorisations due to safety concerns reported through this mechanism have generally been actioned outside of the renewal process—in other words, it has not had to wait for 10 years. Can the Minister assure us that the FSA has sufficient resources to keep up this level of horizon scanning and subsequent action? I am clearly not the only Member of this Committee with concerns about this; the same submission from Beyond GM had concerns about it as well, in the light of recent budget cuts and staff shortages.

The FSA responded:

“An evidence-based review system will ensure already authorised products are reviewed based on risk and new evidence, rather than on a fixed timetable”.


This new risk-based system may well be a response to budget cuts, but it could also be justified by the fact that there is no point in wasting precious staff time on reassessing products that have consistently been found to be safe—and I mean “consistently”; one reassessment may not be enough in this field. Can the Minister tell us which of those two options it is? Of course, we might not have needed the Minister’s explanation if the EM had been more helpful.

There were submissions suggesting that GMOs should not have been treated in the same way as other products. The SLSC’s report contains the FSA’s explanation of the additional measures that are in place when GMOs are authorised initially and of how monitoring occurs post market approval. This includes the responsibility of the businesses—the producers, or the people putting the food together—to supply annual reports to the FSA and the FSS about environmental and any other risks that were not predicted at the start of the authorisation. Is the Minister confident that these reports are always sent and are complete? There may be vested interests in not having them complete.

There was a response from the Government Chemist, as we have heard, which was interesting. It considers that the renewals process, which is now being removed, provides important and necessary scientific checks on whether laboratory-based validation methods for GMOs remain current. In other words, it was not about the dangers of GMOs themselves but confidence in the laboratory procedures which assess them. The FSA response says that it will be relying on businesses, which will continue to be required to notify the FSA and the FSS if they have any new information which might affect the suitability of a validation method. Can we rely on businesses to know that and to report any concerns? Given that science is developing so fast in the world of biotechnology, is the Minister confident that we have a regular means of ensuring that we have the best, most up-to-date and accurate methodology, without having to rely on businesses telling us or on this being looked at every 10 years?

--- Later in debate ---

Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked what will happen if an issue arises. Currently, all businesses are legally required to report to the FSA and FSS if they have reasons to believe that a feed or food product placed on the market could harm consumers. That will not change. The FSA and FSS will focus on horizon scanning, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to, and risk assessment, to respond to new safety evidence as it emerges. This will be crucial; it will inform whether authorised products are safe to remain on the market at any time, instead of working to arbitrarily—

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

There may be a legal obligation on companies to act, but we have seen again and again that, with the profits versus the costs of them identifying a problem and being prepared to go public and go to the Government about it, the legal requirement is not much of a safeguard.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand that. It is why these reforms build on existing powers, whereby the FSA and FSS can request information for the review. It is of course in the interests of businesses to proactively provide it. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, where necessary, approvals can be modified, suspended or even revoked if a safety concern has been identified. That will not change.

To return to the point I was making previously, when, or if, new safety evidence emerges, it will inform whether authorised products are safe to remain on the market at any time, instead of—this is the reason for this statutory instrument—working to arbitrarily fixed renewal timetables, which burden industry and the public sector with comprehensive reviews for all products, whether they are needed or not, even when there is no evidence to suggest that one is needed. The evidence shows that this move is generally in the desired direction to be working.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether more should have been done in the Explanatory Memorandum to point out issues. As I listened to her, I wished that we could all predict what needs to be answered. Importantly, the FSA responded to all the questions raised by the SLSC, which was reassured by the responses. I hope that noble Lords agree that the FSA has been most helpful there.

On the question asked by the noble Baroness about sufficient resources and systems, it is anticipated that a relatively small number of authorisations will require a review on the basis of safety, as compared to the large number of renewals currently processed. I would expect that to be very manageable.

The noble Baroness also asked whether reports are always sent, whether they are always complete and whether that would give confidence. An evidence-based review system will ensure that already-authorised products are reviewed based on risk and new evidence rather than, as I said, on a fixed timetable. Reports are indeed provided and completed, but this change will make that even more doable and meaningful, and that is the reason for the change.

As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who made a suggestion about Written Statements being made, I will certainly take that away and reflect on it—as I will do for all of the points that were raised. With that, I thank noble Lords for their interest in and scrutiny of this SI.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Scriven, who is unable to be in his place today. On these Benches, our view is that this amendment is essential to the success of reforms proposed in this Bill. It would ensure not only accountability but the continuous assessment of costs and implementation timelines related to the vital provisions of the Bill. In short, it is a costed plan. It is grouped with various other important amendments, some of which I strongly support.

The issue we have repeatedly encountered in both mental health policy and community care is that we end up with community but very little actual care within it. This gap leads to preventable health crises, placing individuals and services under immense strain. Therefore, we must do everything to avoid this outcome. Yet so far in Committee we have not heard the necessary reassurances that adequate provisions will be in place nor that they have been properly costed and strategically planned for community care.

At its core, this amendment champions the need for transparency in the investment and execution of mental health care, specifically within community settings, where the demand will be greatest when the changes in legislation are brought forward. We cannot afford to enact these mental health reforms without a clear understanding of their financial and structural impact on the health and social care system, the justice system, local authorities and, most importantly, the lives of those who rely on these services.

In short, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within four months of the passage of the Bill and annually thereafter. The report would provide a detailed assessment of both the monetised and non-monetised costs associated with the provisions of the Bill. Specifically, it would outline the financial commitments necessary for the training of NHS staff and approved mental health professionals, the expansion of community care services and the provision of adequate housing and care for individuals with autism or learning disabilities. Furthermore, the amendment would ensure that the Care Quality Commission was adequately resourced to uphold the highest standards of mental health provision. These are fundamental requirements, because without a clear cost framework and implementation plan, we risk leaving individuals in crisis without the support they need.

However, it is important to say that the amendment is not simply about numbers; it is about real lives. The monitoring and evaluation strategy included within this proposal would ensure that reforms were not just theoretical but delivered tangible improvements in patient care. It would require the Secretary of State to assess patient outcomes, collect user feedback and measure the effectiveness of new safeguards and support mechanisms.

If we fail to scrutinise and report on the costs and impact of this legislation, we risk underfunding critical services, delaying implementation, and ultimately failing those who are most vulnerable. Mental health services, particularly those delivered in the community, are a necessity and not a luxury. They prevent hospitalisations, support recovery and uphold the dignity of those living with mental health conditions. This amendment would ensure that these services were not only established but were adequately funded, effectively implemented and continuously improved.

I turn briefly to Amendments 163 and 164 from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, which I see as complementary and mutually reinforcing to Amendment 130. In particular, Amendment 164 would ensure that mental health funding was not cut as a share of overall health service funding until this Act was fully implemented. The amendment supports the principle of parity of esteem by putting a floor under the aggregate mental health service funding share in England; in essence, enshrining the mental health investment standard in law, something that we very much support. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in speaking chiefly to my Amendment 153, I shall say briefly that I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just said and support, as does she, the related amendments that come after this. They interrelate with an amendment of mine that was discussed earlier in Committee about the funding of community services. Funding is the great issue right across the board, and it is essential that there is something in the Bill that addresses that. My amendment, although it looks somewhat different from the others in this group, is closely related to them, because, as the noble Baroness said, we have to be concerned about the implementation of the Bill and not just its nature.

My amendment says that for-profit companies should not deliver under the Bill. It does that in two ways. It says:

“Any new facilities or organisations created to deliver the provisions of this Act must not be operated by for-profit companies”.


It then says that within five years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must ensure that what is now for-profit in this space is transferred to not-for-profit. Why is that essential to implementation? I shall put it into three categories.

The first is the cost of paying profits from what should be money for the provision of services. The second is quality issues associated with for-profit companies; after all, their directors and management have a duty to maximise the return to shareholders. That is the way that for-profit companies are set up in this country. The third is that there are issues of stability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 131, to which, as my noble friend Lady Tyler has stated, I have added my name. I can be brief because of the eloquence and comprehensive nature with which she introduced the amendment.

First, to note my registered interests, as this is probably the last day of Committee, the establishment of a mental health commissioner was recommended by the Joint scrutiny Committee of which I was a member. So it was a great disappointment that the Government did not include it in the Bill.

As I said at Second Reading, the mental health commissioner should be a voice at national level, promoting the interests of those who are detained and who are likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act, together with the interests of their families and carers, raising awareness of their needs and challenging stigma and stereotypes. Crucially, the commissioner should be at the forefront of tracking and scrutinising the implementation of these reforms.

There is widespread support for the establishment of the commissioner, both inside and outside Parliament and from statutory, non-statutory and charitable organisations. For example, the Centre for Mental Health, for which I am an ambassador, has stated:

“A Mental Health Commissioner … would offer sustained leadership for mental health—complementary to existing roles and structures in government. They would operate both within the machinery of state and in the media and wider public sphere. They would have influence within government and the NHS, but with the freedom to speak out when necessary: to lead public debate, challenge stigma, and break boundaries and taboos”.


I totally agree with this view. However, in reply to this proposal at Second Reading, supported by many noble Lords, the Minister pushed back on it stating that there are concerns that

“the proposed mental health commissioner’s function would be potentially largely duplicative of existing bodies and functions, and nobody wants to risk diluting accountability or causing confusion”.

The Minister went on to say:

“As noble Lords will know, Dr Penny Dash has been asked by the Secretary of State to assess if the current range and combination of organisations within the healthcare regulation landscape is effective and to make recommendations of what might be needed, and I think it is important that we await her recommendations”.—[Official Report, 25/11/24; col. 584.]


The key word here, I think, is “regulation”, and I do not agree with this view.

Since Second Reading, I have looked at the terms of reference of commissioners and regulators in various areas of public policy, and I believe that these roles are quite distinct. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler: the role of the Children’s Commissioner and the separate role of the education regulator Ofsted are a good comparison. I do not think these two roles dilute accountability or cause confusion. Further, I cannot remember if it has ever been suggested that these roles should be amalgamated or that the Children’s Commissioner should be abolished. In fact, I believe that there is widespread support, particularly from the public, for the invaluable independent work undertaken by a Children’s Commissioner.

I also think the Minister herself has made a very persuasive case for a mental health commissioner in her many constructive responses to the amendments already debated, especially today. My noble friend has noted, among other things: the complexity of the legislation and its interrelationship with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the need for significant investment in community services, the development of a skilled and complex workforce, and the number of years it will take to implement all the provisions of the Bill. This will need rigorous, robust and consistent oversight of implementation and wider health policy and service developments over the next decade and beyond.

The establishment of a mental health commissioner will ensure transparency and accountability and introduce a real force for good for the development and delivery of high-quality mental health services across the country. I hope the Minister will now agree and support this amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following two such eloquent contributions, I can be extremely brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for what is clearly a major piece of work in producing this amendment. I attached my name to it because the creation of a mental health commissioner is such an important issue that it was crucial that there was a demonstration of support that was as wide as possible—a full slate of support here, even in Committee, as I am sure there will be should this come back on Report, unless the Minister says it is a great idea and she is going to go ahead with it right now.

I will add one other point of comparison, on something with which I have been a little involved myself: the comparison with the Patient Safety Commissioner. Noble Lords will remember that a case for the Patient Safety Commissioner was made from the then Government Back Benches, by Lady Cumberlege. She spent a couple of years fighting to finally get a Patient Safety Commissioner. We have seen the work that the Patient Safety Commissioner has done since the creation of the post: we have seen some very specific, detailed work on the issues of vaginal mesh and sodium valproate. Digging into the details and supporting a fight to get something done are really something that only these independent commissioner positions can do. Otherwise, very often, it falls to severely underfunded NGOs and perhaps to Members of Parliament who are enlisted in a cause but have many other calls on their time and resources as well.

We have discussed again and again how difficult it will be to bring this Bill into effect and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, to address the issues of discrimination and inequality that we know are already there. This is surely an absolutely obvious thing to do to help ensure—as so many noble Lords have been saying today and previously in Committee—that we get this done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, yes, I am afraid it is me again. I thank my noble friend Lord Scriven and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding their names to Amendment 134. Of course, we have already acknowledged in many of our debates that the provisions in the Bill rely heavily on strong and effective community provision being in place, but there are real concerns within the sector that community provision is not currently sufficient to support the changes set out in the Bill. In my view, the new duties placed on local authorities and integrated care boards to ensure an “adequate supply” of community support lack teeth, and no real accountability measures have been put in place as yet to ensure that this duty is fulfilled. My Amendment 134 would place a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community had the necessary level of resource to meet demand for services.

This amendment is closely related to the amendments in group 1, already debated—indeed, I am not quite sure why this one was not included in that group; groups remain a bit of a mystery to me. It is worth noting that the Equality and Human Rights Commission recommended in its response to the Joint Committee that the Government should, in line with the recommendation of the independent review, ensure that there was

“sufficient, high-quality, appropriate, community-based mental health services and pathways to meet the needs of all adults, children and young people”.

It stressed:

“These should include therapeutic alternatives to detention, preventative support to minimise the risk of crisis, and wider community services that enable good mental health and recovery”—


something I will be returning to in a later amendment. Is the Minister able to say what consideration the Government have given to that specific recommendation?

The EHRC also felt that the Bill needed strengthening

“to ensure sufficient community-based services in practice in order to end inappropriate detentions. This was highlighted in the most recent annual review of the Mental Health Act by the CQC, which stated: ‘While we support the government’s objective to reduce hospital admissions for people with a learning disability and autistic people under the MHA, this can only be achieved by an increase in community support, including trained staff, and high-quality alternatives to admission’”.

I want to finish by focusing on the workforce aspect. Following the previous Government’s 2021 White Paper, the Royal College of Psychiatrists commissioned an independent assessment of the impact of the proposed changes on the psychiatric workforce to better understand how many additional psychiatrists would be required to deliver the reforms in the proposed year of implementation and, indeed, 10 years later. Based on that White Paper, the research found that by 2023-24, an additional 333 full-time equivalent psychiatrists would be needed in England, costing £40 million per year, and that by 2033-34, a further 161 full-time equivalent psychiatrists would be needed. While these figures may not necessarily accurately reflect the exact number of psychiatrists needed to deliver the reforms we are talking about in the Bill, or the current timelines for the legislation, they demonstrate clearly the impact on a workforce which is already understaffed and carrying high vacancy levels.

Back in March 2016, NHS England set a target to have an additional 1,040 consultant psychiatrists in post in England by March 2024. Based on these targets, as of July last year there was a shortfall of some 770 psychiatrists across England. That is a big shortfall. The impact assessment, while absolutely voluminous, is—as far as I can see—silent on where these people are going to come from. However, it estimates costs of around £99 million for alternative mental health care for people no longer admitted to hospital. It also estimates some £5.5 billion of savings from fewer overall admissions and fewer detentions for people with a learning disability or autism. It goes on to say that the benefits

“should not be understood as cashable”.

Can the Minister say what specific mechanism will be used for diverting more money into community services?

Psychiatrists are absolutely critical but are only one part of the wider mental health workforce, which also includes mental health nurses, clinical psychologists, mental health social workers, occupational therapists and others. Can the Minister say whether detailed plans to grow the overall mental health workforce will be contained in the 10-year plan and the upcoming spending review?

I am conscious that I have asked quite a lot of detailed questions, so if the Minister would prefer to write to me with her response, that is fine. I add that I am sympathetic to the aims of Amendment 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to again follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and offer support to her. I will be very brief because there has already been a comprehensive introduction.

It is useful to draw a comparison to see how we might look at some kind of composite as we get towards Report. This amendment places a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community have the adequate levels of resource, which is why I signed it, but who gives the resources to the integrated care boards? Ultimately, it is the Government.

My earlier amendment sought a regular process of reports and parliamentary oversight, and I suggest that we need both. This is a good, strong amendment to give the duty to the ICBs. But we also need to see that there is the oversight and that ICBs have the capacity to support the duty they are being given.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Amendment 157 in my name seeks to clarify the responsibilities of integrated care boards and local health boards to find beds in a timely manner for patients admitted under Section 140 of the Mental Health Act.

This amendment goes to the heart of why we have the Bill in the first place. In large part, the practical problems experienced in obtaining proper care for people led to the introduction of the Bill, Sir Simon Wessely’s review and the work of the Committee. It reflects an important aspect of the transformation that has taken place in the understanding and treatment of mental illness. It reflects the importance of timely and effective care for people experiencing a crisis in their mental health. The Bill seeks to fill in gaps in mental health care, which can mean the difference between rapid intervention and needless delay.

My amendment to Section 140 is both necessary and overdue. It would place a clear responsibility on every integrated care board and local health board to ensure that patients who are assessed as requiring hospital admission under the Act receive it in a timely and appropriate manner. To that end, it mandates a clear line of responsibility by requiring the appointment of a designated officer charged with overseeing that these admission arrangements, as outlined in the Act, are not only established but function effectively on a day-to-day basis. This is not a mere administrative adjustment; it is an important change, aimed at addressing real world issues that affect the lives of countless individuals. Mental health crises occur without warning and do not adhere to schedules or bureaucratic timelines.

The local health boards and integrated care boards are the crucial link between community services and hospital care. Placing a clear statutory duty on these organisations will create a clear line of responsibility to ensure that no patient is left waiting whenever immediate care is needed. The appointment of a designated officer will further enhance accountability and operational efficiency. To emphasise the point, an individual with the specific responsibility of overseeing these arrangements will provide a robust mechanism to promptly address any issues that arise and to ensure that every patient’s admission is swift and appropriate.

It is important to understand the broader implications of this amendment. Timely admission to hospital is not merely a procedural matter; it is a critical component of effective mental health care. Early intervention can mean the difference between a manageable crisis and a catastrophic decline in a patient’s condition. By ensuring that patients are admitted promptly, we will invest in early treatment, reduce the likelihood of complications and, ultimately, alleviate the burden on our healthcare system. This proactive approach will lead to improved outcomes for patients, greater satisfaction among healthcare professionals and a more sustainable model for mental health service delivery.

To conclude, my amendment is a necessary step forward. It would provide clarity, reinforce accountability and ensure that our mental health system remains responsive and effective. I urge my noble friend the Minister to respond positively to my amendment, not merely as a change in policy but as a commitment to the well-being and dignity of every individual who depends on our mental health services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

In moving Amendment 135, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler of Enfield, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Neuberger, and I will be a little disappointed if I do not get some support from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.

This amendment would require that the established and successful procedure, the mental health crisis breathing space, is offered automatically to those detained under longer-term Sections of the Mental Health Act. This is the final one of a set of three amendments to the Mental Health Bill in my name that have addressed the financial implications for people who struggle with their mental health. In these debates I have previously referenced that I am on the advisory board of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. This amendment is based on the institute’s work.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her engagement on my Amendments 59 and 121, which sought to ensure that routine enquiries on financial matters are embedded in care and treatment plans and advance choice documents. I am grateful for the Minister’s acknowledgement and understanding on these issues.

Amendment 135 calls for mental health crisis breathing space to be automatically offered to those detained under Sections 3, 37, 41 or 47 of the Mental Health Act. Of the three amendments in this set on financial issues, this one perhaps has the greatest scope for reducing the financial harms that people experience when they are facing a mental health crisis. The mental health crisis breathing space mechanism is a vital tool that can protect people in a mental health crisis from the impacts of problem debt by pausing enforcement action and contact from creditors, and freezing interest and charges on any debts. These protections are provided for as long as the treatment lasts—plus another 30 days.

When people access this scheme, it can be life-changing. It can be the difference between people leaving hospital after a mental health crisis to find that bills and debts have escalated, thus putting their recovery in jeopardy, and having the space that they need to get back on their feet. I share the words of one of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute’s research community members who has personal experience of accessing the scheme:

“Breathing space … has totally changed my experience from feeling hounded and persecuted to supported and valued”,


taking away

“much fear and sleepless nights coupled with dire days of depression”.

However, in its current provision, use of the scheme is significantly below its potential and the numbers that were forecast by the Government. When introducing the scheme in May 2021, the Treasury anticipated that 27,000 people would use it in its first year. Yet the most recent figures from last November show that only 4,404 people have accessed it in total. This underutilisation is due not to a lack of demand or need but to how the scheme is designed and delivered.

Existing NHS guidance on acute in-patient mental health care already states that wards should offer mental health crisis breathing space to those who need it. This is well-intentioned but does little to drive take-up of the scheme. In practice, thousands of people who would benefit from the support of this tool are missing out simply because nobody asks. On top of this, awareness of the mechanism is extremely low among mental health care professionals, meaning that, even when financial difficulties are spotted, it does not always result in people accessing the protections that the mechanism affords.

My proposed addition to the legislation would ensure a statutory obligation to offer this mechanism to those who need it most, requiring services to be more thorough in its implementation, with greater levels of accountability. Specifically, automatically offering the breathing space to people detained for potentially longer-term conditions would ensure that those whose incomes are likely to be adversely impacted by extended admissions can be supported. This intervention would target the core group that the mechanism was intended for.

To outline the possible reach of such a targeted intervention, in 2023-24 there were almost 11,000 detentions under the relevant Sections of the Act, representing a fifth of all detentions. Formalising the automatic offer of mental health crisis breathing space to this targeted group would go a long way towards ensuring that the mechanism supports the number of people that the Treasury forecasted it to serve. Crucially, after the breathing space period has ended, people would have the opportunity to be offered formal debt advice, with specialist support for those who need it, to ensure that financial difficulties are resolved on a longer-term basis. Legislating for the scheme to be automatically offered to those detained under the longer-term provisions of the Act would be genuinely transformative in preventing more people from experiencing the acute financial harms that too often accompany a mental health crisis. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and to offer the strongest possible support. These are issues that the noble Lord and I—the noble Lord very much in the lead and me following along in support—have engaged with on financial services and markets Bills previously. They are crucial issues for people’s well-being and the well-being of our whole society.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, was talking on the last group about the patient journey. For someone who has become ill, who is seeking treatment and who has the weight of debt sitting on their shoulder, it is worth thinking about how damaging that weight of debt can be to the whole experience of the patient journey. It is worth thinking about how this interacts with issues around discrimination and unequal outcomes that we have looked at regarding other parts of the Bill in terms of the intersectional pressures that people can experience.

In preparing for this, I was looking at the middle of last year and mental health awareness week. The Women’s Institute was focusing particularly on the impact of energy debt, and 14% of the people in the study were at that stage in debt to their energy suppliers. Nearly a third said that they were worrying seriously about this. A fifth said that they had suffered sleepless nights. For the people who are suffering under debt pressures—single parents, very often women, or people from disadvantaged communities that are already economically disadvantaged—all these things feed in together. This is simply a measure for that. “Breathing space” is so evocative of the sense of taking off that pressure and allowing people the chance to focus on their own recovery and their own treatment, rather than just worrying away about that debt. I cannot see why the Government, or why anyone, would oppose this very modest measure.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I should have declared interests before, as chair of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and of Whittington Health NHS Trust. I also was a vice-chair of the review of the Mental Health Act, which reported in 2018 and is relevant, because I very strongly support this amendment to which I have added my name. It is something that the review did not address. We should have done. We did not have it raised sufficiently strongly with us by service users to whom we talked a great deal. That was an omission. It is very important that we do this. I hope that the Minister can say that this will be included in the legislation in its final form, and that she will accept this amendment or something redrafted along its lines.

I am very grateful to the wonderful Money and Mental Health Policy Institute—I pay full tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bradley—for its briefings. When, in 2022, it conducted a piece of research looking at the finances of 200 people who had received care from secondary mental health services, it found that, quite unsurprisingly, a majority of the people who responded had experienced an income drop while receiving support from mental health services and struggled to pay their mortgages or for food, or missed a payment on energy, rent, council tax, or whatever it might be. This was a problem that kept coming back and they kept talking about. But the majority also expressed real support for the idea of making plans, ahead of time, for how to deal with their finances and how this would all be managed when they were unwell, as many people have episodic periods of being unwell. It seems to me that that piece of work is a cast-iron argument in favour of using breathing space to tackle these financial issues. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to support this.

Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these amendments, which represent the most substantial reform of UK clinical trials regulation in over two decades.

Clinical trials are vital for developing safe and effective medicines, especially for those with limited treatment options, such as the estimated 3 million people living with cancer in the UK and the 17.5 million people managing long-term conditions. Last week, I saw for myself how innovative UK researchers are transforming cancer diagnosis and treatment. I joined the Science Minister, my noble friend Lord Vallance, at the Royal Marsden to learn about a research initiative that is using cutting-edge AI tools to improve breast cancer detection.

To support innovation, our regulations need to be flexible and proportionate. This legislation will do just that by delivering streamlined and efficient regulations, removing barriers to innovation and creating a patient-focused research environment—something that noble Lords called for during Questions on the Statement repeat that we just dealt with in the Chamber. These reforms will support the development of new life-changing treatments for those in need and strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in clinical trials.

I turn briefly to why this change is necessary and timely. The reason is that the current legislation is based on the now-repealed EU clinical trials directive, so it therefore no longer aligns with the rapid advancements in medicine and technology. We have the opportunity to create a world-class regulatory environment for clinical trials, if we can deliver a modernised framework that supports the safe development of innovative treatments.

I will outline, for the benefit of the Committee, the key aspects of the reforms. First, on risk-proportionate regulation, regulatory requirements will align with the risk level of a clinical trial. Low-risk trials will receive faster approval through automatic authorisation, without compromising patient safety. The second aspect is that of future-proofing. We have removed duplicative and granular legal requirements in favour of tailored guidance, ensuring flexibility for future innovations and moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. On international alignment, the UK will remain aligned to global standards, ensuring that trial data is recognised internationally and strengthening its position as a preferred site for multinational clinical trials. Then there is the important point of cementing the UK as a destination for international clinical trials. Streamlined processes will simplify applications and deliver globally competitive approval timelines. The final change that these regulations deliver is increased transparency. We want to ensure that trusted information about clinical trials is publicly available for the benefit of all.

New legal requirements will thus be introduced to register a clinical trial, and publish a summary of results, including an easy-to-read summary for participants. These changes will build public trust in research by improving access to information about ongoing research and enabling informed decisions.

Of course, these reforms will also bring benefits to the National Health Service. Evidence shows that hospitals that undertake research have better patient care outcomes and improved staff retention. Improved efficiency in conducting clinical trials will therefore enhance research efforts and foster innovation in prevention, diagnosis and treatment across various conditions. Those conducting clinical trials will also benefit from a streamlined and risk-proportionate regulatory framework, reducing delays and admin burdens. These reforms, I am glad to say, will stimulate growth in the UK’s life sciences sector and position the UK as a global hub for clinical trials.

I beg the Committee’s indulgence as I correct an administrative error made in the Explanatory Memorandum. It incorrectly stated that an impact assessment was produced. However, since the projected costs and benefits to business were below £5 million annually, a de minimis assessment was conducted and published instead.

Before I conclude, I re-emphasise that participant safety remains absolutely paramount. While this legislation streamlines processes and removes barriers to innovation, what it does is to prioritise robust oversight of all clinical trials, ensuring that the safety of trial participants is never compromised. By modernising our approach, I believe we can strengthen the UK’s position as that global leader, as well as fostering innovation and having the highest safety standards. These reformed regulations accelerate the delivery of tomorrow’s emerging medicines into today’s reality for patients. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for her clear introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly welcome. There are some important factors here. I particularly welcome the requirement to register clinical trials and publish a summary of the results within 12 months. It has been widely and long acknowledged, in the research community broadly, that there is an issue where less successful or failed trials, or those that are not seen to have interesting results, are not published. They can be as important, or more important, than the successful ones. The failure to publish them is driven by academic, publishing and promotion imperatives—and, I am afraid, by the profit motive in healthcare, where companies have very much sought to find the successful stories and bury the less successful ones. That is really positive and, if I would say one thing, it would be to encourage the Government to speak more about that, because it is important that people understand it. Given the issues that we have with trust across the board at the moment, I encourage them to highlight that we are actually strengthening and improving regulation.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

68: Schedule 2, page 71, line 22, at end insert—
“30AA Overruling a nominated person(1) The appropriate tribunal may, on application made in accordance with this provision, make an order overruling a decision of a nominated person.(2) An order under this section may be made on the application of—(a) the patient,(b) an approved mental health professional,(c) any person engaged in caring for the patient or interested in the patient’s welfare, or(d) any person with parental responsibility for the patient.(3) An application for an order under this provision may only be made on the grounds that—(a) the nominated person unreasonably objects to the making of an application for admission for treatment or a guardianship application in respect of the patient,(b) the nominated person has, without due regard to the welfare of the patient or the interests of the public, exercised the power to discharge the patient under this Act or is likely to do so, or(c) the nominated person unreasonably objects to the making of a community treatment order in respect of the patient.(4) In this section “patient” includes any person by or for whom a nominated person is appointed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give the Mental Health First-Tier Tribunal the power to overrule decisions of a nominated person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall also speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. I warn those who are planning to speak after me that I will be brief, because this amendment is self-evident and set out in our papers. I begin by reflecting on the fact that I think there is universal welcome for the creation of the nominated person situation. This is a good step forward and widely welcomed. What your Lordships’ Committee is trying to do is perhaps to fulfil its traditional role to make sure that it is set up in as watertight, practical, useful and effective way as possible.

This amendment did not originate with me; it originated with the Law Society. It provides for a mental health First-tier Tribunal to overrule the power of the nominated person. I note that the next amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, suggests not the county court but the Court of Protection. I do not have any particular position on any of these things. It is useful for us in Committee to discuss this in detail. People far more expert than me will outline that, so I shall not go on at length.

I will note for the Committee’s understanding that my Amendment 71 was withdrawn, because it was doubled up with someone else’s but was put in a different place. It was just one of those technical juggles that happens. With that very brief introduction, I beg to move.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 69, which would replace the reference in the Bill to the county court with reference to use of the Court of Protection to deal with applications to terminate appointments of nominated persons. The single reference to the county court, currently in Schedule 2, is the only place where the county court is given jurisdiction to do anything in this legislation, which I suggest makes it something of an anomaly as well as an anachronism.

The reference to the county court simply carries forward the use of the county court from the 1959 and 1983 Acts, which provided for that court to deal with applications to displace nearest relatives. When I was first appointed a judge, I well remember being presented with an urgent application to displace the nearest relative, of which I then had no experience and in which I had never had any training. In the days before judicial computers, I had no access to anything but out-of-date and very limited books in the small court, no longer in existence, where I was then sitting for a few weeks and without help from any legal representatives. Few learning curves have been more rapid.

Since then, I would like to think I developed some expertise, but my later experience of those applications has led me to question whether the modern equivalent in this Bill concerning nominated persons would be better dealt with elsewhere. Such applications can involve detailed understanding of psychiatric reports and of the family dynamics for the patient concerned, particularly if the nominated person is unco-operative or disengaged. At the time when the earlier legislation stipulated the use of the county court, there was neither a separate family court nor the Court of Protection, which was created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Of course, I do not suggest that county court judges could not deal with these applications—my life with my present and former judicial colleagues would probably not be worth living if I did so. A judge has to be prepared to turn his or her hand to whatever comes their way. However, I do suggest that the Court of Protection is now better equipped to deal with these applications with its specialist expertise and specifically nominated judiciary.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for an extremely helpful debate. I want to say how much I understand the concerns around the nominated person regarding children and parents, and the great need to get this right in the way that noble Lords have rightly unpicked today.

It is very important that parents are involved in a child or young person’s care. I say to noble Lords, as this has come up before, that we do not intend or wish to undermine the rights or responsibilities of parents. In the vast majority of cases, the nominated person for a child or young person will be their parent or whoever has parental responsibility, either because they have decided that themselves, with the relevant competence or capacity, or because they are appointed by the approved mental health professional.

For under-16s the Bill sets out that if they lack competence to make this decision, the approved mental health professional must appoint a parent, or a person or local authority with parental responsibility. The Bill aligns with the Mental Capacity Act on decision-making capability, with young people aged 16 and over considered to have the capacity to make relevant decisions. We think it is important, as I know noble Lords do, that children and young people have the right to choose a nominated person, and I understand the need to get the nominated person right. Some 67% of over 1,200 respondents to the White Paper consultation supported extending this right to under-16s.

We must have the right processes and safeguards for all patients, and additional protections for children and young people. These safeguards will cover the nomination process and the ability to overrule the nominated person or remove someone from the role if they are not acting in the patient’s best interests. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have all put forward amendments to give responsibility to the tribunal or the Court of Protection in these matters. The county court already has a role in displacing the nearest relative. We believe that it has the expertise, procedural tools and legal framework to handle sensitive disputes involving external parties, such as conflicts of interest or allegations of abuse. I emphasise the word “sensitive”. I believe that the debate today has acknowledged that we are in very sensitive territory and that we need to get this right.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned the training of judges. I can confirm that we will be working with the county court to ensure that it is aware of and can fulfil the requirements of the new provision.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, asked for figures on county court applications, and I will be very glad to write to her and answer her fully. Similarly, I will be very pleased to write to her in detail on the matter of legal aid.

The Act and the Bill allow for someone who is not acting in the interests of the patient to be overruled or removed from this role. On Amendment 68 specifically, the Bill enables the responsible clinician to overrule the nominated person on the grounds included the amendment, so I am grateful for its being brought before us today. This will be quicker and will avoid burdens on the tribunal.

On Amendment 69, transferring the role of the nominated person to the Court of Protection would expand the court’s remit to under-16s. Currently, the court can deal only with the financial affairs of under-16s. The Court of Protection makes decisions for those lacking capacity, but patients need to have capacity to have appointed their own nominated person. Where they lack capacity or competence, the approved mental health professional will appoint, and the Bill sets out the grounds for them to terminate the appointment.

On Amendments 77 and 84, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, asked about the concept of a temporary nominated person. This is in recognition that such an appointment by an approved mental health professional is only until the person concerned has the relevant capacity or competence to choose their own—that is what is meant by the word “temporary” here.

The First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) in England and the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales are focused on reviewing detention under the Mental Health Act. The provisions of the amendments would add additional burden on that tribunal. My concern is that it would risk undermining its core function and delay detention reviews, which I know is not something that noble Lords would wish.

Amendment 70, tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, would specify that parents, guardians and anyone with parental responsibility can apply to the court to displace a nominated person. The Bill already allows anyone involved in the patient’s care or welfare to apply to the county court to terminate the appointment of a nominated person. This includes parents, guardians and anyone with parental responsibility, as her amendment seeks.

On Amendments 72 and 73, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I wholeheartedly agree that the law has to prevent exploitation and manipulation. The nomination process is indeed intended to ensure that the decision is the patient’s own. I recognise the circumstances that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and other noble Lords described as possibilities. We have to consider all the potential scenarios, which are very real challenges to us. A health or social care professional, or an advocate, must witness the nomination and confirm in writing that the nominated person is suitable and that there has been no fraud or undue pressure. On the point the noble Earl raised, the code of practice will include guidance on how to determine this.

Amendment 76 was tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We understand the desire to involve parents in the decision, and for the vast majority this will be appropriate. We are concerned that the amendment’s requirement to consult a parent, guardian or someone with parental responsibility could risk undermining the principle of giving children and young people a choice. It could also, in a different way, pressure the child into choosing the parent, in circumstances that might be far from desirable. Although we do not think that we should require consultation with the parents in all circumstances, we would expect the witness to discuss the nomination with parents and others with interest in the welfare of the child as part of the assessment of suitability. We will consult on guidance in the code on how practitioners should encourage the child or young person to involve their parents, even if they are not the nominated person, unless it is inappropriate.

On Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, I agree that parents and carers are to be given information about the care and treatment of their child. If a child nominates a person other than their parent as their nominated person, their parents retain legal rights under parental responsibility. These rights include the right to be consulted on certain decisions and to receive information about the child’s care. The Bill also introduces a duty on the responsible clinician to consult with people involved in the child’s welfare on care and treatment planning, which includes parents and carers.

With those comments in mind, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her careful and detailed response to an important group of amendments. It may affect only a small number of cases, but they are cases where we really need to get this right. Those two adjectives apply very well to this whole debate.

I will make a couple of comments in response. We have had three suggestions about where the applications to remove the nominated person should be. Personally, I do not have a strong view. I thought the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about legal aid was important. Justice unfunded is justice denied, so it really is important that there is that full and necessary support, wherever they end up.

With that, I pick up the important point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the witness being such an important person to ensure that this process goes well. The noble Earl talked about making sure the guidance is right. I add that we have to make sure that the resources are there, thinking about our overstretched mental health services. We need to ensure that the person who will be the witness has the time to put in the resources to ensure that they can properly be a witness. It may not be a subject of law, but it certainly needs to be thought about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 99 in my name and to speak to my further Amendment 137; both are also in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe.

Our Amendment 99 places a duty on the police and on hospital trusts to record the number of patients not in the criminal justice system who are escorted to accident and emergency departments by the police for treatment for a mental disorder. The reason behind this amendment is that a number of people are taken into accident and emergency by the police because they exhibit behaviour that is a cause for concern, resulting from a diagnosed, or even an undiagnosed, mental disorder or learning disability. These patients are not necessarily placed under arrest, since they may not have committed any crime, but they are escorted to hospital by police.

Once in A&E, it is quite common that they could wait for six, 12 or even more hours before they see a clinician. This is obviously not an efficient use of police time; I know that my noble friend Lady May spoke to this earlier in Committee. More importantly, a police officer escorting a patient who is demonstrating challenging behaviour could exacerbate the problem. Also, a patient who arrives with or without a police officer may behave in a way that is seen as threatening by other patients, which could lead to their being arrested, as they are seen as at risk of harming themselves or others. The patient then finds themselves in the criminal justice system.

To avoid situations such as this, we are probing the Government to try to understand how often the police take patients into hospital for treatment for a possible mental disorder when they are not under arrest. This data should help us to understand how much police time is being spent accompanying these patients. This is not to take a particular view one way or the other; rather, it is to say that we need to have this information available so that we can fully assess the situation.

Our Amendment 137 states that the Care Quality Commission

“must publish a report on the efficacy of systems designed to prevent the introduction of illegal drugs into mental health units”.

Hospitals are entitled to prohibit patients from misusing drugs or alcohol on their wards, but what they can do to enforce those requirements is less clear, especially with detained patients. We accept that informally admitted patients can be asked to leave by hospital managers or even escorted off-site by security if they do not abide by a hospital’s rules on illegal drug use. However, patients detained under the Mental Health Act cannot be forced off premises for violating these rules.

The risks of illegal drugs being used in mental health units are obvious and severe. There is a possibility of those drugs interfering with prescribed medication, which could make that medication ineffective or even harmful to a patient’s physical or mental health. Further risks include the effects—such as psychosis or aggravating effects—of certain drugs, which could potentially lead patients to become more violent and cause harm to themselves or to staff. Whatever the result, the use of illicit drugs in mental health hospitals does not contribute to the treatment or therapeutic benefit of patients; I suspect that is a British understatement.

Much of the information and literature on substance misuse in in-patient mental health settings seems to be out of date. The major studies that we looked at were conducted in the early 2000s; these included a paper published by the Psychiatric Bulletin in 2000. I am happy to be corrected if there is more up-to-date data, but it seems that we do not have enough adequate and up-to-date data available concerning the prevalence of illegal drugs in mental health units. Can the Minister tell us whether the department has up-to-date figures? If not, does it have any intention of collecting these figures? Once again, this would help us to understand the scale of the problem.

Whether or not we are fully aware of the prevalence of illegal drugs in mental health units, there must be adequate safeguards in place to ensure that their use is as limited as possible. This amendment probes the Government for some answers on how they are trying to achieve this. By requiring the CQC to publish an annual report on this matter, we hope that a fuller picture could emerge, which would, we hope, inform the development of procedures and processes to reduce the harms related to illicit drug use. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 151 in this group, which is in my name. It is a slightly diverse group, in that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has just set out his two amendments, which are very focused on specific areas, while mine is a very general one. However, they fall under the grouping as provided to us by the Whips; they are about monitoring and reporting, so there is some kind of sense here.

I start with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who in the previous group said that, without proper resources, this Bill is not going to work at all. That is what this amendment aims to address. I think the reason why it was regarded as within the scope of the Bill without any wrestling from me is that, specifically, the aim of this Bill is to have fewer people sectioned and fewer people under compulsory treatment orders. It aims to reshape and have earlier interventions, so that we do not see problems get so bad that we get to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and considerations, including the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her observations on the group before us.

On Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, services already capture data on instances of police using relevant powers to take patients to emergency departments. The Home Office collects national policing data on detentions under Section 136 of the Act and removal to a place of safety, including the number of times that A&E has been used. NHS England’s emergency care dataset includes data on mental health, including how patients are referred to hospital and their conveyance methods. I understand the points that the noble Lord was seeking to probe, but we feel that it is not necessary to create a new legislative requirement.

My response to Amendment 137, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, will focus on the position in England, because I imagine that that is what the noble Lord is particularly interested in, and of course different arrangements apply in Wales. We recognise the importance of preventing illegal drug use in mental health units and take the issue extremely seriously. All units must have robust policies in place to prevent the introduction of illegal drugs. To pick up the point that the noble Lord put to me about the recording of drug-related incidents, I assure him that such incidents would be recorded as a patient safety incident. While published data does not break down the nature of an incident to get an aggregate view at national level, details of incidents will nevertheless be shared with NHSE and the CQC to allow appropriate action then to be taken.

As I have referred to, providers must inform the CQC of certain events affecting their services. Inspectors review all reported concerns, as I have said, and that is important to determine the necessary follow-up actions. Issues that relate to the introduction and use of illegal drugs in an in-patient setting would be reflected in the CQC’s regulatory inspection findings where concerns have been identified, with potential consequences for ratings and for regulatory sanctions. We believe that there are already processes in place for the CQC in England to receive information about drug-related incidents. We feel that this is a better use of the capacity—which is not infinite, as the noble Lord knows—of the regulator, rather than having a national report on the overall efficacy of the systems that are in place.

Amendment 151 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and spoken to by a number of noble Lords, and I am grateful for their input. A number of other amendments have called for statutory reports on current community services. As I have said previously in response to those debates, we recognise that reducing detentions cannot be achieved by legislation alone, and will absolutely depend on the right services in the community. The CQC publishes an annual survey on community mental health support, and we will be publishing a 10-year plan for the NHS later this year. Progress in community mental health services is already being made. In the last 12 months, more than 400,000 adults have received help through new models of care, which aim to give people with severe mental illness greater choice and control over their care. However, we recognise that more needs to be done.

I want to pick out a particular focus on innovation in this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to the fact that the impact assessment does not include costs for community services. That is not quite the case. There are significant costs associated with the changes to learning disability and autism, which are included in the impact assessment. I agree that wider reforms in community mental health services are needed for the reforms to achieve their intended benefits in full, but they are not a direct consequence of this Bill. That is why they are not costed in the impact assessment. I hope that will be a useful clarification for the noble Baroness.

As I mentioned last Monday, NHS England is already piloting the 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centre model in England, building on learning from international exemplars, some of which have been brought to the attention of your Lordships’ House by various noble Lords, and I have welcomed that. Six early implementers are bringing together their community crisis and in-patient functions into one open-access neighbourhood team that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That means that people with mental health needs can walk in, or self-refer, as can their loved ones or concerned professionals. We are currently commissioning an evaluation of these welcome pilots, which is due to report in June 2026.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to reports last week of an increase in the number of young people admitted to general hospital wards with mental health concerns. NHS England is in the process of developing a new model for specialised children’s and young people’s mental health services, supported by a new service specification and quality standards. That new model would support the delivery of specialist services in the community and in-patient settings to ensure that children and young people are treated in age-appropriate in-patient environments, as well as the least restrictive environment close to the child’s or young person’s family and home. The noble Baroness’s point is well made, and I hope that will be helpful.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I welcome what the Minister has said about the pilots and the significant changes being made to existing mental health services. Short of someone putting down an Oral Question or securing a debate, how will Parliament be able to monitor that? We know that, in the health service and more broadly, successful pilots happen but then disappear without trace and never get implemented. How will Parliament be able to assess progress from the pilot stage to implementation, along with broader changes? What mechanisms are there?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a fair point, and that is something I shall return to later in Committee. I am keen, as I hope noble Lords know, to speak in your Lordships’ House about progress that is and is not made, and I will continue to do that.

Overall on this group, given the amount of plans and reporting already in place, we do not think that additional statutory review, particularly in relation to Amendment 151, is necessary. For all the reasons that I have put to the Committee, I hope noble Lords will be good enough not to press their amendments.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will be brief, but in following the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I have to note that I do not believe that a complaints culture is a problem in the contexts covered by this Bill. There is, perhaps, a lack of listening to patients and those affected, and a lack of action rather than a problem with listening to complaints. In that context, I commend the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who cited extensive testimony from Blooming Change. One thing that struck me when looking back over the previous days of Committee was that it would have been good to hear, perhaps even more than we did, direct testimony and the voices of those who are experts by experience. The phrase “nothing about us without us” really stuck in my mind and it is important that we keep that in mind throughout Committee. Again in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I think it is important not to seek to downplay the mental health crisis that we are seeing across our society. There is a huge shortage of services meeting people’s very clear and acute needs, and acute needs are what we are largely covering in this Bill.

I attached my name to Amendments 50 and 51 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which address non-drug-based interventions. In essence, I agree with everything the noble Baroness said; I just want to stress her points. When we talk about non-drug-based therapies, we are tempted to think we mean talking therapies and psychological therapies. Those are tremendously important, but this is where we also need to take the broader public health context. I mentioned on an earlier group digital treatments such as Avatar for those who hear voices. They are the kind of new, different ways of looking at things that people may not have been trained in, and it is important that they are considered. I also talked a fair bit about the gut-brain axis and dietary interventions such as green prescribing, in which we have seen great advances across the medical fields in recent years—exposure to green spaces and the chance to get exercise in green spaces. That makes me think that we need to think about facilities and how we make sure there is provision within them, which, in some ways, this amendment would help to cover.

As a noble Lord said earlier, we are talking about making sure we are treating the whole person and not a condition with a drug. I thought the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, was very important, as is his amendment. I am not sure whether it needs to be in the Bill, but it would be interesting to have the Minister’s comments on making sure that consideration of withdrawal symptoms is part of prescribing practice. That is absolutely key and central. I note a report from the universities of Berlin and Cologne out last year which showed that the second-most prescribed antidepressant in the UK, venlafaxine, also has the second-highest rate of problem withdrawal symptoms. We need to make sure that is carefully considered pre-stage—before we get to the withdrawal stage, are we going to create that problem? I do not know whether it could be incorporated in the amendment, but it is something to think about anyway.

The other amendment—slightly oddly—in this group in my name is Amendment 154, which again, as on a previous group, I put down at the request of the Law Society. It is about mental health tribunal pilots for challenges against treatment decisions. To some degree, we have already discussed this in the earlier group, but I would be interested in whether the Minister has any comment on the amendment. I think that it is fairly self-explanatory, so I will not go through it further.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 54A and 54B in my name, which are on a very narrow part of the treatment plan for individuals. Before I do that, let me say that I support the amendments in this group, particularly the general thrust of what been said; that is, that the automatic medical model must no longer be the default position and a much more social model must be added on to the medical model so that they complement each other.

Having said that, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but found it very difficult to understand what was required. She argued against the use of medication but then argued against quite a lot of the non-medicated issues. Her intervention was a bit confusing in terms of understanding what the importance was.

My amendments are predominantly about Clause 18, which is about the use of ECT. The clause allows for the emergency use of ECT based on a second medical opinion. The element I wish to speak to is the very wide Henry VIII power that the Government wish to give themselves in regulations to do away with the second medical opinion in an emergency. The Bill says:

“The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend this Act to provide for circumstances in which functions of a second opinion appointed doctor in relation to treatment falling within section 62ZA(1) may or must be carried out instead by the approved clinician in charge of the treatment in question”.


New Section 62ZB(3) then says:

“Regulations under this section may make … (a) provision subject to specified exceptions; (b) different provision for different cases; (c) transitional, consequential, incidental or supplemental provision”.


That is quite a wide Henry VIII power.

To prove that I really am Billy No-Mates and do not get out often on a cold night, I read the wonderful 10th report of this Session from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which makes exactly the same points but in more eloquent language. This is a very wide Henry VIII power, and the committee does not really understand why the Government are seeking—even though it is through the affirmative procedure—such wide powers in such broad language.

The committee said that it would expect the power to be drafted with significant limitations and a framework for when it could be used. My amendment seeks to do exactly that. It would not prevent the clinician in change from using ECT in an emergency case without referring to a second practitioner in certain circumstances, but the regulations would be within a framework laid out in Amendment 54B, that

“the treatment is immediately necessary to save the patient’s life … obtaining a second opinion would cause a delay that places the patient at a significant and imminent risk of death or serious physical harm, and … the treatment is reversible”.

The regulations would have to be written so that

“Any amendment made under subsection (1) must specify the exceptional nature of the circumstances in which the second opinion may be dispensed with”.


A report to Parliament on subsection (1) dispensations would also have to be made.

I believe, from reading the wise words of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report, that it is important that the regulations have a framework, so that the Minister still has flexibility but is constrained by what is in the Bill. That is why I have spoken to this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 147. I find myself in agreement with much that has been said. It has been a consistent recommendation to His Majesty’s Government since the independent review that there should be a statutory test of competence or capacity for those aged under 16. Of course, that means it should be in the Bill. This has been supported by the Children’s Commissioner of late and by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Alliance.

Therefore, I was disappointed to see the code of practice solution outlined in the Minister’s policy paper that we received yesterday. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, outlined, in the Mental Capacity Act, which applies to over-16s, there is a functional capacity test followed by the secondary mental impairment test. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that under-16s are presumed to lack capacity, so you start from the opposite premise of the Mental Capacity Act for over-16s, who are presumed to have capacity. That puts them at an advantage: it has to be taken from them, rather than being given to under-16s.

I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Great work is being done by clinicians up and down the country to apply Gillick competence tests, but throughout my time on the Joint Committee we did not seem to know whether there was any review or assessment as to how and when it is applied in hospitals and healthcare settings up and down the country. I fail to understand the Government’s reluctance to put this test in the Bill. How is such a reluctance compatible with one of the four guiding principles—to treat the person as an individual? Perhaps the Minister could outline the reasoning for this omission.

I also want to point to the problem of relying on the code of practice made under Section 118 of the Mental Health Act. On page 13 of the code of practice, there is a very clear description of the code and its legislative function:

“Whilst the whole of the Code should be followed, please note that where ‘must’ is used, it reflects legal obligations in legislation, (including other legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998) or case law, and must be followed. Where the Code uses the term ‘should’ then departures should be documented and recorded”.


It then refers to explanatory paragraphs and continues:

“Where the Code gives guidance using the terms ‘may’, ‘can’ or ‘could’ then the guidance in the Code is to be followed wherever possible”.


In the Minister’s policy statements, there is often the use of “will”, which, as far as I understand, is a “must”. Bearing in mind what I just read, unless something is in the Bill then even putting this test into the Bill will mean that it is only, at the very best, a “should” and can be departed from. Obviously, that applies across all of the places in which the Minister relies on the defence of, “We’re going to put it in a code”. I note that it is a code that we have not seen and will be consulted on only after the passing of the legislation.

Dealing again with the amendment, it is important to determine capacity and, as Mind has said in its excellent briefing, the question of whether a person has capacity or competence to make the relevant decision is fundamental to the operation of key rights and safeguards. To build on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, as I understand it the Bill contains 13 references to competence. It deals with such important matters as the appointment of their nominated person and, if you are under the age of 16, your freedom to choose someone other than the person with parental responsibility depends on your having competence. There is also the ability to refuse medication. To deal with the point made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who was concerned about leakage across, this is a very particular piece of legislation with such coercive power, as I am sure he is aware, that the case for putting the test in the Bill to open up those safeguards for young people is very important.

The Government’s response to the consultation stated:

“We are committed to ensuring that children and young people benefit from the reforms we plan to introduce”.


Will the Minister therefore explain again how the lack of a statutory test is consistent with maximising that choice and autonomy?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly having attached my name to Amendment 147, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, was just speaking so powerfully. I will not repeat anything that people far more expert legally than me have already said, but will just make a couple of small points.

--- Later in debate ---

Thirdly, the amendment could result in an asymmetry with physical health treatment—which I know the noble Baroness would not wish to see, and I completely understand that—regarding whether treatment could be refused in advance. This is likely to create some confusion among health practitioners, especially where it is not clear whether the purpose of the treatment is to address a physical illness or a mental illness or both. An example would be the use of nasogastric tube feeding under the Mental Health Act to treat a young person’s eating disorder. This confusion could potentially result in legal challenge and a delay in treatment, which would of course potentially risk a young person’s health and safety, although I know that is not the intention.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

What the Minister has just said is complex, but it strikes me, listening to that situation, that this might be a matter of hard cases making bad law. Could we be denying lots of people the chance to have a say because of the risk in a small number of cases? How would she respond to that?

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 65 and 133, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Scriven, are both about tackling racial injustices in the operation of the Act. I am sympathetic to the amendments that we have just heard about from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who set them out eloquently. I also strongly support Amendment 138, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.

As I have said in previous debates, a primary driver of the review of the Mental Health Act was the shocking racial injustices in the use of the Act, and we need to have that front and centre in our minds as we work our way through the Bill. Addressing racial inequalities is one of the key issues identified in the 2018 review, and there remain concerns that the Bill still does not go far enough to address that deeply entrenched inequity. As I set out on the first day of Committee when introducing my amendment on including equity as an additional principle in the Bill, black people are more than three and a half times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act than white people and over seven times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. I make no apology for repeating those figures because I think they are scandalous.

Evidence shows that, on average, people from racialised communities experience greater difficulty accessing mental health services and have poorer experiences and outcomes, and we have heard examples of that. For example, black or black British people are more likely to be detained for longer and to experience repeated admission. They are also more likely to be subject to police powers under the Act and experience higher levels of restraint. It is worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his recent report on the NHS, said the use of restrictive interventions in in-patient mental health settings had continued to rise, and the most recent data shows that people from a black or black British background are still significantly more likely to be subject to restrictive intervention.

I readily acknowledge that there are some measures in the Bill that should have a positive impact for people from racialised communities—for example, the introduction of the advance choice documents that we were talking about earlier, which I very much welcome—but, in my view, the Bill in its current form still only scratches the surface, really. It does not take on many of the recommendations in this area from both the independent review of the Act and the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. Can the Minister explain why those recommendations were not taken on board?

I turn to my amendments. Amendment 65—and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding her name—is a probing amendment designed to understand better the Government’s thinking on how they intend to address racial disparities in the use of community treatment orders, which we debated at length on Monday. I do not want to repeat that, save to say that community treatment orders have been used more widely than anticipated and disproportionately on individuals from particular ethnic backgrounds. It is vital that this is closely monitored to ensure that the disproportionality in use is tackled head on. We must not focus just on reductions in the overall numbers of CTOs. Does the Minister agree that that should include collecting evidence on the effectiveness of NHS England’s patient and carer race equality framework and its approach to reducing the overrepresentation of people from black and minority ethnic communities?

Just to show that, rather like my noble friend Lord Scriven, I do not get out enough, I noticed that page 88 of the lengthy impact assessment talks about 13 pilots—trusts that have already started to make changes as a result of this anti-racism framework. Can the Minister update the House on their progress? If she cannot do so now, perhaps she could write to me.

We know that people from these racial backgrounds may also be reluctant to seek help from formal services, based either on previous negative experiences or in some cases because of social stigma attached to mental health issues within their own community. Amendment 133 would require mental health units to appoint a responsible person to address and report on racial disparities and other inequalities relating to the use of the Act. This is really important and it is vital that a new responsible person role is introduced at hospital level to oversee race equality and address inequalities in the operation of the Act.

The responsible person would be responsible for publishing a policy on how that unit plans to reduce racial and other disparities which are based on protected characteristics in that unit or community mental health service. They would have responsibility for monitoring data on equalities as well as overseeing workforce training and policies and drawing up policies to address bias and discrimination. In my view, the creation of a responsible person role at local level would materially help us to move forward to a more transparent and accountable mental health system, and this accountability would be reinforced and amplified by the responsibility this amendment also places on the Secretary of State to report on progress made on reducing inequalities at national level. That is set out in proposed new Section 120H.

I really believe that such a dual-pronged approach to clear and transparent accountability could make a tangible difference in this critical area of public policy, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, as has already been acknowledged, I have put my name to Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. Both of them have done a comprehensive job of introducing the amendments so I will be extremely brief.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is well known in your Lordships’ House for championing the many issues affecting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people. I particularly wanted to sign Amendment 63 because it is a very broad-ranging amendment—it is crucial that everybody gets culturally appropriate forms of explanation. It struck me as we were debating that we are focused now on mental health, but I think this probably would also apply right across the NHS to physical health because there are, of course, cultural differences in understanding our bodies, et cetera.

If we imagine the case, perhaps, of a refugee who suffers mental health difficulties, having fled their home country, where they were subject to abuse by the authorities. It is important to make sure, if they are to be sectioned, that that is carefully explained to and understood by both the patient and potentially the patient’s family. There needs to be an extra level and a sensitivity to that person’s circumstances. We will all have different circumstances, but it is important to look at it in that broad frame.

On Amendment 65, we have already canvassed quite extensively the way in which minoritised communities are currently seeing significant disparities in the way they are treated under the law in the area of mental health, particularly in community treatment orders. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, described this as a probing amendment. Whether this is the exact means or not, it is clear that we have to have much better data and to make sure that as soon as trends and patterns emerge in that data, they are acted on. It is encouraging to hear that this is being piloted and work is being done but it is crucial that this becomes standard and that is why it is tempting to feel that it really has to be in the Bill.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I also want to communicate the support of my right reverend friend the Bishop of London, who apologises that she cannot be in her place this evening.

Turning to the amendments led by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on culturally appropriate care, I appreciated the noble Baroness’s references to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. I have worked with that community much over many years and very much enjoyed my interactions with it.

These amendments highlight issues that my right reverend friend has spent a lot of time considering, particularly from a faith perspective. I do not think we have heard that in the debate so far tonight. It is sometimes hard to grasp just how differently our health, especially our mental health, is culturally understood across different communities and faith groups. While our ability to discuss our own and others’ mental health may be generally improving—I think it is—it remains an extremely difficult discussion point for many cultures and many communities.

When you combine that with the extensive inequalities of outcomes that we find, and many people’s experiences of culturally inappropriate care in mental health and other settings, it is inevitable that many people are reluctant to engage with preventative services. It was said at Second Reading that minoritised communities are likely to engage at a crisis point rather than seek early interventions. My wife worked for many years as a maths specialist in the home and hospital tuition service of a large urban authority. She regularly found that she was working with pupils whose mental health needs had been picked up late, if at all, because the culture of the parental home saw mental health issues as shameful, and not something you could raise with external service providers. So culturally appropriate care is a crucial step if we are to build the trust that is ultimately vital to reducing health inequalities.

In order that culturally appropriate care is deliverable, training on faith literacy, as well as different cultures and beliefs, will be crucial. Again, I have found that myself; I have been working with my fellow faith leaders in Greater Manchester, including the excellent Caribbean and African Health Network. I make no apology for banging on about religious literacy in your Lordships’ House on yet another occasion: it does really matter. Service providers in all sectors do us a huge disservice when, through their own faith illiteracy, they operate with a presumption that religion matters only in the realm of private affairs. Getting it right in this Bill will of course necessitate additional resource. In supporting these amendments, I hope that sufficient resources will be allocated to this work.

I turn finally to Amendments 65, 133 and 138, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I am a statistician by background. We know the importance of good and useable data to ensure that we have an understanding not just of the gulfs of inequality of outcomes but of the more nuanced and complex patterns that lie underneath them. Amendment 133 recognises the need for regular training and has a consultation element as part of the policy. I hope this will be taken up and I hope that will include consultation with faith groups. We must commit to work with such groups to build trust with communities that service providers are wont to call hard to reach. I do not believe we should call any group in our society hard to reach. What we do have, all too often, are service providers who just do not make enough effort to reach. So instead, let us work with organisations such as CAHN, which I mentioned earlier, to ensure earlier interventions than those we often see.

I also warmly welcome Amendment 138, which, as others have said, highlights an appalling scandal in our society. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling that amendment.