Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 74 properly sits alongside Amendment 82 in the previous group, so I rise to speak predominantly to Amendments 75, 78 and 79A to 81. This group seeks to ensure that the expansion of choice and autonomy for children and young people under the Bill sits consistently with the child protection law of the Children Act, which I believe the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was involved in creating.

This is not a new issue. The independent review way back in December 2018 stated:

“There needs to be careful consideration of how the powers and rights of the NP”—


the nominated person—

“will interact with other areas of the system, including care orders, guardianship and child arrangement orders, where the overlap with parental responsibility is particularly important”.

Parental responsibility has been dealt with in a series of amendments by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, so I will not address that. It is regrettable that over six and a half years later, we still have not sorted this matter and there is no draft code of practice for noble Lords to refer to.

However, I am grateful for the meetings the Minister has had with colleagues, and for the policy document disclosed last week, which made small steps. I hope the Minister can confirm that she has met the Minister for Children and Families and DfE officials regarding this matter, as they hold responsibility for the Children Act. I am also grateful that the Children’s Commissioner has now stated her concerns in this aspect, as well as for the excellent work of the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition.

To avoid this being dry law, I will give two quick examples that illustrate the conflict remaining between the proposed reforms and the protections under the Children Act.

First, a 15 year-old child is Gillick competent but still does not quite understand why she has not had any contact with dad. However, there are days of evidence in the family court showing that dad is violent, controlling and coercive; a child arrangements order was made, giving him only what is called letterbox contact. The child appoints dad as the nominated person, and dad of course now has contact. Cannily—these people are canny—on the Thursday before a bank holiday weekend, he applies to have the child discharged. The 72 hours to bar this application pass by the locum’s staff, et cetera—we can all imagine the inquiry—and dad has now taken the child and disappeared. I leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to outline what mum, who has parental responsibility under this Bill, knows is going on. Children and young people should of course be given choice and autonomy—my amendments do not seek to undermine either that or Gillick competency—but surely we must consider circumscribing that when the family courts have, for child protection reasons, restricted the role of adults who should normally care for and love that child or young person.

I turn to the second scenario. A 17 year-old lacks the capacity to appoint so the AMHP is making the decision to appoint the nominated person. However, the 17 year-old is under a special guardship order—maybe they ran away from the special guardian—and was picked up by the police while trying to find dad, whose address they had on them. Dad still has parental responsibility, of course, so the AMHP contacts him and appoints him as the nominated person. Again, he applies for discharge. The child tries to return to the special guardian, who has no idea that the child is about to return home, so no one is there to receive them. The child leaves in distress and harms themselves.

The AMHP can be forgiven for thinking that child special guardianship orders end at 16 years old, as I cannot find them mentioned at all in the Bill. The same scenario would apply to a child in care as paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill is blissfully unaware that 16 and 17 year-olds can be under a care order. The AMHP, according to the Bill, is under no duty to appoint the local authority for a 16 and 17 year-old under a care order or a special guardianship order in this scenario.

The solution to the second scenario is in Amendments 79A and 80A; I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has added her name to the latter. Where any person under the age of 18 is being detained—that is about one-third of young people—the AMHP is given a list of people who must be the nominated person, not just those with parental responsibility and the local authority in relation to care orders, as in the Bill and as outlined in the policy document.

Dominic Marley, the co-chair of the AMHP Leads Network, has written to me. He says that he

“fully supports the amendment … In its current form, the Bill conflicts with other legislation affecting children, such as the Children Act 1989. The Bill fails to consider the various orders relating to parental responsibility as outlined in the Children Act 1989”.

He goes on to say:

“This is a deeply concerning omission and is likely to give rise to confusion and uncertainty in practice. We believe the amendments you have tabled will provide clarity in this regard, clarity which should be provided by primary legislation”.


My final point on this second scenario is that the Minister’s policy document states that, for under-16s who lack competence, as in this scenario, the AMHP will appoint the special guardian as the temporary nominated person. Can the Minister explain why the Bill says that the AMHP must choose the local authority if there is a care order in place, but not if there is a special guardian? I repeat the point made in the previous day in Committee: the mental health code cannot create a “must” unless it is included in the Bill or secondary legislation.

The solution to my first scenario is more difficult, and I accept that it is less likely to occur in practice. Most of the one-third of young people who are detained under the Act will lack capacity by the time they are detained but, if we want to maintain as much of a child’s or young person’s choice and autonomy when they have capacity, we must act when they have capacity. Amendments 75, 78, 80 and 81 disqualify certain people, such as the no-contact parent under a child arrangements order or the residual person with parental responsibility when a special guardianship order has been made. The amendments also mandate certain people who have to be chosen, such as special guardians.

I accept that that is a very clunky way of doing it. Another option is for His Majesty’s Government to forbid certain people rather than mandating anyone. Another option would be to give the job of disqualifying people to the family court by amending the Children Act. Therefore, the court, on making a care order, a child arrangements order, or a special guardianship order—for which it often hears evidence—would name certain people as being disqualified from acting as a nominated person.

So I hope the Minister can clarify her policy document, as it includes the child-in-care scenario where the nominated person is a parent—usually where the child resides—who has their parental responsibility limited. It states that the witness—the person involved in the process—

“would assess the appointment of such an individual as unsuitable due to the potential risks to the child and therefore prevent this”.

Is that mandatory language? If it is, why not use “must” and put it in the Bill? Are the Government actually giving the AMHP, the young person or that witness the ability to go behind the care order of the family court? If the Mental Health Act code says that the witness just has to document that, if it is “should” rather than “must”, do we really want to enable that?

The policy document then immediately says:

“We will set out in the Code of Practice considerations for the witness to make beyond those set out in legislation”—


I am not sure that makes sense—

“including how to make these judgements”.

That now seems to be truly discretionary language. I again outline the three categories from the code: “must”, “should” and “may”. Which one is this? If this is “should” then, as I say, the child can go behind the family court order as long as the witness writes down the reasons. I expect the Minister to be very clear in her response, if we are undermining the authority of the family court.

Amendment 79 is a quick clarification of whether the child or AMHP can appoint more than one person as the nominated person. Amendment 85 adds the grounds of

“not acting in the best interests”

so that the AMHP can remove the nominated person—for instance, if they discover that they have trafficked the child to the UK. That is not just for children and young people but for all patients.

I return to the risks to children and young people in both the scenarios I have outlined. These are not triggered by the AMHPs, and they will not be triggered by poor training, a lack of resources or levels of staffing—nor triggered by those who the family court said could pose a risk to the child or young person. These would be triggered by how His Majesty’s Government currently propose to change the law. In the worst-case, but sadly foreseeable, scenario where a child dies at the hands of a nominated person who had already been known to be a risk, as outlined by the family court, I expect that the Chief Coroner would need informing of your Lordships’ debate. Otherwise, professional and other staff might take all the blame. Also, would the Secretary of State for Education in fact still be able to do a serious case review of the death of that child, or would she not be conflicted? A dangerous person got access to a child because the nominated person process was a backdoor to the Children Act. So can the Minister outline whether the nominated persons part of the Act will be enforced before the consultation on the code of practice she is so often relying on?

Finally, I quote from the policy document again:

“We appreciate that there are complications inherent in the complexity of modern family structures, (e.g. separated parents) in addition to the existing system around children’s legislation (e.g. special guardianships, child arrangement orders). These are not complications which have been created by the Nominated Person policy and they exist in the context of Nearest Relative as well”.


Yes, of course the current situation is complex, but this view in the policy document is not shared by the independent review, by the response to His Majesty’s Government’s White Paper—where these concerns were also raised—or by the Joint Committee, civil society or the Children’s Commissioner. The Minister is alone in this view. I know that, in your Lordships’ House, we are not entitled to see legal advice that His Majesty’s Government obtain, but I hope the Minister can assure the Committee that Treasury counsel with specialisms in the Children Act and mental health have been asked to give an opinion.

The child protections that the Children Act has upheld for decades are so vital. I hope we will come back to this on Report, when I hope the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Education will lay the necessary government amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 80A, to which my name has been added.

I did not intervene in the first group but I share the general view expressed, which is relevant to this group of amendments, that not enough thought has been given to the interaction between the Mental Health Bill and other key legislation, particularly the Children Act 1989. That concerns me, because that is where really key and important child protection sits. That is a general concern I have.

--- Later in debate ---

In general, we have to take the mental health problems among the prison population very seriously or they will put a strain on general mental health provision, as well as an already crumbling and falling apart prison situation. From the public’s point of view, the issue of mentally ill or psychotic prisoners is one that they are looking at closely, one way or another, because of a number of high-profile cases. It is very important that the Bill gets it right and does not just tick a box.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will just add a couple of brief points. This is a really important set of amendments and the issue of making it easier to transfer people between prisons and hospitals is critical. If you like, it is at the heart of some of the reforms that we are looking at. I have a lot of sympathy for the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. I am also aware that he has waited a very long time. Did he say that it was 28 years?

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

Sixteen.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

Just the 16. Anyway, it is a long time to wait.

The amendments aiming to make it clear, as the noble Lord said, when the clock starts ticking are really important, so that there is real accountability injected into the system. Often, when things go wrong it is where no one really feels responsible for something, so it does not happen. I will also be interested to hear what the “exceptional circumstances” do and do not include—I hope we will get some examples—because if they include just things such as shortage of staff or beds, we will not get very far at all, given the current state of mental health beds.

I understand the rationale behind the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens; the reciprocity is a really important point to make. I just have slight concerns that we might be saying that this cannot happen in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, wanted to see, because we know that we have not got the scarce and specialist beds. They are just not available; it is very important to be practical about it.

It comes to the heart of the matter of this whole Bill: we know that, unless proper resource is put into the implementation of the Bill, it is not going to work at all. We know that, with mental health provision, particularly a secure unit, particularly with the state of the estate, the shortage of staff and all of that, there has to be wholesale investment in it for these things to work. I think the time has come. I simply add my voice to others to say that I hope the noble Lord practises patience—but I think he has waited long enough so I hope his patience will not be tested any longer.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke to the amendments. I also thank the Government for allowing the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending to reply to this group. That is very much welcomed by the Committee. I think it was the noble Lord’s father who once said, “Kindness is good for business”. In this case, he might find that kindness is good for his noble friend the Minister. Given how hard she has been working on the Bill, I think she deserves some respite, so I am sure that that is very welcome.

So far, we have debated the importance of limiting detentions for those with autism or learning disabilities without co-occurring mental disorders. We have also debated the community treatment orders. But until now, we have not covered the provisions of the Bill relating to this new statutory 28-day time-limited period for transfers from prisons to hospitals. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has said, he has been very patient. Therefore, the Government enshrining this target in law is welcome. Unfortunately, progress towards the goal of 28 days, as set out in the 2021 guidance and the White Paper, has been slower than anticipated.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, in its 2024 report The Long Wait—I am sure the noble Lord is aware of this—said that

“people linger in prison for weeks, often months and even, in the worst cases, for more than a year waiting for their transfer to be completed”.

Unfortunately, even though the 28-day guidance was there from 2022-23, only 15% of patients in that period were transferred to hospital within that timeframe. Sadly, the average wait was 85 days, and one prisoner was identified as waiting 462 days for transfer to hospital.

These Benches welcome the 28-day limit being put on a statutory footing, but, as other noble Lords have said—not only on this group of amendments but on others—once again, there is an issue of implementation here. Just because it is in legislation does not mean it will deliver the improvements that are necessary.

The noble Lord’s colleague—the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—has been very candid with noble Lords, saying that not everything in the Bill will be delivered now, and that there is a 10-year timetable for implementation. Given that, will the Minister say, at this stage, whether the 28-day limit is an aspiration or something that could be delivered immediately? If, at this stage, it is an aspiration and—understandably so—awaiting future spending reviews, is he able to give an indicative timeframe? Is the hope for the next 12 months, the next five years or, perhaps, up to 10 years? That information would be very welcome to noble Lords. Many noble Lords have been asking this throughout this debate. We understand that not everything is going to be solved overnight, but it would be good if we could have as much information as possible on the Government’s intentions and aspirations, including indicative timetables, where they are possible. We also understand that not everything is going to be clearly tagged at this stage.

Another finding from the prison inspectorate’s report was that there were serious flaws with the data held on patients who were awaiting transfer. I understand that there is no publicly available data describing the access and waiting times for beds. The Minister might be able to correct me on that. Some of the data on the numbers of prisoners awaiting transfer obtained from providers had significant gaps, due to a lack of consistent and accurate reporting, and some data contained errors and unreliability. This might also impact on Amendments 97 and 98 from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.

The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, may well tire of hearing me repeat the importance of collecting accurate and complete data, but, as I and many other noble Lords have said on many occasions, we really cannot solve many of the problems we face without data that is as accurate and timely as possible. Therefore, I urge both Ministers to take up the issue of data reporting for patients awaiting transfer from prison to hospital with their respective departments.

Turning to Amendment 96C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, which creates an accountable person who will be appointed to oversee the transfer process and ensure that the statutory 28-day limit is completed, I think this, once again, speaks to the point of implementation. This could be a sensible way of holding providers to account and working with them to address the shortcomings in patient transfers. Given the Government’s 10-year timeframe for implementation, noble Lords have raised the importance of oversight and accountability. Therefore, in the remarks from the Minister and in any subsequent letter, I hope that the Government will be able to address the issue of implementation and to give an indicative timetable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

Both those amendments—one on the role of the lasting power of attorney and where it fits into the grand scheme of things, and the other on the critical point at which there is more than just a few leaflets and notices to ensure that the patient has the opportunity to produce an advance choice document—are ones that we should include in the Bill.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will very briefly underline my very strong support for Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I remind noble Lords of my relevant interests in the register.

The noble Lord set it out very clearly so I do not need to add to what he said, other than to say there is a great opportunity for us to ensure that, for the first time in legislation, finances are considered a key part of supporting recovery from a mental health crisis. I am aware of far too many stories of people suffering from severe mental health crises or who are detained whose finances go into complete and utter freefall. It is so difficult for them then to recover their finances. That often means, in turn, that they have further mental health problems. That is all I wanted to say. I support the noble Lord, Lord Davies, very strongly.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I will just say that I support all these amendments. I expressed concern about under-16s and those aged 16-18, but that does not stop me thinking that these advance choice documents are an excellent plan. However, I am concerned about the point that the noble Baroness makes with Amendment 120. An independent mental health advocate would be extremely helpful, because there may be quite a lot of people who really would not know how to make an advance choice document, would be very concerned about it and might write down some really not very sensible things, when they could have help as to what they really wanted. I strongly support the noble Baroness’s amendment.