Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful for my noble friend’s intervention. I will later make specific points about speech and language therapists.

The revised code of practice will give guidance for decision-makers and those involved in care and treatment on how to support individuals with communication needs to make sure that their voices are heard. Following Royal Assent, we will draft, and consult on, a code of practice, and it will be laid before Parliament. In addition to the code, we will lay secondary legislation to support the reforms set out in the delegated powers memorandum. I am committed to sharing papers setting out further details on this, including what we expect the content of care and treatment plans to cover, some of which is highly relevant to this debate.

Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, would mean that the individuals and organisations referenced in Section 118(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 must have regard to the code of practice when making decisions. It seeks to probe whether the principles set out in the table in Clause 1 of this Bill—under new Section 118(2B) of the 1983 Act —will be statutorily binding. Practitioners are already under a statutory obligation to take account of the code when making decisions under the Act. Anyone who must have regard to the code of practice under Section 118(2D) must therefore also have regard to the statement of principles that the Secretary of State must include in the code when carrying out specified functions under the Act. That includes all those referenced in Section 118(1).

The Government expect practitioners to follow the code. Anyone seeking to depart from it must have compelling reasons for doing so. Reasons for any departure must be recorded clearly, as courts have the power to scrutinise such reasons to ensure that there is sufficiently convincing justification for not following the code.

I believe that this is the right approach, because relevant individuals and organisations must have regard to the code and, in turn, the principles. But the system is not so inflexible that a principle must be followed irrespective of the circumstances, because there could be very rare cases whereby it could create a risk that an individual is not being treated according to their own particular needs, which is not the intention of the Bill.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I think the Committee would understand that if it was to do with a therapeutic intervention. This is about the principles according to which clinicians and others have to work when dealing with the Act. First, can the Minister enlighten the Committee as to which principles, as a framework, would not be suitable for a particular patient? It is a principle. Secondly, my noble friend tabled this amendment because case law on codes of practice in the public sector goes back to 1998 and Regina v Islington Borough Council, in which the court made it very clear that public bodies have the right to deviate on admissible grounds where there is good reason. I can see no reason, unless the Minister can give one, why deviating from a principle is acceptable. That is why my noble friend wants the principles to be in the Bill. I could understand if it was a restrictive practice, but it is not; it is a principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak on this group; I have tabled two amendments, Amendments 38 and 40. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also wish to share an interest which is similar to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I used to have two nephews who had learning disabilities and autism. One of them, sadly, has died—there is a statistic that people with learning disabilities and autism die, on average, at 20 years below people without them. I still have a loving, warm, neurodiverse and very proudly different nephew, who I love. I see his behaviours and the way that many people do not understand him and deal with him differently.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and was going to make the exact point that, as a gay person, before 1973 I would have been defined as having a mental illness. The discussion among psychiatrists and the mental health professions at the moment is not as robust as the noble Baroness made out. Many people within the profession say that those with learning disabilities and autism are not on the mental health spectrum and should not be treated as having a psychiatric illness.

We are in a difficult position. My amendments are probing amendments to try to preclude Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Capacity Act being used to detain people who do not meet the Mental Health Act detention criteria. It is fascinating that, in some cases where people are detained at the moment, it is not because there is a therapeutic benefit but because there are no community facilities—this is completely at odds with the code of practice. Professionals are using a lack of facility to detain people. Let us be clear: these people are detained for 4.8 years on average, in solitary confinement, and this has a lifelong detriment. They are scarred for life. Many probing amendments in this group are trying to tease out exactly what will happen and to ensure that the Mental Capacity Act is not used to detain people because provision in this country does not exist.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, there are places, such as Trieste, where this issue has been dealt with starting from a different view: starting from what is needed, rather than this power being required because things are needed. That is the fundamental change that we need to make because, if not—I am glad the Government are moving down this path—we will continue to see people detained when they have not a mental illness or a psychiatric disorder but a development issue, which is not a psychiatric disorder. There are many papers on learning disabilities and autism by professionals who would argue that that is the case. We are all probing to try to work out what will happen.

I fully support the change to the detention criteria for autistic people and people with learning disabilities, and I believe it is key to reducing the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities detained in mental health hospitals. But to achieve this policy intent, the Government need to make sure that a backdoor to detention is not opened through the inappropriate use of the Mental Capacity Act—detention in a mental health hospital under the deprivation of liberty safeguards instead. Without further guidance on the use of the Mental Capacity Act, the Government’s intent to reduce the number of autistic people and those with learning disabilities in mental health hospitals may be undermined.

I am concerned that the Mental Capacity Act may not be generally appropriate for use in deciding on treatment in a mental health hospital, as its primary intention is to help decide issues relating to people’s overall care and living arrangements. I am also concerned that somebody detained under the Mental Capacity Act would not benefit from procedural safeguards and access to the mental health tribunal if required.

Amendment 35 from the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, would mean that people with a learning disability or autism could be held for six months. There could be a six-month period of detention but only in exceptional circumstances, which are not defined but are to be defined and put in the code of practice. Again, as we know, people can divert from the code of practice, so it is not the safeguard that the noble Baroness would suggest. Exceptional circumstances in a code of practice could be diverted from. Furthermore, based on the noble Baroness’s amendment, there could be a further six months for a tribunal to decide. Nowhere in here is there anything about therapeutic benefit and how that detention would be to the benefit of the individual rather than of society. So I am not clear how therapeutic benefit would be determined under the noble Baroness’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

What does the noble Lord think will happen to the people in the gap?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

As I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out what happens internationally, in Trieste in Italy, for example, and I therefore suggest that good international comparisons and practice could be enacted in legislation to ensure that the needs of as many people as possible are met in the community, rather than them being held in detention because the provision is not there. That is exactly what will happen unless this gap is dealt with by looking at what is required rather than looking at the gap and continuing detention.

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise that I did not speak at Second Reading, but I have been listening to this interesting debate and it seems to me that Clause 5 is introducing the concept of detention in extreme cases, where there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or another person unless the patient is detained. That is the reason for the detention: to protect the patient from serious harm to himself or herself, or to protect others from serious harm.

As I read the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, it simply seeks to suggest, or to put on the statute book, that someone suffering from autism or a learning disability would not satisfy the test in Clause 5. But the amendment permits the admission to hospital of someone with a learning disability for the purpose of assessing whether he or she has a mental disorder. I am not sure that this amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, would result in people slipping through the net.

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

I wrote the amendment in a terrible hurry as a compromise amendment when I could not table the amendment that I really wished to table, which was seeking to get back to having clarity about the diagnostic criteria. I apologise if that was not the provision that the noble Lord wanted in the Bill—I am not sure that I want it very much either. I do not have any great devotion to the proposed new clause; it was just a way of trying to address this leaving of the gap. We used to do that, by the way. After the 1983 Act, noble Lords will remember that we dropped alcohol addictions and drug misuse from the Act, saying that we could not detain people for those reasons alone. What happened was that there was total neglect for the next 20 years until voluntary organisations and local authorities got moving and said, “This won’t do—we must do something”.

Noble Lords should remember that that is what happens. If you leave somebody out of protective legislation, they will not be included; they will be neglected and they will end up in prison. That is what Sir Simon Wessely thought and it is what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has been talking about. I can guarantee that nobody will be interested in autistic meltdowns if there is no way in which to intervene to save a family from having that person with them, seven days a week and 24 hours a day, during the period of this terrible disturbance.

Community services are great. I urge noble Lords to visit Trieste, as it has brilliant services in a tiny area; it is one of the very few in Italy, and it continues to work very well. It is cited all over the world, and that is very good. But this is Britain, with 80 million people and massively underfunded services, and it ain’t going to happen. I want to know what will happen to those people noble Lords would like to see neglected until such time as the Government produce some alternative provision.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I do not think that I or anybody else who has a different opinion from the noble Baroness wants to see those people being neglected. We have a different view. The issue I have with her stance is that the evidence is that putting people with learning disabilities and autism in a psychiatric hospital—and that is where they will go if there is no provision, because that is where they go at present—is damaging. It is not the correct provision. I believe that what she is arguing for—to continue the neglect of provision by putting them somewhere—is significantly not in their best interests and causes damage.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Perhaps I can clarify. I think that the noble Baroness’s amendment is to some extent based on the spirit of the Joint Committee’s report, which was about providing some kind of mechanism, after the 28 days—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, nodding. There would be a specialist tribunal, and we said that it should be composed of people with experience of learning disabilities and autism, so that there was not a get-out for clinicians that they had not done the assessments properly. There would have to be grounded reasons to go beyond the 28 days and, in exceptional circumstances, you could authorise the detention, to make sure that the law covered that gap or group of people. No one wanted to see people detained for the reason that there was no community provision—that is ridiculous.

I accept that the reality is probably going to be that clinicians will find a mental disorder diagnosis to use the powers under Part II to do what is in the best interests of that person and their family at the time. But the law should also cover that situation and not force clinicians into those diagnoses—hence the need for accurate data, so that we can track what is happening when the law is enacted.

--- Later in debate ---

That is the intention behind my amendments. I look forward to hearing the debate on the rest of the amendments in this group, because it is high time that we improved care and treatment plans, particularly the accountability around them. I beg to move.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak my Amendments 8, 11, 15, 18, 19 and 20 in this group. They are to do what my noble friend Lady Barker said: to try to beef up the care (education) and treatment reviews, because something is amiss. As my noble friend said, too many of them are sitting on stuffy and dusty shelves, and not enough people get access to them to be able to advocate for and follow through on them.

Amendments 8 and 15 are important regarding the people who are legally entitled to receive a copy of the care (education) and treatment review. I support the amendment from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to add the parent and guardian, which was an omission. Currently, the Bill provides for a copy to be sent only to the responsible commissioner, the patient’s responsible clinician, the ICB and the local authority. To ensure that the patient and their family, carer and advocates are fully aware and informed of the decisions being made around their care, can hold services to account and can follow up on the care and treatment plan recommendations, it is essential that they too receive a copy of the report.

These amendments would ensure that the patient, the patient’s nominated person and the patient’s independent mental health advocate receive a copy of the care and treatment report. I note that the Minister has tabled an amendment setting out that a copy of the report “may” be given to other persons, but this does not place a strong enough duty to involve the patient and significant others to ensure that adequate oversight of the care and treatment review reports is available to them.

Amendments 11 and 18 reduce the maximum time between the reviews from 12 months to six months for adults and children. This is in line with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill. According to NHSE data, 24% of autistic people and people with learning disabilities detained in mental health hospitals have been waiting for more than one year for a CETR or have no CETR at all, and 31% have had the date of their next scheduled CETR pass or have no scheduled CETR at all.

We know that autistic people and people with learning disabilities face lengthy stays. There must be a drive to discharge these people. The idea that we would have a CETR only every 12 months to help prevent a lengthy stay shows how worryingly normalised long lengths of stays have become for these individuals. In many cases, a maximum interval of 12 months may be too long and mean that autistic people and people with learning disabilities face delays to their discharge planning. The current frequency of CETRs in the Bill is not in line with NHS England’s policy, which states that, for adults, CETRs should be held at a maximum frequency of six months.

Amendments 19 and 20 seek to ensure that the recommendations of CETRs are followed through. This is essential to ensuring that the needs of individuals are being met and that steps are being taken to prepare for their discharge. Often, the recommendations arising from CETRs are constructive, and those attending may leave with the impression that the right steps are being taken. However, the frequent failure to carry out the recommendations arising from these reports undermines faith in the process and can lead to unnecessary delays in an individual’s needs being met and in their discharge.

CETRs, which are essential to providing safeguards for autistic people and people with learning disabilities under the Bill, are important. Their being undermined cannot be allowed. The current language in the Bill for the responsible clinicians, commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities says that they must “have regard” to the recommendations. I believe that this is too weak. Legally, the definition of “regard” is that a public body must consider something and, once it has been considered, has discretion to carry out or ignore it. A duty in law is an obligation and must be followed, and the reason why it has been followed must be given. These amendments would substitute “regard”—the weaker definition—for “a duty” to carry out these actions unless a compelling reason is provided for why this is not possible. This follows a similar recommendation from the Joint Committee on the Mental Health Bill, which stated that ICBs and local authorities should be required to “follow” recommendations in reports—that is, have a duty.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 9, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on Amendment 8.

We are dealing with the responsible commissioner making arrangements for the care (education) and treatment review meetings and the report. I do not know whether I am a lone voice speaking in this House but I am a mother and a grandmother, and there is not a single word in any part of this Bill about parents or guardians—not a word. I could find references to parental responsibility only in new Schedule A1 and Schedule 2, although I may be wrong.

Can I just suggest something to noble Lords? Where you have a child—here, I am dealing specifically with a child—with autism or physical or mental disabilities, it is quite probable, if not most likely, that that person will be living with their family and their parents. I must say, my experience as a family judge led me to believe that only about 5% to 10% of parents who came through the courts were not suitable to look after their children full time. But according to Clause 4—which inserts new Section 125A—the one group of people who will not be told what the future care (education) and treatment review given to their child will be includes the people with whom that child has been living for all their life. I cannot understand why this Bill seems to think that parents, guardians and other people with parental responsibility do not matter. That is why I have raised this issue. I feel intensely strongly about it, as a mother and a grandmother.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for making that point, and I will gladly review this in the light of it.

To return to the specific amendments, they would ensure that the patient, the patient’s nominated person, the independent mental health advocate and the parent, guardian or other person with parental responsibility receive in all cases a copy of the report following a care and treatment review meeting—or a care (education) and treatment review meeting for children and young people. The current drafting of the Bill is intended to make clear that a copy of the review report must be provided to those who have a legal duty to have regard to the review recommendations, so that any recommendations are implemented as appropriate.

We recognise that there may be individual circumstances that mean it is appropriate for the report to be provided to other people, including the patient themselves. For children and young people, this report is most likely to be shared with a parent, guardian or other person with parental responsibility, but it is important that the legislation does not inadvertently create a legal requirement that must be complied with, which would not be appropriate for every person.

A longer list of people with whom the report must be shared, in every case, may increase the chance of an individual withdrawing the consent for a review to be held if they do not wish for some or all the people to see the report. There may also be circumstances in which the report should reasonably be shared with other people in addition to those set out in the amendments—for example, a family member who has been part of the review process with the patient’s consent but is not the patient’s nominated person or someone with parental responsibility.

We have tabled a government amendment to make it clear that the arrangements may include provision authorising or requiring a copy of the report to be given to other persons, so that the patient may also ask that a copy be provided to others or decide to provide it to others. Statutory guidance will help assist the responsible commissioner when exercising its functions, including when considering other persons who are to receive the report. We wish to allow flexibility for this, so that individual circumstances can be taken into account based on the needs of the patient and their wishes, rather than by providing a prescriptive list of people to whom the report is to be sent in every circumstance.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

For clarification, is the Minister therefore saying that the Government’s amendment will lead to some statutory instrument, or will it be just at the discretion of the Minister to determine a list and change it without any scrutiny?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am approaching this without going down the amendments’ route of having a fully prescriptive list, which might have unintended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I really need to understand the intent of the Minister’s Amendment 17

“authorising … a copy of the report to be given to other persons”.

How do the Government intend to draw up that list, to change it and to make it public, so that people know that they are appropriate persons and might be able to get the report?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I hope it helps to advise that the responsible commissioner will be key to all that. I emphasise the need to design around the patient and their needs. If there are further points that I need to look at on this, I would be very pleased to. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it.

Amendments 10 and 17 are technical and minor government amendments that make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that the responsible commissioner may make arrangements for a care and treatment review report—or a care (education) and treatment review report for children and young people—to be provided to persons other than those listed in the clause. They could, for example, be those who have an interest in the recommendations because they are involved in the review process, such as an independent mental health advocate, a nominated person or a professional involved in the patient’s care and treatment. This would be subject to the patient’s consent. We believe that this is important to clarify, since the review process is likely to involve more people than those who are listed in the legislation, although this will vary according to the individual and their needs and circumstances.

In addition, the Bill makes specific provision to clarify which persons and bodies are to receive the report in every case to ensure that they can comply with their duty to have regard to the review recommendations. I hope that these government amendments find favour with noble Lords.

Amendments 11 and 18 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who raised the point that around a third of people have no CETR or CTR. My response is perhaps to provide the assurance that that is exactly why we are putting them on a statutory basis. It seems that Amendments 11 and 18 are intended to reduce the maximum amount of time between CTRs for adults and CETRs for children and young people from 12 months to six months following a patient’s initial review meeting. These amendments would apply to children and adults.

I listened closely, as I have listened closely to all comments from noble Lords, but we believe that these amendments are somewhat unnecessary. Current drafting provides that review meetings take place at least once in a 12-month period, in line with the maximum timeframe within NHS England’s policy and guidance. This is in addition to the requirement that arrangements must be made for everyone to have a review promptly upon admission, within 14 days for children and 28 days for adults. Commissioners should use their judgment to determine the frequency of subsequent reviews, in line with the specific needs of the patient. Patients, their families and advocates can also request a review meeting at any point.

There will be statutory guidance to provide commissioners with further information on factors to consider when determining whether more frequent reviews should take place. I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I hope that helps. For example, it is current practice that children under 18 have a review meeting every three months, and this would be articulated in the guidance. We consider it preferable to set out this information in statutory guidance, which can provide detailed case studies. That would not be possible if we set it out in the same way as primary legislation, not least because guidance can be readily updated in line with emerging best practice, including on frequency and considering particular circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

Yes, of course, I will give way—I have opened a can of worms, I see.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I have listened very carefully to the Minister about flexibility. Why is 12 months in the Bill? All I am trying to do is to change a statutory timeframe that the Government have put in the Bill to six months. That flexibility is not there because 12 months is in the Bill. I am trying to move that fixed point from 12 months to six months, regardless of what guidance says.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Yes, I understand the intention, but I refer back, perhaps usefully, to the point I made earlier that review meetings would take place at least once in a 12-month period; it is not a maximum—I think I have got it the right way round. It will be at least once in a 12-month period; it is not that it can be only once in a 12-month period. That is, as I said, in line with the maximum timeframe in NHS England’s policy and guidance.

Amendment 13 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, relates to care and treatment reviews. The amendment seeks to ensure that a patient’s review makes recommendations about ensuring communication needs are met where there are additional or alternative communication needs. That is something we discussed very constructively in the first group and it was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. We believe that current drafting already provides for that in the Bill.

As set out in the clause, those meetings are to review any needs of the patient for social care or medical treatment and can make recommendations about whether and how those needs can be met. This should include recommendations about the patient’s communication needs, which may be important in ensuring that their treatment is effective and to support their discharge from hospital. As set out in the clause, a number of named persons and bodies are to have regard to the recommendations of the review. That will give them the appropriate legal weight to ensure that they are considered and that there must be clear reasons if they are not taken forward.

The Bill also introduces statutory care and treatment plans for all patients detained under the Act, excluding those under short-term sections. We plan to set out the required contents of the statutory care and treatment plan in regulations. It is our intention that this includes information about communication needs to enable the treating clinician to consider the protected characteristics and individual needs of the patient, which speaks to the point I made in the first group to my noble friend Lady Whitaker, and to make reasonable adjustments. Regulations will also require that the report from a patient’s care (education) and treatment review is attached to the care and treatment plan so that recommendations are included as part of this.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 19 and 20, tabled and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Bennett. These amendments seek to ensure that there is a duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to carry out recommendations from a patient’s CTR, or CETR if the patient is a child or young person, unless there is a compelling reason provided for why a recommendation cannot be carried out. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for their differing but nevertheless significant contributions.

These review recommendations should be given the appropriate legal weight to ensure that they are given serious consideration. We have decided to include these provisions in the Bill to put the existing NHS England policy on a statutory footing.

The duty to “have regard” is a well-established duty that clinicians, ICBs and other public bodies are used to applying and it already exists within the Act. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked how the Government will ensure that these recommendations are implemented effectively. I hope that my comments will assist the noble Earl. Where effective care and treatment is the central aim, we would expect careful consideration of all recommendations. Where those bodies decide not to accept a relevant recommendation, we would expect them to have very good reasons for making that decision. It is an appropriate duty in this context because we do not intend to place an absolute duty on a body to follow recommendations in every case—that would be incompatible with understanding the individual needs and requirements of the person concerned.

The legislation must not impose unreasonable duties on relevant bodies that they cannot fulfil or where it would be inappropriate for them to do so; for example, if a recommendation was made that was outside of their purview. The Bill already requires that certain named persons or bodies carefully consider the recommendations and give them appropriate weight.

In view of all those comments, I thank noble Lords and ask that they do not press their amendments.