Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, this group includes Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to which I have added my name—to which I will not speak because I think it will be fully discussed—and two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She is a dear colleague and friend of many years, and this is my first opportunity in the debate to express my personal sympathy for her loss this week.

I will speak to Amendment 28 in this group, which is in my name. In addition to local authorities’ market-shaping function—I have to say I find the choice of words there a little difficult; I had to read it a few times just to make quite clear that I know what that is—the Bill includes reference to the “commissioning functions” of local authorities when having regard to information from risk registers and ensuring that the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people are met.

Under the Bill, new Section 125G makes it clear that integrated care boards’ commissioning functions are related only to health services. New Section 125E(3) makes clear that

“‘market function’, in relation to a local authority, means its function”

to

“promoting diversity and quality in provision of services”

under the Care Act 2014. This amendment would add local authority commissioning explicitly, by which is meant the local authority’s commissioning duties in relation to providing care and support under the Care Act 2014. The proposed duty in relation to local authority market shaping does not adequately cover local authority commissioning. The issue of poor commissioning in relation to this group has been frequently cited in reports. This is an opportunity to redress that and to be clear about their function.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31 in my name in this group. I support Amendment 28, which was just spoken to very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and Amendments 36 and 37, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I want to put on record my condolences to her at what must be a very sad and difficult time.

Quite a number of amendments that I have put down in this group, particularly Amendment 22, are about prevention. It is about getting upstream and trying to use the dynamic support registers—the risk registers—in a better way, and, by so doing, having the correct information that is available to a place, rather than just to an organisation, such as the NHS or the ICB, within that place.

Amendment 22 would ensure that local authorities have an active role in assisting ICBs in identifying people for inclusion in the risk registers. NHS England’s policy and guidance on dynamic support registers states:

“Early identification of people at risk of admission to a mental health hospital and their access to person-centred planning and support are essential for the prevention of avoidable admissions”.


Many people with risk factors will first come into contact with a local authority, particularly people with learning disabilities and autism. It is important that the local authority has a clear responsibility to assist ICBs in identifying people for inclusion on the register, to ensure that people get the right support at the right time. I hope that the Minister will take this amendment in the spirit that it is given. This is an important issue which is not strong enough in the Bill and which really needs to be taken account of.

There have been difficulties for some people getting enrolled on the DSR, and this is particularly true for autistic people without a learning disability. Additionally, NHS England data shows that 52% of autistic people and people with a learning disability detained in a mental health hospital are not on a risk register prior to admission. Therefore, there is a gap, and the Bill gives us a chance to help plug it. Hopefully, placing this duty on local authorities will facilitate greater uptake and enrolment on the register for all, therefore helping to reduce admissions, improving support in the community and being a good preventive measure.

Coupled with this, Amendments 36 and 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would help with that prevention role by making sure that proper provision was available. Taken together, Amendments 22, 36 and 37 would be a really good group of steps forward to help with preventive measures to make sure that all people who can be identified who come into contact with a local authority but are not known to the ICB go on the register, and that provision is made.

Amendments 24 and 29 would change the current language in the Bill. After listening to debate on previous amendments, I will not labour the point because I have a good idea what the Minister might say, but again I think the provision needs to be strengthened so that ICBs and local authorities have a duty to consider the risk register when exercising commissioning and marketing functions.

In Amendments 25 and 30 there is the same approach by strengthening the words in the Bill to ensure that ICBs and local authorities have a duty to ensure that the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability are met in the community wherever possible. The current language in the Bill states only that ICBs and local authorities must “seek to ensure” that the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability are met. This wording is vague and does not compel a strong enough duty to meet the needs of people in the community. Again, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would strengthen my amendments even further.

These amendments are important. I hope that the Minister has listened very carefully, will make efforts to implement some of these steps and reports back on Report.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Hollins’s Amendments 36 and 37. I add myself to the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about the remarkable commitment that my noble friend is showing at this awful time and express my personal condolences. What I am going to say is based on comments that she has passed to me. I should perhaps say at the beginning that I too am an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—“(unqualified)”, as others have made that disclaimer.

The purpose of these amendments is very clear. Amendment 36 states that ICBs

“must ensure the availability of integrated comprehensive, accessible, and responsive community services for autistic people and people with learning disabilities … to reduce hospital admissions … and … reliance on restrictive interventions”.

As the previous two noble Lords said, it is very much about prevention and creating appropriate services.

I note that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that Clause 4

“is designed to help ensure that ICBs can monitor individuals at risk of detention and put in place the necessary preventative measures to help keep people out of hospitals”.

Putting it simply, this amendment takes that rather weak wording in the explanation and toughens it up. The issue here is not about good intentions and ensuring that it is possible for something to happen. I am sure that all noble Lords share the intention and the hope that these things will be in place, but this is about making sure that something happens. It is about implementation and seeing that a change happens.

This is vital because it is clear that there are major problems in service coverage right now. For example, only a quarter of integrated care systems are meeting their target of having only 30 people per million admitted. Of course, that number would ideally be much lower than it is, but only a quarter of these systems are even meeting that. Amendment 36 spells out what these services should include. I will not read them out in detail but noble Lords can see that they cover all the relevant areas that one would expect: evidence-based treatments, crisis prevention and intervention services, non-restrictive walk-in services, and the provision of “suitable housing”.

I will comment on two of those items in a moment. All of them are important but what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, had in mind was not just discussing these items but seeing her amendment as an opportunity to discuss which services are the right ones—the ones that should be there—and which areas ICBs and local authorities should address. The key point at this stage is not so much about the detail but the need for some clear legislative requirements on what services must be provided. Good intentions are simply not good enough; implementation is what is needed.

I will mention two of those items that relate to points made earlier by other noble Lords in our debates on this group and others. One is the reference to “non-drug-based interventions” and “social prescribing”; their importance in community services applies in all kinds of ways. The second is the point about housing, which, as has been discussed, is vital. Ten years ago, I did a review for the Royal College of Psychiatrists on discharges from acute adult hospitals. A third of the people in those hospitals were there because they did not have adequate accommodation anywhere else. That third included people who had nowhere to be discharged to, in terms of adequate housing. It is a really serious issue. I make those points because both of these issues go beyond this amendment: in some ways, they are not about healthcare as much as they are about enabling people to have a decent life and creating the conditions for people to be healthy and live in the best way possible.

Amendment 37 is about issuing guidance on standards and monitoring and reviewing progress. Again, without that, we cannot be sure that this legislation will make a difference to the people who matter.

I will make three final points. I recognise that there are perverse issues of finance here because, of course, the NHS pays when people are in hospital and the local authority pays for the services in the community. Of course, that reminds us all of the need to get the social care policy right and the importance, wherever the boundaries fall between public bodies, of using public money wisely across organisations.

In that context, I stress that what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has set out in this amendment is not an unachievable wish list. Even in today’s circumstances, some people are making real progress. Mencap pointed me towards the Black Country’s emergency response team, which noble Lords may know about and which meets many of these criteria for services. In 2022-23, it supported 51 people who were presumably being paid for by the local authority and who might otherwise have been admitted for the equivalent cost of a single assessment and treatment bed, presumably paid for by the NHS. Preventive and good-quality services so often make good financial sense, as well as being better for the people concerned. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with that project but I would certainly encourage her to have a look at it if she has not already done so.

The second point I want to make is that, although I have not actually checked the reference, I believe that the Minister said something at Second Reading about delaying the implementation of some parts of this Bill until the services are in place. I would be grateful if she could say what was meant by that, but also why it is necessary when people can make progress quite quickly.

The Black Country example—and I suspect that there are others—shows that people are making progress and that, in many ways, it is better to have a stretching target that people are moving towards rather than saying, “If you don’t have the services, we won’t implement the legislation”. We need to keep moving forward and show faith both in what this Bill is designed to achieve and in the Government’s agenda on prevention and on moving towards the community. No doubt the digital transformation is also extremely relevant here.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords present for their contributions this evening. Perhaps I can make a general point to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about the main pillars of change which we look forward to in the 10 year-plan. The noble Earl has just referred to one of them, which is the move from analogue to digital. In that context—the noble Baroness raised a point about parity between mental health and physical health—the moves from sickness to prevention, from hospital to community and from analogue to digital apply at least as much to mental health as they do to physical health. That is our way forward. I am looking forward to the 10 year-plan to really give structure to that.

Let me turn to Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. This amendment seeks to ensure that the register under new Section 125D includes autistic children and children with a learning disability who have risk factors for detention, so that they can be supported in the community. We absolutely agree with the intention behind the amendment, although I have to say that it is regarded as unnecessary because the current drafting does not limit the duty to adults; it includes anyone who meets the other criteria, including children, which I know the noble Baroness is rightly looking for. The register is designed to provide health and care bodies with additional information about the needs of those with a learning disability and autistic people who have risk factors for detention under Part II of the Act. That is to ensure there is a particular focus on their needs, so that they can be better supported in the community.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made the observation, which I understand, about too many children being left to reach crisis point and the increase in the number of children in need of mental health services, particularly over the last three years. I very much recognise this concern. We have seen an increase in referrals and access across children’s and young people’s mental health services, including crisis services. This is due to an expansion of the services to meet need but also to an increase in prevalence and intensity. It might be helpful if I indicate that NHS England is in the process of developing proposals for a new model of specialised children’s and young persons’ mental health services, supported by a new service specification and quality standards. This new approach would support delivery of specialised services in the community, as well as in appropriate in-patient settings close to the child’s or young person’s family and home. That is a matter that has been raised many times in this Chamber and one that I am very sympathetic to.

Amendment 22 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. If taken forward, this amendment would require each local authority to assist the integrated care board in its duties in respect of support registers for people with a learning disability and autistic people. We certainly agree with the intent of this, and I am pleased to be able to provide reassurance that the clause already provides the Secretary of State with the general power to make further provision about the register in regulations. We expect this to include detail on how relevant information is to be obtained and from whom. This is to include the role of local authorities, alongside other relevant health and care bodies, in providing further relevant information.

We believe that it is most appropriate to include this detail in regulations rather than in primary legislation, since the way in which information is obtained, what information is obtained and who might be involved may change with emerging best practice. As noble Lords will realise, that point has been made in respect of a number of these amendments. Returning this to Parliament at every instance would be disproportionate.

However, it is important that the process actively involves health and care system partners. We are clear that the integrated care board must retain overall responsibility for the register. Providing a list of named bodies that have a role in providing information in the legislation may create an unintended diffusion of responsibility, which could negate the benefits of putting these registers on a statutory footing.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in mid-flow. She has just explained why it would be wrong to put the process for collecting the data in the Bill, with which I completely agree, but my amendment does not seek to do that. It seeks to make it a legislative requirement of local authorities to be part of the process.

The reason I have tabled the amendment—and I am sure it is the same for the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, in putting her name to it—is that NHS England’s figures say that a lot of people who are admitted to hospital, 52%, are not on the register, but many will have come into contact with the local authority. That is why it is important for the Bill to make local authorities part of the process of identifying who should be on the register. That would subsequently allow the Government to provide statutory guidance about the collection of the data, but it is important that there is a statutory duty in the Bill to do that.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for adding to the points that he made in response to my comments and the assurances that I have just given, and I am happy to review them. I understand the intent.

Amendments 24 and 29, tabled also by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, seek to impose a duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to consider information in the register, or obtained by virtue of this clause, when exercising certain existing functions. I strongly agree with the principles behind these amendments, although it is considered that the current drafting in the clause, which requires both integrated care boards and local authorities to “have regard to” the relevant information, already achieves the intended effect. The common duty to have regard is one that both integrated care boards and local authorities are familiar with and used to applying. In this context, we expect this duty to result in careful consideration being given to the information.

Departing from the wording of a well-established duty could create ambiguity, leaving it to the interpretation of individual integrated care boards and local authorities. As I can see the noble Lord agrees, that would be a very undesirable outcome. It may inadvertently create a weaker duty than that set out in the Bill or lead to variation in interpretation and response to the duties.

If Amendments 25, 26, 30 and 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, were taken forward, they would put a duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to ensure that the needs of people with a learning disability and those who are autistic could be met without detaining them, unless there was a compelling reason why that was not possible. A point was raised, including by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about difficulties in enrolment on dynamic support registers and the need to address that in the Bill. DSRs are part of existing NHS England policy and we have heard that they can be effective in preventing hospital admissions. That is why we propose putting these important registers on a statutory footing and making them a requirement.

The Bill already places duties on integrated care boards and local authorities to seek to ensure that the needs of those with a learning disability and of autistic people can be met without detaining them under Part II. This is a legal requirement to ensure that particular attention is paid to the needs of people with a learning disability and of autistic people, and that services should be commissioned accordingly.

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.

Adult Social Care: Long-term Workforce Plan

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that it is important that we have a workforce built around the needs of patients, rather than patients having to be worked around the needs of the workforce. I certainly hope and intend that, as we go forward, we will see much more of this flexibility. I share her view that time is of the essence and I also know that my noble friend and your Lordships’ House also understand that it is very important that we get this right.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the turnaround rate for social care staff was about 30% last year, so retention is clearly an important issue. However, the Government have not helped the situation since July by cutting £115 million from the adult social care training budget. What will the Government do to mitigate this cut and try to help retention within such a vital service?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Retention is absolutely crucial. I was looking—as I know the noble Lord also does—at the vacancy rates and they are currently running at some 131,000. However, I was interested to note that they are not actually the best measure of capacity, or lack of it, because those vacancies can reflect new roles and short-term vacancies because of anticipated staff turnover. So I have had to rein myself in when looking at the relevance of vacancy rates.

On retention, there is a whole range of factors. In the immediate, I say to the noble Lord that we are professionalising the workforce by expanding the national career structure and have developed and launched a level 2 adult social care certificate qualification.

Health and Adult Social Care Reform

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by echoing the comments made by my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State in the other place in support of all those who worked in the NHS and social care sectors over the Christmas period. They sacrificed their time, which could have been spent with their friends and families, to care for those most in need.

On the NHS app, we support the digitisation of health and care to modernise the NHS, and support digital patient records to allow joined-up health and social care to deliver better outcomes for patients and to inform patients. However, the NHS app already sends appointments and updates on treatment to some patients, while some GP surgeries prefer patients to use their own website, not the app. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on how the updated app will differ and offer up further information to your Lordships’ House. Also, where your GP cannot see you, is the plan to allow all patients to book an appointment with another GP without having to deregister from their current practice and reregister with another practice? Will that be allowed with the updated app? One of the problems was always where there were GPs who could not see their patients but other GPs in the same area had spaces on their lists.

In the Statement, the Secretary of State said:

“We are rewarding trusts that cut waiting times fastest”,


and the carrot of “extra capital investment” is used as an incentive. This appears to make sense, but noble Lords will know that I have always been interested in potential unintended consequences. If the Government reward trusts with extra investment if they cut waiting times fastest, what will happen to those trusts that are not able to cut their lists as quickly? Will they see reduced investment, and will that simply lead to them continuing to perform poorly? What is the solution? Will hit squads—in the best possible terms—be sent in to turn them around? What other plans are there to tackle underperforming trusts which do not qualify for these extra incentives? How do the Government and NHS intend to avoid perverse incentives such as trusts prioritising certain patients over others—not necessarily based on medical needs—to cut waiting times to win this extra cash? How do we avoid that?

On social care, I appreciate the candour of the Statement in acknowledging that Governments of all colours, for decades, have not really dealt with this problem of long-term social care. As my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State said in the other place, we will work with the Government and the commission. However, I will put a few observations to the Minister. For decades, successive Governments have known about the ageing population, and Governments of all colours have commissioned report after report, which mostly gathered dust on the shelf. Although I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, given that most commentators on social care agree that everything to be written about funding social care has already been written, I am curious to know what the Government expect to achieve by initiating yet another commission.

A solution was proposed in the Health and Care Act 2022. Noble Lords welcomed that we finally had a solution but disagreed on some of the details. But we had a solution to which the Treasury agreed. I remember the Opposition criticising the Government not for introducing the social care cap but for not doing it earlier, and they also suggested a number of tweaks. The incoming Government could have tweaked the numbers to address the concerns that they expressed at the time, and they could have grasped the nettle, but I am afraid that the announcement looks like yet another Government kicking the can down the road. So will the Minister write to noble Lords with the terms for the commission led by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey? This time, will the Department of Health and Social Care continue to work with the Treasury to ensure that whatever solution is finally proposed, even if it is likely not to be a new solution, has the agreement of the Department of Health and Social Care, other government departments and the Treasury? If not, it will simply find itself kicking the can down the road yet again when it comes to 2028.

My final point is on how to cut the backlog. These Benches welcome the Government continuing the policy of the last Government in opening new surgical hubs and community diagnostic centres at weekends and evenings. But, when we were in government, we found a potential workforce issue in opening community diagnostic centres at weekends and evenings. Of course, there are only so many staff who can be employed to keep these services open for longer, so have the Government made an assessment of how many staff they envisage will be available to keep these centres open for longer hours? What is the plan? Will it be a redeployment of existing staff, will existing staff be asked to work longer hours and overtime, or will they recruit new staff?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement and can see some positives in the way forward, but we have some reservations about timescales and unintended consequences in the implementation that I would like to explore with the Minister.

On social care, we have already called for cross-party talks, as many noble Lords will know. Social care is in crisis and at a tipping point, and it is an unbearable pressure for many families. But we cannot understand why the review will take until 2028 and full implementation will probably not happen until 2029-30. It is a bit like calling the fire service when your house is on fire and asking it to attend once it is out. So what specific components of this review that are not already in the public domain have the Government already determined will take until 2028 to be dealt with? Will the review tackle all forms of social care, including continuing care and young people’s services?

The NHS elective reform plan marks a significant initiative for reducing waiting times and enhancing patient access to elective care. The plan introduces some welcome measures, but many are not new, such as the expansion of the diagnostic and surgical hubs, increased utilisation of digital platforms such as the NHS app and a commitment to meeting the 18-week referral to treatment standard by the end of this Parliament. Although these proposals are commendable, I have been of the view for many years that elective and emergency care need to be provided in different, and probably separate, ways. Several critical concerns warrant attention to ensure the plan’s success and sustainability.

A primary concern is that the plan focuses predominantly on elective care, potentially overlooking the broader health and social care ecosystem. The Nuffield Trust emphasises that, for the plan to be sustainable, there need to be concurrent reforms in social care, significant investment in community services and attention paid to the determinants of ill health, such as housing and education. The focus on throughput measures will mean that it will be focused purely on those. What outcome measures will be put in place, not just for the quantity and speed of care but for the clinical outcomes for patients?

The emphasis on meeting elective care targets should not overshadow other clinical priorities. It is critical to ensure that resources allocated to elective procedures do not detract from urgent and complex care needs. Indeed, the financial model set out in the plan on tariffs will create incentives to focus on elective cases when budgets are stretched. What measures will be put in place so that the expanded diagnostic and surgical hubs, along with the extra reported 3.5 million procedures in the independent sector, will avoid pulling staff away from urgent care and complicated patient needs? This must be based on a fully costed workforce plan, so when will that be presented?

The plan has been announced with little firm detail on funding, especially considering that the £3 billion ring-fenced for cutting waiting times this financial year will not be available from April. Will this ring-fenced scheme be reintroduced? While we welcome the thrust of this plan, there will be some unintended consequences, and we really need to see a detailed implementation plan to ensure that elective care does not overshadow emergency care and those seeking social care.

Hospice Funding

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I associate myself with the tributes paid to the great contribution that the late Lady Randerson made to this House. She will be sorely missed. In addition to Minister Kinnock meeting major stakeholders, including Macmillan, Together for Short Lives and a number of other organisations and charities to discuss sustainability of funding, Ministers will continue to have discussions with NHS England, because the other area is about getting the money promptly, which has not happened to date. Again, that has caused huge difficulties. We very much look forward to seeing the commission’s findings and recommendations and will look at how we can work to support it.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I add my tributes to Lady Randerson and wish the Minister a happy new year. As welcome as the £100 million in capital is, it will not pay for staff, drugs, heating, lighting, meals or day-to-day services. What are the Minister and the Government going to do to add extra revenue funding to deal with the costs that the hospices are dealing with now?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I mentioned, it has been confirmed that there will be funding for children and young people’s hospices for the forthcoming year, which I know had been hoped for but not actually delivered. I am very glad that the Secretary of State was able to confirm that. On long-term sustainability, Minister Kinnock is very much looking forward to meeting major stakeholders and is working with NHS England to find the best funding mechanism, in respect of the £100 million capital grant and more generally.

NHS: Patients with Allergies

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, for introducing this debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, whom it is a pleasure to follow, for bringing this issue to life with personal stories that go beyond the statistics and bring home exactly what we are talking about today.

Allergy services in the UK are at a critical juncture. As my noble friend Lady Burt said, with more than 21 million people affected, allergies are no longer a niche issue. They represent a public health issue, from life-threatening anaphylaxis to chronic conditions such as allergic eczema. These conditions profoundly impact individuals, families and the NHS yet, despite this growing prevalence, the UK’s allergy care system remains inadequate. The Government must act to bridge these gaps and create a robust, equitable allergy care framework, with the Government and the NHS at the helm of these reforms.

Let us acknowledge the scale of the problem. Hospital admissions for allergic reactions have increased by 615% in the past 20 years. As other noble Lords have said, shockingly, there are only 40 specialist allergists; that is one for every 525,000 patients. For patients, this translates into a postcode lottery of care, with many waiting more than 18 months for appointments. Primary care also faces significant challenges, with most GPs lacking adequate allergy training. This leads to unnecessary referrals, misdiagnosis and poorly managed conditions. The strain is particularly acute for children and young adults. Food allergies, which can be fatal, are rising sharply in children, yet there is a severe lack of specialist support during the critical transition from paediatric to adult services, as other noble Lords have said. What priority will the Government put on these transition services?

The gaps in care are not just a human tragedy; they are an economic burden as well. Allergy care costs the NHS more than £1 billion annually in emergency admissions, prescription costs and referrals. Addressing this crisis requires systematic change, not piecemeal change, with the Government and NHS having to play pivotal roles. I ask the Minister: what will the NHS do urgently to expand the workforce? This includes increasing the number of specialist allergists and immunologists, as well as training GPs and nurses in allergy management.

A promising model was demonstrated in a pilot project by Allergy UK, where nurse-led clinics reduced waiting times from 18 months to just four to eight weeks. Some 95% of cases were managed successfully in primary care, saving not just lives but costs. What is the Government’s view on this pilot being rolled out nationally? Additionally, the Government should allocate targeted funding to recruit and train more allergy specialists.

Investing in allergen immunotherapy services is also critical. Although they are costly up front, these treatments prevent severe reactions and reduce long-term healthcare expenses. As many other noble Lords have said, we need to appoint a national allergies tsar or clinical director to lead a co-ordinated strategy. This role would oversee data collection, resource allocation and policy implementation—and, to put it bluntly, it would knock heads together to make sure that action happens. What is the Government’s view on appointing such a clinical director, and is there a timeframe for doing that?

Empowering primary care is vital to reduce pressure on specialist services. This can be achieved by embedding allergy-trained nurses and dieticians in every integrated care system, as other noble Lords have said. These professionals would manage routine cases, leaving specialists to handle the more complex ones. Where will the move from hospital care to community care fit in within the 10-year plan?

The absence of robust reporting systems for allergic reactions is another glaring gap. A mandatory near-miss reporting system for anaphylaxis, akin to the system in place in Australia, would allow us to identify emerging risks and act upstream. Will the Government look at such a mandatory near-miss reporting system?

Lastly, we must focus on prevention. Early allergen introduction and proactive eczema management in children have been proven to reduce lifelong allergy risks, yet these strategies remain underutilised. Will the Government prioritise funding for education campaigns and preventive measures? Improving allergy services is not just about saving lives; it is about improving the quality of life for millions of people. By investing in specialist care, empowering primary care and adopting preventive strategies, we can take important steps to transform allergy care.

Health: Quad-demic

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We are aiming communications —I know the noble Lord will be familiar with this from his previous role—particularly at groups that are less represented in terms of vaccinations. From my discussions with the national medical director, I do not recognise the reference that the noble Lord made to hospitalisations; they are as I set out in the Answer to my noble friend. However, we are far from complacent and continue to push vaccination. We will get vaccination rates up because they are the best line of defence against infectious diseases.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the chief medical officer at the UK Health Security Agency stated last week that NHS staff should get the flu vaccination. The Government’s own statistics show that last week, in the largest trust in the country, only 7.9% of those eligible had had flu jabs, and on average the number is in the lower 20%. Why has this happened? What are the Government doing urgently to improve the take-up of the flu vaccine by NHS staff?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I must be honest: I cannot explain here the exact reasons why NHS staff are not taking it up, but I assure the noble Lord, as I have assured other noble Lords, that our focus is on getting vaccination rates up. That is why the national medical director made the comments that he did, as well as assuring me that we are not nearing a pandemic.

Physician and Anaesthetist Associate Roles: Review

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a short but useful debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The Question that she laid before the House underlines the lack of balance that she opened with. She asked

“what the review, announced by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 20 November, of the physician associate and anaesthetist associate roles will cover, and what actions they plan to take in advance of the outcome”.

I would hope that if a review of this controversial issue was taking place, it would be considered wise to wait for the evidence and recommendations, not just do something on instinct or limited evidence. Therefore, it is welcome that the Government have opened the Leng review into how physician associates and anaesthetic associates are deployed as part of a team to improve patient outcomes working under the supervision of doctors to support the delivery of medical care.

I thank the approximately 5,000 physician associates and 300 anaesthetist associates who are registered or practising for the professional and dedicated work they do, and the thousands of doctors, nurses and other allied medical professionals of all levels who quietly but professionally and supportively work alongside PAs and AAs as part of the medical team to improve the health of patients.

If I were to think back to when other health professional roles were introduced into healthcare settings when I was managing in the NHS, the issues raised about the work that these healthcare professionals do, and the potential issues that arise, are no different. This is not anything new. What is new is the level of unprofessionalism and hostility that has been shown to these roles.

The lack of respect and the bullying behaviour that some medical leaders within the BMA have decided to adopt when dealing with the issues around the use and deployment of these professionals are not only unacceptable but go against the very GMC regulations that govern you as a doctor. On collaborative working, the regulations say:

“Work effectively … with colleagues in the multidisciplinary team”


and

“respect the skills and contributions”

of all healthcare professionals. Some of the examples of ostracisation, making false claims and bullying at work fall far below what doctors are expected to do and the standards that they are expected to uphold. To that small minority of doctors, I say, “Stop”.

It is clear that PAs and AAs have not had the introduction or supervision that has led to some care being optimal. However, to quote individual cases and then equate the lack of patient safety with all PAs or AAs is neither useful nor correct. The very nature of healthcare is that risk is there and can and does lead to problems. This happens across all professional groups involved in healthcare provision. The issue at hand is whether PAs and AAs have more never events or near misses than other medical and healthcare professionals. Surely, that should be a key line of inquiry to work out the safety of these professions.

Physician associates are mid-level healthcare professionals trained under a medical model to support doctors in diagnosis, treatment planning and patient care. They have a science degree, predominantly, and two years of postgraduate training. PAs can enter the workforce sooner than fully qualified doctors, and, as some evidence suggests, they can make a real difference in relieving pressure on overstretched health services.

The NHS has been using a model of PAs since 2003, and their role has expanded over the years. Yet, despite 20 years of valuable contributions, their integration remains controversial. Some doctors have rightly voiced concerns about their short training period, lack of regulatory authority and potential competition for roles. These concerns deserve thoughtful consideration, which is why the investigation will take place, but they should not overshadow the evidence demonstrating the benefits that PAs and AAs can bring to our healthcare system.

Research led by Professor Vari Drennan and colleagues has provided compelling insights into the effectiveness of PAs across various settings. For instance, an observational study comparing PAs and GPs in primary care found that consultations with PAs resulted in no significant differences in re-consultation rates, diagnostic testing, referrals or patient satisfaction, while maintaining comparable patient outcomes. In secondary care, a BMJ Open study evaluated PAs working in emergency departments alongside doctors in training. It concluded that PAs were equally effective and safe, with no significant differences in clinical adequacy or unplanned re-attendances. What is more, PAs were praised for improving team continuity and efficiency, allowing doctors to focus on more complex cases. These findings demonstrate that PAs can provide high-quality care while addressing staffing mix issues in primary and secondary care settings.

To address the concerns, the new GMC regulation regime will help to deal with some of the genuine issues raised around the scope of practice. I need to be clear, as people keep talking about a national scope of practice. The scope of practice—that people are working within their competence—is down to the individual. That is exactly what the GMC does now with individual doctors. Individuals have to work within their scope of practice, and standards will be laid down by the GMC, which then allows the scope of practice and revalidation to take place. We need to be clear what we are talking about. Along with this new regulatory scheme, there will be professional accountability for education, training and conduct, and it will ensure that individuals undertaking these roles are safe to practise.

Secondly, it would be useful for the NHS to undertake a refreshed national public campaign to raise awareness of PAs and what they do. Some patients still mistake PAs for doctors or nurses, which can lead to confusion and undermine trust and satisfaction. Research conducted in 2021 revealed that a simple information leaflet, co-designed with patients, significantly improved patient understanding of and confidence in PAs. Expanding such initiatives across the NHS would enhance public confidence and empower patients to make informed decisions about their care.

As we move forward, and when the Leng review reports, we must ensure that PAs and AAs are regulated to the highest standards and adequately equipped to perform their roles. Furthermore, improving public understanding of PAs will help their role to be understood more widely by the public.

With these measures in place and other recommendations that will emanate from the review, PAs and AAs will not only help, as part of a modern medical team, to address the future demands of patients but, if the review identifies the key changes required and the Government act on them, become a vital part of a resilient NHS. I hope we can all embrace the opportunity to support our health service and improve patient care.

NHS Plan: Consultation

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend: we have to hear from unpaid carers, because that will strengthen the exercise. We are constantly monitoring which groups are responding and which are not, and that allows us to tailor our approach to the underrepresented groups who are not coming forward. If that includes unpaid carers, the consultation absolutely will make special, tailored efforts to reach them.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the life expectancy of people with learning disabilities is, on average, 20 years less than the general population’s. Research has shown that a major contributor to this is a lack of access to appropriate healthcare. What will the Minister do to ensure that this group of people will be not only consulted but listened to, and that the 10-year plan will provide appropriate services tailored to them?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This is indeed one of the groups for whom we need to ensure absolute inclusion. As I mentioned, the work with integrated care systems will be particularly helpful in running the workshop. We train organisations to work with it, and it is designed so that it is easy to use. It can be used in events to reach the seldom-heard voices in communities, including those with learning disabilities. It is vital that we hear from them as we design an NHS fit for everybody for the future.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Scriven Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, who was the MP for the constituency I lived in when I was a student. In those days, I campaigned against him, but, from listening to his speech today, I am sure that we will campaign together in Committee on some of the reforms that may be required in the Bill.

This Bill is a welcome direction of travel for mental health legislation in the United Kingdom, but it is only an extra stop. As other noble Lords have said, sometimes we have to look at the bus we are on—the underlying legislation. That bus was built when I was 17 years old, if we go back to the 1983 legislation, and it had its last MOT 17 years ago, in terms of its amendments. I believe that, although these measures are welcome, there is still a fundamental issue in terms of the basis of what we are traveling on. I understand the problems with that.

The questions we are really asking in this Bill are quite limited in the sense of the balance between individual freedoms and public protection when it comes to the detention of individuals. Because we look at such legislation infrequently, we must do our best in Committee to ensure that the balance is at its best and that, wherever we can, we take a person-centred, rights-based approach to this legislation. Having said that, there are some pleasing points in the Bill, including the tightening of the criteria for the detention and compulsory treatment of individuals. It is welcome that the four key principles are mentioned but it is a shame that they are not on the face of the Bill and are down as guidance only. It is important that those of us who really support the principles fight for them to be on the face of the Bill in Committee.

The advance choice documents are a welcome provision but, as many noble Lords have said, they need to be fully accessible 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to those who care for people who have given an advance choice document. I question why they are only for people aged 18 and over. If we are looking at Gillick competence, there are issues around those who are younger, who should be able to provide an advance choice document. I worry that they are not a right or a duty but are only to be given as a consideration.

I welcome the right to a nominated trusted individual but many people who have been involved in healthcare will know that it is not just about having that person as a right; it is about the way in which professionals listen to them and carry out the advocacy that they provide. I am not sure, as we start with this Bill, that the balance is correct; I believe that certain issues will have to be addressed in Committee.

I have also looked at the potential implementation of the Bill. It is always good to start with the impact assessment. It has in it some quite startling issues that I think we will want to look at in Committee. For example, community treatment orders are not meant to change for at least another seven years, but the implementation start is in seven years. The existing CTO regime will last for another seven years and, from the Government’s impact assessment, it looks as though the new regime will start in seven years at the earliest.

I will come back to people with learning difficulties and autism in a second, but the implementation of the measures for them not to be held for more than 28 days and for other provision in the community to have to be available will be in three years’ time, according to the impact assessment. However, there is no money in the next two years to start to provide for those community facilities. It is as though they will come on stream the second the implementation date is reached; I question the Government’s planning on that and whether it is a realistic adaptation for people with learning difficulties and autism.

My passion and focus in Committee will probably be learning disabilities and autism, because they are personal to me. I have close family members who are loving and warm but very misunderstood by those who do not have a close relationship with them. It is scandalous that, in 2024, having those labels attached to you means that you could be detained under the Mental Health Act for more than 28 days. I welcome the fact that the Bill’s provisions will move away from Section 3 and towards Section 2 detention, but I worry that it will not stop detention of people with learning disabilities or autism. For example, DoLS will be used, because these people are misunderstood. The legislation in itself will not change what happens to them. Individuals who are seen not as a threat but as difficult will be detained. As other noble Lords have said, fused legislation needs to be used to ensure that those individuals are not detained using different pieces of legislation.

As other noble Lords have said, it is also worrying that people with learning disabilities or autism who are under a Section 2 detention or detained under the Mental Capacity Act will not have access to Section 117 community facilities. It is quite fascinating that the very things under Section 117 that need to be in place to ensure that these people are not detained are the very facilities that they do not have a statutory right to. That needs to be looked at in this legislation.

There are many things to welcome, but many further questions need to be asked and drawn out, particularly regarding some of the contradictions in different parts of the legislative process on mental health provision within the UK and around the rights-based approach, which the Government seem not to have in place. We will want to explore that as we go forward.