Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Some reassurance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that this will be looked at, rather than overlooked, would make me feel that this major social phenomenon is not going to be swept under the carpet—because I think it will negatively impact on the implementation of the Bill.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, she mentioned autism several times, but the whole purpose of the Bill is to remove autism and learning disability from mental health, where it previously was. In fact, I served on the Bill Committee, as did others in the Chamber, in 2005-06, when I was really opposed to autism being added to the 1983 Act. But it was added, and now it is being taken out, I am very pleased to say.

I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that there is a piece of legislation about this on the statute book: the Autism Act 2009, which is being reviewed by the House at the moment. Autism is not some fad, something that people just make up, or something temporary; it is a lifelong neurological condition. I raise the failure to provide the right services for people with autism who are in that part of the spectrum where they need support. Not everybody does: it is a spectrum, and I quite agree that there are people on the spectrum who cope quite well with life, knowing that they have autism and not needing that sort of support. We have discussed that support a lot in the course of this particular Bill, and if you do not provide it where it is needed—this is the weakness that we are looking at in the current Autism Act—that leads to quite serious mental health conditions, including suicide. Of all the conditions that the noble Baroness mentioned, among the autistic community the suicide rate is the highest.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I genuinely appreciate that intervention. That is what I think too. It is precisely the inappropriate use of terms such as autism in relation to this overdiagnosis that concerns me, because it is too glibly used. That is part of what I am talking about. I absolutely want those people who need the intervention to get it, but my concern is if it becomes widely used socially, in the way that I did not want to go into in great detail, on university campuses or in society in general. I note the TikTok phenomenon of people getting diagnoses and that being used, and so on. My concern is that the label, the labelling process and the demand for diagnosis and treatment squeeze out the very people that the noble Baroness is talking about.

I too have spent many years trying to distinguish between autism and mental illness. It drives me mad that people do not know the difference. My problem is that, in the debate about this issue, they are very often all lumped together in a way that is medically not clarifying, but the demand for a medical label can mean that people are not even that choosy about which one they get. That is where I have tried to raise an issue.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

I am very grateful for that response. The noble Baroness said that autism is different; it certainly is different, which is why it has its own Act of Parliament.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, as I said on the previous group, I will start by speaking to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the ability of the CQC to effectively fulfil its role

“in carrying out its duties under the Mental Health Act 1983, and … in regulating the provision of mental health services”.

We have also included proposed new subsection (3), which would ensure that the review of the CQC’s functions will also include an assessment of whether it will be able to “effectively carry out” its new duties under the Bill.

As the Minister will know, in May 2024, Dr Penny Dash was commissioned to conduct the independent review of the operational effectiveness of the CQC. The full report, published in October, found

“significant failings in the internal workings of CQC which have led to a substantial loss of credibility within the health and social care sectors, a deterioration in the ability of CQC to identify poor performance and support a drive to improved quality—and a direct impact on the capacity and capability of both the social care and the healthcare sectors to deliver much needed improvements in care”.

In addition, my noble friend Lord Howe raised the issues arising from his meetings with the charity Blooming Change on a number of occasions. It has raised serious concerns about the CQC’s monitoring activity. We also know that the Secretary of State himself has claimed that the CQC is not fit for purpose, and that there are some fundamental issues with how the CQC oversees the mental health care system.

As we have heard from other noble Lords, one solution would be to have an independent mental health commissioner. Our solution is to call for a review of the CQC that specifically focuses on its mental health functions, to make sure that it does its job properly. The review conducted by Dr Dash comprehensively assessed the CQC’s ability to regulate primary, secondary and community care, but it did not focus on the sufficiency of mental health care regulation. I thank the Minister for the brief meeting with my noble friend and me earlier this week, in which she indicated that she would be able to give greater assurances on this particular issue. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on it, because this is part of our justification for not supporting the mental health commissioner: we want to see a strengthened CQC. We do not want duplication, but, in avoiding duplication, we want to make sure that the CQC does the job it is supposed to do. I hope I can get that assurance from the Minister when she speaks.

I have some sympathy with Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in line with the comments of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, but I also have some sympathy with what the Secretary of State said. We thought about whether we could find an appropriate amendment to table on this. We have to be very careful and sensitive about this issue: we in Parliament or officials in Whitehall cannot hope to pronounce on the issues individuals face in their homes or communities. It is about getting the balance right.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also spoke about the concerns about overdiagnosis, but we cannot just make a generalisation. We have to make sure that the mental health professionals are doing their job, with the right guidance, to ensure that we understand the needs of each individual. For that reason, I thought it was far too difficult—and it would have been insensitive —for me to lay an amendment on this topic. I did not want to go there for that reason. This is an issue that has to be discussed, but we have to do it in the most appropriate way—in a sensitive way that understands those who suffer seriously from mental health conditions.

Let me turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. She and I have both raised the issue of racial disparities. In Committee, I went in very strongly on it—this is the issue that matters to me personally very much, and I shared some of my own experience of racial discrimination. I am as frustrated as everyone else that we still have not resolved the problem to this day; we still do not understand why, disproportionately, black men in particular are subject to detentions and community treatment orders. I asked questions at the time. What do we know? What do we not know? What are we doing to fill that knowledge gap? Once we have filled that knowledge gap, what are we going to do about it? Once again, I thank the Minister and her officials for the detailed meetings that they had with us when they laid out some of the things that they are doing. Could I tempt her to share with noble Lords some of that discussion and her letter, to assure us all that the Government really are on top of that issue, know what they are doing and are going to address these problems?

I was unsure about how effective the provision in Amendment 49 would be. I know that it is not very fashionable for politicians to say, “I don’t know”; we are supposed to make a firm decision one way or the other and agree or strongly disagree. But I wanted to reflect on whether that amendment would represent an additional burden on the healthcare professional, additional cost or additional bureaucracy. Given that we cannot, at this stage, say for sure how this will turn out, I support the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, to pilot a scheme of a senior responsible person to address racial disparities. If we could pilot it in some places, it would give us the data to understand whether a responsible person would be effective in addressing those disparities. We all know that more needs to be done. We have had successive Governments of all political colours, and we still have not solved this problem. Let us be determined, as a House, whichever party we are, to tackle this problem of racial disparities, and let us make sure that we do it in the most effective way.

I am grateful for what the Minister said on Monday, but I hope that she will give some consideration to what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said about piloting a responsible person to see whether that works. Maybe it will not work, but at least we would have the data and evidence. I would appreciate the Minister giving a more detailed explanation of some of the research that is being conducted to fill that gap, so we can understand why there are still racial disparities and what Governments of any political colour would have to do to address them.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

1: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005: autism and learning disability
(1) In Schedule 1A to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, paragraph 2, after the last line of the table, insert—

“Case F

P has autism or a learning disability and is not subject to any of the mental health regimes

See paragraph 5A”

(2) In Schedule 1A to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, paragraph 5, at end insert—
“5A (1) This paragraph applies in Case F in the table in paragraph 2.
(2) P is ineligible if the following conditions are met.
(3) The first condition is that P objects to being—
(a) admitted for treatment as a mental health patient, or
(b) given some or all of the mental health treatment.
(4) The second condition is that a donee or deputy has not made a valid
decision to consent to each matter to which P objects.
(5) In determining whether or not P objects to something, regard must be had to all the circumstances (so far as they are reasonably ascertainable), including the following—
(a) P’s behaviour,
(b) P’s wishes and feelings, and
(c) P’s views, beliefs and values.
(6) But regard is to be had to circumstances from the past only so far as it is still appropriate to have regard to them.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt, Case F and this paragraph do not apply to determine P’s ineligibility in respect of admission for assessment of mental disorder.””
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 would prevent the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards scheme being used to replace detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act for people with learning difficulties or autism who do not have a mental health condition.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1, which is in my name, and then to Amendment 4, in the same group, to which I have added my name.

Amendment 1 is exactly the same amendment that I tabled in Committee. I have brought it forward yet again because I felt it was so important and I did not feel that we went into as much detail as we should have to recognise the real challenge that the Mental Capacity Act could have to the Mental Health Act, as amended by the Bill we are debating. I am enormously grateful to the Minister; she has not only had a one-to-one meeting with me specifically about this clause but has sent me a letter. I hope it will be appropriate for me to quote some of it.

I am concerned, as are others, including many charities—I refer to the charities I am registered to in the record—such as the National Autistic Society, Mencap and of course the Law Society, which I am grateful to for drafting this particular amendment. There is a difficulty with the Mental Capacity Act. Under the Bill, we wish to prevent people with autism and learning disabilities who have no additional identified mental health condition being deprived of their liberty—they should not be. The worry is that the existing Mental Capacity Act will be used instead to take away their liberty and admit them to a mental health hospital. We know the history in this area, which we have debated many times in this House.

In my discussion with the Minister, I raised with her the fact that the NHSE service model for commissioners sets this out very clearly. At 4.3, it says:

“Alternative short term accommodation (available for a few weeks)”—


we are talking about just a few weeks—

“should be available to people, as and when it is needed, to be used in times of crisis or potential crisis as a place where they can go for a short period, preventing an avoidable admission into a hospital setting. It might also provide a setting for assessment from teams providing intensive multi-disciplinary health and care support (see principle 7) where that assessment cannot be carried out in the individual’s home”.

I think we all recognise that there will be some circumstances under which people will not be able to remain wherever they are, in either their domestic home or their normal place of residence. But, none the less, there should be alternatives to them being admitted to a mental health hospital.

To detain them under the Mental Capacity Act and the DoLS—deprivation of liberty safeguards—has other consequences. Those rights in the Mental Capacity Act include the rights of the nearest relative or nominated person to object to discharge, accessible and automatic referrals to tribunals, independent reviews of medical treatment, statutory care and treatment plans, and of course Section 117 aftercare. So it is not a question just of the Mental Capacity Act being used to deprive people of their liberties; there are associated issues that almost take away even more rights from the individual.

As I mentioned, the Minister and I have discussed this in some detail and I am very grateful to her for agreeing in her letter to me, first, that she has concern—I believe she has genuine concern—about this area. In order to mitigate what might happen under the Mental Capacity Act, she has shared something with me in her letter. I hope this does not seem impertinent, but it is such a good letter and I hope she will put it in the Library, because I am sure it would be of interest to many people in the House. She gave me a lot of data about how the Government are already making sure, and will continue to make sure, that there is proper monitoring of people who are detained under the Mental Capacity Act who may have autism or a learning disability but who do not have an associated mental health condition.

In bold letters, the letter says:

“Ahead of the changes to Part 2, Section 3, we commit to monitoring the data on the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people detained under the MCA”—


Mental Capacity Act—

“and will include a line on this in our standard publications”.

The existing data shows that the number is very few—it is in single figures. But, although it is in single figures, the Act that we hope to put on the statute book does not want anybody: we do not want even one person detained, as they have been previously. We hope that the Mental Capacity Act will not be used.

In addition to this commitment in bold from the Minister in this letter, I am half-comforted, because the other half of the equation is what happens if people are to stay in the community but in specialised environments and with specialised staff to deal with what might be a crisis. We have mentioned that, with autistic people, there could be a meltdown, which can be quite traumatic for the individual and for the people around them dealing with them, but is not a psychotic incident—an autistic meltdown is not a psychotic incident and it does not warrant automatic admission to a mental health hospital. How are we to identify suitable places when these facilities are needed? Again, the Minister has made commitments to the services that should be available in the community for people with autism and learning disabilities to make sure that those services and facilities are available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I have heard from noble Lords that they are concerned with having transparency, holding the Government to account and being updated on the situation. I absolutely agree with all those points, which is why I am pleased to make that commitment. Parliament has a number of routes available to it to hold the Government to account. I have just outlined the manner in which we will be transparent and the way the Government will be held to account by having to do that. As always, parliamentarians have the ability to scrutinise in many ways.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard a lot of very salient and not just helpful but wise words in the debate on this group of amendments. I thank the Minister for standing at the Dispatch Box and making commitments that are now on the record with this Bill. When people ask what Parliament’s intention was, she has left us in no doubt on some important points, particularly on my amendment concerning the need to monitor the use of the Mental Capacity Act in respect of autistic people and people with learning disabilities. I am grateful that she has done that and for a similar commitment I think I heard her make around some of the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, had.

Finally, the Minister has not given us exact dates as to when implementation will take place. We imagine it may be staged—not all in one go—but before the end of this year, the committee upstairs will report on the post-legislative scrutiny of the Autism Act. That will cover a wide range of issues, particularly services to people with autism. I hope that, perhaps in her deliberations on this Bill, when she sees that report—I cannot predict what the outcome of that will be—she will take those into account as well. For certain, services provided under the Autism Act, if they are provided in a timely way, will reduce the number of services that will be needed under the Mental Health Act. It is not rocket science; it is pretty basic that if you provide those services, that downward spiral in mental health is reduced. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, having heard the concerns of noble Lords in Committee around the placement of children and young people, we want to go further than when we started. It is a statutory requirement for CQC to be notified when a person under 18 is placed in an adult psychiatric unit for longer than 48 hours. CQC takes action to assess risk and ensure the child is being safeguarded. Government Amendment 46 will now require the Secretary of State to review whether current notification requirements should be extended to other incidents and whether the 48-hour time period remains appropriate. A report on the findings of this review must be laid before Parliament within two years.

I am also pleased to announce today that NHS England will use existing powers under the NHS Act 2006 to require ICBs to provide information, first, on accommodation or facilities for patients under the age of 18 and, secondly, on any incidents where a person under the age of 18 is placed in a setting that is clinically appropriate but is outside of the natural clinical flow or not in a specialised children and young people’s mental health ward. Those requirements will be set out in the new service specification and made clear in the revised code of practice. Collecting this information is crucial to enable NHS England to monitor and minimise risk and make the case for changes in local capacity to meet population needs.

Finally, I am pleased to announce that we will lay regulations under existing powers to require ICBs to provide information that CQC reasonably requests and to publish an action statement where directed to do so by CQC. This will strengthen CQC oversight of how it monitors the application of the Act in local areas, such as the duty on ICBs under Section 140 to notify local authorities specifying hospitals where arrangements are in place for the provision of accommodation and facilities for children and young people. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to clarify something, as the Minister has referred quite a lot to NHS England and its role going into the future. My understanding is that there is a sea change due at NHS England. How can we be sure that some of these roles, which are very important to this Act, will still be there and that they will be the people who will be responsible?

--- Later in debate ---

Can the Minister reassure me that, in parallel with the review that the amendment is heralding, there will be a concerted effort to look at these other dimensions of the issue, whether that involves updating the mental health code of practice, the training of staff or, perhaps more fundamentally—recalling our debate on the first group today—what needs to be done in many more areas of the country to provide in-patient or outreach mental health services that are suitable for children and young people? It is the absence of such facilities in the first instance that gives rise to the problems that we are now discussing. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I added my name to this amendment, but I of course support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Meston—it is urgent to have an answer to that when the Bill proceeds.

I support all that my noble friend on the Front Bench said about children in adult wards, but I particularly focus on his request for attention to out-of-area placements. We know, from many of the cases that, sadly, we have had to debate in this House, that, when people are detained unduly—almost as though they are placed somewhere and the keys are thrown away—it is all too often because they are well away from their home base and from convenient visiting by relatives, and, as my noble friend said, often far away local authorities that might have had some sort of overview of them previously.

This is very difficult. We know that local authorities are stretched financially, and, presumably, keeping an eye on what is happening to somebody who has gone well out of their area has a clear cost implication. None the less, we are talking about children. Therefore, I support my noble friend and I hope the Minister will find a way forward to support these children.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords across the House for their contributions during the debate on this group, the last of the evening. I am glad that both Front Benches welcome government Amendment 46, albeit I heard the noble Earl, Lord Howe, say that he had hoped that we would go further. I am glad that the other commitments made at the start of the debate were welcomed.

Amendment 58 was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. We agree with the intention of this amendment but do not believe that placing more limitations and prescriptions in legislation is the best vehicle to reduce the placement of children in certain settings.

In Committee, I set out existing measures to address and monitor this issue. The latest data from the CQC’s Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2023/24 report shows that it was notified of 120 instances where a person under the age of 18 was admitted to an adult ward, which was a 38% decrease compared to 2022-23. I committed to set out guidance in the revised code on the process to determine whether a placement is in a child’s best interests, and to ensure that safeguards are in place. NHSE will also do this in the new service specification—I will return to this point for the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I hope that the additional commitments we have made in this debate show that the Government take this matter seriously and that we are committed to continuing to work on and address this issue.

To the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, made about NHSE, I assure her that, as we work to bring the two organisations together—NHSE and DHSC—we will ensure that we continue to evaluate impacts of all kinds and that the functions currently undertaken by NHSE will continue along with that change. It will take some two years for the full process, including legislation, to take effect. However, admin changes are happening more immediately. The main thing of which I want to assure the noble Baroness is that the change into the future will not affect the commitments that we have given; they will continue, and without duplication.

Before I turn to Amendment 51, I will go back to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who asked whether we would undertake a concerted effort to look at other directions of the issue, such as training and suitable in-patient or outreach mental health services. In response, I can say that, subject to securing further investment, NHS England is developing a new model for specialised children and young people’s mental health services, which will be supported by a new service specification and quality standards. The priority for these services is to transform and expand community services to make sure that there are local accessible community alternatives and to reduce the need for admission and dependency on in-patient beds, as well as reducing the length of stay and keeping young people closer to home. I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that we are in the same place on this and that it is a matter of actually putting it into action.

I return to Amendment 51, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and spoken to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and other noble Lords. We believe that the Mental Health Act is not the appropriate legislative vehicle to set out a statutory test for competence for under-16s, and nor would it be appropriate to seek to establish a test in a single setting. We are not satisfied that the possible implications for mental health in other settings where Gillick is applied have yet been fully explored.

The principle of Gillick competence is established in case law, as noble Lords will be aware, not statute. Any statutory test should reflect existing case law and would not necessarily override the application of Gillick outside the Act. The design of the test is partly aligned with the tests set out in the Mental Capacity Act. There is no consensus in the courts, as noble Lords will be aware, on whether it is appropriate to apply these tests to test competence in children under 16.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised the question of unintended consequences, to which I am able to respond. The creation of any test that does not consider the interaction with existing case law could inadvertently limit the ability of children detained under the Act to exercise choice and autonomy under their care and treatment. Those are the concerns about unintended consequences.

We are also greatly concerned that, in seeking to provide clarity on assessing competence in mental health settings, two different tests could be created. This is likely to cause further confusion and a risk of legal challenge for decision-makers in mental health settings, potentially in any setting where Gillick is applied. This could have unintended consequences—I use that phrase again—for the ability of children to exercise choice and autonomy, as I have already mentioned, which I hear is counter to the noble Lord’s intention.

The noble Lord will understand that we cannot comment on or prevent how, as I say, courts will interpret the test or whether there will be further calls for similar tests. The courts may even go as far as to apply this test in other settings. That is what we mean when we say the introduction of a test for decisions under the Act will or may cause confusion and uncertainty in other settings. We do not think the consequences of this have been given proper consideration, nor can this risk be appropriately mitigated. We will consult on the statutory guidance for assessing competence in mental health settings, as I have mentioned, in the revised code of practice. I hope that will meet the intention to provide further clarity.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked what additional support would be provided to clinicians in engaging with children and young people, as we are rejecting this amendment. The Mental Health Act code of practice already provides guidance on establishing competence in under-16s. As I have said, we will consult on the guidance in the revised code of practice. I also re-emphasise that we feel it is better to focus on improving the practical application of Gillick rather than create or risk further confusion.

I hear that there are differences of opinion. While I am sure that what I say will not completely satisfy noble Lords who have raised concerns, I hope it gives a sense of where we have got to and the reasons. I therefore hope that these reasons will convince noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Food, Diet and Obesity Committee Report

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Friday 28th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Like him, I pay tribute to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; she has been such an excellent chair of a committee that was both very interesting and very worrying to serve on.

Our committee covers food, diet and obesity, but today I will mainly focus on food, and food insecurity in particular. We know that food insecurity is really about the affordability and accessibility of food; if that is not present, it is the driver of unhealthy diets. I want to talk about our relationship as human beings with food. I am not talking about packets, tins, what comes out the freezer and cooking it; it is about eating and handling food, and it is sometimes about growing and shopping for food. It is part of the human condition—and I am talking here about real food.

Chapter 7 of our report says:

“Food insecurity is an urgent problem”.


Of course, the poorer people are, the more that adds to this urgency. In the Government’s response to our report, particularly to chapter 7, they talk about the strategy that has already been mentioned today. Page 5 states:

“In alignment with the health mission, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs … is developing an ambitious food strategy that will set the food system up for long-term success and will provide wide ranging improvements. The food strategy will help to improve our food system so it … provides healthier, more easily accessible food to tackle obesity and give children the best start in life, and help adults live longer healthier lives, building on the government’s existing work to tackle obesity and improve health”.


Today, I would like to hear more about this strategy from the Minister. We have heard that the advisory board is in place. I would like to know a lot more about what its terms of reference are and how the Government will make sure that what they have asked the board to do is what comes out at the other end. It must be cross-departmental—because this whole subject involves more than just one department—but led by Defra.

Now that the board is in place, the Government should know by now whether the strategy’s work will encourage more food to be grown and produced in the UK. Will it look at that? Is that one of the objectives of the strategy? I say that not out of some quirky, old-fashioned nationalism, but as a former Agriculture Minister, and somebody who represented a truly agricultural seat for 18 years, and as a former home economist who has taught many people, including adults, to cook. Will we have the availability of the ingredients and products from which we would all benefit if they were grown closer to home rather than on the other side of the world?

Will this strategy encourage both children and adult communities to grow the food they eat? Will allotments, for example, be protected from land to build on? If this is cross-departmental, are we actually going to start engaging the public with the very food they need throughout the course of their lives? We know that many schools, for example, support gardening and growing things, which help to introduce children in a most positive way to food that will be part of their lives. Will this strategy improve the population’s understanding of basic nutrients in food so that people know what to look for when they are shopping? Will they understand the labelling? All these things are small in their way, but they contribute to the way in which people address and see the food that appears in their kitchens.

I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to hear me ask this: is the teaching of cookery going to be improved in schools? In a former existence—as the president of the Institute of Home Economics—I campaigned very hard for many years with Governments of all persuasions to encourage this basic science in schools. It is a science and it is so essential. Will the strategy mean that from childhood to adulthood the population’s relationship with food improves to the extent that it once again becomes an essential life skill that is enjoyable, healthy and accessible? If the Minister cannot say exactly what she thinks will come out at the end of this strategy, can she at least share the timescale with us? The word “soon” was used in the Government’s January response to our report. How soon is “soon”? How will the strategy be monitored? Who will do this? Will any legislation needed at the outturn be given priority for parliamentary time? There are recommendations for legislation in our report, but if a recommendation for legislation comes from the strategy, will that be given priority?

I wish the Minister well with this, and I know she will be listening to what we have to say today.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very limited amendment. It aims to prompt ICBs to ensure that there are adequate placements for those with severe eating disorders—both those who are sectioned and those who are not sectioned. There is a need for this because general acute mental health hospitals are not appropriate if we are going to ensure the best outcomes for people with eating disorders, and there are far too few beds out there at the moment.

Let us address that last point first. In the UK, at the moment, there are 450 adult beds—that is a combination of NHS and private beds—and less than half that number for children. However, last year there were 30,000 hospitalisations for people with eating disorders, which is a fourfold increase on 2010, when there were 7,000. This means that people are being placed in inappropriate settings, be that in general acute hospitals, the general hospital down the road, or in out-of-area placements. All of those will deliver non-optimal recovery rates and result in more costs in the long term to the country, as well as greater suffering for individuals and their families and carers.

It is pretty obvious to most people that eating disorders require specialist staff—it is not rocket science. People with very severe eating disorders, sectioned or otherwise, will often need nasogastric tube feeding, which is a specialist skill, and there will be issues around avoiding refeeding syndrome, along with the cardiac risk. It is very clear why there is a need for specialist staff. The APPG on Eating Disorders did a recent report on this, The Right to Health, which looked at why specialist eating disorder nurses are required. Those provisions are not in general mental health hospitals, or indeed in the general physical health hospital down the road. It is pretty clear to most people that you need specialist staff.

What is probably not so clear, if you are not familiar with eating disorders, is that the physical constraints of a general mental health facility are not appropriate or optimal for people with eating disorders. If you have a severe eating disorder, you need feeding six times a day. People who are very anxious about eating will need to be supervised, one to one, in a calm environment. That is not what you get in a general mental health facility. Those people will then need to be supervised, one to one, for a period after meals, to help them to keep that food, again in a calm and spacious environment where they can be managed one to one. Those individuals will all have diets, weekly prepared especially for them, which will require a specialist canteen. Not only will you need staff to facilitate the provisions of those meals but you will need an area where people with eating disorders can be helped over a period of weeks to refamiliarise themselves with preparing food and to not be anxious about touching or preparing food—so you will need a second kitchen. The provisions in a general mental health facility are not optimal for people with specialist eating disorders. The legislation as it stands asks ICBs to focus only on general mental health facilities.

I am not making the case that eating disorder sufferers are somehow special—please do not think that. I am just making the case that they are different. For too long, they have not had a focus on their needs, which is why we have so few eating disorder beds in this country at the moment. This is probably a very poor attempt, but it is my attempt to ensure that ICBs are given a gentle nudge by the Government to do what I think the Government want to do—which is to treat the majority of people with eating disorders in the community but, for those who require beds, ICBs must at the appropriate time ensure that there are such beds. We must not rely on general mental health facilities, which will not produce the outcomes that we need. I beg to move.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on the particular point that she raises about eating disorders in her amendment and on a more general point.

In an earlier debate, I tried to make the case that people being diagnosed with autism by clinicians should be seen by clinicians who specialise in autism. I was reminded of this very much when the Minister, responding to an earlier amendment this afternoon, talked about parity of esteem in the health service between the physical health support provided and that for mental health. In the world of physical health, if you were to see an orthopaedic consultant, you would not necessarily see the same consultant, depending on the condition that you had. The same applies today with cardiology, whereby cardiologists now have more specialisms within that and you would therefore see the appropriate person. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the facilities that go along with such specialised treatment and assessment are very important.

I put it to the Minister, prompted by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and by the Minister’s own words, that it really is about time that, with regard to mental health as a generic term, whatever the condition, we stop—as they did even within my lifetime—locking people up in some old Victorian institution where they all get the same treatment, facilities and so on. Today, with our increased knowledge of mental health and of medication for mental health, and with the increased number of specialisms that we are now aware of, particularly around eating disorders, it is really about time, if there is truly to be parity of esteem, that mental health is treated as physical health is treated, and that the specialisms that occur and the specialists there to work within those specialisms are given weight within legislation so that facilities and specialists can be provided—because we know that they are not.

At the heart of the Bill before us is the fact that we are taking autism and learning disabilities out of the Mental Health Act 1983, in which they were all treated the same—lumped in together and treated by the same clinicians, whether they had a specialism in that area or not. This is a real opportunity for the Minister and the Government to make sure that there is true parity of esteem and that conditions such as eating disorders are respected and treated in the way in which they should be.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I remember a specific case of a friend’s 17 year-old daughter who was suffering from an eating disorder. She had to go into hospital, where she was not treated at all well; she was criticised for not eating—the very thing she had gone into hospital to get help for. She did not for quite some time get any specialised help on how to deal with her eating disorder. This amendment would deal with that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I too was pleased to add my name to Amendments 155 and 156 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She has already spoken on this subject, and it would be remiss of me not to say that the title of the report she mentioned, My Heart Breaks—which is of course in her name and authorship—was chosen for a purpose. This is a heartbreaking situation, and on the piece of paper I am holding in my hand, headed GOV.UK, it says: My Heart Breaks—Solitary Confinement in Hospital Has No Therapeutic Benefit for People With a Learning Disability and Autistic People.

As we have heard, it is not just that it is not therapeutic; it is actually harmful. On the terminology, other speakers have already spelled out why they have dumbed down the real raw facts of the language that they use to describe this type of incarceration—for that is what it is. It reminds one of prisons. Look at the legal structures needed to put somebody into a prison, yet people who are ill are treated in the same way as prisoners.

I remember visiting a school for autistic children many years ago. It had a single room where they took children who were having a meltdown. It was a padded room, and they felt that was the appropriate treatment for children. We know, from the many debates in this House about people who have been held for extended periods in mental health hospitals, the damage it does and the difficulties when these practices are in place.

Ironically, this does not happen everywhere. You have to ask why it happens in some institutions and not in others. There is an answer to that. It is not because of a different profile of patients in these two different types of settings but because in some places they understand the problem and have sufficient training and resources. Training of personnel, particularly senior personnel, is key. If the person in charge says, “This is what we are going to do”, very few people in the structure below them are going to challenge it, so that is what they do and it becomes the norm.

Fifteen months ago the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, produced this report, which now bears government approval and GOV.UK and the Department of Health and Social Care on it. It is now really time for the Government to adopt the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and her recommendations. It is a wealth of experience that we can only admire, and I urge the Minister to please accept these recommendations. They come from the very highest level. We are very lucky in this House to have the expertise of my dear friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly and on a slightly related topic. I want to talk about a different group of people who are in long-term segregation who are not sectioned and often do not get mentioned—prisoners. Long-term segregation is used when very mentally ill people in prison are not transferred to hospital and nobody knows what to do with them. They are put into isolation and left there, psychotic, delusional and forgotten—dumped, in effect.

The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, alluded to prisons, but even prisoners should not be treated like prisoners sometimes. The confusion and conflation of punishment and treatment outside prison is no less shocking when it is inside prison. You are not meant to punish somebody doubly because they are in prison and happen to get ill.

The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, has made the point that the segregation units are completely unsuitable for people who are severely unwell. They are also a significant drain on the hard-pressed staff, because very often the restraints are of people literally going out of their mind. They are not getting any medical intervention at all. According to the chief inspector, it requires multiple officers to unlock the cells even just to deliver meals.

Is it possible for the Minister to give any thoughts on that? Also, in a way, this is an appeal to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—if she takes this amendment forward—to bring that into the situation, even though I know I am slightly squeezing it in because I have Amendment 160A on reviewing prisons.

On Amendment 146 and the use of force, I absolutely agree with the mover of the amendment in relation to the need to keep records. That is obvious. I suppose the nightmare for us all is the misuse of force. It is horrifying—the stuff of nightmares—when people are ill.

I do not want to be naive. I know that when people are very ill and very psychotic, sometimes appropriate force is necessary; I just think it needs to be recorded. When I say force, I obviously do not mean violence or anything not within the realms of professional intervention. Sometimes I think we forget how ill people can be and how violent and how difficult it is for the people who work with them. We should record every instance of the use of force but be wary of demonising or damning every use of it, because it is not quite as simple as that.

Valdo Calocane: NHS England Report

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

The Minister will know from the Mental Health Bill discussions that there is quite a strong feeling about the abolition of community treatment orders, which were introduced into the 1983 Act by the 2007 amendments. I had reservations about them when I sat on that Bill in another place. I continue to have reservations about them, and this case is indicative of the difficulties and dangers of trying to administer strong medications to people in the community.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and for all her contributions to the Mental Health Bill. Perhaps I could use this opportunity to say, in answer to her question but also to a previous question, that improving patient rights is not in conflict with public safety. That is something that I know we are very mindful of about the Bill. As the noble Baroness is well aware, and as we have debated many times in this Chamber, there is a case, when to protect people from themselves and to protect the public, action must be taken, and that should not be shied away from.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised some concerns about inappropriate discharge by the nominated person, a point that I understand. As the noble Baroness is aware, the nominated person has the power to discharge from detention under the Act. I can say in initial response that the responsible clinician can overrule the request to discharge from detention under the Mental Health Act. The parent or other person who the patient lives with would be involved in the decision to discharge from hospital, and this is a separate decision. The responsible person should consult those people concerned for the patient’s welfare, including the family, where relevant, on the patient’s care and treatment plan. That includes the discharge plan, which is set out clearly in the Bill.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Reflecting on what the Minister has just said, would that close the Bournewood gap, which we tried to close in earlier legislation, where a professional carer cared for an autistic man who was not able to articulate for himself, but was overruled by the clinician? I am just trying to get my head round what she has just said because that was the Bournewood gap and, as the Minister will know, it ended up in the European Court before it was resolved.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We need to be considering that as one of the scenarios and I would certainly be very glad to give the noble Baroness and noble Lords a more considered response to the very important point that has just been raised.

Under this policy, an approved mental health professional would terminate their appointment if the nominated person is not acting in line with the patient’s interests. I really wish to emphasise this.

For all these reasons and the responses I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Amendment 121 seeks to add financial circumstances to the advance choice documents. I spoke in the last session of the Committee about the importance of the link between financial problems and mental health problems. I draw attention again to work that has been undertaken by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, which suggested this amendment, and declare that I am a member of its advisory committee.

It is very welcome to see, in Clause 40, that health commissioners will have a duty to ensure that services inform people about advance choice documents. I listened to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about extending the reach of these documents. I very much look forward to the reply from my noble friend the Minister, because they sounded pretty convincing to me.

Ensuring that everyone has access to an advance choice document is something that the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute has called for previously. We believe that this clause must go further to advance a specific prompt about people’s financial situation. It may seem a small matter, but for people who have been detained under the Mental Health Act, who are possibly too unwell to keep themselves safe, finances are understandably often the last thing on their mind. As I mentioned in a previous session, this does not stop bills needing to be paid, debts mounting and collections activities being escalated. Including a section on money in the document would help people have greater choice and control over their finances when they are in crisis.

A person recalling their experience of receiving treatment for their mental health shared this comment with the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute:

“I was never asked if there was anyone who was opening mail and keeping on top of my day-to-day living stuff … It’s always the same. I go in for treatment and come out to find my financial world is in a bigger mess than when I went in. The resultant terror, shame and guilt undoes all the work of the treatment and I am back in crisis again”.


This section should include explicit prompts which encourage people to reflect on and stipulate their preferences around finances. That can include consideration of how priority bills will be paid; preferences around access to credit; and advance planning to identify and empower a third party to manage their finances on their behalf, such as a lasting power of attorney or third-party mandate.

By including a systematic consideration of finances in ACDs and offering explicit prompts, people can be supported to have greater control and choice. It would better enable healthcare professionals, as well as the individual concerned, to put in place preventive measures to safeguard individuals from the financial harm that can be caused by, and exacerbate, mental health crises.

As mentioned previously, this is not about requiring healthcare professionals to support people with financial advice, or to deal with issues they have neither the expertise nor the capacity to deal with. It is about empowering them to identify people in need and refer them to the appropriate existing support.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 122 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. When I read through the Bill initially, it concerned me that there was no mention of lasting power of attorney, which, of course, is a legal document under the Mental Capacity Act. A registered lasting power of attorney for health and welfare will appoint attorneys chosen by the patient—the donor—at a time when they had capacity, to speak and act on their behalf if they lose capacity. This is particularly important for people who may periodically lose capacity due to mental disorder. The attorneys, of course, could also provide information about the patient, which is essential in distinguishing behaviours that may be associated with autism or learning disability but are not mental disorders. This does not, of course, apply to children, who cannot make lasting powers of attorney, but it would be remiss of me not to raise it with the Committee, because I have become rather concerned.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Browning]

128: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
“Power of Tribunals to require a reportIn section 72 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Power of Tribunals), after subsection (7) insert—“(8) The Tribunal may require a local authority, or an NHS body, to arrange for a report regarding such matters relating to a patient as the tribunal may direct to be made—(a) by one of its officers or employees;(b) by such other person as the authority, or the NHS body, considers appropriate.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would recreate the powers the Court of Protection has under section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, in section 72 of the MHA 1983 to assist discharge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 128 is in my name. A person with autistic spectrum disorder or a learning disability may be stuck in hospital for years; we know that they often are. We sincerely hope that matters will improve dramatically when this Bill is enacted, but we should not be so optimistic as to think that will happen in the near future. However, when somebody is in hospital that long and no longer needs clinical supervision—some in the autistic and learning disability community, for example, never needed to be in there at all—parents become extremely stressed and frustrated. There may be long periods when a close relative, often their adult child or a younger child, is stuck in these hospitals and the parents cannot get them out.

We heard in debate earlier this evening of the differences between the county courts and the mental health tribunals; of course, there are also people who sometimes resort to the Court of Protection. Although I heard noble and learned Lords giving their different views on these, most seemed not to regard the county courts as the most appropriate course. It is a fact, though, that the Court of Protection has had some success in getting out people who have been unduly held in mental health hospitals.

Amendment 128 proposes that mental health tribunals are strengthened to give them the same opportunity as the Court of Protection to make progress in releasing people from long stays in hospitals. If they are to do that, the mental health tribunals need to have more powers, particularly to require local authorities and the NHS to provide a report to enable discharge for a person who no longer clinically needs to be in hospital. This would give tribunals the same powers that the Court of Protection has under Section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act, because there has been some success.

The Court of Protection has been able to secure discharges because it is able to call for reports from local authorities and health services to put the case that it feels confident that it would be safe to discharge somebody. Parents who do this very often have to fund it themselves. Strengthening the tribunal cases, in line with the sort of powers that the Court of Protection has in getting information collated, to make sure the discharge package is sound is very important. This approach would be stronger and more effective than the Government’s proposal that tribunals make recommendations on Section 117.

That is what the Government propose, but I hope that the Minister will look carefully at this amendment. It would enhance mental health tribunals, increasing the number of people who have proper discharge packages through these tribunals. I do not see this as a competition between the Court of Protection and tribunals. Both have a place, and this will be important if we are to achieve what this Bill wants to achieve: to make sure that people do not stay in health mental hospitals a moment longer than they absolutely have to. I beg to move.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I believe we would all accept—and, personally, I am in no doubt—that my noble friend Lady Browning possesses a breadth and depth of experience in matters relating to autism and learning disability. By that, I mean that she has not just a familiarity with the day-to-day challenges of life for individuals with one or more of these conditions but a knowledge of the practical frustrations and hurdles that often have to be overcome if the best interests of such individuals are to be properly defended.

It is amply clear from what my noble friend has said that, if this amendment were inserted into the Bill, it would have the potential to make a material and beneficial difference to the process of discharging certain patients from a secure mental health unit in particular types of situations. As my noble friend said, and as we all know, there have been many instances where autistic patients have been detained inappropriately and for long periods under the Mental Health Act and where families have struggled to secure their relatives’ release.

I cannot see a logical reason why a mental health tribunal should not be placed on an equal legal footing with the Court of Protection in this very limited respect. I hope the Minister will agree.

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for tabling Amendment 128 and for her contribution, along with that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

On the proposals in Amendment 128, I can tell your Lordships that, under the current tribunal procedure rules, the tribunal can direct responsible authorities, which could be a local authority or an NHS body, to provide evidence. The practice directions that apply in mental health cases place a requirement on the responsible authority to provide reports and records relating to the patient’s detention treatment and any after-care plans. The tribunal can use these reports to decide whether the detention criteria are being met. Therefore, it appears that the tribunal has extensive powers to require responsible authorities to provide the information to support its decision on whether to discharge a patient. I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with this response and will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support from the Front Bench and to the Minister for her reply. Although it was very reassuring, could I ask her to clarify something? Has the level of information leading to a proper discharge plan under the existing powers of tribunals been set in primary legislation, which is what I am asking for under this Bill, or is it in secondary legislation or guidance?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am happy to confirm that to the noble Baroness. The important thing for me is that we make sure that, as always, we can move with best practice and keep up with what is needed. With that in mind, I will confirm that later to the noble Baroness to ensure that I am correctly answering her detailed question.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, as always. She is always helpful with these difficult points. I will just flag up that if the tribunal power to get that information in order to encourage more discharges is not in statute, then perhaps we will return to it at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 128 withdrawn.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

I respectfully suggest that Amendment 136, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is too cautious. It calls for a review to be undertaken in 12 months to consider the expedience of a statutory test. Surely the pros and cons, and scope, of a statutory test have already been well canvassed. It is not clear to me what would be gained by further delay and review. I was tempted to suggest that a review, if not kicking the topic into the long grass, would at least kick it into touch. If we have learned anything about the Bill, it is that much of it will not be implemented with anything near the speed of light. Surely this is one topic that can now be confidently grasped and not deferred.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

With the wealth of his experience in dealing with children, could the noble Lord give the House a feel for whether, when assessing the competence particularly of children from a younger age group, there are cases where they understand the situation that is explained to them but, when a decision is subsequently required, there is less clarity on how to make it themselves? I ask that because I know that, often, certain adults on the autism spectrum in a similar situation can fully comprehend a situation that is explained, if necessary, and have capacity, but making the decision between one, two or more choices is much more problematic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 57 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that patients who are admitted informally to hospital for a mental health disorder are also able to benefit from a care and treatment plan. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill introduces statutory care and treatment plans but, as drafted, extends that right only to a select group of patients. As per the new Section 130ZA(2) of the Mental Health Act, patients who will be eligible for these plans are those who are formally detained under that Act, those who are subject to guardianship under the Act and those who are under a CTO.

I do not think there is any disagreement that these patients rightly deserve access to a care and treatment plan. But what about informal patients who voluntarily admit themselves for treatment? The Explanatory Notes explain that the purpose of putting these plans on a statutory footing is

“to ensure that all relevant patients have a clear and personalised strategy in place describing what is needed to progress them towards recovery”.

They also detail some of the possible inclusions in that care and treatment plan.

I note, however, that the exact inclusions in the care and treatment plan are to be made by the Secretary of State by regulations at a later date, possibly due to consultation. So, although we may have some idea of what might be included, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm to your Lordships what the Government envisage will be included or could be included. I am not wanting to put the noble Baroness too much on the spot here.

As many noble Lords might well know, care and treatment plans have been part of the package of mental health treatment in Wales since June 2012 under Section 18 of the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010. Those regulations specify that the areas that must be included in the patient’s care and treatment plan include

“finance and money … accommodation … personal care and physical well-being … education and training … work and occupation … parenting or caring relationships … social, cultural or spiritual … medical and other forms of treatment including psychological interventions”.

Can the Minister confirm whether the care and treatment plans in England will follow the same format or possibly be inspired by the same format? Will there be differences? Are there England-specific issues?

I hope the Minister will understand that I have a few more questions. How will the Secretary of State decide what to prescribe in these plans? What level of consultation will there be? Indeed, what level of consultation has there been to date to inform this, particularly with the clinicians who will be responsible for drawing up the care and treatment plans?

One of the things that many noble Lords have discussed during this debate is the fact that we want to see evidence-led practices. We know that, particularly in mental health but also in physical health, these can help to inform care and treatment plans that have a positive impact on clinical outcomes and therapeutic benefit, because they are based on treatments unique to the patient’s needs.

A meta study in 2023 in the United States found that evidence-based practices

“improve patient outcomes and yield a positive return on investment for hospitals and healthcare systems”.

I note the Minister has referred a number of times to the Government making and implementing these changes when resources allow.

The Social Care Institute for Excellence has also highlighted the importance of person-centred care, writing:

“Research on mental health and wellbeing demonstrates that involvement leads to improved service outcomes and enhances mental wellbeing”.


The institute argues forcefully that care plans for mental health patients should include active involvement from the patient. It is therefore vital that care and treatment plans are not developed in a silo; they should be developed in conjunction with the patient. Given the benefits that access to care and treatment plans should bring patients with a mental disorder, it would be more than appropriate for informal patients to be included as well.

If anyone actually listened to what I said in the debate on our second day in Committee, they may be aware that I had some sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who is not in her place. She argued that she did not want to extend the independent mental health advocates to informal patients, possibly because of resource constraints but also because of limited evidence on their therapeutic benefit. I could be accused of being inconsistent, but I would say that, for care and treatment plans, the issue is rather different.

The clinicians will draw up these plans. The Bill states that it is the “appropriate practitioner” who will already be treating that patient, so it may not be the same issue of resources. Perhaps it will take extra time, and I understand that time adds up the more you require of a clinician. But, given that the informally admitted patient will already be being treated by a clinician, we would not necessarily be adding much resource or burden on to the clinician, in the same way as if we had extended the IMHAs, as in the argument made the other night.

Therefore, I hope this amendment will extend provisions that will benefit informally admitted patients, as they will benefit the patients already decided upon in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I will not detain the Committee long, but I support the amendment and I want to flag the point my noble friend made about Wales and England. To my certain knowledge, when people living further north around the Shropshire border, for example, are admitted, they will almost certainly be offered placements in north Wales. It is important that there is some harmony in these regions; otherwise, it will cause additional problems. I hope my noble friend will press his amendment in due course to make sure that that harmony exists.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 61. I recognise that the purpose of the Bill is to give children and those under 16 greater rights and opportunities to be heard. I entirely agree with that; it is absolutely sensible. But there is a danger of ignoring the fact that parents are basically not considered anywhere in the Bill. They are not in the contents of the Bill or any of the schedules.

Most parents are suitable; some parents are not. It may be that my amendment should perhaps be put in slightly different way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has done. I recognise that there is a small percentage of parents who may not have total parental responsibility or, if they do have it, they are in the situation of one parent having what used to be called custody and the other having what used to be called access. For most parents, they care about their children. As far as I can see, they are completely ignored, but they do have something to contribute.

I am not suggesting for a moment that parents should make the decisions. What I am asking the Minister to do is to give them the chance to be heard; that is all I ask. They really should, throughout the Bill, be consulted where that is appropriate, but they are not put in for consultation, as far as I can see, in any part of the Bill. This is one place where that really will not do.

Speaking as a parent and grandparent, I would be extremely upset if my child was about to be detained and everybody was discussing what should happen to my child, but nobody asked me. At the moment, as far as I understand, the Government do not seem to think that parents, special guardians or anybody else who happens to have parental responsibility need to be consulted.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the pertinent points that they have made.

I will start with Amendments 57 and 58. There is no doubt that all patients who are in a mental health hospital for care and treatment should have a care plan, whether or not they have been detained under the Act. This is already set out in guidance for commissioners and in the NHS England service specification and care standards for children’s and young people’s services. In line with the independent review’s findings and recommendations, care and treatment plans for involuntary or detained patients are statutory. This is because such patients are subject to restrictions and compulsory orders, including compulsory treatment, which places them in a uniquely vulnerable position.

Rather than bringing voluntary patients into the scope of this clause, we feel it is more appropriate to use the Mental Health Act’s code of practice to embed high standards of care planning for all patients—voluntary and involuntary. Specifically with regard to children and young people, any provisions that are relevant to voluntary patients are already met by existing specialist care planning standards and the NHS England national service specification for children’s and young people’s services, which providers are contractually obliged to follow. NHS England is already in the process of strengthening that current service specification.

Regarding points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lord Davies on the contents of the care and treatment plan and patient discharge plan, as my noble friend Lord Davies kindly set out for me, which I appreciate, the Government have consulted on the required contents of the care and treatment plan, as originally proposed by the independent review. The expected contents of the plan are described in the delegated powers memorandum, which has been published online. I understand the points that my noble friend made; we will return to them regarding what we intend to include in the patient discharge plan.

I turn to Amendment 59, tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Neuberger. The plan needs to include details of interventions aimed at minimising financial harm to the patient where this is relevant to their mental health recovery. My noble friend asked for my agreement on this point. I hope that he will take that in this way. We intend to set out in regulations, rather than in primary legislation, what that plan must include. We will consider personal financial matters that are relevant to a number of the elements that we intend to require in regulations, such as the services that a patient might need post discharge. My noble friend’s point, and that of the noble Baronesses, is very well made and is taken on board.

Turning to Amendment 60A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I confirm that the Bill sets out who is responsible for the statutory plan. For in-patients, this is the clinician who is responsible overall for the patient’s case. The quality of plans for detained patients is monitored by the CQC. Any housing, accommodation or wider social care needs that are relevant to the patient’s mental health recovery are already captured within the scope of the statutory care and treatment plan. We intend to require in regulations about the content of the plan that a discharge plan is a required element of the overall care and treatment plan—which noble Lords rightly have pressed the need for. Existing statutory guidance on discharge sets out that a discharge plan should cover how a patient’s housing needs will be met when they return to the community. Currently, where a mental health in-patient may benefit from support with housing issues, NHS England guidance sets out that this should be offered, making links with relevant local services as part of early and effective discharge planning.

Where a person is receiving housing benefit or their housing is paid for via universal credit, there are provisions already in place that allow them to be temporarily absent from their property for a limited duration. We know that the vast majority of people entering hospital will return home before the time limit expires, therefore avoiding a negative impact on their living situation.

We intend to use the code of practice to clearly set out expectations on mental health staff around care planning, including consideration of accommodation and housing needs, and also to highlight existing provisions that protect a person’s living arrangements while they are in hospital.

On Amendment 61, tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, we of course recognise the importance of involving parents, guardians and those with parental responsibility in decisions around care and treatment. We have already provided for this in the clause by stating

“any … person who cares for the relevant patient or is interested in the relevant patient’s welfare”.

The clause seeks to include also carers and other family. As I said last week, this is consistent with existing established terminology used in the Mental Capacity Act and the Care Act.

The amendment would also make this a requirement for all patients, not just children and young people. We do not think it is appropriate here to give an automatic right to parents to be involved in an adult patient’s care. However, we have made provisions to ensure that anyone named by an adult patient, including parents, are consulted where the patient wishes them to be.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

On that last point about adults, I realise this is a more difficult area, but we have debated in this House reports from the charity Mind about adults, and young adults at that, who, when they have been admitted not just to mental health hospitals but to general hospitals and have had difficulty communicating —I go back to autism, but it might not be uniquely autism—hospital staff have said, “They are over 18, so we’re not listening to you, mum”, while standing by the bedside asking why a person is not eating, when there is probably a very good reason why not. We have recorded deaths of young adults because the parents of people over 18 have not been listened to. It is a mantra that I have heard many times, in many situations: “They’re over 18, it’s up to them”, when, in fact, quite clearly, their lives could be saved, or their health improved, if hospital staff had listened to mum or dad at the bedside. That is on the record and we have debated it in the past, so I wonder how the Minister thinks we can resolve it as far as mental health patients are concerned.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right to raise that point. This is the difference between legislation and practice, and we have to bridge that gap. We are very alive to the point she makes, but the important point about this amendment is that we are trying to include all those whom the patient wants to be involved, not just restricting it to parents. I take the point she has made and will, of course, ensure that we attend to that. I would say that that is, as I say, more a case of how things are implemented.

On Amendment 62, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it is important that the transition of a young person to adult services is planned and managed with the utmost care by the clinical team. This is reflected in existing care standards and guidelines, which set out what should be met, what relevant teams should meet and how to provide specific support where a young person’s care is being transferred to adult services. This should take place six months prior to the patient turning 18 years of age. On reviewing the patient’s statutory care and treatment plan when they reach adulthood, in Clause 20, subsection (5)(d) of new Section 130ZA already sets out that that plan must be reviewed following any change in circumstances or conditions. We think that turning 18 and transitioning from children and young people’s services to adult is a significant change and absolutely requires review of the plan. We will make this explicit in the code of practice.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 64. I thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for sharing the reality of how this manifests itself by sharing with us individual circumstances. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, whose work on young carers is well known and respected. We support the intention to ensure that children are properly safeguarded. If a person is known to services, immediate safeguarding needs to form part of the planning by approved mental health professionals on behalf of the local authority and others involved in the Mental Health Act assessment before bringing a person into hospital. If a person is not known to known to services, the professionals should work with the relevant agencies to make sure the necessary steps are taken. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children sets out how all practitioners working with children and families need to understand their role in this regard.