Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I remind the House that I worked clinically as a psychiatrist for about 35 years and had been a consultant for two years by the time that the 1983 Act was introduced. I argued then, as now, that mental handicap, as it was called, had no place in legislation—although others disagreed. Profound changes in societal attitudes, alongside advancements in the understanding and treatment of mental illness, have occurred during my career. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friend Lady Murphy that fusion legislation really should have been considered.

There is no minimum age limit in the Mental Health Act, meaning that its provisions apply to children and young people as well as adults. The Joint Committee, of which I was a member, recognised their unique needs, saying that this is

“a crucial opportunity for the Government to strengthen the rights and protections for children and young people”.

We must never forget that the mental health of babies, children and young people is fundamental to the mental health of the adult population, and that we cannot legislate for the treatment of serious mental disorder without taking mental health seriously from the very beginning of each person’s life.

Psychiatry’s past has included some harmful and forced interventions, rather than the preventive approaches, early intervention and evidence-based treatments that are so needed. The Bill aims to safeguard dignity and autonomy, and ensure best practices for all, including people with learning disabilities and autistic people. A major current concern for me is that there are nearly 2,000 people with a learning disability and autistic people in psychiatric hospitals. Usually, that is because of a lack of individually tailored support and housing—they have an average stay of five years—and because of the shortage of effective treatment options in the community and lack of training for the wider mental health workforce.

My Heart Breaks, the report of a review that I chaired and which was published by the Government last year, shed light on the harrowing realities faced by many of the 100 or so of those 2,000 in hospital who are detained in long-term segregation at any one time. The systemic failures we found reflected a troubling overreliance on detention as a substitute for meaningful care, despite such detentions often lacking therapeutic goals, a pattern that unfortunately affects other patient groups as well, including those with personality disorders.

Historically, policy and practice have overlooked complex intersectional vulnerabilities, including learning disability, autism, gender, race, poverty and physical health issues. Marginalised groups, especially people from racialised communities, are detained more often. Trauma histories may be compounded by the excessive use of medication and restrictive practices which contain people, with an eye to safety, but disempower and just do not support recovery. People need better-adapted psychological therapies but are less likely to access them, and poorly co-ordinated discharge processes further trap individuals in a dysfunctional system. This violates people’s human rights and ethical care standards.

As a long-time advocate for people with learning disabilities and autistic people, for me, one of the Bill’s most significant reforms is the removal of learning disability and autism as stand-alone grounds for detention under Section 3, part 2. This change is complemented by new duties on health and care bodies to provide the community-based support and therapeutic approaches needed to prevent unnecessary detentions. But legislation alone will not provide better care; the right people in the right place with the right skills are needed. So the Bill introduces mandatory care, education and treatment reviews, which aim to create personalised care plans and facilitate timely discharges. Additionally, dynamic support registers are intended to track those at risk of crisis, allowing for early intervention before issues escalate. Advance choice documents could also be valuable for choice, safety and care.

The National Autistic Society, Mencap and several other charities have welcomed the Mental Health Bill as a step toward safeguarding the rights of individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people. All stress the need for robust support systems, including housing and social care. These are essential to prevent unnecessary admissions, emphasising that the Bill’s success depends on effective implementation, accountability and substantial investment in community services. They also request a new action plan to replace the Building the Right Support action plan. This is particularly urgent, given that targets to reduce in-patient numbers of people with a learning disability and autistic people have been repeatedly missed over the last decade, and only one in five integrated care systems have currently met the March 2024 target for reduction of in-patient numbers.

Can the Minister confirm whether a plan such as that being requested will indeed be co-produced and implemented with the help of people with lived experience, families, campaigners and relevant bodies, alongside the implementation of this legislation? Both the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the BPS have cautioned against removing autism and learning disabilities as stand-alone criteria unless there are substantial improvements, warning that this could divert unsupported individuals into emergency services or the criminal justice system. Easy to say, better not to do it—but we must use this as a lever to change the culture of care and support for these groups of people.

We do not want to risk criminalising people’s mental health needs, and we do not want to disproportionately impact already marginalised groups. I ask the Minister, what assurances can Government provide to ensure adequate funding to deliver minimum safe services in the community, such as early prevention measures, rapid response teams, crash pads and effective therapeutic approaches in the community? Indeed, could these alternatives be mandated?

Compulsory detention and treatment of individuals with personality disorders under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act is another issue. Personality disorders stem from relational difficulties and cannot be effectively treated in restrictive in-patient settings. Research shows that admissions without structured, evidence-based psychological interventions provide no benefits and can indeed worsen symptoms.

Why is Section 117 aftercare limited to Section 3? Social and health care should be integrated for all patients based on need, not the section they were detained under. For example, a financial crisis causing suicidal thoughts in a farmer might lead to a Section 2, when a social prescription might have been effective. After assessment, they will return to the same situation without appropriate support, such as legal or financial advice to resolve the crisis.

The new Mental Health Bill gives us an opportunity to address the stigma that shaped policy in the 1980s and create a legal framework which keeps pace with scientific advancements. We need to reframe our focus from risk management to supporting accessible, evidence-based community interventions, ensuring that care aligns with ethical and therapeutic principles and prioritises a rights-based, person-centred approach.

Our actions now will shape mental health care for the 21st century. Let us enact compassionate and progressive reforms that future generations will respect.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, building on many of the important points we have just heard, I will speak to Amendments 163 and 164 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for their support for these two modest proposals, which are parsimoniously drafted but nevertheless potentially impactful if adopted.

The first amendment quite simply says that we will do away with “mañana, mañana” when it comes to implementing this Bill, which we have all spent so much time on and which the patients and advocates are so keen to see adopted, by putting a five-year backstop from the date on which the Bill becomes an Act through to commencement. Commencement of all its provisions must happen no later than five years after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The logic for that is that we all believe that, on balance, by the time the Bill has worked its way through Parliament, it ought to be an injection of improvement for mental health services, so why would we want to delay?

Of course, part of the answer is that there are some rate limiters, which are described elsewhere, including in the impact assessment. If we go through the impact assessment and say, “All right, what are the specific things that it suggests won’t be possible or won’t have got going until year 6 after Royal Assent?”, we will find it is a relatively modest number. For those who want to take a look, it is in table 1 of the impact assessment, at page 17. There are some changes to the second opinion doctor, to the CTOs, to the CTPs and so on, but both the pound note impact and the extra staffing at year 6 and beyond are incredibly modest compared with the overall size of mental health spending that we will incur. The incremental costs beyond year 5 are somewhere between £15 million and £25 million, on a budget that runs to billions. I believe that, in the real world, if we strain every sinew, it will be possible to get this thing done within five years.

There is another reason for thinking that it is useful to have a statutory backstop to implementation in the Act itself: the unfortunate tendency that we have seen in various other pieces of legislation that, when push comes to shove, the decision is made just to kick the can down the road a little further. I think it is fair to say that both principal parties have criticised the other for doing so with legislation that has passed. I think we had some measures in the health Act that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, steered through on obesity and junk food. They never quite saw the light of day, despite Parliament deciding that they would be a good thing. The then Government were criticised for that. Likewise, we put the time in to create the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. I think the Opposition criticised the Government for delays in implementing it, despite the fact that Parliament had passed it. Of course, the cause célèbre is social care reform, where we have been happily kicking down the track legislation that has seen dither and delay for over two decades. That should not be the fate of this legislation. Therefore, this simple amendment would put in a backstop to save us from ourselves. Parliament is sovereign. If we want to get the job done, there is no reason to think that we cannot make these changes in less than the time it took this country to fight and win World War II. That is the rationale for Amendment 163.

Amendment 164 simply says that, during the intervening period while this Act is being implemented, it would be unreasonable to shrink the size of the slice of the pie going on mental health services, for all the reasons that we have heard throughout Committee. To make sure that there can be no argy-bargy on how the drafting is laid out, we have lifted the wording exactly from the health Act as it currently is on the statute book around the proportion incurred by NHS England and ICBs that, taken together, relates to mental health. It says that it

“must not fall as a share of their expenditure (taken together) on all health services”,

with a little kicker: to stop the Department of Health and Social Care marking its own homework, the National Audit Office will do a review after each year and provide a report that we can all scrutinise.

Here are some reasons why the Government should not object to this. First, it does not tie their hands on the overall sum of funding allocated to the National Health Service. That is a decision for the Executive and negotiated each year; nothing here would constrain the ability of the Government to increase or cut expenditure on the National Health Service. Nor would it constrain the ability of each integrated care board to make a judgment on its own priorities. It simply says that, in the round—taking the 42 ICBs and NHS England together—it would be unreasonable to think that the share of health service spending on mental health will go down at a time when there is an incredible gap between need and treatment, and when we are trying to implement this legislation.

Fortunately, just before Christmas the Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, signalled his support for the mental health investment standard. This is the opportunity to provide legislative cover for that very welcome announcement. It is possible that the current Secretary of State will not be the Secretary of State for the totality of this Parliament—nobody has a crystal ball. Looking out five years beyond Royal Assent, it is also possible that year 5 will be the first year of a new Parliament. So it is entirely reasonable for Parliament to support the Secretary of State’s intent by legislating in the way set out in Amendment 164, not least because there are some concerning signals from around the NHS that, for the first time since the mental health investment standard was introduced, it is possible that the share of funding on mental health will go down, not up, when taken in the round. We have not yet seen the figures, but perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is correct. In any event, that simply serves to underline the acute importance of this safety net provision to ensure that the financial firepower is there to get this Act done.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for my absence from earlier debates in Committee. I will speak very briefly in support of these amendments. My noble friend said that we need to save ourselves from ourselves. Actually, we need to raise aspirations to change the culture of believing that it cannot be done and thinking that it will cost too much to take a more preventive approach, to care properly for people in the community and to achieve parity for mental health outcomes. These amendments are really important to try to achieve that, so I support them.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendments 163 and 164, to which I have added my name, and particularly about the length of time, the five years.

We first started talking about the reforms to the mental health legislation eight years ago, when we set up the review of the legislation under Sir Simon Wessely, and I was the vice-chair. It reported in 2018—seven years ago—and it was not even a very radical rethink of our mental health legislation. Yes, it will make a lot of difference to a lot of people—service users are very keen for this to come about, and they certainly do not want to wait longer than five years to see all the measures come into force—but this is relatively gentle stuff. At some stage we will need a much more radical rethink of our mental health legislation. Five years is quite a long time, so I rather hope the Minister can give us some comfort by saying that most of it will be done in two years, or perhaps three years at the outside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

In adding my support to these amendments, I welcome particularly the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey.

This debate has emphasised why the pathway of care, from the community through to any kind of hospital admission and discharge, must be considered as a whole. It is not okay to separate bits off. That is why the amendments are so important: unless we put provision in place to make sure that, when admission is necessary, it is timely and to a place which has the skills to provide the therapeutic care that people require, detention and admission will in fact be longer and costlier. We cannot contemplate making legislation that does not take account of the whole patient pathway.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I have been inspired by the previous two contributions. I will briefly pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made about Amendment 134 on the availability of community services, particularly psychiatrists. I think the Minister referred to the longer training times for psychiatrists and other mental health professionals as one of the rate-limiting factors that would affect the speed with which the measures in the Bill could be implemented.

I have a request for the Minister. It is quite hard to tease out from the impact assessment what the Government think the incremental requirements for psychiatrists will be, year by year, over the implementation period. In fact, slightly perversely, they use mixed currency: the Minister responded, rightly, to Amendment 163 by saying, I think, that there was a requirement for 400 additional psychiatrists for the second opinion service; but when you look at the table in the impact assessment, it turns out that that is a headcount number driven by a number that is not a whole-time equivalent. However, for all the rest of the workforce, a whole-time equivalent number appears to be shown.

It would be good to nail down what the incremental requirement will be for psychiatrists, year by year and on a whole-time equivalent basis, so that between now and Report, colleagues can consider what the ramifications of that might be for a backstop on implementation. If that incremental requirement could be juxtaposed with what the Government think the organic increase will be in the number of psychiatrists over that period anyway, driven by the already published NHS workforce plan, that would be supremely helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I will try to draw together some of the strands that we have been discussing in this debate. When the Minister responds, please will she share with the Committee the department’s and the Government’s thoughts on workforce planning and the modelling they use for the prediction of demand?

As I listened to my noble friend Lady Parminter eloquently introduce her amendment, it brought to mind friends of mine. They have been in the position where their child was diagnosed with a very severe eating disorder, but they were told, “You are not sufficiently ill for anything to happen”. From that stage, nothing happened. If it were a physical illness, there would be some kind of process—although maybe not a care pathway. I am sorry, but I am one of those people who is very cynical about the use of the phrase “care pathway”; it is very overused throughout the whole of health, and particularly in mental health. People are diagnosed and then are just left, until they become so ill that they are in crisis and it is impossible to ignore them. We have seen the trends in the number of young people with eating disorders, which my noble friend Lady Parminter mentioned. What is the department doing to forecast the demand for specialists of that nature in future?

I want also to return to some of the conversations and debates that were sparked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. We know that the police are going to withdraw from being the first responders when people are in crisis. What modelling are the Government doing in terms of the community provision that is needed to deal with those people—who will still be in crisis? They are not going to stop having crises; in fact, they are probably more likely to show up in in hospitals than ever before, because that is where people go in the middle of the night when they have a crisis.

This is the sort of argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, was trying to get to in her discussion of having a mental health commissioner. Who will be the person who is in a position to take the Government to task for their planning and preparation for demands on the health service in the future? That is the kind of thing that we are trying to get to, and which all of us, in various different ways, have been trying to get to all afternoon.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

Can I just say that I did not talk about a “care pathway”? Perhaps I should have said the “patient journey”, but I was talking about the patient pathway—the actual experience of the person—which is not separated in their life.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief on this one. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for this amendment and thank all noble Lords, who made very valid points.

Clearly, this is another sensible proposal, highlighting as it does the importance of making sure that the ICBs commission sufficient mental health services in the community to meet the demand for them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, where will people go in the middle of the night? I know that we will come back to some of these issues when we discuss the group on mental well-being but I thought it was important that those points were raised now.

The Committee may remember that this was the subject of Amendment 139 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe, who spoke to it on the second day in Committee. The main difference between those amendments is, I think, that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, wishes to get ICBs focused on this very important task as soon as the Bill becomes law—and I agree with her intention on that. My only fear around the wording as it is currently drafted—I recognise that it is a probing amendment—is that

“insofar as is reasonably practical”

may provide an excuse, or, as we say, the proverbial long grass into which this duty could be conveniently kicked. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 146 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall. On the previous group of amendments, I cited the experience of a child held on an adult mental health ward being subject to restraint, where undue force was applied by the staff involved, causing unnecessary pain and distress to the patient.

In fact, the incidence of restraint being used on children being treated in mental health settings—and, indeed, general hospitals—is alarmingly high. This fact was recognised in the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, which came into effect in 2022. However, despite the provisions of that Act, not only has there been no drop in the number of restrictive interventions that children are subject to but there has been an increase.

In 2023-24, a total of 84,626 restrictive interventions were carried out on children, which is a 51% increase on the year before. That is the highest number of restrictive interventions recorded since figures were made available in 2019, despite what appears to be a drop in the number children being treated in mental health units. It is not only that restraint is being applied in these cases; all too often, because there is a physical struggle involved in the process of restraining someone, that patient ends up with an injury.

What lies at the root of this? Blooming Change believes that restraint amounting to abuse is entrenched in the system. Unfortunately, that rather depressing view was borne out last August by the Independent newspaper, which reported that children in a mental health in-patient unit in Coventry were captured on CCTV

“being dragged across the floor”

by the staff. There surely has to be something here about the need for staff in all mental health settings to receive training in the different techniques for de-escalating a crisis, with physical restraint being regarded as a last resort.

In fact, with the two very welcome principles set out in Clause 1, “least restriction” and “therapeutic benefit”, the training of staff in appropriate techniques of control will, one hopes, become an even more important priority than before. I hope the Minister can let me have some reassurance on this very troubling set of issues. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest and my experience as a retired psychiatrist, working for the majority of my career with people with learning disabilities and autistic people.

In 2019, the then Secretary of State for Health asked me to oversee an important review of the use of another restrictive intervention, long-term segregation, known as LTS, for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. The Government published the oversight panel’s report of that review simultaneously with their quite positive response to its recommendations in November 2023.

Amendments 155 and 156 in this group address critical issues highlighted in the report about the use of LTS and the measures needed to eliminate its use for people detained under mental health legislation. The amendments aim to improve oversight and accountability in its use, while pointing to the urgent need for appropriate community services to prevent delayed discharges. The proposed changes are not merely administrative; they are a necessary response to urgent human rights questions raised by the use of LTS, and indeed these other restrictive interventions covered by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whose amendment I support.

The report, aptly titled My Heart Breaks, found that the mental and physical health of children and young people and adults detained in long-term segregation deteriorates as a direct consequence of enforced isolation. In medicine, we call this iatrogenic harm, and it is unacceptable. LTS is often used in association with other restrictive practices. There is substantial research evidence pointing to the harms of such enforced social isolation, including in conditions of solitary confinement. Nor does it have therapeutic benefit. Oversight panel members considered that LTS should actually be renamed “solitary confinement” to avoid the normalisation of the practice in healthcare settings. Currently, rather less clear terminology is used, perhaps to disguise what is really happening in practice.

It is interesting to note that not all psychiatric hospitals have rooms in which to detain people. The type of accommodation used is sometimes totally unacceptable, with people being detained in rooms with no natural light, with a mattress on the floor and no toilet facilities.

Amendment 155 would require notification of LTS to the CQC within 72 hours of its commencement. It would require that the CQC must initiate an investigation if LTS was used for more than 15 days within any 30-day period, and if it were used for a person under the age of 18, or for a disabled person whose condition would be exacerbated by its use—for example, an already psychologically traumatised person who would be further traumatised by the sensory and social deprivation caused by its use, which is probably most people.

The amendment would require that the code of practice introduced minimum standards for LTS, including access to natural light, outdoor space and meaningful human contact. As I am sure most noble Lords would agree, these are basic necessities for dignity and well-being. Psychiatric hospitals still using LTS would be required to appoint a responsible officer to review and report on its use to the CQC. They would also be required to comply with recommendations from independent care (education) and treatment reviews, known as ICETRs, as they relate to LTS.

Amendment 156 seeks to ensure that therapeutic alternatives to LTS have been properly considered by requiring independently chaired reviews for any person detained in LTS. Since the end of the Department of Health’s programme of ICETRs in 2023, which reviewed 191 cases between 2020 and 2023, the CQC was commissioned to restart the programme. The new programme includes that the independent chairs must follow up to see whether the recommendations have been implemented, but funding has been committed only to the end of this current year, while LTS continues. These reviews must be kept in place until the use of LTS comes to an end, or for as long as it is in existence, so the amendment would require ICETRs to be continued, and it outlines the role, responsibilities and authority of the independent reviewer. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that the continuation of these independent reviews will be funded.

By limiting the duration of LTS, mandating independent oversight and requiring therapeutic alternatives, we could protect people’s rights and lay the groundwork for effective rehabilitation and reintegration back into their communities. Meeting minimum standards and reclassifying such segregation as “solitary confinement” would rightly underscore its appalling and often inhumane nature. I know many clinicians dislike that term because it is equated with punishment, but it describes the conditions that we sometimes saw.

The excuse is often given that LTS is the last resort for a person, but in fact it is usually the first resort and the first response, because no appropriate care and support have been provided. I have seen systemic failures that are leaving individuals in restrictive settings due to insufficient community-based support. While commissioners and clinicians often act with good intentions, they lack the co-ordination, resources and expertise needed to deliver the care that is needed to keep people safe.

The amendments simply aim to ensure therapeutic care close to home. They require that, by monitoring the continuing use of LTS and understanding the barriers to eliminating its use, the CQC would be able to identify the themes, trends and changes that are taking place over time in the use of this restrictive intervention. I urge the Minister to support the amendments.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 155 and 156, to which I have added my name. If they were approved, the Care Quality Commission would be required to ensure independent reviews of the suitability of continued segregation, with a particular focus on the potential for community support to be preferable. The amendments would also increase transparency and set minimum standards, both of which I am sure noble Lords will wish to support.

When I chaired, from 2017 to 2020, NHS England’s transforming care steering group for children and young people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health problems and challenging behaviour, I heard heartbreaking testimony from parents whose teenage and young adult children were segregated for weeks and months on end, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. For example, I visited a non-NHS provider outside London that had kept one young adult woman—whose story appeared in social media at the time, noble Lords may remember—in segregation, in a room with no window and no natural light, and passed food to her through a hatch. She was completely alone.

As I and other noble Lords have already argued, investment in the right type of community support is the only humane way forward. To ensure that proper use is made of this investment, we should send out a clear message that we expect community services to be used wherever possible, rather than segregation. The way to do this is for the Care Quality Commission to oversee a process of independent review in any case of segregation of a young person under 18, anyone with learning disabilities or autism, or anyone whose segregation exceeds 15 days.

--- Later in debate ---

For these reasons, I hope the noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

There seemed to be an assumption that long-term segregation would continue and that perhaps ICETRs are not effective, but one thing that emerges from an independently chaired review is some learning about the barriers in place and the reasons why LTS is being used, rather than more therapeutic options. That is the reason for this kind of oversight being necessary. It is not necessarily that the ICETR itself will lead to recommendations being implemented; in my report, we found that the recommendations were not being followed—they were made and then not followed through. There needs to be much more effort to try to learn from what is happening and begin to change the culture of LTS as an okay response to somebody’s distress.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand that point, and the noble Baroness makes it very well. I simply refer her to the points that I made about needing to look at evidence, the outcomes and the value of those reviews, and whether that is the right approach for everyone. I take on board her point, but my comments probably tell the Committee that we feel that there is more work to be done in this area.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

I hope that when the Minister responds to these amendments, even if she has not read the Autism Act or is not familiar with this particular part of it, she will give some commitment that Secretaries of State will not ignore the promises made about services in this Bill and that we can be sure that those services will be in place before the Bill is enacted. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in my name. I thank noble Lords who have added their support. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I thank the Minister for the very helpful meetings and correspondence about the outstanding issues my amendments seek to rectify. I apologise for the slightly lengthy explanation that follows.

I declare my interests: I have the benefit of expertise from a psychiatrist attached to the Royal College of Psychiatrists parliamentary scholar programme and research support from a PhD student from King’s College London. Until November 2024, I was chair of the independent oversight panel to review the use of seclusion and segregation for adults with learning disabilities and autistic people. I am grateful to panel members for advice on my amendments relating to long-term segregation. The key message of the report published by the panel, My Heart Breaks, was that long-term segregation has no therapeutic benefits and that it can retraumatise already traumatised people.

When the Mental Health Act was introduced in the early 1980s, our understanding of learning disability and autism was limited, and therapeutic interventions were inadequately developed or trialled. The impact of trauma on the development of people’s behaviour—the behavioural responses to their trauma—and mental illness was very poorly understood. Regrettably, during the 2007 review, the appalling conditions experienced by patients subject to long-term segregation had yet to gain public awareness, so this group of people was once again overlooked and harmful restrictive practices persisted unchecked.

We now possess a much clearer understanding about the nature of learning disability and autism. We therefore know that they cannot be cured my medication or short-term therapies, and we understand the harmful impact of restrictive practices.

We know that therapeutic community-based settings offer far better outcomes where they exist, enabling people to lead fulfilling and productive lives, and community care is more cost effective than prolonged in-patient stays. Although I acknowledge the introduction of the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, this legislation alone cannot address the deeper systemic issues that I have encountered in my work.

The Bill is an opportunity to add the necessary external scrutiny, and the stricter safeguards needed for long-term segregation. Without this, we risk becoming more of a record-keeping tool rather than a catalyst for real change, and the Bill relies heavily on the Mental Health Act code of practice, which is guidance and not law. In practice, we know that services do not always follow it. It is a large document; I reckon that most psychiatrists probably have not read it. It is huge already, and we are going to add more to it.

The amendments I propose directly address these shortcomings. Amendment 55 would require notification of long-term segregation within 72 hours, significantly strengthening oversight from the beginning of this restrictive practice. The Minister has told me that the CQC is already looking for the best way to introduce notification, and I hope she can say more about that. If she is not minded to place this in primary legislation, please can we have an estimate of when this restrictive practice notification will be brought into practice?

Amendment 3 mandates immediate investigation and safeguarding reviews when minimum standards—which would need to be outlined in the code of practice—are breached, or when long-term segregation becomes prolonged or repetitive. Given the profound deprivation of liberty involved, I believe these safeguards are essential. If the Minister accepts no other amendment, can she please accept Amendment 3? One might assume that safeguarding is already in place, but my review found that there were certain definitions of what safeguarding is, and being in long-term segregation for long periods of time was not one of them.

Amendment 56 mandates independent reviews that would provide external oversight within 28 days of a patient being placed in long-term segregation. Experience shows that independent evaluations, especially when they are multidisciplinary, are one of the most effective mechanisms for disrupting institutional inertia and preventing prolonged and unnecessary segregation.

The introduction of independently chaired care (education) and treatment reviews by the Government in 2019 has already demonstrated the value of external scrutiny, but these reviews are only funded until the end of the current year. They have exposed and addressed issues that have been tolerated or overlooked within the host hospital for years. The impact is clear: when independent professionals review cases, inappropriate long-term segregation is far more likely to be challenged and addressed. Given their success, I believe that independent reviews should be a statutory requirement. If the Minister is not minded to accept Amendment 56, could she reassure your Lordships’ House that these independent reviews will continue to be funded for as long as long-term segregation exists?

We already have statutory oversight mechanisms for other hospital interventions. Medication and electroconvulsive therapy require review by second opinion doctors under the SOAD CQC system, yet long-term segregation—one of the most restrictive interventions possible—lacks equivalent scrutiny. Although tribunals oversee a patient’s detention under the Act, they rarely examine specific treatment decisions, such as segregation. A formal independent review process could be built into existing legal and oversight structures, such as SOAD and the CQC, without requiring significant structural adjustments. Of course, there will be workforce shortages in the short term. However, the cost of independent reviews is undoubtedly lower than the financial and human rights costs of keeping patients in long-term segregation for years.

The Government plan to revise the code of practice. Amendment 52 seeks mandatory updates to the code of practice to provide clear guidance about the minimum standards needed for the accommodation used, and strict standards for the initiation, continuation and termination of the enforced social isolation that is euphemistically called “long-term segregation”. Defining minimum standards is critical, given the appalling conditions in which some people are being detained. They are beyond your Lordships’ imaginations, I assure you.

Amendment 57 mandates the appointment of an independent responsible officer by a hospital manager to proactively monitor and address the use of LTS, to ensure compliance with independent recommendations and to actively promote less restrictive alternatives. This too could be brought into practice very quickly, because the SOAD independent review and obligations on hospital managers are already in place.

I thank Mencap, the National Autistic Society, the Challenging Behaviour Foundation and VoiceAbility for their help drafting Amendments 4 and 5, which would require His Majesty’s Government to publish a fully costed plan to provide sufficient community services. These services are needed to switch on the important learning disability and autism elements of the Bill. One of these amendments was originally tabled for Committee and has been revised in light of the Minister’s response. Both would require the Government to consult with stakeholders to develop and publish a costed plan to ensure that integrated care boards and local authorities provide a sufficient number of the right services, as needed, to people with learning disabilities and autistic people.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to noble Lords for their amendments and for the contributions they have made today. I express my thanks at the beginning of this first day of Report for the generosity of time and expertise of noble Lords from across the House—I have greatly appreciated it.

I turn now to the specifics. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, is aware, I agree with the principle behind Amendment 1, but there are limited circumstances where it might be appropriate to use the Mental Capacity Act to ensure that patients get the right support. I am glad that the noble Baroness welcomed my letter and that it was helpful. For people who have recently received treatment for a psychiatric disorder under the Mental Health Act, the Mental Capacity Act may be required to continue to support the individual in hospital in the short term while a community-based placement is being arranged.

Monitoring our reforms will indeed be crucial, as many noble Lords have said today. The NHS England assuring transformation dataset collects data on the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people detained in mental health in-patient settings under the Mental Capacity Act. As the noble Baroness herself referred to, the current number is fewer than five; nevertheless, it is, as she said, important.

I reiterate from this Dispatch Box the commitment that I made in the letter. Ahead of reforms to Part II, Section 3, we commit to monitoring the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people who are detained under the Mental Capacity Act, and will include a line on this in standard publications. Should we see an increase in this number following the reforms and discover that the Mental Capacity Act is being used inappropriately, we will ensure that appropriate action is taken.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her work on long-term segregation. Many noble Lords have raised facilities and community resourcing. I will address this, and the concerns about commitments in this Act being applied, when I turn to Amendments 4 to 6. On Amendments 3 and 55, there is a requirement in the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 to publish instances of isolation in mental health units. We have consulted on making this and other restrictive practices notifiable to the CQC within 72 hours for all patients in mental health hospitals, allowing the regulator to take prompt appropriate action.

Practical concerns were raised through the consultation that was held, which we are legally required to consider. I hope noble Lords will understand that because of this I am unable to commit to mandating reporting at this stage or to give a timeline, which I was asked for. However, noble Lords can be well assured that I more than understand the urgency. My officials have written to the CQC to commission it to develop a proportionate reporting mechanism, as has been referred to, and these changes can be made in regulations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked about restricted practice notification. Because this is to be made in regulations, clearly that will be, as usual, when parliamentary time allows. Every NHS-funded organisation is responsible for ensuring that safeguarding duties are applied. The code of practice requires the local safeguarding team to be made aware of any patient in long-term segregation.

On Amendment 56, the code of practice already sets out that a patient’s situation should be reviewed by a clinician at least once every 24 hours and at least weekly by the multidisciplinary team. The CQC has received funding to continue the programme of independent care or care (education) and treatment reviews for two years, and reviews recommenced in May 2024. We need to consider the programme’s impacts and the outcome of the spending review before future decisions are taken. Doing this outside legislation allows for flexibility. The independent care (education) and treatment reviews model has evolved as we have learned about what works best. We want to be able to continue to deliver the right approach. On Amendment 52, we will review the guidance in the code of practice on the use of long-term segregation, drawing on available evidence. This does not require primary legislation.

To my point on drawing on available evidence, we will indeed use the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, alongside other evidence, to consider changes that need to be made to the Mental Health Act code of practice, which we will review as part of the implementation of the Mental Health Act reforms after Royal Assent. We hope that this, alongside other actions that we are taking—including the continuation of ICETRs and NHS England’s quality transformation programme—will make progress to reduce long-term segregation.

There were points raised about Amendment 53, which we will return to in the debate on the fifth group. On Amendment 57, it is our belief that this duplicates existing requirements. The Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, once fully implemented, will require mental health units to have a responsible person who must keep a record of any use of force by staff.

I absolutely understand the concerns that many noble Lords have raised about community support. This has driven Amendments 4 to 6. I also recognise the need for accountability and scrutiny of these reforms—a point that has been made several times.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that I hope I am about to do better by him than, “It will be all right on the night”, but he will be able to judge that. I am pleased with what I can commit, which is that within a year of Royal Assent, and each year subsequently, we will lay a Written Ministerial Statement in both Houses. This will include setting out details of the work that has been done over the preceding 12 months to implement this legislation and plans for how we will implement future reforms. It will include progress on the learning disability and autism reforms and plans for community provision.

Regarding Amendment 68 and the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, we have heard concerns about possible unintended consequences, such as the potential criminalisation of individuals or detention via other legislative routes. To avoid such scenarios, we will commence changes to Section 3 only once there are strong community services in place and it is safe to do so, because flexibility is essential.

I hope that these commitments will satisfy noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

Will parliamentarians be able to question and amend the plan that will be laid before Parliament every year? The lack of ability to influence that process and that plan concerns noble Lords.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Hollins]

4: Clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“125FA Community Services Sufficiency Plan: commissioning of services for autistic people and people with a learning disability(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a document setting out a plan for resourcing and commissioning sufficient community services for autistic people and people with a learning disability to ensure the operability of provisions in the Mental Health Act 2025. (2) The document shall be referred to as the “Community Services Sufficiency Plan”.(3) The Community Services Sufficiency Plan must be published within one year of the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed.(4) The Community Services Sufficiency Plan must include—(a) a definition of “sufficient community services” in relation to autistic people and people with a learning disability, including how sufficient community services will be assessed regarding the operability of provisions in the Mental Health Act 2025;(b) the actions that the Secretary of State will take to ensure community services are available to meet demand for autistic people and people with a learning disability after the end of the 28-day detention period under section 2(4) of this Act (admission for assessment);(c) the actions that the Secretary of State will take to ensure that sufficient community services for autistic people and people with a learning disability are available to prevent detention under section 3 of this Act (admission for treatment);(d) plans to allocate appropriate resource to ensure operability of services, including, but not limited to, financial resource;(e) plans to ensure that responsible bodies and individuals receive the necessary training in autism and learning disability to carry out support, diagnosis, and treatment;(f) plans for data collection to support the commissioning of sufficient services for autistic people and people with a learning disability;(g) targets and milestones relevant to—(i) the number of autistic people and people with a learning disability who are detained under this Act, and(ii) the development of sufficient community services for autistic people and people with a learning disability,(h) any other information the Secretary of State deems relevant.(5) For a period of 10 years beginning on the day on which the Community Services Sufficiency Plan is first published, the Secretary of State—(a) must keep the plan under review, and(b) may revise it.(6) If the Secretary of State revises the Community Services Sufficiency Plan, the Secretary of State must publish it as revised.”

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the promises made by the Minister, but they are not wholly reassuring and I had intended to test the opinion of the House. However, I would like to put on record the lack of support from the Opposition Benches, even though I have the support of many Members of the Cross-Bench group and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. This lack of support is surprising, given the failure of their own plan, Building the Right Support. I fear it would be wasting the time of your Lordships’ House for me to proceed, so, instead, I will keep an eagle eye on the progress of the promised plan and the resources allocated to make it achievable, as well as the degree of challenge and amendment that will be facilitated. I will not move Amendment 4.

Amendment 4 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, this amendment would add the words

“seeks to minimise the patient’s distress”

and promote their

“recovery from any childhood trauma”.

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

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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