Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.

1: Clause 5, page 11, line 22, leave out “by a constable or other authorised person”

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments 2 to 21, including Amendments 19A and 19D. It is a pleasure to return this Bill to this House; I very much appreciate the support and engagement of noble Lords throughout its passage.

Let me turn first to the government amendments in the other place, other than the minor and technical amendments, which are there for clarification. We have clarified the duties on NHS bodies to make arrangements regarding advance choice documents, otherwise known as ACDs. NHS bodies must actively inform individuals about ACDs, rather than taking a minimal approach. The Bill requires that information and help are provided to people who wish to make an ACD through discussion with a suitably qualified person. NHS bodies should consider the advantages of making an ACD within 12 months after discharge and aim to provide support. Additional guidance on these duties will be in the revised code.

I thank my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for raising concerns about the unequal application of the Human Rights Act. The Government have now made it so that registered private providers delivering Section 117 aftercare or in-patient mental health services, funded by local authorities or the NHS, are treated as carrying out public functions under the Human Rights Act and act compatibly with the convention rights. This amendment will apply UK-wide.

I turn to the amendments made by this House on police powers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady May, for her constructive engagement and for establishing the review of the Mental Health Act when she was Prime Minister, which has brought us to this place today. We have removed the amendments made to Clause 5 that would have added police and other authorised professionals to Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act. Extending police and other authorised professionals to these sections would be inappropriate—a view that is shared by the police.

We have removed Clause 50 from the Bill, which would have extended emergency police powers under Sections 135 and 136 of the Act to other authorised persons. Health and care professionals lack the training, equipment and access to rapid back-up needed to use such powers safely, and stakeholders are concerned about staff having the authority to use reasonable force. A blanket extension of powers to multiple agencies would risk confusion and delay in emergencies due to a lack of clarity over who should respond.

There are strong views on either side of this issue, and there are situations where health professionals feel that they do not have the powers they need. That is why I am announcing longer-term plans to launch a consultation into emergency police powers of detention. We will consult on the powers available to different professionals in different situations and settings, in particular—but not limited to—the operation of the emergency powers in Sections 135 and 136. The consultation will seek views on powers and joint working approaches to ensure that health and social care professionals and police have the appropriate powers to act in order to prevent people harming themselves and others when in a mental health crisis. We firmly believe that this is the right approach to a complex issue that requires careful consideration and consultation.

I turn to community treatment orders. Clause 6(3) has been removed from the Bill, as CTOs already comply with the code and have an initial six-month period. The responsible clinician may renew a CTO if there is a risk of serious harm without it and a reasonable prospect of therapeutic benefit. Following positive engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I can confirm that the Government will review the statutory forms that relate to CTOs, with the aim of strengthening them to ensure a clear audit trail of the reasons for applying a CTO and associated conditions.

Regulations will require that statutory care and treatment plans specify any CTO conditions and their justifications, which will also be clarified in the code. We will work with the Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure that the patient’s plan is considered alongside other evidence at tribunal hearings. We will clarify in the code that, where a tribunal recommends that the responsible clinician reconsider CTO conditions as it does not consider them necessary, the responsible clinician should review and, potentially, revise those conditions. The code will set out that the responsible clinician should inform the patient of their decision after considering the tribunal’s recommendation, which should be recorded in writing. We will engage on the code before publication and involve the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in the process. As the tribunal is responsible for considering all relevant evidence, this may include recent recommendations made at past tribunal hearings regarding the conditions placed on the person, including the detail and rationale of any current conditions.

I can confirm that since September 2025 we have increased the quantity and frequency of reporting on racial disparities in key metrics, such as detention CTOs and length of stay by ethnicity. Much of this data was previously published annually but it is now published monthly, allowing for closer monitoring of progress. The data is publicly available on the Mental Health Act annual dashboard and, along with implementation of the patient and carer race equality framework, will be used by the Care Quality Commission as part of its inspection regime.

On the debriefing amendment, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for their constructive engagement. We have removed Clause 35, which required independent mental health advocates to consult people about their in-patient experience after discharge. This removes policy duplication and additional strain on advocacy services, whose focus is on supporting detained patients’ rights. The code will clarify the processes of care planning. Supporting someone to make an advance choice document should include the opportunity to reflect on past experiences. The 10-year health plan commits to making patient feedback central to quality improvement.

The Government have tabled amendments in lieu regarding the appointment of a nominated person for a child under 16 who lacks competence, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her continued work on this. The Bill now states that an approved mental health professional, or AMHP, must appoint either

“a person who has parental responsibility … a person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the relevant patient is to live”

or

“a person who is a special guardian”.

If there is no suitable person willing to act, the AMHP must consider the child’s wishes and feelings when deciding who to appoint.

On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, to the Government’s Motion, I understand the intention to prevent a parent who has had parental responsibility limited from being appointed as a nominated person by an AMHP where a child lacks competence to make the appointment. The amendment tabled would mean that a special guardian or person named under a child arrangements order as someone with whom the child must live must be appointed. It is not appropriate for legislation to say that a particular individual must always be appointed nominated person. If they are not able, or even willing, to perform the role effectively, requiring them to take this role and ruling out other options risks harming the child’s interests.

As we know, legislation can be a blunt tool. It is far more appropriate to set out nuances such as this in the statutory code to ensure that the child’s individual needs are considered. That is why we previously agreed to set up an expert task force to consider these very complexities. Part of this role includes ensuring that clear guidance is given to AMHPs on who to appoint in a range of scenarios to avoid unintended consequences. At this late stage, in order to get this right, we should not be hurriedly working through these complexities as part of the legislation. We should develop detailed guidance, in consultation with professionals and patients, through drafting the code of practice. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.

In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords will support our position and pass the legislation without amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 19D in my name. I thank the Minister and her officials for the frequency of their engagement on the Bill. I put on record my apology for not spotting possible issues with the Government’s Motion, to which I have tabled the amendment, much earlier. I thank the Minister and her officials for meeting with the approved mental health professionals, the professional group dealing—often late at night or at a weekend—with our sickest children, who do not have the competency to appoint a nominated person for themselves.

I specifically recognise the inconvenience to the Bill team, but this matter relates to the protection of mentally ill children and has been flagged at every stage since the Wessely review in 2018, when a consultation was suggested. In recent meetings with the Minister, I understood that what was to be achieved was that the appointment of nominated persons would reflect existing court orders made by the family court on child protection grounds. The mischief that the approved mental health professionals want to solve is that they do not want to have any discretion to appoint as a nominated person anybody not in accordance with an existing court order. They want to see this achieved through the mandatory appointment of the special guardian in priority to anybody else, the rationale being that special guardianship is usually used to avoid care orders, adoption or long-term fostering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the thank yous and the appreciation for the whole team, which, as noble Lords have said, is extensive. I also appreciate the welcome for the number of improvements that we have made to the Bill by being able to work together. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, as I said at the outset. We have made significant progress on the Bill. Even today, the amendments and discussions reflect the complexity of these reforms and the shared determination to deliver legislation that will make a real difference.

I will seek to address some of the points that Peers have raised—as always, I am very happy to pick up points outside the Chamber. I turn first to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. She asked about having strong requirements for local authorities rather than special guardians. Stakeholders, including the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, agreed that the main priority should be whether the child is under a care order—that is, the local authority has parental responsibility—and that this should be considered under a separate tier to a special guardian or child arrangements order.

I will now pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised about why there is no use of the word “or” in the legislative drafting. On this point, I am advised that, by default, the absence of “and/or” on the page means “or” as a matter of drafting. The modern style is to say “and” when you mean “and”, but to leave—I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Pannick, and some of their colleagues can assist. I will start that sentence again: the modern style is to say “and” when you mean “and”, but to leave “or” silent if the latter is what is intended. This is the key point: we are clear that it must be a single person who is appointed.

On the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised about the creation of a hierarchy, we simply do not agree that a person with residual parental responsibility should always be blocked from being a nominated person, as the child arrangements order or special guardianship may be in place for reasons other than the parent being a risk to the child. However, we agree with the general principle that the AMHP should be aware of, and consider the implications of, any child arrangements order or special guardianship. In most cases, it is true that they will still appoint those people to be the nominated person, rather than the person with residual parental responsibility. It is considered that allowing flexibility allows judgments to be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration specific circumstances and what is most appropriate for the child or young person, rather than a blanket exclusion. We will provide clear guidance in the code, following consultation and engagement with experts and professionals. I hope that will allow a way forward to deal with the complexity.

The noble Baroness raised a point about a parent having malevolent intent. I stress that, if the AMHP later finds that the special guardian will be a more suitable person, the legislation allows them to terminate the appointment of the nominated person and appoint the special guardian instead. If there are any outstanding issues that I have not covered either in my speech or in this response, I will be happy to discuss those with the noble Baroness, as I have continued to do. As I said earlier to noble Lords, I believe that this discussion, these questions and the amendment all show the complexity that we are all seeking to resolve.

The noble Baroness, Lady May, asked a number of questions about the consultation. My department will lead the consultation, and we will be working with the Home Office and stakeholders to scope it. While I cannot give an exact timeline for the review, and I am sorry to be unable to do so, I can say again that before launching the consultation we are going to be working closely with the Home Office, the NHS, social care colleagues and the police to consider the options to consult on that support better outcomes for patients and the services. I will be pleased to set out further details on the timetable in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady May, asked what happens at the end of the review. I am sure she will understand that I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the process. However, on a future vehicle to implement the review, while obviously we cannot commit to a legislative means to do that, we will be taking forward the consultation results and outcomes when parliamentary time allows. I will be pleased to keep the noble Baroness updated on all these developments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned my colleague the Minister, Stephen Kinnock MP, who did a sterling job of taking through this legislation in the other place. She asked about his work with lived-experience groups. I say to your Lordships’ House and to the noble Baroness in particular that, after Royal Assent, our first priority will be to draft and consult on the code of practice. We will be engaging with people with lived experience, their families and carers, and with staff, professional groups, commissioners, providers and others to do this, alongside launching a public consultation. The code will be laid before Parliament before final publication. Realistically, we expect that this process will take at least a year, but the nature of our discussions means that it is important that we get this right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about confirmation of an implementation timeline. While of course legislation is important, implementation is what delivers the results. We estimate, as the noble Baroness has heard me say, that full implementation will take around 10 years; that does not mean we wait 10 years but, realistically, that is how long full implementation will take, due to the time needed to train the workforce and the need to ensure that the right community support is available. Noble Lords will be aware that this timeframe necessarily spans multiple spending reviews and multiple Parliaments, so we are limited—I hope noble Lords will understand this—in the detail that can be given about future spend and timelines. I quite understand why noble Lords raise this issue.

I acknowledge the dedication and thoughtful engagement shown by Members of your Lordships’ House throughout the passage of the Bill. The amendments made by the Government reflect not only technical refinements but, importantly to me, our response to the concerns and insights that were raised by Peers, MPs, stakeholders and those with lived experience. I believe that those concerns and insights have improved the Bill’s clarity and effectiveness, and I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments. It is thanks to what I regard as exemplary cross-party working that we are in a position to pass the Bill into law and begin implementation. It is about bringing positive change as soon as possible for those whose lives are touched by the legislation that we have debated. I commend the Motion to the House.

Motion on Amendment 1 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 17.

2: Clause 5, page 11, line 33, leave out “by a constable or other authorised person”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 18 and 19 but do propose Amendments 19B and 19C in lieu—

18: Schedule 2, page 81, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 82 and insert—
“(3) If no local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient but there are one or more other persons who have parental responsibility and who are willing to act as the nominated person, the approved mental health professional must appoint one of them.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 20 and 21.

20: Schedule 3, page 92, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
“(c) the patient is not liable to be detained under this Act or any other legislation or by virtue of a court order.”