Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 54, in schedule 2, page 77, line 21, at end insert—

“(3) Where the patient has not attained the age of 16 years, a nominated person must have parental responsibility for the patient.”

This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient.

Amendment 55, in schedule 2, page 80, line 13, after “2(2))” insert

“, has parental responsibility for the patient (see paragraph 2(3))”.

This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient.

Government amendments 40 and 41.

Schedule 2 stand part.

Clauses 25 to 28 stand part.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of clauses 24 to 28, schedule 2, and the vital amendments 54 and 55 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). Together, those provisions form a crucial pillar of the Bill, which must modernise our framework for the 21st century while not forgetting one of the oldest truths in our social contract: that parents, not the state, bear the first and deepest duty to protect their children.

The Bill will reform an Act that has stood in various forms since 1983, and which was itself built on a much older legacy of how this country balances individual liberty with the need, in rare cases, to deprive someone of that liberty for the sake of that person’s safety, or the safety of others. For decades, that balancing act has been shaped by the so-called “nearest relative” rule. However well intentioned that rule was, it has often failed to serve the people it is meant to protect. Patients have found themselves legally represented by estranged parents, distant cousins or an ex-spouse with whom they have had no contact for years. In the worst cases, that has compounded trauma and undermined recovery. Clause 24 will address that problem by giving patients the power to appoint a “nominated person” of their choosing: someone whom they trust, who understands their needs, and who can speak up when they themselves cannot. That is, quite simply, the right approach for modern mental health care. It is grounded in autonomy, and respect for the individual’s right to shape their own care and safeguard their own dignity.

Good principles must be matched by good machinery. That is why schedule 2 is not a mere administrative detail, but the backbone of this reform. It sets out, step by step, how a nomination is made, who may be nominated, how conflicts are avoided, and how mistakes are corrected. Under part 1 of schedule 2, a patient must make the appointment in writing. It must be signed and witnessed by

“a health or care professional or independent mental health advocate”.

That is a safeguard against casual or coerced choices. The nominated person must themselves consent: they are not a passive bystander but an active participant. If the relationship breaks down, the patient may revoke the nomination, or the nominated person may resign. Crucially, the county court may step in to remove or bar a nominated person if that person acts unreasonably, abuses their power, or is clearly unsuitable.

Part 2 of proposed new schedule A1 to the Mental Health Act 1983, inserted by schedule 2 to the Bill, addresses an issue that we must take seriously: capacity. Not every patient will have the capacity to make the appointment at the moment it matters most. The proposed new schedule therefore provides a fall-back system. A court may appoint a nominated person on the patient’s behalf, or a default can be determined under criteria set by regulation. The court again retains ultimate oversight to resolve disputes or replace a default, if the circumstances require it. It is thoughtful, practical and rights-based lawmaking, and I commend the drafters for getting the balance broadly right.

Clauses 25 to 28 will give the nominated person real power. They are not a figurehead. Clause 25 demands that professionals consult the nominated person before applying for detention or guardianship. If the nominated person objects, the professional must provide a report showing why detention is none the less necessary, with a clear risk-based justification. The nominated person can then challenge that decision. Clause 26 shortens the duration of the bar on discharge requests from six months to three. If a nominated person believes that the person no longer needs to be detained, they can press for release sooner and more effectively than before.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Without wanting to sound abrupt, we all have the explanatory notes and are reading them, so in the interests of brevity might the hon. Member consider getting to the point about what he would add to or take away from the Bill? We all know what the clauses aim to do; the Minister has already set that out.

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but I shall continue in the same vein unless I am told to do otherwise.

Clause 27 will ensure that when community treatment orders are considered, with all the restrictions they bring, the nominated person’s voice must be heard and an objection must be properly countered with evidence. Clause 28 addresses hospital transfers, recognising that being moved to another hospital can uproot fragile support networks and compound distress. By embedding a consultation duty here, too, the Bill will make it harder for patients to be moved arbitrarily or without explanation.

In summary, the clauses and the schedule empower patients, embed transparency and build trust, but they do so through a lens rightly focused on adults—capable, consenting adults who make choices freely. That brings me to my fundamental point: we must be absolutely certain that this approach will not inadvertently erode a bedrock of child protection: that a parent is the default legal protector for their child. For an adult, autonomy means freedom of choice, but for a child, especially one under 16, autonomy must never mean being left alone to navigate a labyrinth of legal forms and healthcare powers without the protection of a parent. That is why I strongly support amendments 54 and 55, which would ensure that for under-16s, parents remain the lawful decision makers and the first safeguard for their child’s welfare.

Let us imagine for a moment a vulnerable 14-year-old who, in the confusion and fear of a psychiatric admission, is persuaded by a well-meaning adult—or, worse, someone with a hidden agenda—to appoint them as the nominated person. That child may be separated from their parents—the very people who know the child best and have a legal duty to care for them—while an outsider gains rights to object to treatment or discharge decisions. Once that nomination is made and witnessed, it carries weight in law and could marginalise the very people who brought that child into the world and have a moral and legal duty to protect them.

This is not just theoretical. We know from real cases in family courts that unscrupulous individuals can exploit vulnerable young people. The risk that the new system could unintentionally open the door to manipulation must be taken seriously. Let us not be naive about how exploitation works: groomers, traffickers and abusers thrive in grey areas of the law; they will find loopholes and drive a coach and horses through them. If we do not make it crystal clear that no child under 16 can override parental responsibility without a court’s explicit order, we risk creating an invitation for abuse.

Can the Minister assure the Committee that no child under 16 will be permitted to override parental responsibility simply by nominating someone else without a full and proper process? Schedule 2 does include fall-back arrangements and eligibility checks, and those are welcome, but unless the law is explicit that only a court can displace a parent’s right to act for their child, those safeguards are not watertight.

Amendment 54 addresses a related area, the notification of incidents. It would require the Secretary of State to review whether the law should be strengthened so that all admissions of children and young people for mental health treatment trigger mandatory incident reporting, and whether the timeframes for that reporting are still appropriate. It would require the Secretary of State to review whether incident reporting requirements are robust enough for all under-18s in mental health settings. Are all incidents of restraint, seclusion, injury or absconding being reported promptly and comprehensively? If not, what must change?

We have seen far too many tragic cases in which harm or abuse in children’s mental health units came to light only after a scandal broke, because the system did not catch it in time. Proper oversight is not an optional extra; it is essential for the trust of families. In my view, a review alone is not enough, so I urge to the Minister to confirm that, if the review finds gaps, the Government will legislate swiftly to close them. In the meantime, what interim steps will be taken to ensure that no child is left unprotected?

Amendment 55 is the final safeguard in this suite of amendments. It would allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to other laws to implement the Bill cleanly. That is good housekeeping, but it must not become a blank cheque. When it comes to parental rights or child safeguarding, no technical tweak should be done behind closed doors by negative procedure; Parliament must approve it in full daylight, on the record. Will the Minister confirm without ambiguity that any consequential amendment that touches on parental powers or child protections will come before both Houses under the affirmative procedure?

To illustrate things in the starkest terms, let me paint one more scenario for this Committee. A 15-year-old girl, already vulnerable, is detained following a self-harm incident. Her parents, distressed but committed, wish to be involved in her care plan and discharge, but in her fragile mental state the child is persuaded by an older friend—perhaps well-meaning, perhaps not—to nominate them instead. That friend, now a legally recognised nominated person, blocks discharge, disagrees with treatment and excludes the parents from updates. The clinicians are caught in a legal tangle. The child is caught in the middle, and the parents must fight in court to reclaim their rightful role. As I said before, that is not a theory; it is the sort of real-life pitfall that sloppy drafting can enable. If we see it coming and fail to stop it, we will have failed as legislators.

I wish to be clear that I support clauses 24 to 28 and schedule 2 because they modernise mental health law for adults in a way that is respectful and empowering. I support amendment 54, because it would strengthen transparency and accountability where children’s lives and safety are at stake. I support amendment 55, because it would keep our statute book coherent, but it must never be misused to erode rights by stealth. Above all, I support the amendments because they ensure that the new nominated person system does not inadvertently weaken the oldest and strongest protection we have, which is the legal responsibility of parents to care for their own child.

I urge this Committee to adopt the clauses, the schedule and amendments 54 and 55 as essential guardrails to ensure that what we pass here is not just legally sound, but morally right. Let us modernise this law and strengthen patient voice, but let us never allow a child to lose their parents’ protection by accident or bureaucratic slip. Let us be in no doubt: when the state removes or limits parental rights, it must do so under the strictest scrutiny of a court of law, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. A signed piece of paper at a bedside should never be enough. That is the dividing line between a humane, modern health system and one that risks creating new injustices in the name of progress.

I ask the Minister again: will the Government enshrine in this Bill or elsewhere that parents are the legal representatives for under-16s unless a court directs otherwise? Will he guarantee rigorous checks to prevent the manipulation of young minds at their most vulnerable? Will he commit that any necessary changes found by the incident review under amendment 54 would be acted on without delay? I commend this package of reforms to the Committee, and I trust that the Government will listen carefully to these warnings and act to make the legislation watertight.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, not least because I understand you have just returned from New Zealand, where you had duties as the Government’s trade envoy. I thought perhaps we should do a haka in your honour to mark it, but you might rule against that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aphra Brandreth]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is not a simple or straightforward addition; it would require potentially substantial training. We would not want somebody in a role that they were not adequately prepared for. With any amendment, we would need to ensure that training, and the time and expense of it, had been factored in.

Even with the best intentions, the success of any extended support role, such as that envisaged in the amendment, will ultimately rely on the availability and integration of local services. Where appropriate services are in place and are working well together, advocates can play a valuable role in signposting and supporting access. Rather than placing additional responsibilities on the IMHA, our focus should be on working with community providers to ensure that the necessary support, particularly for social and financial needs, is consistently available and is effectively joined up across the system.

Having said that, I recognise and welcome the emphasis placed by the hon. Member for Winchester on the role of carers and family members. Too often, they are overlooked in discharge planning, yet their involvement can make a critical difference to a patient’s successful transition from hospital to home. When carers feel informed, supported and prepared, it gives patients the reassurance and stability that they need to continue their recovery with confidence. The primary responsibility of the independent mental health advocate, however, must remain their responsibility to the patient. I am concerned that the drafting of the amendment could create ambiguity about who the IMHA is principally there to support.

Financial stress is undoubtedly a real and urgent concern. Mental ill health can severely affect an individual’s capacity to work, to manage their finances or even to engage with systems of support. Equally, financial instability can exacerbate mental health difficulties. Those are serious challenges that must be addressed, but I would question whether the IMHA is the right professional to take on that role directly. Instead, we should ensure that they are well placed to refer individuals to appropriate services without assuming responsibility for co-ordinating that support themselves.

[Gregory Stafford]

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Winchester will press his amendment to a vote, but if he does, would my hon. Friend support the idea of having a pilot roll-out of the system before we go the whole hog, because of all the potential problems that she has highlighted?

[Aphra Brandreth]

That is an important point. These are quite substantial changes, and we do not know the full impact that they would have on the system. We have talked about issues such as whether there is sufficient training for advocates and a joined-up approach with what is happening in the community. A pilot would provide the opportunity to see where it is working and where there might be things that need to be changed or considered. It would certainly be a sensible approach. We all want to ensure that we are supporting individuals to be discharged in a safe way that minimises the likelihood of their being readmitted, but we need to do so without overcomplicating the roles and the system that are currently in place.

I commend the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing these important issues to the attention of the Committee. His amendment raises legitimate and timely concerns around the support offered to individuals leaving hospital, as well as the wider context in which recovery takes place. I hope that I have been able to offer some reflections that will assist hon. Members in considering the matter further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Currently, under the Mental Health Act, a person detained for treatment can be kept in hospital initially for six months before the responsible clinician must make an assessment to decide whether to continue their detention or to discharge them. The independent review raised concerns that six months is too long. It heard evidence that patients were sometimes detained longer than necessary and were only considered for discharge when a tribunal hearing was due. It found that in up to 17% of cases referred to the mental health tribunal, discharge happened in the 48 hours before the hearing. That suggests that some patients are being detained longer than is necessary.

The review recommended reducing from six months to three months the initial detention period for people admitted for treatment, so that a patient’s detention is reviewed sooner to ensure that patients are not detained when they are no longer benefiting from treatment and can be safely discharged.

Clause 29 will mean that patients detained for treatment have their detention reviewed three times—up from twice—in the first year: at three, six and twelve months from the date of detention. The new renewal periods will not apply to part III patients, except in very specific circumstances when an unrestricted patient changes status. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Gregory Stafford]

I have some brief questions for the Minister about this important clause, which has serious implications for patient liberty and for public protection. We must ensure that decisions are clinically and legally sound. First, how will the proposed changes to initial and renewal detention periods help conditions and services and manage public risk more effectively, particularly in forensic or high-risk cases? Secondly, do longer detention periods after revocation of a community treatment order reflect a higher perceived risk, and if so, is there clear clinical evidence supporting that extension to six months? Thirdly, are we confident that the new timelines strike the right balance between protecting the public and ensuring patients are not detained longer than necessary? Finally, and as an adjunct to that, what other considerations are there in the clause or the Bill to keep the public safe and to make sure that decisions are correct in the context of clause 29?

[Dr Evans]

Clause 29 addresses the length and renewal of detention periods under the Mental Health Act. I begin by acknowledging the important step that this clause represents in shifting towards a more rights-based, patient-centred model, as enshrined in the Bill.

Clause 29 would shorten the initial period of detention for treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act from six months to three months. Subsequent renewal periods are, likewise, reduced from six months to three months and then from one year to six months. This is clearly informed by the principle of least restriction, as is rightly highlighted in the explanatory notes in paragraph 212.

On that basis, we welcome the direction of travel, but, while we agree with the principle of moving towards shorter, more proportionate detention periods, we have questions and concerns about implementation, consistency and safeguards, which I hope the Minister will address.

First, will shorter periods lead to better outcomes, or just more paperwork? The goal here is to ensure that detention is not allowed to drift and that patients are not held in hospital for longer than is necessary without rigorous justification. However, the clause still allows for indefinite renewal in increments, once those shorter initial periods expire. Can the Minister assure us that these changes will result in more meaningful reviews and not just more frequent rubber-stamping of detention? It would be helpful to understand whether the Government have assessed the clinical capacity, particularly among responsible clinicians and approved mental health professionals, to conduct these reviews with real rigour. If not resourced properly, we risk replacing one form of inertia with another.

Secondly, what safeguards exist against the resetting of detention periods on transfer? I am by no means a legal expert, so forgive me if I have completely misinterpreted this, and I bow to the legal expertise of the Minister, the Government and, most importantly, to able staff in the Box. However, clause 29(2) introduces into section 19 of the Mental Health Act new subsection (2A), which provides that if a guardianship patient is transferred to hospital, they will be treated as if they had been admitted on the day of transfer. In practical terms, does that not reset the detention clock?

To my eyes, this concept of resetting the detention clock appears most clearly in subsections (2) and 29(5)(d) of clause 29, where a patient who is transferred from guardianship to hospital, or who has their community treatment order revoked, is treated as if they had been newly admitted to hospital on that day. This effectively resets the start date of the detention period. Clause 29(2), which will insert proposed new section 19(2A) into the Mental Health Act, states:

“But, in the case of a patient falling within subsection (2)(d), section 20 has effect as if the patient has been admitted to hospital in pursuance of an application for admission for treatment on the day on which the patient is transferred.”

New paragraph 5B of schedule 1 to the Mental Health Act states that the modifications

“apply in relation to a patient transferred from guardianship to a hospital in pursuance of regulations made under section 19…In section 20(1)(a)…for “admitted”…there is to be substituted “transferred”.

In new paragraphs 5C and 5D of that schedule, the same resetting principle applies to patients whose CTOs are revoked, with renewal detention starting from the date of revocation, not from their original hospital admission or order.

In practice, this could mean that if a patient is placed under guardianship on 1 January and transferred to hospital on 1 April under section 19(2)(d) of the Mental Health Act, then under proposed new section 19(2A), they would be treated as if they had been newly admitted on 1 April. Therefore, even though they have been under compulsion since 1 January, the new three-month detention clock begins on 1 April. Likewise, a patient under a community treatment order that was issued on 1 February and revoked on 1 August will, under paragraph 5D, start a new in-patient detention period on 1 August, not 1 February.

On one hand, that makes sense. We do not want people whose state is fluctuating to be released, or simply to time out. On the other hand, if we are looking purely from the patient’s perspective, as the legislation asks us to do, with regard to the principles in clause 1, that could be a problem. Will the Minister clarify how many times such a reset could occur for a single individual? Is there any form of oversight, review or reporting requirement where this happens? That mechanism might be necessary in some clinical contexts, but without safeguards it could become a back door to prolonging detention, which is something that the clause seeks to reduce. Is there some kind of register or mandatory recording of these incidents to spot repeat patterns?

Thirdly, another issue that needs addressing is the creation of possible complexity. Paragraphs 218 and 219 of the explanatory notes set out a separate but equally important issue. Clause 29’s welcome shortening of detention periods—from three months to start with, then three months, then six months, then annual reviews—is not applied evenly to patient groups. Who gets the shorter periods? Most civil patients detained under part II and some patients on revoked community treatment orders. Who does not get them? Patients detained by a hospital order from a court, if their CTO is revoked within six months of the order, as in paragraph 218. And, of course, restricted patients—typically those involved in more serious offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak on clauses 30 to 33, which go to the core of the rights architecture that surrounds mental health law in this country—namely, the oversight and challenge mechanisms available to individuals subject to detention, supervision or conditional discharge. I think we are all aware that the 1983 Act, although fit for its time, has failed to keep pace with the evolving understanding of mental health illness and modern expectations of legal accountability or procedural fairness. The clauses, although technical in nature, seek to rectify a number of the long-standing shortcomings in the operation of the mental health tribunal system.

Clause 30 will extend and clarify the time period within which patients may apply to tribunals. Essentially, it will do two things. First, it will extend the application window for section 2 patients—those detained for assessment—from 14 to 21 days. Secondly, it will reduce the initial waiting period for section 3 patients and those under guardianship from six months to three months. Those are sensible and overdue changes, because 14 days is a narrow window for any legal action, let alone one initiated by an individual who may be experiencing acute psychological distress.

Extending the application window to 21 days provides a fairer opportunity to seek representation and prepare a meaningful application. Equally, the reduction of the initial period for section 3 and guardianship patients to three months offers an important safeguard against prolonged detention without scrutiny. It restores a measure of clarity between the gravity of the detention order and the speed with which it may be challenged.

The clause will also clarify the rights of conditionally discharged restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions—that is, those who are discharged from hospital but required to comply with supervisional residence requirements that are so restrictive that they cross the legal threshold for a deprivation of liberty. At present, those individuals occupy a legal grey zone: they are not formally detained, yet the liberty they enjoy is so curtailed that it raises significant questions as to their article 5 rights. Clause 30 will properly address that anomaly by creating a defined, regular route of appeal, initially between six and 12 months from the imposition of the deprivation of liberty conditions, and biannually thereafter. Those are measured and proportionate changes that enhance access to justice, improve compliance with human rights obligations and restore clarity to a field that has suffered, at times, from legal opacity.

The reforms are not without consequences. A wider cohort of eligible applicants and more frequent review periods will inevitably increase the burden on the tribunal service, on legal aid provision and on clinical teams who must prepare documents and attend hearings. That challenge is not to be dismissed lightly.

[Gregory Stafford]

Does my gallant and learned hon. Friend have any information on the current waiting times for tribunals? What does he expect the effect of the changes proposed in these clauses to be on waiting times?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We all know, from our casework or personal experiences outside of this place, about the pressures on the Courts and Tribunals Service. Mental health tribunals are not exempt from that pressure. Changing the timeframe on which tribunals operate, and the frequency with which reviews take place, will inevitably increase the burden on the service. Therefore, although these changes are broadly welcome, it is important that we are cognisant of their impact on the resources that will be required, the number of judges and wing members that will be needed, and of course the hard standing of the court and tribunal infrastructure that will need to be made available. Other issues, such as those around the digitalisation of the service, will also need to be addressed.

Clause 31 will recast the regime for automatic tribunal referrals, replacing the prior six-month structure with the concept of “a relevant period”. For detained patients, referrals will now occur at three months, then 12 months, and annually thereafter. For community patients, they will occur at six months, then 12 months, then annually. Most significantly, hospital managers will be under a new duty to refer a case when no review has occurred in 12 months, regardless of whether an application has been made. That is a sound reform.

The clause will introduce coherence to a previously fragmented system, and establishes a minimum standard of legal oversight. The inclusion of a backstop provision—that no individual should go more than 12 months without review—is essential. In a system in which patients may not always have the means or capacity to apply for a review themselves, it offers a critical safety net. Clause 31 will also repeal section 68A of the 1983 Act, which has become unwieldy and duplicative. By streamlining the referral process, the Bill enhances legal clarity and administrative efficiency, but I would caution that the increased complexity of the new timeframes may require significant training of those responsible for their implementation.

Clause 32 will provide for restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. It goes further than clause 30 by imposing mandatory referral duties on the Secretary of State. Under the clause, a tribunal must be convened after 12 months, every two years thereafter, and at four years if no review has occurred. Crucially, the clause also codifies the tribunal’s powers. It may now vary or impose conditions, including those that constitute a deprivation of liberty, provided that they are necessary to protect the public from serious harm and are no more restrictive than hospital detention. That clause introduces a principled, proportionate framework for balancing public protection with patient liberty, and avoids vague or discretionary use of such powers.

Finally, clause 33 will apply the same principles to restricted patients not subject to deprivation of liberty orders. Such individuals, although under fewer constraints, are none the less subject to significant legal orders. The new requirement for a tribunal review at two years, and every four years thereafter, ensures that oversight is regular and non-discriminatory.

All four clauses are united by a clear objective to rationalise tribunal access, enhance procedural safeguards and bring the Mental Health Act into alignment with modern standards of fairness and proportionality. However, I will close with a caveat: rights without resourcing are hollow. If we are to place greater demand on the tribunals service, and to rely on it as the guardian of liberty for thousands of individuals, it must be adequately funded, staffed and supported. Legal representation must be accessible. Tribunal members must be properly trained. Hospital managers must be equipped to meet their new responsibilities.

With those reservations, I broadly welcome clauses 30 to 33 as a necessary recalibration of our mental health law. They reflect the dignity of the individual, the demands of public safety, and the enduring principle that no one should be deprived of liberty without fair or timely review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Does my hon. Friend think that if there is a backlog, that could undermine patient rights or clinical progress in some way? How will the tribunal system be able to cope with that increased workload and meet its legal obligations to provide timely tribunals so that patients get the best care?

[Dr Evans]

That is a difficult balance to get right. I appreciate that the Government have said that the Bill will take 10 years to implement, but if these measures come into force from day one, we will start to see automatic referrals come through. There will be a lag as the transition happens, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: we can foresee scenarios where patients who want to be referred into the tribunal are waiting in inappropriate care places, which may be to the detriment of their personal care and may actually make their recovery worse. He is right to highlight that question, which is why having a broad understanding of how many extra referrals are coming would be useful.

Clause 32 focuses on conditionally discharged restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. It rightly ensures that those patients are brought within scope of automatic referral, first after 12 months and then every two years. Again, that is a positive step, ensuring that even those not detained in hospital will still have access to a review of their conditions. Crucially, the clause also gives the tribunals the power to vary or remove those DoL conditions.

Can the Minister say more about how that important power will be used? What criteria will the tribunals apply to assess whether a condition is genuinely necessary and proportionate? Will patients be legally represented in those hearings by default? Will another advocate be there, or will it be someone else in their place? Here, too, I would welcome some clarification from the Minister. I hope he will forgive my legal naivety, but my mother always said, “It’s better to ask a dumb question than stay dumb forever.”

The explanatory notes talk about DoL conditions. The current legal framework for authorising the deprivation of liberty for individuals who lack capacity is complex and in transition. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, deprivation of liberty safeguards have been the established mechanism since 2009 to ensure lawful deprivation of liberty in care settings. However, the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 introduced liberty protection safeguards as modernising replacements, designed to simplify and broaden protections.

LPS are widely seen as an improvement to DoLS, because they extend safeguards to a wider range of settings, including hospitals and people’s own homes where deprivation of liberty might occur. They also streamline the assessment process, reducing bureaucratic delays and better reflecting person-centred decision making. The Law Commission and various stakeholder groups have supported LPS as a way to address the significant practical and legal challenges posed by DoLS, including the so-called DoLS backlog, where assessments have been delayed for many vulnerable individuals.

Despite that, I do not believe that LPS have yet been implemented, leaving DoLS still in force. I wonder if we are therefore creating ambiguity as we update the Mental Health Act through the Bill’s clauses, such as those addressing conditional discharge and deprivation of liberty, without clarity on how those will intersect with the forthcoming LPS framework that will be introduced under separate legislation. That raises important questions about the sequencing and co-ordination of legislation reform. How will the Government ensure coherence and avoid conflicting provisions when different statutes address overlapping issues at different times?

Given that context, have the Government abandoned the planned implementation of LPS, or do they remain committed to bringing them into force? If the implementation is still planned, will the Government provide a clear timeline for when LPS will replace DoLS? How do the Government intend to ensure that the provisions we are debating will align with or adapt to the introduction of LPS? What steps are being taken to ensure that vulnerable individuals and professionals who navigate this complex legal landscape will have clear, consistent safeguards and guidance through the transition? Clarification on those points is essential to avoid legal uncertainty and to ensure that the reforms provide coherent protection for those deprived of their liberties.

Clause 33 deals with patients who are not under DoLS conditions. It will ensure that even those who are under DoLS conditions, such as detained restricted patients or conditionally discharged patients with lesser restrictions, receive automatic tribunals. It will reduce the current three-year referral intervention for detained restricted patients to 12 months and introduce automatic referrals for non-DoL conditionality discharge patients after two years and then every four years. Again, that is a step forward, but four years feels like a long gap between reviews for those discharged with conditions that still significantly affect their daily lives. Will the Minister explain the thought behind the chosen timeframe? If a person’s condition changes, is there a mechanism to trigger an early referral outside the normal cycle?

The clauses show progress. They reflect a clear intention to strengthen patients’ rights, increase oversight and address historical injustices, particularly for those living under deprivation of liberty conditions in the community. But with complexity comes risk, and we need to ensure that patients understand their rights and the legal support available. The tribunal system must be properly resourced to uphold the safeguards that we place in the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we create a space for young people to provide feedback. Some of that will be around past experiences when making their advance choice documents, but much broader opportunities for feedback will absolutely be built into the system. We want this to be a learning process. It is important that the code of practice is not just a document that sits on the shelf gathering dust; it should be a live document. That is why the feedback is so important.

It should be noted that although reflecting on past experiences may be therapeutic for some individuals, for others it can be traumatic, so the measure should be entirely service-user led. We also continue to be concerned about the burden that the amendment would place on independent mental health advocacy services, which are already under strain.

[Gregory Stafford]

I apologise—this may be due to the terminology of “amendment” versus “clause”—but is the Minister saying that the Government are likely to vote against clause 35 as it currently stands? He is talking about amendments and clauses, and that is slightly confusing me. [Interruption.] His officials are nodding.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I don’t know what that nod means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

We will figure it out as we go along. I have now lost my place. [Interruption.] My answer to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon is that the Government are voting against clause 35 stand part.

[Gregory Stafford]

Thank you, Minister.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Right. Advocates have told us that implementing what is set out in the clause would raise logistical and resourcing problems, as it would require a significant shift from their current role. They have also raised concerns that if they acted in effect on behalf of the hospital to collect feedback, their independence and impartiality in the eyes of the patient might be undermined. We would prefer to direct resources to increasing access to advocacy services among in-patients, as proposed by the Bill. Advocates play a crucial role in promoting and protecting the rights of patients. We do not wish to detract from that or to dilute their role. I do not commend the clause to the Committee.

[Jen Craft]

Like many Committee members, I was deeply confused about how we were proceeding.

On the face of it, the clause broadly seems as if it should be part of any Act about mental health care, including post discharge. I have spoken about my own experience of interacting with the Mental Health Act as it stands. I might have found the clause fairly helpful post discharge and others might have found it useful as well. However, I have just heard the Minister’s description of the limitations of the clause, and the speech that I was about to make has been thrown into complete disarray by the confusion just now. But I implore the Minister to consider the fact that, when it comes to encouraging participation, understanding, and co-designing and co-producing services, capturing the experience of those recently detained under the Mental Health Act can be extraordinarily useful. Clause 35, which was added by an amendment from the Lords, seems a fairly useful way to do that.

[Gregory Stafford]

Like the hon. Lady, I see many benefits from the clause. Like many Committee members, I am surprised that the Government intend to vote against it.

As has been mentioned, the clause was inserted in the House of Lords by my noble Friends Earl Howe and Lord Kamall. I think it introduces a very valuable and forward-looking provision—namely, a mandatory debrief session within 30 days of discharge. It introduces a formal mechanism for learning from patient experiences following detention under the Mental Health Act. Although patient feedback mechanisms exist in some services, they are not consistently applied or mandated. The clause ensures that every detained patient has the opportunity to reflect on their care with an independent advocate, and that their feedback contributes to service improvement. It reflects a broader shift in mental health law towards transparency, accountability and the patient voice, and aligns with the recommendations from the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, which the Government have used as an argument in favour of many of the other clauses.

Clause 35 is more than just a procedural addition. It represents a shift in culture towards embedding the patient voice and accountability in the mental health care system. It recognises the importance of empowering individuals after detention, supporting their recovery, and learning from their lived experience to improve future services. Mental health charities and third sector organisations have strongly endorsed the clause, seeing it as a meaningful step towards a more rights-based, transparent approach to care.

Clearly, the clause empowers patients, because it gives them a structured opportunity to share their experiences and influence service provision. It promotes transparency by requiring hospitals to report publicly on what they have learned and how they have responded. It supports quality improvement by encouraging services to reflect on and address systemic issues in the delivery of care. Furthermore, it has independent oversight through the involvement of IMHAs, which helps to ensure that feedback is gathered impartially and respectfully.

The reforms prioritise professional clinical opinion, safeguard children from inappropriate influence during periods of acute vulnerability, and elevate the patient voice in the post-care process. In doing so, they align the Mental Health Act much more closely to modern standards of care, international best practice and evolving public expectations. I believe that the clause is essential to strengthening the Bill and ensuring that our mental health system becomes not only more effective but more compassionate, responsive and just.

[Dr Evans]

I rise to speak to clause 35, which would insert new section 23A into the Mental Health Act 1983. It was introduced and passed in the Lords, and rightly so. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, it seems surprising that anyone might want to take it out.

The clause was introduced as a new duty to offer all patients detained under the Act a consultation with an IMHA within 30 days of discharge. The purpose is to review their experience of hospital and learn from that experience through a report shared with hospital managers. Currently, the Mental Health Act makes provisions for access to IMHAs primarily during detention, particularly around decisions concerning treatment and care planning. However, once a patient is discharged, formal advocacy tends to fall away, unless pursued through broader NHS complaints mechanisms. There is no statutory duty to engage with patients post discharge, to understand how they have experienced their care or to systematically learn from those experiences.

In that context, the clause represents a welcome and important step forward. We know from successive reviews from the Care Quality Commission, NHS England and, of course, the independent review of the Mental Health Act, led by Sir Simon Wessely, that patients often feel disempowered during their detention. Many describe experiences of coercion, poor communication or even trauma. Yet those experiences frequently go unheard: lost in the silence that can follow discharge. Clause 35 seeks to change that, creating a pathway for those voices to be heard, and, more importantly, for services to learn from them. I strongly support that principle.

We need to clarify one thing first: the clause says a patient must “be offered” a consultation within 30 days —it is no more formalised than that. It is not a statutory requirement to take part, but purely to offer. That is important when it comes to making sure that reports are made in partnership with the patient. That is positive language, which would help to support the decision making and feedback loop.

In their rebuttals, I appreciate that the Government may ask whether the clause would mean hospital managers marking their own feedback. They might also ask how we would deal with CQC capacity. Those are reasonable questions, but at the heart of the clause, as agreed by the Lords, is the fact that all too often patients’ thoughts after discharge are not fully taken into account.

[Gregory Stafford]

Surely the fundamental part of the Bill is self-assessment and self-reflection. That does happen in some cases, and certainly in other parts of the healthcare system, but in this area generally does not; when it does happen, it is done in an inconsistent manner. The clause seeks to formalise things and to ensure that there is a benchmark by which service users and patients can feed back to the service they have just come from, to improve services. Does my hon. Friend share my confusion about why the Government would want to take that out?

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. In clinical practice, we know that reflective learning is important, but that is not mandated. As we have seen from the reports, part of the reason why we do not see improvements is that we do not know about them. The clause gives patients the chance to empower themselves in a statutory, regulated way, which then allows us further transparency on how those issues arise.

Let us not forget that patients with good experiences would also have the chance to feed those back, further helping to support the services and hopefully leading to beacons of best practice up and down the nation so that we could then learn from those. That is the idea behind the clause: making sure that the likes of the regulator would be able to share lessons about not only those who have struggled but those who have done well. Clause 35 really offers a rare opportunity to hardwire the patient voice into the feedback loop of mental health services. That is a principle that I and my Opposition colleagues strongly support.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I remind Members that if they want to take their jackets off, they may. It is very warm.

[Gregory Stafford]

I rise to support clauses 36 to 40. Clause 36 addresses a legal gap identified in case law, which held that the Mental Health Act 1983 did not permit the imposition of conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty for conditionally discharged patients. The clause provides a clear statutory basis for such conditions, but only under strict safeguards. It aims to balance public protection with patient rights, ensuring that DoL conditions are used only when absolutely necessary and proportionate. This is a positive step, because it clarifies the legal authority, resolving any uncertainty, following court rulings, about the legality of DoL conditions in conditional discharges. It protects public safety by ensuring that high-risk patients can be managed safely in the community, under appropriate restrictions. It includes safeguards that require DoL conditions to be justified and proportionate, with a focus on patient welfare, and it aligns with notable human rights law, especially the definitions and principles from the Mental Capacity Act and the relevant case law.

However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. My view is that there is potential for overuse. Without robust oversight, there is a risk that DoL conditions could be used too readily. What safeguards is the Minister putting in place to ensure that that does not happen? There is clearly an impact on patient liberty, and we need to get the balance right. Even with the safeguards, these conditions significantly restrict individual freedom and therefore must be carefully monitored. How is the Minister ensuring that that will happen? In relation to the legal thresholds, determining whether conditions meet the legal test may require detailed clinical and legal assessment. We have talked about the practical implications of this Act on numerous occasions. I again ask the Minister whether he is certain that we have the relevant clinical and legal assessors out there to ensure that we can push that forward.

Clause 37, entitled “Transfers of prisoners and others to hospital: conditions”, will update the legal framework for transferring individuals from prison or immigration detention to hospital under the Mental Health Act. The previous wording of the Act required that treatment be “available”, but did not specify that it must be appropriate for the individual’s condition. This clause will align the criteria with more modern clinical standards and broader reforms in the Bill, which emphasise person-centred care and treatment suitability. It will also ensure that immigration detainees are clearly included in the scope of these provisions. Again, it is positive, because it updates and consolidates the list of immigration-related detention powers covered by the Act. It supports human rights compliance, because it aligns with principles of lawful and proportionate deprivation of liberty under article 5 of the European convention on human rights; it brings the Act in line with the current clinical and legal terminology; and, most importantly, it ensures that transfers are made only when appropriate treatment—not just any treatment—is available.

I have just a couple of questions for the Minister on this clause. I see potential for disputes. Determining what constitutes appropriate treatment may lead to disagreements between clinicians and authorities. What are the Minister’s thoughts on those potential disagreements? There are also some resource implications. It may increase demand for secure hospital beds if more transfers are approved under the revised criteria. I would welcome any thoughts from the Minister on how to ensure that we have the right number of secure hospital beds, not just as a totality, but in the specific regions and areas where people may be being detained.

Clause 38 is also about the transfer of prisoners and others to hospital, but specifically about time limits. It responds to a long-standing concern about delays in transferring prisoners and immigration detainees to hospital for mental health treatment. Under the current system, there is no statutory time limit, and individuals can wait weeks or months in prison, despite being assessed as needing urgent psychiatric care. That has been criticised by mental health professionals, legal advocates and human rights bodies. The clause will introduce a legal framework for setting and enforcing time limits, aligning with the Bill’s broader goals, which I think we all agree with, of improving patient rights and dignity and timely access to care. Again, I support the clause, because it will reduce delays. It will help to ensure that mentally unwell detainees are transferred to appropriate care settings without unnecessary delay, and will introduce clear expectations and accountability for decision making. It enables some flexibility, I think, because it allows for tailored regulations, to accommodate different case types and operational realities.

Again, however, I have some questions. I think there will be some implementation challenges. Services may struggle to meet the deadlines without sufficient resources —an issue that I mentioned in relation to the previous clause. Also, time limits may be difficult to apply in complex or borderline cases without clear guidance. Does the Minister see a need for explicit guidance in the code of conduct, or in some other form, to ensure that the risk of a rigid application does not make things more complicated or, more especially, mean that a potential patient is sent to the wrong care simply because we are focusing on the time rather than the appropriateness of the care? Of course, I would welcome his thoughts on how any new tracking systems and co-ordination between prisons, hospitals and the Ministry of Justice might work in this case.

Finally, I will briefly touch on clause 39. This is a technical update regarding the term “remand centre”, because that is no longer used in law or in practice; instead, young people are remanded to youth detention accommodation. Given that the clause is purely technical, I support it.

[Anna Dixon]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will briefly speak in support of clauses 36 to 40. These clauses reflect the principle of least restriction, albeit for people who are subject to part III, and who are therefore subject to the deprivation of liberty conditions. It is really important that there are frameworks around conditional discharge, and these clauses will do a lot to bring it in line with best practice, and to put the limit set out in the best practice guidelines on a statutory footing to ensure that there is a 28-day transfer. To be successful, that will require multidisciplinary working between the health and justice systems. With that in mind, will the Minister give an assurance that he is confident that the 28-day limit can be met? If there is already data on how many transfers are made within that time limit, in line with best practice guidelines, that would give some assurance that the new statutory time limit is likely to be met.

I am pleased to see that the time limit should be breached only in exceptional circumstances, and that the Bill specifies that a shortage of hospital beds or staff does not constitute exceptional circumstances. It is really important that that is not used as a reason not to transfer or discharge people later than the 28-day limit. Some of the discharge test rests not only on whether there is a risk of harm to another person, but on a public test. Can the Minister clarify how those two tests will work in tandem? Is that already being done in practice?

Finally, I note that the evidence that we have received from the Care Quality Commission says that it welcomes closing the legal gap following the High Court ruling, as set out in the explanatory notes. However, the CQC believes that supervised discharge should be used only “when strictly necessary”, and I know that there are ongoing discussions between the Department’s officials and the Care Quality Commission. Can the Minister give an update on those discussions and clarify what role, if any, the CQC will play in the oversight of these measures?

As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, clauses 67 to 70 bring the Bill in line with youth justice practices and terminology, and with immigration policy. It is important that we take the opportunity to make sure that the Bill is fully up to date and in line with other pieces of legislation, so I support the clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chambers]

I do not know whether we could combine yoga with our proceedings, Mrs Harris.

The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke really well in a similar vein to what I am about to say. Our amendment 19 to clause 41 would extend the provision of opt-out advocacy services in England to informal patients under 18 years old. Young people and their families and carers often face a nightmare navigating the mental health system. We find this on every level. A psychiatrist who came into my office in Winchester said that he and his wife, who is also a medical professional, were struggling to navigate the system to get care for their own child. His words were quite profound: “If we can’t navigate the system, what hope has anyone else got?”

Even when young people have secured desperately needed in-patient care, often after many months of delay, they can face real challenges in understanding the care being implemented and its impact. Often, such young people are cared for far from home. Enabling them to benefit from mental health advocacy that ensures the pressures on the system do not lead to unfair or damaging decisions for mentally ill young people is crucial. It can help to ensure that the patient’s whole situation and entire history is always taken into account, and that treatment is always appropriate, rather than symptoms just being addressed in isolation. We should be looking to empower patients and their families and carers across the whole system, not just in relation to those who are sectioned.

[Gregory Stafford]

You will be delighted to know that there will be no yoga from me, Mrs Harris.

I rise to support clause 41 and schedule 3, which will expand access to independent mental health advocates to not only those detained under the Mental Health Act but informal voluntary patients. Like many Committee members, I am sure, a number of IMHAs in my constituency have approached me about this, and they welcome the expansion. I pay tribute to the amazing work that they do across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. Previously, only patients detained under specific sections of the Mental Health Act or subject to certain treatments were entitled to IMHA support.

The clause reflects the recommendations of the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act and the 2021 White Paper, and aims to enhance patient rights and reduce disparities in access to advocacy. That clearly empowers more patients by giving informal patients access to advocacy support. It improves transparency and accountability in mental health care settings. It ensures proactive outreach so that patients are not left unaware of their rights or support options, and supports informed decision making and potentially reduces coercive practices.

Clearly, there may be some resource implications for advocacy services, which the Minister may wish to touch on. Likewise, there may be some implementation challenges, which other hon. Members have raised, especially around ensuring timely and consistent notification and engagement. There could be potential delays in care co-ordination if advocacy processes are not well integrated. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.

This shift is long overdue. Too many vulnerable people, admitted voluntarily but feeling powerless, have lacked a clear, independent voice. The clause corrects that injustice by embedding advocacy deeper into the system, moving from passive availability to proactive engagement.

Schedule 3 underpins clause 41 by putting clear duties on hospital managers and advocacy providers alike to ensure that patients are automatically offered support. It is opt out, not opt in. That clarity of responsibility will reduce coercion, increase transparency and ultimately lead to fairer treatment decisions.

Schedule 3 operationalises the principles set out in clause 41 by embedding them in the structure of the Mental Health Act 1983. Like clause 41, it reflects recommendations from the 2018 independent review and the 2021 White Paper, aiming to reduce disparities in access to advocacy and ensure that all patients, regardless of detention status, are supported in understanding and exercising their rights. Like clause 41, it strengthens patient voice, reduces inequalities, improves compliance and encourages the early intervention and resolution of concerns.

Let me turn to Liberal Democrat amendment 19, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Winchester. Clearly, its purpose is to extend the opt-out advocacy services in England to include informal patients under the age of 18. This ensures that children and young people who are not formally detained under the Mental Health Act, but who are receiving in-patient care, still have automatic access to an IMHA.

Currently, opt-out advocacy provisions primarily apply to patients who are formally detained. However, informal patients aged under 18, who may be in hospital with parental consent, can still experience significant restrictions and may not fully understand or exercise their rights. This amendment seeks to close the gap by ensuring that young informal patients are automatically offered advocacy support, recognising their vulnerability and limited legal autonomy.

My view is that this does strengthen patient rights. It safeguards vulnerable patients and promotes equality by aligning the rights of informal patients aged under 18 with those of detained patients. It supports informed decision making and helps young people to understand their rights and treatment options. If the hon. Member is minded to press the amendment, I hope that the Government will at least give it tacit support, even if they do not vote for it. That being said, I would welcome the Minister’s comments on why he does not feel that the amendment, or an alternative draft of the wording, if he does not like the specifics of it, should be included in the Bill. I do believe that this is important.

Government amendments 42 and 43 to schedule 3 are relatively technical but important elements of the Bill that align provision in England and Wales. I have just a few questions for the Minister. Robust rights must come with realistic resources. How will the Government ensure that advocacy services are funded and resourced properly to meet the new wider demand? Although they are technical, the Government amendments will still have an impact. What steps will be taken to monitor consistency so that a patient in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook or one of the villages surrounding my constituency has the same access to an advocate as a patient in Coventry, Aberafan or Swansea. We want to make sure that there is consistency.

Finally, will there be clear standards for timely engagement, especially given the risk of treatment delays if advocacy is not well integrated? If the Minister can answer those questions, I think that this will be a good step forward for patient voice and fairness in mental health, and I would support the clause and schedule 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The clauses will amend section 132 of the Mental Health Act in relation to detained patients, and section 132A in relation to community patients, and insert a new provision in relation to conditionally discharged patients. They place a statutory duty on hospital managers to supply complaints information to detained patients, community patients and conditionally discharged respectively, as well as to their nominated person.

Patients, their family and carers have a right to complain about the treatment they receive, including care and treatment under the Mental Health Act. The patient’s rights to complain are enshrined in the NHS constitution. Although the code of practice currently sets out that information about complaints should be provided to patients when they are detained, there is no statutory duty to do so. Under the clauses, hospital managers will be required to provide information on how to make a complaint about: first, functions under the Bill; secondly, any medical treatment for mental disorder received during their detention; and thirdly, the outcome of any complaint about medical treatment. That includes providing information about how to make a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about the mismanagement of complaints about medical treatment, where the person believes their complaint to another body—for instance the hospital or CQC—was not appropriately investigated.

Hospital managers must take practicable steps to ensure that patients have understood complaints procedures, and information about complaints must be provided both verbally and in writing. The duty requires that information must be provided as soon as practicable after the patient is first detained, when the section that they are detained under changes, when the detention is renewed, or every 12 months for restricted patients under part III of the 1983 Act. For community patients, a duty is triggered as soon as it is practical after being placed on a community treatment order and as soon as practical each time the community treatment order is renewed. For conditionally discharged patients, it is triggered as soon as practicable after being conditionally discharged. I commend clauses 42 to 44 to the Committee.

[Gregory Stafford]

I rise to speak in favour of clauses 42, 43 and 44, which together strengthen the duty to inform patients—whether detained in the community or conditionally discharged—about how to make a complaint about their treatment and the outcome of that complaint. The Mental Health Act has long included duties to tell patients their rights, but too often that information has been patchy, hard to understand or buried in paperwork. The clauses tackle that by requiring clear, repeated information about not just detention, but treatment and the complaints process.

Clause 42 relates to information about complaints for detained patients. Section 132 of the Mental Health Act 1983 originally required hospitals to inform detained patients of their rights, but that was often inconsistently applied. This clause responds to long-standing concerns about transparency and patient empowerment, aligning with the broader goals of the Bill to enhance autonomy and dignity in mental health care. Specifically, there is an expanded duty of information. Hospital managers must now ensure that detained patients understand how to make complaints, not only about their detention, but about their treatment, along with the outcomes of any complaints.

There are some timing requirements, i.e. that the information must be provided as soon as practicable after detention begins and be repeated annually for restricted patients, or after each section 20 report for others. That will improve patient’s awareness of their rights and how to seek redress. It will promote accountability and mental health services by encouraging feedback and complaints, and support better outcomes by addressing grievances early and constructively.