Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. Having read the various reports sent by many organisations, including the excellent briefing from the House of Lords Library, I felt pretty well briefed but, having listened to today’s contributions —including the moving contributions from my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Keeley and Lady Ramsey—I realised that there is so much more for us to learn.

These Benches welcome the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady May, who, as Prime Minister, commissioned the Wessely review to consider a number of issues: why, as we heard from many noble Lords, were detention rates increasing and, in particular, what could be done to reduce inappropriate detention? I understand very well the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about when detention may be appropriate or inappropriate. The review also considered how to improve the way that different agencies respond to people in crisis to ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. It looked at the disproportionate number of people from certain ethnic backgrounds, specifically Afro-Caribbean men, being detained under the Act and what should be done about it.

I am also grateful to noble Lords who served as members of the pre-legislative Joint Committee on the 2022 draft mental health Bill, which was based on the recommendations of Sir Simon Wessely’s review. Some of them have spoken in this debate: in particular, my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who chaired the Joint Committee; my noble friend Lady Berridge; the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who has a long history in this area from personal and professional experience; the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who has many times said, “I told you so”; and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, who was a champion for mental health during the passage of the Health and Care Bill. Quite often I was urged to resist some of his amendments but, with hindsight, I am glad that he prevailed to ensure that we continue to discuss the parity between mental and physical health. As many noble Lords have said, the challenge is how we turn those words into action throughout the system. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, who sat on the Wessely review and who, when we looked at and discussed this when I was the Minister, gave me quite a bit of time—partly, I think, because she chairs the trust of the hospital where I was born.

They all had very incisive insights so, in approaching this debate with my noble friend Lord Howe, we considered the report from the Joint Committee and this generated many of our questions. We wish to probe the Government on the recommendations from the report, especially those with which the Bill seems to disagree. We will not, at this stage, tell the Government where we agree or disagree; it is more to understand the Government’s reasoning for not including specific recommendations from the Joint Committee.

We also ask the question: if and when the Bill is passed, what next? How and when will the Government implement the main changes in the Bill, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven? Last week during Oral Questions, one of the ministerial colleagues of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, made what sounded like a government commitment. But when questioned by one of my noble friends, that Minister admitted that it was not a commitment but an aspiration.

Similarly, the briefing notes accompanying this year’s King’s Speech stated that the Bill would take

“a number of years to implement”

and that the Government would introduce these reforms

“in phases as resources allow”.

At this stage, therefore, we would like to understand which changes the Government plan to introduce immediately and which reforms they are aspiring to, rather than actively planning. This is to make sure that we avoid some of the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, alluded to in his contribution.

I move now to the main areas that have been raised in today’s debate on which we would like to learn more about the Government’s intentions. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded the House that autism is not a mental health condition. My noble friend Lady Browning highlighted the lack of understanding of people with autism. The Joint Committee recognised the risk that people with autism or a learning disability could be given additional and unnecessary medical mental health diagnoses in an attempt to justify detention, when they can no longer be detained under Part II of the Mental Health Act. What firm plans do the Government have, in this Bill or otherwise, to try to manage and mitigate this risk?

The Joint Committee recommended a full statutory review of the use of community treatment orders within three years but, as my noble friend Lord Howe pointed out, there is no commitment to such a review in the Bill. Can the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for not committing to a review within three years?

On children, both the independent review and the Joint Committee made recommendations—some of which are not in the Bill—about the treatment of children, such as the inappropriate placement of under-18s into adult wards or into facilities that may be miles away from their home. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s position on these two specific issues?

On advanced care documents, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has championed for many years, the Joint Committee recommended that these be made a statutory right for all patients detained under the Mental Health Act. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe has said, this could be done in the form of an app if we make sure to push through the digitalisation of the NHS and the whole care system. The Bill as it stands does not follow up on this recommendation, preferring to place a duty—one noble Lord alluded to it being “vague”—on NHS England and ICBs to inform patients about advance care documents. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, have raised this issue, so I think the House would find it helpful if the Minister could explain the Government’s reasoning behind not introducing these documents as a statutory right in the Bill.

We welcome the Bill removing police stations and prisons as places of safety for patients not in the criminal justice system. However, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, one unintended consequence raised by several bodies was that this could lead to a rise in the number of people admitted to A&E departments, sometimes escorted by police and having to wait in crowded spaces with a lack of specialised facilities until they can be assessed by clinicians. When do the Government envisage that NHS trusts will be able to deal with the potential increase in the number of mental health patients admitted to hospitals as places of safety?

The president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who contributed to the independent review, raised concerns about the proposed changes to the treatment of those with learning disabilities or autism, as there may be times when community services cannot manage the level of risk that such patients present, and when it might take some time to decide whether this is related to co-occurring mental illness. In such cases, patients may be brought into A&E, but what happens if their behaviour is perceived as affecting the safety of others in the A&E department? This could lead to the police being called, and suddenly they are in the criminal justice system. I wonder how the Minister sees the Bill dealing with such a situation.

I now turn to the issue of early intervention, which the British Association of Social Workers raised during pre-legislative scrutiny and which the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, raised today. The BASW stressed the importance of early intervention to prevent the admission of mental health patients into hospitals in the first place, which they described as being at

“the interface of mental health and mental capacity legislation”.

A number of noble Lords have talked about whether we could have gone back to first principles and started with fusion legislation. We note that Sir Simon Wessely suggested that this was not practical or would take too much time; I do not wish to misquote him. My noble friend Lady Berridge also mentioned the interface with the Children Act. This all asks how we can do this in a holistic way, but by taking a step back are we just waiting even longer for something to be done to fix the problems with the existing legislation? We have obviously decided on this route but I ask the Minister what thought is being given to future fusion legislation or rethinking the interface between the various Acts affected here?

The pre-legislative scrutiny committee also recommended

“the creation of a Mental Health Commissioner … to oversee the direction of travel … and implementation, monitoring outcomes and supporting cultural change … be an advocate for patients, their families and carers and speak up about the stigma still attached to severe mental illness”.

Yet the Government have decided not to accept this recommendation. I note that a number of noble Lords across the House have spoken on this missing part of the legislation. Can the Minister explain why the creation of a mental health commissioner has not found its way into the Bill?

One of the main reasons for commissioning the independent review was to examine why so many people of Afro-Caribbean heritage are detained under the Mental Health Act. Indeed, Sir Simon Wessely wrote in his report that one of his earliest academic papers, in 1989, was on the subject of the overrepresentation of those of black, African and Caribbean heritage among those diagnosed with schizophrenia. Are the Government, the NHS and the department any closer to understanding the key factors behind this overrepresentation? What do they believe can be done to reduce this disparity, or does it need further research?

The Minister might find this odd coming from me, given that when I was Minister I quite often tried to shield the Government from this—now that the roles are reversed, there might be a certain irony—but I will ask about a workforce plan. In all honesty, when we were in government we were pressured by the Treasury not to accept this, and it quite often pushed back when we tried to make the case for this, so I understand that it is a real challenge for the Government. We completely understand, and it would be unfair of me now to take advantage of the fact that I am in opposition. Our Government belatedly published a workforce plan. What is the thinking on publishing a workforce plan, given that many noble Lords across the House have asked about this, particularly once the Bill becomes an Act? How long would it take to actually implement this? We need to understand more about the resources—otherwise, it could make things worse.

I realise that I and other noble Lords have asked many questions, and I certainly do not envy the Minister. We look forward to her responses, either now or in writing, and we welcome her engagement with noble Lords across the House.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

In supporting Amendment 1, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, began Committee with this focus on the impact of the Mental Health Act on racialised communities, because that is where this whole journey began, with the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was Prime Minister, announcing it in that context—and then, of course, it became a wider reform of the whole Act.

I served on your Lordships’ Joint Committee with the other place, scrutinising the Bill. In the course of that, I became aware of the relative strengths of civil society among some of the groups. There were excellent civil society groups speaking on behalf of people with learning disabilities and autism; they were highly professional and articulate. We had one evidence session on the effect of the Mental Health Act on racialised communities, but I saw that the strength of civil society and of media coverage in that area was less—so I am sympathetic to Amendment 1, which would give a profile to one of the main issues under the legislation.

On whether the table should be in the Bill to be in the code or in the Bill sitting as primary legislation, I have sympathy for that proposition. We have learned that the code of practice merely reflects primary legislation. I am aware, of course, that the independent review came up with those four principles, and this fifth one was not part of that. I expect to hear the Minister say that it is already in the Equality Act, so we do not need to put it in the Bill—but I am persuaded of the merits of the amendment. During the whole process of an independent review, a White Paper, a response to a White Paper, a draft Bill, a Joint Committee and now the Bill before your Lordships’ Committee, it has become clear to me that many of the changes that ethnic minority communities need to see are in practice. They are in resources and training—people would not look to the Bill and see their needs as the first or an important priority in it. I would be grateful if the Minister would take seriously this consideration of putting this equity principle in the table and putting it in the Bill, full stop, and not within the code.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I begin by thanking all noble Lords who spoke to this first group of amendments in Committee. Before I comment, I refer noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register. I am not an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, noble Lords will be relieved to know, but I should mention my previous work with a couple of think tanks—the Institute of Economic Affairs and Politeia, which have both published on health and social care issues. There is also my work at St Mary’s University, where I am a professor of politics and international relations, and which has recently applied to open a new medical school. I also sit unpaid on the advisory board of a start-up coalition, and I know that there are a number of start-up companies helping people with mental health conditions. I just wanted to cover those interests, in case anyone made any accusations.

This group addresses the principles that will guide the application of the Mental Health Act, as set out in the Wessely review. Sir Simon pointed out, rightly, that there are already guiding principles in the code of practice, but that

“there is limited awareness of these, and it seems very likely that they do not inform practice in the way they should”.

Clearly, as noble Lords said at Second Reading, the important aim of including the four principles is to improve their application and ensure the highest level of care and therapeutic benefit for patients, while ensuring that all patients are treated as individuals.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her Amendment 1. Of course, equity is at the heart of the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Berridge just said. The Wessely review was commissioned by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead with the intention of understanding why a disproportionate number of black people were being detained and receiving community treatment orders under the Mental Health Act. I think all noble Lords welcome the idea of including equity in principle, as long as it then feeds through into practice. That is the key here, and my question for the Minister is: would putting the principle in the Bill make a difference to practice? How do we make sure that it makes a difference to practice, rather than simply adding the words or adding the principle? One of the values in the NHS constitution is that “everyone counts”. Does this equality duty go further than that, and would it have a greater practical significance? That is one of the questions we need to dig out and probe the Government on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, makes an interesting observation with her Amendment 3. The principles were included in the Bill, as the Wessely review argued, to improve clinical practice. This is vital, because we know that the Mental Health Act is the legislation that is used to compel detention in hospital for treatment. This may very well raise awareness of the principles, but once again, how do we make sure that this is applied? We have to keep pushing this point, although I will not repeat it again, of making sure that this gets fed in to practice in the clinical setting.

I also note the amendments in this group of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I will not repeat the statistics that she read out about the impact of the lack of or inappropriate support for people with mental health issues or learning difficulties. Of course, it is not difficult to appreciate the complexities. Someone in my close family worked with speech and language therapists in his youth, and I could see the difference it made. It is almost too obvious to say, but how do you get your needs across if you cannot communicate them, or your needs are not understood by the person who is supposed to be offering treatment? As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, this is included in the Explanatory Notes, but how do we make sure that it gets into the Bill and into practice? Obviously, it is a problem that is acknowledged by the Government, or it would not be in the Explanatory Notes, but why have the Government chosen not to go any further on this issue?

I was very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said about Amendment 49 and her concerns. Will the Minister address that debate? Of course, we all want to make sure that patients feel that they are understood. We know that patients have to be supported as much as possible to make sure they get their point across and that they are understood, in order to give them adequate treatment, but I noted the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, even though the noble Lord, Lord Patel, intervened. Have the Government taken a view on this or does the Minister need to write to us? I look forward to her comments.

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

My Lords, I feel it necessary to start, instead of talking about the Bill, by offering our condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the very recent loss of her dear husband, and to thank her, as I know all noble Lords will do, for her close engagement on these reforms over many years. I say to the noble Baroness, who said she would be watching if she could, that we absolutely understand why she cannot be with us today. We miss her and I know that the thoughts of all noble Lords will be with her at this very sad time.

If I may make a few general points, as we know, this legislation has been in development for many years. I put on record my thanks for the collaborative and constructive nature of that work and the discussions I have held in my post over the past few months with Peers on all sides of the House. I extend my appreciation to the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, for her highly significant role in commissioning the independent review which informed this Bill and to Sir Simon Wessely and all those who worked on this landmark review, which provided a blueprint for this Bill. Like other noble Lords, I am very pleased to have got to this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their interventions. I will take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, first. Following Royal Assent, we will be drafting and consulting on a revised code of practice, which will be laid before Parliament. We will be working with key partners to ensure that everyone is trained in the new Act before the first major phase of reforms. I hope that that will be helpful.

I hear the disappointment in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. On her request for specific examples, I will need to write to noble Lords on that. I hope noble Lords realise that not having the principles in the Bill, as the amendment refers to, does not mean that there is less intention that they apply. For me, it is about the way of getting there, rather than the commitment to it. However, I hear the question about that point.

Amendment 49, on the matter of speech and language therapists, is in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Bradley. I turn first to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. It is true that not all speech and language difficulties or differences would count as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, so my noble friend makes a relevant point.

The definition of who can and cannot be approved as an approved clinician was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. That definition is set out not in primary legislation but in instructions issued by the Secretary of State, under the power in Section 12ZA of the current Mental Health Act. These instructions have the same status as secondary legislation, so it is our belief that it would not be appropriate to specify in primary legislation that speech and language therapists can be approved clinicians, because all other professional groups are covered only in the instructions.

For that reason alone—but noble Lords should bear with me—we will seek to reject this amendment. However, I can commit that we will be revising the statutory instructions under Section 12ZA following the passage of the Bill, and we are very happy to consider extending the criteria to include speech and language therapists. I offer an invitation to the royal college to discuss this matter with the department and to consider how it can work to support and encourage those of its members who may be interested in this role.

I am aware that time is not on my side. However, a number of amendments in this area have been tabled—

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I wonder whether I can be of help to the Minister. The timing is advisory so, if there are important points that the Minister wishes to make, she should please go ahead.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I have never had so much encouragement to carry on speaking. Noble Lords will be glad to know that the flashing clock always makes me very nervous. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Perhaps I can clarify. I think that the noble Baroness’s amendment is to some extent based on the spirit of the Joint Committee’s report, which was about providing some kind of mechanism, after the 28 days—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, nodding. There would be a specialist tribunal, and we said that it should be composed of people with experience of learning disabilities and autism, so that there was not a get-out for clinicians that they had not done the assessments properly. There would have to be grounded reasons to go beyond the 28 days and, in exceptional circumstances, you could authorise the detention, to make sure that the law covered that gap or group of people. No one wanted to see people detained for the reason that there was no community provision—that is ridiculous.

I accept that the reality is probably going to be that clinicians will find a mental disorder diagnosis to use the powers under Part II to do what is in the best interests of that person and their family at the time. But the law should also cover that situation and not force clinicians into those diagnoses—hence the need for accurate data, so that we can track what is happening when the law is enacted.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Once again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to this group of amendments. The purpose of today’s Committee is to probe the Government, but it is interesting that we find noble Lords probing each other—though I have learned a huge amount from these discussions. They say that discourse leads not only to liberty but to an increase in knowledge.

I add my words to those of the Minister and offer my condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who is not in her place today. I recall a debate in 2021 led by the noble Baroness—one of my first as Health Minister—in which she highlighted that people with learning difficulties and autism were being detained in secure settings, even when an assessment had recommended that they should live in the community. This goes back to the words of my noble friend Lady Berridge, who talked about how we can deal with the world as it is and not with the ideal world that we want to live in.

I was shocked at the time by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, told the House about some of the findings from the oversight panel for the independent care (education) and treatment reviews. I bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, when she gave some examples of other countries with much shorter detentions, but I will never forget the story that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, told about a Mr W, who had been detained in hospital for more than 20 years, spending most of his time in what amounted to solitary confinement. At the time of the debate, Mr W had been living in his own home for nearly three years, near his family, with his home environment and care being built around his needs. That is something that all noble Lords are trying to push for in this group of amendments. It was not only a heart-warming story but the point was made that, financially, it cost no more to support Mr W living in his own home than it did to detain him in hospital. More importantly, the noble Baroness shared the happy ending that, despite the trauma of being in the wrong environment for so many years, Mr W was, we hope, going to live happily ever after. That highlights the reasons for the amendments in this group.

I should add that I recall the noble Baroness who is now the Minister pushing the Government from these Benches on ending detention. I am sorry—I am going to be a little naughty here, but she can do it if we ever get back into government. She told the House that the average length of stay for people with a learning disability and/or autism in in-patient units was 5.4 years, saying:

“That is 5.4 years that no person will ever get back”.—[Official Report, 28/10/2021; col. GC 231.]


She asked how that could be justifiable when the cost of living in the community was the same as the cost of detention. I know that she is naturally sympathetic to ending these detentions. The detention of those with autism and learning disabilities was one of the central issues addressed by the Wessely review.

I was interested in Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, arguing the definition of “mental disorder” under the Bill. While I am sympathetic to the amendment, can the Minister confirm whether my understanding is correct that the World Health Organization defines a mental disorder as

“a clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behaviour”,

and whether the WHO includes neurodevelopmental disorders, which includes autism? If so, are the Government sympathetic to Amendment 4 and considering bringing forward their own amendment? How would they avoid running contrary to the definition accepted by the WHO and included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, particularly DSM-5? I understand the point that these things can change, as the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Scriven, have very importantly alluded to.

Amendment 5, in the name of my noble friend Lady Browning, seeks to ensure that, if a person has autism or a learning difficulty but not a mental health condition, we should not be using deprivation of liberty safeguards to replace detention under the Mental Health Act. We fully support my noble friend’s amendment and the intention behind it.

I am grateful to noble Lady, Baroness Murphy, who has tabled Amendment 35, for the time she has taken to share her experience and expertise with me and my noble friend Lord Howe. She addresses an issue that we should all be aware of with any legislation: that of unintended consequences. While most noble Lords here today would accept and support ending these detentions, for all the reasons that we have all given, and particularly after the harrowing stories that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, told all those years ago, how will the Government ensure that anyone with learning difficulties who could potentially pose a considerable risk in the community receive the required supervision? That is the challenge here, and it is the challenge to which my noble friend Lady Berridge referred when she reminded us that we have to talk about the world in which we live and not the ideal world that we all want.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for sharing some of the deliberations of the pre-legislative Joint Committee, particularly on the issue of the High Court DoLS. Given that, and the point of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, if we are to have alternatives, how do we prevent detention by the back door or opening a massive loophole for detention?

Amendment 39, from my noble friend Lady Browning, would ensure that detention was for needs associated with the degree of psychiatric disorder, along with Amendment 40. We are sympathetic to that, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her rich and full response, and indeed all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. It has been long but that has been quite necessary. I thank the Minister particularly for responding directly to my question about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I do not agree with her response but I appreciate that she engaged fully with it, so I thank her for that.

I will not go through and summarise all the contributions, but I just want to make two points, which are perhaps specifically directed to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. A phrase which has been missing from our whole debate is the “social model of disability”. That is the idea that society is discriminatory, and that people are disabled by the barriers in society, not by their difference. That position was endorsed by the Government Equalities Office in 2014, and so far as I know, that still holds, and it is preferred by most disability charities.

I invite noble Lords to consider another phrase in this healthcare space, which is “parity of esteem”. I think that when we come to the social model of disability and physical disabilities, most people have now accepted that if there are only steps and not a ramp, that is a failure of society, not the failure of the person in the wheelchair. However, we have not heard in this debate an acknowledgement of the same parity of esteem—the same approach to mental disability as we have accepted towards physical disability—and we should consider and think about that.

In that context, just to pick up a couple of points from the Minister, she talked about how people with autism or learning difficulties can be detained for aggressive or irresponsible conduct. The Trieste model—if I can call it that—which is being adopted by many countries around the world, asks: “Can we intervene before that point and ask what has provoked that person? Can we intervene before we need to detain someone?” That needs to be very carefully considered.

The other point that the Minister addressed, which I confronted myself with, asking why I did not table the broader amendment that I might have done, is what happens when people get to the point of being a danger to themselves or—I stress that this is extraordinarily rare—a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder. Again, how did people get to that point, and should there not be services and support and community wraparound in the Trieste style? I do not think that any nation or area is saying that it has totally got to that point, but surely we should be aiming at that.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness referred to the Trieste model, and I thought that led to quite a deal of interest from noble Lords across the House. Could she share some details on the Trieste model with other noble Lords but especially the Minister and the department, so we can all start learning those lessons?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I should absolutely stress at this point that I am not an expert, but I will certainly do my best to secure as much information as possible and share it with all noble Lords. The Minister may also have access to resources that may not be available to me. Reflecting on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, perhaps we could even arrange some kind of discussion—it might be useful—and perhaps even hear some testimony, because that would really inform our consideration of the Bill. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is thinking, “If only all groups went as swiftly as this one”. I thank him for bringing forward these government amendments. We understand that although they are largely technical in nature, they address some important points regarding the delivery of aftercare services, tribunal reviews and the broader application of this legislation.

We see the point of Amendments 7, 14, and 127 to clarify the references to aftercare services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act, including services arranged by public authorities in addition to those directly provided. We understand that this reflects the practical realities of service delivery and may help to avoid ambiguity in how these obligations are interpreted. If we have heard any lesson throughout this debate, it is about how we avoid ambiguity when it comes to the treatment of patients.

We understand also that Amendments 87 to 94 focus on tribunal reviews for patients subject to conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty, which we have discussed in other groups. The proposal to commence these provisions two months after Royal Assent is pragmatic and necessary to provide patients with timely access to justice. The amendments also introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to refer certain cases to the tribunal within defined timelines. We agree that this will ensure that patients who are conditionally discharged but not recalled to the hospital are not left in a state of indefinite uncertainty. Once again, that was covered in the last group of amendments as somewhere where the patient could fall between the cracks, as it were. Timely tribunal reviews are essential for safeguarding patients’ rights and ensuring that any conditions imposed remain proportionate and necessary.

We understand also that Amendments 161 and 162 propose adjustments to the commencement of specific provisions, including granting Welsh Ministers powers to make consequential provisions within their devolved competence. Though these amendments are largely procedural, they underline the importance of clarity in implementing the reforms set out in the Bill. Of course, we understand that healthcare is a devolved matter. I remember having to deal with the devolved Administrations when I was a Health Minister, and we always did so collaboratively. Welsh Ministers should indeed have the same right to make consequential provisions, although if I have a question for the Minister, it is: what safeguards and oversight mechanisms will be in place to ensure equal application of the Bill to Wales, as in England? I am sure he will be aware that we have sometimes had questions in this place as to why the standard of health or social care in another part of the United Kingdom might be different, even understanding that it is due to devolution. Are there any safeguards to ensure that one part of the UK is not seen as having an inferior service to the rest of the UK? How would the Government address that?

With that, we very clearly understand that these are technical amendments and we will not oppose them.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and take his point about ensuring there are equal standards across the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. However, nothing is guaranteed. As he undoubtedly did when in government, we will endeavour to collaborate with Welsh colleagues—as well as others—to ensure that equal standards are applied across England and Wales. That includes regular contact with the Senedd and the Welsh Executive on a variety of matters, including health. That may be a slightly vague answer, but at the moment it is the best I can do.

I thank the noble Lord for his other comments. I have spoken about the need for these minor, technical and necessary amendments, and I hope noble Lords can support them.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

This raises another issue, which I know has been raised in other areas of healthcare, of families who live across borders—if the parents live in one part of the United Kingdom and the children live in another, or if someone who has lived away from home moves back. I do not expect an answer now, as that would be unfair, but if the noble Lord could write to noble Lords on cross-border issues, where someone has commenced care in one area but then they or their parents have moved to another area, that would be satisfactory. We had a number of issues around this in healthcare, particularly mental health care, and it is important to resolve them.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

I am happy to do that. I remember having those sorts of issues when I was a Member of the other place. Probably a number of us have experienced them. I suppose that, at present, it is how it has always been: you have to try to communicate with the respective authorities and bring them together so that there is some sort of continuity.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

We hear stories about autistic people and people with a learning disability being stuck on wards for an average of nearly five years, where they face being overmedicalised and institutionalised, sometimes to the extent that they can barely get out of bed. These detentions lead to severe lifelong trauma, which can be incredibly difficult to overcome. This leads to an obvious risk of readmission after they are discharged into the community. I feel this is little short of—to use the phrase that the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, used—a human rights scandal, and it has to end. I believe that an explicit focus on therapeutic benefit when delivering treatment is one way that the Bill can help to achieve that. We simply must grab hold of this opportunity.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, given that all those who have spoken to this group of amendments have been brief, I shall try to be brief. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, for discussing with me in an exchange of emails over the weekend the intent behind the amendments in her name.

The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, makes a reasonable point about clauses in the Bill that contain the phrase “likelihood of the harm” or “serious harm may be caused”, because it is assumed that such risks are quantifiable and predictable. I was struck by her observation that psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses and academics have warned about the difficulty of being able to predict episodes of violent behaviour in individuals because the base rate for violence, particularly serious violence, in the population is low. One of the things that we keep saying throughout this debate is that we need to see the evidence and the data, and that that should drive decisions that are being made. Given that, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for sharing the statistics, which I will not repeat but which reinforce the point that she wanted to make.

Considering those statistics, I am sympathetic to two specific points that the noble Baroness made. The first is that making statements about individual risk based on such statistics is complex and possibly unsafe, and, as the noble Baroness said, may be unethical. The second is that it may be helpful to use structured risk-assessment systems in routine clinical practice, if used by appropriately trained staff, to predict possible violence at a group level. However, given that many noble Lords have spoken about patient-centred care and the importance of understanding the individual and their sensory profile, surely we should be looking at patients as individuals, where the clinician better understands the individual patient’s mental state, relevant history and response to treatment given his or her life circumstances.

I will be interested in the Minister’s response to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, urging the Government to replace wording such as “likelihood of the harm” or “serious harm may be caused”. These terms are inexact and somewhat ambiguous and do not appear to be driven by evidence. Perhaps there are more appropriate terms for more holistic and comprehensive assessments.

Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, proposes that the definition of appropriate medical treatment includes the setting in which treatment takes place. This takes us back to a point made on the first day in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that for those with autism and learning disabilities, being held possibly in noisy, bright, busy settings full of people who may be strange to them, and where they may feel powerless and worry about what will happen next, is likely to affect their mental health and well-being. Therefore, surely it is important that we take account of the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, particularly in Amendment 45.

On Amendment 48, it is really important that care is led by the level of therapeutic benefit. That should be based on evidence to drive those decisions. Given that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions that have been made and the amendments that have been tabled.

I turn first to Amendments 37A, 37C, 38A, 38B, 42B, 42D, 42E, 42G and 42H, all tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and spoken to by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, regarding the new criteria. Let me say at the outset that the new criteria explicitly require decision-makers to consider the risk of serious harm and the likelihood of those harms occurring in order to justify detention. Clearly, the reason for this is to ensure that any risks to the public and the patient are consistently considered as part of the assessment process, and to protect patients from lengthy detention when these risks are unlikely to occur. I hope that this will be helpful for some of the debate that we have had.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, seek to revise the proposed new risk criteria to remove any mention of risk that “may be caused” or the “likelihood” of the risk transpiring. The purpose appears to be to remove any prospective assessment from the detention decision and instead focus on the risk as it can be established at the time. The noble Baroness, in her introduction, asked about the reasonableness of the words in the provisions, and I understand that this is where the concerns lie. I should also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his comments on evidence and data and their importance. In answer to the noble Baroness, I should say that the independent review found that the current criteria for detention are too vague and recommended that the Government should update the detention criteria to be more explicit about how serious the harm has to be and how likely it is to occur to justify detention. The intention of the revised detention criteria in the Bill is not to ask clinicians to make predictions but to clarify that they should consider whether a harm is likely to occur, based on their assessment and knowledge of the person—something that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, focused on—rather than based on risks which may never occur.

Any consideration of risk arguably preserves the need to look at what might happen rather than what is happening or has happened in more concrete factual terms. We think that it is important that the detention criteria allow clinicians to detain based on the risks that they think are likely to happen, rather than just the risks that have already materialised. This enables them to act early to prevent harm to the patient or others. In line with the intention of the noble Baroness’s amendments, this should be based on personalised individual risk assessments and information about the patient’s history and personal circumstances—again, something that I know noble Lords are exercised by, which is about the individual approach to this.

We did engage again on the changes to the detention criteria last summer, in light of the recommendation on this issue by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, and to assure ourselves that the detention criteria struck the right balance between allowing clinicians to continue to take early action when they are concerned about a patient’s or others’ safety and the independent review’s concerns that people could be detained on the basis of risks that might never occur.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I want to say a few things about a couple of the amendments. I thank noble Lords for listening and for recognising the situation. It was powerful to hear that, and I am sure that many in the eating disorder community will be delighted to hear it.

I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading, as there seems no need, but in mentioning that, I want to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, which picks out the focus on community care and the need for more psychiatrists. I and others have made the case for why CTOs can be valuable for people with eating disorders—and for forensic patients, I understand. The value of the CTO is that the individual is helped to engage in the community with their mental health team. It is a multidisciplinary team, but the anchor is the psychiatrist. The noble Baroness was not sure if this was the right place to put her amendment because it has wider ramifications, but it certainly has value in this debate. CTOs, which I believe should be retained, can work only if there are proper multi-disciplinary teams anchored by a psychiatrist in the community, so that those individuals can be kept out of detained settings and engaged in the community. I thank her for bringing that forward, and I support it.

With regard to Amendment 44, I do not support a maximum duration for a community treatment order, because this is about the individual and what they decide, with their multidisciplinary team. What I like about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is that it rightly says that we have to review community treatment orders. People’s mental health situations change, and it is important to have step points at which people know they will be reviewed. I do not support a maximum time limit but the break points, which his probing amendment talks about, are worthy of further debate and discussion. I am grateful to him for bringing that forward.

I say with regret that I do not agree so much with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for retaining the automatic referral to a tribunal of any CTO that is lifted. Again, that goes against my sense that CTOs are about what is right for the individual. With eating disorders, there will be cases of CTOs being lifted because the person is no longer able to engage with the community team because the eating order has gone beyond the bounds of the CTO and is compromising their health and putting them, bluntly, at risk of death. I do not see why, in those circumstances, there needs to be an automatic referral to a tribunal. Strengthening people’s rights to go to a tribunal where there is a case for that is right and proper, but, because of my view about personalised care—especially for eating disorders, but this has wider ramifications—I do not support the case for automatic referral.

I know that there are people around the Committee who understand the concerns far better than me, particularly about the high preponderance of people in the black community who are on CTOs. I understand and hear that concern. I tried to get to the bottom of the figures, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to find out how many forensic patients were on CTOs. Given that you are four times more likely to be in prison if you are a black person than a white person, I tried to work out what the figures were to get the correlation to say whether it is because there are more people in prison that CTOs are preponderantly in the black community. I could not work that out. Equally, I could not work out how many people with eating disorders were on CTOs. I got the Library to try to help me, and it said that the figures are not cut that way and do not work that way. It seems to me that there is an issue about the data that we, and the Minister, are working with to make informed decisions.

I am not sure about the exact terms and conditions of the review that has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and which in a later group is proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, but I think there is an issue about the data out there. It is not helping us, or anyone else, make CTOs work for those where they can work, are working and should work in the future, and is clearly causing a problem. We need to get to the bottom of that.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. I will speak to Amendment 66 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. One of the motivations when we were considering amendments from our Benches was not only to respond to concerns raised by stakeholders but to probe the Government on why they did not accept some of the recommendations of the pre-legislative Joint Committee. That is the nature of these amendments. To the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I say that the amendment is meant as a probing amendment to ask the Government why they have not adopted all the recommendations of the Joint Committee.

One of the things that drives many of us—I feel particularly strongly about this, given my background—is why so many people of an Afro-Caribbean background are being detained or are subject to CTOs. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made a valuable point. One of the reasons I have tabled other amendments along those lines, which will be discussed in later groups, is that, after all these years of saying that too many people from the black community are being detained, if we want to do something about it, we need data, and we need to understand why they are being detained. Without the data, it is left to rumour or speculation, or people make up reasons. Everything needs to be driven by the data if we are to address the fact that a disproportionate number of black people are detained.

We tabled Amendment 66 because the pre-legislative committee recommended that community treatment orders be abolished for Part II patients, those not in the criminal justice system, and wanted a statutory process and timeline to be put in place for the review and potential abolition—I say those words from the Joint Committee’s recommendation very carefully—for Part III patients, those involved with the criminal justice system.

Many noble Lords came to the Second Reading debate wanting to see an end to community treatment orders, and many noble Lords have spoken tonight about this. We were all struck by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who very honestly said that, having listened to patients and families, she knows that there is a small group of people for whom CTOs work, are the least restrictive option and are beneficial, and we should therefore keep them. I was particularly struck by that. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said that people do not change their mind very often, but the views that we brought to the debate in the first place have been challenged.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made the important point that, while she is reluctant to admit it, she believes that there should be a change in the process around CTOs. That is important. This is why this probing amendment is asking for a comprehensive review of CTOs. We have listed a number of criteria that should be in that review, but I know that many noble Lords have concerns over CTOs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can understand the frustration that the noble Baroness outlines. It is hard for me to comment on a number of those 20 years. My feeling is that that is why we are here today updating the Bill. Indeed, at the risk of repeating myself—I will try not to—I take the point that she is making, yet I feel there is a need, under the updated Bill, which I hope will become an Act, to review the overall impact of the new provisions. I understand that we cannot be on a hope and a wing and a prayer. That is not the intention. We will keep CTOs under review as we implement changes. I certainly want to keep a very close eye on their impact, as I know your Lordships’ House will. I know that noble Lords will not be shy to raise any concerns that they have.

Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would require the use of community treatment orders to be reviewed within two years of the Act being passed. As a number of noble Lords have said, we believe that CTOs can be valuable for certain patients—indeed, as we have referred to, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke about their benefit for eating disorder patients, as she did at Second Reading—but reform is needed so that they are used only when appropriate and for the shortest possible time.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, made a couple of points, which I am happy to write to him about, about concerns about resources. He asked about the role of mental health nurses—an important point—and the effectiveness of CTOs. I will write further on those points.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

If the Minister and the officials look at Amendment 66, they will see it asks four specific questions. It could include more, but I wonder whether we can understand what the Government understand about each of those four things, including the impact of community treatment orders on people from different ethnic minorities and the effectiveness of the continued use of community treatment orders. I think it would be interesting for noble Lords to understand what the Government currently understand, if that makes sense.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Yes, it does. I thank the noble Lord for the clarification. I will come to some of those points, particularly on racial disparity, but I just wanted to ensure that I did not miss the points that he made.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised how people with eating disorders will be supported on CTOs. To elaborate a bit on what I said previously, for some people CTOs allow them to be cared for in the community with the least restriction, but with the safeguard that they can be recalled for treatment if necessary. That is a very necessary aspect.

I hope noble Lords are aware that I certainly would agree about the importance of the right data being used to inform decisions, trends and reviews. Data on community treatment orders are published as part of the annual Mental Health Act statistics. My officials are working with NHS England and others to understand what additional data should be collected to understand the impact of the reforms—this relates to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.

I know that noble Lords more than understand that gathering new data takes time. Therefore, it is felt that a review after two years would be somewhat premature, as it would be based on data from before the reforms were commenced. So, rather than committing to a review in legislation at a fixed date, the Government are committed to ongoing monitoring of CTOs as we implement the changes. This will form part of our overall commitment to evaluate the impact of reform and to consider next steps. I am sure that your Lordships’ House would wish to continue to be involved in this.

I turn to Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, requiring a review of economic and social disparities in relation to CTOs. I agree, as I have many times, that there are significant disparities in the use of community treatment orders, particularly between different minority ethnic groups. This was spoken to by not just the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I will make a few points about this. Those who are black are currently seven times more likely to be detained on a CTO—we have discussed this in your Lordships’ House a number of times, and rightly so, in my view. For CTOs, we are strengthening decision-making in three ways: first, by requiring that an individual must be at risk of serious harm to be made subject to a CTO; secondly, by requiring that the community clinician be involved in all community treatment order decisions; and, thirdly, by increasing the frequency of automatic reviews of patient cases by the tribunal. We will work closely to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are effectively implemented, because a main plank of this legislation is to reduce racial disparities in decision-making under the Act. I am sure we will return to this point many times, and rightly so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. The extension of advocacy services to children and young people is important, because, as she outlined, there is a disproportionate number of children who are voluntary—I think there are just under 1,000 a year—in mental health institutions.

It is also important to recognise that there are other additional rights that children have when they are detained, or when they have agreed and consented to go into hospital. They need to continue their education while they are in there. It is important to advocate for what their entitlement is while they are in hospital—I think we are all used to walking past the hospital school that is within a normal physical illness hospital—thereby enabling them to continue their education and considering what their rights are in that regard. That is obviously so important for them and their recovery, so I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I have a few brief comments on this group of amendments. In response to Amendment 43A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, given that anyone subject to a CTO already receives something in writing, it should not be too difficult for the Government to accept her amendment. Assuming that they have a right to access independent mental health advocates, it seems like a very reasonable amendment.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I must admit that, when I read the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I wondered—given that the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, seek to extend access to independent mental health advocates—why she would want to exclude informal patients from access to those advocates. However, as she explained, and as my noble friend Lady Berridge commented on day one in Committee, we have to deal with the world as it is, not the ideal world that does not exist. As the Minister has often reminded us, this will not all happen in one big bang; the Government’s plan is for it to take over 10 years, subject to spending reviews and resources.

In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, made what appear to be two valid points. The first is that we need to be realistic about resourcing. As the impact assessment suggests that expanding access to independent mental health advocates to informal patients will cost £81 million every year, we have to ask: is that the best use of that money, if it were available, given all the other demands on it?

On the noble Baroness’s second observation, I thought that the research cited was interesting: that extending these independent mental health advocates from one environment or cohort of patients to another does not necessarily mean that it will work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am reading the impact assessment, and the annual amount is between £6 million to £7 million, and not £81 million. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that when she responds, as the impact assessment that I am reading is different from the £81 million that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, are referring to.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for that, as I would not want to be using inaccurate information. Maybe the Minister can check with her officials, thanks to the wonderful use of technology, to ensure that we have an accurate figure by the time that she gets up to respond to our points. Whichever number is accurate for the cost of extension, it does have an impact on how noble Lords may feel if these amendments come back on Report.

The study that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, shared with us contained two statements which I picked up on, and which I hope the noble Baroness will correct if I am wrong. First, patients found the process was a positive experience. But, secondly, the study found no evidence that it had any impact on the outcomes of the care and treatment. That is an important point to make. Once again, what is effective, and what works? Sometimes, feeling better and being more positive is part of a treatment, and we should not dismiss that.

I do not want to sound too negative, as I thought that the North Carolina study was very positive, and the noble Baroness and I corresponded about this over the weekend. It was interesting that it found that black mental health patients benefited from having an independent mental health advocate, especially if the advocate was also black, as patients felt better supported, and more confident that they would be listened to by someone. The crucial point was that it appeared to reduce the rate of repeat detentions. This is one of the crucial issues throughout the Bill. This is one of the reasons why my noble friend Lady May asked for the Wessely review.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend’s flow, but this is one of the key things that is evidence-based, and that does reduce detention for those communities, so it is important.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention, because this is something that we could learn from here. Given the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, made at the beginning, would taking that lesson from the black community in North Carolina work with black communities up and down the country here? I hope it is something that the Government could look into, or respond to, as one of the ways, once we have the relevant data, to reduce the rate of detention and CTOs for people from the black community.

I end by asking the Minister that question: is she aware of whether her department has looked at—was it North Carolina or South Carolina?

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

North Carolina.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I would not want to upset any people from South Carolina. In fact, I did some work in Raleigh and Durham a few years, so I should get this right. Is the department aware of that study, and has there been any analysis of what could be learned from that study which could be relevant to the United Kingdom, especially given one of the main reasons we are here tonight is to reduce the disproportionate detention of people from black communities? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to and tabled amendments for this important discussion, which, I am sure my Whip will tell me, will be the last one of the evening.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response. One thing we can all agree on from this discussion is that these are complex issues and people sometimes have rather different understandings of what certain things might say or mean.

Having said that, I would just like to say where I think we are on the two issues. First, on advanced decisions, I have a strong view that children and young people aged 16 and 17 should have choices that are made available to adults extended to them. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, it is about having a sense of agency and autonomy and feeling that their wishes and feelings are being respected. It may be that I did not draft it very well, but I was not suggesting that everyone was going to be forced to do it. It is there as an option, and that is a really important point that possibly did not come out sufficiently in the debate. The fault for that is mine. It may be that the approach that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was suggesting is a better way forward. I do not know; I do not mind. I just feel that, because to me this is so fundamental and a question of human rights, we will need to return to this on Report.

I turn with some trepidation now to the statutory competence test for under-16s. I have been accused of being too cautious. That is fine. I understand where noble Lords were coming from. I did not say it when I introduced it, because I thought it would be a bit to odd to say it, but I was seeing my amendment as a bit of a backstop. In other words, if the Government are not minded to accept that recommendation, at least something would happen and at least there would be some sort of progress. As I said, I was very sympathetic to the test and the way that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, set it out. It had a fair amount of support, of course, across the Chamber, but the debate also showed that there are still some quite tricky issues that need to be teased out. I do not think it was quite as clear-cut as perhaps was being suggested, not least about issues around the consistency or otherwise of the application of Gillick.

It may be that, again, I did not get the wording right when I talked about a “review”. I accept that. Reviews can be kicked into the long grass and you never see anything again. But I thought the idea of a consultation was very important and, in fact, I think it would be quite difficult, having listened to this debate carefully, to move straight to having something in the Bill without having some sort of consultation first. It might be that you would want to take some sort of powers that would enable such a thing to be put in place after that consultation had happened, but to me it just felt that some issues still needed to be teased out.

Perhaps my initial amendment was not completely ludicrous, but it has been a really good and interesting debate—

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Probing.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

57: Clause 20, page 29, line 2, at end insert—
“(ba) is a patient who has been informally admitted to a mental health unit in accordance with section 131, or”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that patients who are admitted informally to a mental health unit will also benefit from a care and treatment plan.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

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

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate on this group. In responding to the Minister, I will touch briefly on some of the other amendments, but particularly on Amendment 57 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. I thank my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for adding their names to it.

On Amendment 61, I agree very much with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the importance of parents and guardians, not only in respect of this amendment but all throughout the Bill and in the subsequent amendments that she tabled. It is very important that we do not forget that point and that we keep coming back to it.

On Amendment 58, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins, and my noble friend Lady Berridge, we are very sympathetic to the idea of extending this to under-18s. We have to reflect and may come back to this on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I were fortunate enough to have a conversation about his Amendment 59 during the dinner break. It is on a fundamental issue and we need to raise awareness of the link between finance and mental health. One can lead to the other: you might start off with financial difficulties and then find yourself with mental health issues, or mental health issues make it far more difficult to manage your finances. Frankly, when there are banks that do not necessarily understand the individual circumstances or are moving toward semi-automated decision-making, this is a whole minefield that we ought to tackle as soon as possible and not wait 20 years for the next mental health Bill.

On Amendment 62, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, continuity of care is absolutely important, and not just for mental health; I have been in debates in this House where it is really important for allergies or diabetes. When children are treated for a condition by children’s services they then worry, when they transfer to adult services, about whether they will continue to receive the same level of care, particularly if the clinician is different when they move over. They may well have had a very good relationship with that clinician as a child, but then they feel that they have to explain everything all over again, even though there are patient records.

Amendment 64, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and my noble friend Lord Young, seems eminently sensible. It almost seems obvious; I was surprised that it does not happen at the moment. I take on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, said about previous attempts to put it into legislation; it must be fiendishly difficult.

One of the points that the Minister made was that young carers are entitled to some of the things that the noble Baroness was asking for. How do they know they are entitled to them? It is all very well to be entitled to them, but how do they know? This is true for physical health as well, but given it was raised on this specific issue, I would be interested in the Minister’s response. If she is not able to give that response, thanks to technology, over the airwaves to the iPad then perhaps she could include it in her letter to noble Lords afterwards.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made an important point about Amendment 60A and housing. Housing, like finance, is one of those things that could lead to mental health issues, or having mental health issues makes housing much more difficult. The lack of adequate accommodation could lead to readmission, when we think about discharge afterwards, suitable accommodation and suitable circumstances.

I should be positive. I am grateful to the Government for the care and treatment plans in the first place. I think they are very sensible, which is why many noble Lords want them extended to not just that cohort of patients. I understand that sometimes we have to roll things out and learn from experience, and perhaps that can feed into future rollout—I understand sometimes not going for the big bang, as it were. On Amendment 57, I will read Hansard carefully and reflect on what the Minister said. I particularly thank her for the reference to the link to see what is being considered for inclusion in the care and treatment plan. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I note as a postscript that it is not only the understanding that the right reverend Prelate outlined. When one looks at training—obviously, we always talk about the training of healthcare professionals, et cetera—we see that, because a disproportionate number of people from ethnic minority communities are still within some kind of faith community, it is imperative that there is a heightened awareness of the need to train leaders, in those worshipping centres and other support groups, to recognise that many people repeatedly present as needing prayer in a Christian context. But they do not need prayer; they need to be told to go to their GP. For that reason, they often present later and they are often sicker by the time they present. Based on research I read a while ago, that is one of the reasons why in the black community there is later presentation; they are not accessing the services earlier. So can the Minister include in the focus of training that it is not just clinicians and those to whom the code of practice applies that need it?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, during the debates on this Bill—and throughout my time in this place—I have learned that there are specific topics about which other noble Lords are passionate. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who is not in her place for sad reasons, is passionate about many issues; but, in the context of this Bill, she has long championed issues around the detention of those with autism and learning disabilities, as has my noble friend Lady Browning. My noble friend Lady Berridge is very passionate about children and young people and about tackling racial discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is very passionate about the link between finance and mental health. Many noble Lords are passionate about specific issues. For me, Amendment 138, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe, goes to the heart of an issue in which I very strongly believe, based on my own experiences of racism while growing up in Britain.

Before I go into that, I will touch on the amendments from by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. In one of my first work experiences—in Chase Farm Hospital many years ago—I got to know and speak to a young patient from the Traveller community. He told me about the problems that the Traveller community had in getting access to medical care, and how members of the community were always treated with suspicion and not in the same way. So I am very sympathetic to those amendments.

To get back to my own experience, the Britain of recent years, which my children grew up in, is much less racist than the Britain that I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was common to be called offensive names or to be chased by skinheads, sometimes actually with weapons and knives. But my experience was a lot better than the racism that my father faced when he came here in the 1950s. There are horrendous stories that he told my siblings and me when I was younger. I believe that we can be proud of that progress, as a country and a society.

When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I used to chat to the taxi drivers in Belgium and France. I would tell them that I was from London, and not all of them but many of them would say how lucky I was, since they had a friend or relative in London and they thought that London was incredibly diverse and tolerant compared with where they lived. That was very touching to hear—but I have to admit that that is my experience, and some will have had different experiences. Even my experience does not mean that the battle against racism and racial disparities is over. As many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Berridge, have rightly said, we have to be vigilant on this.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, one reason for the review and this Bill is because my noble friend Lady May commissioned the Wessely review due to the disproportionate number of black people being issued with community treatment orders or being detained; noble Lords have referred to this. We have known about that issue for a long time. Although politicians in the other place and many noble Lords here have raised the issue many times over many years, we do not really seem to have grasped the issue or to be on top of it. When I ask colleagues and medical experts about the disparity, I get a variety of answers. In the absence of any widely distributed and comprehensive study, the vacuum is filled by anecdotes or assumptions, sometimes racial stereotypes. One of the most common responses I have heard is that it is complex or multifaceted.

I remember when I did not initially get into the local grammar school, despite having the best grades in the class—better than some of the white pupils who got into the school; it also happened the previous year, in the year above me, when one of my friends who was black, an Afro-Caribbean, topped his class and did not get into the local grammar school—and my mother challenged the decision and asked for the reason, she was told “It’s complicated”. Fortunately, she persisted, and I got my place thanks to the help of my local Member of Parliament, who later became the late Lord Graham of Edmonton, may he rest in peace.

So when I hear the response, “It’s complicated”, I hope noble Lords will understand that I am simply not satisfied with that answer. It is just not good enough any more. The purpose of my amendment is to probe the Government to understand what they know and what research they are aware of, so we can understand the reasons for these racial disparities and put in place measures to tackle them. If it is complicated, can the Government or NHS list the various reasons and say what they are going to do about it? As noble Lord after noble Lord has said, we need the data.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who is not in her place, reminded noble Lords that many of the answers from the Minister sound similar to the responses from 20 years ago. That is not a political point. I suspect that the answers given by the Minister, who is well liked and respected, would not be very different from the answers prepared by officials for any Health Minister of any party. Some of the answers are probably very similar to answers that I gave when I was a Minister. That is not to disrespect the diligent civil servants in the department, who work really hard, but we need answers to the following questions.

What studies are the Government, DHSC and NHS aware of? What do we understand from the various studies? What secondary data do we have, and what are the known unknowns? What do we know that we need to know more about? Has there been any attempt from that secondary data to generate the questions for the primary research so that, once and for all, we can understand why a disproportionate number of black people are subject to community treatment orders and to being detained? Do the Government, DHSC or the NHS, if they have the data, know how to use it to reduce those disparities? If so, when will they begin to reduce these disparities?

I was very pleased to hear a reference to some of the pilot schemes. Perhaps the Minister can refer to some of those schemes, and maybe that would be helpful. But I have to say that if the answers that we receive to these questions, either tonight or when the Minster writes to noble Lords between now and Report, are not adequate, I suspect that noble Lords will have to send the Minister back to the department to kick the tyres and get a better answer. It is as simple as that; otherwise, I am afraid that we will return to this issue on Report. If it comes to that, I hope that we will not see a Government urging noble Lords from the governing party to vote against an amendment that would seek to tackle these huge racial disparities in a methodical way and with an evidence-led approach. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for the points they have made. I shall start with those from my noble friend Lady Whitaker regarding Amendments 63, 101, 107, 113, 116 and 124 and immediately address the point about the limited available data on Roma communities.

I absolutely acknowledge that the data on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities is indeed very limited. I emphasise that I say this not as an excuse; it is just what I have discovered. This is largely due to lower numbers, but we are working with NHSE to improve ethnicity reporting for all patients. More broadly, the Office for National Statistics is working with a range of government departments to undertake research into the barriers and enablers for this community in accessing a range of public services, including mental health services. Findings are expected later this year. I know my noble friend has been very active in pursuing this point and I am grateful to her for doing that. I hope that will be a generally helpful response.

I add to all noble Lords that I absolutely agree that information, communication and support should be provided in a culturally appropriate manner. However, we do not believe that the amendments would achieve that aim, nor are they necessary. The duty to take cultural differences into account in how services are delivered is already enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. These existing duties are the legal basis for ensuring that services are culturally appropriate. That said, we absolutely acknowledge that, in practice, many services still fall short, but that is the position that we find ourselves having to tackle. This is where we need to strengthen guidance. The patient and carer race equality framework is already in place to strengthen the application of these principles, and we will strengthen guidance in the code to ensure that duties under the Equality Act are embedded in practice. We therefore believe that these amendments would not have any additional benefit above what is already in place and what is planned.

On Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, we recognise that there are very significant disparities in the use of community treatment orders between different groups. This data is published as part of the annual Mental Health Act statistics. As the noble Baroness said, in 2023-24 it certainly was the case that patients from black and black British ethnic groups were around seven times more likely to be placed under a CTO than those from white groups. I add that patients from all minority ethnic groups are more likely to be subject to the use of a community treatment order than patients who are white. These disparities are explored in the impact assessment.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, drew on his personal experience, for which I thank him. I am sorry that he has to bring that personal experience here, but of course it is the case that the battle against racism and racial disparities is far from over—I completely agree. I am sure he will have noted the commitments made by this Government to tackle racism and racial inequalities, particularly in the NHS and social care.

The reality is—many noble Lords have spoken about this—that we are in a position where we have less data on outcomes and patient experience of being subject to community treatment orders. Officials are now working with NHS England and system partners to understand what additional data it would be wise and helpful to collect. We will cover CTOs in the planned independent evaluation of the reforms but, as ever, I have to share, in honesty, that it will take time to gather new data. A review after 12 months would be premature, not least because it would mean it was based on data from before any reforms commenced. I do not feel that that would be helpful. I assure noble Lords that, rather than committing in legislation to a review at a fixed date, we are committed to keeping existing and additional future data under review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and sorry for interrupting her flow again. The point about having a staging report after two years is to get ahead and upstream of what is happening rather than retrospectively being able to do stuff after it has gone on. Two years in management terms to be able to determine trends of intended or unintended consequences and then put different things in place is really important. I believe that this amendment, with a report back to Parliament, would send a very strong signal and allow the Government, the department and NHS England to pick up trends, even if it was not the total picture, which would determine different policies and practices and potential changes in the code as well as management action. I think that is what lies behind the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt at this time. I note that the noble Baroness thinks that 12 months is too short, and many noble Lords can perhaps see the point that two years is too short. Does the department have any idea of what a reasonable timeframe is? There has to be some accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said. We could accept the warm words and the intentions of the Minister here tonight, but what happens if nothing changes? Where is the accountability? Can the Minister think about asking the department whether there is a reasonable timeframe for some meaningful research? I have supervised academic theses over time. You can have the one-year and then you go on to the three-year for PhD, and sometimes that is quite comprehensive data. There might be a meta study that could be done of lots of existing studies. First, what is a reasonable time? The noble Baroness does not have to answer now; it can be in writing. Secondly, if we let this go, how do we make sure there is accountability? How do we come back to this in three years or four years or five years? I look forward to the answer.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I was about to say that I do understand the need for pace, but I know that noble Lords understand the need to get this right and I know they are not suggesting that we should get it wrong. I will certainly be glad to look at the points that have been raised. I assure noble Lords that I do not want this to be warm words and I understand what noble Lords are seeking. I want to ensure that it is right and that the pace is right. I will look at the points raised because—although I do not think anyone is accusing me of this—it is the exact opposite of avoiding accountability and transparency; it is just about dealing about what is in the amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked me a number of very pertinent questions and to do justice to them I will write to him. In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords—

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

Just the 16. Anyway, it is a long time to wait.

The amendments aiming to make it clear, as the noble Lord said, when the clock starts ticking are really important, so that there is real accountability injected into the system. Often, when things go wrong it is where no one really feels responsible for something, so it does not happen. I will also be interested to hear what the “exceptional circumstances” do and do not include—I hope we will get some examples—because if they include just things such as shortage of staff or beds, we will not get very far at all, given the current state of mental health beds.

I understand the rationale behind the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens; the reciprocity is a really important point to make. I just have slight concerns that we might be saying that this cannot happen in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, wanted to see, because we know that we have not got the scarce and specialist beds. They are just not available; it is very important to be practical about it.

It comes to the heart of the matter of this whole Bill: we know that, unless proper resource is put into the implementation of the Bill, it is not going to work at all. We know that, with mental health provision, particularly a secure unit, particularly with the state of the estate, the shortage of staff and all of that, there has to be wholesale investment in it for these things to work. I think the time has come. I simply add my voice to others to say that I hope the noble Lord practises patience—but I think he has waited long enough so I hope his patience will not be tested any longer.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke to the amendments. I also thank the Government for allowing the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending to reply to this group. That is very much welcomed by the Committee. I think it was the noble Lord’s father who once said, “Kindness is good for business”. In this case, he might find that kindness is good for his noble friend the Minister. Given how hard she has been working on the Bill, I think she deserves some respite, so I am sure that that is very welcome.

So far, we have debated the importance of limiting detentions for those with autism or learning disabilities without co-occurring mental disorders. We have also debated the community treatment orders. But until now, we have not covered the provisions of the Bill relating to this new statutory 28-day time-limited period for transfers from prisons to hospitals. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has said, he has been very patient. Therefore, the Government enshrining this target in law is welcome. Unfortunately, progress towards the goal of 28 days, as set out in the 2021 guidance and the White Paper, has been slower than anticipated.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, in its 2024 report The Long Wait—I am sure the noble Lord is aware of this—said that

“people linger in prison for weeks, often months and even, in the worst cases, for more than a year waiting for their transfer to be completed”.

Unfortunately, even though the 28-day guidance was there from 2022-23, only 15% of patients in that period were transferred to hospital within that timeframe. Sadly, the average wait was 85 days, and one prisoner was identified as waiting 462 days for transfer to hospital.

These Benches welcome the 28-day limit being put on a statutory footing, but, as other noble Lords have said—not only on this group of amendments but on others—once again, there is an issue of implementation here. Just because it is in legislation does not mean it will deliver the improvements that are necessary.

The noble Lord’s colleague—the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—has been very candid with noble Lords, saying that not everything in the Bill will be delivered now, and that there is a 10-year timetable for implementation. Given that, will the Minister say, at this stage, whether the 28-day limit is an aspiration or something that could be delivered immediately? If, at this stage, it is an aspiration and—understandably so—awaiting future spending reviews, is he able to give an indicative timeframe? Is the hope for the next 12 months, the next five years or, perhaps, up to 10 years? That information would be very welcome to noble Lords. Many noble Lords have been asking this throughout this debate. We understand that not everything is going to be solved overnight, but it would be good if we could have as much information as possible on the Government’s intentions and aspirations, including indicative timetables, where they are possible. We also understand that not everything is going to be clearly tagged at this stage.

Another finding from the prison inspectorate’s report was that there were serious flaws with the data held on patients who were awaiting transfer. I understand that there is no publicly available data describing the access and waiting times for beds. The Minister might be able to correct me on that. Some of the data on the numbers of prisoners awaiting transfer obtained from providers had significant gaps, due to a lack of consistent and accurate reporting, and some data contained errors and unreliability. This might also impact on Amendments 97 and 98 from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.

The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, may well tire of hearing me repeat the importance of collecting accurate and complete data, but, as I and many other noble Lords have said on many occasions, we really cannot solve many of the problems we face without data that is as accurate and timely as possible. Therefore, I urge both Ministers to take up the issue of data reporting for patients awaiting transfer from prison to hospital with their respective departments.

Turning to Amendment 96C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, which creates an accountable person who will be appointed to oversee the transfer process and ensure that the statutory 28-day limit is completed, I think this, once again, speaks to the point of implementation. This could be a sensible way of holding providers to account and working with them to address the shortcomings in patient transfers. Given the Government’s 10-year timeframe for implementation, noble Lords have raised the importance of oversight and accountability. Therefore, in the remarks from the Minister and in any subsequent letter, I hope that the Government will be able to address the issue of implementation and to give an indicative timetable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have helped take a Bill through Committee, so I am grateful to noble Lords for bearing with me while I acquaint myself with the procedures. I appreciate the questions and suggestions from noble Lords because this is a subject that is very close to my heart, as someone who has recruited many of the people whom we are talking about, over many years. I have always thought it was very sad when colleagues whom I had recruited often had to leave because of their mental health problems and other complexities that they then found themselves in within the system.

Amendment 96, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, would remove the change to the detention criteria in Clause 34, provided for prisoners who become mentally disordered in prison and require transfer to hospital. This would mean that a physical hospital place must be identified before the detention criteria are met for transfer from prison to hospital under the Act. This differs from how “available” treatment is interpreted across the rest of the Act, and therefore risks delaying access to treatment. It would also affect the implementation of the statutory time limit in Clause 35, as the Secretary of State would not be able to issue a transfer warrant until a bed is identified, regardless of the patient’s needs.

Clause 34 aims to correct a divergence in the detention criteria, as opposed to creating one. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is seeking further clarity on how Clause 34 will operate and the intention of the wording. My officials would be happy to hold a teach-in with the noble Baroness on this. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I turn to Amendments 96A to 96C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bradley. We have known each other for nearly 10 years, six years after the important topic came on to his radar. Amendment 96A would place a legislative time limit on the referring body to issue a referral notice within two days of receiving a request for an initial medical report to assess whether an individual meets the criteria for transfer. The timing of the statutory referral notice being issued will not impact when the time limit begins. This starts from the day that the healthcare team requests the assessment, referred to in the Bill as “the initial request”. This amendment would therefore not benefit transfer timeliness. Additionally, placing a statutory time limit on the healthcare team in a detention setting to issue a referral notice would not be operationally viable, because not all services operate seven days a week. The current wording of “as soon as practicable” accounts for this and encourages the referral notice to be issued at the earliest point for each case.

Amendment 96B would place a duty on all relevant agencies to ensure, as opposed to “seek to ensure”, that the transfer is completed within 28 days. Due to the multiagency co-ordination required in the transfer process, there is no one body that could ensure punctual transfers. This is why we softened the duty, so that those in receipt of a referral notice must seek to ensure that the patient was transferred within 28 days. Having consulted with relevant agencies, we are confident that this is appropriate, given the complexities in the transfer process.

Amendment 96C, also mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Bradley, would introduce a “specified accountable person”, appointed by the healthcare provider for the relevant place of detention, who would be responsible for ensuring that people are transferred within the 28-day time limit in Clause 35.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

99: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to record patients not in the criminal justice system escorted to hospital by police(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to require the police and hospital trusts to record the number of patients who are not in the criminal justice system but are escorted to accident and emergency departments in hospitals by the police for treatment for mental disorder.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 99 in my name and to speak to my further Amendment 137; both are also in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe.

Our Amendment 99 places a duty on the police and on hospital trusts to record the number of patients not in the criminal justice system who are escorted to accident and emergency departments by the police for treatment for a mental disorder. The reason behind this amendment is that a number of people are taken into accident and emergency by the police because they exhibit behaviour that is a cause for concern, resulting from a diagnosed, or even an undiagnosed, mental disorder or learning disability. These patients are not necessarily placed under arrest, since they may not have committed any crime, but they are escorted to hospital by police.

Once in A&E, it is quite common that they could wait for six, 12 or even more hours before they see a clinician. This is obviously not an efficient use of police time; I know that my noble friend Lady May spoke to this earlier in Committee. More importantly, a police officer escorting a patient who is demonstrating challenging behaviour could exacerbate the problem. Also, a patient who arrives with or without a police officer may behave in a way that is seen as threatening by other patients, which could lead to their being arrested, as they are seen as at risk of harming themselves or others. The patient then finds themselves in the criminal justice system.

To avoid situations such as this, we are probing the Government to try to understand how often the police take patients into hospital for treatment for a possible mental disorder when they are not under arrest. This data should help us to understand how much police time is being spent accompanying these patients. This is not to take a particular view one way or the other; rather, it is to say that we need to have this information available so that we can fully assess the situation.

Our Amendment 137 states that the Care Quality Commission

“must publish a report on the efficacy of systems designed to prevent the introduction of illegal drugs into mental health units”.

Hospitals are entitled to prohibit patients from misusing drugs or alcohol on their wards, but what they can do to enforce those requirements is less clear, especially with detained patients. We accept that informally admitted patients can be asked to leave by hospital managers or even escorted off-site by security if they do not abide by a hospital’s rules on illegal drug use. However, patients detained under the Mental Health Act cannot be forced off premises for violating these rules.

The risks of illegal drugs being used in mental health units are obvious and severe. There is a possibility of those drugs interfering with prescribed medication, which could make that medication ineffective or even harmful to a patient’s physical or mental health. Further risks include the effects—such as psychosis or aggravating effects—of certain drugs, which could potentially lead patients to become more violent and cause harm to themselves or to staff. Whatever the result, the use of illicit drugs in mental health hospitals does not contribute to the treatment or therapeutic benefit of patients; I suspect that is a British understatement.

Much of the information and literature on substance misuse in in-patient mental health settings seems to be out of date. The major studies that we looked at were conducted in the early 2000s; these included a paper published by the Psychiatric Bulletin in 2000. I am happy to be corrected if there is more up-to-date data, but it seems that we do not have enough adequate and up-to-date data available concerning the prevalence of illegal drugs in mental health units. Can the Minister tell us whether the department has up-to-date figures? If not, does it have any intention of collecting these figures? Once again, this would help us to understand the scale of the problem.

Whether or not we are fully aware of the prevalence of illegal drugs in mental health units, there must be adequate safeguards in place to ensure that their use is as limited as possible. This amendment probes the Government for some answers on how they are trying to achieve this. By requiring the CQC to publish an annual report on this matter, we hope that a fuller picture could emerge, which would, we hope, inform the development of procedures and processes to reduce the harms related to illicit drug use. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 151 in this group, which is in my name. It is a slightly diverse group, in that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has just set out his two amendments, which are very focused on specific areas, while mine is a very general one. However, they fall under the grouping as provided to us by the Whips; they are about monitoring and reporting, so there is some kind of sense here.

I start with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who in the previous group said that, without proper resources, this Bill is not going to work at all. That is what this amendment aims to address. I think the reason why it was regarded as within the scope of the Bill without any wrestling from me is that, specifically, the aim of this Bill is to have fewer people sectioned and fewer people under compulsory treatment orders. It aims to reshape and have earlier interventions, so that we do not see problems get so bad that we get to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a fair point, and that is something I shall return to later in Committee. I am keen, as I hope noble Lords know, to speak in your Lordships’ House about progress that is and is not made, and I will continue to do that.

Overall on this group, given the amount of plans and reporting already in place, we do not think that additional statutory review, particularly in relation to Amendment 151, is necessary. For all the reasons that I have put to the Committee, I hope noble Lords will be good enough not to press their amendments.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this group. I should have also mentioned that I am very sympathetic to the intention behind Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Noble Lords throughout this debate have been speaking about community resources and accountability for those resources; indeed, I have a related amendment in the seventh group. In some ways, the Minister has partly answered that probing amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and will reflect on the points she made. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said previously, this was a probing amendment to see what data was being collected. Noble Lords will understand that, if we want to improve a situation, we need to collect data. It may not be perfect, and perhaps we can have some conversations between now and Report about that. I am very grateful that the Minister said that this data is collected. I wonder if she could write to us with links to where it can be found. That could address some of the concerns raised by stakeholders who wrote to us, which led to this amendment being tabled.

I remember that, when I read the work of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, the Metropolitan Police service’s submission said that, in 2021, for the first time more patients were conveyed to a health setting in a police vehicle than in an ambulance. I wonder if that is still true or if that situation has been reversed. The purpose of these amendments was to seek what data was available, so that we can address the problems that Amendment 99 and 137 sought to address. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 99 withdrawn.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendments 128A and 163B concern the banning of prisons and police cells as places of safety. By way of background, in my report in 2009, which I have previously referenced, I recommended that discussions should immediately commence to identify suitable local mental health facilities as the places of safety, ensuring that police stations should no longer be used for this purpose at that time. That sat alongside the development of mental health and learning disabilities liaison and diversion teams based in police custody suites and the courts, particularly to support the police in dealing with people with these issues. There is now 100% geographical coverage of the country with those teams. A crucial further element was the development of what was called street triage, where mental health nurses sat alongside the police in emergency control rooms or in police vehicles around local communities, again to support and assist the police.

The recent policy, “right care, right place”, is rightly based on the same principles debated on Amendment 37B, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady May. Again, at that time there was growing concern that A&E departments were, and still are, a default position as places of safety, and therefore the need to develop alternative facilities, often located close to A&E departments, often called crisis care units, should be pursued. There is an agreed protocol with the police to hand over the patients for care and assessment to NHS staff in the way advocated now by Amendment 128B, which has already been debated and is a model that I believe should be replicated across the country.

My amendments today are an attempt to galvanise the Government into action to achieve that. Amendment 163B to Clause 53 would require that Clause 46 came into force no later than 12 months after the passing of the Act. Amendment 128A to Clause 46 would require that the Government must publish a report on how they would ensure effective implementation of that section within the timeframe specified. I am again concerned at the lack of clarity in the timeline for the implementation of provisions in this clause. The impact assessment currently does not show an estimated commencement date for the provision in Clause 46, stating instead:

“Departments are working together to ensure there are clear pathways and provision in place to safely enact these reforms and the timeline for implementation will depend on the conclusion of this work”.


Amendment 163B would require Clause 46 to come into force within 12 months of the passing of the Act.

Amendment 128A would require the Government, within six months of the passing of the Act, to publish a report assessing: how they will ensure effective provision of alternative places of safety with adequate capacity and distribution across geographical locations; the availability of remand to hospital under Section 36 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and any plans to extend the use of Section 36 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to magistrates’ courts. Such a report will be crucial to the successful implementation of Clause 46.

Further—and this replicates concerns already expressed in Committee—I am concerned about the lack of reliable data on the use of prisons as a place of safety. The impact assessment references this, noting that there is no

“reliable data on the number of people in prison as a place of safety”.

Without knowing how many people are being held in prison as a place of safety, it would be difficult to ensure adequate alternative provision is in place. This data should be recorded and made available to inform effective implementation of this clause. Perhaps the Minister in response might be able to assure us that this information will be made available to the Committee.

Taken together, the removal of police stations and prisons as places of safety can be successfully introduced in a timely way, which many organisations, such as the Centre for Mental Health—for which I am an ambassador—and the Prison Reform Trust, have a long advocated. I hope the Minister will agree.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. As usual, he has been very sensible and measured in the amendments he has tabled. As the noble Lord reminded us, he has been very patient on many of the measures he is proposing.

I will speak to Amendment 140, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe, and hopefully touch on some of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. On a positive note, I will say how much we welcome Clause 46 and its removal of police stations and prisons as places of safety under the Mental Health Act. I think that noble Lords across the Committee welcome that, and the Government are to be congratulated on it.

The Wessely review stated:

“Far and away the best way to improve the care and outcomes for those with the severest mental illnesses is to provide more and better alternatives to detention”.


It also remarked that, all too often, opportunities for early intervention were missed. The report noted that this means that the first contact a patient often has is with the police, rather than with a mental health professional. I know we have discussed this and the overall involvement of police a number of times in Committee. I am sure we may come back to this on Report, but all noble Lords are aware that this must be addressed. Clause 46 is therefore very important in implementing that recommendation from the Wessely review.

I want to focus on a sentence that comes after the recommendation in the Wessely report:

“That means that, where they do not currently exist, health-based places of safety will need to be commissioned”.


I think this goes to the heart of the issue the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, was talking about—implementation but also data. Amendment 140 attempts to probe the Government. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on alternative places of safety for patients who are liable to be detained, particularly focusing on community care. We need to know this; as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, said, we need the data.

Noble Lords have raised many times that we know that everything is not going to be done overnight. We understand that. We know there is a 10-year timeframe. We want a better understanding of what will be delivered when. Some of it will be subject to spending reviews, but some of it will be delivered whatever the result of a spending review. It is all very well saying that police stations and prisons and cannot be used as places of safety—no disagreement there—but this will mean that patients have to be placed elsewhere. Clause 46(2)(a) states that a place of safety for an adult is

“any hospital the managers of which are willing temporarily to receive that person”.

So far, the Bill seems to say—the Minister may correct me—that the only place of safety is a hospital. If I have misunderstood, I am prepared to be corrected, but as all noble Lords will know, that is not always ideal. Capacity in hospitals is in short supply. What will happen if a place of safety is needed but there are no appropriate hospitals nearby that are willing to receive that person, for lack of available space or staff? That is why this amendment places a focus on community-based alternatives for places of safety. If we can shift some of the burden here away from hospitals and into the community, part of the problem might be alleviated.

On an earlier amendment, Amendment 151, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that we all know that capacity in the community is currently quite limited. The report required by my amendment would enable the Secretary of State and the Department for Health and Social Care to consider and create a plan to develop greater capacity in the community for this purpose. We understand that not everything can be delivered now, but we would like to see a plan so that we can understand the Government’s intentions, their own timeframe and how they intend to roll this out. The amendment once again aims to probe the Government on their implementation plan.

I thank the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lord Howe and me to discuss appropriate places of safety. In that meeting, the Minister mentioned the community crisis houses that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, alluded to, and said that her department was investigating how these might be used as alternatives to hospital or, indeed, police stations. As Mind says on its website, crisis houses provide

“intensive, short-term support to help manage a mental health crisis in a residential setting, rather than in a hospital”.

They can vary; some may simply provide temporary overnight accommodation to ensure that those experiencing mental health crises have a safe space away from other areas of their life, while others may provide treatment as well. Many of these crisis houses are operated by voluntary and civil society organisations.

One of my great passions in politics is to champion the role of local community civil society groups, so that we do not always have to look to the state to provide all the solutions. I think that there is some real promise here, and the Government are to be congratulated on it, for the provision of community crisis houses to be expanded, so that they can act as health-based places of safety, as the Wessely review recommended.

The questions I have at this stage for the Minister are in the nature of a probing amendment. What progress has the department made in exploring these community crisis houses and, indeed, other community-based places of safety, as alternatives to police stations and prison cells? Can the Minister tell us, when the Government are implementing the provisions of Clause 46 and commissioning health-based places of safety, whether they will include discussions with local civil society organisations and charities about how best to implement them, perhaps in partnership? I am sure she will recognise that their expertise will be highly beneficial and that they often know their local community much better than officials do, whether those be national officials or sometimes even local government officials. I appreciate that the Minister will not necessarily have all the answers tonight but, if not, I look forward not only to her comments but to the letter that she will promise to write to us afterwards.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bradley for his contribution and for Amendments 128A and 163B. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for speaking to Amendment 140 in his name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We are committed to implementing these reforms as soon as is it safe and practical to do so. We will return to this matter on the next day in Committee.

As I have said before—I know that noble Lords have heard this—we are reluctant to commit to enacting single provisions or publishing single plans or reports at specific times, given their dependence on so many other developments, particularly spending reviews. Removing police stations and prisons as places of safety under Section 55, and removing police stations under Sections 135, 136 and 136A will, as noble Lords suggest, require making sure that viable alternatives and clear pathways into support are fully established and in place. Commencing by regulations enables the reforms to be enacted once this is the case.

I know that my noble friend Lord Bradley is aware of this, but I will repeat it in respect of these amendments. Officials from my department, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are working with health and justice partners across government to develop the necessary plans to ensure that sufficient resources and the right processes are in place, and to establish clear timelines for implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief because of the time. As with the previous group of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, we are very supportive of the intention to try to tease out of government what the implementation plans are. It is really important to understand that being supportive of Clause 47 does not necessarily mean that we believe it will come into implementation in a timely fashion.

By supporting the noble Lord’s amendments, we wish to tease out of government the exact timing and resources that have been allocated; the planning the Government will have to do in terms of the number of provisions that will be required to implement this clause; the gap between the number of those facilities in place and those needed; and the estimate the Government have of when they would seek to put those facilities in place.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, said, the location of those facilities—where there are gaps geographically and where they need to be filled—is very important. It is important that the Government furnish the Committee with those details so that we can fully understand not just the intention of implementation but the scale of the implementation plan required for this clause.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, just like in the last group, I will speak to and support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. They follow the amendments in the previous group.

These Benches welcome Clause 47—another positive move—which addresses the issues arising from the current situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, said, bail can be refused solely on the basis of a mental health condition where it might otherwise have been granted.

In simple terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, this amendment returns to the theme that he, and many other noble Lords, have pushed the Government on—and I like the words used by the noble Lord—to “tease out” the plan and timetable for implementation from the Government, since it requires the Secretary of State to prepare a report on how they plan to implement these changes within the time period proposed in Amendment 163C.

We have to remember that the impact assessment states, in regard to the changes to remand for a person’s own protection, that:

“Departments are working together to ensure there are clear pathways and provision in place to safely enact these reforms and the timeline for implementation will depend on the conclusion of this work”.


That has been manifested this evening with the presence of a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care and a Minister from the Ministry of Justice. However, there is currently no set date for the commencement of Clause 46, so it is all contingent on internal departmental assessments. We all understand how government works—how long it takes for things to happen, to get write-round and to get support across government—so I gently suggest to the Minister that the 12-month implementation timeline would be a useful target for the Government to work towards. It could help them to answer some of the questions that many noble Lords have asked in Committee on the plans for, and stages of, implementation. That is not to force the Government to move faster than they want to go, but just for us to understand the various milestones along the way in developing what is in the Bill.

It would also be helpful if the Minister could set out how much progress has been made both in the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care on establishing the pathways and processes to enable these remand reforms to go forward. This is especially true since the impact assessment also states—this is quite an interesting point—that:

“We expect the number of people on remand solely for mental health reasons to be low and therefore health and justice costs relating to this change are likely to be negligible, and therefore have not been monetised”.


We understand the challenges that the Government are often talking about—they have to wait for spending reviews, et cetera—but the impact assessment states that the number of people affected will be low. Can the Minister say whether either his department or the Department of Health and Social Care know what that means and how many people that will be? Does he know how many will be impacted by this change? If he accepts what is in the impact assessment—that the costs will be negligible—this could be a quick win for the Government in relative terms, depending of course on what other processes he feels have to be put in place before they can deliver this. I hope that the Minister can be a bit more helpful on his noble friend’s amendments, given that the costs are low.

We look forward to the Minister’s response, and I would be grateful if he could give an indicative timeframe or an indication of when a timeframe will be in place.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bradley for bringing this discussion before the Committee. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the implementation of Clause 47 within six months of the date on which the Bill is passed and that the reform comes into force a maximum of 12 months after the date on which the Bill is passed.

We are committed to implementing our reform to the Bail Act as soon as is practicable and as soon it is safe to do so. However, before moving to amend the legislation to embed these changes, we will need to make sure that viable alternatives are properly established and clear pathways to the right support are in place, whether in hospital or in the community. Commencing by regulations enables the flexibility to implement the reform at whatever point the necessary alternatives and pathways are safely in place.

I reassure my noble friend Lord Bradley—just as the Minister, my noble friend Lady Merron, did in relation to the previous groups of amendments—that my officials are working with colleagues across government to develop this and to ensure that sufficient resources and processes are in place. This includes the work of the north-east health and justice hub, which seeks to improve the way that courts, health services and prisons work together at a local level to smooth pathways into care, alongside the pilot team collecting data. That will help us better to understand the number of people remanded for their own protection solely on mental health grounds to inform planning.

The reform is currently due to commence by regulation, so we have the flexibility to implement it at whatever point the necessary alternatives to the pathways are in place. The rollout of the bail information service will be completed by autumn this year. This will help the courts to have the information they need to make decisions on bail for this cohort. However, we need to make sure that we have the reliable data on the number of people remanded for their own protection, because if this is rushed, it could create knock-on impacts for health services.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, before I begin my remarks, I want to say how pleased my noble friend Lord Howe and I are to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, back in her place; I am sure that many noble Lords would echo that sentiment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for moving this amendment to establish a statutory mental health commissioner. One of the motivations behind some of the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe is to probe the Government on those recommendations from the pre-legislative Joint Committee that did not make it into this draft Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has said, this is one such recommendation of the Joint Committee that did not make the cut.

We did consider tabling a similar amendment ourselves, but I have to admit that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, did the job very well; there was no need to duplicate that. Having spoken to the noble Baroness and to her noble friend Lord Scriven, I know this is an issue that they and many other noble Lords feel passionate about. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has today made a very good case for a commissioner. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has also spoken of the need for central co-ordination to ensure implementation of the provisions of this Bill—something that was referred to in the last group of amendments.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord as I know that he has considerable experience in the NHS and is all too aware of the problems involved in trying to deliver at scale. However, I admit that I have some reservations about the idea of a mental health commissioner. While I understand the arguments in favour, I am, like the Minister, concerned about the creation of a new bureaucracy that could possibly duplicate functions.

In their response to the recommendations of the Joint Committee, the previous Government noted that

“the government does not believe that a statutory mental health commissioner would add significant value within the framework currently provided by existing bodies”.

The Joint Committee pointed out that a Mental Health Act Commission was established by the Mental Health Act 1983, which stood alongside the Healthcare Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. In 2009, the then Labour Government took the decision to combine these three bodies into one integrated regulator with responsibility for all health and adult social care. I say that not as a political point but as an observation.

Since then, the CQC has undertaken the functions of the previous Mental Health Act Commission, and its remit extends to ensuring protections for those who are detained under the Act or subject to a community treatment order. To do this, the CQC has a number of Mental Health Act reviewers, who can visit patients in hospital and raise concerns about treatment or detention with managers, and then report back to the commission. The CQC also has a dedicated team that assesses complaints about the use of the Mental Health Act, including issues around detention and the use of CTOs.

I also understand that the CQC provides second-opinion appointed doctors for patients who do not have the capacity to consent to treatment under Part 4 of the Act. This Bill strengthens the safeguards around second-opinion appointed doctors, such as creating a clinical checklist that must be certified by the second-opinion doctor.

In addition to the functions of the CQC, local authorities and ICBs provide independent mental health advocates; we have debated those in earlier groups. The Department of Health and Social Care also gives funding to local authorities to commission Healthwatch services, of which I understand there are about 152 across the country. Healthwatch is another statutory organisation that gathers feedback from the users and ensures that NHS leaders listen to and, hopefully, incorporate that feedback.

As we have seen, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, alongside the CQC, supports individuals to raise complaints against the private sector, the NHS and all public health authorities.

The point I am trying to make is that there appears to be a plethora of services and public bodies that work to oversee the function of the Mental Health Act and try to ensure that patients have a voice in their care and treatment. While I appreciate that some of the proposed duties of the commissioner would be unique to that role, there appear to be elements of duplication in that role and those of existing public bodies. However, I am also conscious of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about being complementary.

So, while I hear the arguments on both sides, I am still slightly sceptical about whether we need a stand-alone mental health commissioner. To be fair, we have not completely made up our minds yet, and my noble friend Lord Howe and I are weighing up the arguments. For that reason, I ask the Minister to help these deliberations by clarifying a few points. First, will she confirm whether the CQC will take on the role of implementing the provisions of the Bill? Perhaps more importantly, how will it be able to fulfil that function effectively, given the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and others and their strong feeling in favour of an independent mental health commissioner?

What action will the Department of Health and Social Care take to ensure oversight of the CQC’s role in the implementation of this legislation? If the Government remain opposed to the creation of a commissioner, can the Minister reassure your Lordships on how existing bodies will address the Bill’s implementation and accountability for its implementation, without the need for a stand-alone mental health commissioner?

I hope the Minister is able to give these assurances. Otherwise, given what was said today by other noble Lords, I am sure we will come back to this issue on Report.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for tabling Amendment 131, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Murphy, and my noble friend Lord Bradley. As noble Lords are aware, I understand the intent behind the amendment. We have carefully considered the proposed functions of the commissioner that it outlines, and we recognise that improvements are needed to ensure that the system works effectively. But as noble Lords are aware, we do not feel that a new body is the answer. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, it may only duplicate existing functions, rather than providing the clarity and leadership that I know everyone is seeking. I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord give his reflections on the opinions of the previous Government about a proposed mental health commissioner.

Overseeing implementation of the reforms is the role of the Department of Health and Social Care, working with NHS England, the Ministry of Justice and the CQC in England, and, in Wales, with the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales.

On the interaction between this legislation and the Mental Capacity Act, we are committed to keeping that under close review to minimise challenges potentially faced by front-line professionals.

The annual report by the commissioner proposed in the amendment would overlap with the CQC’s annual Monitoring the Mental Health Act report. The CQC’s annual statutory reporting reflects the views of thousands of patients interviewed each year by the CQC. Many of the issues that the commissioner would assess and report on, such as the accessibility of advice and the quality of services, are already reported on by the CQC.

It is proposed that the commissioner would examine cases of people detained under the Act. This clearly overlaps with the functions of the CQC and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, which have a statutory duty to monitor and, where appropriate, to investigate. The Act provides the regulator with similar powers—for example, to gather information to support it in exercising these powers.

The Health Services Safety Investigations Body is responsible for conducting independent investigations into patient safety concerns across England to identify ways to improve mental health care and patient safety. It has just concluded a series of investigations into in-patient mental health care and is currently undertaking further work.

With regard to the proposed commissioner’s general powers, it is the Government’s role, with NHS England, to ensure sufficient capacity and resources in the system. It is the role of NHSE’s national director for mental health and the medical director for mental health and neurodiversity, newly established last year, to oversee and take forward improvements to mental health services. It is already the role of the regulator to safeguard the rights and welfare of patients, while other organisations independently investigate complaints.

Minimising duplication with these organisations and functions would require significant remodelling of the system, interrupting ongoing programmes and responsibilities that are important to the smooth delivery of the Mental Health Act reforms. Having said that, we recognise that improvements need to be made in the quality of care and the patient safety landscape. We are committed to that goal and intend to overhaul the healthcare system to make it better for all patients.

The CQC has already begun to implement the recommendations made by Dr Penny Dash and Professor Sir Mike Richards: a new chief inspector for mental health will use their independent voice to amplify and respond to the experiences and outcomes of people who use services. Implementation of Mental Health Act reform will be at the top of their “to do” list.

On the wider landscape, we expect to hear soon from Dr Dash who, as noble Lords have said, is reviewing the broad range of organisations that impact on quality and safety, many of which I have mentioned today, and is due to report on whether greater value could be achieved through a different delivery model.

Reference was made in the debate to the role of the Children’s Commissioner, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, particularly focused on. I want to place on record my gratitude to the Children’s Commissioner for the work done on children’s mental health. But, in reflecting on the debate earlier, I should say that the Children’s Commissioner is operating in a rather difference landscape. The proposed mental health commissioner would have a much narrower purview that, for the reasons I have stated, risks overlapping with existing organisations in a way that the Children’s Commissioner does not. I understand why the Children’s Commissioner is being looked to, but I cannot draw that direct comparison myself.

The challenges we have heard about in this debate have highlighted areas we need further to focus our efforts on. I look forward to speaking to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about this topic this week, and I am sure that I will have further conversations about it. For all these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 131.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for moving this amendment. Unlike in the last group of amendments, where there was limited support, we fully support her on this one. We know that the noble Baroness has tirelessly campaigned for better support for those with eating disorders. At Second Reading, she shared the experience of living with such disorders, and we all became much more familiar with some of the concerns. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Browning that it is about time we stopped treating all people with mental ill-health the same; we know that we have to look at it in far more granular detail.

The amendment speaks to the problems around the adequacy of provision of care for patients suffering with eating disorders. As the noble Baroness said, Section 140 of the Mental Health Act provides for reception of patients in cases of special emergency and the provision of accommodation and facilities suitable for under-18s, but it applies only to hospitals. I agree that there is a reasonable case to extend this to specialist eating disorder units. With that in mind, I hope the Minister will be receptive to this amendment.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for bringing Amendment 132 to your Lordships’ Committee, for raising this important issue, for sharing at Second Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, her personal experience of her daughter’s treatment and for sharing her overall experience of the provision of services today. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, made the important point about different conditions needing different provision and support. That was amplified by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord.

Eating disorders are of course serious mental health challenges, and it is vital that those with them can access effective help quickly. We will continue to work closely with NHS England to improve access to the right and timely care and treatment for those with an eating disorder.

The purpose of Section 140 is to ensure that approved mental health professionals are aware of the services available to help them to locate hospital beds in special cases. The intention of the amendment is to extend the duty on health authorities to notify local authorities of arrangements for urgent cases and under-18s to include specialist eating disorder units.

Section 140 applies to arrangements for people who need in-patient treatment in a hospital. That includes specialist eating disorder units where they provide in-patient treatment in a hospital setting and are appropriate for someone to be detained in. Therefore, while I understand the points being made, it is not necessary to specify that Section 140 applies to specialist eating disorder units. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on both these amendments. I turn first to Amendment 134 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and spoken to by my noble friend Lady Ramsey and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, both of whom shared real-life examples to illustrate what is being spoken about here.

This duty to consider mental health needs, as well as the needs of those with a learning disability and autistic people, in the community as well as in hospital is already covered by ICBs under the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. An ICB must arrange for the provision of services to such extent as it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom it has responsibility.

ICBs and their mental health trusts are also required to prepare a joint forward plan that describes how the ICB will arrange for NHS services to meet its population’s physical and mental health needs, and the needs of those with a learning disability and autistic people.

On the general point with regard to the long-term workforce plan, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned, it will report in a few months’ time, later in the year, which I hope will give a lot more substance to answer the kinds of questions that are being raised. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked about incremental requirements for psychiatrists on a year-by-year and whole-time-equivalent basis. I say to the noble Lord that the impact assessment sets out our best estimate at this point, but the plans need to be seen as somewhat iterative. With regard to further specific questions, including those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I will indeed be glad to write.

Turning now to Amendment 157, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies and spoken to by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett, as we have already discussed in relation to Amendment 134, there is already a duty on ICBs to provide sufficient hospital and community services under the National Health Service Act 2006. Furthermore, chapter 16 of the Mental Health Act code of practice already states that local authorities, NHS commissioners, hospitals, police forces and ambulance services should have local partnership arrangements in place to deal with people experiencing crises in mental health.

We accept that there are issues with bed capacity and patient flow, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I will resist using the term “patient pathway”, but I certainly agree that they are part of what happens to a patient and they are indeed linked—whatever form of words we choose to use. That is why, in the recent NHS planning guidance, we have tasked local systems with reducing the length of stay in mental health wards and have committed £26 million to improve mental health crisis care, with a further £75 million to reduce inappropriate out-of-area placement. All this is already in train and does not suggest a requirement for primary legislation. So, for these reasons, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I very much support this amendment and do so for an additional reason to those already given, which is that it will reduce the time staff have to spend discussing debt with severely ill people in a time of crisis. One thing we need to do is improve productivity in the health service—I declare my interests in relation to that—and free up clinical staff to really support patients. I believe that this intervention would actually enable that.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in raising this issue in this House and through his work with the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said he hoped that he would get my support; I can assure him of that. Today, and in previous groups of amendments related to advance choice documents, the noble Lord spoke powerfully about the need to understand the link between financial problems and mental health problems. It also reminded us that while this may not be seen as a priority for people detained under the Mental Health Act, it is not difficult to imagine why they might neglect their personal finances—obviously, not their first priority. During this time, their bills will not be paid, debts will grow, and this could lead to debt collectors or bailiffs being called in, making the situation far worse.

I was particularly struck by the personal testimony that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, read out, in the earlier group of amendments, from the person who was helped by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, about not being asked whether there was anyone who could open their mail and keep on top of their day-to-day living. For them, as the noble Lord told us, it was a spiral of going in for treatment and coming out to find that their finances were in a bigger mess than before. What would that do to someone who was suffering from mental health issues? It was a bigger mess, leading to terror, shame and guilt, and in fact it undid the work of the treatment that they originally went in for. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said, the phrase “breathing space” is very evocative of what we are asking for here.

It is worth repeating that this amendment does not require health and care professionals to offer financial advice. We are not asking them to be financial advisers or to deal with issues that they are not experts in. It is about empowering them to identify people in need and refer them to the appropriate existing support. As the noble Baroness said earlier, this will improve productivity and save all that time that would be wasted. It need not cost much money, or indeed any money in some cases, but could save the patient from financial and mental distress and save taxpayers’ money. For this reason, we are supportive of this amendment.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I had not intended to come in on this group, but, having just heard the very powerful—and, in places, very alarming and harrowing—speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I will just ask the Minister whether he can explain what plans the Government have to assess and evaluate the impact of the provisions of the future Act on prisons and the criminal justice system, even if they are not planning a formal review. We need to know how the impact will be assessed.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, during the passage of this Bill, both the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, who is not in his place, have spoken passionately about people with mental health issues in prison. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to Valdo Calocane, and I know that the Government have instigated an inquiry. That particular case was the motivation for Amendments 160BA and 160BB in a later group, to which my noble friend Lord Howe will speak.

During the earlier debates on this, both at Second Reading and in Committee, I was particularly struck by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on Chief Inspector Charlie Taylor’s graphic description of seriously mentally ill people in prisons being akin to a Victorian nightmare. After that debate, I read some of what Charlie Taylor had said, particularly about his visit in 2022 to Eastwood Park, where he witnessed

“bloodstains on the floor and scratch marks on the walls—evidence of the levels of distress of the women being held there”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, also told the Committee about the experience of prison staff, saying that one of the most difficult things is the danger that prisoners with mental health issues pose to themselves, other prisoners and staff. In fact, Charlie Taylor gave an example of an incident when staff were

“unable to stop one inmate from repeatedly running into a brick wall due to a lack of suitable training”.

These are very important issues that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords are raising.

Given all this and its importance—I know that one of the reasons the Minister was appointed to his position was his experience and passion for prison reform—it seems reasonable to ask the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact of this Act on prisons and to assess whether it provides for adequate support for ongoing treatment and care in those settings, including adequate staff training. I am sure this will be of help not only to the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care but to the Ministry of Justice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. This amendment would introduce a new clause, making it a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact and assessment of the provisions of the Act that relate to care and treatment of mentally disordered persons in prisons— this includes under-18s in young offender institutions, IPP prisoners and female prisoners—within 12 months of the day it is passed.

The aim of the criminal justice reforms is to speed up access to specialist in-patient care and ensure that offenders and defendants with severe mental health needs are able to access effective and timely support in the most appropriate setting. We are committed to understanding the impact of these provisions as we monitor any available data. However, these reforms will not come into effect until at least 18 months post Royal Assent. This is to ensure that the necessary operational improvements have been made to enable them to be safely implemented.

We are working closely with health and justice partners to ensure that there is a robust implementation plan in place, and we will scope the feasibility of assessing the impact on all prisoners, including under-18s in young offender institutions, IPP prisoners and female prisoners. Our expectation is that the numbers of these cohorts affected in a prison setting will be small and are unlikely to show up in administrative datasets. However, I reiterate that everyone in our care is important—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his comments about the importance of this to me. We are committed to supporting everyone’s rehabilitation, working to ensure that people stay out of prison by leaving in good health.

I am pleased with the feedback on the noble Baroness’s visit to HMP Five Wells. I too have seen some very ill prisoners in HMP Five Wells and many other prisons. That is why the Bill, and the work we are doing to improve our prisons and the chances of prisoners leaving with a one-way ticket, not a return ticket, are so important.

I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that there is already a robust scrutiny landscape in place. We are accountable to several key stakeholders and bodies, including His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, independent monitoring boards, the Care Quality Commission and the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. We are committed to learning from what works and where we can improve support for vulnerable offenders with severe mental health conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, there has been discussion throughout Committee about whether this Bill and our deliberations should stick strictly to detention under the Act or range wider. I know that there are different views on this issue. I have said consistently throughout our debates that we need to see what more we can do to prevent people reaching the point where the only option is being forcibly detained.

I feel that a key omission is a power around prevention. Given the cost of statutory in-patient admissions under the mental health legislation, and the stated intention of the Secretary of State to reduce hospitalisation through prevention, I find this surprising. Therefore, I have brought forward a simple amendment that would give relevant authorities the power to promote mental ill-health prevention in their communities, while of course being realistic about current financial realities.

My Amendment 160B seeks to explicitly grant relevant bodies, including integrated care boards, public health bodies and local health boards in Wales, the power to promote mental ill-health prevention within their communities. It would also empower organisations such as social care and the voluntary sector to take proactive steps in reducing the likelihood of individuals reaching crisis point and requiring detention under the Act.

I was pleased recently to have the opportunity to discuss this with the Approved Mental Health Professional Leads Network, which is very much involved in this. It expressed its support for such an approach. I think we all understand that the causes of mental health issues are complex and can be as much around societal issues, such as employment, housing and poverty, as clinical issues. That is clearly recognised in the AMHP’s role, which acknowledges that while a clinical perspective is always appropriate, other perspectives can be equally valuable. As was explained to me, at the core of the approved mental health professional’s role is a responsibility to explore less restrictive alternatives to detention for individuals in crisis.

As has been quoted a number of times in this Chamber, recently the Secretary of State said that the Government will publish a 10-year plan early next year setting out how they will deliver three big shifts in the focus of the NHS,

“from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention”.

I see this legislation, and indeed this amendment, as an opportunity to make a reality of that statement in relation to mental health. While there will always need to be provision for statutory interventions for those who present a severe risk to themselves or others, it is surprising to me that, in this journey from hospital to community and sickness to prevention, there is no explicit mention of the promotion of good mental health within the Bill.

There is plenty of evidence of the links between prevention and reducing detention. I was going to give some examples, but the hour is late and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I am not going to. There are also plenty of examples of alternative approaches to detention, such as crisis cafes and safe spaces, community crisis response teams, mobile mental health and social care professionals who respond to individuals in crisis, peer support networks, sanctuaries and respite services. All these have been shown to be effective in reducing the need for hospital admissions.

To conclude, by formally giving relevant bodies the power—it is a power, not a duty—to promote mental ill-health prevention, this amendment encourages a proactive rather than a reactive approach to mental health care and support, thereby, I hope, reducing reliance on crisis interventions, including involuntary detention. I beg to move.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for introducing this amendment. It is quite clear that noble Lords across the Committee agree with the Government’s commitment to move the emphasis from sickness to prevention. This amendment is clearly aimed at that, as the noble Baroness has said.

During my time as a Health Minister and since, I have met a number of community and civil society projects, charities and mental health professionals who have shared the amazing work being done across the country to improve the well-being of local communities. I put on record my thanks to the late Baroness Greengross and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for introducing me to the wonderful world of creative health and to the National Centre for Creative Health. Its work addresses the theme of earlier amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the overprescribing of antidepressants and looking at alternatives. We are not saying that medication is a bad thing necessarily. It is very appropriate in some cases, but there are alternatives, such as social prescribing.

The late Lady Greengross introduced me to a wonderful organisation called Intergenerational Music Making, and I put on record my thanks for its work. It invited me to take part in one of its intergenerational music hubs in Guildford last December and, despite being handed a guitar to play along, I found it inspiring to see the difference that music can make in improving well-being and bringing people of all ages together, including some children from a local learning disability charity.

Noble Lords will also know of the equally amazing work done by many social prescribing organisations, using music, art, drama and green spaces. A career in creative health also opens up new opportunities for budding actors and rock stars who can train as drama and music therapists while waiting for their big break. But many do not wish to be stars and actually find their work, combining their passion with improving mental well-being, fulfilling in its own right.

However, one criticism I hear is that, although there is amazing work on well-being in different primary care settings or in different trusts and integrated care systems across the country, the challenge is how we spread the best practice across our system of health and care, while recognising that what works in one area may not always be an off-the-shelf solution in another locality.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler —which says that

“Local authorities and commissioning bodies must publish an annual report outlining the steps taken to discharge their duty”


to promote mental health and well-being—may be a way to address this concern. Given that, I hope it is an amendment that the Government will consider. If not, perhaps the Minister can tell your Lordships how the Government intend to encourage the sharing of best practice in improving mental well-being across our system of health and care, particularly across different communities with different needs and different constraints, in order to improve the mental well-being of the nation.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for tabling Amendment 160B. We recognise the importance of local organisations taking collective action to promote mental well-being and prevent mental ill-health. However, turning to the amendment very specifically, we do not feel that this amendment suggests the best approach, as there is potential for introducing unnecessary burdens on local authorities and commissioning bodies. It may also be duplicative of other existing duties, such as the Care Act duty, to promote individual well-being.

However, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall—whom I also thank for his contribution—may be interested to note that the existing prevention concordat for better mental health, a voluntary agreement signed by local authorities and integrated care boards across the country, does involve, for those who sign it, a commitment to take

“evidence based preventive and promotional action to support”

population mental health and well-being.

Through the NHS 10-year plan, which the noble Baroness referred to, and as noble Lords are aware, we aim to encourage stronger partnership working between local government mental health services and the voluntary and community sector—which, as we know, plays a vital role, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, described—in order to galvanise that shift, which we all seek, from sickness to prevention. On the basis of the reasons outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.