Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to a number of amendments that I have added my name to, particularly those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. In Committee, the whole issue of people with learning disabilities and autism caused a number of concerns. I note that the Minister has gone some way towards dealing with some of those concerns, and it is a tribute to her listening and enaction skills that progress has been made.

I think it would be fair to say that there are still some concerns on Benches across the House about potential unintended consequences for people with learning disabilities and autism if the Bill goes through in its present form. In some areas, I would describe the statement from the Minister as, “It’ll be all right on the night”—but we know that, sometimes, it is not all right on the night, and things will happen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, puts forward quite an important base for long-term segregation. There is no evidence that it has a long-term therapeutic benefit for people who have learning disabilities and autism, and so the provision for it still being there, without laser-focused monitoring and intervention, is a weakness. The Minister really has to convince the House that the Government have a plan to deal with this.

The worry about having too much faith in the code of practice, as we found out in Committee, is that simple words such as “should” and “must” have very different meanings for whether or not there is a statutory obligation on an organisation. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on the focus in the code of practice and on strengthening the words used.

Amendment 4, to which I have added my name, is something that the House should focus on and understand. Throughout the history of implementation of improvements in mental health and other areas where community carers come in, they have always fallen down on implementation, due to a lack of either funding or resources. Amendment 4 focuses on implementation. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has just said, in the Autism Act 2009 Committee, we heard from two witnesses who said there is a plethora of policy but it is always the plan on implementation that fails. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, focuses on that implementation and asks that the Government have a real plan to do that.

It was worrying as we went through Committee, particularly when issues were raised about the numbers in the impact assessment, that the Minister pointed out that they are indicative. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is required because, if we take a look at the trend of the percentage of total healthcare spend that has been allocated to mental health, including the Government’s announcement last week, we find that there have now been two years in which the total spend will be reduced. That means that some of the good ideas that the Government have mentioned with regard to the implementation of this Bill and community services are potentially at risk.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness will press her amendment, but, if she does, she will have the support of these Benches. We think this is vital, and we are not quite convinced, unless the Minister says something to that effect from the Dispatch Box, that that crack—that real weakness—has been dealt with.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, before I begin my remarks, I express my gratitude to the Minister and to officials for their engagement with not only me but other noble Lords between Committee and now. I know I am not alone in appreciating the amount of time and work that the Minister and officials have put into meeting with us, addressing our concerns, and even having follow-up meetings; that was very much appreciated.

I will speak to Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lady Browning, and briefly address some of the other amendments in this group. We supported my noble friend Lady Browning’s intention to retable this amendment, which seeks to address the loophole which could lead to the use of the Mental Capacity Act to detain patients with learning disabilities but without a recurring condition.

As noble Lords have acknowledged, both in Committee and today, once the legal basis for detention under the Mental Health Act is removed for these patients, there was always a profound risk of them falling under the deprivation of liberty safeguards. Nobody wishes to see extra safeguards introduced into the Mental Health Act for that to be simply replaced with detention by another Act. My noble friend said today that she has received further assurances from the Minister—we are grateful for those assurances—and that she is no longer minded to test the opinion of the House. Had she been minded to test the opinion of the House, she would have had our full support, but I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given to my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

7: Clause 5, page 11, line 22, after “detained” insert “by a constable or other authorised person”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Kamall seek to introduce a new category of “authorised person” who can carry out detentions under the 1983 Act to offer better inter-agency response. The proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe are really amendments from my noble friend Lady May, who unfortunately cannot be in her place today. As my noble friend told the House in Committee, when she was Home Secretary, a recurring concern raised by police officers was being called out to situations where they were expected to determine whether someone was at the point of crisis and what should happen to that individual. As we know, that usually meant taking the individual to a police cell as a place of safety—an issue that is addressed in other parts of the Bill. But police officers continue to be concerned that they are asked to deal with something for which they have no, or insufficient, training or knowledge.

As my noble friend reminded the House, a police presence is also often not good for the individual, as not only is that individual not being given the healthcare support they need, but the presence of an officer in uniform coming to deal with them could exacerbate their mental health situation. Even if the police officer is able to get somebody to a hospital, they might still be required to sit with an individual to make sure they do not harm themselves or others. My noble friend Lady May cited the Metropolitan Police’s evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, where it gave an example of a patient in A&E who was required to be guarded by eight Metropolitan Police officers over 29 hours to prevent them being a high-risk missing person.

In its letter to the current Secretary of State, the National Police Chiefs’ Council was concerned that the law as it currently stands

“arguably views mental health through the lens of crime and policing related risk, which raises … issues including disproportionality in the criminal justice system, discrimination, adverse outcomes for people suffering with poor mental health as well as increasing stigma attached to mental health”.

I make it clear that, although this amendment removes the statutory demand for the police to be the primary responders to incidents of mental health where there is an immediate risk to life or serious injury, the police will still have a role to play.

The amendments specify that the authorised person attending an individual should be

“trained and equipped to carry out detentions”

and should not be

“put at unnecessary risk by carrying out those functions”.

This is in line with the College of Policing’s 2019 mental health snapshot, which found that almost 95% of calls that police attend that are flagged as a mental health response do not require a police response.

The Minister will be aware that, in the joint Home Office and Department of Health review and survey of Sections 135 and 136 powers, 68% of respondents agreed that all or part of Sections 135 and 136 powers should be extended so that healthcare professionals could use them, provided that they were not putting themselves at risk. Paramedics in particular supported a change, with more than 90% agreeing and more than 60% strongly agreeing.

However, this is not just about the interests of the police and healthcare professionals. More importantly, we need to focus on the individual at the point of mental health crisis. They deserve the right response, the right care and the right person.

I note that the Minister, in our conversations—I appreciate her giving forewarning of this—discussed how the amendment as it stands appears to give the police more powers. I discussed that with my noble friend Lady May before I came to the Chamber, and she was surprised at this and said that it was somewhat disappointing, given the constructive meetings that the Minister and my noble friend have had, and given that the Metropolitan Police said that they were supportive of this move when my noble friend met representatives last year.

There is clearly a difference of opinion here, and we appreciate that we need to find a way forward. I know that my noble friend Lady May is open to discussions with the Minister to ensure that the principle behind these amendments is met. Could the Minister give a guarantee to meet my noble friend and that, following these discussions back and forth, she will be able to bring back an amendment at Third Reading?

The fundamental principle remains unchanged: the role of police in detentions under the Mental Health Act must be reduced, and it must be reduced for the patients’ and the workers’ benefit. If the Government can accept the principle but not necessarily the precise wording, I hope that the Minister will be able to give the assurances that I and my noble friend Lady May have asked for. I am afraid that, if the Minister cannot give the assurance that she can bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, having had discussions with my noble friend Lady May, we will have to test the opinion of the House. I hope that the Minister can help to find a constructive way forward with my noble friend.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I am extremely pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has moved his amendment for the Opposition. I will not be voting for it, but I am pleased that it has been moved because in Committee I moved amendments along the same lines.

I know that my noble friend the Minister agrees with the suggestion that there is a challenge here for the Government—she told me so. This issue is not going to go away, and it would be a constructive way forward for there to be a meeting—I would ask to be included in any such meeting. We are clear about where we want to get to, and that the appropriate phrase is “right care, right person”. I do not think that that is currently being delivered, so something needs to be done. I hope that we can move to a better system, in a constructive way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the points that were raised, and I listened carefully to what she said. I had hoped that she would be open to resolving this issue, as I know she is with my noble friend Lady May. However, once again, there is a difference of opinion. As I understand it, amendments brought forward at Third Reading do not have to be only technical amendments and I had hoped that the Minister would give an undertaking to bring back an amendment at that stage. Given that we have a disagreement of interpretation on two issues, I am afraid I think it best to test the opinion—

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It might be helpful for your Lordships’ House to know that to fulfil what the noble Lord says, there would be a need for collective agreement to offer a commitment to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, which I do not have. I emphasise the point made by my noble friend on this.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

That is entirely understandable. I know the Minister always means well in our discussions and always tries to find a solution, but, given that, it may be helpful to finding a solution if I test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

8: Clause 5, page 11, line 33, after “detained” insert “by a constable or other authorised person”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Kamall seek to introduce a new category of “authorised person” who can carry out detentions under the 1983 Act to offer better inter-agency response. The proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will very briefly speak in support of this very important set of amendments. As my noble friend Lord Scriven set out on Amendment 11, which I very strongly support, the case for having some conditionality around community treatment orders is overwhelming, including making them time limited and having a second doctor’s certification to confirm their therapeutic benefit. Both are very hard to argue against. They get the right balance between, as we heard in earlier stages, those who want to get rid of the orders altogether and those who feel that we need to tighten up the conditions. The other two review amendments are also very important.

Finally, we need to remind ourselves, as we did at Second Reading and in Committee, that black people are seven times more likely to be on a community treatment order than other members of the population. That is why this is so important.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for the excellent way he introduced his Amendment 11. I fully support everything that he said.

The suitability of community treatment orders is an issue that has obviously featured heavily in the discussions on the Bill so far. I think that many of us came to the debates on the Bill, having read the Joint Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report, thinking that we were going to support the abolition of community treatment orders or be very sympathetic to that idea. However, two contributions gave us a reason to pause and think. One was the personal story from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter; the other was hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, say that she previously believed that they should be abolished before realising that they are entirely appropriate for a small number of situations or cases. In fact, given that one of the principles of the Bill is imposing the least amount of restriction, maybe they are the least restrictive solution for some incidents.

Having said that, very serious concerns obviously remain about the use of community treatment orders in their current form. Other noble Lords and I spoke in Committee about the overrepresentation of black males, which is what my Amendment 62 intends to address. It was a shame that the deliberations on this issue came so late at night, but I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement. I asked three simple questions: what do we know about why black people are disproportionately detained? What do we not know? What research and work are we conducting—I know this sounds like a PhD research thesis seeking to generate the research questions so that someone can go from an MPhil to their PhD—and what is the gap in research to generate the questions for the primary research?

I was very reassured by the responses from the Minister and her officials that they take this seriously. They set out in detail the work that they are doing. In fact, the Minister put a lot of that in a letter to me. It would be unfair of me to ask her to read out precisely what is in that letter, because we would be here for quite a few hours, but can she share some of those assurances with the House? It would be very helpful for other noble Lords to understand why, given that letter, I have decided that I will not push my amendment to a vote.

As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has struck the right balance. The amendment acknowledges that there are issues with CTOs and allows for their continued use, under restrictions. It is really important that, in every case, there is a review, and 12 months would seem an appropriate time for that review, rather than cases just being forgotten about, people being caught up in other casework or cases falling behind the filing cabinet—if there was another analogy I could use, I would. If the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, decides to divide the House, these Benches will support him.

I look forward to hearing some of the assurances the Minister gave to me and others on racial disparities. I hope also that she can address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.