Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to contribute to the Second Reading of this very important Bill, albeit, as other speakers have already said, a Bill that has been too long coming. I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill and I thank the Government and commend them for bringing it forward so quickly in their term of office. I also thank the noble Baroness the Minister and the Secretary of State for the meeting that they held with me earlier today. Like others, I also want to look back and thank Professor Sir Simon Wessely and his team—including, not least, the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—for the invaluable work that they did that has led to the Bill before this House today. I want to say a particular thank you to those with lived experience who were willing to come forward and inform and advise the review panel, but also the pre-legislative scrutiny work and at other stages too, so that the Bill could be based on real experience, not just on what politicians and, dare I say it, the civil servants thought would be the right thing to do. So I welcome this Bill.

When in October 2017 Sir Simon Wessely was commissioned to undertake the review, there were a number of reasons that led to that. The first was the one that the Minister has already referred to: the Mental Health Act 1983, which was in place for over 30 years, had had some amendments subsequently but was felt to be out of date. Society and clinical treatments had moved on, so there was a need to look at it. But, for me, there was a more fundamental issue, which was the fact that so many people who found themselves in mental health crisis felt that, somehow at those points of crisis, they were people to whom things were done, to whom society did things, rather than people who were able to be part of and involved in that decision-making—they lost their human dignity in the processes that they went through. There were also issues about family members who were concerned that they were not listened to, when they felt that they knew when people were coming to points of crisis, or family members who felt that they were shut out from the discussions about their relative who was potentially at a point of crisis.

Then there was the overuse of detention. Reference has already been made, and I am sure will be made by others in this debate, to the racial disparity in the use of detention, a matter which should concern us all. There was also the question of the use of detention for those with autism and learning disabilities. All those issues underpinned the reason for looking at reviewing the Mental Health Act 1983.

The first point has been that issue about the loss of dignity and the way in which people in mental health crisis are treated. I hope that will be dealt with by those very first principles that appear in Clause 1. I draw particular attention to the fourth of those:

“The person as an individual”.


Under “Matters to be addressed”, it says:

“treating patients with dignity and respect and considering their attributes and past experiences”,

although I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, just said, that it is not enough simply to put it on a page of legislation. For that to be enacted requires changes of culture and attitude from all those who deal with people in mental health crisis.

Part of this sense, though, of people being able to feel that they are making decisions for themselves is the advance choice document enshrined in this legislation. I am sure that the Government will want to think carefully about the matters that it might encompass, and about its interaction with potential future legislation.

I want to pick up the issue of the nominated person. I mentioned families feeling that they are sometimes cut out but of course, as we know, sometimes for the individual with mental illness or mental health problems the nearest relative—that family member—might not be the most appropriate person to be their nominated individual. That individual may actually be somebody with whom—how can I put it?—the tensions can lead to increased difficulties for the person with mental illness, rather than reducing them. That ability to nominate somebody else as the person who someone wants to be there is critical. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to this in relation to children but I think that, in general, it could create some tensions with family members who feel that it is their right to be that person alongside the individual in mental health crisis. Having said that, I believe that the nominated person point in the Bill is absolutely appropriate.

I want to focus also on the questions of detention. I have referenced how we need to look carefully at the inappropriate racial disparity in detention, but I also want to comment on the police issue. I am pleased to see the outlawing in the Bill of the use of police cells and prisons as first places of safety. This is of course the culmination of work in progress. There was voluntary work with the police and the health service, in 2012 and subsequently, to encourage and help them to ensure that the first person who someone in mental health crisis saw was not a police officer, and that they were not taken to a police cell as a place of safety. We then ensured that work in the Policing and Crime Act 2017, so that police cells could not be used as places of safety for those under the age of 18. The Bill takes it that bit further and it is absolutely right that it does—and right to do it for the individual who is in mental health crisis.

It is also right to do that for the police, because one issue that police officers themselves constantly made reference to me about was their fear and concern about being expected to deal with somebody who was in mental health crisis, when they had no training and no capability of knowing what to do in those circumstances. Of course, it is bad for the individual too if they are faced with somebody who has no actual understanding of what their condition is or how they should be dealt with.

Perhaps I may gently say to the Minister that in 2015 we put £15 million into providing alternative places of safety and in 2017 the Government put £30 million into providing them. This Government are now putting £26 million into providing those alternative places of safety. It is easier to say this from this side of the House, but the Government might wish to consider those figures, if I can put it like that. I also suggest to the Government that they consider alternative places of safety as not necessarily being a healthcare facility. Many places in the third sector are able to provide those facilities and the Government should look at that as well.

Finally, we also need those facilities to try to ensure that people are less likely to get to the point of crisis. If they are less likely to get to that point, they are also less likely to turn up at A&E because they are in crisis. That would be a win-win for the individual concerned, for the Government and for the health service.

Overall, I welcome the Bill. There are some very good provisions in it. As we have heard, it will be subject to detailed scrutiny in this House but it is no bad thing—I can say this now—that it started in this House. I welcome it and look forward to its passage.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness May of Maidenhead]

37B: Clause 5, page 11, line 16, after “detained” insert “by a constable or other authorised person”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness May 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.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group standing in my name, Amendments 37B, 38C, 42C, 42F and 128B, are all intended to widen the definition of those who can attend a mental health incident and act to detain an individual in a variety of circumstances.

It is a pleasure to speak after a number of noble Lords who have a considerable wealth of experience on the issues in this Bill. I can claim no such breadth of experience, but the amendments I have tabled speak to one issue, which I have dealt with in the past: that of who can attend a mental health incident and particularly the attendance of the police at such incidents.

Back in 2010, it became clear to me, as I spoke to more and more police officers in my role as Home Secretary, that there was one issue that was at the forefront of their mind, and it was the problem they had in dealing with people at the point of mental health crisis. Their concern was understandable: they had no training in mental health, they were not professionals in this area, yet they were being called out to situations. They were being expected to determine whether someone was at the point of crisis or not, and what should happen to that individual; more often than not that meant taking that individual to a police cell as a place of safety. For the police officer, there was concern that they were being asked to deal with something for which they had no training or knowledge.

Of course, the police presence was often not good for the individual concerned. Inevitably, it meant they were not being given the healthcare support they needed at that point in time; but more than that, the very essence of a police presence—somebody in the uniform coming to deal with them—could actually exacerbate their mental health situation, and a police cell is not designed to improve somebody’s mental health. Finally, for the police force, of course, it meant that it was taking up resource which could have been used elsewhere, and which was, in many cases, inappropriate; often if somebody was in a police cell as a place of safety it meant that an officer had to sit outside the cell to ensure that they did not harm themselves.

The issue of the use of a police cell as a place of safety is dealt with in other parts of the Bill, but they do not deal with this wider question of the police resource that is being used. Even if the police are lucky enough to get somebody to a hospital, they still could have to have an officer in A&E sitting with the individual to make sure they do not harm themselves or cause harm to others. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police, in its evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, cited a case study where a patient was required to be guarded by the police in A&E to prevent them becoming a high-risk missing person, and eight Metropolitan Police officers had to attend that individual for over 29 hours. Police officers were worried about the job they were doing, the individual concerned was not being treated or dealt with in the way that was appropriate for their mental health needs, and police resource was used unnecessarily.

Over the years, I and others have tried to address this situation, initially with some success. But what often happens in government, as noble Lords and the Minister will find over time, is that an initial success is turned back because over time people revert to the previous behaviour or mode of operation. That is what we have seen in this case, and it came, of course, to the point where the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said that the force would not give an ultimatum and would not turn up to these mental health incidents.

As drafted, the Bill has the capacity to at least maintain, if not exacerbate, this problem, but the Government could accept amendments or amend it in a way that would improve the situation. I should say that, of course, if there is an immediate risk to life or serious injury, the police will always have a role to play; but they are clear that they want to see mental health repositioned as a health matter and not seen through the lens of crime and policing-related risk. This is the position that the National Police Chiefs’ Council took in its letter on the Bill to the current Secretary of State for Health, which said:

“The current position of the law arguably views mental health through the lens of crime and policing related risk, which raises a number of 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”.


That concern that the focus and statutory footing of the police as the primary responder to incidents of mental health should be removed from the Bill is what has led to my amendments—it is what they are intended to deliver.

I see similarities between my amendments and Amendment 158 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. If I may be so bold, I think we are both trying to achieve a situation where the expected response to someone in mental health crisis is not limited to police; in other words, “right care, right person”. My amendments are intended to widen the description of those who can attend mental health incidents beyond a constable, but they specify that a police officer—the holder of the position of constable under the Crown—can respond if there is a genuine need for a police presence.

Recognising that we do not want to see healthcare professionals put at risk, the amendments specify that the authorised person attending an individual should have been

“trained and equipped to carry out detentions”

and by carrying out that function should

“not be put at unnecessary risk”.

It is worth noting, perhaps at this point, that the College of Policing’s mental health snapshot 2019 found that almost 95% of calls that police attend that are flagged as a mental health response do not require a police response.

I referred to the reasons behind my amendments in relation to the police, but there is support among healthcare professionals for such changes. In the joint Home Office and Department of Health review of Section 135 and Section 136 powers, 68% of respondents to the survey, alongside the review, agreed that all or part of Section 135 and Section 136 powers should be extended so that healthcare professionals could use them provided they were not putting themselves at risk. Paramedics particularly supported the change, with 93.3% of paramedics agreeing and 61.1% strongly agreeing.

Beyond the interests of the police and healthcare professionals, of course, we must also remember the interests of the individual at that point of mental health crisis. They deserve the right response, the right care, the right person—and I do not believe that that is always a police officer. This Bill should reflect that and enable a wider range of authorised persons to attend mental health incidents. I beg to move.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, this is an area where I feel I have the possibility of a solution or part of a solution, while supporting very much what my noble friend has put forward in her amendment. My solution comes from knowledge that we have gained from the world of palliative care. It is a subject matter that we covered in detail on the joint scrutiny committee, because the whole issue of the police turning up to such an incident where somebody is absolutely in crisis can, in many instances, lead only to an increase in the fear and extraordinary pain that that person is feeling when they are in crisis. It is not the fault of the police; it is just the situation that they find themselves in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their interventions. To the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—how can I put this?—I say that the police should be there only when they are needed because they are the police. It is true—the point was made very well in the course of the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady May—that it often goes beyond that. That is why “right care, right person” is something that colleagues are working on with police forces, as well as looking at the whole connection with health services. It is well understood.

I heard the comments of my noble friend, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. When the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was speaking, the words that came into my head were “chicken and egg”, about legislation and skills. We looked at skills, but—these are not quite the right words—not at the expense of addressing the question of whether the law is in the right place. They are connected, but I refer the noble Lord to the points made earlier, by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about the response we have had from health and care professionals. It is about finding the right way. I take the point that there is a gap now. We do not want to make it worse, and we know that it is not acceptable.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to all those across the House who have supported my amendments. When the Minister first stood up and started to respond, I got quite excited and hopeful. I thought the points had landed, but then, as she carried on speaking, my hopes were dashed as I realised that, in a very elegant way, she was actually rejecting all the points that I had made in my amendments.

The Minister emphasised the code of practice and dealing with the issue of the handover between police and medical professionals. The whole point of my amendments was to ensure fewer handovers between the police and medical professionals, because there would be fewer times when the police were called as the first responders to a mental health incident. The Minister kindly said she would meet with me, and I hope she might be willing for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, also to be part of that discussion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referenced my admiration for Sir Geoffrey Boycott. One thing about Sir Geoffrey Boycott was that his centuries tended to come quite slowly. Maybe the response and government reaction to this will be a little slower than I had anticipated; but, on the basis that I anticipate that that reaction may come and the century may be scored, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 37B withdrawn.