Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Gill Furniss, Carolyn Harris, Sir Desmond Swayne, Martin Vickers

† Bloore, Chris (Redditch) (Lab)

† Brandreth, Aphra (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)

† Burton-Sampson, David (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)

† Chambers, Dr Danny (Winchester) (LD)

† Craft, Jen (Thurrock) (Lab)

† Dean, Josh (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)

† Dixon, Anna (Shipley) (Lab)

† Evans, Dr Luke (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)

† Franklin, Zöe (Guildford) (LD)

† Irons, Natasha (Croydon East) (Lab)

† Joseph, Sojan (Ashford) (Lab)

† Kinnock, Stephen (Minister for Care)

† Morris, Joe (Hexham) (Lab)

† Owatemi, Taiwo (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury)

† Shastri-Hurst, Dr Neil (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)

† Stafford, Gregory (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)

Wrighting, Rosie (Kettering) (Lab)

Claire Cozens, Harriet Deane, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Clause 4

People with autism or learning disability

Amendment proposed (this day): 1, in clause 4, page 4, line 41, at end insert—

“(iv) housing.”—(Dr Chambers.)

14:00:00

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment 51, in clause 4, page 4, line 41, at end insert— “(iv) accommodation and relocation, and”. This amendment ensures that the impact of accommodation and relocation is considered in care and treatment reviews for patients with autism or learning disabilities. Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 5, line 23, at end insert— “(v) the patient, (vi) the patient’s nominated person, and (vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.” This amendment would ensure that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive copy of a care, education, and treatment review meeting report for children and young people with autism or a learning disability. Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 5, line 31, for “12” substitute “six”. This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months. Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 7, line 6, at end insert— “(iii) housing, and”. This amendment ensures that housing needs are considered as part of care and treatment review meetings. Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 7, line 32, at end insert— “(v) the patient, (vi) the patient’s nominated person, and (vii) the patient’s independent mental health advocate.” This amendment ensures that nominated persons and independent mental health advocates receive a copy of a care and treatment review meeting report. Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 7, line 40, for “12” substitute “six”. This amendment would shorten the length between care and treatment reviews from 12 months to six months. Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 8, line 12, leave out “must have regard to” and insert “have a duty to carry out”. This amendment ensures that integrated care boards and local authorities responsible for a patient's treatment and care have a duty to implement recommendations arising from a care and treatment review.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford for tabling this group of amendments. I will address each in turn, beginning with amendments 1, 4 and 51. We recognise that a lack of appropriate housing can be a barrier to discharge for some patients. That is why we have put the important reviews on a statutory footing. I am pleased to provide an assurance that the Bill already makes provision for any relevant recommendation about a patient’s discharge, including meeting their housing needs. Statutory guidance will assist the responsible commissioner to determine who to involve in review meetings. That will include guidance on when the involvement of partners such as housing departments and organisations may be appropriate. Placing a specific requirement to consider the housing needs of every patient would mean that housing would have to be considered in every case, even if it is not a relevant issue. Potentially, that could divert focus from factors more relevant to the patient’s care and treatment. On amendments 2 and 5, the Bill makes it clear that a copy of the review report must be provided to those who have a legal duty to have regard to the review recommendations, so that any recommendations are implemented as appropriate. The patient should receive the report, in line with good practice. However, we are concerned that requiring a longer list of people to receive the report in every case might increase the chance of patients withdrawing their consent for a review to be held, especially if they do not wish for those people to see the report. We recognise that it is often appropriate for the report to be provided to other people, such as those listed in the amendments, but the Bill was amended in the other place to make it clear that a copy of the report may be provided to other persons not listed in the legislation, with the patient’s consent. Amendments 3 and 6 are unnecessary. The current drafting provides that review meetings take place at least once every 12 months. That is in addition to the requirement that arrangements must be made for an initial review meeting to take place within 14 days of admission for children and for some people aged 18 and over, and within 28 days for other adults. We also know that more frequent reviews may not be appropriate for all patients. For example, for a patient who is unable to be discharged for a long time, reviews that focus on discharge may be rather distressing. Commissioners should use their judgment to determine whether the individual needs of a patient might mean that a more frequent review is appropriate. NHS England policy makes it clear that patients, their families and advocates can request a review meeting at any point. Statutory guidance will provide commissioners with further information on factors to consider when determining whether more frequent reviews should take place. For example, current practice, in line with NHS England policy, is that children under 18 should have a review meeting at least every three months—that will be made clear in the guidance. We consider it preferable to set out that information in statutory guidance, which can provide detailed case studies and be readily updated in line with emerging best practice, including on frequency and considering particular circumstances.

The Minister makes a fair point about best practice. However, did the Government consider any mechanism for how best to share best practice across areas? Especially as the Bill also covers Wales, as heard this morning, it might be useful—across the integrated care boards—to understand the Government’s thinking on how to ensure that best practice in exemplar places, where care is really good, can be shared to help places where care might not be so good.

The shadow Minister is right, and one of the overarching objectives of this Government is to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. We are very keen to ensure that we identify best practice right across the board in all the services that we provide, and that it is then replicated and scaled up. We also recognise, though, that every community and area of the country is different, so it is not about exporting and importing best practice. It is more about looking at those exemplars and asking, “How could we use some of this, without reinventing the wheel?” That is absolutely the culture of how we want our health service to run—I think it is a cultural point.

The Minister makes a good point about the differences in the country, one of which is how the Care Quality Commission looks at the standards. Especially as the CQC is under new leadership, will it be taking a role in looking at how best practice is implemented while ensuring standards?

The CQC has a key inspection role, which is an important check and balance in the system. I would rather see the incremental building of a culture of excellence across the board, including within upstream institutions, ICBs, local authorities, healthcare professionals, mental health professionals and social workers. We need to create a collaborative approach across the board so that best practice is developed within a culture of excellence. One would hope that the CQC, when it does its inspections, is then finding positive results. Of course, it also plays an important role in identifying, investigating and holding to account when things are not going as they should. Finally, I will address amendment 7. The Bill requires named persons and bodies to have regard to the review recommendations. This is a well-established duty that clinicians, integrated care boards and other public bodies are used to applying and already exists within the Act. Where effective care and treatment is the central aim, we expect careful consideration of all recommendations. Where these bodies decide not to accept a relevant recommendation, we expect them to have a very good reason. It is inappropriate to place an absolute duty on a body to follow recommendations in every case, as flexibility is required to depart from a recommendation where appropriate, for example if a recommendation is outside the body’s purview or not in the patient’s best interests. As currently drafted, the Bill already requires that certain named persons or bodies carefully consider the recommendations and give them appropriate weight. Where a body does not consider a recommendation appropriately, that may be subject to review by the courts. In the light of all this, I therefore thank the Liberal Democrats—

The Minister is right about the absolute nature of the Liberal Democrat amendment, but we talked about the duty to respond requiring a body to set out why it has decided to take action or not. The Minister seemed to allude to that, but he then jumped to talking about being challenged in court. Is there a hybrid version within that duty to respond so that it could stipulate the setting out of why the body is accepting the recommendations or not, because that may well help transparency?

I see where the shadow Minister and the amendments are coming from, but there is a risk of over-embroidering the Bill if we try to load additional duties on to something that we believe is already happening. It is a very well-established duty that clinicians, integrated care boards and other public bodies are used to applying, and this already exists within the Act. I think there is an element here of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If there is compelling evidence that it is not working, clearly we need to intervene as a system, which is about real leadership at the ICB level. As things stand, we feel that this amendment is surplus to requirements for the reasons I have set out. I thank the hon. Members for Winchester and for Guildford for this exchange of views, and I hope that they are content to withdraw amendment 1.

It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Furniss. I know that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon will have spent his lunch time anticipating the responses to his long series of questions. The tension is palpable— I hope he is excited to hear our replies.

Thrilled.

Unfortunately, I was busy meeting Brian May and talking about farming, so I have not had a chance to work up a really good response. The point of the Liberal Democrat amendments is to recognise that mental ill health requires holistic care and that many non-clinical factors directly influence mental health. Although the Bill’s scope is understandably narrow, very much focusing on people once they are admitted to hospital for treatment, we need to recognise that, if someone is discharged back into the situation from which they were admitted, they are very likely to have a relapse and to need treatment again. Some of those factors are non-clinical. For example, people living in poverty—those in the lowest 20% of income—are more than twice as likely to suffer mental health issues than those on an average income. We strongly support the Bill, but we need to recognise that, on its own, it will not improve mental health or do anything to prevent people from developing mental health issues. If our amendments are not within scope or are not appropriate for the Bill, we urge the Minister to work with other Departments, such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that this good piece of legislation, which we support, can be successful. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon made a point this morning about local authorities. He is right that local authority reorganisation is a challenge, especially when it comes to providing accommodation for young people and for people being discharged from mental health care centres. It is also an opportunity, because the current situation is not fit for purpose. Hampshire county council is struggling to provide the care these people need. Housing, which often affects young people’s mental health, is probably the single biggest issue that comes up in my inbox and when I knock on doors. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth. As a clinician, his point about the evidence base, especially when it comes to reviews, is really important. We are discussing a Mental Health Bill that may not be changed significantly for another 40 years, so it is important that we use the best evidence. As a long-time trustee of an evidence-based medicine charity, I am passionate about this. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock for pointing out that clinical guidelines suggest six-month reviews. Yearly reviews are used for many medical conditions, and I would argue that a year is also an arbitrary period, rather than one based in evidence. Why six months and not a year, or why a year and not six months?

The hon. Member is correct to establish the evidence base and the guidance. Broadly, we need to balance that with the logistics and the impact on the clinician, the patient and the resources. Move too far one way and it becomes a tick-box exercise or more resource-heavy; move too far the other way and the safeguards that we are trying to implement are lost or watered down. When I look at the amendments, that is the balance I am trying to understand; if the guidelines are written with that in mind, that makes sense. The job of this House is to scrutinise the numbers and decide whether we agree that they are right, or whether we should push a bit harder—whether we should tighten the safeguards or relax them a little to allow clinicians more freedom of choice. I guess that is the purpose of the Bill—getting the right boundary between the safety of the individual patient, support for the wider public, and making sure that clinicians have the freedom to make their judgment so that we are not stepping on expert opinion or, worse, creating bureaucratic processes. I hope the hon. Member understands that is why we are probing further on the rationale.

I completely agree with everything the hon. Member just said. Atul Gawande did a fantastic piece of work on checklists that emphasised the need for them not to become tick boxes. They are meant to involve active thinking and decision making. I thank the Minister for reassuring us about housing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

14:15:00

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 4, page 8, line 27, at end insert— “(ba) the person is under 18 years old and satisfies the conditions in (b)(ii).” This amendment inserts a new subsection that extends the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register for those at risk of detention to all children and young people under the age of 18.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 47, in clause 4, page 9, line 20, at end insert— “(6) The risk factors specified in regulations under subsection (5) must include— (a) homelessness; (b) addiction; (c) domestic abuse; (d) miscarriage and traumatic birth; (e) experience of armed conflict; and (f) bereavement.” This amendment would specify risk factors for detention for people on the register of people at risk of detention under Clause 4. Amendment 9, in clause 4, page 9, line 29, at end insert— “(c) seek to ensure that the needs of children and young people can be met without detaining them under Part 2 of this Act.” This amendment extends the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.

Amendments 8 and 9 would insert a new subsection to extend to all children and young people under the age of 18 the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register of those at risk of detention. Amendment 9 would extend the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them. Far too many children are unable to access the mental health care they need, leaving them more vulnerable to experiencing a mental health crisis that then requires detention, which all too often ends in tragedy. Child and adolescent mental health services are in a state of near collapse, with many children unable to access the care and treatment they need until their mental ill health has reached the point of crisis. Waiting 15 months in great mental distress is far too long, especially for children. It is a huge disruption not only to their personal development but to their education. Waiting up to two years for treatment is a huge proportion of a 12-year- old’s life. We are pleased that the Bill, as it currently stands, includes specific provisions to prevent people with learning disabilities from requiring detention under the Act. The Government should take that approach for more people, especially our young people. Early intervention, delivered through regular check-ups and cutting waiting times for treatment by community services, is critical. We should not pretend that acute mental health services and in-patient care exist in a vacuum. The pressures they face are directly impacted by the quality of community services. We need stronger steps to ensure that fewer people require detention in the first place, especially children. We are pleased that the Government are taking steps towards having mental health support in every school, for which we have long campaigned. We would like them to go further by ensuring a dedicated professional in every school. We are alarmed that the targets for mental health are being dropped, so I press the Government for assurances that the upcoming 10-year plan will ensure that children who are referred can expect swift and efficient support and treatment, with binding duties on health bodies to deliver that. Alongside this Bill, what requirements and resources will ICBs have for preventing mental health crises? As part of that, will the Department make specific changes to CAMHS?

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point about the pressure on CAMHS. In Leicestershire, about 45% of CAMHS referrals are for things like autism and ADHD, and the problem is that it takes a lot of services away from those who have eating disorders or depression, or who self-harm. Does he believe there is scope to reorganise services to make sure they are appropriate where there needs to be treatment? A child suffering with severe anxiety and self-harming tendencies should not be on a pathway with someone who has autism, for example. Has he given any thought to how this Bill might be a way of opening that door?

On the surface, what the shadow Minister says seems logical and makes sense. I am not a mental health clinician, so I want to be really careful about pushing in one direction. Whether someone has an eating disorder or is waiting for a diagnosis of something like ADHD, the waiting times are too long. We must better structure a system that ensures that everyone gets healthcare when they need it, rather than prioritising what we perceive as most important. One of the most heartbreaking things that I hear from parents in Winchester, who are worried sick, is that young teenagers with an eating disorder have been told that they have to hit a lower BMI to reach the threshold to qualify for treatment. That is essentially saying that someone has to be sicker for longer. No one would ever say, “We’ll wait until your cancer reaches stage 4 before we start treatment,” but that is happening with eating disorders. The treatment will end up being longer, more complicated, more costly for the taxpayer and maybe less successful. A question often comes up—the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon alluded to this—about the pressures on local authorities to deliver mental health care. Actually, the question is “How we can afford not to deliver it?” People with mental health disorders are ending up in A&E or prison and costing police time. It costs £52,000 a year to keep someone in prison, yet apparently we cannot afford to give them the community interventions that might stop them going there in the first place.

The Labour Government are working on a range of early interventions for young people in the area of mental health and to stop them spiralling into crime, such as the Young Futures hubs and introducing mental health support in every single school. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but it sits outside the Bill, and there is plenty that the Government are doing. Regrettably, there will always be a need, at certain times, for a young person to be under a section 2 notice and to be brought into care for a period of time, for their own safety. That is unavoidable and will be the right thing for that individual, but there is so much work being done outside this Bill to help young people and others with their mental health.

We support all efforts to keep young people happy and healthy in their communities. I visited Winchester Youth Counselling recently, where pupils can self-refer to talk through their issues. That does not involve any clinical personnel. It is hugely impactful and cost-effective and is part of the community. We support those community hubs. Amendment 47 would specify risk factors for detention for people on the register of people at risk of detention under clause 4, including homelessness, addiction, domestic abuse, miscarriage and traumatic birth, experience of armed conflict, and bereavement. For anyone, including people with learning disabilities, life events can have a profound impact on mental ill health and can drive mental disorders. Well over a third of women with mental health problems have been a victim of domestic violence, and 50% of rough sleepers have mental health problems. The disastrous impact that bereavement can have on anxiety and depression, which are key factors in suicide, has been well documented. It seems obvious, frustratingly, that public services do not currently reflect that key fact. There are no registers of bereaved children to ensure that they get the right support in the community and in school. There are no registers of veterans, despite their far higher risk of mental ill health and suicide. Women who have suffered a miscarriage do not receive an automatic referral, including to mental health services. The Government need to ensure that people can get mental health assessment and support at key points in their life, including the most traumatic moments.

We have certain registers of carers, for example in primary care. There is a stipulation about moving towards veterans being included. Who does the hon. Gentleman think might hold the register, in the light of his amendment?

I do not know the best place for it to be held. That is an important point. For a lot of the issues that Members are bringing up, we are not expecting there to be answers today. However, we want to ensure that they are all being considered, given that the subject might not return to Parliament for another 40 years.

I have a question about the list of risk factors that has been provided. Is there not a concern that it might be too prescriptive or restrictive, and that putting it in primary legislation prevents local authorities or ICBs from widening it, from having registers and risk factors that might be appropriate to their areas, and from focusing on what the appropriate level of care is that they are best placed to meet?

That is a very insightful point. The list could be longer and is not meant to be exclusive. I am not sure of the answer to the hon. Lady’s question but, taking a step back, we know that the single most common cause of death in women 12 months after giving birth is suicide, and there is no proactive automatic care. If a person is addicted to alcohol, they are admitted to hospital for treatment for their physical symptoms. When they are physically well enough to go home and they are discharged, there is no automatic enrolment or follow-up in mental health care. I would not want to bring in a system, as the hon. Lady says, that ends up being too prescriptive. However, at the moment, we have one that is not prescriptive enough. I could list a handful of demographics of people who desperately need that proactive care.

The purpose of this part of the legislation is for ICBs to keep a register of anyone who is diagnosed with autism or a learning disability. Patients who are already under a clinical team already have a risk assessment, which covers all the areas that the hon. Gentleman is specifying. As a result of the amendment, would we not be duplicating information about risks that already exists for most patients with their clinical teams?

The point of having an at-risk list is that ideally there is proactive contact with people—perhaps in quite a soft way, and perhaps through community hubs, as we have discussed—before they demonstrate a severe mental health crisis. I assume that the people the hon. Gentleman is talking about have already been admitted to hospital and have received treatment, and that they are being followed up after they have been discharged. That is not a proactive list; it is a reactive register. Am I correct? I apologise if I have misunderstood his question.

Anyone who is under the care of a clinical team for their mental health has a risk assessment. That is basic paperwork, which is completed by the clinicians. That risk assessment covers everything that is specified in the amendment. The purpose of this part of the legislation is for ICBs to have a register. However, ICBs will not be providing direct care; that will be provided by the clinicians. Those patients who are under any clinical team have a risk assessment that covers all the points in the amendment. My point is that the amendment would duplicate some of that paperwork.

I will not argue with an esteemed Member who has the hon. Gentleman’s background in mental health. I take his point as it stands.

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member’s argument. I do not disagree with anything in it; I just fail to see how the amendment fits with the clause that we are discussing, which I think may be the point that the hon. Member for Ashford is making. As far as I can tell, clause 4 is about producing a register of people who have a learning disability or autism, who are at risk of being detained for a mental health episode and for whom those risk factors are active, for example because they have been sectioned before or have presented at A&E. Those are specific incidences. What the hon. Member for Winchester is talking about is more wide-ranging; it is not about touchpoints in the same sense. I can see how he could potentially say, “Well, domestic abuse has led to a mental health episode and therefore to a presentation at A&E or in the system.” However, if we put in societal factors, for want of a better phrase, we could end up putting most people on the list, because most people will have experienced a bereavement. I get what the hon. Member is trying to do, but I fail to see how the amendment matches the overall purpose of clause 4.

14:30:00

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. In my maiden speech, I focused primarily on mental health and on the fact that there are so many demographics of people who we know are at significantly higher risk of suicide and mental ill health than the general population. Whether the issue is more appropriately addressed in the Bill or outside it, but using the Bill as a mechanism to highlight it and to cause the proactive engagement of other relevant Departments and other pieces of legislation, I am determined that we are not going to discuss the biggest piece of mental health legislation in 40 years and not even have a discussion about how we proactively engage with groups of people who we know are at very high risk of mental health issues.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will carry on, if that is okay. Our social and health services need to see the whole person, including their social needs and the factors in their environment that threaten their wellbeing. Trying to treat a mental disorder but failing to account for that person’s lack of housing, which drove their anxiety and depression in the first place, is doomed to fail. A lack of support for a child who has lost their parents at a young age could lead to significant harmful consequences further down the line. There are a huge range of areas that require change, but for now we would like to press the Minister on three specific issues. We understand that some of them may turn out not to be within the scope of this Bill, but it is still important that they be addressed in some capacity. Will the Government finally implement a register of all bereaved children to ensure that they get the support they need? Will the Government ensure that all women who go through miscarriage, stillbirth or traumatic birth access mental health support quickly and effectively? Will the Government establish a veterans register to ensure that those who have served in the armed forces and who face particular challenges as a result get the tailored mental health support that they need and do not reach the point of requiring detention?

I need to remind the hon. Member that issues that are not within the scope of the Bill are not within the scope of the debate—but we have let you get away with it this time.

I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendments 8, 47 and 9 to clause 4, which seek to expand the scope of the at-risk register, define risk factors and protect children and young people from unnecessary detention under the Mental Health Act. Let me start by acknowledging the intent behind the proposals. There is genuine merit in ensuring that those who are at risk of detention, particularly children, are visible to the system before crisis point. That view is shared on both sides of the House. I also share the concern that we are too often intervening too late, after a child or young person has already reached breaking point; I would add families to that, because they also bear a lot of the brunt, especially when it comes to waiting. By extension, when there are waiting lists, as the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, the clinicians themselves—often the GP—will struggle to deal with patients and families when they do not have the clinical expertise necessary for the most severe interventions. Amendment 9, which would include all under-18s at risk of detention on the register, reflects that preventive ambition. Likewise, the proposed list of risk factors, including bereavement, homelessness and domestic abuse, rightly recognises the social determinants of mental ill health, which are all too often overlooked. However, I have some reservations about the proposals in their current form. First, on the register for all under-18s, expanding the duty so broadly raises serious questions about safeguarding, data protection and deliverability. Children and young people are already subject to multiple overlapping systems, from social care to CAMHS and education, health and care plans. Before laying on a new national register, we should ask what safeguards will be in place, who will manage the data, and how it will integrate with existing responsibilities such as those under the Children Act 1989 and the special educational needs frameworks. Secondly, although I agree that we must understand the drivers of detention, the list of mandatory risk factors, including miscarriage, bereavement and even armed conflict—all of which are profoundly serious—could widen the scope of the register so far that it loses operational focus, as we have heard. That is why the Opposition have tabled a later amendment to define it as childhood trauma instead, which is a more encompassing way of dealing with it. Also, we risk casting the net too wide without necessarily improving outcomes for targeting the right support or, conversely, missing something. For example, looking at that list, I would argue that gang violence or gang involvement is a key factor that Members on both sides of the House would agree is very pertinent, and yet it is not mentioned. Therein lies a problem. Thirdly, amendment 9 seeks to prevent the detention of children and young people unless it is absolutely necessary, which is a principle that I wholeheartedly support, but how do the Lib Dems propose that it be enforced? What levers are in place if a service fails to deliver that community-based service? Without resourcing CAMHS, investing in crisis alternatives and reforming commissioning models, the duty risks being symbolic rather than systemic. In essence, the hon. Member for Winchester is trying to make the point that we should have these discussions. Although I support the goals of the amendments—visibility, prevention and early support—I am not sure that the specific mechanisms in them are the best way to safeguard achieving them. Instead, I wonder whether consideration has been given to piloting regional early intervention panels for under-18s at risk of admission, building on existing safeguards in educational frameworks, rather than creating separate registers. Alternatively, we could include risk indicators in statutory guidance, rather than setting them rigidly in legislation, which I think was the point made by the Government. That would allow some clinical judgment and flexibility. Above all, we must ensure that ICBs are not just given duties, but held to account. How are they are going to deliver them? That means having the right metrics and oversight and a strong role for advocacy and families.

The shadow Minister is making some useful observations about best practice. One of the real injustices that we are seeing with detention at the moment is the racial disparities in detention rates. One could argue that such a disparity is a potential risk factor, but behind it is something that we should be addressing through dealing with inequalities in the mental health system, particularly the unwarranted variation in practice from clinicians perhaps making discriminatory judgments in these cases. Does the shadow Minister agree that that is another reason why we should not be over-specifying some of these points where we see associations between risk factors and detention rates under the Mental Health Act, and that therefore we should not be including them in the Bill?

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s end point and with the thrust of what she says. Causality is not causation, and we need to be very careful. When we get to the later clauses of the Bill, that will be at the forefront of our discussion. We cannot deny the reason we are having this legislative debate in the first place: the observation that black men in particular are subject to community treatment orders far more than any other group in the country. However, we must not make a lazy causal analysis and say, “Well, just because that is the case.” For example, black men have a higher risk of prostate cancer, and white people a higher chance of coeliac disease, because of the genetic basis. Is there something in that? Is there systemic bias by clinicians, as she hinted? That all needs to be explored. The hon. Member for Shipley beat me to the punch when it comes to my closing statement. We owe it to our children and young people not to legislate in haste, so I welcome the spirit of the amendments, and I welcome the debate, but we must be careful to ensure that we are truly legislating for and defining exactly what we know. Otherwise, we risk creating other inequalities and unintended consequences or, worse still, a system that becomes even more flabby and difficult to manoeuvre through. That is the last thing we want for our patients, clinicians and the public.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I have some criticisms of the specifics of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Winchester, but I entirely support him and congratulate him on the passion with which he spoke about them. As I remember, his maiden speech touched on a number of these issues. Whether they are within the scope of the Bill is for the Clerks and the Committee to decide, but he made several extraordinarily good points that I hope the Government will take away. If the Bill is not the appropriate place for them, there should be another avenue. The lead amendment is about the ICB register. It would insert a new subsection to extend the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register for those at risk of detention to cover all children and young people who meet certain risk criteria. As drafted, the duty to maintain a register under clause 4 may not explicitly include all under-18s. Therefore, the amendment would ensure that children and young people are proactively identified and supported before reaching a crisis point that might lead to detention. Clearly, there are positives. As the hon. Member stated, early intervention might help to prevent unnecessary detention by identifying risk earlier, which is especially important for children. Likewise, there is a strong argument about equity and care to ensure that young people receive the same proactive planning as adults. That would clearly lead to improved safeguarding through better tracking of vulnerable minors in the mental health system. A corollary to that would be better data collection on youth mental health needs, which I think we would all support. We would be able to use that information to support more informed policymaking and resource decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth highlighted, however, and as I highlighted in the debates on other clauses, there would clearly be a resource demand, especially on ICBs, from expanding registers and services. Likewise, there is the complexity of implementation, because defining who qualifies as being “at risk” may be subjective. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Winchester, when he sums up on the amendments, to give us some indication of how “at risk” would be defined, or whether that would simply be down to the mental health professional or some other medical professional. There are also, of course, privacy and consent concerns related to maintaining a register for minors. Again, the hon. Member may have thought about some practical things that could assuage my concerns about that. There may also be a risk of stigmatisation. We have to be very careful, especially with children and young people, because being labelled or treated differently due to being on the register would not help their mental health. We would have to have some really strict privacy and data-sharing controls to ensure that they were protected within the proposed system. As I said in my intervention, I entirely support the aims of amendment 47 because it would specify the risk factors for detention for those on the register of people at risk of detention under clause 4. The criteria for identifying such individuals are left to be defined in regulations as the Bill stands. The amendment would mandate in law specific evidence-based risk factors—which I agree are risk factors for the issues that the hon. Member is talking about, particularly those linked to trauma and social disadvantage—rather than leaving them to discretion. At a general level, the amendment recognises the role of trauma and social determinants in mental health crises—I congratulate the hon. Member on clearly explaining some of the factors. Going back to our debate on the previous group of amendments, that would improve the early identification of individuals at risk, promote preventive care, strengthen equity and provide clarity and consistency. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, I am concerned about prescribing a relatively small list and therefore limiting the clause’s flexibility—there may be risk factors that are not listed in the amendment or ones that we have not even thought of.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill makes allowances for the Secretary of State to introduce appropriate risk factors via regulation, and that it is more appropriate to list the risk factors that ICBs should take into account in secondary legislation issued by the Secretary of State than in primary legislation, as amendment 47 seeks to do?

I agree with the hon. Lady; that is my understanding, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that when he sums up. The flexibility in the clause is one of its strengths.

Does my hon. Friend share my opinion that it makes sense to agree with the Government? The impact of social media and the evidence coming out about using mobile phones and about the impact of certain sites have been debated in this House for the last five years—since I have been here—and there have been advances. Legislation has been brought forward, but there is a growing consensus on both sides of the House that it never quite keeps up. Allowing the Secretary of State to add risk factors as they come up, even in policy guidance, might be a shrewder way to future-proof the Bill against those difficulties. In 1983, we were not discussing or even thinking about the likes of Facebook, yet here we are. With the advent of artificial intelligence, who knows where we will be in another 40 years?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To touch on his point about social media, it is a very useful tool, but is deeply pervasive and can cause the bullying, harassment and mental health issues that he describes. As far as I can tell, the risk factors in amendment 47 would not cover something like that unless it was part of something else—for example, part of domestic abuse, armed conflict and so on.

This discussion of the list of risk factors throws up a concern for me: one of the risk factors that has been facing families and other constituents of mine in Shipley for some years is the inability to get appropriate support for their children from children’s social care, for example, because there are very long waiting times for child and adolescent mental health services. Even when people have EHCPs, they are often not fulfilled. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that we need to address special educational needs and disabilities and children’s social care and put those things in place, as the Government are doing? Children with autism and learning disabilities will remain at high risk of much more complex mental health needs if they do not get the support they need at an early stage.

Once again, the hon. Lady tempts me to make a party political point, but I shall resist. On her general point, there are factors, such as the ones she described, that would not necessarily fall within the list in amendment 47. [Interruption.]

14:49:00

15:05:00

We will resume where we left off.

Thank you, Ms Furniss. I was coming to my closing remarks on amendment 47. Suffice it to say that some of the concerns that I raised on amendment 8 about the administrative burdens, the data sharing, and the potential safeguarding and privacy concerns transfer through. Again, perhaps the hon. Member for Winchester could give some reassurance on that when summing up. Amendment 9, as far as I can tell, would extend the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the intention behind the amendment may be worthy, there is a lack of clarity in the drafting? In particular, it is unclear what “seek to ensure” means and how that would be legally defined.

My hon. Friend is right; although a number of the Liberal Democrats are entirely worthy, there are some concerns about the drafting, which could give rise to ambiguity, legal loopholes and definitional issues. In that example, I do not think that “seek to ensure” is helpful. When the hon. Member for Winchester is summing up, perhaps he might explain how “seek to ensure” can be robustly defined within the law, or if it cannot be, suggest a different form of wording that he may wish to use in a future amendment if this amendment fails to be agreed. Part II of the Mental Health Act 1983 covers the powers to detain individuals for assessment and treatment. Detention can clearly be traumatic, especially for children and young people. Amendment 9 reflects a growing consensus that detention should be the last resort— I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that—and that community-based preventive and therapeutic alternatives should be prioritised. Again, I think it would be very hard to disagree with that ambition. On the positive side, community-based care is clearly better than detention in most cases, and, if we can get to a point where people are assessed earlier, as is the intention of some of the other amendments, clearly—hopefully—that would lead to community-based care and not detention. The amendment would also protect children’s rights and support the trauma-informed approaches to mental health that were raised previously regarding amendment 47. The amendment could also reduce the long-term harm associated with institutionalisation and potentially coercive treatment. As we have heard from Members on both sides, that would align with best practice in child and adolescent mental health services and it would promote and encourage a system of accountability by making ICBs and local authorities responsible for proactive care planning. All of that is extraordinarily laudable. On the potential downsides, there is an ambiguity about the enforcement of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said, because of the lack of legal force or clarity in some of the phraseology. There would be also resource implications and, if there are resource limitations at the ICB or local authority level, that might hinder their ability to provide adequate, community-based alternatives. I do not say that as an excuse for not supporting the amendment, but the hon. Member for Winchester has to understand the reality of the world we live in. Although I want local authorities and ICBs in every area to be entirely fully funded and resourced—and frankly, I do not think the Government’s cut of 50%, or indeed more in some ICBs, will do anything to help community-based care—there would be resource challenges. There would also be implementation challenges in areas where mental health services are already underfunded or overstretched that could lead to delays in care. This is the key question that I ask the hon. Member to respond to in his summing up. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that all people of all ages get the best, most appropriate mental health care as early as possible. But in an imperfect world, if there are potential delays in care because community services are struggling to find alternatives to detention, the unintended consequence could be that someone may not be treated at all because of the onus on defined community-based care rather than detention. Will the hon. Member explain how that would work? I draw my remarks to a close by saying I, certainly, and the Opposition, entirely agree with the ambitions of the amendments. However, some practical and legal issues would need to be ironed out before I could wholeheartedly support them.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for his amendments. I understand the intent behind amendments 8 and 9, but the clauses on registers and the associated duties on integrated care boards and local authorities are specifically aimed at people with a learning disability and autistic people, because of the detrimental outcomes that these groups of people may suffer when detained. We recognise the concern around the treatment of children and young people, which is why we have several provisions in the Bill aimed at improving their care. However, dynamic support registers are particularly tailored to the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people, and have been established in NHS England’s policy for some time. We do not have evidence that they would be an appropriate mechanism for wider cohorts. We do recognise that bereavement, miscarriage, the experience of trauma and difficult life transitions can all have a bearing on mental health. However, access to mental health support is based on clinical need, not on the circumstances that might give rise to that need.

The Minister is right about the registers, but I did notice that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduced the unique identifier number. That came about after the Lord Laming report into Victoria Climbié, who was “lost in the system.” It also builds on the work of the Children’s Commissioner, which found that around 10,000 children are not in school. Is there a role for getting some of the identifiers that we are looking at here in place along with that unique identifier number? Equally, how does that unique identifier input into the Bill’s provisions on risk registers, now that that piece of legislation has passed Third Reading? There will be an interaction, but the unique identifier is much broader and the dynamic support register is held slightly differently. What work have the Government done to ensure that there is bridging and understanding about what that would look like, not only in the short term but in the long term?

The dynamic support register is specifically focused on people, both children and adults, who have learning disabilities and people who are autistic. I think it is quite a separate thing. I am not familiar with the detail of that education legislation but, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is a very broad identifier not based at all on the clinical conditions of the persons, as I understand it, whereas this is very focused and specific for people with the conditions that we are debating. I do not think that there would be a connection between the two.

Let me take the example of a young person with deteriorating or fluctuating problems. They may be in school or out of school. We know that people with autism and learning disabilities are at greater risk of abuse and of being taken advantage of. If the Minister is not aware of it, would he look at how this duality could work, because clearly there is scope? One benefit that the Government argued for in having this unique number was that it could be shared across these registers. It sounds as if there is work that could be done. The Minister is absolutely right, and I am not suggesting merging the two, but on the risk register, there could be a nice piece of crossover work to pull that all together, so that the information moves across agencies. What we know from people with severe learning disabilities, autism and mental health issues is that they are often in contact with multiple agencies at multiple times—from social services to, potentially, the police, the NHS, dentistry and, of course, educational settings, which might be multiplicitous. Is that a consideration that the Minister will take forward?

15:15:00

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I am certainly happy to discuss that with officials, just as long as everybody is clear that there are two very different things going on here, with different types of risk and therefore different agencies. But I am all in favour of joined-up government wherever we can deliver it. I turn now to amendment 47. It is important that robust measures are in place to support people with a learning disability and autistic people who are at risk of admission. That is why the Bill will, for the first time, put dynamic support registers on a statutory footing and, via regulations, set out the factors that the Secretary of State considers increase the probability of someone being detained. That is the most appropriate approach in order to provide sufficient flexibility for updates in line with emerging best practice, evidence and clinical and commissioner understanding. As the factors are likely to be updated regularly, returning them to Parliament at every such instance would be disproportionate and unmanageable. Additionally, although putting them in primary legislation would not prevent the Secretary of State from providing and updating a longer list in regulations, having some factors but not others in the Bill could be perceived to give them primacy—for example, having a history of in-patient admissions or presenting in A&E in crisis. That could have unintended consequences and divert support from those most at risk. We will of course engage with expert stakeholders, who are best placed to advise on what the list of risk factors for detention should be, taking into account the existing NHS England policy on dynamic support registers. I am pleased to provide assurance to the Committee that current NHS England policy provides examples of factors such as those in the amendment—for example, having no fixed address, having drug and alcohol addiction and having had significant life events such as bereavement and abuse. For those reasons, I hope the hon. Member for Winchester will not press his amendments.

I know how much the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon enjoys speaking in Bill Committees—we were on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee together a few months ago—and I am really pleased that our amendments have given so much material for discussion. I really appreciate the input from Members on both sides of the Committee; it has been really insightful, useful and constructive. It has been rightly pointed out that the current state of local authorities—their funding and their capacity—means that they might not be able to deliver the more holistic care we are pushing for in the amendments, but I do not think that the Mental Health Bill should be limited by the current state of local services and funding. If that is the underlying problem, that is what should be addressed, not the measures in the Bill.

I accept that we should aim for the pinnacle and the best. What I was trying to say was that because the amendments restrict us, rather than giving us the space to, hopefully, reach the pinnacle, or to explore other options if we cannot, they could have unintended consequences if we cannot reach that pinnacle.

I give way to the hon. Lady.

The hon. Gentleman may want to take these points together. We drew attention to proposed new section 125. Subsection (1) relates to integrated care boards, while subsection (2) relates to local authorities. They do exactly what he wants: strengthen the requirements on ICBs and local authorities to better meet the needs of people with autism or learning disabilities in order to avoid detention. The very essence of the Bill therefore provides the duties that the Minister reassured us on in response to my earlier point. The expectation is that commissioners will meet needs as identified in these dynamic registers.

I thank both hon. Members for their input and their valid points. We appreciate the Minister addressing these concerns. We will not press amendment 9 or 47, but we would like to vote on amendment 8. Question put, That the amendment be made.

1|0|2|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 4, page 9, line 38, at end insert— “125ZF Registers: duty to maintain crisis accommodation (1) In exercising its functions under section 125E, an integrated care board must seek to ensure that there is appropriate crisis accommodation for people with autism or a learning disability within its area. (2) For the purposes of this section, ‘appropriate crisis accommodation’ means accommodation which— (a) is designed to meet the specific needs of people with autism or learning disability during periods of acute mental health crisis; (b) is staffed by persons with specialist training in supporting people with autism or a learning disability; (c) maintains appropriate staffing ratios determined by guidance issued by the Secretary of State; and (d) provides a safe alternative to detention under section 136 of this Act. (3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the exercise of functions under this section, and integrated care boards must have regard to this guidance.” This amendment would require integrated care boards to establish and maintain appropriate crisis accommodation specifically designed for people with autism or learning disability as one of its duties in relation to registers of people at risk of detention.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert— “125FA Report: sufficient commissioning services for people with autism or learning disability (1) Within four months of the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a plan to allocate sufficient resources for commissioning services regarding the treatment and detention of autistic people and people with learning disabilities to ensure operability of provisions in this Act. (2) The plan must include— (a) revised assumptions of the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities who may require detention under this Act; (b) the actions that the Secretary of State will take to ensure community services are available to meet demand after the 28-day detention period; (c) plans for data collection to support commissioning sufficient services; (d) plans to allocate appropriate resource to ensure operability of services, including, but not limited to, financial resource; (e) plans to ensure that responsible bodies and individuals receive the necessary training to carry out support, diagnostic, and treatment plans.” This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a plan within four months to ensure sufficient services, resources, data, and training are in place to support autistic people and those with learning disabilities under the Act. Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert— “125FA Assessment: provision of services for people with autism or learning disability (1) Each financial year, an integrated care board must— (a) conduct an assessment of the availability and adequacy of services within its area for people with autism or a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act; (b) publish the results of the assessment; and (c) publish an action plan to address any gaps in provision identified. (2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of— (a) the availability of appropriate crisis accommodation; (b) the availability of appropriate community support services; (c) the adequacy of training for responsible bodies and individuals to carry out support, diagnostic and treatment plans; and (d) the experiences of people with autism or a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers. (3) The integrated care board must consult the following in conducting the assessment— (a) persons with autism or a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers; (b) the relevant local authority or authorities; (c) providers of relevant services; and (d) such other persons as the integrated care board considers appropriate. (4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the conduct of assessments under this section, and integrated care boards must have regard to this guidance.” This amendment would require integrated care boards to conduct and publish annual assessments of the provision available for people with autism or learning disability at risk of detention and to prepare action plans to address any identified gaps. Amendment 24, in clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert— “125FA Report: services for people with autism or learning disability (1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this section coming into force and annually thereafter, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on— (a) the availability of appropriate accommodation for people with autism or learning disability detained under this Act; (b) the number of instances where appropriate accommodation could not be found within statutory timeframes; (c) the progress towards implementation of sections 3 and 4 of the Mental Health Act 2025 and the impact of any delays to implementation on people with autism or a learning disability; and (d) progress made towards meeting the needs of people with autism or a learning disability without detaining them under Part 2 of this Act. (2) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) people with autism or a learning disability who have specified risk factors for detention under Part 2 of this Act and their families or carers; (b) integrated care boards; (c) local authorities; and (d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the availability of appropriate placements for people with autism or learning disabilities and on progress implementing the relevant provisions of the Act. Amendment 21, in clause 58, page 68, line 15, at end insert— “(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for sections 3, 4 and 21 to come into force in full no later than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.” This amendment would establish an accelerated implementation timeline for provisions related to autism and learning disabilities, requiring them to be fully implemented within 2 years. New clause 11—Costed plan to ensure community provision for individuals with learning disabilities and autism who are at risk of detention— “(1) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a fully costed plan for how Integrated Care Boards and local authorities will ensure provision of adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people who are at risk of detention under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. (2) As part of the development of that plan, a formal consultation process must take place to determine how the decision to enact the relevant parts of this Act will be made. (3) The consultation must include input from relevant stakeholders, including— (a) individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people; (b) carers for people with learning disabilities and autistic people; (c) healthcare professionals; and (d) advocacy groups.” This new clause requires a costed plan to ensure that ICBs and local authorities are able to provide adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people at risk of detention under Part 2 of the 1983 Act, informed by a consultation with a range of stakeholders.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and I am sure many in this room will remember his passionate speech about his constituent Declan Morrison, who has inspired many of these amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help with my notes. Amendment 20 would require integrated care boards to establish and maintain appropriate crisis accommodation specifically designed for people with autism and learning disability, as one its duties in relation to registers of people at risk of detention. Currently, just over 2,000 people with autism or learning disabilities are detained in mental health hospitals for an average of five years. Over half of delayed discharges are due to a lack of suitable housing or accommodation. The crisis provision created in Cambridgeshire after my hon. Friend’s constituent Declan passed away was operating at 90% capacity before funding was withdrawn. When we hear Declan’s story, we realise the severe implications behind the amendment and why it is being put forward. We must also recognise that there has been a significant increase in section 136 use over the past 10 years. Many of the suites being used are outdated, unable to keep up with demand and unfit for purpose. The amendment would therefore make appropriate crisis accommodation a statutory duty, and I hope all Members would agree that there is a desperate need for such accommodation, specifically for autistic people and those with learning disabilities. It would also require there to be specialist training for staff. We have already referenced today how important training is when it comes to protecting those who are in crisis and who need support. Finally, it would provide for safe, alternative detention under section 136, preventing situations such as that experienced by the hon. Friend’s constituent, where a vulnerable person is held in inappropriate emergency settings for extended periods. Amendments 10 and 22 are both designed to ensure that there are sufficient resources for people with autism or learning disabilities. On amendment 10, it is crucial that community services are properly resourced to meet the needs of people with autism and learning disabilities. Too many of us will have seen how inadequate community services make detention and in-patient care much more likely, which is worse for the person detained, far more costly and unsustainable in the long term. Our amendments place duties on the integrated care board at the local level, and the Secretary of State at the national level, to be transparent about gaps in provision and to take steps to eliminate them. Amendment 22 would require an integrated care board to conduct an assessment of the availability and adequacy of the relevant services within its area for people with autism or learning disabilities who have specified risk factors for detention, and to set out a plan to respond to those findings. There is currently an absence of suitable placements, with over 100 places that were contacted having no single bed available. We cannot continue with such a situation, given the significant implications when things go wrong. Through those amendments, we are asking for an assessment, because there is currently no systematic assessment of whether services match demand, which is crucial to ensuring that the Bill is workable in the long term. It is also acknowledged that it may take 10 years to fully implement the Bill and to ensure that additional clinical and judicial staff are trained. Amendment 21 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. It would establish an accelerated implementation timeline for provisions related to autism and learning disabilities, requiring those provisions to be fully implemented within two years. Currently, just over 2,000 autistic people and people with learning disabilities are detained in mental health hospitals who are being let down by the system. The Government have sadly already missed the targets, and we cannot afford to wait another decade—people’s lives are too important. In fact, the UN Human Rights Committee has called on the UK to end the detention of people with disabilities based solely on their disability. Every day that we wait means more people at risk of tragic outcomes. As I said, the amendment would establish a two-year deadline, and it recognises that these are some of the most urgent reforms in the Bill. I ask the Government to consider them as a priority. Finally, amendment 24, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, would establish an accelerated implementation timeline of services related to autism and learning disabilities, by again requiring them to be implemented within two years. I reiterate what we heard in the Chamber, which I am sure we will all hear in our inboxes and in conversations with our residents: it is crucial that we implement these changes at pace; otherwise, we risk failing individuals with autism and learning disabilities further.

I will direct my remarks at new clause 11 and the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Guildford. New clause 11 seeks a clear, costed and consultative plan to help ensure that integrated care boards and local authorities are properly equipped to deliver the community-based services that individuals with learning disabilities and autism need and, of course, deserve, so that they are not unnecessarily detained under part 2 of the Mental Health Act. Let me begin by recognising the good intentions across the House when it comes to reducing inappropriate and prolonged detentions in mental health settings. There is broad consensus that detention should be the last resort. However, good intentions must be matched by a concrete, deliverable plan because, as the evidence has shown, too many people are being held in hospitals or other facilities, not because of clinical need, but because the right community support simply is not there.

15:30:00

The new clause does not seek to overhaul the system overnight. It does not call for instant funding or new structures. It asks that, within 18 months of the Bill becoming law, the Government produce a fully costed plan, developed in partnership with the people who use and deliver the services, to ensure that community alternatives are genuinely available to those at risk of detention.

Some—including, I suspect, the Minister—may argue that the last Government had 14 years to sort this out. It is therefore worth touching on the last 14 years and what that Government did. Over that period, mental health steadily moved up the political agenda, leading us to the point we are at today, where mental health must be treated with the same seriousness as physical health. Back then, that was not always the case, and change was hard fought for under the coalition and then the Conservative Government. To that end, under successive Conservative-led Governments after 2010, we saw a range of policies introduced with the aim of embedding mental health in the core of our health system.

The 2011 “No health without mental health” strategy set a new tone, placing mental health within the broader public health framework. That was followed by the five-year forward view for mental health in 2016 and the NHS long-term plan in 2019, both of which committed to transforming community-based services, expanding access and promoting prevention and early intervention. Those strategies were backed by increased funding, notably the introduction of the mental health investment standard, which required local commissioning groups to increase mental health spending in line with or above their overall health budgets. The aim was clear: to protect mental health funding in real terms and ensure local accountability.

Between 2015 and 2024, we saw headline commitments of more than £1.4 billion for children and young people’s mental health, and a pledge of £2.3 billion annually by 2024 to expand those services. That included rolling out mental health support teams in schools, which we have heard about in the Committee. They started under the last Government, and I am pleased the current Government have continued in that vein. It also included integrating mental health into primary care and expanding crisis support.

Although investment and strategy have improved, the system remains under pressure. Between 2019 and 2023 alone, the number of people accessing secondary mental health care rose by nearly a quarter. Workforce shortages persist and continue to undermine delivery. To their credit, the previous Conservative Government brought forward the NHS long-term workforce plan, the first of its kind. With a new Government in office, we look ahead to the long-awaited 10-year NHS plan and revised workforce plan. Again, I am pleased to see the Government continuing in that vein.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for new clause 11, which could potentially solve funding issues I have raised. He mentioned the NHS 10-year plan. Will he suggest that the Minister looks at ensuring that, if new clause 11 is not passed today, the details in it are fed through into the plan? When it is published, which the Minister has indicated will be relatively soon, the information and outcomes my hon. Friend is trying to achieve through the new clause could be in it.

Far be it from me to tell the Minister what to do, but if I were a wise Minister, I might look at where my predecessors had benefitted from further information and where they may have stumbled. The Bill has been looked at for a number of years by many people from outside and inside the House. Many have been involved throughout its progress, including a former Prime Minister, who tabled amendments in the other place. There is definitely the ability to learn from what the last Government found and to use that information in the kinds of plans that we need.

The hon. Gentleman elaborates on the great history of the previous Conservative Government. From where I am sitting, the record is less rose-tinted—but perhaps I am wearing different spectacles. Might he return to the substance of new clause 11, which, it seems to me, is about community provision? I return to the points that I raised earlier about proposed new section 125E. I do not see what new clause 11 adds to the Bill in regard to duties relating to the commissioning of services. I encourage him to address the specifics of the amendment.

I shall be interested to know what the hon. Lady’s rose-tinted spectacles show when we consider Scotland or Wales. One of my biggest frustrations in debates about the NHS is that in each nation health is devolved, each is run by a different political party, and each has challenges. We in this place enjoy the political football, scoring points without seeing what is blindingly obvious: that across the board, across all the countries, health and mental health services are struggling to keep pace and keep our population healthy with the workforce and technology provided.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Let me address these points, then I will be happy to give way. When we come to clause stand part, I will address the other amendments, but I specifically said that my comments would be on new clause 11. When scrutinising the Bill, it is important that we talk about how we will deliver, as the hon. Member for Shipley rightly pointed out. It is entirely right to try to put together a plan to ensure that the Government are held accountable. We are not saying how the plan should be formulated; we simply stipulate that a plan should be formulated and introduced. That is a very different argument. My concern about previous Lib Dem amendments was that they were too specific. We have to get the balance right. New clause 11 simply provides that the Government have 18 months to introduce a fully costed plan, so that we can again have a debate in this House. Especially as a spending review will, I believe, be announced tomorrow, we need to consider how we will match budgets in the future. We accept that it is a 10-year project.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am still addressing the hon. Lady’s first point. The Conservatives understand that it will take a long time to put in place, but a credible plan is needed. There was a credible plan in place, as I have said, in the 2011 and 2016 strategies, with the funding to match. I use that as an illustration because it is provides an apt evidence base for the new clause. Otherwise, I might well be challenged by someone saying, “What is your evidence base of a delivery network and a delivery ability from a Government?” I hope that by talking through these points, I am giving the Government the chance to learn from the mistakes we made and from the way we took forward mental health. Regardless of political party, I hope hon. Members that the debate has moved on a long way from when we started in 2010 with the work done partly under the coalition Government. I will now take the intervention.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reflecting on the fact that mistakes were made by the previous Government—acknowledgment of that is often sorely lacking. I respect the fact that he says that the debate has moved on, but does he accept that while the debate may have moved on, policy to enact actual change for people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, particularly those with learning disabilities and autism, has not kept pace? The number of people in locked units, under detention, has remained solid, without much wavering, for the past 14 years. Despite the acknowledgement that this is a scandal, and we should all hang our head in shame that it continues to this day, not much has been done to get them out of those units. While we look back on the history of the past 14 years, focusing specifically on the people who are detained under the Mental Health Act, let us remember that Lord Darzi pointed out in his report that some of the facilities are more redolent of the Victorian era than of a modern mental health care service. Perhaps those who were in government in those 14 years should reflect on why that is the case.

There is quite a lot to unpack in the hon. Lady’s intervention. As I pointed out, reflecting on what the previous Government learned is also important—for example, when considering Wales. Objectively, the data shows that Wales is struggling more than England, and the same is true of Scotland. Wales and Scotland have been run by different parties from England for a long time, so my natural inclination is to attack back and say, “Well, actually, the Conservatives did better,” but my fundamental point is that we all need to do better because we have seen the problems rising. As I mentioned, over the last 10 years the number of people turning up in mental health facilities has increased by a quarter. On the hon. Lady’s point about people with autism and learning disabilities, I sat on the Health and Social Care Committee that looked specifically at that issue. We looked at some of the best models in the world, including that of Trieste, where community care is in place. When we took evidence, we found that most people were supportive of that model, but fearful people did come forward to say that the community was not the best place for their daughter, son, husband or wife. Managing the nuance is really important. It takes time to get this right. In 2018, when the last Government looked to legislate on this issue, there was pre-legislative scrutiny, which does not always happen in this place. It was done because there was fundamental agreement that we must get the legislation right, because it applies to the most vulnerable people. The hon. Lady is right that Lord Darzi identified three shifts that will be really important, but when he looked at this issue, he missed a fundamental point. His report starts from 2010, but when I was a junior doctor— I qualified in 2007—we had issues that affect the culture now: for example, how we managed MRSA and C. diff. That was not a brilliant time to be a patient. The medical training application service fiasco affected doctors applying for jobs so much that in 2004 the Government had to apologise and change the system, because so many people who wanted to get into specialist training could not go through that service. We are still paying for IT infrastructure that the last Labour Government tried to introduce. The last report, in 2018, said that that cost the taxpayer almost £14 billion. We wonder why, when we try to make a shift to introduce more tech, as recommended by Darzi, people in the NHS are reticent, but they have been burnt by IT projects before. They have seen what happened under a Conservative Government, a coalition Government, and a Labour Government. All that has an immediate and impregnable effect on the legislation and the practicalities that we are dealing with today. I am not trying to talk facetiously about the legislation; the point is to give some pragmatic direction and to actually say something tangible. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister hopefully supporting proposed new clause 11, which would give the Government the flexibility to have a plan that they choose, as is their democratic right, but also the safeguards to know that it will be delivered and we will not have more delay. There is a balance between making legislation in haste and making sure that we avoid inaction. Would the hon. Member for Shipley like to intervene?

Yes, briefly. I was trying to get the hon. Gentleman back to the point, which is people with autism and learning disabilities, rather than mental health policy in general. The point of reference I used earlier was the failure to deal with Winterbourne View in 2012. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made the point very well: if we get down to it, we are talking about community provision for people with learning disabilities and autism. Too many people remain institutionalised, too far from their family, friends and community. I was pointing at that failing. I encourage the hon. Member to get back to that point. Would you like to give clarity on what is within scope of the group of amendments that we are currently debating, Ms Furniss?

You may want to set me straight, Ms Furniss, but as we have agreed, I will directly address those points in the clause 4 stand part discussion. The hon. Member for Shipley rightly talks about community settings, but where does she think primary care staff come from? They come through medical training. When we talk about the Darzi impact, it is important that we fully understand why people choose not to go into mental health or primary care and become a GP. Without establishing that, which is a problem that this Government have to deal with, we will run into real problems when it comes to delivery.

15:45:00

It is bang within the scope of this Bill to state how the Government are going to deliver it, but nowhere do we see specifics. We are simply saying that there should be a timeline for a plan to be brought forward. A legal timeline to bring something forward is very different from setting out how the Government see fit to solve the problems. We may not agree on the details of the plan, but one thing that we can agree on is that there should be a plan in the first place.

That leads me back to where I left off. Now that the new Government are in office, as we look ahead to the 10-year plan and a revised workforce plan, the question is: will mental health have the prominent place it deserves? There are already question marks, given that we have seen the percentage of NHS spending on mental health fall for the first time in years, adding weight to our argument that there should be a fully costed plan to ensure that the intention of investment becomes reality.

The Minister may argue that there is already a plan in place. We have the “Building the right support” national plan, ICB duties and long-standing ambitions to reduce in-patient care, and we welcome those measures. As has been pointed to, that is cumulative and dedicated work to move mental health up the agenda; but as we have seen in healthcare across the UK—under Labour in Wales, the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives in England—delivering is another matter. We cannot escape the fact that in all four nations, individuals have continued to be locked away for months or years, far from home and without therapeutic benefit.

In part, the problem is not lack of policy, but lack of knowing how to ensure delivery. That is at the heart of the new clause. It offers a way to create accountability, clarity and a timeline for action. Others might say that it is too prescriptive or that it will reduce flexibility for local services, but as I have stated, nothing in the amendment dictates how services must be designed; it simply asks for a plan that is responsive to local needs, is backed by national co-ordination and provides clarity about funding. Flexibility works only when it is built on stable foundations; without them, we risk leaving the local system to struggle and individuals to fall through the cracks.

Concerns about the cost or capacity are valid, but it can be argued that the cost of doing nothing is far greater. Inappropriate in-patient care is expensive, often more traumatic for the patient, and not always effective. Investing in well-planned community services is not only more humane, but cost-effective. The new clause does not ask for the money now; it asks for a clear-eyed plan setting out how the money allocated will be used.

The new clause also requires a formal consultation process, ensuring that the plan is developed with the people it affects the most: individuals with learning disabilities, autistic people, their families, clinicians and advocates. I know that the Government will point to ongoing engagement with stakeholders and that is, of course, welcome. What we are asking for here is guaranteed participation that is enshrined in law.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The new clause is incredibly important. We do not want vulnerable people to slip through the cracks and not receive the right support, and it is really important to ensure that there is consultation with the right stakeholders. I recently met with Down Syndrome Cheshire, and last year I met with the Cheshire West and Chester SEND accountability group. They said that one of the things they value most is being listened to so that they can inform the process. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a really crucial part of new clause 11?

My hon. Friend speaks to the heart of what we all know from our constituency day jobs, where many of us here in this place speak to outside organisations and families. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire talked passionately about the impacts and the sorry stories that we have all heard about. The whole point of this Bill is to make mental health care patient-centred, but also family and advocate-centred. That is a driving thrust of what the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was asking us for, and it is why we have enshrined the individual in the first clause of the Bill. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if we are committed to the principle enshrined on the front of the Bill, we need co-production. That must be more than a tick-box exercise. If the Government believe that the necessary plan is already in place, will the Minister say where that is covered, and would he put that plan in the House of Commons Library? Is it fully costed? Has it been fully consulted on? Will it be published within 18 months and incorporated in the NHS long-term plan? If not, how will the ICBs and local authorities be expected to deliver? How will the changes to NHS England affect plans to deliver the legislation? Having the legal duty to produce a costed plan will provide a focal point and fulcrum to build around, to ensure that the most serious mental health conditions receive the attention they need. I know the Minister cares deeply and wants to do his best. He wants the legislation to be enacted as swiftly as possible. I also recognise the commitments and priorities facing the country, but this new clause is about turning good intentions into action. I simply aim to strengthen the hand of the Minister when it comes to negotiating with the Chancellor about funding, so that he has the evidence base required to bolster his position. I hope hon. Members across the Committee, especially on the Government Benches, see it as a supportive, sensible, balanced and practical solution to have this debate and then campaign with the Chancellor to get the money needed for the services. Turning to the Lib Dem amendments, I begin by recognising the genuine intent behind amendments 10, 22, 24 and 21. Addressing the needs of people with autism and learning disabilities, particularly ensuring appropriate crisis accommodation and reducing unnecessary detention, is unquestionably important. That said, I have specific concerns about legislating for service provision in the Bill. I understand why we do not legislate for the number of intensive care units, hospices or detox centres in the health system. There is an argument that that might be a good idea. Those are critical services, yet their commissioning and capacity are generally managed through policy funding decisions and local planning, rather than through statutory duties. Introducing a statutory duty for crisis accommodation risks unintended consequences. It may limit the flexibility of integrated care boards to respond to local needs, and could impose significant new resource burdens without clear funding commitments. That risks setting a precedent for increasingly prescriptive legislation across health and social care, which we should approach cautiously. We do not want to pit one condition against another. On the proposed requirement on the Secretary of State to produce a commissioning plan within four months, I acknowledge the desire for a timely response. The choice of a four-month deadline, however, seems arbitrary and may not allow sufficient time for robust consultation and realistic planning. We need to be mindful that rushed plans can undermine long-term success. On the proposed reporting requirements, although transparency is vital, I highlight that new clause 11, which we are proposing, would provide stronger and more detailed mechanisms to hold the Government to account on implementation and resource allocation, while allowing flexibility. We should focus on supporting those provisions rather than layer on multiple overlapping reporting duties, which risk duplication and confusion. In conclusion, the amendments raise important points and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I will briefly trot through the proposed amendments and new clause. We all know that the closure of learning disability hospitals was a gradual process. The reason was the institutionalisation of some of those patients, as seen in the Winterbourne View scandal. The aim was to create new community-based housing to look after people with learning disabilities and autism. Amendment 20 seeks to create appropriate fully staffed crisis accommodation. Will the Lib Dems clarify whether they are looking to create more in-patient settings? Are we going back to where we were years ago, or should we work with the new plan to create more community-based accommodation? Not all patients with a learning disability or autism need detention or community-based accommodation. Many of them are looked after by their family members, so we also need to look into the support we are providing to carers, so that we can keep those people at home with their family member’s support. I will keep this brief: as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, I recently met with many people who have lived experience of this. They want their views to be heard. They are not asking for more hospital settings; they are asking for more support, including for carers. I was pleased to see that the Minister for Care was there to engage with those people. In the new NHS 10-year plan, the focus is on moving care from the hospitals to the community. Can the Minister clarify how we can make that happen? We have talked about that for many years, but we have never seen it happening. In my own experience practising in a mental health ward, many patients with a learning disability and autism were detained and, as the hon. Member said, kept in hospitals because we could not find a suitable place for them to be discharged to—it was not that they needed the hospital. I think we are all talking about the same thing, but we need to find a solution. That is why the new NHS 10-year plan and its focus on moving care from the hospitals to the community is important. Again, can the Minister clarify how we will do that? The Government have already started the work, and the new commission, led by Baroness Casey, should also be looking into where we will find the social care support for carers and the community provision for people with learning disability, rather than just creating more crisis accommodations.

The hon. Member mentioned Baroness Casey, for whom I have the utmost respect, but herein lies the problem: she is still currently undertaking a review for the Home Office that has now been delayed and has not concluded. This is at the same time that she is supposed to be looking at social care. The whole idea of an amendment that asks for a statutory plan is to stop these kind of slippages. Given his point about wanting to see progress, is that something that he would consider if he were voting on this new clause?

I hope that Baroness Casey completes her commission work and gives us her report. It was promised in the Chamber that the initial report would be available within a year. Regardless of whether she is taking up another role, I hope there will not be any delay and that we get that report and a detailed report within three years. I am looking for a solid plan to fix this problem forever. I am not looking for sticking plasters or an immediate fix, but we need a plan, perhaps including a national care service. These are the people who are looking for a long-term solution to these problems. The hon. Member asked about how I will vote; unfortunately, I will not be supporting new clause 11. The Government have already started some work, which is why I am specifically talking about the NHS 10-year plan to move care from hospitals to the community, along with the social care commission, which is looking into how we can get good progress on that. This is the answer; we need to get a long-term solution to this problem.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendments 20, 10, 22, 24 and 21, and set out why, although I think they are honourable in their intent, I am unable to support them today. I will start with amendment 20. The purpose of the amendment is to require ICBs to ensure the availability of specialist crisis accommodation for people with autism and learning disabilities. The aim is to provide a safe and therapeutic alternative to detention, which I think we would all agree is a sensible course of action. Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows police to remove an individual who is experiencing a mental health crisis from a public place to a place of safety. That can, on unfortunate occasions, lead to detention in inappropriate settings, which may include police cells. That can obviously be deeply harmful, particularly to those with conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder or other learning difficulties.

16:00:00

I understand where the amendment is coming from. It reflects a societal concern about the lack of suitable crisis care options, and it honourably aims to ensure that specialist community-based alternatives are available. There are some clear merits to this position. It reduces inappropriate detention and offers a more tailored solution. That must be better for patient outcomes, and therefore anything we can do to help people to navigate through what is a sensitive area should be encouraged. It promotes dignity for individuals who find themselves in extremely vulnerable positions. I understand that there is a cogency to the amendment in that it provides a national consistency, which is to be commended.

However, I have a number of concerns about the amendment as it has been put forward, and I hope that the hon. Member for Winchester can speak to these when summing up. First, there is the potential for variability in how the concept of appropriate accommodation is defined and, more importantly, in how it is delivered across the regions of our nation. There are also challenges around workforce shortages, which may hinder the ability to staff such facilities with appropriately trained individuals. It is important that appropriately trained individuals are there to support those who need them.

There may be implementation delays, which can occur when there is infrastructure—in terms of hard infrastructure and funding constraints—associated with it. This may be the least powerful argument, but as with all these things, there are significant resource implications for integrated care boards, as they develop and subsequently maintain such accommodation.

The purpose of amendment 10 comes from a good place. It would require the Secretary of State to present a comprehensive plan within four months of the passage of the Bill, if it becomes law, to ensure that sufficient services, resources, data infrastructure and training are in place to support autistic people and those with learning disabilities under a new legal framework.

Again, there are some strong arguments for the amendment. It would ensure accountability by requiring a timebound plan from the Secretary of State. It would support the implementation of the Bill by addressing gaps in the service and resource needs. It would improve transparency through the publication of data plans and training strategies, and it would focus minds on promoting sustainable workforce development.

However, I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Winchester could comment on some of the challenges that are posed by the amendment. Any structure such as this may create a further delay if the plan is not delivered on time, or if there is a lack of detail underpinning it. It is inevitably resource-intensive—that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it requires significant financial and administrative investment, which creates its own challenges. There is the risk that we end up with a series of vague commitments, and if the amendment does not specify enforcement mechanisms, it is in effect toothless. As with all things in this place, it is dependent on political will, thus the quality and the ambition may vary depending on the political landscape.

Amendment 22 would require ICBs to carry out an annual assessment of the services available for people with autism or learning disabilities who are at risk of detention. It would also mandate the publication of these assessments and action plans to address any service gaps. This reflects a societal concern that inadequate local services often lead to crisis situations and detentions that could have been avoided had there been better support.

I can see how this amendment, by requiring regular assessment and action plans that follow through, seeks to increase not only accountability, but transparency and responsiveness in mental health service provision. That has a number of benefits: it encourages collaboration between ICBs, local authorities and service providers, which has to be a positive thing, and it also supports preventive care, focuses on early intervention and support, promotes transparency and improves service planning by identifying where there are gaps and trying to plug them. However, it also creates potential variability in the quality and thoroughness of assessment across the country, and is dependent on guidance from the Secretary of State, which may delay the implementation or vary the clarity. The proposed requirement is also a significant resource constraint, which may limit the ability to act upon the identified gaps—again, I make that as the least powerful point, but there is an administrative burden that lies with ICBs.

Amendment 24 would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report to Parliament on the state of services for people with autism and learning disabilities, particularly in relation to detention and accommodation. Its aim is to ensure ongoing oversight, transparency and accountability, which are good things. Clauses 3 and 4 would introduce significant reforms to how people with autism and learning disabilities are treated within mental health services. Success in implementation depends on the availability of appropriate services and placements. This amendment seeks to ensure that Parliament is kept informed of progress and challenges, especially where there are unmet statutory obligations. It comes from a good place: promoting transparency, supporting accountability, highlighting gaps in services and also encouraging continuous improvement in service provision and the delivery of this policy. However, it does not come without downsides, and I would be grateful if the Liberal Democrat spokesperson addressed those when summing up.

There is a dependency on data quality. If there is inconsistent or incomplete data, that can undermine the report’s usefulness. The impact could be limited if reports are not followed up by concrete action. There is a risk of politicisation of any report, especially if the findings are critical of the Government’s performance. Finally—I say this for completeness—there is an administrative burden. That should not be an anchor on us taking action, but it is something we must be cognisant of. To compile and publish these reports places an administrative burden on the Department of Health and Social Care when there are huge pressures upon the wheels of government already. For those reasons, I cannot support these amendments on this occasion.

I will be reasonably brief, as Members have covered a lot of what I was going to talk about. The intent behind amendments 10 and 24 and new clause 11 is to address the issue raised by a number of organisations, such as Mencap, the National Autistic Society and the NHS Confederation, around the delay in particular clauses being switched on for people with autism or with a learning disability due to insufficient community services. The concern is that there is not, as yet, an articulation of what sufficient community services look like or how we will know when we have reached that point, so that we can turn on parts of the Act. There is a sufficient community backing in place for that to happen. Therefore, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we will know that we have reached the point where we can address the issues that clause 3 looks to tackle. As the Conservative Members mentioned, there are concerns about funding and access to fairly scarce resources, and a concern that rolling out this provision could put undue burdens on people who are unable to deliver certain parts of it. However, it would definitely be welcome to have an understanding of where we are heading, what “good” looks like and how we are going to get there, and what the Minister might see as a road map for community services to reach the point where clause 3 can be switched on, so that autistic people and people with a learning disability do not need to be detained under the Mental Health Act purely because there is insufficient support for them in the community to enable alternative provision. I would welcome any thoughts from the Minister about how those concerns about the operability of the Bill can be addressed. If they will not be addressed via these amendments, how will they be taken forward?

I rise to make a few remarks on new clause 11, which would require a costed plan to ensure that ICBs and local authorities are able to provide adequate community services for individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people at risk of detention under part II of the 1983 Act. We need to ensure that there is a fully cost-effective plan with accountability to support those with learning disabilities. For instance, Cheshire West and Chester council, one of the local authorities in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, has let down parents, families and those with learning difficulties because of its poor management. It has come at the cost of adequate provision, particularly in school places, and therefore puts more people at risk of mental health problems because they are not getting the support they need in the community. With the measures outlined in new clause 11, we could go a long way to ensuring accountability. I am sure the Minister will agree that we need to ensure that commitments are backed by funding for the good of those who need SEND support. I urge all those on the Committee to reflect on the value of the new clause. Crucially, it would also require the costed plan to be informed by a consultation with a range of stakeholders. That is incredibly important, because we need to listen to the lived experience of those who are often extremely vulnerable to ensure that they receive the right support. In my intervention, I referred to some of the important groups in my constituency. Down Syndrome Cheshire and the Cheshire West and Chester SEND Accountability group are just two examples, but there are so many more. They are clear that they value being listened to, so that they can inform the process. The new clause would ensure a costed plan, where commitments are not just words, but backed by funding. Crucially, it would mandate a formal consultation process to inform the plan, incorporating the view of a broad range of stakeholders, including those with lived experience such as those I mentioned in my constituency. There are individuals, carers, healthcare providers and advocacy groups whose voices all matter. We need a plan that is costed so it can be delivered, and that, crucially, reflects the needs and rights of those most affected. I fully support the new clause.

I thank hon. Members for this set of amendments, which draw attention to the important matter of implementation and community support for people with a learning disability and autistic people. I heard this issue raised many times on Second Reading. I will begin with amendment 20. I am grateful that this important issue has been raised. Although he has not been appointed to the Committee, I know that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has spoken powerfully and movingly about the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Declan Morrison, his constituent, and the need to ensure effective and timely community-based support. Proposed new section 125E of the Mental Health Act, provided within the Bill, already requires integrated care boards and local authorities to seek to ensure that the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability can be met without detaining them. That should be driven by the specific needs of the local population, informed by the dynamic support register. That requirement already covers any relevant needs for crisis accommodation. We expect, and will set out in statutory guidance on dynamic support registers, that they will cover any relevant needs for crisis accommodation. In contrast, the amendment seeks to place a prescriptive legal requirement to ensure provision of a specific service in all circumstances, irrespective of what people in the area actually need. That would have the unintended effect of restricting integrated care boards in designing provision and allocating resources in the most effective way to meet people’s needs.

16:15:00

Although we agree that strong community services for people with a learning disability and autistic people are important, we are concerned that amendment 22 would place unnecessary burdens on integrated care boards, duplicating existing roles and functions. In particular, dynamic support registers will assist ICBs in understanding the needs of and planning support for people with a learning disability and autistic people who may be at risk of being detained. Those registers will be maintained throughout the year; annal reports, in contrast, may quickly become out of date. As set out in guidance published by NHS England in May 2023, integrated care boards are also expected to assign an executive lead role for learning disability and autism to a designated person to support in planning to meet the needs of its local population.

As discussed, the annual written ministerial statement will detail work completed over the preceding year to implement this Bill and further implementation plans. The proposed reporting requirement in amendment 24 would therefore introduce unnecessary duplication.

We recognise that a lack of appropriate housing can be a barrier to discharge for some patients. That is why the Bill puts care, education and treatment reviews on a statutory footing. Reviews may make recommendations about meeting the patient’s housing needs upon discharge, and named persons and bodies would have to have regard to those recommendations.

On the abolition of NHS England, throughout the process Ministers are working with the new transformation team at the top of NHS England, led by Jim Mackey, to lead the transformation and take forward shared priorities, such as the Mental Health Act 1983. We will do that as we work to bring the two organisations together, and we will continue to evaluate impacts of all kinds.

On amendment 21, I share the desire for people with a learning disability and autistic people to feel the benefits of these reforms as quicky as possible. We know that people have been waiting a very long time for change, which is why we were determined to introduce this Bill in the first Session of this Parliament. We always intended to implement these reforms in phases when system capacity and funding allow. We have also committed to engaging with expert stakeholders to ensure we get the plans right, and we want to allow time for that.

Rather than having a fixed deadline for implementation, we believe it is more effective to use the flexibility in clause 58 to monitor progress and commence new powers when we are confident that it is the right time to do so, and to avoid any unintended consequences. As I have set out, we have committed to lay before Parliament an annual written ministerial statement on the implementation of the Bill post Royal Assent, which will include learning disability and autism elements, until such time as the Bill is fully implemented.

I understand the concerns behind amendment 10 and new clause 11, and I acknowledge the importance of having a clear plan for resource allocation and community provision for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. That is why we have already committed to lay before Parliament the annual written ministerial statement on the implementation of the Bill post Royal Assent until it is fully implemented.

I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly the importance of the annual ministerial statement. Does he envisage that the statement will also give an update on the extent of community provision available and the execution of the transition of people with learning disabilities and autism from institutional settings to community settings closer to home? Is that within scope of the statement?

I think the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes. The written ministerial statement will be an update on the work done over the preceding 12 months, but it absolutely will also be a forward plan, so it will set out the next actions that the Government will take, what the broader, long-term change delivery process will be, the institutions that will need to change and how they will change. A number of colleagues have also asked the question, “What does good look like?” In many ways, it is absolutely right that we, as a Government, are being held to account on the content of the Bill, but there will be a really important accountability moment 12 months after it gets Royal Assent, which will be that written ministerial statement. I fully expect every colleague in this room to read that in great detail and hold the Government to account, both on what has been achieved over the preceding 12 months and, importantly, on what the forward plan looks like. I think that covers most of what I wanted to say, although one additional point I would make is that the amendments could have the unintended consequence of requiring Government and local areas to set out unfunded or speculative plans ahead of any funding settlements, which would affect their credibility. It is more effective to set out plans when they are ready, when we have a clear line of sight on funding and deliverability. We also need time to engage with expert stakeholders to inform implementation planning. We know that sufficient community services cannot be achieved without wider system reforms beyond health, and details contained in any plan must also consider the context of the 10-year health plan and the independent commission into adult social care, chaired by Baroness Casey. For that reason, I thank hon. Members for their contributions and invite them to withdraw amendment 20 and not to press amendments 24, 10, 22, 21 and new clause 11.

I thank everyone for all their insights into our amendments; they were very useful and constructive. I will address a couple of them briefly. First, I thank the hon. Member for Ashford; we totally agree that we want to be moving mental health care—any care, actually, but mental health care specifically—back into the community and have more community care. We are not advocating for more hospital care. There is a specific point to amendment 20: my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, who is in the Public Gallery, had a tragic case of a constituent, which resulted from there not being enough available safe places for someone in crisis to be cared for. A lot of our amendments have rightly been criticised for possibly being outside the scope of the Bill, because this Bill is for when people are in a mental health crisis, and a lot of our amendments are about how we can improve community care. To me, amendment 20 appears to be very in scope, because it addresses a failure of someone who was admitted for mental health care. I thought that the insightful comments on most of our amendments from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, given his legal and medical background, were very useful, and we will take those on board. The only one that I would disagree with, and I think he might feel the same, is on amendment 20 specifically. His main criticisms of that were that it might result in variability across the nation, that there are currently staff shortages and that there could be implementation delays. I do not see any of those three reasons to be strong enough to not want to maintain crisis accommodation. I thank the Minister for his comments and his serious consideration of all our amendments. We will press amendment 20 to a vote, but will not press any of our other amendments. Question put, That the amendment be made.

2|0|2|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 4, page 10, line 5, at end insert— “125FA Training standards (1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about training standards for responsible bodies and individuals working with people with autism or a learning disability in— (a) mental health hospitals; (b) places of safety designated under sections 135 or 136 of this Act; (c) crisis accommodation; and (d) such other settings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must— (a) specify minimum training requirements; (b) require training to be co-produced with people with autism or learning disability and their families or carers; (c) require regular refresher training; and (d) include training on de-escalation techniques and alternatives to restraint. (3) The Secretary of State must publish guidance about the standards set out in regulations under subsection (1). (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on minimum training standards for staff working with people with autism or learning disabilities in mental health settings and require that training be co-produced with people with lived experience and their families. Amendment 25 was, again, tabled by my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. It would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on minimum training standards for staff working with people with autism or learning disabilities in mental health settings, and would require that the training be co-produced with people with lived experience and their families. I suggest to all colleagues on the Committee, particularly those who heard my hon. Friend’s passionate speech on Second Reading, that we need to reflect and learn from the tragic story of his constituent Declan, in which insufficient training sadly contributed to Declan’s death. Autistic people in hospitals risk being subject to unnecessary restraint, over-medication and solitary confinement. That raises real concerns about whether there is sufficient training available to staff working with them. I acknowledge that enormous numbers of incredible professionals work with individuals who are in crisis, but when such tragedies happen, we need to reflect on whether training is sufficient. Across mental health hospitals, places of safety and crisis accommodation, training is crucial to ensuring good outcomes for those in crisis. Some 92% of people with learning disabilities or autism in hospitals are detained under the Mental Health Act, yet many staff lack specialist understanding. Research shows that training is most effective when it is developed with people with lived experience. The amendment would ensure that all staff working with autistic people and people with learning disabilities receive specialist training. It would require co-production with families and people with lived experience, with which Conservative colleagues have already said that they agree. That would include mandatory training in de-escalation techniques and alternatives to restraint; create consistent national standards, rather than the unfortunate postcode lottery; and address fundamental staff knowledge gaps that contribute to inappropriate treatment. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, which would enable us to ensure that those providing crucial mental health support to those in crisis have the appropriate training to prevent tragedies like the loss of Declan.

16:30:00

I rise to share a few brief reflections. I appreciate that the intent behind amendment 25 is to make sure that the relevant training is in place. I assume that the hon. Member for Guildford has in mind something similar to the Oliver McGowan training provided across hospital trusts, which mandates that all healthcare providers spend a certain amount of time training with someone who has lived experience of autism and of learning disabilities, in order to make sure that the very different ways in which people with autism or learning disabilities might present do not overshadow what they are attending hospital to demonstrate. Particularly for mental health, we all know that diagnostic overshadowing can be fairly significant. In a locked setting, someone with a learning disability or autism may be unable to demonstrate behaviours that show they are improving or getting better, which can undermine the care they receive. I would just question whether primary legislation is the best vehicle by which to provide for this. We have spoken at length about how the NHS workforce plan and the 10-year plan are coming forward. I wonder whether this would be better placed within that wider framework. Training could be taken forward either as part of continual professional development, or for medical professionals at the start of their career.

On the point about training in the round for NHS staff, or any staff dealing with someone in crisis, might it be about taking a more contextual safeguarding approach that relates to not just the one setting? I agree with the point about looking at the 10-year plan, and making sure that mental health training is provided for all staff, because we know that people can present in very different ways, in many different contexts across the health system.

I think there is a concern about having a prescriptive mandate in primary legislation, rather than using a vehicle that could implement real change. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how to ensure that those working in a mental health environment have sufficient training on learning disabilities and autism. We need to make sure that those with a specialism in learning disabilities and/or autism are present and people have access to them, so that things like diagnostic overshadowing do not continue to occur.

I rise briefly to speak about training in our health settings. There is, in fact, too much mandatory training in NHS and care settings; the issue is that we are not complying with it. We also heavily rely on agency staff, whose training often nobody monitors. It is not that we are short of training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned, the Oliver McGowan training was rolled out across the NHS.

I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. My understanding of the amendment, for which I have a lot of sympathy, is that the mandatory training will be around appropriate care in the settings listed. I think he is talking about manual handling or data protection stuff. As someone who worked in the NHS for seven years, I entirely agree that there is a lot of “mandatory training” that could be scrapped to make the NHS much more efficient. The amendment is specifically about ensuring that there is appropriate training for those who are working in the settings listed. I hope that he is not saying that he does not think that there should be training for mental health professionals. I am sure he is not saying that, but that is how it is coming across.

Not at all. I am not claiming that there should not be training for people who work in any settings; I am saying that more and more training has been added every time we learn something and yet compliance with the training requirement is not being monitored. That is the point I am making—not that we do not need the training. I support training, because appropriate training is necessary, but we also need to ensure that the people who work in those settings are compliant with the training. That is the larger point I am making. This is not about the amount of training we might want to add to this legislation; we need to ensure that existing training is completed by the staff working in those areas.

The Health and Social Care Act 2008, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022, already requires that all CQC-registered health and adult social care providers ensure that their staff receive specific training, appropriate to their role, on learning disability and autism. The associated code of practice has been consulted on and is expected to be published and laid before Parliament soon. The code sets out four standards that outline minimum training requirements, including expectations of training content at different levels; that training is co-produced and co-delivered alongside people with a learning disability and autistic people—that addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock about co-production and things not being done in an ivory tower; and that staff complete training at least every three years. To set out separate standards in secondary legislation, as the amendment asks, would cut across that existing legal requirement and the forthcoming code. Inadvertently, that could lead to confusion. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Guildford enough to persuade her to withdraw the amendment.

Having had a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, I can say that we will withdraw the amendment. However, we hope that the Minister will ensure that the provisions addressing the need for training in such situations will come soon, and with a timeline, so that all members of the Committee understand when we will see the statutory guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Shipley is not in her place to hear me speak to the rest of the clause 4, having considered the amendments to it first—[Interruption.] Oh, she is here just in time. I am grateful to the Government and the Chair, as the clause stand part debate allows things to be more structured. I want to discuss proposed new part 8A of the Mental Health Act 1983, which will introduce welcome changes to provisions specific to people in England with autism or learning disabilities who are subject to detention under the Act. At the outset, let me say that the Opposition welcome the Government’s recognition that people with autism or learning disabilities require a tailored and rights-based approach within our health system. We know—the evidence points clearly to the fact—that such individuals have been inappropriately detained in institutional settings, often for years, without the care and support that they truly need. The creation of a statutory care, education and treatment review in legislation was a step in the right direction. It therefore makes sense in this part of our proceedings to discuss such reviews. The background is really important to understanding what the measure will do. Care, education and treatment reviews were introduced in 2015 as part of the Transforming Care programme, a joint initiative between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care under the last Government. The TCP was launched in response to the Winterbourne View scandal, which we have heard mentioned a few times, where serious abuses of people with learning disabilities and autism in private hospitals were exposed. The purpose of CETRs in the Transforming Care programme was to ensure multi-agency oversight of care plans for people with learning disabilities and/or autism, particularly those with complex needs detained in in-patient or secure settings. They were there to promote person-centred care by involving patients, families and a broad range of professionals; to identify barriers to discharge and support safe, timely moves to community or less restrictive settings; and to improve care quality and reduce inappropriate long-term in-patient stays. The implementation timetable started in 2015 with CETRs introduced as a mandatory part of the TCP, initially focusing on children and adults with learning disabilities and/or autism in in-patient settings. In 2017 to 2019, CETRs were expanded and refined, with NHS England producing guidance and a framework for conducting reviews consistently. Ongoing, CETRs are now embedded across the health and social care systems, extending beyond learning disabilities to other groups with complex mental health needs, including secure mental health services. CETRs are multidisciplinary independent reviews designed to improve the care and treatment of people with complex mental health needs, particularly those detained in secure hospitals or secure settings, such as children and young people with learning disabilities, autism or complex mental health needs, or in other in-patient settings where there are concerns about the appropriateness of their care, treatment or placement. The purpose is to ensure that the care, education and treatment plans are appropriate, person-centred and holistic; to identify and address any barriers to overcoming recovery and discharge; to promote co-ordinated working between health, social care, education and other relevant services; and to support the least restrictive care principle, one that we have now enshrined in the Bill—helping people to move to less restrictive settings where possible. There are, however, some complications. The number of CETRs has increased over recent years, especially with the growing recognition of the need for better oversight of complex needs. Several hundred CETRs take place annually across England and Wales, primarily within secure and specialist mental health services. Exact numbers are quite difficult to pin down and vary by service user populations, health trusts, NHS England monitoring and the reporting of the activity. What is a CETR made up of? That is really important. A typical CETR involves a multidisciplinary panel including independent clinical reviewers such as a senior psychiatrist or clinician not involved in direct care; representatives from social care services; educational specialists, especially for children and young people; advocates or independent mental health advocates; the patient or service users themselves, where possible, to ensure their voice is central; family members or carers where appropriate and with consent; and commissioners and other relevant professionals involved in the person’s care pathway. Under the review process, the panel examines the individual care, the treatment, the education and progress. It assesses whether the current placement and treatment plan are meeting the person’s needs and whether there is scope to support transition to less restrictive or more appropriate settings. Recommendations may be made on changes to care, treatment plans, discharge or support arrangements. CETRs are a very valuable safeguard. They bring together the independent clinicians, the social care professionals, the educators, the advocates and, crucially, the patients and their families to review the care and treatment being provided. The aim is to ensure that the treatment is person-centred, appropriate and geared towards recovery, while also exploring opportunities to move people to less restrictive environments when safe to do so. That said, while CETRs are increasingly used, questions remain about their consistency, effectiveness and impacts on outcomes. On page 12 of the explanatory notes, paragraph 46 states that “recommendations are not always being acted upon”, which is contributing to “the perpetuated detention of people with a learning disability and autistic people, often without therapeutic benefit.” That is really significant. To that end, how many CETRs are conducted annually and what are the mechanics in place to ensure that the reviews lead to meaningful change in care, rather than becoming a procedural exercise? I must admit that I struggled to find that information. If I, as someone looking into it, am struggling, there is a concern about how wide that information and data is.

16:45:00

Furthermore, are there sufficient resources and training to ensure that all participants, including independent reviewers and advocates, can fulfil their roles effectively? How is the patient’s voice and that of their family truly centred in the reviews, especially when dealing with highly vulnerable individuals? Most crucially, looking ahead, how do the Government plan to evaluate and improve the use of CETRs to ensure they are not only a safeguard on paper but a catalyst for better, more tailored care and timely discharge, given that the Government are abolishing NHS England? Will the Minister outline how the Transforming Care pathways and the CETRs will be evaluated, updated and enforced in practice? The Committee must be vigilant: good intentions are not enough. We must ensure the measures are not just decorative, but deliver real change for people who have often been failed by the system.

In recognition of progress, proposed new section 125A rightly mandates that review meetings take place for children and young people with autism or learning disabilities who are detained. We particularly welcome the requirement for the reviews to happen within 14 days of detention and then annually. We also welcome the multidisciplinary scope of the reviews, including education and social care alongside medical needs. The statutory requirement to share reports with clinicians, local authorities and integrated care boards also strengthens accountability. Likewise, proposed new section 125B extends similar provisions to adults with EHC plans, ensuring that no one is excluded from oversight purely because of their age or plan status. We welcome proposed new section 125D, which requires ICBs to keep registers of individuals at risk of detention and, crucially, to use them to commission better community-based services.

I would like to probe the Minister a little further here, first on the enforcement right to community provision. As we have discussed, ICBs and local authorities are told to have due regard to review recommendations to seek and need outside hospital detention. As it stands, however, there is no legal duty to act on them. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to the suggestion that we on the Conservative Benches made about a duty to respond, which would give them the flexibility to set out what is possible, what is not and why. How will the Government ensure that needs are met? How will that information be collected and followed up?

The next point is that delays could undermine safeguards. Proposed new section 125A requires the first review meeting to occur within 14 days—as we have said, that is very laudable—but only after an applicable day defined in a complex manner. There is a risk that people could fall through the cracks during emergency detentions or diagnostic ambiguity. Have the Government considered proactive review mechanisms as an immediate trigger of the timing? Has consideration been given to how to avoid the clock never starting in the first place?

On consent and capacity issues, there are appropriate provisions allowing reviews to occur in the absence of consent where it is in the patient’s best interest. However, the Bill does not appear to adequately set out safeguards for how such best interest decisions are to be scrutinised. There must be a clear guidance and advocacy involvement to prevent paternalism: one of our key concerns and why we are here today.

On the quality and independence of reviews, the Bill allows commissioners to convene an author report. It also includes clinicians and local authorities under proposed new section 125B. Forgive me, but it is not clear where the involvement of the patient’s family or advocates is. Given that the ICBs are the responsible commissioner, what safeguards are in place to ensure that they are not marking their own homework? Who will they report to given the abolition of NHS England?

The final point is about the register of people at risk. This is a double-edged sword because proposed new section 125D requires ICBs to maintain a register of people considered to be at risk of detention. While the intent of early identification of support is very much welcome, this raises questions about data privacy. Who has access? What rights do individuals have to object to or appeal against their inclusion? Who would have capacity and/or authority?

We also run the risk of labelling. Is there a danger that this becomes a list of problem people, rather than a tool for supporting early intervention? Have the Government given any thought to safeguards for the people on those lists when they want to move on in their lives, such as by having children, wanting to get insurance, mortgages, credit or any of the normal day’s activities? Given that we live in an ever more interconnected and digitalised world, we do not want to risk the creation of second-tier citizens.

Finally, on proposed new section 125F, when setting out how the guidance from the Secretary of State is placed, has any thought been given to how it takes into account those with lived experience, such as charities, patients and relatives? They could play a role in shaping this in a collaborative way. Whose function should that be? Is that under consideration by the Government?

This part of the Bill signals a positive shift, but the path to reform must be paved with more than just procedural reviews. It must be built on enforceable rights, strong community services and the principle that people with autism or learning disabilities deserve to live fulfilled lives with support, not detention.

Given that we have discussed the proposed new sections in depth, I do not intend to dilate upon this clause for long. Suffice it to say that the Opposition, notwithstanding the questions asked by the shadow Minister, support the clause, which is essential to ensure the safeguards and progress that we are trying to achieve through the Bill. Clearly, the clause is prevention-focused and helps avoid unnecessary and traumatic hospital admissions. It leads to better planning because it supports tracked admission of services tailored to individual needs. It also has an element of legal accountability, given that it makes it a legal duty for ICBs to monitor and support at-risk individuals. It is also data driven because it encourages the use of real-time data to inform care decisions. That being said, a number of the concerns that we raised during debate on the amendments apply to the clause itself. In the Minister’s summing up, can he touch once again on the privacy concerns, as well as the resource demands and the risk of stigma? By that, I mean that being placed on a register could be seen as labelling or pathologising. How do we ensure that the register does what it is supposed to without that risk? Can he also touch on some of the vague criteria and definitional phrases, such as “at risk”, and how they might potentially lead to inconsistent application?

I am conscious that we will be voting imminently, so I will try to rattle through. Going back to my phrase “the red thread”, the thread running through all the shadow Minister’s questions is delivery. The proof of the pudding in all legislation is whether we convert it into action in a way that best delivers for the interests of the British people, and in a way that absorbs the risks, builds resilience in the system and ensures that we are constantly monitoring, evaluating, reviewing and learning from what is happening on the ground and, through a constant process, improving delivery. The shadow Minister asks some very good questions, but the problem is that so many will relate to the work that we need to do at pace as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. This is a sequential process; we first need the legislation and the comprehensive spending review, so that we know our funding package. We then need to start work consulting on the code of practice, getting that feedback and shaping a plan that defines what good community services look like, because we all know that we are a million miles from having good community services at the current time. We are in a state of crisis and the system is on its knees; we are very conscious of all those facts. There is an immense urgency with all this. The shadow Minister asked about evaluating and updating pathways and CETRs, duty to respond, the information collected, managing the risks, preventing paternalism and ensuring that people do not get labelled. All those things will have to be set out and explained in the project plan. That is something we will all be working very hard on as soon as the Bill gets Royal Assent. One of the shadow Minister’s factual questions was on how many CETRs have been issued. I cannot give him that number, but I can tell him that, as set out in the impact assessment, 86% of in-patients received a CETR in the last year. If my answer that this is about delivery does not satisfy him and he thinks there are issues that relate directly to the Bill rather than to the implementation plan, I am happy to write to him on that.

I appreciate what the Minister is saying. The blue threat, or blue and yellow thread, running through the debate is the question of how much needs to be in the primary legislation. The argument from the Conservative side has been that, while some of the Lib Dem amendments are too restrictive, the danger is that the freedom and flexibility at the Government’s end is too loose. I trust the Minister implicitly—but, having seen Ministers on our side come and go, there could be a change within Government or a change of colour of Government, and no Government are bound by the one that went before. I am trying to get the balance right by asking questions around procedure to assess whether some of these things should be in the legislation. I agree that there has to be a balance. That is why the Opposition chose to say 18 months, as opposed to four months; it was to have accountability and safeguards in place and to urge good delivery, but not to curtail the ICBs or clinicians—the people delivering stuff—and make them simply check boxes. I appreciate the Minister’s offer to write to me. I would be grateful for that data, because where we find it will be important in future debates and in his future written or oral statements. I hope he understands that these probes are to make sure that we get the balance right between primary legislation, what is going in the code of practice and what is well intentioned, but could be left to blow in the wind.

That is a valid question, and one that has probably been asked in pretty much every Bill Committee that has ever taken place. It is always a challenge to get the balance right, having the right level of steer to the system in primary legislation without tying the hands of the system. Everything is constantly evolving, particularly in the age of technology in which we live, so it would be foolish to tie our hands too tightly given the changing nature of the landscape we are working in. My answer to the question—I say this personally and from the point of view of the Government—is that we are satisfied that we have the balance more or less right. That is in the eye of the beholder, and not everybody will agree, but we feel that clause 4 gets that balance right, and sends clear signals to the system through primary legislation. The proof of the pudding will then be in the eating, and that is for the code of practice, the regulations and the programme planning. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Grounds for detention

I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 5, page 11, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert— “(b) in the case of a patient who lacks capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment), serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person, or in the case of a patient who does not lack capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment) serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person; and”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 53, in clause 5, page 11, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert— “(b) in the case of a patient who lacks capacity or competence to consent to admission for medical treatment, serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment, or in the case of a patient who does not lack capacity or competence to consent to admission for medical treatment, serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment,” This amendment, along with Amendment 52, would add to the grounds for admission to hospital for assessment or treatment that the patient must lack the capacity to consent to that admission, if they would not be detained due to being a risk to others. New clause 24—Application in respect of patient already on hospital grounds— “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) In section 5(1) (Application in respect of a patient already in hospital), after ‘or,’ insert ‘that the patient has attended a hospital or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient or,’” This new clause would allow people who have attended or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to pursue an application for admission under the Mental Health Act.

All the amendments in this group have been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). Amendments 52 and 53 deal with grounds for detention and treatment—specifically, with how those grounds differ depending on whether a patient has the capacity or competence to consent. At the heart of both amendments is the simple but vital proposition that capacity matters, not only ethically, but legally. The ability of an individual to make decisions about their own care must shape the basis on which the state may act against their will. The revised wording introduces an important distinction between the two scenarios, where a patient lacks capacity and where they retain it. In the first case, where a patient cannot consent because they are unable to understand or weigh up the relevant information, then serious harm either to the patient or to others may justify detention or compulsory treatment. However, in the second case, where capacity is intact, the threshold for overriding a person’s autonomy is rightly higher. In such circumstances, the justification for intervention must rest solely on the risk of serious harm to other people. This is more than legal tidiness; it is a matter of fundamental rights. The law should not permit the detention or forced treatment of a capacitated individual on the basis of a paternalistic judgment about their own safety—that is not a liberal mental health framework, but an arbitrary power. These amendments achieve something critical: they preserve the protective duty of the state, particularly to those who cannot protect themselves, but they do so without blurring the line between necessary intervention and justified intrusion. They are grounded in legal precedent, echoing the principles found in common law, the Mental Capacity Act and article 5 of the European convention on human rights. They introduce clarity where ambiguity once stood, and they ensure that the Bill reflects both compassion and constitutional restraint. [Interruption.]

Order. We are now expecting three Divisions. I will therefore suspend the Committee for twenty-five minutes, until 5.30 pm—[Interruption.] Four Divisions? We have only been informed about three. [Interruption.] Yes—we would like you all back at 5.40 pm.

17:02:00

18:18:00

I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

I think everyone is in agreement.

On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Could we have some clarity on what adjourning the Committee right now would mean? Several members of the Committee have not returned from the Division, and it would be good to know the implications if we adjourn now.

The Conservative members of the Committee all came back at 5.40 pm, when we were asked to return.

My understanding was that we would all come back after the final vote, which was on Third Reading.

I am the only one who can move the Adjournment.

That is not true. Any member of the Committee can move the Adjournment.

We can vote on it.

On a point of order, Ms Furniss. I called for a Division on the Adjournment before several members of the Committee who are now in the room came back. What is your ruling on whether members who were not here when the Division was called will be allowed to vote?

With the greatest of respect to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, I clearly asked my question before the Question was put. We therefore have not divided yet.

You wanted to know what adjourning now would mean for the progress of the Bill, and it would mean that we have to restart where we finished, so Thursday could be a longer day.

Further to that point of order, Ms Furniss. To follow up on what the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry North West, said, when a vote was called—although I appreciate that it was not carried on the voices—a number of members of the Committee who have since returned were not present. Ms Furniss, could you speak to the Clerk to clarify at what point the Committee divided? There was a very clear point at which the Adjournment was moved. I appreciate it is your call whether the Question was carried on the voices, but you said that it seemed to have been carried, which implies that the Committee should now adjourn. I appreciate that there are some difficulties.

Members have 15 minutes to get back when a Division is called in the House. The 15 minutes had not elapsed when the Adjournment was moved. How can the vote be allowed to stand when the rules say that members of the Committee have 15 minutes to get back?

Ms Furniss, your ruling, as I am sure Hansard will show, is that we were required to come back at 20 minutes to 6. Opposition members of the Committee were back at 20 minutes to 6, and few others were here. You did not suspend the Committee again when the House divided on Third Reading because you were not here, and therefore the 15-minute rule cannot apply.

When the previous vote was called, I made it very clear to the Committee that we had three votes plus a vote on Third Reading.

The Chair said that we must be back here at 20 minutes to 6, and that the Committee would be suspended until that point. We have not been suspended since then.

Arguing about whether we were here or not is not moving us on, is it? We need to know what we are going to do now, so let us stop there. I think the Government Whip will agree that if we adjourn the debate now, the business will resume on Thursday. The Committee has another eight sittings after that, so you should have time to catch up. That is what it would mean. Question put, That the debate be now adjourned.

3|0|4|10|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

I call Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst to continue speaking to amendment 52 and the other amendments in that group.

It seems a lifetime ago since I was last on my feet. I am sure the Minister was waiting in anticipation for the crescendo of my speech. He heard my observations on amendments 52 and 53, and I know he will be mindful of ensuring that the balance between intervention and detention is held in equilibrium. I would be grateful if he addressed the points I raised before the interlude in his response. New clause 24 would amend section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to clarify that a formal application for detention can be made not only for a patient already admitted to hospital, but for individuals who have attended or been brought to a hospital seeking help or admission. It would therefore expand the legal basis for initiating detention procedures under the Act. The new clause makes an important distinction. While the Act currently allows for the detention of an individual who is already an in-patient, there is ambiguity about whether that applies to individuals who are on hospital grounds—who have attended A&E, for example—but have not yet been formally admitted as a patient. In those cases, the Act fails to capture people who arrive voluntarily or are brought to such an institution during a crisis. New clause 24 seeks to close that gap by explicitly allowing an application for detention to be made in such circumstances, ensuring that a timely intervention can occur when necessary for safety or treatment. A number of significant benefits would arise from the new clause. It would provide firm legal clarity; remove any ambiguity about when detention procedures can begin; allow timely intervention, enabling quicker responses for an individual in crisis who is already at hospital but has not been admitted; reduce the risk of harm by allowing earlier application of safeguards; and align the legal framework with the reality of hospital procedures. The distinction between those who are in attendance at a hospital and those who have been admitted in a state of crisis is a false one.

Like me, my hon. Friend has served as a clinician on the frontline. As this point is sometimes lost, can he explain the practicalities of what turning up at a hospital versus actually being admitted means? They are two distinct things. Can he walk us through what the process entails?

My hon. Friend is right. An individual can attend an emergency department to be assessed and be seen by a doctor before a decision is made on whether that patient should be admitted to that hospital, transferred to a tertiary centre or discharged back into the community. New clause 24 seeks to provide clarity and certainty for practitioners on that grey area and, crucially, it seeks to provide a safeguard for patients who have yet to be formally admitted to an institution—a hospital, community placement or wherever—but need a crucial intervention.

18:30:00

I am not suggesting that new clause 24 would not have some challenges due to its operational impact. It might increase the pressure on hospital staff to initiate formal processes earlier than they do currently. Clear oversight, guidance and training would be needed to ensure its appropriate use. It would also require careful implementation, because any such intervention must never be used prematurely or misused to detain people unnecessarily. I would welcome the Minister’s views on the operability of this new clause, which would significantly improve the Bill by providing clarity that practitioners and patients alike would appreciate.

Amendment 52 would amend clause 5 to introduce an important distinction in the grounds for detention under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, namely on whether a person has the mental capacity or competence to consent to admission. This amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, raises questions that go to the heart of how we balance liberty and protection, autonomy and risk in our mental health system. Under the current Mental Health Act, and indeed under the Bill as drafted, an individual can be detained for assessment if they are experiencing a mental disorder and if serious harm could be caused to themselves or others unless they are detained. There is no distinction based on whether they have the capacity to consent to care. In other words, a person who has full understanding and decision-making ability may still be detained against their will to protect them from themselves. The amendment proposes a change to that approach, so that if someone lacks the capacity to make a decision about admission and treatment, the current protection should apply—they can be detained if they are at risk of harming themselves or others. But if someone has capacity, understands what is happening and what the risks are, and still refuses care, they should be detained only if they pose a risk to others and not just to themselves. I will give a brief example to try to bring that to life. Imagine a young adult, aged 22 and living with long-standing depression. They have attempted suicide in the past, but they now clearly and repeatedly say that they do not want to be admitted. They understand the risks, are coherent, consistent and judged by clinicians to have capacity. Under the Bill as it stands, that person could still technically be detained, but under this amendment they could not unless they pose a risk to someone else. Why does this amendment have merit? There is much in it that is compelling. It puts autonomy at the centre of the mental health framework, which the Committee discussed and agreed on earlier. It aligns more closely with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which already allows people to make unwise decisions so long as they understand what they are doing. It also echoes the principles in the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which calls for supported decision making over substitute decision making. It could reduce unnecessary or overly paternalistic detentions, especially of people from marginalised groups who are already disproportionally affected by coercive care.

I am interested in the points that my hon. Friend is raising. Could he give any examples of the situations he is talking about? It would help the Committee, and certainly help me, to understand the practical realities of what he is talking about.

I will try to elucidate a little further. We know that some people have fluid capacity, such as those with dementia or depression. How do we ensure that people have safeguards for themselves and the wider community, while respecting their capacity and allowing them to be masters of their own destiny? The Bill literally says that we want to see individual autonomy, and by definition, there is always a balance to be struck. The Bill shifts more to the paternalistic side, which brings some challenges because it could create gaps in protections, as I will explain. There are clinical situations in which a person in mental health crisis—for example, in the early stages of a manic episode or a severe personality disorder crisis—may present with superficial capacity but be at grave risk of harm. Are we confident that clinicians can assess capacity accurately in real time, in often pressured and emergency contexts? Might we inadvertently tie the hands of practitioners trying to prevent suicide or serious self-injury? If capacity becomes the gateway to protection, what support and guidance will be provided to ensure that it applies fairly, consistently and safely? That is important when we talk about detention, because detaining people is one thing; the next thing is how we get them out. To understand that, it is worth focusing on the crucial interaction between the Bill and liberty protection safeguards. It is worth my briefly explaining to the Committee what LPS are, how they evolved and why they matter. Liberty protection safeguards are the new legal framework that replaces the old deprivation of liberty safeguards, or DoLS. DoLS were designed to protect people who lack capacity, but had become widely criticised as complex, slow and limited mainly to hospitals and care homes. In response, the Conservative Government introduced LPS through the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019, to simplify the process and extend protections to community settings such as supported living and people’s own homes. Given that we are talking about Darzi’s shift, that is important. With that context, I turn to the key concerns before us today: how the Bill interacts with LPS, especially when individuals move from hospital detention to community care. To illustrate why this matters, let us consider the case of Mrs A. She is a 55-year-old woman with bipolar disorder and mild dementia. She was detained under the Mental Health Act after a severe manic episode put her at risk. While in hospital, the Act governed her detention and treatment. After several months, Mrs A stabilises enough to be discharged, but because of her dementia, she lacks the capacity to consent to her care arrangements in the community. She requires supported living, with 24/7 care, which means that she will continue to be deprived of her liberty, but now in the community. Because she is no longer detained under the Mental Health Act upon discharge, the liberty protection safeguards must authorise the deprivation of liberty in the community. This requires careful consideration. An LPS assessment and best intention decisions are required, and formal authorisation must be in place before she leaves hospital. This transition point is critical, because without clear protocols, Mrs A could find herself deprived of liberty without lawful authorisation—a breach of her human rights. Information sharing between hospital staff, community providers and local authorities may be delayed or incomplete. There may be confusion among professionals about who is responsible for co-ordinating the handover. Training gaps might lead to the inconsistent application of safeguards. The Bill reforms detention in hospitals, but there is some opacity regarding how the handover to LPS in the community will be managed. Will the Bill ensure a seamless transition, with no gaps in safeguards? If it does not, then how will this be provided? Will there be statutory duties to mandate information sharing and co-ordinate reassessments? How will professionals across health and social care be trained to navigate both systems effectively? The Bill rightly aims to reduce inappropriate detentions and enhance patient autonomy in hospital, but protections under LPS in the community must be equally robust to maintain dignity and rights post discharge. How will the Government guarantee parity of safeguards across settings? The Bill also seeks to address disproportionate detention rates among ethnic minorities. We must be equally vigilant that the reforms and the wider LPS regime do not perpetuate inequalities once individuals leave hospital. We therefore need to ask the questions: what monitoring is done and what safeguards will be in place? On detention, I gently ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plan to manage the vital interface between the Mental Health Act and LPS, even as the Bill stands, to embed clear statutory duties, guidance and accountability to protect all individuals like Mrs A throughout her care journey. What is the Government’s view on distinguishing between those with and without capacity in the context of detention for self-harm risk? Has the Department assessed the clinical and operational implications of requiring real-time capacity judgments before detaining someone at risk to themselves? Will the Government consider a limited override provision in extreme cases where the risk is immediate, catastrophic and the capacity assessment is finely balanced? We will see more of these kinds of cases as we go forward, with more and more people living with the likes of dementia or acquired brain injuries. If the Government do not support the amendment as drafted, might they consider refining the code of practice to provide clear guidance on how capacity, autonomy and right to self are waived? The amendment presents a thoughtful and principled intervention. It is not perfect in my eyes, but it challenges us, rightly, to consider whether our mental health laws strike the right balance between protection and personal freedom. Amendment 53, like its partner on section 2, reflects a growing consensus that the law should better respect the autonomy of people with mental health conditions, especially when they have the capacity to make informed decisions. In introducing a necessary distinction, if someone can truly understand the consequences of refusing treatment and they pose no risk to others, should the state override their decision on their own behalf? The amendment would add a capacity-based distinction into section 3, mirroring the earlier amendment on section 2. Specifically, if a patient lacks capacity to consent to a medical treatment, they may be detained if there is risk of serious harm to themselves or others. If a person has capacity, they may be detained only if there is risk to others. In short, if a person is mentally unwell but understands the consequences of refusing treatment in this case and only poses a risk to themselves, they would not be eligible for detention under this amendment. Imagine a woman with anorexia nervosa who is dangerously underweight, has a good understanding of her condition and the risk, and refuses in-patient treatment. Under the Bill as it stands she can be detained, but under the amendment if she is judged to have capacity and only poses a risk to herself, she could not be detained under section 3. Therefore, there are huge and far-reaching consequences to the amendment. The wider science is moving towards capacity, but it needs to answer some of these questions. Some are even being grappled with now—take the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This truly cuts to the heart of humanity and I am sure there are varying views not only across the Committee, but across society. Similar questions will arise when it comes to capacity. To that end, the question posed is not simple. In some cases, such as severe anorexia or chronic suicidal tendencies, capacity may be technically present but clinically contested. The stakes could not be higher. The amendment challenges us, and therefore the Government—and rightly so—to ask: are we doing enough to balance liberty and care? Do we have the right clinical tools, legal thresholds and ethical safeguards in place? New clause 24 is on a different but related subject. This Back-Bench amendment relates to the application for admission in respect of patients who are already on hospital grounds but have not yet been formally admitted. This is really important, because it comes down to the ability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said, when it comes to the mechanism this is the day-to-day reality. Someone, just because they turn up in A&E, is not under the care of A&E per se until they are admitted. That is when the clinicians will take control. If they just give their name, at what point do we have that grey area? That is the matter of contention in day-to-day working. Currently, under section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act, applications for detention or admission can be made only in relation to patients who are already admitted to hospital—that is the key part. This leaves a grey area for people who come to hospital voluntarily, perhaps by walking into A&E and seeking help or being brought by an ambulance or the police, but have not yet been formally admitted. The amendment would explicitly allow applications for admission to be made as soon as someone attends or is brought into hospital to seek help, even before formal admission.

18:45:00

Imagine a person arriving at hospital in mental health crisis. They have requested assistance but have not yet been admitted or detained. The amendment would allow the clinical team to start an application for detention right away, potentially speeding up access to assessment and/or treatment. That has real-life implications. There are real life examples of doctors taking a patient out of A&E to be out of the hospital, in order to address the issue. I do not think that anyone, when they wrote the law, foresaw that problem, which is why it is so important to highlight it today. The principles and laws that we enshrine in Parliament have practical, real-world consequences.

The amendment has a clear advantage, because it would provide legal certainty and legal clarity. It would support prompt intervention and might enhance patient safety by reducing delays when someone needs urgent care; however, there are important considerations. People attending hospital voluntarily must not fear that their freedom to leave or refuse treatment is undermined before any formal process is in place. We also do not want to create a perception that simply by seeking help to go to a hospital a person is at greater risk of being sectioned. We already know that for some sections of the community who are wary of authority, that could make things worse rather than better.

In the light of that, it is essential that safeguards ensure that people’s rights are respected, and staff are properly trained to communicate clearly and compassionately. I would like to probe the Minister a little further on how the Government plan to balance the need for swift applications with safeguarding the autonomy and rights for those voluntarily attending hospital, especially in this grey area. Is there an opportunity for the code of practice to be updated to offer clear guidance for staff on managing such situations sensitively, and are there any plans to provide additional resources or training to hospitals to implement the change effectively, without causing undue distress or confusion to patients? The amendment highlights a crucial moment in the care pathway, and I look forward to the Government’s response on how best to ensure that patients seeking help are supported promptly, fairly and with respect.

I ask the Minister to set out the Government’s thinking on how the Bill and its accompanying code of practice will address these dilemmas, not just in law but in real life in clinical settings. We must move towards a mental health system that is not only effective but trustworthy, fair and principled. I hope that the Minister will engage with the spirit of the debate as it is intended: not as opposition for its own sake, but as part of a much broader effort to build a mental health system that is both compassionate and just.

I rise to speak to amendments 52 and 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. Clearly, both my hon. Friends have significant clinical experience, and I bow in many ways to their expertise. However, the amendments cause me some concerns. Amendments 52 and 53 “would add to the grounds for admission to hospital for assessment or treatment that the patient must lack the capacity to consent to that admission, if they would not be detained due to being a risk to others.” Clearly, both amendments would introduce a capacity-based distinction in the grounds for detaining a person for medical treatment under the Mental Health Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned. That would ensure that, for patients who lack capacity or competence, detention is justified if serious harm may be caused to themselves or others unless they receive that treatment. For patients who have capacity or competence, detention is justified only if serious harm may be caused to others unless they received that treatment. The amendments build on the principle of autonomous individuals, which we have talked about and which, as my hon. Friend said, is in the Bill. People should not be detained solely for their own protection if they are capable of making informed decisions about their care. As my hon. Friend said, that aligns with the Mental Capacity Act and broader human rights principles, aiming to ensure that detention is used proportionately and, most importantly, ethically. Where the two amendments improve the current legislation is around the strengthening of patient autonomy by limiting the detention of capable individuals to cases where others are at risk. The amendments align the Bill with the human rights principles and the Mental Capacity Act, and clarify a number of legal thresholds for detention, reducing ambiguity in clinical decision making. That will help clinicians to make more sensible and consistent judgments when it comes to who should or should not be detained. Obviously, the amendments promote a proportionality element in the use of coercive powers, and support the person-centred care that we want. However, I am concerned that the amendments may increase complexity when assessing capacity in applying the correct legal tests. It will absolutely require training and guidance. Government Members have been concerned about mandatory training, and I make no apologies for hoping there would be significant training on this for clinicians when acting in this role, to ensure consistent application of these services. While I accept that the provisions clarify the legal thresholds, I think there is a potential for legal challenges if the distinction is misapplied or misunderstood, hence the need to return to my point about having the correct training. I hope the Minister is able to address some of those concerns, rather than just dismissing the amendments outright. New clause 24 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and West Shirley—

Solihull West and Shirley.

I am doing my best—I will get it right by week three, I promise. New clause 24 would allow people who have attended or been brought to hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to pursue an application for admission under the Mental Health Act. As other Members have mentioned, section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act allows for the detention of individuals who are already in-patients. However, there has been ambiguity about whether that applies to individuals who are on hospital grounds but not yet formally admitted; for example, those who arrive voluntarily or are being brought in during a crisis. New clause 24 seeks to close that gap by explicitly allowing applications for detention to be made in such circumstances, ensuring that a timely intervention can occur when necessary for safety or treatment, according to my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull West and Shirley and for Runnymede and Weybridge. I listened carefully to my hon. Friends on the benefits of the new clause, and I accept some of them. However, I have some concerns about deterring people from turning up to a hospital setting, either for some other treatment or to visit friends or relations. I am worried that people would be concerned that they would be forcibly sectioned or detained without their consent by just turning up. There is a real risk of overreach in new clause 24. If we go back to the point about autonomy, people need to have assurance about when and where they will potentially be detained when they seek voluntary help. The line between voluntary attendance and involuntary detention is the nub of the new clause. While I accept the arguments that have been made by my two hon. Friends, I am not thus far convinced that the balance in the clause is correct, but I am hopeful that the Minister can give some clarity.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I have worked with him on some aspects of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill; he brings great expertise as a psychiatrist, and an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act that is perhaps greater than mine and that of some Members of the Opposition. However, even though I respect the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, does the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon recognise that we need to ensure compatibility between the Mental Capacity Act and the Bill before us? I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the legal checks have been done and that the proposals before us are compatible. Given that pre-legislative scrutiny was carried out under the previous Government, I am sure that process fully got to the bottom of these issues, and I therefore hope that we can move on.

Just in case my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is not following this Bill in Hansard, I will pass on the hon. Lady’s compliments to him. Like her, I have great respect for him; I am not trying to denigrate his great work on the amendments and the new clause. All I am suggesting is that, from a layperson’s perspective, there are some elements that need tightening up, if not changing altogether. I take the hon. Lady’s point about pre-legislative scrutiny, but obviously these amendments and the new clause were not part of that because they have only just been tabled. I therefore think it is entirely appropriate to be debating them now.

I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and looked into this issue a bit further. Psychiatry is already looking towards future capacity and trying to bring the two pieces of legislation together. I believe that Scotland has already moved in that direction. We are therefore into the cycle of chasing legislation for something behind us. I appreciate the concerns, but that is why the Government need to be alive to these situations. At the end of the day, the nub of the issue is patients getting caught up between capacity and safety under the Mental Health Act. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I thank my hon. Friend for his extraordinarily helpful intervention. I was not aware of the changes, and I certainly had not heard of fusion before, or about what is going on in Scotland. Of course, if the new clause had already been enacted in another part of the United Kingdom in some form, I would be much more comfortable with it. But, as I said in relation amendments 52 and 53, if the new clause is to pass in its current form in this Bill or in some future form in another Bill, there has to be a focus on proper training and guidance. Because there is potentially such a legal quagmire, we must ensure that people understand the legal framework within which they can do this.

Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley for moving the amendments and the new clause on behalf of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I will first speak to amendments 52 and 53. The new detention criteria explicitly require decision makers to consider the risk of serious harm and the likelihood of harms occurring in order to justify detention. It is right that clinicians have the power to intervene when a patient is at risk of seriously harming themselves, both when they do and when do not have mental capacity. If we were to accept the amendments and the new clause, we think that patients would be left without the protections that the Mental Health Act provides. For example, let us consider a patient with a serious eating disorder who is assessed as having capacity but is refusing treatment. If there were no longer an option to detain that patient under the Mental Health Act, that could leave clinicians and families without a route for treatment, potentially leading to tragic results. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee highlighted concerns about cases where the concept of capacity had been used to justify denying individuals care that they had sought voluntarily, particularly in relation to very ill and potentially suicidal patients. That goes against the spirit of the Mental Health Act and could fall short of professional standards. Patient choice is, of course, critical, and the changes that we are making recognise that when patients have a say in their treatment, they are more likely to engage. We also think that it is right that when those decisions put people at risk of serious harm, including risk to their own life, there is a duty to intervene. We recognise that detaining and treating patients with capacity without their consent is a very serious step to take. However, we think that it is right that we intervene when someone is a risk to themselves, not just to other people. That is in line with the Government’s commitment to delivering a cross-sector suicide prevention strategy for England. We should deprive somebody of their liberty and detain them only as a last resort. The threshold of serious harm in the new criteria reflects the gravity of that decision.

19:00:00

I turn to new clause 24. We have heard concerns that there is a lack of clarity about what legal powers are available to health professionals to hold someone in emergency departments until they can be assessed. This is a complex issue that requires extreme care and caution. New clause 24 would extend the powers of the state to detain people in circumstances currently not provided for in law, including by emergency departments and other outpatient services. This issue has been consulted on, and there is currently no consensus on the right way to address it, or whether it is right or necessary to do this. Some people expressed views that the factors leading to delays in Mental Health Act assessments and admission are operational rather than legislative. Given the lack of consensus, we are of the view that we should not seek to extend the use of section 5 in this way.

We have committed to continue to explore the issue. We will engage with stakeholders to understand how the current legal framework is applied and identify solutions to the problems raised. We will also provide further guidance on the existing legal framework, including the handover process from police to health, in the next revision of the code of practice.

I am grateful to the Minister for how seriously he is taking this issue, and I agree that there is not necessarily a consensus even within the Opposition. Having the debate is therefore really important. It may be useful to collect data on the number of incidents and where these handovers are. Would the Government commit to that? We would be better able to have this debate, and to decide how much of a problem this is and to work out what the solutions are. Again, I struggle to find data that indicates where this is an issue, but I have spoken to clinicians who I know and colleagues who I have worked with when I have seen it. It happens enough that I was aware of it as a bog-standard GP who has worked in A&E, but it is clearly not rampant and we are not seeing it every single day. Would the Government commit to collecting data on it? If so, in what format would it come?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify his question about data collection. Is he looking for clarity on the number of people who are judged to have mental capacity but who trigger the deprivation of liberty condition because they are seen to be either of severe risk of harm to themselves or to society?

That would be a very useful piece of data, but I was in fact talking about new clause 24 and the grey area of hospital detentions. That data is probably easier to collect. I specifically ask the Minister to keep in mind the collection of data on those who turn up to A&E but end up having to be taken out of the hospital to be sectioned, for example. That is the nub of the issue and the practicality of what is going on. In a number of incidents, although the law is set in a way that is supposed to be helpful, the interface unfortunately becomes very difficult. The Minister has rightly pointed out that there are different ways to deal with this. The new clause is one such potentially heavy-handed way of dealing with it. At the same time, it comes from the good place of trying to address what clinicians deal with in A&E day in, day out. However, we need some data and some teeth behind that to understand and appreciate how much of a problem it is and to then come up with a solution. I hope that clarifies my question.

That does clarify it. I will absolutely discuss that with officials. It is clear that we need a complete picture of the prevalence of people reporting to emergency departments and then having to be extracted from them and put into other facilities. That is an important point. We clearly need to think more about this issue and consult further. Obviously, understanding the data is a very important part of that. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a nailed-on commitment to do that, but I give him a nailed-on commitment to discuss it with officials. It is possible that the data is already out there. We need to find that out. We have heard concerns that there is a lack of clarity about what legal powers are available to health professionals to hold someone in emergency departments until they can be assessed. However, it is a complex issue that requires extreme care and caution. We have committed to continue to explore the issue. We will engage with stakeholders to understand how the current legal framework is applied, and identify solutions to the problems raised. We will provide further guidance on the existing legal framework, including the handover process from police to health, in the next revision of the code of practice. We are also taking steps to address current operational pressures. NHS operational and planning guidance for this year tasks local health systems to improve patient flow through mental health crisis pathways and to reduce waits of more than 12 hours in emergency departments.

Will the setting up of more health settings—places of healthcare and of safety—help to address the issue?

Yes, I think that is right. We have a commitment to creating—either building or repurposing—facilities for more acute mental health settings. We have also created the 111 mental health line. We have a commitment to 8,500 more mental health specialists. We are committed to having a mental health-trained person in every school in the country. I hope that all those wraparound measures will help in the overall role that we play in the community, and identify people with challenges in a way that will help to support them and, one hopes, avoid them getting to the acute stage. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to some of the wraparound measures that the Government are pushing forward. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley not to press amendments 52 and 53 and new clause 24 to a vote.

I have listened carefully to the Minister, who has addressed the issue with his usual thoughtfulness. I ask that he looks into sharing that data, particularly around new clause 24, but on the basis of the reassurances that he has provided, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

19:07:00

Adjourned till Thursday 12 June at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

MHB01 Michael Brown OBE FRSA

MHB02 British Association of Social Workers and Association of Directors of Adult Social Services

MHB03 Macy Williams

MHB04 Ileana Weynberg

MHB05 Christina Cheney

MHB06 Jon Owen QPM

MHB07 Dr Ian Hogbin, programme lead (clinical), and Sarah Ackland, programme lead (legal), Clinical Education Development and Research, University of Exeter

MHB08 Approved Mental Health Professional Leads Network

MHB09 StopWatch

MHB10 Professor John L. Taylor, professor, Northumbria University Law School; Dr Indermeet Sawhney, chair, Faculty of Psychiatry of Intellectual Disability, Royal College of Psychiatrists; Professor Regi T. Alexander, president, Intellectual Disability Forum, Royal Society of Medicine; Professor Asif Zia, chair, Mental Health Medical Director Forum, NHS Confederation; Professor Ashok Roy OBE, past chair, Faculty of Psychiatry of Intellectual Disability, Royal College of Psychiatrists; Sarah Jackson, co-chair, UK Autism Consultant Nurse Network; Dr Peter Stevens, consultant clinical and forensic psychologist, London; Christine Hutchinson, consultant nurse and approved clinician, Bolton; Professor Rohit Shankar MBE, University of Plymouth Peninsula School of Medicine; Dr Samuel Tromans, associate professor of psychiatry, University of Leicester; and Dr Jane McCarthy, visiting senior lecturer, King’s College London

MHB11 Professor John L. Taylor, professor, Northumbria Law School, Northumbria University, Newcastle, consultant clinical psychologist and approved clinician; Carole Burrell, associate professor in law and programme leader, postgraduate certificate in professional practice in mental health law, Northumbria Law School, Northumbria University, Newcastle; Miles France, consultant social worker, approved clinician and strategic lead for multi-professional approved clinicians, Devon Partnership Trust; Dr Peter Beazley, clinical associate professor, University of East Anglia; Julie Onyegbula, consultant nurse and approved clinician; Dr Annie Cox, consultant Nurse, approved clinician and co-chair, National MH Consultant Nurse Forum; Jan McAdam, consultant nurse, approved clinician and co-chair, National MH Consultant Nurse Forum; Dr Peter Stevens, consultant clinical and forensic psychologist, approved clinician and co-chair, London Multi-Professional Approved Clinician Forum; Dr Ian Hogbin, consultant clinical and forensic psychologist, approved clinician and programme lead, postgraduate certificate in professional practice in mental health law, University of Exeter; and Sarah Ackland, solicitor, accredited member of the Law Society’s mental health panel and programme lead, postgraduate certificate in professional practice in mental health law, University of Exeter

MHB12 Andrew Gordon

MHB13 Professor Alex Ruck Keene KC (Hon)

MHB14 Centre for Mental Health

MHB15 Blooming Change

MHB16 The National Autistic Society, Mencap, the Challenging Behaviour Foundation and VoiceAbility (joint submission)

MHB17 Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition

MHB18 Talking Therapies Task Force

MHB19 Dr Peter Beazley BA (Oxon.) DClinPsy (Lond.) LLM SFHEA AFBPsS, clinical associate professor, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia

MHB20 South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust

MHB21 Black Thrive Global

MHB22 British Institute of Human Rights and the National Care Forum (joint submission)

MHB23 The Law Society

MHB24 Letter from Minister Kinnock to Bill Committee members (dated 6 June 2025)

MHB25 Liberation

MHB26 Imkaan

MHB27 Care Quality Commission

MHB28 North East London NHS foundation trust

MHB29 West London NHS trust

MHB30 Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman