Mental Health Bill [HL]

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

20:25:00

Amendment 7

Moved by

7: Clause 4, page 5, line 20, after “provide” insert “or arrange for the provision of” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment and my other amendments to Clauses 4 and 43 are minor and technical amendments to clarify that the references to after-care services include services arranged (as well as directly provided) by a public authority under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 7, in the name of my noble friend the Minister, I shall also speak to government Amendments 14, 87 to 94, 127, 161 and 162, also in the name of my noble friend the Minister. The minor and technical government Amendments 7, 14 and 127 make changes to Clauses 4 and 43 to clarify that the references to aftercare services include services arranged, as well as directly provided, by a public authority under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. I turn to government Amendments 87 to 94, which concern Clause 31, and Amendment 162 on the commencement of certain provisions within Clauses 29, 31 and 34. Amendments 87 to 94 divide Clause 31 into two clauses to allow for automatic referral rights to the mental health tribunal to be commenced separately for patients who will be subject to conditional discharge subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. This is an important safeguard for this new form of conditional discharge, given the level of restriction that these individuals will be under. Under Clause 31, patients conditionally discharged under deprivation of liberty conditions will be referred to the tribunal 12 months post discharge and every two years thereafter. Amendment 162 amends Clause 53 to adjust commencement for certain provisions currently commenced by regulations to be commenced two months after Royal Assent, and vice versa. Automatic referral to the tribunal under Clause 31 and increased application rights under Clause 29(2) shall now commence at two months post Royal Assent for conditionally discharged patients subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. That is to coincide with the introduction of this new subset of conditional discharge at Clause 33 and ensures that the new measure is introduced with the full suite of carefully considered safeguards in place. Amendment 162 also adjusts commencement for the change of detention criteria for transfers from places of detention to hospital under Sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to commence via regulations. This change in the detention threshold ensures that the detention criteria can be met without the need for a hospital bed to be identified, and is closely linked to the introduction of the statutory time limit at Clause 35. The ability to commence this reform simultaneously with the time limit at Clause 35 will allow for streamlined implementation planning around the new statutory notice process and accompanying guidance. Finally, government Amendment 161 creates an equivalent power for Welsh Ministers to make consequential provision in areas of their devolved legislative competence. This is a limited power and allows Ministers to make regulations containing such provision as they consider necessary to deal with legislative consequences that arise as a result of the Bill. The power cannot be used to make substantive policy changes. This new clause would mirror the powers of the Secretary of State, as set out in Clause 51. This provision was requested by the Welsh Government in their legislative consent memorandum, in which they recommended that the Senedd grants consent to the Mental Health Bill. We believe that this is appropriate, and I am grateful to the Welsh Government for their close collaboration and support for this important piece of legislation. I hope that noble Lords are able to support these technical and necessary amendments. I beg to move.

20:30:00

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is thinking, “If only all groups went as swiftly as this one”. I thank him for bringing forward these government amendments. We understand that although they are largely technical in nature, they address some important points regarding the delivery of aftercare services, tribunal reviews and the broader application of this legislation. We see the point of Amendments 7, 14, and 127 to clarify the references to aftercare services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act, including services arranged by public authorities in addition to those directly provided. We understand that this reflects the practical realities of service delivery and may help to avoid ambiguity in how these obligations are interpreted. If we have heard any lesson throughout this debate, it is about how we avoid ambiguity when it comes to the treatment of patients. We understand also that Amendments 87 to 94 focus on tribunal reviews for patients subject to conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty, which we have discussed in other groups. The proposal to commence these provisions two months after Royal Assent is pragmatic and necessary to provide patients with timely access to justice. The amendments also introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to refer certain cases to the tribunal within defined timelines. We agree that this will ensure that patients who are conditionally discharged but not recalled to the hospital are not left in a state of indefinite uncertainty. Once again, that was covered in the last group of amendments as somewhere where the patient could fall between the cracks, as it were. Timely tribunal reviews are essential for safeguarding patients’ rights and ensuring that any conditions imposed remain proportionate and necessary. We understand also that Amendments 161 and 162 propose adjustments to the commencement of specific provisions, including granting Welsh Ministers powers to make consequential provisions within their devolved competence. Though these amendments are largely procedural, they underline the importance of clarity in implementing the reforms set out in the Bill. Of course, we understand that healthcare is a devolved matter. I remember having to deal with the devolved Administrations when I was a Health Minister, and we always did so collaboratively. Welsh Ministers should indeed have the same right to make consequential provisions, although if I have a question for the Minister, it is: what safeguards and oversight mechanisms will be in place to ensure equal application of the Bill to Wales, as in England? I am sure he will be aware that we have sometimes had questions in this place as to why the standard of health or social care in another part of the United Kingdom might be different, even understanding that it is due to devolution. Are there any safeguards to ensure that one part of the UK is not seen as having an inferior service to the rest of the UK? How would the Government address that? With that, we very clearly understand that these are technical amendments and we will not oppose them.

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

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

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

Amendment 7 agreed.

Amendments 8 and 9 not moved.

Amendment 10

Moved by

10: Clause 4, page 5, line 23, at end insert— “(The arrangements may also include provision authorising or requiring a copy of the report to be given to other persons.)”Member’s explanatory statement New section 125A(3)(b) requires arrangements to include provision for reports to be given to the people listed in that provision. This amendment provides, for the avoidance of doubt, that arrangements may also include provision for reports to be given to others.

Amendment 10 agreed.

Amendments 11 to 13 not moved.

Amendment 14

Moved by

14: Clause 4, page 7, line 25, after “provide” insert “or arrange for the provision of” Member’s explanatory statement See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 4, page 5, line 20.

Amendment 14 agreed.

Amendments 15 and 16 not moved.

Amendment 17

Moved by

17: Clause 4, page 7, line 28, at end insert— “(The arrangements may also include provision authorising or requiring a copy of the report to be given to other persons.)”Member’s explanatory statement New section 125B(3)(b) requires arrangements to include provision for reports to be given to the people listed in that provision. This amendment provides, for the avoidance of doubt, that arrangements may also include provision for reports to be given to others.

Amendment 17 agreed.

Amendments 18 to 20 not moved.

Amendment 21

Moved by

21: Clause 4, page 8, line 21, at end insert— “(ba) the person is under 18 years old and satisfies the conditions in (b)(i) and (b)(ii),”Member’s explanatory statement The 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.

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 27 and 32 in my name. My amendments all relate to children and young people, but this group also includes important amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Scriven, which I support, on the duties on commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities regarding care provisions for people with a learning disability or autism. Also important are the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Hollins. I add my condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I am sure we are all thinking of her today. By way of context, the Bill introduces a new duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to commission community services for those with a learning disability and autism. The Bill also places dynamic support registers on a statutory footing. These are welcome and much-needed duties, and the Bill presents a crucial opportunity to strengthen the support provided to those with learning disabilities and autism. However, I want to go further. I recognise that there is some piggybacking on my part, but I am passionate about the mental health support that is available to children and young people, so I believe that the duties to provide community services should be extended to include everyone aged under 18, to ensure that children and young people can have their needs met without them having to be admitted as in-patients. That is where is my Amendments 21, 27 and 32 come in—they are all interrelated. Amendment 21 seeks to extend the duties placed on integrated care boards to maintain a register of those at risk of detention to all under-18s. Amendments 27 and 32 would extend the new commissioning duties on integrated care boards and local authorities to include under-18s. In essence, the duties are both to identify and to commission services in the community that meet the needs of all under-18s. As I think we all know, the Bill has been introduced at a point when waiting times and thresholds for mental health support for children and young people across early intervention services, targeted support services, CAMHS, et cetera are worryingly high. Consequently, too many children and young people are left to reach crisis point. Evidence shows that the number of children referred to emergency mental health care in England has increased by more than 50% in three years. These amendments will not only help to achieve improved outcomes for children and young people but have wider benefits for the mental health systems through intervening at an earlier stage, providing improved care for children and young people in the most appropriate settings, and reducing costs. This is all in line with the Government’s key drive to move to a more community-based, preventive model of healthcare—and, frankly, that should apply to mental health as well as to physical health, and to children and young people as well as to adults. We all know, as we have discussed so many times in this Chamber, that children’s mental health support has historically been woefully underfunded. There is a lack of clear accountability to ensure that effective community provision is in place. I therefore consider that adding all children and young people to the new commissioning duty placed on local authorities and ICBs in the Bill is crucial to ensuring that their needs can be met at an early stage, preventing crisis and later admission to mental health in-patient care. We should worry about the whole system and try to prevent people getting to in-patient care, as well as worrying about those who do. In short, my argument is that their needs should be met without the need to detain children and young people, wherever that is possible. Research has demonstrated that children’s and young people’s experience of in-patient care is consistently poor, too often further harming their mental health. A survey conducted by Mind on children’s and young people’s experience of care in mental health hospitals found that 69% of the young people surveyed said that their experience as in-patients had not been positive. In my view, a shift to such community-based provision would not only reduce the number of children and young people requiring in-patient beds but would in turn reduce demand for in-patient care and the risks of children and young people being cared for in what can often be highly unsuitable environments. It would also ensure that those with the most complex needs who do need in-patient care receive high-quality care in a setting that is right for them. In case people are sceptical as to whether this sort of care can be provided in the community, I am aware of case studies of types of support in the community, such as hubs and the like, that can be used to manage high levels of risk. Where that care is provided in the community, in a relaxed, warm and calm environment, it can often be an alternative to young people having to visit A&E, where they may not get specialist mental health support and waiting times can be so long. I beg to move.

20:45:00

My Lords, this group includes Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to which I have added my name—to which I will not speak because I think it will be fully discussed—and two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She is a dear colleague and friend of many years, and this is my first opportunity in the debate to express my personal sympathy for her loss this week. I will speak to Amendment 28 in this group, which is in my name. In addition to local authorities’ market-shaping function—I have to say I find the choice of words there a little difficult; I had to read it a few times just to make quite clear that I know what that is—the Bill includes reference to the “commissioning functions” of local authorities when having regard to information from risk registers and ensuring that the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people are met. Under the Bill, new Section 125G makes it clear that integrated care boards’ commissioning functions are related only to health services. New Section 125E(3) makes clear that “‘market function’, in relation to a local authority, means its function” to “promoting diversity and quality in provision of services” under the Care Act 2014. This amendment would add local authority commissioning explicitly, by which is meant the local authority’s commissioning duties in relation to providing care and support under the Care Act 2014. The proposed duty in relation to local authority market shaping does not adequately cover local authority commissioning. The issue of poor commissioning in relation to this group has been frequently cited in reports. This is an opportunity to redress that and to be clear about their function.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31 in my name in this group. I support Amendment 28, which was just spoken to very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and Amendments 36 and 37, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I want to put on record my condolences to her at what must be a very sad and difficult time. Quite a number of amendments that I have put down in this group, particularly Amendment 22, are about prevention. It is about getting upstream and trying to use the dynamic support registers—the risk registers—in a better way, and, by so doing, having the correct information that is available to a place, rather than just to an organisation, such as the NHS or the ICB, within that place. Amendment 22 would ensure that local authorities have an active role in assisting ICBs in identifying people for inclusion in the risk registers. NHS England’s policy and guidance on dynamic support registers states: “Early identification of people at risk of admission to a mental health hospital and their access to person-centred planning and support are essential for the prevention of avoidable admissions”. Many people with risk factors will first come into contact with a local authority, particularly people with learning disabilities and autism. It is important that the local authority has a clear responsibility to assist ICBs in identifying people for inclusion on the register, to ensure that people get the right support at the right time. I hope that the Minister will take this amendment in the spirit that it is given. This is an important issue which is not strong enough in the Bill and which really needs to be taken account of. There have been difficulties for some people getting enrolled on the DSR, and this is particularly true for autistic people without a learning disability. Additionally, NHS England data shows that 52% of autistic people and people with a learning disability detained in a mental health hospital are not on a risk register prior to admission. Therefore, there is a gap, and the Bill gives us a chance to help plug it. Hopefully, placing this duty on local authorities will facilitate greater uptake and enrolment on the register for all, therefore helping to reduce admissions, improving support in the community and being a good preventive measure. Coupled with this, Amendments 36 and 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would help with that prevention role by making sure that proper provision was available. Taken together, Amendments 22, 36 and 37 would be a really good group of steps forward to help with preventive measures to make sure that all people who can be identified who come into contact with a local authority but are not known to the ICB go on the register, and that provision is made. Amendments 24 and 29 would change the current language in the Bill. After listening to debate on previous amendments, I will not labour the point because I have a good idea what the Minister might say, but again I think the provision needs to be strengthened so that ICBs and local authorities have a duty to consider the risk register when exercising commissioning and marketing functions. In Amendments 25 and 30 there is the same approach by strengthening the words in the Bill to ensure that ICBs and local authorities have a duty to ensure that the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability are met in the community wherever possible. The current language in the Bill states only that ICBs and local authorities must “seek to ensure” that the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability are met. This wording is vague and does not compel a strong enough duty to meet the needs of people in the community. Again, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would strengthen my amendments even further. These amendments are important. I hope that the Minister has listened very carefully, will make efforts to implement some of these steps and reports back on Report.

My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Hollins’s Amendments 36 and 37. I add myself to the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about the remarkable commitment that my noble friend is showing at this awful time and express my personal condolences. What I am going to say is based on comments that she has passed to me. I should perhaps say at the beginning that I too am an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—“(unqualified)”, as others have made that disclaimer. The purpose of these amendments is very clear. Amendment 36 states that ICBs “must ensure the availability of integrated comprehensive, accessible, and responsive community services for autistic people and people with learning disabilities … to reduce hospital admissions … and … reliance on restrictive interventions”. As the previous two noble Lords said, it is very much about prevention and creating appropriate services. I note that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that Clause 4 “is designed to help ensure that ICBs can monitor individuals at risk of detention and put in place the necessary preventative measures to help keep people out of hospitals”. Putting it simply, this amendment takes that rather weak wording in the explanation and toughens it up. The issue here is not about good intentions and ensuring that it is possible for something to happen. I am sure that all noble Lords share the intention and the hope that these things will be in place, but this is about making sure that something happens. It is about implementation and seeing that a change happens. This is vital because it is clear that there are major problems in service coverage right now. For example, only a quarter of integrated care systems are meeting their target of having only 30 people per million admitted. Of course, that number would ideally be much lower than it is, but only a quarter of these systems are even meeting that. Amendment 36 spells out what these services should include. I will not read them out in detail but noble Lords can see that they cover all the relevant areas that one would expect: evidence-based treatments, crisis prevention and intervention services, non-restrictive walk-in services, and the provision of “suitable housing”. I will comment on two of those items in a moment. All of them are important but what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, had in mind was not just discussing these items but seeing her amendment as an opportunity to discuss which services are the right ones—the ones that should be there—and which areas ICBs and local authorities should address. The key point at this stage is not so much about the detail but the need for some clear legislative requirements on what services must be provided. Good intentions are simply not good enough; implementation is what is needed. I will mention two of those items that relate to points made earlier by other noble Lords in our debates on this group and others. One is the reference to “non-drug-based interventions” and “social prescribing”; their importance in community services applies in all kinds of ways. The second is the point about housing, which, as has been discussed, is vital. Ten years ago, I did a review for the Royal College of Psychiatrists on discharges from acute adult hospitals. A third of the people in those hospitals were there because they did not have adequate accommodation anywhere else. That third included people who had nowhere to be discharged to, in terms of adequate housing. It is a really serious issue. I make those points because both of these issues go beyond this amendment: in some ways, they are not about healthcare as much as they are about enabling people to have a decent life and creating the conditions for people to be healthy and live in the best way possible. Amendment 37 is about issuing guidance on standards and monitoring and reviewing progress. Again, without that, we cannot be sure that this legislation will make a difference to the people who matter. I will make three final points. I recognise that there are perverse issues of finance here because, of course, the NHS pays when people are in hospital and the local authority pays for the services in the community. Of course, that reminds us all of the need to get the social care policy right and the importance, wherever the boundaries fall between public bodies, of using public money wisely across organisations. In that context, I stress that what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has set out in this amendment is not an unachievable wish list. Even in today’s circumstances, some people are making real progress. Mencap pointed me towards the Black Country’s emergency response team, which noble Lords may know about and which meets many of these criteria for services. In 2022-23, it supported 51 people who were presumably being paid for by the local authority and who might otherwise have been admitted for the equivalent cost of a single assessment and treatment bed, presumably paid for by the NHS. Preventive and good-quality services so often make good financial sense, as well as being better for the people concerned. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with that project but I would certainly encourage her to have a look at it if she has not already done so. The second point I want to make is that, although I have not actually checked the reference, I believe that the Minister said something at Second Reading about delaying the implementation of some parts of this Bill until the services are in place. I would be grateful if she could say what was meant by that, but also why it is necessary when people can make progress quite quickly. The Black Country example—and I suspect that there are others—shows that people are making progress and that, in many ways, it is better to have a stretching target that people are moving towards rather than saying, “If you don’t have the services, we won’t implement the legislation”. We need to keep moving forward and show faith both in what this Bill is designed to achieve and in the Government’s agenda on prevention and on moving towards the community. No doubt the digital transformation is also extremely relevant here.

21:00:00

My final point is a very small technical one. In the final drafting of this Bill, as in the first subsection in Amendment 36, it says that these matters are relevant for autistic people and people with learning disabilities who are “liable to be detained”. Those words should not have been in there in case they confuse us. It is different from the language used elsewhere, which is “at risk of detention”; there is no technical thing hiding behind saying “liable to be detained”. There is no need for the Minister to respond on that point. This would be changed if this were to come back on Report.

I commend these amendments to the Committee and to the Government.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, my noble friend Lady Browning, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—who sadly is not in her place today—for their amendments in this group. Given that it is now widely accepted that we should be moving towards a system of health and care focused on prevention, these all appear to be sensible amendments. They seek to understand how integrated care boards and local authorities are identifying those with autism or learning disabilities, the risk of them being detained and, if appropriate, the risk to the community, as well as ensuring that those with autism and learning disabilities receive the appropriate level of care. Amendment 28, in the name of my noble friend Lady Browning, specifies that local authorities must seek to ensure the needs of people with autism and learning disabilities can be met without detention when they are exercising not only their market function but their commissioning functions. This acknowledges the roles that local authorities play in commissioning health and social care. Local authorities commission publicly funded social and healthcare services, many of which interact with mental health service provision, such as authorised mental health professionals and addiction services. By explicitly mentioning the commissioning functions of local authorities and not just the market functions which arise out of the Care Act 2014, this amendment gives the Bill greater clarity. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has tabled Amendments 36 and 37 in this group, which relate to the provision of community services for autistic people. These amendments are in a similar vein to Amendment 139 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kamall, which will be discussed in the next group and which seeks to ensure a greater availability of community services. Amendments 36 and 37 expand the duties on integrated care boards and local authorities to provide better and more responsive care to those on dynamic support registers. Of particular interest is subsection (3)(a) of the new Section 125I proposed in Amendment 37. That new provision states that integrated care boards must “establish digital systems to … assess, monitor, and address sources of inequality” arising out of the current provision of mental health care. As my noble friend Lord Kamall has been keen to stress, digitalisation in health and social care is the way forward for improving productivity and ensuring the best possible care outcomes. I know the Minister believes in the value of the expanded use of technology and digital systems, and it would be welcome if she could give some commitment here. When we hear from her, we would be interested in whether there are any legal reasons for not being able to accept what these amendments seek to do, such as around issues of privacy, or whether the barriers are financial. We very much look forward to the response of the Minister.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords present for their contributions this evening. Perhaps I can make a general point to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about the main pillars of change which we look forward to in the 10 year-plan. The noble Earl has just referred to one of them, which is the move from analogue to digital. In that context—the noble Baroness raised a point about parity between mental health and physical health—the moves from sickness to prevention, from hospital to community and from analogue to digital apply at least as much to mental health as they do to physical health. That is our way forward. I am looking forward to the 10 year-plan to really give structure to that. Let me turn to Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. This amendment seeks to ensure that the register under new Section 125D includes autistic children and children with a learning disability who have risk factors for detention, so that they can be supported in the community. We absolutely agree with the intention behind the amendment, although I have to say that it is regarded as unnecessary because the current drafting does not limit the duty to adults; it includes anyone who meets the other criteria, including children, which I know the noble Baroness is rightly looking for. The register is designed to provide health and care bodies with additional information about the needs of those with a learning disability and autistic people who have risk factors for detention under Part II of the Act. That is to ensure there is a particular focus on their needs, so that they can be better supported in the community. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made the observation, which I understand, about too many children being left to reach crisis point and the increase in the number of children in need of mental health services, particularly over the last three years. I very much recognise this concern. We have seen an increase in referrals and access across children’s and young people’s mental health services, including crisis services. This is due to an expansion of the services to meet need but also to an increase in prevalence and intensity. It might be helpful if I indicate that NHS England is in the process of developing proposals for a new model of specialised children’s and young persons’ mental health services, supported by a new service specification and quality standards. This new approach would support delivery of specialised services in the community, as well as in appropriate in-patient settings close to the child’s or young person’s family and home. That is a matter that has been raised many times in this Chamber and one that I am very sympathetic to. Amendment 22 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. If taken forward, this amendment would require each local authority to assist the integrated care board in its duties in respect of support registers for people with a learning disability and autistic people. We certainly agree with the intent of this, and I am pleased to be able to provide reassurance that the clause already provides the Secretary of State with the general power to make further provision about the register in regulations. We expect this to include detail on how relevant information is to be obtained and from whom. This is to include the role of local authorities, alongside other relevant health and care bodies, in providing further relevant information. We believe that it is most appropriate to include this detail in regulations rather than in primary legislation, since the way in which information is obtained, what information is obtained and who might be involved may change with emerging best practice. As noble Lords will realise, that point has been made in respect of a number of these amendments. Returning this to Parliament at every instance would be disproportionate. However, it is important that the process actively involves health and care system partners. We are clear that the integrated care board must retain overall responsibility for the register. Providing a list of named bodies that have a role in providing information in the legislation may create an unintended diffusion of responsibility, which could negate the benefits of putting these registers on a statutory footing.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in mid-flow. She has just explained why it would be wrong to put the process for collecting the data in the Bill, with which I completely agree, but my amendment does not seek to do that. It seeks to make it a legislative requirement of local authorities to be part of the process. The reason I have tabled the amendment—and I am sure it is the same for the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, in putting her name to it—is that NHS England’s figures say that a lot of people who are admitted to hospital, 52%, are not on the register, but many will have come into contact with the local authority. That is why it is important for the Bill to make local authorities part of the process of identifying who should be on the register. That would subsequently allow the Government to provide statutory guidance about the collection of the data, but it is important that there is a statutory duty in the Bill to do that.

I thank the noble Lord for adding to the points that he made in response to my comments and the assurances that I have just given, and I am happy to review them. I understand the intent. Amendments 24 and 29, tabled also by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, seek to impose a duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to consider information in the register, or obtained by virtue of this clause, when exercising certain existing functions. I strongly agree with the principles behind these amendments, although it is considered that the current drafting in the clause, which requires both integrated care boards and local authorities to “have regard to” the relevant information, already achieves the intended effect. The common duty to have regard is one that both integrated care boards and local authorities are familiar with and used to applying. In this context, we expect this duty to result in careful consideration being given to the information. Departing from the wording of a well-established duty could create ambiguity, leaving it to the interpretation of individual integrated care boards and local authorities. As I can see the noble Lord agrees, that would be a very undesirable outcome. It may inadvertently create a weaker duty than that set out in the Bill or lead to variation in interpretation and response to the duties. If Amendments 25, 26, 30 and 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, were taken forward, they would put a duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to ensure that the needs of people with a learning disability and those who are autistic could be met without detaining them, unless there was a compelling reason why that was not possible. A point was raised, including by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about difficulties in enrolment on dynamic support registers and the need to address that in the Bill. DSRs are part of existing NHS England policy and we have heard that they can be effective in preventing hospital admissions. That is why we propose putting these important registers on a statutory footing and making them a requirement. The Bill already places duties on integrated care boards and local authorities to seek to ensure that the needs of those with a learning disability and of autistic people can be met without detaining them under Part II. This is a legal requirement to ensure that particular attention is paid to the needs of people with a learning disability and of autistic people, and that services should be commissioned accordingly.

21:15:00

Furthermore, we are concerned that the amendment is likely to be narrowly interpreted, setting a very high bar that local authorities and integrated care boards might find it difficult to comply with. I know that noble Lords understand the importance of legislation working for the effect that it should have. For example, there could be circumstances where an individual experiences a mental health crisis and detention for assessment or treatment is necessary, despite the right community services being in place. Such circumstances would, of course, be out of the control of the integrated care board or the local authority but they would nevertheless be held responsible. It is our policy intention that the Bill should place a general duty on these bodies to pay particular attention to the needs of people with a learning disability and of autistic people when exercising their functions. We believe the current drafting of the Bill achieves this.

Amendments 27 and 32, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to the new sections relating to registers seek to extend the proposed duties on integrated care boards and local authorities so that, when exercising certain existing functions, they seek to ensure the needs of all children and young people can be met without detaining them under Part II of the Act. As drafted, the Bill requires ICBs to establish and maintain a register of anyone it considers to has a learning disability or is autistic and has risk factors for detention, subject to their consent. This already includes children and young people who meet the criteria set out in the clause. It is our intention that the information in the register is to be used to prevent admission of those with a learning disability and autistic people, including children.

The new sections in respect of registers are specifically aimed at people with a learning disability and autistic people because of the detrimental outcomes that people in this cohort may suffer when detained. We spoke about that earlier this evening and at Second Reading. The new sections do not apply to people without those conditions because they are not considered to face equivalent detrimental outcomes.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, seeks to ensure that the duties on a local authority under the clause will also apply when a local authority exercises any commissioning functions it may have. The noble Baroness asked a question about the market shaping duty that I rather enjoyed. I will attempt to shed some light on that. To summarise, market shaping is about prioritising outcomes for well-being—in other words, improving well-being. I can see that the Opposition Front Bench is very impressed by that. It covers services for those who have a need for care and support. In other words, to use my language again, it is about getting it in the right place.

We believe that Amendment 28 is unnecessary because the current drafting already makes reference to the relevant local authority function under Section 5(1) of the Care Act, and—I will use the word—this is a market-shaping duty to promote diversity and quality in the provision of services. We believe that it sufficiently covers the policy intent, which is to ensure that local authorities pay particular attention to the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people. This means that a local authority must have regard to the information that it obtains by virtue of the register under new Section 125D when exercising this duty. This applies to services that the local authority commissions directly and to non-commissioned services in its area as well as to universal services and services that are provided by partners. In addition, there are existing provisions in the Care Act that seek to ensure that, when making decisions about commissioning, local authorities consider the importance of promoting the well-being of adults with care and support needs. This will include the well-being of people with learning disabilities and autistic people.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 36 and 37, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and kindly introduced this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. These amendments would place a stringent legal requirement upon integrated care boards and local authorities to ensure the provision of specific community services for people with a learning disability and autistic people who are included on the register under new Section 125D and to make provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the standards for community services for people on this register.

We are clear that delivering the intent of these reforms depends on the development of strong community services, which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp raised. That is why we are committed to ensuring that there are strong community support provisions in place for this group of people before commencing the proposed changes to the detention criteria in Section 3. We will be engaging with expert stakeholders to determine exactly what “strong community services” means. The first amendment that I referred to outlines specific services that must be commissioned in all circumstances, so I would be concerned that this amendment could possibly impose considerable burdens on ICBs and local authorities because it creates an obligation to provide a very specific and prescriptive list of services that must be delivered. I have concerns that this will inadvertently risk commissioning of services becoming something of a tick-box exercise, which I know noble Lords would not want to see, if the need to satisfy this duty was paramount and if discretion was being limited to determine what would meet needs locally.

Further to this, a duty of this kind also creates two practical challenges: first, the list may not be comprehensive in capturing all the necessary services; and, secondly, by defining the services in primary legislation, it limits the scope for necessary updates and changes. I believe that such details are better outlined in guidance which, as I have said a number of times this evening, allows for easier and more timely revisions as best practice emerges. The amendment requires that ICBs and local authorities undertake specific activities for everyone on the register, and I suggest that this could restrict their ability to allocate resources in the most effective way, which is their job, and that would potentially divert critical resources away from individuals at the highest risk of admission.

I am also acutely aware that our new duties are part of a wider statutory landscape of interlocking powers and duties, so introducing ever-more descriptive legislation creates the risk of duplication, overlap, conflict and confusion, none of which will serve us in trying to meet the aims of this Bill.

The Bill already makes provision for the Secretary of State to publish guidance to ICBs and local authorities to assist them to ensure that the needs of people on the register are met without the need for detention. However, individual factors and circumstances could mean that a different approach is advisable in a specific situation; that is ultimately up to clinical and commissioner discretion. As such, further statutory guidance in this area that sets uniform standards would seem somewhat unnecessary and potentially unhelpful, as the existing guidance proposed by the Bill would be sufficient.

With those remarks, I ask that the noble Baroness will be good enough to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank other noble Lords who have participated in this debate. For me, the nub of this grouping has been the whole issue of prevention—I think “getting upstream” was the phrase my noble friend Lord Scriven used—and having in place within the community better and more responsive services, with the aim of reducing admissions to in-patient care but, at the same time, improving the in-patient care that is available, because the only people there are those for whom nothing else will work. It is very welcome that the Bill puts the dynamic support register on a statutory footing. On the two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, beefing that up still further, I think I heard a slightly encouraging response from the Minister. I will look carefully at Hansard tomorrow, as I am sure will the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, to see what was said. I can see that while some people may think that prevention is very important, they would ask what it has to do with this Bill. I do not see it like that. You have to take a system-wide approach. To get the whole mental health service working, even when you are looking at what I call the hard end—the crisis end—you have to look at what is happening at the preventive end and try to reduce the number of people who might need to be admitted. That would send an important message that there are clear legislative requirements for what services should be available within the community. This Bill, frankly, is the obvious place to do it—hence the amendments around children and young people that I raised. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the transformation and the 10-year plan will apply at least as much to mental health as to physical health. That is very encouraging and I am glad that we have got it on record. I was not altogether surprised that the Minister thought that my amendments were unnecessary. I do not agree. I was not just talking about children and young people with learning disabilities and autism. They are obviously a very important group, but my rationale for trying to broaden it out to all children and young people was, in essence, to make sure that only those with the most complex needs would receive that higher-quality care in an in-patient setting—everyone would benefit from that approach. The Minister talked about a new approach to children’s and young people’s services, and I look forward to hearing more details. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us when we might expect to see that. Finally, my view is that the 1983 Act was never really designed with children and young people in mind; I think everyone agrees with that. This Bill is an opportunity for us to put children and young people centre stage—hence my amendment. This is such an important topic that I think we shall be returning to it on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Amendment 22 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.30 pm.