Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third 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 5

Grounds for detention

11:30:00

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 5, page 11, line 22, leave out— “by a constable or other authorised person”. One of the tests for detaining a person under the mental health legislation is that harm may be caused, or that treatment is not possible, without detention. This amendment and amendments 27, 28 and 29 remove wording stipulating that the detention that is necessary must be detention by a constable or other authorised person (as defined).

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 27 to 29. Clause stand part.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Government amendments 26 to 29 seek to remove previous amendments to the clause tabled by Lord Kamall, Earl Howe and Baroness May of Maidenhead, which added police and other authorised persons to sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act 1983, giving the police additional powers to detain people under the Act where they currently have no powers to intervene. We do not support extending police powers in that way, and we understand that the police do not support an extension either. It would not be appropriate to involve police officers in clinical decision making about whether a person meets the criteria for detention for assessment or treatment under the Act, or to involve them unnecessarily in the temporary detention of patients who are already in hospital to enable a Mental Health Act assessment to take place. We also seek to remove clause 50 from the Bill; we look forward to discussing that at the appropriate time on a future day in Committee. I will now move on to clause 5 in its entirety. The grounds for detention provide decision makers with criteria that must be applied when deciding whether it is appropriate to detain, or to continue to detain, a person under the relevant sections of part II of the Mental Health Act, covering civil patients. The clause will replace the existing criteria, which the independent review of the Mental Health Act found were too vague, and will take forward changes recommended by the review. It will strengthen and clarify the criteria to require a risk of “serious harm” to justify detention. Consideration must also be given to the nature, degree and likelihood of the harm. For a patient to be detained for treatment under section 3, there must be a “reasonable prospect” of therapeutic benefit. The code of practice already directs clinicians to consider the “nature”, “likelihood” and “severity” of harm. We believe it is right to formalise those considerations by putting them in primary legislation. We have not defined serious harm in the Bill. We will work with stakeholders to provide guidance on that in the code of practice. We are not seeking to raise the bar on detention, which could put patients and the public at risk. However, we think that when the serious decision is taken to deprive someone of their liberty, and potentially to treat them against their wishes, there needs to be consistent consideration of the potential risk of harm to a person or to others to justify that. The revised risk criteria will not apply to part 3 patients. There are already tailored risk criteria for patients in the criminal justice system. Those are considered by the court and the Secretary of State for Justice, and allow for all relevant factors, including public protection, to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For those reasons, I commend Government amendments 26 to 29 and clause 5 to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to be here on day two in Committee. I will first address clause 5 and then the Government amendments. The clause marks significant reform to the legal foundations of mental health detention in this country. At its core, the clause seeks to update the grounds for detaining individuals under the Mental Health Act. It will amend several critical sections—sections 2, 3, 5, 20 and 145—to ensure that detention is used only when absolutely necessary and in line with the principle of least restriction, which was put forward in the Wessely review and is now in the Bill. Let me outline what the changes will do in practical terms, as the Opposition see it. Under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, “Admission for assessment”, detention will now be justified only if “serious harm” may occur to the “health or safety” of patients or others. The decision must weigh the “nature, degree and likelihood” of that harm, a much more structured and risk-based framework than previously existed. Under section 3, “Admission for treatment”, we will see a clearer threshold. Detention will be permitted only if “serious harm” may occur without treatment, if the treatment is necessary, if the treatment cannot be provided unless the individual is detained and, crucially, if appropriate treatment is available. Section 5(4), on emergency hospital detention, will be updated to align with the same “serious harm” test, recognising that even urgent situations demand clear legal justification. Section 20, which governs the renewal of detention process, will be brought in line with the same standards, such that they apply not just once but every time detention is extended. That is an important safeguard. A statutory definition of “authorised person”, those empowered to detain, will be introduced in section 145, ensuring that such persons are appropriately trained and regulated. Those changes respond to real and long-standing concerns. The 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act warned that our current criteria are too broad and that they allow for detention that is often unnecessary, sometimes prolonged and, in too many cases, distressing for patients and families. Clause 5 seeks to change that by grounding detentions in a clear, evidence-based assessment of risk and necessity. The clause has significant advantages. It will introduce stronger safeguards against inappropriate detention and will shift the focus away from diagnosis alone and towards the actual risk of serious harm. It will offer greater clarity for professionals, giving them structured criteria for making decisions that are ethically and legally sound. It will enhance patients’ rights by aligning the law more closely with the principles of autonomy and proportionate care. However, with every reform there are challenges, and we must not ignore them. The terms “serious harm” and “likelihood”, although essential, remain open to interpretation. We must ensure that the forthcoming code of practice offers clear, detailed guidance that minimises subjectivity and inconsistency in their application. Furthermore, there is a question mark over public safety, which the Minister seemed to point to but which I want to explore a bit further. We have not tabled an amendment, but I am keen to understand how this works. Given that the definition is potentially ambiguous and in practice quite difficult to judge, has the Minister considered inserting the words “cumulative” or “escalating”? To be clear, this is a call not to water down those safeguards, but to shore them up with a safety net, so that this reform does not inadvertently trade off liberty against safety, especially in communities. We need to ensure that we are not inadvertently introducing a real risk that someone, particularly someone on the margins of eligibility, may fall through the cracks. There are individuals whose behaviour is escalating and whose pattern of deterioration is known to services, but who do not yet meet the “serious harm” threshold at the time of assessment. I have seen this at first hand as a clinician—a picture that goes round and round. These are some of the most complex situations that one will ever have to deal with in one’s clinical career. The words “escalating” or “cumulative” may help to give further clarification to clinicians on the frontline. For those on the margins, what consideration have the Government given to the notion of a duty for professionals to produce a risk management plan in any case in which detention is considered but not authorised, so that we do not simply assess and walk away, but assess and act in a community setting? That would not lower the threshold, but contextualise it. It would ensure that detention remains a measure of last resort, but not too late a resort.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about some of the challenges around the interpretation of the Bill. Does he agree that there needs to be a clear plan for the training of professionals so that there is consistency across the board?

My hon. Friend is spot on about training. It is one thing to enshrine these measures in primary legislation; it is another thing to have the training and interpretation that go with them. One of the reasons that we have not tabled an amendment on the matter, as yet, is that there could be some concerns about what “cumulative” or “escalating” behaviour looks like. Ask any clinician and they will say that they have seen patients who are on the borderline and are struggling. It can be unclear whether they are within or outside the definition; they could be wavering between the two, given the state of their mental health. That is a real concern, but the broader pattern of identifying the picture of what is happening could be helpful and important. One way to address the issue would be to review the data and legislation. Would the Government consider carrying out a review two years after the implementation of the Bill, specifically to look at the working of the legislation through the lens of public safety? I hope that there will be no concerns, but that would provide a backstop and a legal safety net. We do not want to wait another 40 years if there are changes that need to be made.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s request to the Government for a review two years after implementation. Does he agree that it needs to be cross-governmental? The Home Office and other bodies such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the NHS will need to be involved.

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We heard on day one how these services interact, and that is completely correct. We need to look through the lens of public safety, because while we are quite rightly enshrining the autonomous nature of the patient as an individual, there is also the question of what we look at as a society. It includes the likes of local councils, mental health care and NHS care. Schooling could also be involved, as well as the judiciary and the Home Office. I think it is reasonable to ask the Government to look at that, in the light of recent high-profile cases, and say, “What are we doing? Does the legislation really do what we think it does?” Clause 5 is a good step forward, but we must make sure that it is fit for purpose and that we have a review mechanism in place. I do not think that it necessarily needs to be in statute yet, but it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. Conducting a review on such a change, through the lens of patient safety, would be very useful. There is also the matter of resources, which we keep coming back to. Change in detention criteria will rightly push us towards community-based alternatives—that is the whole point of what we are doing—but unless those alternatives are properly resourced with staffing, crisis services, housing and follow-up care, we will risk replacing one form of system failure with another. I appreciate that the Secretary of State is committed to reporting each year to the House, but will the Government publish a timetable and framework to support the implementation? As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley, training is also critical. Professionals need the tools and time to learn the framework. They need support, implemented in real time, often under pressure and in complex, high- stakes circumstances. Clause 5 is a welcome and thoughtful step in modernising mental health law. It will strengthens patients’ rights, sharpen clinical practice and bring us closer to a system that balances safety, liberty and humanity. However, we must be mindful about the risk of delayed intervention. In borderline cases in which the threshold is not clearly met but concerns remain high, we must ensure that there is still a route to timely, compassionate support. Otherwise, we may swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, from the overuse of detention to the underuse of care. On Second Reading, I said: “There is little greater moral burden than deciding for someone who cannot decide for themselves where care ends and control begins.” Clause 5 typifies that burden: we are deciding who should be detained and why. I said: “Make no mistake, this is what this House is grappling with”, and indeed it is what our Committee is now looking at in detail. I also said: “Involuntary care should never be the first instinct or answer, but a resort to prevent harm to both the individual and those around them.” I said that compassionate care demands precision not only in its delivery, but in its design. I concluded: “Without precision, we simply have sentiment.” I promised then, as I promise now, that “we will endeavour to ensure that the Government’s sentiment becomes a commitment.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 850-851.] That neatly sets the scene for discussing Government amendments 26 to 29.

Before my hon. Friend moves on to the amendments, I want to press him on the point about training, which my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley brought up. I support the change to the thresholds for detention but, given that it is potentially quite a significant change, what level of training will be required? Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have any suggestion about how long it will take to train the relevant professionals so that there is consistency when the Bill becomes law? Does he feel that there should be a period of cooling off or training time before this part of the Bill is implemented, so that the training can catch up?

11:45:00

My hon. Friend makes an important and poignant point. The Government have rightly stated that this change could take up to 10 years to implement, but we need to ensure that the most important safeguards are set out. Elsewhere, the Government have suggested that they will be in the code of practice. When we were discussing section 5 of the Mental Health Act and other issues, I said to the Minister that we need a constructive timetable, not only to know what the roll-out will look like but so that we can consult with the professions and ensure that they are able to deal with it. Later, we will again discuss the interface between the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the changes that bring in new tests. That will be really important. We will also discuss the change of statutory safeguards for electroconvulsive therapy and changes to the statutory safeguards around who the second clinician will be—there is quite a feast of movements through this legislation. Make no mistake: that is what the country wants, but the Government must clearly set out some rationale for the timetable. Unfortunately, the Opposition’s proposal for a costed plan was defeated. We wanted to set out some kind of concrete timetable over 18 months to ensure that we do not slip back, and to give the Government the flexibility to make the necessary cultural and legal changes. I hope that that addresses some of my hon. Friend’s concerns, but he was right to put that point to the Minister. I oppose Government amendments 26 to 29, which would remove the reference to detention “by a constable or other authorised person”, and to delete the proposed definition of “authorised person”. I support the argument advanced powerfully in the other place by Baroness May, whose experience as a former Home Secretary gives her deep insight into the interaction between policing and mental health. Of course, it was under her premiership that the entirety of this discussion was progressed. I thank her for everything she has done, although I am not quite so thankful for the workload that it has created for me in my evenings and weekends. Her central message was clear: we must stop treating mental health as a policing issue and start delivering the right care from the right person in the right place. I wholeheartedly agree, as I am sure the Committee does. I understand what the Government are trying to achieve. On the face of it, the amendments are technical. They seek to ensure that detention under the Bill is solely based on necessity where there is a risk of serious harm or the need for urgent treatment, and that it is not tied to who is doing the detaining. On paper that sounds reasonable, but in practice those changes will remove vital clarity and will risk baking in a system that has already failed too many people in mental health crisis. Let us look at the problem with removing “authorised person”. The Bill, as amended in the Lords, wisely recognises the need to broaden the group of people who can respond to mental health incidents so that they include not just police officers, but trained and equipped professionals, mental health nurses, paramedics and approved mental practitioners—people who are qualified to care, not just to detain. The definition of “authorised person” in clause 5(7) ensures that only those with training competence and safety considerations are empowered to act, so it provides a framework for accountability, not a free-for-all. By removing the framework, the Government amendment would create a legal vacuum: it tells us that someone must be detained, but not by whom. In doing so, it would leave NHS trusts, police forces and local authorities with a lack of legal guidance and with a risk-averse default to the police. I think we agree that the police should not be the first responders. As Baroness May has reminded us, and as many officers have told me, the police are routinely called out to mental health incidents, not because they are best placed to respond but because there is no one else available or authorised. That is neither fair to the police nor fair to the individuals in crisis. A police uniform can escalate distress. A custody cell is not a place of recovery. An officer guarding a patient in accident and emergency for 29 hours, as the Metropolitan police have reported, helps no one—not the patient, not the police and not the public. The 2019 College of Policing snapshot found that 95% of mental health-related calls did not require a police response. That is staggering. It underlines why we must build up the capacity and legal authority of clinical professionals, not erase them from the statute. I turn to the Government’s argument and why it falls short. The Government’s case is that removing the phrase “by a constable or other authorised person” will de-emphasise the police and make the law more flexible. Ironically, however, removing the clarity about who may act risks re-entrenching police dominance in these scenarios, simply because no one else will feel legally empowered to intervene. The Government argue that the definition is unnecessary or potentially restrictive, but I say the opposite: a well-drafted enabling definition gives confidence, clarity and a lawful mandate for healthcare-led responses. This is not about excluding the police altogether. There will always be situations in which an immediate threat to life or serious violence requires a police presence, but that should be the exception, not the structure around which our mental health law is designed.

I think, from what my hon. Friend has said and what the Minister said at the outset, that Members on both sides of the Committee want the same thing, which as far as possible is to keep the police out of the making of these decisions, unless of course—I made this point on Second Reading and was intervened on by the hon. Member for Ashford—someone with a mental health issue has a firearm or something like that. The clear point of dispute is about whether the phrase that was placed in the Bill in the other place achieves that. Would my hon. Friend not agree that someone who has served as Home Secretary and Prime Minister and the noble Lords, who have vast experience in healthcare over many years, have probably got the definition right, which is why the Government should support the wording currently in clause 5?

My hon. Friend is right: we agree that this is not a place for the police unless there is an absolute sign of criminal intent. The problem is that what happens is a member of the public sees something, reports it to the police and, naturally, it is the police, the fire service or the paramedics who come forward. If a person is unsure about someone behaving in an irrational manner, which by definition someone with a mental health issue could well be doing, the likelihood is that they will call the police and the police will be the first responders. We know that they tend to be the fastest to respond. Slightly widening and refining the definition of who can respond would allow us to build a framework and culture that might encourage a first responder—we often say that the AA is the fourth emergency service; it may well be that mental health services would be the fifth emergency service and could respond. That is what we need for service provision. The idea behind this is to try to crowbar the police out of that position, unless absolutely necessary, as my hon. Friend rightly says. Allowing a new framework would be good for safety and good for the police, because they would be freed up to do other stuff. More importantly, it would get the care as quickly as possible to the people who need it the most.

I think there is some agreement between us, in the sense that obviously a police officer is not necessarily best placed to deal with those who are in mental distress. Having spoken to my local police team, I know that they would much rather there were frontline mental health professionals with the capability to take a person to a place of safety that is not a police station. We will come on to that in relation to later clauses, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we already have some highly skilled professionals who are closely involved in these decisions in the form of approved mental health professionals? The vast majority of them—95%—are social workers. They play a very strong and excellent role, particularly to counterbalance the narrower clinical health perspective that there may sometimes be. Does he agree that, in a way, we already have in place some highly skilled individuals who are closely involved in making sure that these decisions are made in the best interests of the patient and the public, but also with clinical input?

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point about the range of people who can and do respond in such cases. The Opposition are not saying that is a problem; we want to support them by giving them the legal backing and framework to step up to be the first port of call. Unfortunately, by default it is always the police, because they are the only ones whose ability to deal with such situations is covered. The amendment aims to create a culture so that the people she mentions have the confidence to deal with them, and the accountability so that we can say, “The police should not be there first; it should be the first responders that we have.” We are starting to see cross-fertilisation; we are simply providing a legal framework that says that this should be the way forward by default and design, not an exception where people are working around the system. I think we are on the same page here. It is about the nuances of how we do this, and whether it requires primary legislation. The House of Lords voted that it requires primary legislation, and the Opposition share that belief. That is why I am asking Government Members to reconsider when the amendment comes to a vote whether the balance is right because we would give people the security, legal certainty and ability to do exactly what they want to do, which is to care for patients, not worry about whether there will be some criminal side to the situation, and what the police interaction could be.

Obviously, the Lords amendment puts the role of the police into law. I think we agree that we do not want to have the police’s role enshrined in legislation. Over the implementation period for this important Bill, the idea is that community health services will be in place, including urgent response for those who find themselves in crisis. We need to remove this provision to make sure that the default position remains for community support.

The hon. Lady points to the fact that the police are named, as they should be. Imagine if we took out the police completely—whowould then have the power to restrain, restrict and detain people under the Mental Health Act? That is the whole point of having the provision. What we are trying to do is refine and constrict the definition to make it clear for everyone in this country exactly who is entitled to do what. Emergency incidents could happen outside this House—would the police and mental health responder be there? That will come down to the clinical judgment of the 999 responder, the call handler and the clinician there, so I do not want to make it too restrictive. At the same time, we have to consider the evidence that is right under our nose, which is that 95% of the time the police are being called out inappropriately for mental health conditions. I guess that is the rub of what we are trying to sort out. Our responsibility in this House is not only to write good law, but to enable better systems of care. That means ensuring that the law empowers the right professionals to act at the right time, and centring the needs of the individuals in crisis, not just managing risk from the top down. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the amendments. Instead of deleting the definition of “authorised person”, let us work to try to strengthen and clarify it to support a wider, safer and compassionate response to mental health crises. Let us seize this opportunity to reset the balance between policing and care, which the police themselves are asking for and our continents desperately need. Much was made of the amendment in the other place, and I am grateful to the Lords Minister, Baroness Merron, for writing to Baroness May with an explanation of her concerns about the changes. The letter is dated 3 June and a copy was kindly laid before this House and the Committee. It is worth working our way through some of the issues raised. I fully recognise the Government’s concerns within it, and I agree with the need for extreme care when legislating on the deprivation of liberty, but I express reservations about the Government’s decision to overturn the amendment. According to the letter, the Government’s central concern seems to be the unintended extension of police powers. The Government argue in the letter: “Your amendments to clause 5 would give the police additional powers under the Mental Health Act. We do not support extending police powers in this way, and we understand that the police do not support this extension either.” That is also what the Minister has said in Committee. Respectfully, that is a mischaracterisation of the amendments. The original Lords amendments do not extend the powers of the police; they reflect current practice where the police are often involved in detaining individuals in mental health crises.

Does the hon. Member agree that, since detentions under sections 2, 3 and 5(4) of the Act often happen in clinical settings, are completed by consultants, psychiatrists and social workers, and do not involve police, we do not actually need police presence on these occasions?

00:00:00

I bow to the hon. Member’s expertise on this; the problem is that all the evidence shows that the police are the first there. I would like to see much more of him and his colleagues being able to respond and carry this out. We are giving them the legal certainty to do so. That is the argument for making sure that we have codified safeguards around who is and is not able to make such decisions. At the moment, it is purely the police who are called out to these situations, but this gives us another legal weapon with which we could fight this inappropriate use. The aim is to codify the safeguards around who can exercise detention, ensure accountability and, importantly, enable health-led alternatives to police detention. Are the Government confident that the decision does not leave a legal grey area around which profession or agency has the statutory power to detain, especially during urgent community or hospital-based crises? On the authorised person category in the section 135 and 136 powers, the Government say in their letter: “Extending these powers to ‘authorised persons’…could potentially lead to staff, patient and public safety issues. That is precisely why the Lords amendment included a tightly defined category of authorised person, subject to the Secretary of State’s regulation, mandatory training and safety provision. The intent is to ensure that when a professional, such as a trained mental health nurse, is better placed to respond than the police, they can do so lawfully and appropriately. The Government say: “Section 135 and 136 powers have been designed for police officers who have specific training, equipment and access to rapid support”. Many frontline NHS and social care professionals, including AMHPs, crisis team members and community psychiatric nurses, already respond to acutely distressed patients in highly volatile environments. They lack the police powers, but not the clinical expertise. The amendments would bring clarity and lawful backing to the situations they already manage. Take, for example, a mental health nurse in a community who arrives at a person’s home to conduct an urgent assessment. The individual is clearly experiencing psychosis, and is at immediate risk of self-harm. Under the current law, the nurse must call the police, delaying the care and potentially escalating the situation. Under the amendment, they could lawfully detain, provided they are authorised and trained. There are also confusions over the emergency response roles. The Government letter states: “There is a very real risk of confusion over who should respond in an emergency if multiple agencies have the same powers, which could lead to delays.” That concern is valid, but confusion is far more likely under the current law, where roles are unclear and NHS professionals must sometimes act unlawfully or wait for overstretched police. A regulated and accountable authorised person category, established in law and detailed in the code of practice, would clarify responsibilities, not blur them. Have the Government done any modelling of the delays and safety risk caused by not empowering suitably trained healthcare professionals to act in urgent situations? The letter also highlights concerns from stakeholders that this is “a radical proposal with a number of serious and potentially dangerous consequences and should not be pushed through without proper consideration”. These proposals were not developed in isolation; they were advanced in the House of Lords, where the former Mental Health Act reviewers, legal experts and mental health professionals carefully considered their scope. They are also consistent with the direction of the 2018 independent review, which emphasised reducing coercion, racial disparity and the overuse of police powers. The “right care, right person” initiative already expects health professionals to step in, but—unless I stand corrected—the initiative is not underpinned by any legal reform. Without amending the Act, health staff are still expected to take on crisis care without the powers of protection that they need to safely or lawfully do so. How can we expect health-led responses to mental health crises without giving health professionals the power in law to act? Turning to guidance and the code of practice, the Government say that they will issue further guidance on police handover protocols and the legal frameworks. While guidance is welcome, it is not a substitute for statutory reform. Guidance cannot grant powers to detain or protect professionals from liability. We can have legal clarity with this framework. If the Government want to push ahead with removing the amendments, will the Minister consider committing to a formal consultation with NHS England, the AMHP leads, frontline staff and patients on creating a legally robust authorised persons role? Would he consider piloting models of community-based urgent response teams that include AMHPs and trained nurses with delegated powers? Would he legislate for police exit strategies in A&E and community crisis responses that are enforceable, not just guidance based? Given our discussion about new clause 24, there is clearly scope for a sensible piece of work in the grey area to improve the interface for patients, clinicians and police. I think that is one we can all agree on.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think we agree on both sides of the Committee that, where appropriate, police should not be the first responders to this issue, although, obviously, there will be situations where they should be. If the Government push ahead with removing the amendments, is there any indication in the Bill, or indeed elsewhere from the Government, of what they will do to achieve what Members on both sides of the Committee seem to want, which is to avoid, as far as possible, having the police as the detainers and responders? If there is nothing else, I cannot see why the Government would want to remove the amendments made by the noble Lords in the other place.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the last Government, the “right care, right person” initiative was launched with the Humberside police force to try to ensure appropriate care, but that is an example in isolation. One solution would be to include guidance in the codes of practice, but it would not have the statutory footing to allow that legal certainty, which is the concern. Another would be to include something in the annual statement that we will receive from the Government. We should work collaboratively to try to find a decent piece of work to look for the evidence base and build a delivery plan to help the police extract themselves from situations, when appropriate, and care givers to insert themselves. It is admirable to share a problem that is difficult not just in England but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I agree that the Government are right to proceed with caution, but caution is not the same as inaction, especially when lives are at stake and the law no longer reflects the reality of mental health care. The amendments are not about expanding police powers; they are about reducing the need for police involvement by giving others the lawful authority to act. Although maths may not be my strong point, I am not blind to the make-up of this Committee; I realise that the change will inevitably happen. I want to press the Minister on how he proposes to reduce the burden on the police to safeguard them from thousands of hours spent dealing with mental health crisis issues. In extreme cases, they are not appropriate responders. This is the key issue to improve so many aspects of our society. We could improve the working life of the police, allowing them to do what they are paid to do, trained to do and passionate about: policing and protecting their communities. We could improve life for the public, because it would free up the police to tackle crime and keep them safe. Most importantly, we could provide the correct care to those patients at their biggest time of need. I hope the Minister will set out how the Government plan to achieve that.

I rise to support the Government amendments, which will simply remove the words “by a constable or other organised person”. On Second Reading, I highlighted my concern about the amendments made to the Bill in the other place that sought to extend police powers of detention under sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act to other organised persons, including medical practitioners, approved mental health professionals, mental health nurses or doctors and further healthcare and social care professionals. I know that the noble Lords who introduced the amendments intended to remove the need for the police to be present at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk. However, they would grant the police greater powers; as an unintended consequence, they would also apply to detentions under sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act, where the police currently do not have power to intervene. A section 2 application is completed by two doctors and a social worker, and the patient may already be in a clinical setting. Section 3 relates to somebody who is already receiving treatment or already has a known diagnosis in a clinical setting. Doctors’ powers extend to that section; the police currently do not have any role in completing a section 3 application. Section 5(4) provides nurses with a holding power for a patient who is already in the clinical setting, where the nurse believes that the patient is at immediate risk; again, the police have no role. If we did not make the Government amendments, we would give more power to the police to get involved under those sections of the Mental Health Act and put more pressure on police services.

I am interested in the hon. Member’s argument, but it seems to be entirely the opposite of the one he made when he intervened on me on Second Reading. He said then: “Sections 135 and 136 of the current Mental Health Act give the police the power to break into someone’s property or detain somebody in a public place where there is the possibility of the involvement of weapons. Does the hon. Member think that health professionals would be able to manage those kinds of situations? Would the police not be the best people to deal with those situations?”—[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 815.] In that intervention, the hon. Member was pressing for police involvement; now, he seems to be arguing that he wants to take the police out of these settings. I am a little confused by his stance.

What the hon. Member read is absolutely right. I was talking about sections 135 and 136. I am talking here about sections 2, 3 and 5. I absolutely stand by what I said about sections 135 and 136, and I am happy to come to that. As a former mental health nurse, I certainly would not support giving the police greater powers under sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act. I am also opposed to the amendments passed in the other place because I believe that the extension of legal powers held by the police to other healthcare professionals would represent a major shift in the roles and responsibilities of healthcare and care professionals, placing significant additional pressure on the NHS and social care providers. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association are among the health and social care organisations that have warned against such an extension, saying that it is “a radical proposal with a number of serious and potentially dangerous consequences”. Those organisations also point out that the proposed extension has not been properly tested with relevant health and social care professionals and has been given minimal serious consideration during the eight years in which reform of the Mental Health Act has been under discussion. The majority of assessment under the Mental Health Act already happens without police involvement. However, where the police may be required to make a detention, I know from my experience working in mental health that the presence of officers can often ensure that an otherwise risky situation remains contained and everyone remains safe. Entering someone’s home without permission is fraught with huge risk and currently is done only with the assistance of police intelligence. Under section 135, health professionals ask the court for an order to remove somebody forcefully from their residence and the police use that order to do so; sometimes, they have to break in. That is the power that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth spoke to earlier. Without it, health and social care professionals would be expected to enter homes without police help, and without crucial intelligence that could ensure their safety. As Dr Lade Smith, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: “It is well known that at times, people experiencing a mental health crisis cannot be safely reached and cared for without the assistance of the police. Delegating police powers without proper consultation or planning is likely to disproportionately affect those from minoritised backgrounds and would increase risk to patients and compromise the safety of others. It sets a dangerous precedent.” I am also concerned that the amendments passed in the other place granting police powers to authorised persons risk damaging their therapeutic relationships with patients. They would have the effect of lessening clinicians’ ability to treat patients, and I fear that patients would be less likely to attend an appointment if they thought they might be forcibly detained by the clinician.

12:15:00

If the police are called to a public place where a disturbance is taking place and they think that the disturbance has been caused because of a person’s mental health, they have the power to use section 136. It is not health professionals’ role to attend a disturbance in a public place. That is why the extension of powers is a huge concern for mental health professionals. It is the police’s role to attend a disturbance in a public place, and they can use the section 136 power to detain someone if they think they are suffering from a mental illness.

Although I acknowledge that police forces have faced an increase in workload pressures in recent years, I do not accept that the amendments passed in the other place are the correct way to address that. Indeed, I believe that keeping them in the Bill risks being counterproductive. The expertise, skills and equipment of the police remain essential for safely reaching individuals in crisis, especially where they might be an immediate danger to themselves, pose a risk to others, or face a threat from others. I therefore welcome the Government amendments and urge Members to support them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Government amendments 26 to 29 risk undoing some of the good work done in the other place, where careful improvements were made to strengthen the Bill and ensure a more compassionate and effective response to mental health crises. I am concerned that by removing the words “by a constable or other authorised person” and deleting clause 5(7), which provides a clear definition of who the authorised persons are, we will open up ambiguity about who is permitted to detain someone under the Mental Health Act. This is not just a technical or drafting issue; it has very real consequences for the people involved. I understand and support the principle of enabling more flexible and clinically led responses to mental health incidents. We all recognise that the police should not be the default option in every case. The amendments made in the Lords acknowledged that and broadened the group of people who could respond to mental health crises beyond police officers to trained and equipped professionals: mental health nurses, approved mental health professionals, paramedics and, crucially, someone trained and equipped to carry out detentions under the Act and who would not be put at unnecessary risk by doing so. “Trained and equipped”—that is the key point. The definition of “authorised person” in the Bill as it stands makes it clear that those given such a serious responsibility must have the appropriate training and experience and must not be “put at unnecessary risk” when carrying out that role. That wording is important. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, said, it provides a framework of accountability, not a free-for-all. By removing that structure, the Government’s amendments will leave a legal vacuum. The law will say that someone must be detained, but not by whom. That uncertainty will create a risk that services will simply revert to defaulting to the police. I stress again that that is not fair on the police, who are already under immense pressure. Yes, they are used to seeing people at their most vulnerable, but dealing with someone in a mental health crisis is a very particular challenge, and one that they might not be fully trained to manage. The College of Policing’s 2019 mental health snapshot found that almost 95% of police call-outs flagged as involving mental health did not actually require a police response, yet police officers continue to be sent out because the system lacks clarity and capacity elsewhere. Baroness May, speaking from real experience as a former Home Secretary, made that very point in the other place. She said that police officers were being sent to mental health incidents for which they had no training or clinical expertise, and were being asked to make judgments that they simply were not equipped to make. She went on to say that “the very essence of a police presence—somebody in the uniform coming to deal with them—could actually exacerbate their mental health situation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1525.] I would add that, for the individual experiencing a mental health crisis, being approached by the police may feel criminalising rather than supportive. It reinforces a justice-led response rather than a health-led one. That is not the direction in which we should be going. Although I welcome the Government’s intention to offer more flexibility in emergency and clinical settings, we have to be careful about how we achieve that. Removing the wording inserted into the Bill will not create clarity; it will create confusion. In a system already under pressure, confusion tends to mean delay, risk aversion and inappropriate responses. Removing the specification will not free professionals; it will expose them, and it will expose patients to the possibility of being handled by someone without the right qualifications, which may worsen their condition or create a longer-term distrust of mental health services. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurances, both about who will be expected to carry out these detentions and about how we can ensure that they have the proper training, resourcing and protection. Without a clear definition of “authorised person”, we cannot be confident that those involved will have the right expertise to support extremely vulnerable individuals at times of acute need. I want to touch briefly on the importance of early intervention and de-escalation. Situations involving mental health crises can often be tense, and support in the early moments can be critical. De-escalation is a vital skill; the presence of a calm, trained mental health nurse, for example, in those early moments can change the outcome of a person’s crisis. Having the right professional present—someone who can act without waiting for the police to attend—can be the difference between escalation and calm. The identity of the responder matters. This is not just about outcomes, but about the experience of the individual. Removing the criminal justice framing from the outset is essential to delivering dignity and the right kind of care.

There seems to be some circular talk about the level of risk that clinicians and medical professionals can be expected to shoulder. I notice that clause 5(7), inserted in the other place, specifies that they would “not be put at unnecessary risk”. Is there not an inherent risk involved in detaining people who need to be detained under the Mental Health Act? Those people are not in a position to give consent and quite often do not wish to be detained. By stipulating that the police will not be involved in situations or by making medical professionals the first responders, is there not a risk of putting them in harm’s way?

It is extremely important that people are not put at risk, and that is exactly the point I have been making. People need to be properly trained, and we need to set out who those individuals can be, rather than leaving ambiguity in the wording. The Government amendment will undo exactly the protection that the hon. Lady rightly points out.

My hon. Friend is making a clear point, but I want to add that there are clearly places and situations in which non-police professionals, such as mental health professionals, deal with extremely dangerous and violent patients. They are appropriately trained to do so. It is not in isolation that non-police public professionals are dealing with dangerous people. It is about the right situation, the right place and the right training.

My hon. Friend helpfully expands on the points that I and other Opposition Members have been making. If we are not careful, the Government amendments will move us further away from the aim of a person-centred approach. I urge the Minister to reconsider the amendments. The wording inserted in the other place struck a thoughtful balance. The wording inserted in the other place struck a thoughtful balance. It allowed flexibility, but grounded it in clear criteria of training, safety and competence. Removing that definition will weaken the Bill. It will make it harder, not easier, to ensure that the right person is supporting someone at their moment of greatest need. We owe it to patients, professionals and the police themselves to get this right.

The clause is a necessary reset—[Interruption.] Goodness, what a background noise! If only I had such a response to everything I said. The clause is rooted in the central recommendation of the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, that the criteria for detention are too broad and being applied too inconsistently. Too often we hear stories of people being detained not because they pose a real and present danger, but because services are stretched, community alternatives are not available, or there is simply a lack of clarity on when detention is justified. This clause is necessarily corrective. It raises the bar by introducing a clear and structured risk threshold that requires the possibility of serious harm to health or safety, rather than vague concerns or subjective impressions. The inclusion of terms such as “likelihood” and the focus on actual risk mark a clear move towards the evidence-based practice that we want to see and away from overreach. For me, the key strengths of the clause include, first, a higher threshold for detention. Under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, detention for assessment is permitted only if serious harm may occur. That means that professionals must assess the nature and the degree of harm, as well as the likelihood, injecting rigour and proportionality into decision making. The clause also clarifies the treatment criteria. Under section 3 of the Act, detention for treatment is allowed only if serious harm may occur without it and if treatment is necessary, and, crucially, it must be available. That prevents people from being detained without any therapeutic benefit, a concern that has long plagued the system. The clause also aligns measures across the Mental Health Act: the new threshold applies not only to the initial decision to detain, but to emergency detentions and renewals. That brings consistency and coherence across the different parts of the legislation. The final key point among the strengths of the clause is the definition of the authorised person, which is vital. It ensures that those tasked with detention powers are properly trained and equipped to deal with the complex and often volatile realities of mental health crises. Whether a doctor, an approved mental health professional or a specially trained nurse, the provision ensures that detention is exercised by someone with relevant expertise, not by default by the police. Taken together, the changes significantly strengthen the legal framework around detention, reduce the risk of misuse and reaffirm the principle of least restriction, the idea that coercive care should be used only when no other alternative exists. The problems I have with Government amendments 26 to 29 are as follows. The Minister proposes to delete references to “a constable or other authorised person” from the clause. On the surface, that may appear to be technical, but in fact I think it is a profound and problematic shift. The amendments would weaken the very safeguards that the clause is trying to strengthen. We must be careful about how we frame this. The amendments risk undoing the clarity and purpose of the clause by making it ambiguous who can lawfully detain someone under the Mental Health Act. Instead of defining the responsibility clearly and ensuring that it is held by trained professionals, the amendments will strip the clause back to vague flexibility, with no guarantee that the right expertise is present in real-time decisions. The power to detain and to move individuals to a place of safety, in particular under sections 135 and 136 of the Act, is largely restricted and falls under the responsibility of police officers. These provisions, while designed to protect the public, can often result in the criminalisation of people in acute mental health crises, even when there is no threat of violence or risk to others. Furthermore, the clause as passed by the House of Lords would relieve police officers of responsibilities that fall outside their core expertise, while also reducing the stigma and trauma associated with police-led interventions. It would streamline the process, ensure that individuals are supported by professionals trained specifically in mental health care, and maintain police involvement only where there is a clear and present risk to safety. In doing so, it would significantly strengthen the system and place mental health crises more firmly within the domain of health rather than law enforcement. Let me set out the key problems with Government amendments 26 to 29. First, I think that they will blur the lines of responsibility. The clause rightly states that detention must be carried out by a constable or other authorised person, namely someone who has been designated and trained to carry out this high-stakes task. The Government amendments will remove that requirement. In doing so, they risk creating confusion on the ground about who is permitted to act. In a moment of crisis, ambiguity costs time, and time costs lives.

12:30:00

On clause 5(4), the amendment in the other place inserted the phrase “by a constable or other authorised person” which relates specifically to the phrase “unless the patient is immediately restrained from leaving the hospital”. What the hon. Gentleman describes as a level of ambiguity in the subsection allows that to be done by people who are not necessarily listed as an authorised person, such as a medical practitioner. I think we would all agree that we would not expect to see a nurse, doctor or other clinician immediately and physically restraining a patient, and that when a police constable is not available, other people, such as hospital security staff, can carry out the task. The clause says, “immediately restrained”. The specification in the list of words proposed in the other place can leave people at risk of harm, particularly clinicians.

I confess that I do not entirely follow the hon. Lady’s argument. My understanding is that the people she has listed—for example, hospital security staff—are not covered at the moment, so I do not think that that is the case. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, there are situations, in a number of settings, in which mental health professionals act in the capacity of restraining. With the correct and appropriate training, which is what I think all Opposition Members want, I do not think that the issue that the hon. Member for Thurrock is raising would necessarily arise. Having said that, if she really feels that the wording needs to be tweaked, I look forward to seeing and potentially supporting her amendment to the subsection, and I hope she tables it. The second key problem is the risk of returning the burden to police officers. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House in the debate, and from police forces up and down the country for years, that the police do not have the expertise, training or capacity to be the first responders to mental health emergencies. Clause 5 finally reflects that reality, helping to move the response from law enforcement to healthcare. The Government amendments would muddy that distinction. They would result in the police once again becoming the default responders—not because it is right but because it is unclear who else is meant to act. Thirdly, the amendments introduce legal and safe-guarding risks. Without a clear definition of who can detain, one risks inconsistency, poor practice and potentially unlawful deprivation of liberty. The amendments offer no alternative safeguards—just the deletion of the existing ones. That is not reform; it is abdication of responsibility. Finally, they undermine the spirit of the Bill. The Bill aims to modernise mental health legislation by making it more humane and effective, and more rooted in health than enforcement. The amendments point in the opposite direction. They strip away clarity, increase reliance on the police and risk compounding trauma for those already in crisis. It is not just about legislative precision; it is about protecting people. When someone is in acute mental health crisis, they are at their most vulnerable. Turning up with police officers, sirens and handcuffs does not calm the situation; it escalates it. It creates trauma, damages trust and can lead to long-term disengagement from mental health services. Clause 5 offers us a path out of that pattern. It allows approved professionals—such as paramedics, mental health nurses and crisis practitioners —to intervene early, with care and dignity. It does not exclude the police, where there is a genuine risk to safety, but it rightly repositions them as the last resort, not the first response. The Government amendments may be well intentioned, but they threaten to unravel that balance. We cannot allow vague flexibility to become a smokescreen for inadequate planning or under-resourced services. If the Minister pushes his amendments to a vote, and, as the parliamentary maths suggests they will, those amendments pass, what will he do to sort out the problem that we, on both sides of the House, have talked about today? He is currently planning to keep the status quo, which we all seem to agree is not appropriate. At least we and our noble Friends in the other place have attempted to improve the situation. What will he and his Department do? The clause is part of a broader rethinking of how we response to mental health need. It supports community-based care. It pushes for better training. It honours patient autonomy and it places the right people—clinicians, not constables—at the centre of care delivery. We all want a system where people in distress are met with compassion, not criminalisation. Clause 5 helps us to get there. The Government’s amendments drag us backwards. Clause 5 is one of the most thoughtful and necessary parts of the Bill. It raises standards, reduces harm and finally begins to close the gap between what the Mental Health Act allows and what good mental health care demands.

I will touch on the questions that have been asked on cumulative and escalating behaviour, on having a review of public safety and on the training plan. The details will be provided for in a mixture of the code of practice and the annual written ministerial statement. The code of practice will be based on consulting both those who use the new criteria, such as clinicians, approved mental health professionals and members of the tribunal and, then, of course, on the other side, those with lived experience, service users, families and carers. It will be shaped and drafted on that basis. It will then go out to public consultation and will be laid before Parliament so that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate it. It will be a comprehensive and detailed development of the code of practice, and will address the issues around cumulative and escalating behaviour, the public safety issues and training. On cumulative and escalating, it is worth noting that under the reforms in both the Bill and the current Act, clinicians have the power to detain on the basis of a risk of harm that may occur, not that already has or is happening at the time. That power already exists.

Maybe it is my clunky naivety as someone stepping into the legal statutory framework, but I was hoping the Minister would guarantee he could take that away to look at with the team. I know from my clinical experience and from speaking to colleagues that it is one of the hardest things to measure and look for. Later, we will discuss areas where there are good case examples of people who have shown the problem of escalating behaviour that is missed by the authorities. This might be a clumsy and clunky way of trying to highlight that point, which is why we have not yet come up with amendments, but I would appreciate the commitment to look further at that when the Government takes the point away. It is really important to make sure we can give clinicians more certainty around what this looks like.

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention, but I simply repeat that under both the Act and this Bill, which will reform that Act, clinicians have the power to detain on the basis of a risk of harm that may occur, not one that has already or is happening at the same time, so, in my opinion, this power already exists. What is the point of over-embroidering and adding more questions and considerations when those questions and considerations are already answered? Let us just try and streamline things, please, and make things simple rather than complicated. We had a lengthy debate on the amendment. Let us just boil this point down to its essence: the majority of mental health incidents are managed without police involvement. Approved mental health professionals have powers under section 115, section 6 and section 137 to enter a person’s home and to assess and convey said person to a hospital. That is the first point: all the concerns that have been raised by the Opposition are very clearly addressed by the powers that already exist for AMHPs. We support “right care, right person”. Policing is of course operationally independent, and those “right care, right person” arrangements are planned and developed through detailed multi-agency partnerships on the ground. We need to be pragmatic and recognise that “right care, right person” is the right way forward. The Government are committed to it, so let us let the practitioners, the experts and the police on the ground work in a practical and pragmatic way to address these incidents as they occur. In many cases, it is simply impossible to legislate for these incidents. By definition, every person experiencing trauma experiences it for different reasons, and it manifests itself in different ways, so top-down micromanagement of that would be deeply counterproductive and unhelpful. Officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and in the Home Office have engaged with senior representatives of the police on these amendments in great detail. I can give the Committee an 100% assurance that the police do not support an extension of their powers to sections 2, 3 and 5. I am therefore baffled by the fact that Opposition Members appear to be claiming that they know better than the police whether their powers should be extended. Let us stop trying to pretend that we have the police’s expertise. Let us please take a pragmatic approach to this. The police do not want an extension of these powers, and the Home Office is clear that that is the case. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the lengthy debate that we have just had. On that basis, I thank hon. Members for their interventions and I commend the amendments to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.

4|0|11|4|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

12:45:00

Amendment proposed: 27, in clause 5, page 11, line 33, leave out

“by a constable or other authorised person”.—(Stephen Kinnock.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

5|0|11|4|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

Amendment proposed: 28, in clause 5, page 12, line 6, leave out

“by a constable or other authorised person”.—(Stephen Kinnock.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

6|0|11|4|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

Amendment proposed: 29, in clause 5, page 12, line 23, leave out subsection (7).—(Stephen Kinnock.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

7|0|11|4|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

Clause 6

Grounds for community treatment orders

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 6, page 13, line 6, at end insert— “(c) after subsection (6) insert— ‘(6A) Any person subject to a community treatment order must be informed orally and in writing at the time of the making of the order of their right to an independent mental health advocate under section 130A of this Act.’” The amendment would ensure that people who are to be subject to a community treatment order would receive information about their right to advocacy.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 30. Clause stand part.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Our amendment would ensure that people who are subject to community treatment orders receive information about their right to advocacy. People under CTOs should not miss out on advocacy because they were not aware. CTOs can have a significant impact on how people are able to live their lives, and ensuring that those who are subject to them are effectively represented is crucial. I am delighted that advocacy is a crucial part of the Bill, but this seems something of an oversight. Not being aware of mental health advocacy could lead to a damaging lack of autonomy and voice for an individual. This simple change would ensure that people receive the support to which they are entitled. People in this situation are in acute mental distress, so the idea that they must actively seek out information on advocacy seems an unfair burden that will make the welcome provisions around mental health advocates far less effective. We also need to be aware that CTOs have consistently been shown to be a point of disparity in care for black and minority ethnic groups. Clearly pointing towards an advocate may help to alleviate that and ensure that the patient is adequately supported on leaving the hospital. Is the Minister satisfied that people subject to CTOs will have adequate access to advocacy under the Bill? Is he satisfied that information on rights to mental health advocates will be clear enough? My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are concerned that the answer to those questions is no, which is why we tabled the amendment.

I rise to speak to clause 6 and Government amendment 30. Clause 6 will make important amendments to conditions for community treatment orders under the Mental Health Act. CTOs are a tool that allows certain detained patients to receive ongoing treatment in the community rather than in hospital, providing continuity of care and supporting recovery outside institutional settings. Since their introduction in 2007, they have offered a mechanism to maintain contact with mental health services and prevent relapse while balancing the patient’s right to live more freely. However, CTOs have not been without controversy. There is concern about their overuse and their disproportionate effect on black and ethnic minority patients. There are also a number of questions about the evidence for their effectiveness in reducing relapse or readmission. Moreover, concerns about coercion and the infringement of patient autonomy have been raised repeatedly. The 2018 independent review recommended tightening their use. Some also argue for going further by abolishing them completely. Clause 6 seeks to address many of those concerns. It will introduce stronger safeguards, clear risk-based criteria and a maximum 12-month duration to prevent indefinite or inappropriate use. It will mandate patient involvement through consultation and regular review, promoting shared decision making. Accountability is enhanced by aligning CTOs with a code of practice and introducing external oversight. Crucially, CTOs will now be used only when there is a clear and necessary risk, focusing on clinical need and safety. Challenges remain. The new requirements bring complex administration and an increasing workload for clinicians. Despite reforms, CTOs remain a form of compulsory treatment, raising concerns about ongoing coercion. Their success depends heavily on the availability of community services, which are not always adequately resourced. Finally, terms such as “serious harm” may be open to interpretation, risking inconsistency. To unpack all that, we must take a closer look. Clause 6 rightly seeks to update and clarify the legal framework governing CTOs to ensure that their use is proportionate, justified and consistent with evolving standards of care and risk management. It does so primarily by aligning the grounds for making and renewing a CTO with the new, more precise risk criteria for detention. It specifies that a CTO should be made only if there is real risk that “serious harm may be caused to the health or safety” of a patient or others without treatment, and if that treatment is necessary given “the nature, degree and likelihood of the harm”. Again, there is an argument about the definition of “serious harm”, and the same discussion as the one we had under clause 5 about escalation of behaviour or cumulative concerns applies here. In the light of that discussion, it might be helpful if the Minister clarified the interface between CTOs and grounds for detention. Is there scope for the code of conduct to cover the management of risk, both to the public and to patients themselves, across both? Given the emphasis placed on real risk of serious harm, clause 6 aligns CTOs more clearly with the threshold for detention, with the aim of reducing the inappropriate use or overuse of CTOs, which is much more welcome. It will help to safeguard and protect patients from unnecessary restrictions on their liberty, while maintaining the ability of a responsible clinician to act decisively when there is genuine risk.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that CTOs help to keep people out of hospital so that rather than having long-term admissions, they can live in the community and in their own house, and that clinicians can recall patients to hospital if they are not complying with the agreed treatment?

Spot on. The hon. Gentleman will have used them far more than I ever have, and that was exactly the point of them when they were brought in in 2008. The reason they have been so contentious is their misuse, misapplication and ongoing use. That is what we are trying to highlight. With clause 6 the Government are trying to streamline their use. That leads me neatly on to why the Lords introduced clause 6(3), which Government amendment 30 would remove. It is about how to ensure that there is adequate oversight so that people do not remain on CTOs in perpetuity or, more likely, have them applied inappropriately. Concerns have been raised about racial disparities in the use of CTOs—particularly for black men, but there is also work to be done on those from other communities who find themselves on CTOs. The hon. Gentleman is right: that is the ethos behind ensuring that we push people to community care. The problem is how to set that against the legislation on CTOs and how to provide the resources to enable an appropriate setting for that care.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is more an issue of practice than of the law itself?

Yes. As the Minister pointed out on the Committee’s first day, legislation sets the culture. One the main reasons for the Wessely report was the racial disparities that had been found. We still have to look into the cause and effect of that, but one of the big markers was that CTOs were increasing indefinitely and seemed to hit certain communities disproportionately, without there being a full understanding of why. That was why in the House of Lords some argued that we should get rid of CTOs completely. The Opposition do not agree with that; we agree that clause 6 is important and that CTOs serve a purpose, for the reason that the hon. Gentleman explains so eloquently. The emphasis is on getting people into community treatment where we think it will be better for them, but ensuring that CTOs are not an undue burden on clinicians or patients and are not used inappropriately. Clause 6(3), introduced in the Lords, sets out a maximum duration of 12 months for CTOs, after which an extension would require thorough review. That process would demand consultation with the patient, their nominated persons and relevant mental health professionals, and the written agreement of a qualified psychiatrist. That multi-layered review process is vital to ensure that any extension is based on clear therapeutic benefit and necessity rather than routine or bureaucratic inertia. Moreover, the requirement of regular reviews every six months to extend CTOs would further strengthen oversight and accountability. The involvement of tribunals, which may recommend variations or terminations, would add yet another layer of protection for patients’ rights, as the Government and Opposition both acknowledge. While the reforms are, on the whole, positive, we must remain vigilant. The consideration of risks must be applied carefully and consistently to avoid unintended consequences such as deterring clinicians from using CTOs when they are genuinely needed. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

13:00:00