Monday 31st March 2025
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberMental Health Act 2025 View all Mental Health Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 73-I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Mar 2025)
17:32 - Division on Amendment 7 - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 7 agreed.
18:07 - Division on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 11 agreed.
19:24 - Division on Amendment 34 (to Amendment 33) - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 34 (to Amendment 33) agreed.
19:36 - Division on Amendment 37 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 37 agreed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to noble Lords for their amendments and for the contributions they have made today. I express my thanks at the beginning of this first day of Report for the generosity of time and expertise of noble Lords from across the House—I have greatly appreciated it.
I turn now to the specifics. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, is aware, I agree with the principle behind Amendment 1, but there are limited circumstances where it might be appropriate to use the Mental Capacity Act to ensure that patients get the right support. I am glad that the noble Baroness welcomed my letter and that it was helpful. For people who have recently received treatment for a psychiatric disorder under the Mental Health Act, the Mental Capacity Act may be required to continue to support the individual in hospital in the short term while a community-based placement is being arranged.
Monitoring our reforms will indeed be crucial, as many noble Lords have said today. The NHS England assuring transformation dataset collects data on the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people detained in mental health in-patient settings under the Mental Capacity Act. As the noble Baroness herself referred to, the current number is fewer than five; nevertheless, it is, as she said, important.
I reiterate from this Dispatch Box the commitment that I made in the letter. Ahead of reforms to Part II, Section 3, we commit to monitoring the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people who are detained under the Mental Capacity Act, and will include a line on this in standard publications. Should we see an increase in this number following the reforms and discover that the Mental Capacity Act is being used inappropriately, we will ensure that appropriate action is taken.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her work on long-term segregation. Many noble Lords have raised facilities and community resourcing. I will address this, and the concerns about commitments in this Act being applied, when I turn to Amendments 4 to 6. On Amendments 3 and 55, there is a requirement in the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 to publish instances of isolation in mental health units. We have consulted on making this and other restrictive practices notifiable to the CQC within 72 hours for all patients in mental health hospitals, allowing the regulator to take prompt appropriate action.
Practical concerns were raised through the consultation that was held, which we are legally required to consider. I hope noble Lords will understand that because of this I am unable to commit to mandating reporting at this stage or to give a timeline, which I was asked for. However, noble Lords can be well assured that I more than understand the urgency. My officials have written to the CQC to commission it to develop a proportionate reporting mechanism, as has been referred to, and these changes can be made in regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked about restricted practice notification. Because this is to be made in regulations, clearly that will be, as usual, when parliamentary time allows. Every NHS-funded organisation is responsible for ensuring that safeguarding duties are applied. The code of practice requires the local safeguarding team to be made aware of any patient in long-term segregation.
On Amendment 56, the code of practice already sets out that a patient’s situation should be reviewed by a clinician at least once every 24 hours and at least weekly by the multidisciplinary team. The CQC has received funding to continue the programme of independent care or care (education) and treatment reviews for two years, and reviews recommenced in May 2024. We need to consider the programme’s impacts and the outcome of the spending review before future decisions are taken. Doing this outside legislation allows for flexibility. The independent care (education) and treatment reviews model has evolved as we have learned about what works best. We want to be able to continue to deliver the right approach. On Amendment 52, we will review the guidance in the code of practice on the use of long-term segregation, drawing on available evidence. This does not require primary legislation.
To my point on drawing on available evidence, we will indeed use the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, alongside other evidence, to consider changes that need to be made to the Mental Health Act code of practice, which we will review as part of the implementation of the Mental Health Act reforms after Royal Assent. We hope that this, alongside other actions that we are taking—including the continuation of ICETRs and NHS England’s quality transformation programme—will make progress to reduce long-term segregation.
There were points raised about Amendment 53, which we will return to in the debate on the fifth group. On Amendment 57, it is our belief that this duplicates existing requirements. The Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, once fully implemented, will require mental health units to have a responsible person who must keep a record of any use of force by staff.
I absolutely understand the concerns that many noble Lords have raised about community support. This has driven Amendments 4 to 6. I also recognise the need for accountability and scrutiny of these reforms—a point that has been made several times.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that I hope I am about to do better by him than, “It will be all right on the night”, but he will be able to judge that. I am pleased with what I can commit, which is that within a year of Royal Assent, and each year subsequently, we will lay a Written Ministerial Statement in both Houses. This will include setting out details of the work that has been done over the preceding 12 months to implement this legislation and plans for how we will implement future reforms. It will include progress on the learning disability and autism reforms and plans for community provision.
Regarding Amendment 68 and the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, we have heard concerns about possible unintended consequences, such as the potential criminalisation of individuals or detention via other legislative routes. To avoid such scenarios, we will commence changes to Section 3 only once there are strong community services in place and it is safe to do so, because flexibility is essential.
I hope that these commitments will satisfy noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
Will parliamentarians be able to question and amend the plan that will be laid before Parliament every year? The lack of ability to influence that process and that plan concerns noble Lords.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I have heard from noble Lords that they are concerned with having transparency, holding the Government to account and being updated on the situation. I absolutely agree with all those points, which is why I am pleased to make that commitment. Parliament has a number of routes available to it to hold the Government to account. I have just outlined the manner in which we will be transparent and the way the Government will be held to account by having to do that. As always, parliamentarians have the ability to scrutinise in many ways.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, we have heard a lot of very salient and not just helpful but wise words in the debate on this group of amendments. I thank the Minister for standing at the Dispatch Box and making commitments that are now on the record with this Bill. When people ask what Parliament’s intention was, she has left us in no doubt on some important points, particularly on my amendment concerning the need to monitor the use of the Mental Capacity Act in respect of autistic people and people with learning disabilities. I am grateful that she has done that and for a similar commitment I think I heard her make around some of the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, had.
Finally, the Minister has not given us exact dates as to when implementation will take place. We imagine it may be staged—not all in one go—but before the end of this year, the committee upstairs will report on the post-legislative scrutiny of the Autism Act. That will cover a wide range of issues, particularly services to people with autism. I hope that, perhaps in her deliberations on this Bill, when she sees that report—I cannot predict what the outcome of that will be—she will take those into account as well. For certain, services provided under the Autism Act, if they are provided in a timely way, will reduce the number of services that will be needed under the Mental Health Act. It is not rocket science; it is pretty basic that if you provide those services, that downward spiral in mental health is reduced. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this is Report and I do not propose to do more than underscore all that is been said by noble Lords who have spoken, particularly my noble friend Lady Berridge. Approved mental health professionals carry with them a huge responsibility for the well-being of those whose interests they are called upon to protect. When a child or young person suffers a mental health crisis, it is the job of the AMHP to make the right assessments, take the right decisions and follow the right procedures under the law to ensure that the young person is looked after appropriately and swiftly. To do that, he or she needs a clear set of ground rules to follow.
We need to imagine a situation, such as the one posited by my noble friend, in which a child’s mental and emotional condition is such that they lack decision-making competence. An AMHP is then called in. In that situation, when it comes to appointing a nominated person for the child, the scope for confusion and indeed delay is enormous. Who should be appointed? Is it the mother or the father, or is there someone else who should take precedence?
The Minister has acknowledged through the government amendments before us that, when there is a care order for the child, the AMHP should have no choice but to appoint the local authority as the nominated person for the child. That is a welcome step forward but, as my noble friend has rightly said, what if there is a special guardianship order or child arrangement order issued by the court under the terms of the Children Act? In those circumstances, too, the AMHP should be relieved of the obligation of making a decision that, if it is the wrong one, could leave them open to legal challenge. I very much hope the Minister will be receptive to the powerful arguments that my noble friend and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have advanced on these significant issues.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this important area, and I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for Amendment 2.
On that point, I can say that a copy of the report made following a care and treatment review must be sent to those who have a legal duty to have regard to the review recommendations, so that they are implemented appropriately. We agree that parents play an important role. However, it may not be appropriate for the report to be sent to parents in every case: for example, where safeguarding concerns have been raised. Inappropriate sharing of information could result in the patient withdrawing their consent to the review. So we will provide statutory guidance on the role of the parent to assist the responsible commissioner in considering who to involve in care and treatment reviews.
On Amendment 25, also tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the Bill already allows anyone involved in the patient’s care or welfare, which includes parents, to apply to the county court to terminate the appointment of a nominated person. I can assure the noble and learned Baroness that we will make this clear in the code of practice and the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, as she has raised an important point.
To address Amendment 27, we are concerned that making it a requirement for parents always to be consulted when a nominated person is chosen could put undue pressure on a child to choose a parent. However, we agree that the witness should consider the views of parents and others who may have insight into the suitability of a nomination. I can tell the House that we will therefore set out in the statutory code of practice how the views of the family and others should be fed into the witnessing process.
I have also heard the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about the nominated person regarding children who lack competence. In response to this, as she acknowledged, I have tabled Amendments 29 to 33 to make it clear who an approved mental health professional must appoint in certain circumstances. For an over-18 lacking capacity, an approved mental health professional must appoint a competent lasting power of attorney or Court of Protection deputy, if they have one. For all under-18s lacking capacity or competence, where there is a care order, they must appoint a local authority which has parental responsibility for them or, if relevant, a competent Court of Protection deputy. Where there is no care order, the approved mental health professional can appoint a person who does not have parental responsibility for 16 and 17 year-olds. This allows for suitable alternative arrangements, for example, informal kinship arrangements for young people who live independently. I hope that this reassurance and commitment on my behalf provides the further clarity for which the noble Baroness has been advocating.
Finally, in response to Amendment 34, we agree that in the vast majority of cases we would expect a parent, or whoever has parental responsibility, to be appointed. This would include consideration of special guardians and child arrangement orders. As I have set out before, we do not agree that a person with residual parental responsibility should always be blocked from being a nominated person. A child arrangement order or special guardianship may be in place for reasons other than the parent being a risk to the child. For example, the parent might struggle with their own health issues but could still be an effective nominated person.
The situation is different in the case of a care order because the local authority is being given lead parental responsibility. We have engaged with the Children’s Commissioner on this point. As I believe the noble Baroness may be aware, I recently met the Children’s Commissioner on a range of issues, including discussions about the Mental Health Act.
If there are no relevant people, approved mental health professionals must follow the patient’s past and present wishes and feelings when deciding who to appoint. We do not believe that the eldest person should be given preference, as this represents an outdated assignment of responsibility. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that I have been advised that my officials met the chair—but I understand that the term is lead—of the AMHP Leads Network last November.
I can make a further commitment, which I hope will be helpful to your Lordships’ House. I am committing to establishing an expert taskforce to support the development of the statutory code of practice to provide clear guidance for professionals involved in the nominated person appointment process for children and young people. Views will be very much welcomed on who should be part of this; I have already invited the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to make suggestions about that. With these reasons, I hope that noble Lords can support our amendments and will not press their amendments.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, the information I have is that Dominic Marley of the AMHP Leads Network had not seen a draft of the Bill that was to go before Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that? The Minister has outlined that there can be an assessment of ill-health already before the courts. Is she confident in legislating when a group of professionals are saying that they are not competent to assess the illness or otherwise of that parent and that the matter, already determined by a court, needs to go back to a court to be re-evaluated? They say that they are not competent to do what you are asking of them.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I note what the noble Baroness has said. We have discussed these issues a number of times in the Chamber and outside. On her second point, the situation is as I have outlined, and I do not feel I should go further today. These are the points I wish to bring before your Lordships’ House. I am happy to take up the points she raised separately. However, on her point about the exact details of the meeting, to be quite honest I cannot give that level of detail. I am very happy to find out more from my officials. The noble Baroness originally asked whether there had been a meeting, and the answer is yes.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will know that I pledged at the very beginning, before the Bill came to this House, that I would do all I could to help its passage. I made that pledge to the Secretary of State. Given the continued conflict, as we see it, with the Children Act, would the Minister be prepared between now and Third Reading—rather than us dividing the House on this later—to have a little more discussion on this issue? We discussed it at great length during our inquiry into the draft Mental Health Bill. To us, it is a significant point that does not appear to have been properly resolved. In wanting to support the Government in making sure, as my noble friend has said, that they are not opening themselves to legal challenge, and to ensure a safe passage of the Bill, can I put that possibility to the Minister?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, not least because she has also given me a bit of time to add to my earlier answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about the meeting with the lead of the AMHP Leads Network last November. That meeting took place after the Bill was published.
On the point the noble Baroness raised, whether the House will be divided will be a matter for the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and others to decide, but I am always happy to have discussions. If the noble Baroness wishes to do that, I will be very pleased to, as always.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I do not think I need to say anything else. I am relieved to hear from the Minister that it will be expressly in the code of practice. I am also grateful for the idea that I can put forward some suggestions, which would be very helpful. I do not propose to take any further steps on my three amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, I find myself in exactly the same place. We all know why the police have said that they are not the appropriate people to be first responders when somebody is having a mental health crisis and presenting a danger either to other people or to themselves. We also know that not putting anything in place, or not putting the right people in place, means that somebody having a crisis will not necessarily be seen by an appropriate person.
A number of us have looked at this and talked to people in the field, and we think that what will happen is that there will be a response from somebody on the front line in the National Health Service, either in an A&E department—because that is where a lot of people will go—or, more likely, from an ambulance. That will put the ambulance service under even greater strain and pressure than it is under now.
It is the hope of those of us who have been involved in the discussions so far—and the intent, I think, of the noble Baroness, Lady May, who is the prime mover behind this—that we do not do that. We should not wait until there is a terrible incident in which somebody is badly harmed; we must try to foresee that situation.
I suspect that, around the country, since the police have taken the decision that they have, front-line health services have had to come up with new ways of responding. The issue has not gone away; people are still going to have mental health crises in which they are a danger to themselves or seem to present a danger to others.
I propose that we follow the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that there be further discussion on this—preferably with people from mental health organisations and from different parts of the NHS, as well as the police force—to see whether we can come up with something that will plug a very obvious gap.
As I have said before during the passage of this Bill, this is the last chance for the next 10 to 15 years to pass legislation on this subject. We need to behave diligently, take appropriate action now and not wait to rue the day in the future.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling these amendments. They seek to amend Section 2 of the Mental Health Act, which relates to admission for assessment, and Section 3, which relates to admission for treatment, as well as Section 5(4), which relates to detention for six hours pending application admission.
I emphasise that the police do not currently have the ability to detain under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Act. These amendments, as the noble Lord has referred to and as we discussed earlier, would give police additional powers, where they currently do not have powers to intervene. The noble Lord will be aware, and he mentioned the fact, that we do not support extending police powers in this way, and we understand that the police do not support an extension either.
I am very happy to continue discussion with the office of the noble Baroness, Lady May, as I have done previously. I know that my noble friend Lord Davies would also welcome a discussion, which I am very happy to commit to.
The noble Lord asked for amendments on Third Reading, but such amendments are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that amendments are therefore restricted to technical points. For all those reasons, I cannot give the agreement that he sought on an amendment at Third Reading, as it is not within scope to do so.
With regards to the ambition to reduce police attendance at mental health incidents, we recognise the pressures that police are facing, which noble Lords have highlighted, and agree that, in many cases, it is far preferable for those in mental health crisis to be responded to by health and care professionals. However, action is already under way to address this. Almost all police forces in England and Wales are implementing the “right care, right person” approach—a police-led initiative to reduce inappropriate police involvement in cases where people have health or social care needs. There has already been a 10% decrease in Section 136 detentions last year. We are taking steps to improve mental health services to avoid people reaching a crisis where police involvement may be required in the first place, which is a far more preferable position to be in. That includes through the Government’s commitment of £26 million of capital investment to open new mental health crisis centres, which are far more suitable environments for those in mental health crisis to receive care and treatment.
Therefore, extending these legal powers currently held by the police to other professionals would represent a major shift in roles and responsibilities for health and care professionals. It would place significant additional pressures on the NHS and potentially lead to staff, patient and public safety issues which mental health and urgent and emergency care leads have already raised significant concerns about. It is for all these reasons that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, just before my noble friend sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has to reach his crucial decision on this amendment, perhaps I may clarify something. As I understood it, my noble friend the Minister said she was more than happy to respond to the invitation or proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and various other colleagues to discuss the issue further, but she obviously could not commit herself in advance to bringing forward an amendment. Is that the position?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, was very specific about bringing an amendment forward at Third Reading, and it was to that that I explained it was not possible to commit. I thank my noble friend for allowing me to reiterate that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the points that were raised, and I listened carefully to what she said. I had hoped that she would be open to resolving this issue, as I know she is with my noble friend Lady May. However, once again, there is a difference of opinion. As I understand it, amendments brought forward at Third Reading do not have to be only technical amendments and I had hoped that the Minister would give an undertaking to bring back an amendment at that stage. Given that we have a disagreement of interpretation on two issues, I am afraid I think it best to test the opinion—
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It might be helpful for your Lordships’ House to know that to fulfil what the noble Lord says, there would be a need for collective agreement to offer a commitment to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, which I do not have. I emphasise the point made by my noble friend on this.
Lord Kamall (Con)
That is entirely understandable. I know the Minister always means well in our discussions and always tries to find a solution, but, given that, it may be helpful to finding a solution if I test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for tabling and speaking to Amendment 11, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. At the outset, I can say that it is already the case that community treatment orders can be renewed only under specific conditions, which aligns with the intent and direct requests of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
Alignment with the code and the four principles is already achieved by new Section 118(2D) of the Mental Health Act, which requires clinicians, before placing someone on a community treatment order, to have regard to the statement of principles in the code. Clause 6 ensures that a patient can be put on a community treatment order only if there is a risk of serious harm without it and a reasonable prospect of it having therapeutic benefit for the patient.
I assure your Lordships’ House that a responsible clinician cannot extend a community treatment order beyond six months, unless the conditions, including therapeutic benefit, continue to be met. A community treatment order can be extended for a further six months and then a subsequent 12 months, but only if these conditions continue to be met.
The current code of practice states that, before renewal, the responsible clinician should consult with the multidisciplinary team, the patient, the nearest relative—which in future will be the nominated person—and an advocate. I put it to the House that we are going further than the request from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, by introducing a new requirement for the patient’s community clinician—who must be an approved clinician, overseeing the patient’s care as a community patient—to be consulted before a community treatment order is renewed beyond six months.
I have heard the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that the Bill requires just the second-opinion appointed doctor to be consulted, whereas the amendment requires the extension to be agreed with them. In response to that, I assure the noble Lord that, in addition, the community clinician must provide a statement that it appears to them that the community treatment order criteria continue to be satisfied.
We are increasing the frequency of automatic referrals to the tribunal to ensure that patients can come off community treatment orders when they are no longer benefiting them. The tribunal will have a power to recommend that the responsible clinician reconsiders whether a CTO condition is necessary. To elaborate further in view of the points raised, this means that, following an initial tribunal referral at six months, another referral is required after a further six months, followed by a mandatory referral 12 months after that, if the patient has not made an appeal themselves. The tribunal will have to agree the CTO criteria, including the requirement that a therapeutic benefit continues to be met. We are therefore already meeting the requests that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has rightly made and, in some places, going further than we have been asked to do.
I turn to Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. As I said on the similar amendment tabled by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench in Committee, CTOs remain a valuable intervention, albeit they need reform—as I more than acknowledge and accept. We will review these changes as part of our ongoing monitoring of the implementation and impact of the reforms. A review after two years would be premature, as it would be based on data from before any reforms were commenced. I say to the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House that we will instead commit to review the impact our reforms have as part of our wider monitoring and evaluation of the Bill as it is implemented.
Amendment 62 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We are, as the noble Lord acknowledged, committed to addressing racial disparities under the Act—something I know the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was concerned about. I was very pleased to host a session a couple of weeks ago with leading academics, a number of officials from the department and Members of this House. We discussed in detail what is known and what further evidence is required. I give the assurance that work—as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has kindly acknowledged—is already under way, and we will continue to explore this issue. I am therefore happy to commit to undertake further investigation into racial inequalities under the Act.
The scope is to be developed further, but may involve synthesising findings of existing research, conducting a review of recent literature, and exploration of potential evidence gaps that require future research with experts and academics. Further research will receive sufficiently high-quality research applications and will be subject to the outcome of the spending review. I hope noble Lords will understand that we therefore prefer not to commit to a timescale in primary legislation but to allow time to develop and deliver research to ensure the best-quality evidence in this extremely important area. I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the Minister for that helpful explanation and description of community treatment orders. Despite all the words, whenever independent research is done, whether by the CQC, the Joint Committee or mental health organisations, the same answer keeps coming back. Something is fundamentally flawed, maybe not with the policy but with the implementation of CTOs. I note the Minister quoted the rule in the code of practice but, as we know, the code of practice does not necessarily have the legal status of something in the Bill. Therefore, for that reason and because there is an issue with community treatment orders, I believe that putting this in the Bill will not just change the practice but get the correct safeguards for people who are put on them. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, at this stage I do not wish to detain the House for very long. I will simply reflect on the fact that, when we debate mental health legislation, we are always trying to do three things: one is to update current thinking in legislative circles on what patients want and need; the second is to try to gently confront the sometimes conservative disposition of practitioners, by pushing for progress; and the third is that we try to avoid the situation where the biggest imperative for legal change is scandal and crisis when something goes wrong.
The amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, along with others proposed by noble Lords in this group, do that. They have reflected on what has been seen over the last 10 to 15 years in the patient experience and the most progressive aspects of professional development, in particular the growing acceptance that patients can have informed insight into their condition, even if they are at times very ill.
That is why a number of practitioners—admittedly in the face of some professional resistance in other quarters—have gone down the route of advance choice documents. The key thing I will say to the Minister is this: it is always difficult in mental health practice to come across evidence which is up to the same standards that we have in physical health—namely, randomised controlled trials. However, there have been randomised controlled trials of advance choice documents in a number of different places around the world, and in the United Kingdom. They may not always have been called advance choice documents—they may have had other names—but the findings from those trials say that these are cost-effective interventions.
However, we know that there will not be widespread uptake, that attention will not be paid to what people have put in those documents, and that they will not become standard practice unless they are in law. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, was right to come back to try to put this in the Bill.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will take each amendment in turn.
The points on trauma were made extremely well and sensitively. Amendments 12 and 13 recognise the impact that childhood trauma can have on psychological well-being. This is indeed so. However, it does not apply to all patients, and that is why we do not wish to restrict decision-making by giving particular reference to this in legislation. I can point to Clause 8, which already requires decision-makers to consider the nature and degree of the disorder and all other circumstances, which could include childhood trauma. The definition of medical treatment under the Act is broad, as noble Lords have seen. Therefore, we expect it to cover interventions aimed at minimising distress and promoting psychological well-being. Additionally, NHS England’s care standards require that in-patient care be trauma informed.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“(2) The treatment may be given to a patient who has capacity to consent to the treatment only if—(a) the patient has consented to it, or(b) the patient has not consented but a certificate has been given by a second opinion appointed doctor under subsection (4).(3) The treatment may be given to a patient who lacks capacity to consent to the treatment only if—(a) the giving of the treatment would not conflict with any of the following—(i) a valid and applicable advance decision, or(ii) a decision of a donee or deputy or the Court of Protection, or (b) the giving of the treatment would conflict with such a decision but a certificate has been given by a second opinion appointed doctor under subsection (5).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the requirement for a certificate by a second opinion appointed doctor does not apply to urgent electro-convulsive therapy if: (1) the patient consents, or (2) the patient lacks capacity but the treatment does not conflict with an advance decision etc.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I will move Amendment 16 and speak to all the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I speak first to Amendments 17, 18, 19, 21, 36, 39, 45, 64, 65, 66 and 67, which follow recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in Committee.
Amendments 17, 18, 19, 21, 36, 39 and 45 remove the Henry VIII power from the Bill that allowed the Government to set out in regulations the exceptional circumstances where a second opinion appointed doctor’s certificate is not necessary to administer urgent and compulsory electroconvulsive therapy, and instead sets out these limited circumstances in the Bill. These situations arise when the regulator determines that there are exceptional circumstances delaying the appointment of a second opinion doctor and the treating clinician deems urgent electroconvulsive therapy necessary to save the patient’s life. In recognition of the seriousness of the situation, the new process will also ensure that these exceptional cases are monitored and reported on by the regulator.
Amendments 64, 65, 66 and 67 ensure that, where regulations are made under the power to make consequential provision to amend or repeal primary legislation set out in Clause 52, they will be subject to the affirmative scrutiny procedure. Amendment 65 extends this to Clause 53, which confers equivalent power on Welsh Ministers in areas of devolved competence.
I turn back to Amendment 16, which addresses concerns from stakeholders that the Bill was not explicit on whether urgent electroconvulsive therapy is permitted when the person is consenting or lacks capacity but treatment is not in conflict with a decision to refuse it—as is currently the case under the Act. This amendment makes clear that treatment in these scenarios is still permitted, addressing any possible risk of misinter-pretation.
On Amendments 20 and 22, the Bill as introduced expressly permits remote assessment by the second opinion doctor’s service only for urgent compulsory electroconvulsive therapy. These amendments clarify that remote interview and examination are permitted for all second opinions provided by people appointed by the regulator. Remote interview and examination may be used only when deemed appropriate. If not, these functions must be conducted in person. Specific guidance will be provided in the code of practice.
Turning to Amendment 26, approved mental health professionals have raised concerns that the requirement for the nominated person to sign an appointment instrument in the presence of a health or care professional “witness” could result in delays to having a nominated person in place, which could undermine the safeguard and place geographical restrictions on who could take the role. This could mean, for example, that patients who are placed in out-of-area hospitals have greater delays in appointing a nominated person.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for these government amendments, which, as the noble Baroness made clear, cover two principal policy issues. Accordingly, I have two sets of queries.
On the changes for the rules for authorising electroconvulsive therapy, I am sure it is not the Government’s intention in any way to water down the safeguards surrounding the administering of ECT. However, in relation to Amendments 16 and 17, taken together, can the Minister reassure me? The Bill, as modified by the proposed amendments, will posit that there could be circumstances in which a patient who has the capacity to consent to ECT but who has not consented to it could nevertheless find their refusal to treatment overridden by the decision of a single treating clinician. Even in a situation where the judgment of the clinician was that ECT was necessary to save the patient’s life, it seems to me a significant change from the current rule whereby the decision of a second opinion appointed doctor is required in all cases where it is proposed to administer ECT to a non-consenting patient who has the capacity to consent.
Amendment 17 makes it clear that the regulatory authority—the CQC, in other words—may give permission for ECT to be administered only on the say-so of a single doctor where a SOAD is not available and “exceptional circumstances” apply. I will not ask the Minister to define what “exceptional circumstances” might consist of, but it is to be assumed that a primary example of such circumstances might be when time was of the essence and no SOAD could be located soon enough to avoid exacerbating the risk of harm or death.
So my questions are, firstly, has this proposed change been prompted by a general awareness across the mental health sector that the availability of SOADs can frequently prove a problem in circumstances where urgent decisions are needed? In other words, to put it bluntly, are we being asked to change the law because of habitual shortcomings in NHS communication arrangements? I would be concerned if that were the case.
Secondly, what guidance, if any, will the CQC formulate for itself to ensure that, when its decision is sought to temporarily waive the requirement for a SOAD, it will not do so just on the basis of a SOAD being unavailable? Will it also commit itself to a standard procedure whereby it will seek at least some background detail from the treating clinician of the case before him or her, such as the reasons why they consider that administering ECT to that particular patient carries particular urgency? In other words, can we be reassured that the treating clinician’s opinion will be subject to at least a modicum of testing and cross-questioning before the CQC issues the go-ahead for ECT to be administered? I hope so, because anything short of that could turn into a tick-box exercise.
The other government amendment on which I would appreciate further clarity is Amendment 26, which
“changes the process for appointing a nominated person”.
One of the changes proposed is that the various statements and signatures required for appointing the nominated person no longer have to be contained in the same instrument. The other is that the nominated person’s signature no longer has to be witnessed. I was grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but it implies that the written instrument that appoints the nominated person and is signed by the patient in the presence of a witness can be executed without the nominated person themselves being in the room, or indeed anywhere near. At the moment, the Bill says:
“The instrument appointing the nominated person must … contain a statement, signed by the nominated person in the presence of”
the same person who witnesses the signature of the patient.
I previously assumed that the reason for that provision was the responsibility that the Bill places on the witness—quite a serious responsibility—to ensure, as far as possible, that the nominated person, whoever they are, is a fit and proper person to act in that capacity. It would appear now, with this amendment, that there is no need for the witness even to clap eyes on the individual who is nominated. How can that be right? Without at least meeting the nominated person, how can any self-respecting witness certify, hand on heart, that, in the words of the Bill, they have
“no reason to think that the nominated person lacks capacity or competence to act as a nominated person,”
or that they have
“no reason to think that the nominated person is unsuitable to act as a nominated person”.
Are they simply meant to take the patient’s word for it?
This alteration in the wording raises all sorts of question marks in my mind, given the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee about misplaced loyalty towards a particular individual, a naivety on the part of a child or young person, or even some degree of psychological manipulation of a young person—for example, someone who makes it their business to set a child against their own parents.
In Committee, the Minister herself emphasised the need for the law to prevent exploitation and manipulation. While I did not at the time think that her response was completely reassuring, I saw it at least as an acknowledgement that the role of the witness could not be fulfilled properly without some sort of contact with the nominated person. Was I right or wrong on that? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how my misgivings in this area, about the way in which the nominated person procedure comes to be implemented in practice, might be allayed.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his comments and express my thanks also for the many contributions made by noble Lords around the House.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked some searching questions. I think the main thrust of his comments was to look for reassurance that due diligence will be gone into in all of the areas that he raises. I am not sure that I can answer every line in detail, but I want to reassure him in particular about the nominated person question, which I know has caused him enormous concern.
In addition to what I have said, I emphasise that there is no intention at all to water down the safeguard, and that Amendment 26 will make sure that patients get access to a nominated person quicker, along with all the rights and powers that entails, meaning that safeguards provided by the role will not be delayed. That is the crucial point that we have to factor in as to why these amendments are deemed necessary. As he quite rightly says, this is particularly important for patients and those who may be subject to out-of-area placements.
The change that we are bringing in is that the nominated person’s signature does not need to be witnessed in person. None of the safeguarding checks is changed in any way by this. In answer to the noble Lord’s concern, we would expect that, in the majority of cases, the witness will still meet the nominated person face to face. In exceptional circumstances, where this is not possible, we believe that it is better to be able to appoint a nominated person, subject to all the appropriate safeguarding checks, than to have to wait until a person can have their signature witnessed.
A second opinion doctor is not currently required for urgent and compulsory electroconvulsive therapy; this is new under the Bill. I need to emphasise this point. What the amendment does is sets out the exceptional circumstances where a second opinion appointed doctor—sorry, it is a bit of a mouthful—is not required. I hope that gives some clarification.
We have to make sure that these are all taken in the round. I reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and noble Lords across the Chamber, that many of these are regarded to be due to exceptional circumstances, where time is of the essence.
As to whether some of these provisions are based on failure, it is from learned experience and bringing together everyone who has a view to make sure that everything we bring forward is in the best interests of the patient. That is the crucial thing. This is where the detailed work will be done under the code of practice, bringing together all the different parties in a measured way. It will take a few months to do this. That is critical, so that we can all be reassured that the processes are brought into play.
I can understand the concern about making sure that communication is there in situations of stress, but I believe that these amendments are designed to address this issue, with, as I have said, the patient’s interest absolutely in the forefront. There will be opportunities as the code of practice is put together for us to make sure that our endeavours are followed, bringing the best opinion together with the best interest of the patients.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“62ZAA Life-saving section 62ZA treatment: modified procedure in exceptional circumstances(1) Where—(a) a request is made to the regulatory authority under section 56B for the appointment of a second opinion doctor to perform the function of giving a certificate under section 62ZA in relation to any treatment, and(b) the regulatory authority determines that there are exceptional circumstances which mean that there will be a delay in appointing a second opinion doctor,a function of a second opinion appointed doctor under section 62ZA in relation to the giving of a certificate containing a statement under subsection (4)(c)(i) or (5)(c)(i) of that section may be performed, instead, by the approved clinician in charge of that treatment.(2) But no treatment may be given in reliance on a certificate given by the approved clinician by virtue of subsection (1) once the second opinion doctor has been appointed under section 56B.(3) Each time a patient is given treatment in reliance on a certificate given by the approved clinician by virtue of subsection (1), the managers of the hospital or registered establishment in which the treatment is given must notify the regulatory authority of that treatment as soon as reasonably practicable.(4) The regulatory authority’s annual report under section 120D must include—(a) a statement of how many times the regulatory authority has made a determination under subsection (1)(b) in the period to which the report relates and a summary of the reasons why any determinations have been made, and(b) a statement of how many times during that period treatment has been given in reliance on a certificate issued by virtue of subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
Where exceptional circumstances mean that a second opinion appointed doctor is not available to authorise life-saving electro-convulsive therapy, this amendment would allow the approved clinician to do so. The amendment replaces the regulation-making power currently in new section 62ZB(1).
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“Remote assessment for treatment(1) Section 119 (practitioners approved for Part 4 and section 118) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2)(a), for the first “and” substitute “or”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) A person authorised by subsection (2) to carry out an interview or examination may, to the extent that they consider appropriate, carry it out—(a) by live audio link, or(b) by live video link.”(4) In subsection (3), before the definition of “regulated establishment” insert—““live audio link” , in relation to the carrying out of an interview or examination, means a live telephone link or other arrangement which enables the patient and the person carrying out the interview or examination to hear one another;“live video link” , in relation to the carrying out of an interview or examination, means a live television link or other arrangement which enables the patient and the person carrying out the interview or examination to see and hear one another;”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would enable remote assessments to be carried out by certain people for the purpose of non-urgent electro-convulsive therapy and certain other treatments. It also replaces clause 18(7) which makes equivalent provision for urgent treatment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Berridge, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whose last suggestion I hope will be listened to by the Minister.
I must commend my noble friend for her tenacity with this issue. As she has outlined, there is a significant concern that the use of the county courts to decide on matters pertaining to the termination of nominated persons is not the most appropriate process. I do hope that the Minister will give my noble friend words to her comfort.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her Amendments 24, 28 and 35. They would mean that the mental health tribunal, rather than the county court, handled the termination of appointment of the nominated person. The county court already has a role in displacing the nearest relative. It has the expertise, procedural tools and legal framework to handle sensitive disputes involving external parties, such as conflicts of interest or allegations of abuse. The First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) in England and the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales are focused on reviewing detention under the Mental Health Act. This would add an additional burden on the tribunal, risking undermining its core function and delaying detention reviews.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised the issue of legal aid. County court mental health cases are largely limited to applications for the displacement of a nearest relative. Legal aid is currently available to a person seeking the displacement of the nearest relative, except where the person bringing that application is doing so in a professional capacity and to the nearest relative themselves. That would also apply for the nominated person, which will replace the nearest relative.
Legal representation is available where the applicant meets the means test, unless they are under 18, and the relevant merits criteria. If there are any further points of clarification, I will be pleased to make them to any noble Lords who have raised points today, including the noble Baroness.
As we do not feel that the mental health tribunal is the right place for what I was referring to before I went on to legal aid, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Does the Minister know which judge deals with these issues in the county court? The point that I made as a possibility was that it should be one of the family judges. She will know that circuit judges do both family and civil, but generally there is a designated family judge and a designated civil judge. I am just hoping something can be said so that it gets at least to a judge like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who would understand what was going on.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, does indeed know what is going on—I agree. I cannot answer the noble and learned Baroness’s question directly, but I would be pleased to look into that point in order to do so. Maybe the noble Lord could help me.
Lord Meston (CB)
Perhaps I can relieve the Minister. I can tell her who has to deal with it: it is whoever is available at the time, and these applications tend to come in really quite urgently.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, the reassurance she has given and the details she will provide me with, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
(c) the nominated person has signed a statement that they—(i) meet the age requirement (see paragraph 2(2)), and(ii) agree to act as the nominated person, and(d) the witness has signed a statement that—(i) the instrument appointing the nominated person was signed by the patient in the presence of the witness,(ii) the witness has no reason to think that the patient lacks capacity or competence to make the appointment,(iii) the witness has no reason to think that the nominated person lacks capacity or competence to act as a nominated person,(iv) the witness has no reason to think that any fraud or undue pressure has been used to induce the patient to make the appointment, and(v) the witness has no reason to think that the nominated person is unsuitable to act as a nominated person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This changes the process for appointing a nominated person. It removes the requirement for the nominated person’s signature to be witnessed and the various statements and signatures no longer have to be contained in the same instrument.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This and my amendments to paragraph 10 of new Schedule 1A ensure that where a nominated person is appointed for a patient who is aged 16 or 17 and for whom a local authority has parental responsibility, the local authority is appointed as the nominated person.
Baroness Merron
“10A “(1) This paragraph applies where an approved mental health professional is deciding who to appoint as a nominated person for a relevant patient who is aged under 16.(2) If a local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient, the approved mental health professional must appoint that local authority.(3) If no local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient but there are one or more other persons who have parental responsibility and who are willing to act as the nominated person, the approved mental health professional must appoint one of them.(4) In any case in which sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not identify who is to be appointed, the approved mental health professional must, in deciding who to appoint, take into account the relevant patient’s past and present wishes and feelings so far as reasonably ascertainable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This largely replicates the effect of existing paragraph 10 of new Schedule 1A but ensures that where a nominated person is appointed for a patient who is aged under 16 and for whom a local authority has parental responsibility, the local authority is appointed as the nominated person.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to leave out clause 50.