Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments 2 to 21, including Amendments 19A and 19D. It is a pleasure to return this Bill to this House; I very much appreciate the support and engagement of noble Lords throughout its passage.

Let me turn first to the government amendments in the other place, other than the minor and technical amendments, which are there for clarification. We have clarified the duties on NHS bodies to make arrangements regarding advance choice documents, otherwise known as ACDs. NHS bodies must actively inform individuals about ACDs, rather than taking a minimal approach. The Bill requires that information and help are provided to people who wish to make an ACD through discussion with a suitably qualified person. NHS bodies should consider the advantages of making an ACD within 12 months after discharge and aim to provide support. Additional guidance on these duties will be in the revised code.

I thank my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for raising concerns about the unequal application of the Human Rights Act. The Government have now made it so that registered private providers delivering Section 117 aftercare or in-patient mental health services, funded by local authorities or the NHS, are treated as carrying out public functions under the Human Rights Act and act compatibly with the convention rights. This amendment will apply UK-wide.

I turn to the amendments made by this House on police powers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady May, for her constructive engagement and for establishing the review of the Mental Health Act when she was Prime Minister, which has brought us to this place today. We have removed the amendments made to Clause 5 that would have added police and other authorised professionals to Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act. Extending police and other authorised professionals to these sections would be inappropriate—a view that is shared by the police.

We have removed Clause 50 from the Bill, which would have extended emergency police powers under Sections 135 and 136 of the Act to other authorised persons. Health and care professionals lack the training, equipment and access to rapid back-up needed to use such powers safely, and stakeholders are concerned about staff having the authority to use reasonable force. A blanket extension of powers to multiple agencies would risk confusion and delay in emergencies due to a lack of clarity over who should respond.

There are strong views on either side of this issue, and there are situations where health professionals feel that they do not have the powers they need. That is why I am announcing longer-term plans to launch a consultation into emergency police powers of detention. We will consult on the powers available to different professionals in different situations and settings, in particular—but not limited to—the operation of the emergency powers in Sections 135 and 136. The consultation will seek views on powers and joint working approaches to ensure that health and social care professionals and police have the appropriate powers to act in order to prevent people harming themselves and others when in a mental health crisis. We firmly believe that this is the right approach to a complex issue that requires careful consideration and consultation.

I turn to community treatment orders. Clause 6(3) has been removed from the Bill, as CTOs already comply with the code and have an initial six-month period. The responsible clinician may renew a CTO if there is a risk of serious harm without it and a reasonable prospect of therapeutic benefit. Following positive engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I can confirm that the Government will review the statutory forms that relate to CTOs, with the aim of strengthening them to ensure a clear audit trail of the reasons for applying a CTO and associated conditions.

Regulations will require that statutory care and treatment plans specify any CTO conditions and their justifications, which will also be clarified in the code. We will work with the Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure that the patient’s plan is considered alongside other evidence at tribunal hearings. We will clarify in the code that, where a tribunal recommends that the responsible clinician reconsider CTO conditions as it does not consider them necessary, the responsible clinician should review and, potentially, revise those conditions. The code will set out that the responsible clinician should inform the patient of their decision after considering the tribunal’s recommendation, which should be recorded in writing. We will engage on the code before publication and involve the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in the process. As the tribunal is responsible for considering all relevant evidence, this may include recent recommendations made at past tribunal hearings regarding the conditions placed on the person, including the detail and rationale of any current conditions.

I can confirm that since September 2025 we have increased the quantity and frequency of reporting on racial disparities in key metrics, such as detention CTOs and length of stay by ethnicity. Much of this data was previously published annually but it is now published monthly, allowing for closer monitoring of progress. The data is publicly available on the Mental Health Act annual dashboard and, along with implementation of the patient and carer race equality framework, will be used by the Care Quality Commission as part of its inspection regime.

On the debriefing amendment, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for their constructive engagement. We have removed Clause 35, which required independent mental health advocates to consult people about their in-patient experience after discharge. This removes policy duplication and additional strain on advocacy services, whose focus is on supporting detained patients’ rights. The code will clarify the processes of care planning. Supporting someone to make an advance choice document should include the opportunity to reflect on past experiences. The 10-year health plan commits to making patient feedback central to quality improvement.

The Government have tabled amendments in lieu regarding the appointment of a nominated person for a child under 16 who lacks competence, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her continued work on this. The Bill now states that an approved mental health professional, or AMHP, must appoint either

“a person who has parental responsibility … a person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the relevant patient is to live”

or

“a person who is a special guardian”.

If there is no suitable person willing to act, the AMHP must consider the child’s wishes and feelings when deciding who to appoint.

On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, to the Government’s Motion, I understand the intention to prevent a parent who has had parental responsibility limited from being appointed as a nominated person by an AMHP where a child lacks competence to make the appointment. The amendment tabled would mean that a special guardian or person named under a child arrangements order as someone with whom the child must live must be appointed. It is not appropriate for legislation to say that a particular individual must always be appointed nominated person. If they are not able, or even willing, to perform the role effectively, requiring them to take this role and ruling out other options risks harming the child’s interests.

As we know, legislation can be a blunt tool. It is far more appropriate to set out nuances such as this in the statutory code to ensure that the child’s individual needs are considered. That is why we previously agreed to set up an expert task force to consider these very complexities. Part of this role includes ensuring that clear guidance is given to AMHPs on who to appoint in a range of scenarios to avoid unintended consequences. At this late stage, in order to get this right, we should not be hurriedly working through these complexities as part of the legislation. We should develop detailed guidance, in consultation with professionals and patients, through drafting the code of practice. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.

In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords will support our position and pass the legislation without amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 19D in my name. I thank the Minister and her officials for the frequency of their engagement on the Bill. I put on record my apology for not spotting possible issues with the Government’s Motion, to which I have tabled the amendment, much earlier. I thank the Minister and her officials for meeting with the approved mental health professionals, the professional group dealing—often late at night or at a weekend—with our sickest children, who do not have the competency to appoint a nominated person for themselves.

I specifically recognise the inconvenience to the Bill team, but this matter relates to the protection of mentally ill children and has been flagged at every stage since the Wessely review in 2018, when a consultation was suggested. In recent meetings with the Minister, I understood that what was to be achieved was that the appointment of nominated persons would reflect existing court orders made by the family court on child protection grounds. The mischief that the approved mental health professionals want to solve is that they do not want to have any discretion to appoint as a nominated person anybody not in accordance with an existing court order. They want to see this achieved through the mandatory appointment of the special guardian in priority to anybody else, the rationale being that special guardianship is usually used to avoid care orders, adoption or long-term fostering.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Berridge]

In Amendment 19B in lieu, as closing words after subsection (3)(c), insert—

19E: “but where the patient is the subject of a child arrangements order or a special guardianship order, the nominated person must always be the person named in that order as the special guardian or the person who that child lives with.”

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clear intention to continue the dialogue on this, but I believe that we all would be assisted by officials from the Department for Education who hold responsibility for the Children Act and the various experts in the UK on this very difficult area of the interconnection of the Mental Health Act and the Children Act. I have to say at this point that I believe that there still is a fundamental misunderstanding of the authority of a court order to allow a professional to go behind it and appoint someone to this role who could directly conflict with a special guardianship order.

I want to make it totally clear that His Majesty’s Government are giving discretion to a group of professionals who have clearly said that they do not want this, do not have the competency to do it and would need 24/7 legal advice to attempt it. Unfortunately, because of the lack of consultation on this area, at this late stage we are at a very difficult moment for those professionals, who do not want to do the job that the Minister is giving them. In the light of her promises to meet further on this, I will not move my amendment to the Motion.

Amendment to the Motion on Amendments 18 and 19 not moved.