Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

The code of practice will be statutory. It is better to have these provisions in the code, because clinical practice evolves, and it is much easier to revise a code of practice than to go through primary legislation.

We understand the concerns expressed about young carers in new clauses 26 and 27, and recognise that despite existing duties, the right questions are not always being asked to identify children when someone is detained. While we do not agree that additional legal duties are needed, especially as multi-agency working is already being strengthened through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we do agree that we need to make the requirements more explicit. The revised code of practice will therefore specify that when someone is detained, steps must be taken to identify the children of the patient. Information about support that is available must be shared, and if a young carer’s needs assessment is required, the appropriate referral must be made.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am really struggling for time. I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions, because it is not fair to Members who have tabled amendments.

Amendments 41 and 42 would prevent children with competence from choosing a step-parent or kinship carer as their nominated person if that is the most appropriate person for them. A nominated person can be overruled or displaced if acting against the child’s best interests. Parents will always maintain their rights under the parental responsibility.

Many amendments concern statutory care and treatment reviews designed to help to ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people receive the right care and treatment while detained and barriers to discharge are overcome. Reviews will happen within 28 days of detention, and at least once a year during detention. This can be more frequent, depending on needs. Patients’ families and advocates can request a review meeting at any point. In respect of new clause 32, we have consulted on making some restrictive practices, including long-term segregation, notifiable to the Care Quality Commission within 72 hours.

Let me now deal with amendments 14 and 26 and new clauses 31 and 37. I acknowledge the importance of having a clear plan to resource community provision for people with a learning disability and autistic people to implement these reforms. We have committed ourselves to an annual written ministerial statement on implementation of the Bill post Royal Assent. Following conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), we will work with stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to shape our road map for commencing changes to clause 3. The written ministerial statements will give updates on progress, as well as setting out future plans. It is not possible at this stage for us to commit ourselves to the specifics of implementation and community support, which depend on the final legislation passed, future spending reviews, and engagement with stakeholders to get implementation planning right.

As for the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) about the detention criteria in the Bill, it is vital that the work “likelihood” is included in those criteria to set clear expectations of what clinicians need to consider. However, we are clear about the fact that our intention is not to set a threshold for detention. Under the new criteria, a harm does not have to be likely to justify detention. The criteria require likelihood to be considered holistically, alongside the change, nature and degree of the harm.

I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is keen for me to deal with the question of public safety. The key point is that there are detention criteria in clause 5, which makes a clear reference to harm either to the patient or to other persons. That is clearly a consideration of public safety, and we therefore believe that amendment 40 is surplus to requirements.

I trust that, on the basis of the assurances I have given, Members will be content not to press their amendments and new clauses.