Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Evans]

The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee is absolutely right. A simple answer from the Minister today, on Report, would go a long way to alleviating those fears from the mental health sector. I look forward to his response on that.

Amendment 40 would add a simple but important requirement that each care and treatment plan must include an assessment of the levels of risk to public safety posed by the patient in the community. The purpose of the Bill is right; the Government want to make the system more compassionate, therapeutic, patient-centred and modernised, and we strongly agree with that ambition. However, modernisation must go hand in hand with public confidence, and the public and patients themselves must know that every plan for treatment and discharge is rooted not only in care, but in safety.

In Committee, I argued that the framework still omits one dimension, which is public safety. As far as I can see, there is still no explicit requirement in the Bill for clinicians to assess and record the level of risk posed to the public.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Constituents have come to me about patients with schizophrenia, for example, who had been released before their psychosis had fully passed, with one such instance tragically ending in the death of another resident. All of these situations could have been prevented if the patient had been kept safely in a bed until they were at a proper level of medication and the psychosis had passed. Does the shadow Minister agree that that is something we need to take forward in this Bill? It is a win-win for all parties.

[Dr Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic case. Those are the kind of cases that this amendment seeks to deal with. We have only to look at the tragic cases of Nicola Edgington and Valdo Calocane to see how escalating risk happens, with huge consequences for the families, patients and victims.

When I raised this matter in Committee, the Minister gave a very thoughtful answer. He said that:

“if any risk at all to public safety is perceived, that must be documented… It is a basic expectation of the professional management of a particular patient that any risk identified to public safety and protection must be in there.”

I welcome that.

With amendment 40, I am simply asking, if that is indeed the Government’s position, why not make it clear in the Bill? The Minister conceded in Committee that

“I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on whether or not it should be in the Bill. I will come back to him on that, because I would be rather surprised if it were not made very clear somewhere that that is a basic expectation; if it were not, that would obviously need to be looked at, but I am reasonably confident that it is.” ––[Official Report, Mental Health Public Bill Committee, 12 June 2025; c. 171.]

Unfortunately, expected in practice is not the same as required in law. We know from past reviews that there is a gap in the risk assessment and that communication can be too inconsistent. Putting such a requirement in statute would not be bureaucracy; it would simply clarify that. The Minister may argue that it already exists in professional codes, in the Mental Health Act code of practice or even in risk management frameworks, but the statutory duty does not. Our amendment would put that duty squarely in the Bill.

Talking of safety, I will turn to new clause 29, which would ensure that no child is placed on an adult mental health ward except in truly exceptional circumstances, and only when it is demonstrably in their best interests. The Government argue that guidance already covers that, but this guidance has no teeth; it can be ignored or inconsistently applied. Again, guidance without legal backing is too easily ignored. That was why the Joint Committee on Human Rights argued in its letter that this part of the Bill needs strengthening. The Minister also said that placing these safeguards in legislation would remove flexibility for clinicians in emergencies, but new clause 29 does allow for exceptional circumstances; it simply requires that they are justified, recorded and subject to oversight.

Research from University College London found that there has been a 65% increase in the number of children and young people admitted to adult wards for mental health disorders, and this increase is sharpest among teenage girls with eating disorders. They are the most vulnerable, and they are the ones who bear the brunt of this.

[Joy Morrissey]

That is another reason why I am shocked that the mental health budget is decreasing. I am seeing an increase across my constituency—and I am sure it is the same in many others—of girls in secondary school presenting with severe mental health issues, suicidal tendencies and eating disorders, and they are desperately crying out for additional mental health support.

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that support needs to be there. Fortunately, it is not the budget that is reducing but the proportion of funding, and it shows the priorities of this Government when it comes to mental health.

I am concerned that without new clause 29, a child may be harmed or traumatised and placed in an adult ward without proper justification—and it will be little comfort for the family to hear that guidance was breached.

Amendment 41 stands up for the simple but vital principle that when a child is detained under the Mental Health Act, the person legally recognised to act for them—their nominated person—should hold parental responsibility. Only where there are legitimate safeguarding concerns should that be set aside. At first glance, this may seem technical, but it speaks to something profound about how the law views childhood, family and the balance between protection and autonomy.

The Government are right to use the Bill to modernise the old “nearest relative” system, which was too rigid, too bound by bloodline and at times blind to the complexities of family life. Under the Bill, however, a child under 16 deemed competent could nominate any adult—that could be a 19-year-old boyfriend or peer or someone exercising control—and once nominated, that person gets full control. It is a legal authority. We need to ensure that protection is there for the person if there is a breakdown on the family side. [Interruption.] I see that Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to wind up, so I will solidify my comments into a more erudite approach.

The point is that in law this principle is already clear in the Children Act 1989, which defined it as the foundation stone of what families should look like. With this amendment, I believe we have solved the concerns the Minister had at Committee stage about the state of a family in the modern era. In any other walk of life the legal framework exists, so why would we weaken it when it comes to mental health?

We discussed the issues with A&E and the grey area there in Committee, and I was grateful to the Minister for meeting beforehand to discuss them. I know that he took on my comments about solving the practicalities, and I hope he will look at them seriously.

For this House, there is no greater moral burden than deciding for someone who cannot decide for themselves—where care ends and where control begins. That is exactly what the House is addressing with this Bill: how to protect without diminishing, how to act with compassion without surrendering precision, and how to empower without imposing. Involuntary care must never be the reflex of a system, be it under pressure or out of principle. The House agrees on this position; the challenge is delivery. Compassion demands more than good intentions. It demands delivery, discipline and detail. With this Bill, the Opposition lays the challenge of delivery. It must be not just a pledge but a plan. The public will judge us all not just on how kindly this House speaks, but on how faithfully it serves those who depend on us most.