Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Luke Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

I urge the Government to provide guidance, oversight and support, to engage not only with the legal professionals but with those who live under guardianship regimes, and to use the noble principle of least restriction not as a slogan but as a functional safeguard. If the Government can do that, and if they can meet the high standards to which the clause aspires, that will represent meaningful reform. If not, I fear that we risk crafting a well-meaning provision with good intentions that will be undermined by poor execution. I urge the Government to get this right for those living with mental health illnesses, for the professionals who support them and, crucially, for the integrity of our legal system as a whole.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. I would expect nothing less from him than a fantastic canter through this important clause. I will not repeat a lot of what he said, but I will try to emphasise it.

Although clause 48 is short, it speaks to the much larger principle of the balance between public protection and individual liberty. I will not go through all the details, as the Minister laid out the changes, but the burden of proof is currently on the patient to convince the tribunal that they no longer meet the criteria for guardianship. The clause will change that. Instead, the burden will fall on the local authority or relevant public body to prove that guardianship remains justified. The Government’s explanatory notes put it plainly:

“the patient should be discharged by the Tribunal unless the local authority can prove that the patient continues to meet the guardianship criteria.”

The clause is not just a technical amendment; it is a fundamental realignment of legal principle. It reinforces the presumption of liberty. It aligns guardianship cases with the principle that when the state restricts an individual freedom, it is for the state to justify that restriction, not the individual to justify their freedom. It echoes the evolution of mental health law towards a less restrictive approach, a principle we put in place on the first day of our deliberations on the Bill. Although clause 48 amends only a few words, it reflects a big change in principle: liberty is the default, and restriction must be justified and not presumed.

There are some important questions that I want to echo and emphasise, again leading on from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. Are local authorities prepared for the reversal of burden? Have they been consulted? Do they have the legal resources, documentation, standards and evidential processes to meet the burden before the tribunal? On top of that, we have already agreed that there will be automatic referrals. We would therefore expect more referrals to the tribunal as well as a change in how they operate. This is a huge undertaking. If they fail through a lack of capacity organisation, we risk a situation in which patients are discharged not because they no longer meet the criteria, but because the case was poorly presented. How will the Government ensure that that does not happen?

Secondly, will the Government issue statutory guidance or regulations to ensure that consistency in how the burden is discharged? We do not want a postcode lottery in the quality of guardianship applications or tribunal evidence. Thirdly, we must always consider public protection. The guardianship regime is not designed for high-risk individuals, but it can still apply in cases where behaviour poses a serious risk to self or others—for example, individuals with profound learning difficulties who might place themselves in danger if not properly supported.

We also talked about cumulative or escalating behaviour in one of our first debates. The reason for doing so is that we are at the fringe of significant cases. What safeguards are in place to ensure that public safety considerations are given due weight in cases where the evidence might be incomplete or borderline? Finally, do the Government intend to monitor the impact of the clause? Will data be published on whether tribunal discharge rates increase following this reform, and whether that leads to any unintended consequences?

I want to be clear that His Majesty’s Opposition support the principle behind the clause. We support a mental health system that is rights-based, person-centred and built on the presumption of liberty. But that principle must be matched by a system capable of meeting the duties it imposes. Rights on paper are meaningful only if public authorities are resourced and able to support them and uphold them in practice. I look forward to the Minister addressing those points.

[Stephen Kinnock]

On the assessment of impact, it might be useful for the Committee to know, for context, that the use of guardianships under the Act is small: the number of new cases has declined from 470 in 2004-05 to just 40 in 2024-25. The number of open cases has also fallen in recent years. I think pretty much all the questions from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley and the shadow Minister are addressed by that point. We are talking here about small numbers, so the cost would be relatively minor.

[Dr Evans]

That is a staggering drop in numbers. Is there a reason behind it? Is it that the burden of proof was always put on the patient, so they did not feel that they were in a position to do something? If we are inverting that, does the Minister expect the numbers to go back up?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I do not have any data to suggest that the numbers will go back up. That relates to the question that the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley asked about having a statutory review. We will be vigilant. As with all the changes in the Bill, we will closely monitor implementation and impact. That goes right across the board and, hopefully, addresses the Member’s questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Removal of police stations and prisons as places of safety

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Removing police stations is patient-focused and police-focused. My concern about this—perhaps, again, the Minister can clarify and reassure me—is ensuring that there is sufficient support in place for the police and ambulance services to deal with the transition. Again, at the heart of my support for the clause is that I think it will deliver a more therapeutic, suitable and effective process for the patient, while also, I hope, allowing our public services to do the job they are intended to do with the right support and resources.

[Dr Evans]

As we have heard, the proposals set out to remove police stations and prisons as places of safety. It does this in both relation to people detained under civil powers—sections 135 and 136—and in respect of certain part III patients involved in the criminal justice system, who may currently be held in such settings when a hospital bed is not available. The Government’s explanatory notes describe the rationale clearly:

“This is in response to evidence that suggests these settings are not suitable environments for individuals with a severe mental health, in crisis, awaiting assessment and treatment.”

As we have discussed in some of the earlier clauses, it is not just treatment, but the environment that plays a part in helping harbour a holistic care approach, so this is very much welcome. To that end, the Opposition can agree on this position in principle. A police station or prison cell is no place for someone with acute mental distress. They are not therapeutic environments; they can be frightening, disorientating and, in some cases, re-traumatising, particularly for children and young people. The clause aims to remove that contradiction in the law.

As the law stands, when police officers encounter someone in a public place who appears to be suffering from a mental disorder and is in immediate need of care or control, they can detain them under section 136 and take them to a place of safety. Under section 135, a magistrate can issue a warrant to remove a person from their home or another place to a place of safety. Currently, that place of safety includes a police station, although section 136A limits that to exceptional circumstances—for example, when the individual poses an imminent risk of serious injury to themselves. Similarly, under part III of the Act, a person appearing before a criminal court can be held in a place of safety, which can currently include a police station or prison, pending hospital admission.

Clause 49 will remove that. It amends section 55 to redefine “place of safety” and exclude police stations and prisons. It alters section 35, repeals section 136A, which has previously allowed police stations to be used in limited situations, and retains transitional protections for individuals already detained under early directions before the clause comes into place. That is a bold and principled legislative step, and I acknowledge that it builds on progress under the last Government. The 2017 Conservative Government, following public outcry and recommendations from the Care Quality Commission and the Wessely review, pledged to eliminate police cells as a place of safety for children. Since then, the numbers of such detentions have significantly decreased. Data from NHS Digital shows a downward trend in the use of police stations under section 136, which is evidence that change is possible with the right investment and inter-agency collaboration. That work deserves credit, so I thank the Minister for that.

Clause 49 must not only move the law forward, but ensure that the practice can be followed. I therefore want to raise a number of questions, which I hope the Minister will take in good faith. The classic one is “Where would people go instead?” The explanatory notes are right to say that hospitals and healthcare-based settings are more appropriate, but do those settings exist in sufficient numbers, with trained staff, beds and security protocols to receive safely all those who would otherwise have been taken to police stations? If they do not, we risk creating a gap between the law and the real world—a dangerous vacuum, whereby someone in crisis may end up in an ambulance bay, in a police car or in a general A&E without specialist support. It could have wider impact on the safety of not only the individual patient suffering, but other patients in healthcare settings such as A&E, interacting with an acutely ill mental patient. Without proper capacity, we risk many more police officers having to be at health settings to keep the mental unwell patients safe from themselves and others.

I appreciate that the Government have said that it will take 10 years to implement the Bill fully, but this clause will come into force immediately. What assurances can the Government give that there will be not only capacity, but capacity in the right places, so that, for example, people are not transferred to other areas of the country to ensure that the legal requirement is met? Although it is welcome not to be in a police station, being miles from family and support circles would be just as detrimental.

What provisions are being made for children and young people? The clause rightly states that for minors, the place of safety must now comply with the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, but excluding police stations. Are there sufficient CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—crisis beds and child-friendly places of safety in each region? What guarantees are there that children will not end up in adult settings, or worse, in informal or unlawful detention?

I turn to the transitional support given to the police. Officers may no longer be able to use their custody suites, but what training, resources and alternative pathways are being made? What happens in the middle of the night in a rural police force, where there is no mental health professional on call and the nearest hospital bed is 80 miles away? How would the Government monitor performance? Will the Government commit to publishing annual data on delays in finding a place of safety, the use of inappropriate settings post reform, and outcomes for those detained under sections 135 and 136? Will the CQC or another body be tasked with auditing local compliance?

Clause 49 reflects a consensus that mental healthcare belongs in health settings, not custodial ones. I urge the Minister to answer the questions in the good faith in which they were asked, because we all want to see this become a reality.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I think it is probably right to say that the questions asked by the hon. Members for Solihull West and Shirley and for Chester South and Eddisbury and the shadow Minister basically all relate to building capacity to ensure that we are ready to absorb this change. We have committed to lay an annual report on implementation, which will set out progress made and future plans for implementation. We are working closely with the Home Office, the police and NHS England to better understand the implementation requirement for switching on this change. There is considerable variation across the country in the way in which police stations are being used, so there is a need to target support.

I would add that the number and shape of dedicated health-based places of safety that are needed in a local authority will depend on the mental health needs of that population and the wider mental health crisis pathway provision. We are taking steps to ensure that people in crisis receive support and treatment sooner, so that fewer people need to be taken to a place of safety. It is worth noting that the Government have hit the ground running on this issue since we came into office last July. We are committing £26 million in capital investment to open new mental health crisis centres, which will aim to provide accessible and responsive care for individuals in mental health crisis.

Evidence from systems with established crisis centres indicates that they can help to streamline urgent mental health care pathways and reduce unnecessary conveyance to A&E by ambulance, health-based transport or the police. We have also selected six areas to trial a new approach to mental health support by providing 24-hour neighbourhood mental health centres, seven days a week, bringing together all aspects of community mental health services.

[Dr Evans]

The Minister has partially answered my question. He talked about the £26 million investment being targeted at certain areas of the country, but will that be based on the areas of highest priority? The danger is that if the highest priorities are all in the north, the south will be left out.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have selected six areas, but off the cuff I cannot tell the shadow Minister exactly what they are or whether they have been announced yet. If they have not been announced, I will not be able to tell him, but if they have been, of course I can share that information. I suspect that the areas will primarily be based on assessed need, but they are trial pilots, so there is no reason to suspect that they will be limited to six. Let us see how much traction they get.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 50

Removal of patients by authorised persons

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with a huge amount of experience and knowledge in this area. Of course, what he describes would be the default setting, but there may be scenarios in which a qualified healthcare worker is in the vicinity and can provide the support that that individual needs before the police can get there. The clause seeks to provide that flexibility. I acknowledge the split in the Committee on this, but the clause has some significant advantages: reducing police involvement in mental health crises, where that is most appropriate; improving response times, as I have just touched on; and supporting de-escalation.

I accept that there are operational and legal questions to be addressed, but we are here to look at all the potential scenarios. The Minister has clearly set out the consequences of removing the clause from the Bill, but it is perfectly possible that a Government Member on the Committee will choose to support it, and I therefore seek some clarification from the Minister on the operational and legal challenges around training, oversight and the uniformity of authorised roles were the clause to remain part of the Bill. How would training standards be mandated for authorised persons and who would accredit them? How would consistency in practice be ensured across NHS trusts and ambulance services? Will the Minister also clarify the liability position in a case in which an authorised person used force or restraint during a removal?

[Dr Evans]

I am pleased that the Minister has clarified that the Government intend to take out clause 50, because that allows me to take out some of my speech. It would not be appropriate for me to retread the entirety of the argument—we have been through it, and I am aware of the numbers on the Committee—but I will address a few points, because the clause is important.

The clause would keep the role of authorised persons for the purposes of sections 135 and 136. Hon. Members will know that this is not a new issue, as we debated the removal of the definition of authorised person in relation to clause 5. On that occasion, I expressed my concerns about the risk of doing so, which were shared by Baroness May, who rightly argued that we must stop treating mental health as a policing issue and start enabling care to be delivered by the right person in the right way at the right time. This clause gives us a chance to make that principle real.

Clause 50 allows certain non-police professionals, defined as authorised persons, to use existing powers under section 135 to enter premises under a warrant and remove a person in a mental health crisis to a place of safety or assessment of care. It also allows those professionals to use powers under section 136, which is even more sensitive, permitting the removal and detention of a person from a public place without a warrant if they appear to be suffering from a mental health disorder.

The clause is not about weakening safeguards. It is about strengthening the frontline and moving away from a model where the police are the default responders to every mental health crisis, which is often not because they are best placed, but because no one else has the authority. As modelling has shown, 95% of mental health-related police calls do not require a criminal justice response. Officers are spending hours, even days, sitting in A&E with patients in distress, because no one else is trained and empowered to act.

Clause 50 helps to break that cycle. It creates a legal basis for trained health professionals—mental health nurses, paramedics and approved mental health practitioners —to intervene in crisis situations, rather than relying solely on the police.

The hon. Member for Ashford asked how we decide, but we already triage people when they ring 999 or 111. How do we decide who gets an ambulance for what sounds like a heart attack or stroke? That decision is made by clinicians. We have the ability to make those triaging decisions, and I think it is completely appropriate to try to empower the health services to find a better way of dealing with these people.

[Anna Dixon]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that health professionals do not wear stab vests or cameras? They are not equipped to go into dangerous situations. It is essential to protect healthcare workers and not put them at risk. We should maintain the current situation, whereby they work in tandem with the police, but the police are present for the detention.

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. A paramedic never knows what they are going to when they are called out. It could be a terrorist incident; it could just be a person in distress who is hysterical. A paramedic never knows, but that is part of the point—when they get there, they would be able to make that assessment rather than having to call the police out. At the moment, they do not have those powers, so that is a reason to give them the option. I am not saying that that is always the right option, but it gives them the option. The clause allows us to think of new, innovative ways to deal with the complex, changing world of mental health in the modern age.

The Government have argued elsewhere that the definition of who detains could be too rigid or unnecessary, but I would say the opposite. Professionals on the ground need clarity—a lawful mandate to act in the best interests of a person in crisis, with clear boundaries of competence and training. The Lords were right to include a definition of “authorised person” that sets out the conditions of suitability. Clause 50 builds on that framework.

Having these powers in the Bill gives NHS trusts the chance and confidence to design alternative crisis responses. The clause is by no means a blanket approach—it actually drives innovation. Health professionals have the clarity to act and police forces have the breathing space to return to their core purpose: preventing and investigating crime.

Of course, the power must come with safeguards; it is not a blank cheque. The use of coercive powers by the police or anyone else must always be subject to training, regulation and oversight. Entering someone’s home or detaining them in public is a profound interference with their liberty and dignity, so the power must be exercised with care and caution.

We believe that clause 50 takes us in the right direction towards a health-led approach to mental health crisis, rather than a security-led one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said. It supports the police by lightening a burden from which they have long asked to be freed. It supports patients by increasing the chance that they will be met by someone who understands their needs. It supports the wider public by allowing police officers to return to doing what they are trained to do and passionate about doing: keeping communities safe. We should be building on this type of reform, not rowing back from it. I urge the Government to reconsider.

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that interventions are meant to be short and to the point, and that responses are meant to be short and to the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I ask for a series of clarifications from the Minister about all three clauses. On clause 51, how will the courts be supported in identifying community-based alternatives to remand? What training or guidance will be provided to judges in applying the provisions effectively? What assurances can the Minister give that support pathways will be available before and after the changes have taken effect?

I accept that clause 52 is a technical a change to the legislation, but it is an important clarification none the less. It will require some robust co-ordination between jurisdictions and clearer procedural safeguards. How will the Government monitor the implementation of proposed new schedule A2 to ensure that patients’ rights are preserved during transfers? Will guidance be issued to courts and practitioners in the UK and the Crown dependencies about the new procedures, particularly their cross-jurisdictional nature? What consultation has taken place, and will continue to take place, with authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man before the measures are implemented in law?

Finally, I recognise that clause 53 is arguably a sensible safeguard. The challenge will be to ensure compliance on the frontline, especially where legal duties to share information and duties to protect confidentiality can butt against some degree of tension. With that in mind, what support or training will be given to health and care professionals to navigate overlapping legal duties? Will the Minister publish sector-specific guidance on data sharing as a consequence of the Bill? How will the Government assess whether the legal framework strikes the right balance between patient safety and privacy?

[Dr Evans]

Clause 51 amends the Bail Act 1976 to restrict the court’s ability to remand individuals in custody for their own protection or, in the case of children, for their welfare, where the sole concern is mental health. Under existing law, the court may refuse bail to a defendant if it is satisfied that the individual should be kept in custody for their own protection. For those under 18, the relevant test is whether custody is required for their own welfare. Those provisions are found in schedule 1 to the Bail Act.

There is currently nothing in statute that precludes the court from remanding someone entirely on the basis of their mental health conditions—for example, if the defendant appears to pose a danger to themselves but no suitable mental health provision is immediately available. Clause 51 aims to change that. It amends all three parts of schedule 1 to the Bail Act—those dealing with imprisonment and non-imprisonment offences—so that the adult defendant, aged 18 or over, may not be remanded in custody for their own protection if the only concern is mental health.

Paragraph 360 of the Government’s explanatory notes states:

“Evidence suggests that in some cases this power is being used by the courts to remand defendants into custody where they would otherwise have been bailed were it not for the court’s concern for their mental health.”

The intent here is good: to end the inappropriate use of custody—especially in prison, as we have been discussing—as a place of safety for people with acute mental health needs. The clause is consistent with the wider direction of the Bill, which seeks to ensure that people in crisis are met with healthcare and not handcuffs. Although I support the clause, I have a few questions and concerns about how it will operate in practice, and invite the Minister to consider further safeguards.

Where is the alternative provision? That is a question we will keep asking, not in the form of an attack, but as something helpful for our consideration. We are told that instead of custody, courts may impose bail conditions under section 3(6) of the Bail Act, such as requirements to engage with mental health services or, where the statutory criteria are met, remand the person to hospital under the Mental Health Act. That sounds reasonable, but the reality on the ground is often different. We know from NHS data, and from countless reports by inspectors and charities, that community mental health services are stretched, beds are scarce and out-of-hours support can be lacking.

What assessment has been made of local mental health capacity to absorb those individuals who, under clause 51, will no longer be eligible for a custodial remand? Do the Government know, for example, how many are currently in that position? If the law changes overnight, how much extra provision will be needed for these specific patients? How will the Government, specifically on remand patients, ensure that there are places? What are the requirements, if any, on NHS integrated care boards to ensure that a place of safety or support is available in every local area? Without that, there is a real risk that the courts will be left with no safe options, particularly when a person presents in crisis late at night, in distress and with nowhere else to go.

Are the bail and hospital powers workable substitutes? The explanatory note refers to courts using the power to remand for mental health reports or treatment, but the orders depend on medical evidence, the availability of beds and local agreement. They are not always available at the moment when bail is being considered. Meanwhile, bail conditions, however well-meaning, cannot guarantee care or prevent harm if services are not responsive. Has the Department considered issuing new statutory guidance to accompany the clause, outlining what courts should do when no hospital or community support is available, but the defendant is clearly at risk? Further to that, will there be a formal route for courts to escalate concerns to NHS bodies where no safe custodial options exist?

We also need to consider children and young people. As I read it, the clause applies only to adults. The Government are arguing that section 98 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 already prevents the remand of children solely for mental health reasons. Does that not potentially leave a loophole? I am no lawyer, but the Bail Act still allows for remand for the child’s own welfare, and the revised wording in clause 51(2) and (4) does nothing to prevent that being interpreted in practice as the mental health concern that we have been discussing. Why have the Government not taken the opportunity to clarify in statute the status of children? They must not be remanded to custody solely on the basis of mental health-related welfare concerns.

Finally, how will we track the effects of the changes? I suggest that there must be ongoing scrutiny of how the clause operates. To that end, will the Minister commit to releasing annual statistics on the number of people refused bail under the provisions, to reporting on incidences where a safe, non-custodial alternative was not available, and to monitoring outcomes for those affected by the changes? Does the data fall under NHS or Ministry of Justice datasets? It is important that we understand who is responsible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That is an invitation that I will remember as we go on in this Committee. On this occasion, I have just two questions. First, will any interim guidance be issued while the review is ongoing? Secondly, can the Minister commit that the consultation will be undertaken on a wide basis, and include patient advocates, child psychologists and safeguarding boards?

Because I cannot count, I will add a third question: did the Government consider an alternative to a two-year review period, either through an immediate extension of regulation 18 or perhaps a shorter period, so that these important changes can be put in place without delay?

[Dr Evans]

I will first speak to clause 54, to give context to my comments about new clause 12, which is in my name, and new clauses 17 and 20, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

Currently, under regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, registered providers must notify the CQC if a child under 18 is placed in an adult psychiatric unit for longer than 48 continuous hours. The notification duty enables the CQC to monitor such placements and take appropriate action to protect young people.

The clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to review whether the duty to notify should be extended to other cases when a child is admitted to a hospital or registered establishment for treatment or assessment of a mental disorder—that bit is really important. It also requires a review of whether the current 48-hour notification timeframe remains appropriate. As the explanatory notes make clear, the purpose of the review is

“to ensure that where a child is admitted...notifications are made to the CQC in appropriate circumstances”,

so that the regulator can respond effectively. That is a welcome and sensible provision. It recognises that safe-guarding in mental health settings must be comprehensive and responsive in changing circumstances. For example, children placed in settings other than adult psychiatric units, such as specialist units or community hospitals, may also face risks that warrant timely CQC oversight.

However, I have a few questions for the Minister. Given the potential risks to children placed even briefly in adult psychiatric units or other settings, is the 48-hour threshold for notification too long? Would early notification—perhaps on admission—provide better protection for young people? Are there known gaps in the current notification system? For instance, how often do incidents involving children in mental health treatment go unreported under the existing framework?

The review is to be completed within two years of Royal Assent. Given the urgency of safeguarding children’s mental health and wellbeing, would it be possible to provide interim updates to Parliament to maintain transparency? Will that be part of the written statement, or stand alone? Will the review consider notifications from private and third sector providers, as well as NHS trusts, to ensure that no setting is overlooked?

We must look at the role of the CQC. In another letter from Baroness Merron, the Minister in the House of Lords, she addressed some of the issues raised and laid out the rationale for her confidence in the CQC as it stands. The letter emphasises the CQC’s “multiple roles” under the Mental Health Act as an independent regulator of services, an investigator of complaints and part of the national preventive mechanism to safeguard human rights. It points out that in 2022-23, the CQC carried out 860 monitoring visits and spoke to over 4,500 patients and 1,200 carers. Those impressive figures speak to a considerable degree of activity and reach.

However, as we have debated, the Bill puts significantly more requirements on the CQC, and clause 54 is a further one. The letter also stresses the CQC’s evolving role and notes that the creation of a new chief inspector of mental health is under way—a recommendation from Professor Sir Mike Richards. The aim, we are told, is to

“put mental health on an equal footing with physical health in CQC”

and to ensure “better information sharing” and

“stronger focus on Mental Health Act compliance.”

All that is welcome, but we also need to scrutinise what is not said. While the letter asserts that

“we will have a regulator that all of us can trust”,

it concedes that that

“will take time to achieve.”

That is a fair admission, but it weakens the case for relying on the status quo while reforms are still being bedded in. If the CQC’s systems are currently being rebuilt or recalibrated, can we be confident that they are robust enough right now to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns, especially when they are about children?

Then, there is the 48-hour threshold for notification when children are placed in adult units, which clause 54 seeks to address. Do we really believe that a child being in an inappropriate or unsafe environment for 47 hours is acceptable? Should the default not be real-time notification on admission, with durations used only to prioritise the level of scrutiny? We should aim for real-time notification in the 21st century—after all, we can track a bus on our phones anywhere in the world. Should we not aim for real-time data to spring services into action? Forty-eight hours is a long time in a young person’s life.

The clause rightly instructs the Secretary of State to review those questions, but I urge the Government to approach the review with openness—not just to minor procedural tweaks, but to the possibility that more fundamental changes might be necessary. On that point, does the Minister envisage the review as a desktop-type data review, or will it engage with children and families who have experienced these placements? Will it examine how well the notifications currently translate into timely action by the CQC? Seeing the data is important, but acting on it is more so. How will Parliament be kept informed before the two-year deadline for reporting? Will that be part of the written statement?

All that leads me to our new clause 12, which aims to address a lot of the background I have set out. At present, the Mental Health Act provides for the detention of patients who require treatment for mental health disorders, including children. Section 131A of that Act governs the accommodation of patients in hospital wards, but lacks explicit safeguards preventing children from being placed in adult wards, except in limited circumstances. That has led to troubling examples across the country, where children have been admitted to adult wards because of a lack of appropriate CAMHS beds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The new clause takes forward a commitment made in the Lords by Baroness Merron to address issues relating to the unequal application of the Human Rights Act 1998 for some mental health patients. Sadly, this issue was highlighted following the death of Paul Sammut. I extend my deepest condolences to his family.

We now wish to take action to ensure a more equal application of the Human Rights Act, with the aim of extending its protection to certain mental health patients. Under this amendment, private providers will be taken to be exercising a function of a public nature for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act when they are carrying out certain services and when those services are arranged and/or paid for by either local authorities or the NHS. Those functions are section 117 aftercare; services provided in pursuance of arrangements made by a local authority in Scotland, discharging its duty under section 25 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003; and in-patient treatment and assessment for mental disorder, whether or not a patient is detained under the Mental Health Act.

When carrying out those services, private providers will be required to act compatibly with the convention rights set out in the Human Rights Act. Many patients in private facilities already have those protections. Private providers are already taken to be exercising a function of a public nature for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act when caring for patients detained under the Mental Health Act or providing care for patients due to the effect of section 73 of the Care Act 2014. The new clause seeks to extend those protections to other mental health patients in private provision, where care is arranged and/or paid for by the NHS or a local authority. As the new clause is a modification of the Human Rights Act, this is a reserved matter and the amendment will therefore apply in all four nations.

Government amendments 37 and 38 are minor technical amendments to the Bill’s extent provision in clause 57 to ensure that our amendment—new clause 10—relating to the Human Rights Act extends UK-wide. The Human Rights Act, which the new clause 10 seeks to modify, extends UK-wide. The amendments are therefore necessary to ensure that the same Human Rights Act protections extend to all four nations. I hope that hon. Members feel able to support the amendments.

[Dr Evans]

I welcome the opportunity to speak on these important provisions, which apply the Human Rights Act 1998 to certain private care providers delivering mental health services. At present, the Human Rights Act applies directly to public authorities and to those exercising functions of a public nature. However, an increasing proportion of mental health care and aftercare services are delivered by private providers, under arrangement with NHS bodies and local authorities. The current legislation leaves some ambiguity about whether private providers are legally bound to comply with the Human Rights Act when delivering such services. That creates a potential accountability gap that risks undermining the protections that we want to guarantee to vulnerable patients.

The Government’s proposal to explicitly extend the application of the Human Rights Act to registered private care providers when they deliver specific services commissioned or paid for by public authorities is a welcome step towards closing the gap. By doing so, it will ensure that these providers are treated as performing public functions under section 6 of the Act. That means that they will be directly accountable for upholding the rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act, including the rights to liberty, dignity, privacy and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment.

This approach is not without precedent. For example, in the case of prison outsourcing, courts have established that private companies running prisons are subject to the Human Rights Act because they perform public functions. Similarly, private care providers delivering publicly funded mental health services should be held to the same standard as NHS bodies or local authorities.

It is worth noting that although this explicit statutory extension of the Human Rights Act to private providers is a new provision in the Mental Health Act 1983 for England and Wales, similar principles already apply in Scotland through case law and existing legislation. Under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide aftercare services, which may be delivered by private providers. Scottish courts recognise that when private providers perform public functions, such as delivering those statutory services, they are subject to the Human Rights Act, following key judgments such as YL v. Birmingham City Council.

This Government proposal provides much-needed clarity and an explicit statutory footing across all four nations of the UK. It also ensures consistency across the four nations, referencing equivalent legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This helps to remove ambiguity and ensure consistency. However, we must also consider the practical impact. Although these changes strengthen rights and protections, they also increase the regulatory burden on private providers. Providers may face new compliance costs, legal challenges and the need for enhanced training and oversight. That could have a knock-on effect on service availability, particularly in a market already facing staffing pressures and financial constraints.

The Government should therefore consider how to support providers to meet the new obligations without destabilising service provision. There is also a need to ensure that commissioners and regulators have the necessary resources and powers to monitor and enforce compliance effectively. In that spirit, I will pose some questions to the Minister for clarification and look for reassurance.

How will the Government monitor compliance with the Human Rights Act among private providers, and what enforcement mechanisms will be used? Has there been any consultation with private care providers about the potential operational and financial impacts of this extension, and will the extension apply only to services arranged or paid for by NHS bodies? What protections exist for patients receiving private mental health care outside these arrangements? How do the Government plan to ensure consistency in application across all four nations? Do the Government foresee private provision of mental health-related services expanding? If so, by how much?

I agree that the final two amendments look like two small consequential amendments that clarify and ensure that the human rights extension applies equally across England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The insertion of “subject to subsection (2)” appears to be technical. I would just welcome confirmation from the Minister that it will not inadvertently limit the scope of the new protections. Otherwise, Opposition Members will support them.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. I will have to get back to him in writing, because the questions that he asks obviously have an important legal dimension, and it was physically impossible to get the information in the time between his sitting down and my standing up to speak. I am not a human rights lawyer either, so it is best if I write to him on those points.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 10 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)