Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Aphra Brandreth]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If parents are not acting in the best interests of their children, there is a wider safeguarding issue that needs to be considered. One would question why such parents had been left in a situation in which they have responsibility for their children and are potentially harming them.

That leads me nicely to another point, which is that introducing the additional wording would bring mental health in line with physical health. For someone under the age of 16, it is their parents who have the responsibility to act in the best interests of their physical health; it seems to me that one would expect the same for mental health. I therefore urge the Committee to support amendments 54 and 55.

Let me return briefly to the overarching aims of clause 24. I underscore the point that the wider principle at stake—patient autonomy—is one that I support. The ability to make informed choices about one’s care should be a central component of our care system. In mental health, where individuals can feel particularly vulnerable, that becomes even more essential. Granting patients the power to nominate someone who will advocate for them, advise them and represent their wishes is a powerful act of empowerment. Moreover, this change enhances safeguards for patients. It ensures that the person acting on their behalf is someone they have chosen and trust. It reduces the potential for conflict and opens the door to a more collaborative and compassionate model of care.

If the Committee agrees to the amendments, which would provide the necessary safeguards for children, who I believe should be considered separately to adults, my overall view is that clause 24 represents a pragmatic, compassionate and patient-focused update to the Mental Health Act. It aligns with our modern understanding of mental healthcare and puts trust, respect and dignity at the heart of our legislative framework.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendments 54 and 55, which propose that where a nominated person is appointed to represent the interests of a patient under the age of 16, that individual must hold parental responsibility. At face value, that is a concise and apparently straightforward proposal. However, as with much in the Bill and in our mental health legislation more broadly, what appears simple can raise intricate legal and ethical questions. I therefore wish to probe both the merits and the challenges of these amendments. I do so not to come down firmly on one side of the argument or the other, but in the hope of assisting the Committee to think through the implications of the amendments. I hope to prompt the Minister to provide further clarification as our consideration of the Bill proceeds.

I will start by setting out the case in favour of the amendments. There is an intuitive and, I would argue, legally grounded rationale behind amendment 54. It rests on the principle that serious decisions concerning a child’s mental health—decisions that might involve treatment without consent, or even deprivation of liberty—ought to be taken, or at least overseen, by somebody who already holds recognised legal responsibility for that child.

Parental responsibility is not merely administrative. It carries statutory and common-law duties to protect, support and advocate for a child’s welfare. By requiring the nominated person to have such responsibilities, the amendment seeks to ensure a level of legal legitimacy and continuity. It would strengthen the position of those with a formal bond to the child and might help to guard against the risk of unsuitable or ill-informed individuals stepping in to play such a critical role.

In that sense, amendment 54 reflects what many would see as good legal hygiene. It would bring new legislation into closer alignment with the Children Act 1989 and with broader child welfare practice. It would create a baseline expectation that only those with legal authority over a child should make, or help to make, decisions of such magnitude. It would also offer reassurances to families. For parents and guardians already concerned about the complex and sometimes opaque processes of mental health detention, the amendment offers a clear signal that their role cannot be set aside lightly. That reassurance may be particularly important when children are subject to long-term care or involuntary treatment. However, questions begin to surface at precisely that point, because although the principle appears sound, the practice is far from straightforward. It is therefore important that we probe both the advantages and disadvantages of the amendment.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to make some brief comments on amendment 49.

I am sympathetic to aims of the hon. Member for Winchester in tabling the amendment. A patient who is being discharged from hospital may indeed require specific, targeted support. The overall success of their treatment and continued recovery can be greatly enhanced where the right structures are in place to support them in the community. The amendment rightly draws attention to social and financial stressors that may affect an individual at the point of discharge and in the weeks and months that follow. We all recognise that there is a pressing need for a more joined-up approach between in-patient services and community provision. Without that, we risk patients falling through the cracks and suffering unnecessary and distressing re-admissions. Better discharge planning must be at the heart of our efforts.

I have some concerns, however. Although I acknowledge the good intentions behind the amendment, it risks expanding the remit of independent mental health advocates beyond what might be appropriate. There is a delicate balance, but an important distinction, between advocacy and care co-ordination. Independent mental health advocates play a vital role, and it is essential that their independence and clarity of purpose be preserved. If we are not careful, we risk blurring that boundary. In doing so, we may undermine the very effectiveness of the independent mental health advocate in fulfilling their primary function.

The role of an IMHA is to support patients in understanding and exercising their rights under the Mental Health Act. They may already be involved in supporting an individual to prepare for discharge, including by contributing to plans for ongoing care and support. The amendment would significantly increase the breadth of that role and might shift the focus away from the core purpose of advocacy.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a pressing point. Does she agree that if the amendment is accepted, there will be a requirement for additional training to deal with financial and social support, which goes outside the current scope of these important advocates?

[Aphra Brandreth]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is not a simple or straightforward addition; it would require potentially substantial training. We would not want somebody in a role that they were not adequately prepared for. With any amendment, we would need to ensure that training, and the time and expense of it, had been factored in.

Even with the best intentions, the success of any extended support role, such as that envisaged in the amendment, will ultimately rely on the availability and integration of local services. Where appropriate services are in place and are working well together, advocates can play a valuable role in signposting and supporting access. Rather than placing additional responsibilities on the IMHA, our focus should be on working with community providers to ensure that the necessary support, particularly for social and financial needs, is consistently available and is effectively joined up across the system.

Having said that, I recognise and welcome the emphasis placed by the hon. Member for Winchester on the role of carers and family members. Too often, they are overlooked in discharge planning, yet their involvement can make a critical difference to a patient’s successful transition from hospital to home. When carers feel informed, supported and prepared, it gives patients the reassurance and stability that they need to continue their recovery with confidence. The primary responsibility of the independent mental health advocate, however, must remain their responsibility to the patient. I am concerned that the drafting of the amendment could create ambiguity about who the IMHA is principally there to support.

Financial stress is undoubtedly a real and urgent concern. Mental ill health can severely affect an individual’s capacity to work, to manage their finances or even to engage with systems of support. Equally, financial instability can exacerbate mental health difficulties. Those are serious challenges that must be addressed, but I would question whether the IMHA is the right professional to take on that role directly. Instead, we should ensure that they are well placed to refer individuals to appropriate services without assuming responsibility for co-ordinating that support themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

By making automatic referrals more frequent for restricted patients and introducing automatic referrals for conditionally discharged patients, we are improving access to the tribunal. That will ensure that patients who lack the ability or initiative to make an application to the tribunal can benefit from the safeguard of increased independent judicial scrutiny of their detention by the tribunal.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak on clauses 30 to 33, which go to the core of the rights architecture that surrounds mental health law in this country—namely, the oversight and challenge mechanisms available to individuals subject to detention, supervision or conditional discharge. I think we are all aware that the 1983 Act, although fit for its time, has failed to keep pace with the evolving understanding of mental health illness and modern expectations of legal accountability or procedural fairness. The clauses, although technical in nature, seek to rectify a number of the long-standing shortcomings in the operation of the mental health tribunal system.

Clause 30 will extend and clarify the time period within which patients may apply to tribunals. Essentially, it will do two things. First, it will extend the application window for section 2 patients—those detained for assessment—from 14 to 21 days. Secondly, it will reduce the initial waiting period for section 3 patients and those under guardianship from six months to three months. Those are sensible and overdue changes, because 14 days is a narrow window for any legal action, let alone one initiated by an individual who may be experiencing acute psychological distress.

Extending the application window to 21 days provides a fairer opportunity to seek representation and prepare a meaningful application. Equally, the reduction of the initial period for section 3 and guardianship patients to three months offers an important safeguard against prolonged detention without scrutiny. It restores a measure of clarity between the gravity of the detention order and the speed with which it may be challenged.

The clause will also clarify the rights of conditionally discharged restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions—that is, those who are discharged from hospital but required to comply with supervisional residence requirements that are so restrictive that they cross the legal threshold for a deprivation of liberty. At present, those individuals occupy a legal grey zone: they are not formally detained, yet the liberty they enjoy is so curtailed that it raises significant questions as to their article 5 rights. Clause 30 will properly address that anomaly by creating a defined, regular route of appeal, initially between six and 12 months from the imposition of the deprivation of liberty conditions, and biannually thereafter. Those are measured and proportionate changes that enhance access to justice, improve compliance with human rights obligations and restore clarity to a field that has suffered, at times, from legal opacity.

The reforms are not without consequences. A wider cohort of eligible applicants and more frequent review periods will inevitably increase the burden on the tribunal service, on legal aid provision and on clinical teams who must prepare documents and attend hearings. That challenge is not to be dismissed lightly.

[Gregory Stafford]

Does my gallant and learned hon. Friend have any information on the current waiting times for tribunals? What does he expect the effect of the changes proposed in these clauses to be on waiting times?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We all know, from our casework or personal experiences outside of this place, about the pressures on the Courts and Tribunals Service. Mental health tribunals are not exempt from that pressure. Changing the timeframe on which tribunals operate, and the frequency with which reviews take place, will inevitably increase the burden on the service. Therefore, although these changes are broadly welcome, it is important that we are cognisant of their impact on the resources that will be required, the number of judges and wing members that will be needed, and of course the hard standing of the court and tribunal infrastructure that will need to be made available. Other issues, such as those around the digitalisation of the service, will also need to be addressed.

Clause 31 will recast the regime for automatic tribunal referrals, replacing the prior six-month structure with the concept of “a relevant period”. For detained patients, referrals will now occur at three months, then 12 months, and annually thereafter. For community patients, they will occur at six months, then 12 months, then annually. Most significantly, hospital managers will be under a new duty to refer a case when no review has occurred in 12 months, regardless of whether an application has been made. That is a sound reform.

The clause will introduce coherence to a previously fragmented system, and establishes a minimum standard of legal oversight. The inclusion of a backstop provision—that no individual should go more than 12 months without review—is essential. In a system in which patients may not always have the means or capacity to apply for a review themselves, it offers a critical safety net. Clause 31 will also repeal section 68A of the 1983 Act, which has become unwieldy and duplicative. By streamlining the referral process, the Bill enhances legal clarity and administrative efficiency, but I would caution that the increased complexity of the new timeframes may require significant training of those responsible for their implementation.

Clause 32 will provide for restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. It goes further than clause 30 by imposing mandatory referral duties on the Secretary of State. Under the clause, a tribunal must be convened after 12 months, every two years thereafter, and at four years if no review has occurred. Crucially, the clause also codifies the tribunal’s powers. It may now vary or impose conditions, including those that constitute a deprivation of liberty, provided that they are necessary to protect the public from serious harm and are no more restrictive than hospital detention. That clause introduces a principled, proportionate framework for balancing public protection with patient liberty, and avoids vague or discretionary use of such powers.

Finally, clause 33 will apply the same principles to restricted patients not subject to deprivation of liberty orders. Such individuals, although under fewer constraints, are none the less subject to significant legal orders. The new requirement for a tribunal review at two years, and every four years thereafter, ensures that oversight is regular and non-discriminatory.

All four clauses are united by a clear objective to rationalise tribunal access, enhance procedural safeguards and bring the Mental Health Act into alignment with modern standards of fairness and proportionality. However, I will close with a caveat: rights without resourcing are hollow. If we are to place greater demand on the tribunals service, and to rely on it as the guardian of liberty for thousands of individuals, it must be adequately funded, staffed and supported. Legal representation must be accessible. Tribunal members must be properly trained. Hospital managers must be equipped to meet their new responsibilities.

With those reservations, I broadly welcome clauses 30 to 33 as a necessary recalibration of our mental health law. They reflect the dignity of the individual, the demands of public safety, and the enduring principle that no one should be deprived of liberty without fair or timely review.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of clauses 30 to 33. I echo many of the remarks of the gallant and learned hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, but I will try not to go over too much of the same ground.

These clauses seek to provide clarity and improvement in access to the tribunal process, both for patients detained under the Mental Health Act and for those on conditional discharge, and seek to implement key recommendations from the independent review. Section 66 of the Act is amended to extend the period in which a patient detained under section 2 can apply to the tribunal from 14 days to 21 days. Clause 30 also allows for auto-enrolment in a hearing, reducing that time from six months to three months. It clarifies that conditional discharge patients are included in this package, so they also have the right to have their treatment reviewed at a tribunal. Providing for auto-enrolment simplifies the system for people who, as the hon. Member mentioned, are perhaps not in the best position to make administrative decisions and fill in the paperwork to apply to a tribunal.

Although this framework and these changes are necessary to bring clarity and autonomy back into people’s healthcare, it would be good to hear from the Minister about how we will support patients throughout these processes as we learn about the different timelines. How will we ensure people can access this change in the system and understand what they are entitled to under this new provision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will briefly speak in support of clauses 36 to 40. These clauses reflect the principle of least restriction, albeit for people who are subject to part III, and who are therefore subject to the deprivation of liberty conditions. It is really important that there are frameworks around conditional discharge, and these clauses will do a lot to bring it in line with best practice, and to put the limit set out in the best practice guidelines on a statutory footing to ensure that there is a 28-day transfer. To be successful, that will require multidisciplinary working between the health and justice systems. With that in mind, will the Minister give an assurance that he is confident that the 28-day limit can be met? If there is already data on how many transfers are made within that time limit, in line with best practice guidelines, that would give some assurance that the new statutory time limit is likely to be met.

I am pleased to see that the time limit should be breached only in exceptional circumstances, and that the Bill specifies that a shortage of hospital beds or staff does not constitute exceptional circumstances. It is really important that that is not used as a reason not to transfer or discharge people later than the 28-day limit. Some of the discharge test rests not only on whether there is a risk of harm to another person, but on a public test. Can the Minister clarify how those two tests will work in tandem? Is that already being done in practice?

Finally, I note that the evidence that we have received from the Care Quality Commission says that it welcomes closing the legal gap following the High Court ruling, as set out in the explanatory notes. However, the CQC believes that supervised discharge should be used only “when strictly necessary”, and I know that there are ongoing discussions between the Department’s officials and the Care Quality Commission. Can the Minister give an update on those discussions and clarify what role, if any, the CQC will play in the oversight of these measures?

As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, clauses 67 to 70 bring the Bill in line with youth justice practices and terminology, and with immigration policy. It is important that we take the opportunity to make sure that the Bill is fully up to date and in line with other pieces of legislation, so I support the clauses.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I rise to speak in support of clauses 36 to 40, which provide critical legal clarification and technical refinements to the 1993 Act. While differing in scope and impact, each of these provisions is underpinned by a clear shared commitment to enhance public protection, uphold patient rights, and ensure that the legal framework reflects both current clinical practice and developments in case law.

Let me begin with clause 36, which addresses a long-standing lacuna in the legislative architecture governing conditionally discharged restricted patients. It follows the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Secretary of State of Justice v. MM, where it became clear that the existing Mental Health Act did not permit the imposition of conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty as part of conditional discharge. The decision created uncertainty for clinicians, tribunals and, most crucially, risk-managed patients living in the community. It is therefore pleasing to see that clause 36 seeks to address that gap. The clause introduces new statutory powers for both the Secretary of State and the first-tier tribunal, in respect of imposing deprivation of liberty conditions in the community. It does so with some stringent safeguards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will speak briefly on schedule 3, which makes a number of important amendments to the 1983 Act concerning the role of independent mental health advocates. The schedule implements several practical reforms to provide consistent and accessible advocacy and support for individuals receiving mental health care. It builds upon existing statutory provisions by extending the right to advocacy beyond detained patients and setting out clearer expectations of how and when advocacy services should be made available.

One of the most notable changes is the extension of IMHA eligibility to include informal patients—individuals receiving voluntary treatment rather than under compulsion. This responds directly to the recommendations made in both the independent review and the 2021 White Paper, which identified disparities in support available to different patient groups. Under these reforms, access to advocacy is no longer limited to those detained under the Act. Instead, all qualifying patients, including informal ones, will be eligible for IMHA support where appropriate. This change reflects the recognition that voluntary status does not necessarily equate to full understanding or confidence in navigating care decisions.

To ensure that eligible individuals are aware of and able to use this support, hospital managers will now be required to notify advocacy services when a patient becomes eligible. This automatic referral mechanism removes the onus from patients themselves to initiate contact, many of whom may not be aware of their rights or may face barriers to asserting them. In turn, advocacy providers will have a duty to arrange an interview with each referred patient to establish whether they wish to use the service. This helps to close the loop between eligibility and engagement, and ensures that advocacy is offered in a timely and structured manner.

Schedule 3 also sets out clearer responsibilities on both hospital managers and advocacy providers. Clearly, that will improve co-ordination and ensure the consistent application of the policy across different care settings and regions. In practice, it should help to reduce gaps where eligible patients might otherwise miss out on support due to ambiguity around who holds the responsibility for initiating contact. It is worth noting that these reforms complement the broader set of changes proposed in clauses 41 to 44, which collectively aim to strengthen patient rights, increase transparency in decision making and improve the overall quality of patient experience in mental health services.

This approach has a number of potential benefits. First, it is likely to improve access to advocacy for groups who have historically been underserved. These include informal patients, individuals with communication difficulties and those less familiar with the mental health system. Secondly, it enhances procedural fairness by ensuring that patients are supported in understanding their options, raising their concerns, or appealing decisions where necessary. Thirdly, it brings the statutory framework into closer alignment with human rights principles and best practice standards, particularly in terms of informed participation and supported decision making.

There are, however, three specific practical challenges that I wish the Minister to acknowledge. First, these reforms will require sufficient resources for advocacy services, particularly as demand is likely to increase once eligibility is broadened. Secondly, effective implementation will depend upon robust co-ordination between hospital managers and external advocacy providers, which may vary in capacity and capability across regions. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s approach to ameliorating that. Thirdly, there is a risk of inconsistency in delivery without clear national guidance and adequate oversight mechanisms, so I would be grateful if the Minister could address the mechanisms that are intended to be put in place.

These are not insurmountable issues, but they highlight the importance of a carefully planned implementation strategy, supported by training, monitoring and adequate funding. Schedule 3 represents a targeted and proportionate set of amendments that support the underlying aims of the Bill to ensure that all individuals receiving mental health care, whether formally detained or not, are able to access independent support, understand their rights and participate more fully in decisions about their treatment. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

My apologies for the noise in the corridor; there was meant to be a yoga event in here at 6 o’clock. I thank the Doorkeeper for trying very hard to keep everything under control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aphra Brandreth]

I rise to make a few brief remarks about clauses 42 to 44, which would amend the 1983 Act to place statutory duties on hospital managers to supply complaints information to both the patient and the nominated person in respect of detailed patients, patients subject to a CTO and conditionally discharged patients.

These are important clauses. The people concerned are potentially vulnerable individuals. They need to know that they have a voice in this process and feel empowered to speak out and complain, should they wish. There is a duty on hospital managers to ensure that detained patients understand how to make complaints. However, I ask the Minister how that duty will be checked and evaluated. We all agree that the ability to speak out to make a complaint is important, but we need to ensure that proper safeguards and parameters are in place on how that will happen.

I also welcome the provision requiring that the information must be provided as soon as is practicable. That is important to give patients confidence. The timing requirements will potentially make a huge difference. The journey of a patient may change rapidly over the course of their treatment, so not leaving it too long will potentially make a substantial difference to their ability to recover swiftly, and ensure that they have been able to speak out if they are concerned not just about their detainment but about the way that their treatment is being carried out, and the potential implications of that.

Like many of the measures that we have discussed, these clauses might have administrative implications. We need to ensure that we have fully considered and are able to put in place the necessary support for hospital managers to deal with complaints appropriately. It is important that if someone comes forward with a complaint, it can be dealt with swiftly.

As mentioned on some other matters, we need to ensure consistency for patients, so that they understand the information that they are being provided and that, whatever region they might live in or hospital they might be at, consistent information is provided. I would like the Minister’s reassurance on that point.

Overall, however, the clause improves patients’ awareness of their rights and how they can seek redress. I think we all agree that that is extremely important. It will promote accountability in mental health services by encouraging feedback and complaints. I would like reassurance of some oversight to ensure feedback on any complaints that come forward so that we identify where consistent issues come up, to provide better services not just to the individual but to future individuals. Overall, the clauses support better outcomes by addressing potential grievances and ensuring that they are addressed early and constructively, so I am supportive of them.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

You will be delighted to know that I will be mercifully brief, Mrs Harris, because I am broadly supportive of all three clauses. Having worked as a doctor in clinical practice, and as a barrister, I am cognisant of the importance of transparency, patient autonomy and procedural fairness, in particular with vulnerable patients who are often seen in a mental health care setting.

I welcome this trio of clauses, but I have some gentle challenges to put to the Minister for when he gets to his feet. First, how will data be captured on the information that is to be provided to patients and their families? What feedback mechanisms will be in place, not just for patients but for those who support them—their carers and families—and for clinicians, on the practicalities of how the system is working?

[Sojan Joseph]

I was a clinician and I practised on wards; patient records are electronic for staff. When staff complete the explanation of section 132 rights, they record that on the electronic patient records. Does the hon. Member agree that that would be a good place to get the data?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a very valid point. There is that mechanism, but this is also about ensuring that the quality of the information that has been imparted—not just the process of it being done—is recorded. An audit process must ensure that the important conversations and information are imparted in a way that the patient and their family understand, in sufficient detail and as part of a process whereby, if there are concerns or doubts, they can be addressed in a ready manner. I take his point that there are metrics by which to measure things, but it is not just about capturing data; it is about capturing quality data in order to ensure that that is being fulfilled.

To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury about regional variability, consistency across the board is important not only in the regions, but in the delivery methods and capacity that underpin this crucial service.

Finally, on potential confusion and legal information being communicated in inaccessible ways, it is important that legalese does not get in the way of clarity for individuals who will have to navigate the information. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how we can ensure that the information is imparted in an accessible way for all those concerned—importantly, not just for patients and their families, but for clinicians who have to impart the information. They need to feel comfortable navigating their way around what can often be a complex set of regulations and legislation.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to be here on day two in Committee. I will first address clause 5 and then the Government amendments.

The clause marks significant reform to the legal foundations of mental health detention in this country. At its core, the clause seeks to update the grounds for detaining individuals under the Mental Health Act. It will amend several critical sections—sections 2, 3, 5, 20 and 145—to ensure that detention is used only when absolutely necessary and in line with the principle of least restriction, which was put forward in the Wessely review and is now in the Bill.

Let me outline what the changes will do in practical terms, as the Opposition see it. Under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, “Admission for assessment”, detention will now be justified only if “serious harm” may occur to the “health or safety” of patients or others. The decision must weigh the “nature, degree and likelihood” of that harm, a much more structured and risk-based framework than previously existed. Under section 3, “Admission for treatment”, we will see a clearer threshold. Detention will be permitted only if “serious harm” may occur without treatment, if the treatment is necessary, if the treatment cannot be provided unless the individual is detained and, crucially, if appropriate treatment is available.

Section 5(4), on emergency hospital detention, will be updated to align with the same “serious harm” test, recognising that even urgent situations demand clear legal justification. Section 20, which governs the renewal of detention process, will be brought in line with the same standards, such that they apply not just once but every time detention is extended. That is an important safeguard. A statutory definition of “authorised person”, those empowered to detain, will be introduced in section 145, ensuring that such persons are appropriately trained and regulated.

Those changes respond to real and long-standing concerns. The 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act warned that our current criteria are too broad and that they allow for detention that is often unnecessary, sometimes prolonged and, in too many cases, distressing for patients and families. Clause 5 seeks to change that by grounding detentions in a clear, evidence-based assessment of risk and necessity.

The clause has significant advantages. It will introduce stronger safeguards against inappropriate detention and will shift the focus away from diagnosis alone and towards the actual risk of serious harm. It will offer greater clarity for professionals, giving them structured criteria for making decisions that are ethically and legally sound. It will enhance patients’ rights by aligning the law more closely with the principles of autonomy and proportionate care.

However, with every reform there are challenges, and we must not ignore them. The terms “serious harm” and “likelihood”, although essential, remain open to interpretation. We must ensure that the forthcoming code of practice offers clear, detailed guidance that minimises subjectivity and inconsistency in their application.

Furthermore, there is a question mark over public safety, which the Minister seemed to point to but which I want to explore a bit further. We have not tabled an amendment, but I am keen to understand how this works. Given that the definition is potentially ambiguous and in practice quite difficult to judge, has the Minister considered inserting the words “cumulative” or “escalating”? To be clear, this is a call not to water down those safeguards, but to shore them up with a safety net, so that this reform does not inadvertently trade off liberty against safety, especially in communities.

We need to ensure that we are not inadvertently introducing a real risk that someone, particularly someone on the margins of eligibility, may fall through the cracks. There are individuals whose behaviour is escalating and whose pattern of deterioration is known to services, but who do not yet meet the “serious harm” threshold at the time of assessment. I have seen this at first hand as a clinician—a picture that goes round and round. These are some of the most complex situations that one will ever have to deal with in one’s clinical career. The words “escalating” or “cumulative” may help to give further clarification to clinicians on the frontline.

For those on the margins, what consideration have the Government given to the notion of a duty for professionals to produce a risk management plan in any case in which detention is considered but not authorised, so that we do not simply assess and walk away, but assess and act in a community setting? That would not lower the threshold, but contextualise it. It would ensure that detention remains a measure of last resort, but not too late a resort.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about some of the challenges around the interpretation of the Bill. Does he agree that there needs to be a clear plan for the training of professionals so that there is consistency across the board?

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend is spot on about training. It is one thing to enshrine these measures in primary legislation; it is another thing to have the training and interpretation that go with them. One of the reasons that we have not tabled an amendment on the matter, as yet, is that there could be some concerns about what “cumulative” or “escalating” behaviour looks like. Ask any clinician and they will say that they have seen patients who are on the borderline and are struggling. It can be unclear whether they are within or outside the definition; they could be wavering between the two, given the state of their mental health. That is a real concern, but the broader pattern of identifying the picture of what is happening could be helpful and important.

One way to address the issue would be to review the data and legislation. Would the Government consider carrying out a review two years after the implementation of the Bill, specifically to look at the working of the legislation through the lens of public safety? I hope that there will be no concerns, but that would provide a backstop and a legal safety net. We do not want to wait another 40 years if there are changes that need to be made.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 3, page 3, line 19, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations update the definitions in subsection (2) in response to scientific advancements.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would allow the definitions for mental disorder, autism, learning disability and psychiatric disorder to be updated by secondary legislation as science evolves.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to amendment 56, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who has extensive clinical experience. The amendment provides for a narrowly drawn but important power, namely, to update, via regulations and subject to affirmative procedure, the statutory definitions in clause 3, in response to developments in scientific and clinical understanding.

I recognise that any clause that confers powers on the Executive to amend the statutory definitions must be treated with due caution. There could be concerns that changes could be made without broad clinical consensus. However, on this occasion, I believe that my hon. Friend, who brings to the debate the weight of his clinical expertise, has struck the right balance. The proposed power is tightly scoped. It is triggered only by new scientific knowledge. It cannot be exercised on ministerial whim. Crucially, it is subject to the full rigour of parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. It is not a case of Executive overreach; it is a recognition that the pace of medical and neuroscientific research is such that legislation risks obsolescence unless we allow for responsible adaptation.

One need only look at the evolution of our understanding of conditions such as autism spectrum disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder to appreciate how quickly definitions can move on. Clearly, any change must reflect best practice and take place under broad consultation. However, I argue that we are not opening the back door to arbitrary change; we are safeguarding the front door against stagnation. For that reason, I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley for moving the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and to the shadow Minister for speaking to it.

As this regulation-making power would amend primary legislation, it would signify a Henry VIII power that the Government consider to be unjustified. We have significant concern that it could change the way in which the Bill applies to people with certain conditions without appropriate consultation or parliamentary scrutiny. The serious matter of detention for compulsory treatment should be considered in primary legislation.

The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley spoke about the need to stay in touch with our evolving understanding of these terms and conditions. My view is that the Bill does that. We have modified the meaning of mental disorder by including new definitions of autism, learning disability and psychiatric disorder. That acknowledges the advancement in our understanding of learning disabilities and autism, and how the Bill should apply in respect of those conditions. Any future change to the definitions should be a matter for Parliament, informed by strong evidence and consultation with the public.

For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those voices must be heard. One example is that we must produce a code of practice to ensure that approved mental health professionals are better supported in their decision making, including when assessing whether somebody with a learning disability or an autistic person has a co-occurring mental disorder. At the heart of the process are the assessment and the definition, and the pathway that flows from that. That code of practice can be developed only on the basis of dialogue and engagement with precisely the people he has talked about.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Building on the Minister’s last point, can he reassure the Committee that any consultation will have a strong focus on ensuring that practitioners have the training and, most importantly, the resources that they need to achieve a seamless transition from one set of regulations to another?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are moving to a nuanced position that is about defining where there are co-occurring conditions and where there are not. I think everybody recognises that that is, by definition, a complex process, so the training and the code of practice that go around it will be vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

Helpfully, I was about to move on to a point about amendments 3 and 6, which would shorten the length between care and treatment plan reviews from 12 to six months.

We need to reflect on the fact that sometimes we do not get it right when we support an individual. In such circumstances, it is particularly important that we are able to have reviews every six months, rather than 12. It does not have to be a detailed, full-scale review. If all involved in the patient’s care come to the conclusion that the care needs are being met, that review could be incredibly short. If someone’s care is inadequate or inappropriate, it is not right that they should have to suffer unnecessarily for a year without the changes that are needed. Halving the time between the care and treatment reviews ensures that patients are not left languishing and instead have care that truly reflects their individual needs. I would reiterate that a six-month review can be incredibly short, and it also benefits patients by making them aware of where their care is not working for them, so that it can be reviewed.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I have a certain degree of sympathy for the amendments, but I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise that patients and their families often find the review process overwhelming in and of itself. Bringing it forward to six months, when such reviews would often not be required, can cause a huge amount of stress and place pressure on those family units and patients. Of course, reviews can be brought forward when clinical need requires it. To stipulate that within the legislation puts an enormous burden upon those families and, most importantly, the patients.

[Zöe Franklin]

I return to my point that a review can be short when clinicians and those involved in a patient’s treatment deem it appropriate. Again, where the system is working for a patient, it is good and proper that we do a short review, and they can then carry on with their treatment. When it is not working, why should the patient struggle on for 12 months alongside their families, who will also be struggling?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Zöe Franklin]

No, I will move on to amendment 7, which I also want to cover. This amendment is very important, as it would ensure that the integrated care boards and local authorities responsible for a patient’s treatment and care would have a duty to implement the recommendations arising from a care and treatment review. The legislation states “must have regard to”, but we believe that that is too weak and could see crucial parts of care and treatment reviews left unimplemented.

As it stands, this part of the Bill could be considered to be implemented even if no adequate resourcing was required, with the care and treatment review left as an empty exercise. One of the key parts of this legislation is to ensure that resources are there to implement treatment for patients. Will the Minister reassure us that adequate resources will be provided to ensure that patients’ treatment needs are met, that training for clinicians and others supporting an individual is made available through resourcing, and that we do not again find ourselves in a situation like the current one, in which patients too often struggle because there are not the resources to meet their care needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree. Even if the Government build the number of houses that they propose—I have some scepticism—there will always be the potential conflict or disagreement on prioritisation in the housing register and list. As my hon. Friend says, that might well lead to local authorities having to change their criteria, which are not necessarily consistent across local authorities, and, as in his example, potentially pitting a homeless person against someone with mental health needs.

The amendment would also have the potential for scope creep. I have a lot of sympathy with what it is trying to achieve, but expanding CETRs to include housing might dilute their focus and overburden the process. I am interested to hear from the mover and supporters of the amendment how they would ensure that the CETR continues to have that core focus on the health and wellbeing of the individual, rather than potentially be bogged down in the mire of housing issues.

Moving on, amendment 51 would ensure that the care and treatment of individuals with autism or learning disabilities explicitly considered the impact of accommodation and relocation in the planning and decision-making process. Again, I have a lot of sympathy with that. It would promote holistic care planning, reduce trauma and disruption, support continuity of care and, I think, align with the person-centred principles throughout the Bill, which all of us support. Again, however, amendment 51 might complicate discharge planning, if suitable accommodation were limited.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that not resolving housing and accommodation at the point of discharge could lead to a delay in transition? Patients would remain in hospital for longer than might be beneficial to them.

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree entirely. That could be the unintended consequence of amendment 51: in essence, if the housing provision is not there, discharge will be delayed. From my understanding of the amendments in the group, those who tabled them are trying to speed up and improve discharge. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to think about the practical implications of the Bill.

The amendment would require co-ordination among health, social care and housing services, which may be challenging in under-resourced areas. Frankly, because parts of those organisations are not used to working in the ways that the amendment would require, it might fall over without suitable training, the necessary lead-in time and a practical understanding of how it will work.

Amendment 4 would ensure that housing needs are formally considered during the care and treatment review meetings for adults with autism or a learning disability, without an EHCP. I understand that the aim is to support more effective discharge planning and reduce the risk of unnecessary or prolonged hospital stays. That is entirely in keeping with what we should be trying to do in the Bill. Holistic care planning reduces delays in discharge, improves cross-sector collaboration and supports community-based care, which we all support.

Once again, however, there is potential for complexity in the implementation. New processes may be required to involve the housing authorities. Resources and local housing shortages could limit the amendments’ practical impact. Another layer of complex review processes could add to that administrative burden. If there is inconsistent local capacity, the effectiveness of the amendment will almost certainly vary depending on the local housing infrastructure, which could lead to a postcode lottery, for want of a better phrase, in who receives the adequate care and housing.

Amendment 2 would ensure that children and young people with autism or learning disability, as well as their nominated persons and independent mental health advocates, receive a copy of the care, education and treatment review meeting report. I have a lot of sympathy with that. It potentially increases empowerment and transparency, ensuring that patients and their advocates are fully informed, which could enable better participation in care decisions. It has a legal and ethical alignment with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, both of which emphasise supported decision making. It might also improve advocacy, as independent mental health advocates can more effectively represent a patient’s interest when they have access to the full report.

--- Later in debate ---

I return to the practical parts, which were raised by my hon. Friend from Shropshire—

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Not quite: Solihull.

[Gregory Stafford]

I knew it began with S and was somewhere that is not Surrey or Hampshire—because where else would you want to be, Mr Vickers? The amendment would potentially increase the workload, because more frequent reviews place additional pressure on professionals and services.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a risk that the amendment would not only increase the workload of practitioners, but divert attention from patient care?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We operate in a resource-confined area. It does not matter what the resource envelope is; it will always be confined. If we use resource to service the very laudable aims of the amendment, it will take resource and money away from another area.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gregory Stafford]

Thank you, Ms Furniss. I was coming to my closing remarks on amendment 47. Suffice it to say that some of the concerns that I raised on amendment 8 about the administrative burdens, the data sharing, and the potential safeguarding and privacy concerns transfer through. Again, perhaps the hon. Member for Winchester could give some reassurance on that when summing up.

Amendment 9, as far as I can tell, would extend the duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to exercise their marketing functions in a way that seeks to ensure that children and young people’s needs can be met without detaining them.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the intention behind the amendment may be worthy, there is a lack of clarity in the drafting? In particular, it is unclear what “seek to ensure” means and how that would be legally defined.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is right; although a number of the Liberal Democrats are entirely worthy, there are some concerns about the drafting, which could give rise to ambiguity, legal loopholes and definitional issues. In that example, I do not think that “seek to ensure” is helpful. When the hon. Member for Winchester is summing up, perhaps he might explain how “seek to ensure” can be robustly defined within the law, or if it cannot be, suggest a different form of wording that he may wish to use in a future amendment if this amendment fails to be agreed.

Part II of the Mental Health Act 1983 covers the powers to detain individuals for assessment and treatment. Detention can clearly be traumatic, especially for children and young people. Amendment 9 reflects a growing consensus that detention should be the last resort— I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that—and that community-based preventive and therapeutic alternatives should be prioritised. Again, I think it would be very hard to disagree with that ambition.

On the positive side, community-based care is clearly better than detention in most cases, and, if we can get to a point where people are assessed earlier, as is the intention of some of the other amendments, clearly—hopefully—that would lead to community-based care and not detention. The amendment would also protect children’s rights and support the trauma-informed approaches to mental health that were raised previously regarding amendment 47.

The amendment could also reduce the long-term harm associated with institutionalisation and potentially coercive treatment. As we have heard from Members on both sides, that would align with best practice in child and adolescent mental health services and it would promote and encourage a system of accountability by making ICBs and local authorities responsible for proactive care planning. All of that is extraordinarily laudable.

On the potential downsides, there is an ambiguity about the enforcement of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said, because of the lack of legal force or clarity in some of the phraseology. There would be also resource implications and, if there are resource limitations at the ICB or local authority level, that might hinder their ability to provide adequate, community-based alternatives.

I do not say that as an excuse for not supporting the amendment, but the hon. Member for Winchester has to understand the reality of the world we live in. Although I want local authorities and ICBs in every area to be entirely fully funded and resourced—and frankly, I do not think the Government’s cut of 50%, or indeed more in some ICBs, will do anything to help community-based care—there would be resource challenges. There would also be implementation challenges in areas where mental health services are already underfunded or overstretched that could lead to delays in care.

This is the key question that I ask the hon. Member to respond to in his summing up. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that all people of all ages get the best, most appropriate mental health care as early as possible. But in an imperfect world, if there are potential delays in care because community services are struggling to find alternatives to detention, the unintended consequence could be that someone may not be treated at all because of the onus on defined community-based care rather than detention. Will the hon. Member explain how that would work?

I draw my remarks to a close by saying I, certainly, and the Opposition, entirely agree with the ambitions of the amendments. However, some practical and legal issues would need to be ironed out before I could wholeheartedly support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I hope that Baroness Casey completes her commission work and gives us her report. It was promised in the Chamber that the initial report would be available within a year. Regardless of whether she is taking up another role, I hope there will not be any delay and that we get that report and a detailed report within three years. I am looking for a solid plan to fix this problem forever. I am not looking for sticking plasters or an immediate fix, but we need a plan, perhaps including a national care service. These are the people who are looking for a long-term solution to these problems.

The hon. Member asked about how I will vote; unfortunately, I will not be supporting new clause 11. The Government have already started some work, which is why I am specifically talking about the NHS 10-year plan to move care from hospitals to the community, along with the social care commission, which is looking into how we can get good progress on that. This is the answer; we need to get a long-term solution to this problem.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendments 20, 10, 22, 24 and 21, and set out why, although I think they are honourable in their intent, I am unable to support them today.

I will start with amendment 20. The purpose of the amendment is to require ICBs to ensure the availability of specialist crisis accommodation for people with autism and learning disabilities. The aim is to provide a safe and therapeutic alternative to detention, which I think we would all agree is a sensible course of action. Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows police to remove an individual who is experiencing a mental health crisis from a public place to a place of safety. That can, on unfortunate occasions, lead to detention in inappropriate settings, which may include police cells. That can obviously be deeply harmful, particularly to those with conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder or other learning difficulties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

That is a valid question, and one that has probably been asked in pretty much every Bill Committee that has ever taken place. It is always a challenge to get the balance right, having the right level of steer to the system in primary legislation without tying the hands of the system. Everything is constantly evolving, particularly in the age of technology in which we live, so it would be foolish to tie our hands too tightly given the changing nature of the landscape we are working in.

My answer to the question—I say this personally and from the point of view of the Government—is that we are satisfied that we have the balance more or less right. That is in the eye of the beholder, and not everybody will agree, but we feel that clause 4 gets that balance right, and sends clear signals to the system through primary legislation. The proof of the pudding will then be in the eating, and that is for the code of practice, the regulations and the programme planning. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Grounds for detention

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 5, page 11, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—

“(b) in the case of a patient who lacks capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment), serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person, or in the case of a patient who does not lack capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment) serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person; and”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 53, in clause 5, page 11, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—

“(b) in the case of a patient who lacks capacity or competence to consent to admission for medical treatment, serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment, or in the case of a patient who does not lack capacity or competence to consent to admission for medical treatment, serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of another person unless the patient receives medical treatment,”

This amendment, along with Amendment 52, would add to the grounds for admission to hospital for assessment or treatment that the patient must lack the capacity to consent to that admission, if they would not be detained due to being a risk to others.

New clause 24—Application in respect of patient already on hospital grounds—

“(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 5(1) (Application in respect of a patient already in hospital), after ‘or,’ insert ‘that the patient has attended a hospital or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient or,’”

This new clause would allow people who have attended or been brought to a hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to pursue an application for admission under the Mental Health Act.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

All the amendments in this group have been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). Amendments 52 and 53 deal with grounds for detention and treatment—specifically, with how those grounds differ depending on whether a patient has the capacity or competence to consent.

At the heart of both amendments is the simple but vital proposition that capacity matters, not only ethically, but legally. The ability of an individual to make decisions about their own care must shape the basis on which the state may act against their will.

The revised wording introduces an important distinction between the two scenarios, where a patient lacks capacity and where they retain it. In the first case, where a patient cannot consent because they are unable to understand or weigh up the relevant information, then serious harm either to the patient or to others may justify detention or compulsory treatment. However, in the second case, where capacity is intact, the threshold for overriding a person’s autonomy is rightly higher. In such circumstances, the justification for intervention must rest solely on the risk of serious harm to other people.

This is more than legal tidiness; it is a matter of fundamental rights. The law should not permit the detention or forced treatment of a capacitated individual on the basis of a paternalistic judgment about their own safety—that is not a liberal mental health framework, but an arbitrary power. These amendments achieve something critical: they preserve the protective duty of the state, particularly to those who cannot protect themselves, but they do so without blurring the line between necessary intervention and justified intrusion. They are grounded in legal precedent, echoing the principles found in common law, the Mental Capacity Act and article 5 of the European convention on human rights. They introduce clarity where ambiguity once stood, and they ensure that the Bill reflects both compassion and constitutional restraint. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. We are now expecting three Divisions. I will therefore suspend the Committee for twenty-five minutes, until 5.30 pm—[Interruption.] Four Divisions? We have only been informed about three. [Interruption.] Yes—we would like you all back at 5.40 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst to continue speaking to amendment 52 and the other amendments in that group.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It seems a lifetime ago since I was last on my feet. I am sure the Minister was waiting in anticipation for the crescendo of my speech. He heard my observations on amendments 52 and 53, and I know he will be mindful of ensuring that the balance between intervention and detention is held in equilibrium. I would be grateful if he addressed the points I raised before the interlude in his response.

New clause 24 would amend section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to clarify that a formal application for detention can be made not only for a patient already admitted to hospital, but for individuals who have attended or been brought to a hospital seeking help or admission. It would therefore expand the legal basis for initiating detention procedures under the Act.

The new clause makes an important distinction. While the Act currently allows for the detention of an individual who is already an in-patient, there is ambiguity about whether that applies to individuals who are on hospital grounds—who have attended A&E, for example—but have not yet been formally admitted as a patient. In those cases, the Act fails to capture people who arrive voluntarily or are brought to such an institution during a crisis.

New clause 24 seeks to close that gap by explicitly allowing an application for detention to be made in such circumstances, ensuring that a timely intervention can occur when necessary for safety or treatment. A number of significant benefits would arise from the new clause. It would provide firm legal clarity; remove any ambiguity about when detention procedures can begin; allow timely intervention, enabling quicker responses for an individual in crisis who is already at hospital but has not been admitted; reduce the risk of harm by allowing earlier application of safeguards; and align the legal framework with the reality of hospital procedures. The distinction between those who are in attendance at a hospital and those who have been admitted in a state of crisis is a false one.

[Dr Evans]

Like me, my hon. Friend has served as a clinician on the frontline. As this point is sometimes lost, can he explain the practicalities of what turning up at a hospital versus actually being admitted means? They are two distinct things. Can he walk us through what the process entails?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is right. An individual can attend an emergency department to be assessed and be seen by a doctor before a decision is made on whether that patient should be admitted to that hospital, transferred to a tertiary centre or discharged back into the community. New clause 24 seeks to provide clarity and certainty for practitioners on that grey area and, crucially, it seeks to provide a safeguard for patients who have yet to be formally admitted to an institution—a hospital, community placement or wherever—but need a crucial intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I rise to speak to amendments 52 and 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley. Clearly, both my hon. Friends have significant clinical experience, and I bow in many ways to their expertise. However, the amendments cause me some concerns.

Amendments 52 and 53

“would add to the grounds for admission to hospital for assessment or treatment that the patient must lack the capacity to consent to that admission, if they would not be detained due to being a risk to others.”

Clearly, both amendments would introduce a capacity-based distinction in the grounds for detaining a person for medical treatment under the Mental Health Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned. That would ensure that, for patients who lack capacity or competence, detention is justified if serious harm may be caused to themselves or others unless they receive that treatment. For patients who have capacity or competence, detention is justified only if serious harm may be caused to others unless they received that treatment.

The amendments build on the principle of autonomous individuals, which we have talked about and which, as my hon. Friend said, is in the Bill. People should not be detained solely for their own protection if they are capable of making informed decisions about their care. As my hon. Friend said, that aligns with the Mental Capacity Act and broader human rights principles, aiming to ensure that detention is used proportionately and, most importantly, ethically.

Where the two amendments improve the current legislation is around the strengthening of patient autonomy by limiting the detention of capable individuals to cases where others are at risk. The amendments align the Bill with the human rights principles and the Mental Capacity Act, and clarify a number of legal thresholds for detention, reducing ambiguity in clinical decision making. That will help clinicians to make more sensible and consistent judgments when it comes to who should or should not be detained. Obviously, the amendments promote a proportionality element in the use of coercive powers, and support the person-centred care that we want.

However, I am concerned that the amendments may increase complexity when assessing capacity in applying the correct legal tests. It will absolutely require training and guidance. Government Members have been concerned about mandatory training, and I make no apologies for hoping there would be significant training on this for clinicians when acting in this role, to ensure consistent application of these services. While I accept that the provisions clarify the legal thresholds, I think there is a potential for legal challenges if the distinction is misapplied or misunderstood, hence the need to return to my point about having the correct training. I hope the Minister is able to address some of those concerns, rather than just dismissing the amendments outright.

New clause 24 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and West Shirley—

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Solihull West and Shirley.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am doing my best—I will get it right by week three, I promise.

New clause 24 would allow people who have attended or been brought to hospital to seek help or admission as a patient to pursue an application for admission under the Mental Health Act. As other Members have mentioned, section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act allows for the detention of individuals who are already in-patients. However, there has been ambiguity about whether that applies to individuals who are on hospital grounds but not yet formally admitted; for example, those who arrive voluntarily or are being brought in during a crisis. New clause 24 seeks to close that gap by explicitly allowing applications for detention to be made in such circumstances, ensuring that a timely intervention can occur when necessary for safety or treatment, according to my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull West and Shirley and for Runnymede and Weybridge.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friends on the benefits of the new clause, and I accept some of them. However, I have some concerns about deterring people from turning up to a hospital setting, either for some other treatment or to visit friends or relations. I am worried that people would be concerned that they would be forcibly sectioned or detained without their consent by just turning up. There is a real risk of overreach in new clause 24. If we go back to the point about autonomy, people need to have assurance about when and where they will potentially be detained when they seek voluntary help.

The line between voluntary attendance and involuntary detention is the nub of the new clause. While I accept the arguments that have been made by my two hon. Friends, I am not thus far convinced that the balance in the clause is correct, but I am hopeful that the Minister can give some clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Yes, I think that is right. We have a commitment to creating—either building or repurposing—facilities for more acute mental health settings. We have also created the 111 mental health line. We have a commitment to 8,500 more mental health specialists. We are committed to having a mental health-trained person in every school in the country.

I hope that all those wraparound measures will help in the overall role that we play in the community, and identify people with challenges in a way that will help to support them and, one hopes, avoid them getting to the acute stage. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to some of the wraparound measures that the Government are pushing forward.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley not to press amendments 52 and 53 and new clause 24 to a vote.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I have listened carefully to the Minister, who has addressed the issue with his usual thoughtfulness. I ask that he looks into sharing that data, particularly around new clause 24, but on the basis of the reassurances that he has provided, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fourth sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, setting out why I support amendments 462, 497 and 498, but oppose amendment 463. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire set out very eloquently the reasons behind amendment 462. On the one hand, there is a cogent argument that it is not strictly necessary in the light of the provisions set out in subsection (4)(b) and (c), which set out that the individual wishing to have an assisted death must have

“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”

and is

“requesting provision of that assistance voluntarily”.

However, it appears to me a logical and entirely appropriate extension of the intentions behind clause 18(4) to express that in slightly more explicit terms in the Bill by adopting my hon. Friend’s amendment 462. It strikes me that, after doing so, the Bill would provide a further check and balance that creates no greater onus on either the individual seeking an assisted death nor the co-ordinating doctor who is assisting them. In those circumstances, it appears eminently sensible to improve the Bill in that way. From the indications we have already heard, it appears that there is significant support for that amendment.

I struggle with amendment 463, which would remove paragraph (c) from clause 18(6). The effect would be to prohibit the co-ordinating doctor from providing assistance to the person seeking an assisted death, either through ingestion or other self-administration of that substance, in any circumstance. In my view, the amendment would make the operation of the Bill, were it to become an Act, unnecessarily restrictive. Clause 18(7) already stipulates that

“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must”—

I stress the word “must”—

“be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided”.

On any interpretation of the construct of that, it is clear that the person seeking an assisted death must be the active participant in the process; it is mandatory. There is no discretion in that, by virtue of the word “must”.

Were we to remove clause 18(6)(c) and the Bill passed into law, it would have the effect, in what is an entirely legal process, that a doctor would be unable to aid a patient in any circumstance. For example, they would not be allowed to hold a glass or steady a straw as a patient moved towards it to imbibe a substance. Those are circumstances that are entirely foreseeable, when through the ravages of an illness, somebody is limited in what they are physically able to do. Of course, assistance could be provided in alternative ways—for instance, through assistive technology, which we have seen being used in other jurisdictions. The Swiss, for example, use a significant amount of assistive technology in administering and assisting the process of self-administration at the end of life.

[Danny Kruger]

My point is that it is very difficult to draw a line here. I recognise the scenario that my hon. Friend raises: why should a nurse not be able to hold a straw for a person to drink from? I might say that should be acceptable; however, I do not think it should be acceptable for the nurse to tip the pills into the patient’s mouth. Does he think that scenario would be acceptable? Or to give another one, would it be acceptable to actively provide force on top of a patient’s finger to press a syringe? Would he regard that as acceptable assistance?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That is why clause 18(7) is so important: the final act must be undertaken by the person seeking an assisted death. The example my hon. Friend gives of tipping tablets into a mouth is a final act. Pushing a syringe is a final act. There is a significant distinction between an individual or practitioner holding a cup with a straw and the person seeking an assisted death moving their mouth towards the straw, sucking from it and imbibing the substance and the passive act of a substance being raised to that individual’s lips and poured in without any movement by the individual seeking an assisted death themselves.

[Danny Kruger]

When we talk about this in future debates, it might be appropriate for this conversation to be referenced. I think my hon. Friend is suggesting that it should be acceptable, and that assisted death would be legal, as long as the patient moved their head towards the straw and cup, and that it would be illegal, according to my hon. Friend’s definition, were a doctor applying a cup to a patient’s lips and the drugs fell in by gravity. Is that right? Is that how judges in future should determine whether assistance has crossed the line?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It is very clear from subsection (7) that this must be an active step taken by the individual. There is a risk that we go down a rabbit hole in terms of—[Interruption.] I am sure my hon. Friend would like me to finish my point. We risk going down a rabbit hole in drawing examples. I raised the example of a cup, but of course there are much wider assistive technologies that can be used and are used in different jurisdictions. I gave the example to illustrate the point that this is an active act, not a passive act.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions subsection (7). Subsection (8) states quite clearly that it

“does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.”

I think the passive and active roles are quite clear between the two subsections.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member’s interpretation of the Bill.

There is a further unintended consequence of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which I am sure is not his intention but would sadly be the effect: were an individual to qualify under the Bill, should it pass and were the amendment to be adopted, they would inevitably be forced to take the final decision at an earlier stage. If there is a restriction that they can have no assistance whatsoever in performing the act, they will end up making the decision when they know that they have the entire physical strength available for them to do it, and that actually brings forward the point at which they choose to die to an earlier stage.

[Kit Malthouse]

After 10 years of campaigning on this issue and spending so much time with people whose family have gone to Switzerland, one of the things they consistently say is that people went to Switzerland much earlier than they wanted to because they had to go while they were still physically able. I think this is a critical point that people have to realise. We should not compel people to do this earlier than they would otherwise wish to simply because of these restrictions.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My right hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. I think there is a consensus among the Committee that there is no desire for people to take this ultimate step at an earlier stage than is absolutely necessary for them. My very real fear is that, were we to adopt this amendment, we would bring forward that point of decision.

[Danny Kruger]

The logic of that argument is to allow physician-administered suicide, because there will be a point at which people are physically unable to perform the act but have capacity, and their autonomy should be respected—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 463, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment 497, in clause 18, page 13, line 9, leave out “decides” and insert

“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”.

This amendment provides that the duty to remove the approved substance arises on the coordinating doctor being informed that the person has decided not to self-administer the substance.

Amendment 498, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, leave out

“that the substance is not”

and insert

“to believe that the substance will not be”.

This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the coordinating doctor is under a duty to remove the approved substance from the person.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire was mid-intervention when the Committee adjourned this morning, and I would not want to pull the rug from underneath him. Does he wish to intervene again?

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was simply asking what causes him to object to physician-administered assistance to die. If he supports the principle of assisted suicide and believes in doctor autonomy, why does he not think that doctors should be able to administer the fatal dose?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

This gets to the root of how the law has operated in another jurisdiction, Switzerland, where Dignitas has managed this scenario over the past 40 years or so. The key—these are the words that its own guidance uses—is ensuring that the power of control remains with the person seeking the assisted death. That provides the individual who is making the choice with the ultimate autonomy at the end in controlling the circumstances and the manner in which they pass.

I have set out why I feel that although amendment 463 arises from good intentions, it would not achieve what is intended. There is a real risk that the constraints that adopting the amendment would create would lead to the regrettable unintended consequence of individuals being forced to have an assisted death at an earlier stage than they would otherwise have wished.

I can deal with amendments 497 and 498 in short order. They would tighten up the Bill by providing greater clarity around the circumstances in which the substance would be removed from the presence of the individual who had previously indicated a wish to have an assisted death. Amendment 497 specifies that the individual would need to set out to the co-ordinating doctor that they no longer desired to go through with the process. In my view, that is eminently sensible. Amendment 498 elaborates on the Bill to provide greater clarity to those who will be operating it. It will make it a much more workable piece of legislation. I support both amendments.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Before I speak to amendments 497 and 498, on which the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, let me address amendments 462 and 463.

Amendment 462 would amend clause 18 to require the co-ordinating doctor to explain to the person that they do not have to proceed and self-administer the approved substance, and that they may still cancel their declaration. Although it is not specified, it is presumed that the amendment refers to the second declaration that the person will have made. The Committee may wish to note that there is already a requirement in clause 18(4)(b) that,

“at the time the approved substance is provided”,

the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied that the person

“has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

The purpose of amendment 463 is to limit what the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to do in relation to providing the person with an approved substance under clause 18. As the clause stands, subsection (6) sets out the activities that the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to carry out in respect of an approved substance provided to the person under subsection (2). It states that the co-ordinating doctor may

“(a) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person,

(b) prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and

(c) assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

Additionally, subsection (7) provides that

“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.”

Amendment 463 would remove subsection (6)(c), which would result in the co-ordinating doctor being unable to assist the person

“to ingest or otherwise self-administer”

the approved substance. The co-ordinating doctor would still be permitted to prepare that substance for self-administration and to prepare a medical device to enable the person to self-administer the substance. This could mean that a co-ordinating doctor may not be able to provide assistance such as helping the person to sit up to help with swallowing, or explaining how the medical device for self-administering the substance works. This could result in practical difficulties in self-administration of the substance and/or place the co-ordinating doctor in a difficult position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am absolutely certain that if the amendment had been in the original Bill, the Bill would not have passed Second Reading, because it would have validated the argument that many of us made that the implication of assisted suicide is euthanasia. The distinction between them, while valid in the abstract, does not apply in practice, and that distinction will be quickly overridden in time. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Although I have certain sympathies with these amendments, I do not feel that they are necessary or desirable. They are not necessary because of the provisions that are already stipulated in clause 18(6)(b), which provides the co-ordinating doctor with the ability to prepare

“a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance”.

That subsection, in effect, negates the scenario that is put forward in amendment 350 around dysphagia or the loss of a limb. It would permit, for example, the use of a nasogastric tube or a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube to be used for the administration of the substance in the case of dysphagia. In the case of the functional loss of limbs, as was discussed in the debate on the previous group, a range of assisted technologies are available that would remove the barriers that that would present.

Beyond the necessity, or lack of necessity, of these amendments, I fear that they create legal uncertainty, which is clearly undesirable and, in this instance, could have a serious and significant unintended consequence through the amendments’ interaction with clause 24. Subsection (3) of that clause inserts proposed new section 2AA of the Suicide Act 1961, which is an exemption to that Act in respect of the assistance provided under this Bill. In effect, proposed new section 2AA disapplies sections 2(1) and 2A(1) of the Suicide Act where the provision of assistance is done in accordance with the Bill. Those sections specifically relate to an act

“capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”.

Introducing the concept of additional assistance, as these amendments would, creates a legal uncertainty. The word “additional” creates a further concept that is beyond assistance but is, thus far, ill defined. Would it go as far as, for example, the clinician taking full control of administering the substance? It is entirely unclear. It would therefore place the clinician in an invidious position as to what it would mean for them to provide additional assistance in such circumstances. As I read the interplay between the Suicide Act and the proposed legislation, the clinician would not then be exempt by virtue of clause 24(3), leaving them open to prosecution under the Act.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that; I particularly respect my hon. Friend’s concern to protect the doctors from any confusion in the law they might be operating under. Just to take him back to the question of technology resolving what I regard as an insuperable problem—the difference between assistance and administration—is it my understanding that my hon. Friend would oppose a patient’s being able to ask a doctor to administer a lethal drug to him or her, but that he would support a patient’s being able to ask a computer to administer a lethal drug to him or her? Would he accept the computer performing the act at the patient’s request?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, because it is the patient who is driving the decision. They are making that act by activating the electronic device—the computer or whatever it may be in terms of assistive technology—but they have the power and control over that decision-making process, which is completely distinct from a clinician doing that act. It is distinct because it is activated by the patient—by the person making that decision—and that is why I draw the distinction. My hon. Friend may not agree, but that is my rationale for drawing a distinction between the two.

[Dr Opher]

rose—

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am being ambushed by the left.

[Dr Opher]

I agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s points. In terms of assistance, what we are talking about, potentially, if the technology arrives at that, is that the doctor may be able to put a Venflon into the patient’s vein, but they would not put the drug through the Venflon into the vein. That would enable the patient to have control. That is the type of assistance that could be quite useful in this scenario, but it would not involve the doctor actually delivering the drug.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful for that helpful and thoughtful intervention.

For the reasons I have set out, I consider that the amendments create unnecessary and highly undesirable legal confusion, so I shall not support them.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Currently, clause 18(6) permits the co-ordinating doctor, in respect of an approved substance provided to the person under subsection (2), to undertake the following activities: prepare the approved substance for self-administration; prepare a medical device to enable self-administration of the approved substance; and assist the person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance. Furthermore, subsection (8) expressly provides that subsection (6)

“does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.”

Amendment 350 seeks to enable the co-ordinating doctor, in the presence of an independent witness, to provide “additional assistance” to the person to administer the approved substance. Such assistance can be provided only where the person has authorised it, and where the person is

“permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance”

due to a significant risk of choking due to difficulty swallowing—dysphagia—or loss of the use of their limbs. The term “additional assistance” is not defined in these amendments.

Amendment 351 is consequential to amendment 350 and would require any decision to authorise additional assistance for the self-administration of the substance to be made by the person to whom the substance has been provided. Amendment 352 would create an exception to the condition in clause 18(8), and would have the effect of permitting the co-ordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death where the criteria introduced in amendment 350 are met—that is, where the co-ordinating doctor is satisfied that the person is permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance, and that the person has authorised that the additional assistance be provided.

Our assessment is that the amendments would enable the co-ordinating doctor to administer the approved substance to the person, rather than merely assisting the person, in the limited circumstances provided for in clause 18(6), to self-administer. That would be a significant change to one of the fundamental principles of the promoter’s Bill—that the final act of administering the approved substance must be taken by the person themselves, and not by a co-ordinating doctor. That is a policy matter and a decision for the Committee.

However, should the amendments be accepted, further amendments may be needed to ensure that this provision is fully legally coherent and workable in several areas. First, amendment 350 does not define who qualifies as an independent witness—for example, whether this would have to be a health professional or whether it could be a family member. Secondly, it does not address whether anyone would be disqualified from being an independent witness, as provided for through clause 36, which is entitled “Disqualification from being witness or proxy”.

Finally, as drafted, amendment 350 does not detail how authorisation of the additional assistance must be obtained and/or recorded in order to be valid. It also does not require that any details about the independent witness be recorded. This could lead to difficulties in complying with and/or evidencing that the requirements to provide the additional assistance have been met. By extension, there will be a lack of clarity over when and how the criminal provisions are to apply. I hope that those observations were helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 408, in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. I also support amendments 499 and 210, in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and amendment 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

Clause 19 states that

“the coordinating doctor may authorise, in writing, a named registered medical practitioner to carry out the coordinating doctor’s functions under section 18…A registered medical practitioner may be authorised under subsection (1) only if…the person to whom the assistance is being provided has consented, in writing, to the authorisation of that practitioner”.

I support amendment 408, which adds that the person must also have been consulted.

I am sure the Committee recognises that, even where someone has basic training and the experience specified, delegating care at the end of life is something that must be done with great care, given the vulnerability of patients. If a co-ordinating doctor has guided someone through this profound and significant process, there are some intrinsic risks that come with delegating the administration of the final approved substance to someone else. I concede that there will be situations where a substitute may be required, but it will not be the doctor that the patient has trusted, confided in and relied on.

A new doctor will of course do the final checks for capacity and consent, but they do not necessarily have any specific detailed knowledge of the patient and may be unable to pick up less obvious cues that someone who knows the patient may be better able to. That gap matters, and history shows that it can lead to problems. The risks of delegation are well documented. If we take the Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust scandal in 2005 to 2009, detailed in the Francis report, consultants often delegated tasks to junior staff or nurses without adequate supervision, which contributed to poor care and an estimated 400 to 1,200 excess deaths. Patients suffered from neglect, untreated infections, dehydration and medication errors. That was partly because delegated staff lacked the training or authority to act decisively, and consultants failed to monitor effectively.

In surgical contexts, delegation can also falter. A 2006 Daily Mail report highlighted NHS payouts exceeding £1 million for wrong-site surgeries, where consultants delegated preparatory or operative tasks to trainees or assistants, who then misidentified sites—for example, operating on the wrong leg or tooth. Those errors often stemmed from inadequate briefing or supervision, pointing to a systemic delegation risk. We have to be really aware of this.

Those examples suggest that when consultants delegate, whether to junior doctors or other practitioners, including their peers, things can go wrong if communication breaks down, or if the replacement lacks equivalent expertise or is simply not aware of some of the detailed information. In order to manage some of the risks better, patients must be consulted about who takes over their care, and not just asked to consent after the co-ordinating doctor has decided what will happen.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Given that valid consent requires a voluntary and informed decision, can my hon. Friend set out why that would not involve being consulted on the matter in any event?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for the amendment. The set-up of this scheme is similar to other NHS services. Essentially, a medical professional will opt in to provide the service. That will involve extensive training followed by a short exam, as it does in Australia and California, after which they will be accredited under the scheme—that is how I understand it will happen in the UK. No one is forced to provide the service, but training is offered and many doctors take that up. Therefore, it is a medically based service.

The British Medical Association will then negotiate the fee for doing the assessment with the Department of Health and Social Care. That is not about agreeing to provide the service; it is about doing the assessment. That is mirrored in many aspects of general practice, which itself is a private service contracted to the NHS. It is very complicated. It would be inaccurate to portray this as a private service, where people may profiteer, as it is based on medical professionals performing a duty for which they are trained and for which the price is clear to the general public, because it is negotiated and published.

On publishing the number of patients seen by a single doctor and the fees that doctor has accrued from the scheme, that is not something that happens for things like minor operations, which we perform outside general medical services, although we are rewarded by the Government at a set fee. There are other such services—inserting a coil, for example—where we are given a certain amount of money.

How this is arranged is very complicated. Doing appraisals, being a trainer and all these things have a price attached, and we need training before we can perform the service. I see this scheme as no different. The problem with publishing how many patients have been seen by a single doctor regarding assisted dying is that it puts a target on that doctor. As we have seen with abortion clinics and even this Committee—certain Committee members have been targeted by the press for what they have said—this is a very sensitive issue, and it would not be fair to publish the figures so that doctors could be targeted in the press and made to feel unworthy in all those ways. It is extremely difficult.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument about doctors being vilified in the press, but does he believe there is a risk that it may go further and present a genuine safety risk to those doctors?

[Dr Opher]

Exactly. That is what worries me. I acknowledge what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said about pharmaceutical sponsorship, but I do not think that has anything to do with what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is specifying what doctors are doing as part of their daily job, for which they are trained. It would not be fair to publish those figures and put those doctors at risk.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

I ask hon. Members to support amendment 277. It will give patients time to think. It will give them that time near the beginning of the assisted dying process, whereas the Bill as currently drafted gives them time almost at the end of the process. Most importantly, it will give patients what senior psychiatrists have asked for: simply put, the chance for people who have received a shocking diagnosis and prognosis to work with their doctors and social carers to put new treatment plans in place.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I rise to set out why—reluctantly—I cannot support amendments 403 and 404, which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire. It is not because of the principle involved, because my hon. Friend was very clear in setting out the amendments. They would not provide for a prescriptive situation where an individual must tell their family. A range of options are set out, which I anticipate that any sensible and responsible doctor or clinician would take a patient through, encouraging them to involve their family in their decision making.

The issue that I have is around the legal clarity of the wording of the amendments, because under the English and Welsh legal system there is no statutory definition of “family”. There is a concept of family, but the concept of family to me may be very different from that of my neighbour, or from that of someone who lives in another city. For example, for some people stepbrothers, stepsisters and step-parents are very much part of their family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples with children are a family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples without children are a family; for others, they are not.

[Danny Kruger]

I take that point; families are difficult to define. Nevertheless, the Bill currently refers to the opportunity for a doctor, or the suggestion that a doctor,

“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate, advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”

That is more precise. Would my hon. Friend accept an amendment along the lines that I have proposed, prior to the first declaration, but using the language that is currently in the Bill about

“their next of kin and other persons they are close to”?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That would satisfy me. The reason I say that is because at the moment the wording is too broad and ill-defined. The question is: is this about the closeness and proximity of a relationship? The suggested wording that my hon. Friend just put forward would be much closer to that and much clearer, and more akin with the language of medical registration. When someone turns up in A&E, they are asked to give the name of their next of kin. That defines the closeness, the proximity and the permanency of that relationship.

If my hon. Friend was perhaps to consider withdrawing this amendment and tabling it again in an alternative form, or rewording it, that would certainly be something that I would be open to supporting. I have outlined why, as the amendments currently stand, I cannot support them.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Although it is for Parliament to decide whether to progress the Bill, this Government remain committed to ensuring the legal robustness and workability of all legislation. For that reason, the Government have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and some amendments have been mutually agreed upon by her and the Government: in this group, those are amendments 184, 418, 420, 195, 209, 220, 421, 203, 204, 207, 208 and 214.

This group of amendments replaces the forms set out in the schedules to the Bill, with the requirement for the forms to be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. The amendments also make provision about the content and form of the first and second declarations, statements and reports.

Amendment 184 provides that the form of the first declaration must be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State, as opposed to in schedule 1 as currently drafted. Operationally, using regulations will allow for consultation in relation to the form and content of the declaration. It will also provide flexibility to tailor or update the content of the declaration.

The effect of amendment 289 would be to limit those able to act as a second witness to a first declaration to registered clinicians, though that term is not defined in the amendment. In normal usage, “registered clinician” is broader than “registered medical practitioner”, so practically the amendment may lead to a wide range of registered healthcare professionals being able to act as a witness to a first declaration under the Bill.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

By making the change in the amendment, we would make sure that individuals considering assisted dying understand that the doctor is unable to provide a prognosis with complete certainty. Prognosis is often not an exact science, and it can vary depending on numerous variables, including the course of the disease, the patient’s response to treatment and other unforeseeable factors. If we are giving doctors the essentially impossible task of proving “inevitably” that death will occur in six months—

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Juliet Campbell]

I have almost finished, so I will carry on.

If we give doctors the essentially impossible task of proving that death will inevitability occur in six months, there is a risk of an individual being advised to stop treatment, to accelerate them artificially into a serious or terminal state or speed it up to ensure their eligibility. As medical intervention is so key in the prognosis of a seriously ill patient, it makes no sense to me to use language that is not consistent with real-life medical experiences or reasonably within the scope of medical diagnosis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I know the hon. Member has a huge amount of experience on this matter given his career, so I thank him for that contribution.

It must not be forgotten that it is the nature of such illnesses for there to be periods of unwellness, when people are at their lowest ebb, and it is our job to protect them from something that could sound appealing at that moment in time. The crux of this issue is that—subject to the point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made about the improvements that we may now see following the amendments that we have just discussed—the Bill makes no distinction between a condition that is inevitably fatal and one that could be substantially slowed with treatment.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is making a valid argument, but I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud. He talked about illnesses that are inevitably progressive and cannot be reversed by treatment. For type 1 diabetes—I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) is addressing, as opposed to other forms of diabetes—a person either has insulin or does not.

[The Chair]

Order. Interventions should be pretty short, and Members really should be asking a question of the Member who has the floor, not making a mini-statement. Will they stick to that, please?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Forgive me, Chair. I will come to the point. If the person does not have insulin, the diabetes could be treated by administering it. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in those circumstances, it would fall within this clause?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my hon. Friend—another doctor. I would suggest that diabetes cannot be reversed, but can be managed with treatment. All I am trying to do is make sure that that piece is picked up. I think we all agree that we would not expect diabetes to fall within the terminal illness diagnosis.

No fewer than 15 clinicians and medical researchers mentioned diabetes in written evidence. Other conditions are mentioned too. Two consultant physicians—Rosemarie Anthony-Pillai and DP Whitehouse—say that those on medication for heart failure could qualify if they stopped taking their medication. Dr David Randall, a consultant nephrologist at the Royal London Hospital, sets out in written evidence the example of a young man who has benefited from a kidney transplant but stopped his immunosuppression medication. That would lead to transplant rejection and, likely, death within a few months. Would he qualify as terminally ill if we were not to agree to these amendments?