An update on the Mental Health Bill’s passage through Parliament

By Tim Spencer-Lane

The Mental Health Bill, which would amend the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), has now passed through committee stage in the House of Lords after five days of debate.

This stage allows peers to scrutinise the detail of a bill, although by convention no votes are taken on tabled amendments.

Committee stage normally provides an important indicator of which issues peers are interested in and may revisit at third reading, where amendments are likely to be put to a vote. It is important to remember that the government does not have a majority in the Lords and could be defeated on particular votes.

Principles

The bill does not insert principles onto the face of the MHA. Instead, it sets out four principles (choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and the person as an individual) to be included in the MHA code of practice.

Baroness Tyler (Liberal Democrat) was concerned that “placing the guiding principles in the code leaves a loophole in which they can be deviated from”. She also proposed that “equity” should be added to the principles to “provide additional momentum towards the goal of addressing the racial disparities in the Mental Health Act”.

Lord Bradley (Labour) supported a principle based on identifying and supporting “the communication needs of the individual”.

In response, Baroness Merron (parliamentary under-secretary of state, Department of Health and Social Care), argued that, in respect of statutory principles “the real concern is about making very complex legislation even more complex”.

Unlike the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), the MHA “has not been designed or structured around statutory principles”. She also argued that “it feels unnecessary to include equity as a specific principle because it is already a requirement of the Equality Act 2010” and that the code of practice will give guidance for practitioners “on how to support individuals with communication needs to make sure that their voices are heard”.

Learning disability and autism exclusion

A topic that dominated debates in the Lords was the position of people with learning disability and autistic people. The bill would prohibit people being detained for treatment under the MHA solely on the basis of learning disability or autism.

Baroness Browning (Conservative) welcomed “the removal from the Mental Health Act of the presumption of mental illness in people with autism and learning difficulties”.

However, she was concerned that “once it is removed the Mental Capacity Act will be used more frequently” to deprive autistic people and people with learning disabilities of liberty. In relaition to this, she pointed to the widespread difficulties associated with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Baroness Berridge (Conservative) argued “there is the other danger that – when there is no co-occurring mental health condition – you end up with people coming through the criminal justice system”.

In response, Baroness Merron stated that “the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people in mental health hospitals is indeed unacceptable”. She argued that the government did not want the MCA to “be a loophole, back door or anything of that nature”.

She also pointed to the bill’s duty on integrated care boards (ICBs) to establish and maintain a register of people with a learning disability and autistic people who are at risk of detention. ICBs and local authorities must have regard to the register and the needs of the local ‘at risk’ population, when carrying out their commissioning duties.

Baroness Merron said the intention of these provisions was that “people with a learning disability and autistic people are not detained but supported in the right way”.

Professional roles and responsibilities

Amendments were tabled by the former prime minister, Baroness May (Conservative), intended to “widen the definition of those who can attend a mental health incident and act to detain an individual in a variety of circumstances”.

These aimed at extending the powers given to police officers to remove a person suffering from a mental health crisis to a place of safety, to health and social care professionals (including social workers and paramedics). The proposals were supported by several peers, who argued it would lead to the reduction of police attendance at mental health incidents, in line with the Right Care, Right Person concordat.

However, Baroness Merron argued that “extending the ability to health and social care professionals to enter someone’s home without their permission would be a major shift in their roles” and “it would impact on relationships between patients and health and care staff”.

She committed to look at reducing police time in health settings and to update the code of practice to clarify the handover process between police and health, including in A&E.

Community treatment orders (CTOs)

The bill proposes to tighten the criteria for the use of CTOs and limit how often they are used. A range of views on CTOs were expressed in the debates. Baroness Fox (non-affiliated) referred to their “spiralling and increasing use”. She noted that “CTOs are necessary when community care is under huge strain, because the idea of voluntarily accessing a wide variety of support in the community is a myth in today’s circumstances”.

Baroness Berridge (Conservative) felt that CTOs should be “in the last chance saloon”. On the other hand, Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat) felt that CTOs “can be valuable for people with eating disorders – and for forensic patients”. Lord Kamall (Conservative) called for more data on why a disproportionate number of black people were subject to CTOs.

Baroness Merron restated the government’s position that “CTOs can be valuable for certain patients” but “reform is needed so that they are used only when appropriate and for the shortest possible time”.

She also confirmed that “officials are working with NHS England and others to understand what additional data should be collected to understand the impact of the reform”, adding that the government was “committed to ongoing monitoring of CTOs as we implement the changes”.

Children and young people

Many of the safeguards in the bill are linked to a determination of capacity (for those aged 16 and over) and competence (for those aged under 16); for example, the rights for a child to appoint a nominated person or make an advance choice document depend on their competence to make this decision.

However, Baroness Tyler (Liberal Democrat) raised concerns that “there is also no clear and consistent approach for determining whether a child is competent. Although the concept of competence is generally understood, how to assess a child’s competence is not.”

Consequently, she argued, children may not benefit from the reforms in the bill that depend on competency.

Several peers called for a statutory test of competency to be inserted onto the face of the MHA. Lord Meston (crossbench) tabled an amendment which adopted the MCA’s functional test but without the need to consider if the inability to make the decision is caused by an impairment of or disturbance in the mind/brain.

Peers were concerned about how the nominated person role, which replaces the nearest relative, would work for children and young people. Baroness Berridge (Conservative) called for a prescribed list of people that an approved mental health professional could appoint as the nominated person for children and Baroness Butler-Sloss (crossbench) called for greater rights for parents to be consulted and challenge appointments in the court.

The bill does not provide any reforms aimed at addressing the position of children placed on adult mental health wards and those placed in hospitals out of area. Earl Howe (Conservative), therefore, called for procedural safeguards for children placed on adult wards and Baroness Berridge (Conservative) wanted a new notification process for out-of-area placements.

For the government, Baroness Merron rejected the amendment for a statutory test of competency, pointing out that the courts had rejected the proposed definition.

She added: “To introduce a statutory test for under-16s only under the Mental Health Act is likely to risk undermining Gillick, which remains the accepted competence test for under-16s across all settings, including reproductive health and children’s social care, and the wider legislative framework on matters related to children.”

The minister also said detailed guidance would be provided in the code on how the nominated person role would work for children and young people, and confirmed that people who were a risk to a child could not be the nominated person.

Baroness Merron said that additional guidance would be provided “on the process to determine, and review throughout a child’s detention and treatment, that the environment in which they are accommodated continues to be in their interests”.

Racial disparities

The bill does not include any reforms expressly aimed at reducing racial and ethnic inequalities in the use of the MHA. However, there was depth of feeling amongst peers when debating this area.

Baroness Whitaker (Labour) highlighted the discrimination faced by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and their lack of access to services. Baroness Tyler (Liberal Democrat) felt that the bill “still does not go far enough to address that deeply entrenched inequity”. Lord Kamall (Conservative) probed the government “to understand what they know and what research they are aware of, so we can understand the reasons for these racial disparities and put in place measures to tackle them”.

Some peers called for the creation of a “responsible person” in each hospital who would be responsible for driving change

Baroness Merron acknowledged the need for better data and argued that the patient and carer race equality framework (PCREF) “will improve data collection on racial disparities over the coming year, and the [Care Quality Commission (CQC)] has existing duties to monitor and report on inequalities under the Mental Health Act”.

She also said the department “will continue to monitor racial disparities in the use of CTOs”. But the minister rejected the creation of a responsible person role as “it would duplicate existing roles and duties”, including the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 and the monitoring role of the CQC.

Implementation of the reforms

Many peers called for greater clarity and specific guarantees over when the bill would be implemented.

Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat) tabled an amendment to “create an obligation for the government to lay a costed plan for sufficient services before Parliament within four months of the passage of the bill”. Baroness Tyler (Liberal Democrat) called for a costed plan for community care to support the reforms in the bill and Lord Stevens (crossbench) advocated for a statutory backstop for implementing the bill.

Baroness Merron set out an indicative plan for implementing the bill. The first priority would be the code of practice (which would take a year) and the secondary legislation. There would be training of the existing workforce in 2026-27 and commencement of the “first major phase of reforms in 2027”. It would take up to 10 years to fully implement the bill.

Mental health commissioner

The joint committee on the draft bill had recommended the post of a statutory mental health commissioner should be created to provide an independent voice advocating for mental health service users and act as a watchdog to oversee the implementation of the reforms. This was not included in the bill.

Baroness Tyler (Liberal Democrat) called for the creation of a statutory commissioner to provide “sustained leadership for mental health”, transform mental health services and drive forward the reforms.

Lord Bradley (Labour) disagreed with claims that the commissioner would duplicate the functions of the CQC, pointing to the example of the Children’s Commissioner for England, which functions alongside Ofsted. Lord Kamall (Conservative), however, expressed some concern about the creation of a new bureaucracy.

Baroness Merron repeated that a commissioner would duplicate existing functions of the CQC and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, as well as NHS England. She also claimed that the Children’s Commissioner was operating in a much broader landscape than that proposed for the mental health commissioner and was therefore less duplicative.

The ‘human rights protection gap’

In the months leading up to the publication of the bill, the High Court handed down its judgment in Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd [2024] EWHC 2265 (KB). This decision confirmed that private care providers commissioned by local authorities and NHS to deliver services under section 117 of the MHA were not public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, so were not bound by its provisions.

Consequently, Baroness Keeley (Labour) raised concerns about the ongoing gap in protection for those receiving care from the private sector and tabled an amendment to extend the protection of the Human Rights Act to include all section 117 service users, informal patients and those being deprived of their liberty in any setting. The amendment was strongly supported by ‘legal’ members of the Lords – Lord Pannick (crossbench), Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour) and Baroness Butler-Sloss (crossbench).

In response, Baroness Merron confirmed the government was “actively considering” this matter.

What was not debated at committee stage

It is noteworthy that several important areas of the bill received little mention in the debates.

These include the new powers to enable restricted patients, who have capacity to consent to their arrangements, to be discharged from hospital with conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty. Stakeholders have raised concerns that the reform crosses the Rubicon by allowing the detention of people with capacity in the community and argued that greater safeguards are needed.

The part 4 reforms concerning consent to treatment also provoked little debate, no doubt in part because of their complexity. But there was little discussion of matters such as the  increased right for mental health patients to refuse medication and urgent electroconvulsive therapy, as well as the new clinical checklist to guide decision makers.

There was also no mention of the reforms to the meaning of ordinary residence for the purposes of section 117 aftercare services, including the introduction of new ‘deeming rules’. These will have a significant impact on local authority funding of section 117 services.

What happens next?

The next stage for the bill will be the report stage, which is an opportunity for the whole House of Lords to consider what has been done during the committee stage. This will be followed by the third reading which is the final opportunity for peers to consider the whole bill. Amendments will be tabled, debated and voted on during these stages.

The bill will then be considered by the House of Commons.

Tim Spencer-Lane is a lawyer specialising in adult social care, mental capacity and mental health and legal editor of Community Care Inform.