I went out last night for a curry with a friend and it was truly sublime. That said and stimulating though the catch with good company was, I do admit to being aware the second reading of the Mental Health Bill was ongoing in the House of Commons and I kept wondering what they were getting up to in there. I had to wait until this morning to read Hansard and get a sense of it and it probably is better consumed by day, amidst coffee and day light. I should imagine contemplating our legislature late at night when tired, emotional and infused by spice is dangerous.
Genuinely: how little research have some of these people done in readiness for debating the Bill? – how much are they believing of what they’re told in the lead up to debating the Bill? Along with following the politics of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, this Mental Health Bill is really making me think and worry about those making vital decisions which absolutely will affect issues of whether some people live or die. I wonder who is briefing these people?!
- First things first: all the resources I’ve amassed on this Bill are on a dedicated resources page. inc the recent ones produced yesterday.
- Secondly, to coinicide with the second reading, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced a lengthy document on the Bill and if you really are doing detail here, it’s worth a read – and if you’re not quite that interested(!), it has an executive summary!
- And finally, the resources page includes links to a few blogs I’ve done on certain aspects of the bill, including the authorised person amendment which will potentially affect powers under s135/136 of the Mental Health Act, if enacted; and a general post summarising it when it was first introduced in November ’24.
RESOURCES
The first thing we need to bring up is the question of resources. More than one MP is quite rightly raising the question of resources across the whole bill. Debate like this always gives rise to examples of constituents stories or high profile events, so you will seen mention in there of former Health Secretary Sir Jeremy Hunt raising a constituency murder and mention of the Nottingham attacks in June 2023. To the extent those things tap in to discussion about inpatient beds, it becomes a discussion about resources. We see in the debate people lamenting how the current Mental Health Act needs these amendments – or at least it needs some amendments – because it is no longer fit for purpose. I admit when I read that, I wondered how much that has become true because NHS doctrine about striking the balance between inpatient and outpatient (community) care, has shifted away from the requirements of the law?
I’ve long thought this: established readers will now be obsession with section 140 of the Mental Health Act (which originally, was s132 of the Mental Health Act 1959) so it’s a piece of legislation approaching it’s 70th birthday and it’s still widely ignored. One of the (many, complicated) reasons we see NHS practice moving away from ensuring enough beds is the decision taken, apparently deliberately, to just ignore the implications of this provision and its relationship towards ensuring the NHS, as the relevant agency of the British state, can comply with its duty under s6 of the Human Rights Act – to ensure European Convention rights. The lack of adequate beds means routine violation of article 5 ECHR and occasionally violation in addition of articles 2, 3 and 8.
Resources feature as well in discussion about the House of Lords amendment for sections 135/136 to allow other professionals to use those two powers, currently reserved only for the police.
CAPACITY AND COMPETENCE
But back to my main, overall impression because I find it profoundly depressing.
There are just far too many contributions from MPs which don’t make sense, regardless of what any of us might want this Bill to be. They make assumptions, they make errors and they are very obviously inadequately briefed and yet this Bill will now move to Committee Stage then the Third Reading after which it goes to King Charles for the Royal Assent he won’t deny. We need to hope the slightly lower, more detail process of the Committee stage will allow MPs the time to get to grips with what they’re debating and come up with some sensible ways of navigating through the tension.
My own view about the “authorised persons” thing? – I think it would be unwise. I realise everyone’s instinct to get the police out of any unnecessarily involvement in mental health matters and I can see why some may think that by allowing other professionals to make legal decisions only the police can currently make, it will free officers up for other things but I’m not so sure that will be the effect. Even if we forget the reality of whether Approved Mental Health Professionals will be kicking off doors to execute their own s135 warrants or whether mental health nurses will be going to the local bridge to use s136 if someone appears like to fall, there is the issue of resources as well as training.
We know the UK is thousands of mental health nurses short already. Friends in those professions tell me some community mental health teams in London are running at 50% staffing and there is a vacancy rate nationally of around 20%. We know attempts to secure people to train as AMHPs are making no difference to overall numbers because AMHPs are leaving those roles by retirement and other means, at about the rate new social workers and nurses are being recruited in to it. We need more human resources to make the current system work, never mind a new version where additional 135/136 tasks are completed. (Yes, I’m aware the police are struggling with demands, too.)
HANSARD
So give the text of the second reading a glance and see if it makes sense to you. I think I’m starting to worry about this Bill – it raises the threshold for admission to hospital under the Act and whatever you might think about that, it does little or nothing to ensure – and let’s remember that word really means – the uplift in community care which would be required to safely treat more people outside hospital.
When the Labour government was elected in July 2024, new Health Secretary Wes Streeting put in a moment of pause about bringing forward a new Bill as the government had promised to do, because of the Nottingham attacks. Investigations inquiries were ongoing (and many still are, including the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s investigation in to Leicestershire Police which appeared to conclude and then re-open) to look in to exactly what went wrong and we should see the start of a public inquiry at some point soon.
There is a lot riding on this Bill and I’m nervous because it only promised limited revision and I doubt it was going to provide the change we need but now MPs are playing with that, as if to make it even less likely to work for us.
Awarded the President’s Medal by
the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation.
(c) Michael Brown, 2025
I am not a police officer.
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 