The Mental Health Bill (about which I’m increasingly worried) has now reached Committee stage in the House of Commons and will be considered in detail before returning for the third reading, which will be the final vote before it will be presented, if passed, to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
You will remember, during the bill’s passage through the House of Lords, an amendment was tabled to allow powers under sections 135/136 Mental Health Act to be exercised by non-police professionals, to be known as an “authorised person“. This amendment was a surprised success in the Lords and was passed successfully, despite Government opposition to it. The House of Common must now decide whether it remains in the final version of the Bill.
Last week, no fewer than nine national organisations of health and social care professionals published a joint statement, opposing this amendment and calling upon the government to over-turn it. Before I get in to the reasons and the content of the document, here are the organisations involved and it covers the relevant spectrum of all professions involved in s135/136 or likely to be in situations where the need for those powers may arise.
- The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives
- The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services.
- The Approved Mental Health Professional Leads Network
- The British Association of Social Work and Social Workers
- The British Medical Association
- The College of Paramedics
- The Royal College of Emergency Medicine
- The Royal College of Psychiatrists
- The Royal College of Nursing …
… and quite incidentally, this list seems to be alphabetical order, except that the nurses are shoved to the bottom. I wonder what that’s all about?!
REPORT CONTENT
It’s only two pages long, you might just want to read it, but the essence of it is this –
- This is a radical proposal which was not raised during the Mental Health Act review or during the eight years between that review and the Bill.
- The Government itself state it would be “major shift in roles and responsibilities for health and social care professions” and “place a significant additional pressures on the NHS” which might lead to “staff, patient and public safety issues” which have been raised before.
- The amendment has not been properly tested with the professionals who could become an “authorised person” nor tested with patients.
- Extended police powers risk damaging therapeutic relationships clinicians have with patients.
This report also aims for a mark I hit in a point of pedantry in my own post on this after the House of Lords session where the amendment prevailed: RISK.
The report reminds us Lord Kamall said –
“The proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.”
The joint statement explains –
“This is misleading as instances of detentions under the Mental Health Act where there is no risk are almost non-existant. It also negates the fact that the mere presence of uniformed officers can ensure that an otherwise risk situation remains contained and safe.”
I also remember Lord Kamall stated the amendment “should not be put at unnecessary risk carrying out these functions.” So how much risk is unnecessary risk and what exactly do we mean by necessary risk?!
POLICING REACTION
I don’t know whether the College of Policing or the National Police Chiefs Council were in discussion with Lord Kamall or others before the amendment was tabled but I do know NPCC are quoted as saying –
“We support the proposed amendments to the mental health bill, which will enable authorised medical professionals to effectively deal with some mental health incidents. This will ensure vulnerable people receive the most appropriate care without feeling criminalised because of their mental health issues.”
“We will always attend incidents where there is a risk of serious harm to the individual or attending professionals, or where criminality is involved.”
[Bold is my emphasis.]
This bold text added by me alludes to the ideas in the Right Care, Right Person programme where the police, after taking legal advice, pitch their involvement in incidents where there is a crime or a serious risk to engage Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. We can see in this debate about the amendment, ongoing tension with that idea because s135/136 powers can be used in situations which do not involve crime or either ECHR obligations.
Actually, the evidence coming out of several RCRP related inquests, including one as recently as last week, shows the second part of this quote is often far from true and my PhD spreadsheet of contact deaths is now well in to double figures on RCRP inquests. (I’m deliberately not providing a reference or name to the recent inquest at the moment.)
And despite suggestion in an email I recently received from an police officer, I do understand how the police are wanting to re-frame their role because of the mission creep of the last sixty years. I spent most of my police career arguing for exactly that and doing it in my operational practice and can demonstrate the work I did, not just on this blog, before RCRP was spoken about. Crucially however, I was also arguing for the police doing more and doing better in certain areas and for me, it was never about resources. My best guess has aways been if the police did less where they are over-burdened and did better where they are under-involved and under-responsive, it would probably balance out, overall. If I’m wrong, I suspect the gains would be marginal.
KICKING DOORS OFF
I do think a quote from Dr Lade Smith of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in a Guardian article on this topic is very interesting –
“Expecting clinicians whose role is to provide therapeutic care to arrest people in the street or burst into their homes if they notice someone suffering a mental health crisis is simply inappropriate and indicates a lack of understanding of what health professionals do.”
I wonder how many phone calls the police would get if people not dressed in uniforms started physically detaining and restraining people in the street and placing them in to vehicles? – how many 999 calls for burglaries in progress when mental health nurses or AMHPs in casual clothes started forcing off doors to premises? I wonder how many allegations of assault (or kidnap) would be made by patients or relatives who didn’t understand a nurse could just approach you in the street and remove your liberty?
And I wonder how many health or social care professionals would be keen to go hands-on with any necessary restraint knowing it will be a really difficult job to get the police to respond at all (because of RCRP / because of “you have the powers to deal”) if things became difficult and started getting out of hand.
And bearing in mind an “authorised person” is someone who has been trained to undertake the role, I wonder how many nurses, paramedics and AMHPs are going to be putting their hands in the air to say, “Yes, please” when requests are made for volunteers to undertake the role? … and will it even get there is every relevant professional organisation is saying “No thanks!”, as it is here?!
Does anyone know what’s going on? – or who has the map for this journey?! All of this piecemeal distraction saves us having to discuss our mental health system and its obsession with reducing beds whilst shouting for more / different / better community care. But whoever thought AMHPs would go about the place kicking doors and arresting people off hasn’t done as many CPD events as I have for AMHPs.
Winner of the President’s Medal, 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 