3rd Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Mental Health Bill
Select Committee
Human Rights (Joint Committee)
HC 601
19 May 2025
No response data available yet.
Recommendations
8 results
2
We urge the Government to support the retention of this amendment as the Bill progresses...
Recommendation
We urge the Government to support the retention of this amendment as the Bill progresses through the House of Commons. (Recommendation, Paragraph 14)
Ministry of Justice
View Details
5
We are pleased to see that the Government has committed to monitoring the number of...
Recommendation
We are pleased to see that the Government has committed to monitoring the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities who are detained under the Mental Capacity Act. The Government should report these numbers to Parliament within a …
Read more
Ministry of Justice
View Details
9
To help ensure that mental health needs are properly identified before they reach crisis point,...
Recommendation
To help ensure that mental health needs are properly identified before they reach crisis point, we recommend that the Government considers introducing an English equivalent to the right to a mental health assessment that appears in the Mental Health (Wales) …
Read more
Ministry of Justice
View Details
12
The Government should, however, carry out an urgent review of the interface between the MHA...
Recommendation
The Government should, however, carry out an urgent review of the interface between the MHA and MCA and take prompt action to provide the clarity that is currently lacking. (Recommendation, Paragraph 78) Children
Ministry of Justice
View Details
22
The Government should carry out a review of the use of Community Treatment Orders, which...
Recommendation
The Government should carry out a review of the use of Community Treatment Orders, which a black person is seven times more likely to receive than a white person. (Recommendation, Paragraph 125) 56
Ministry of Justice
View Details
23
We look forward to the results of the evaluation of two culturally appropriate advocacy pilot...
Recommendation
We look forward to the results of the evaluation of two culturally appropriate advocacy pilot schemes, which the Government should expand if the results are positive. (Recommendation, Paragraph 126) Other issues
Ministry of Justice
View Details
25
The Mental Health Bill should be amended to ensure that the Human Rights Act, and...
Recommendation
The Mental Health Bill should be amended to ensure that the Human Rights Act, and the protection it provides, applies whenever people receive publicly funded mental health treatment or after–care, or are deprived of their liberty on mental health grounds. …
Read more
Ministry of Justice
View Details
29
The Bill should be amended to ensure that conditions depriving a restricted patient of their...
Recommendation
The Bill should be amended to ensure that conditions depriving a restricted patient of their liberty are reviewed by the Mental Health Tribunal promptly and regularly In particular, the Secretary of State should refer the restricted patient’s case to the …
Read more
Ministry of Justice
View Details
Conclusions (21) Observations and findings — click to expand
1
Conclusion
It is crucial that any process of reform to mental health law hears from individuals with direct, personal experience. We welcome the Bill’s proposal to introduce a requirement to offer de–briefing to mental health patients after they have left hospital, so that personal experience can be learned from in future. …
3
Conclusion
It is particularly troubling that the accounts we heard at the roundtable event in 2025 echoed those the JCHR heard in 2019. This emphasised to us that reform of the Mental Health Act is both pressing and overdue. (Conclusion, Paragraph 18) Detaining autistic people and people with learning disabilities under …
4
Conclusion
There is an inherent lack of justification for detaining a person for treatment based only on their learning disability or autism, giving rise to clear concerns over compatibility with Article 5 ECHR. We welcome the Bill’s attempts to remove autistic people and people with learning disabilities from the scope of …
6
Conclusion
While the evidence we have received supports the view that rushing implementation of the Bill could undermine efforts to improve the treatment of autistic people and people with learning disabilities, we also note that the implementation of other substantial changes in the law in this area have suffered from excessive …
7
Conclusion
We therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to provide a Written Ministerial Statement to both Houses of Parliament on an annual basis, updating on progress on implementation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 60)
8
Conclusion
The detention of autistic people and people with learning disabilities under the MHA is a significant human rights concern. Detention in the absence of individualised, therapeutic treatment risks violating the Article 5 ECHR right to liberty and may even result in degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. We welcome …
10
Conclusion
We recognise the risk that permitting detention on the basis of autism or learning disabilities under Part 3 of the MHA whilst prohibiting it under Part 2 amounts to a difference in treatment falling under the prohibition on discrimination in Article 14 ECHR. Nevertheless, we share the views expressed to …
11
Conclusion
It is disappointing that the Mental Health Bill has not taken the opportunity to provide greater clarity to the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act and to make clear when detention and treatment under one or the other should be authorised. In a legislative scrutiny …
13
Conclusion
While the recent Government amendment to the Bill, introducing a review of notification requirements in respect of children on adult wards represents a welcome acknowledgement that the status quo may not be satisfactory, it does not guarantee the prompt protection for children’s rights that we have heard is needed. (Conclusion, …
14
Conclusion
We agree with submissions made to us that the Mental Health Bill could and should do more to protect against children being placed on adult wards. The Bill should be amended to include a requirement that a child should not be placed on an adult ward unless that placement is …
15
Conclusion
We recognise the special importance of advocacy services for children, who may face particular difficulties in understanding and enforcing their legal rights when separated from their families. Independent advocates represent an important method of ensuring the child’s right to be heard, guaranteed by Article 12 UNCRC, is respected. (Conlcusion, Paragraph …
16
Conclusion
We welcome the introduction of an “opt–out” system in respect of independent advocacy but call on the Government to ensure that this system extends to children who are informal patients as well as those who are compulsory patients. (Recommendation, Paragraph 100)
17
Conclusion
We agree with witnesses that children under 16 may be denied the opportunity to benefit from the rights provided by the Bill if their ability to make decisions for themselves is not properly assessed. Clarity in such assessments is therefore important. (Conclusion, Paragraph 106)
18
Conclusion
We support the call from the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill for the Government to consult on the introduction of a statutory test for competency, or “child capacity”, for children aged under 16. (Recommendation, Paragraph 106) Race Discrimination
19
Conclusion
One of the most significant factors that prompted the process of reform that has resulted in this Mental Health Bill was the disproportionate use of compulsory detention and treatment under the MHA on people from minority ethnic backgrounds, particularly black people. Unequal treatment on the basis of race, especially in …
20
Conclusion
We recognise that some of the changes proposed in the Bill could help to reduce racial inequity in the application of the Mental Health Act. We also recognise that the causes of differences of treatment and particularly outcomes between people of different races can be varied and complex, and that …
21
Conclusion
We share the view of witnesses including the Care Quality Commission that the inclusion of an additional guiding principle of equity in the Bill would be beneficial. While by no means a complete answer, this would emphasise the key need for equitable treatment under the MHA. We propose an amendment …
24
Conclusion
The Human Rights Act provides legal protection against, and redress for, human rights violations in the UK. Recent case law has highlighted a gap in that human rights protection for mental health patients in state commissioned but privately provided care. (Conclusion, Paragraph 136)
26
Conclusion
It is crucial that prisoners experiencing serious mental health crises are promptly moved to a hospital environment where they can receive the treatment they need. Delays in such moves risk exposing individuals to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR. The Bill’s introduction of a statutory 28 …
27
Conclusion
Monitoring compliance with this standard is important. Data on hospital transfers should be gathered centrally and made available to the public. (Recommendation, Paragraph 144)
28
Conclusion
We can see that in narrow circumstances, where the need to ensure the safety of the public makes deprivation of liberty in the community the least restrictive option available, being able to impose conditions on the discharge of a restricted patient that amount to a deprivation of liberty may be …