I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 21, page 30, line 28, at end insert—

“(ab) containing steps to alleviate social and financial stressors contributing to the patient’s risk of requiring detention in future; and”.

This amendment would require social and financial stressors be addressed in care and treatment plans.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, in clause 21, page 30, line 39, at end insert—

“(iii) the discussion of the person’s finances and financial situation.”

This amendment ensures that the care and treatment plan includes matters relating to the patient’s financial circumstances.

Amendment 15, in clause 21, page 30, line 41, at end insert—

“(4A) The information authorised or required to be included in, or attached to, a care and treatment plan by virtue of regulations under subsection (3) must include provision to protect the patient’s housing and accommodation during and immediately after they are subject to a care and treatment plan.”

This amendment ensures that protection of housing and accommodation are considered as part of care and treatment plans.

Amendment 23, in clause 21, page 30, line 41, at end insert—

“(4A) Where a patient has autism or a learning disability, the care and treatment plan must—

(a) identify specific crisis prevention strategies appropriate to the patient's individual needs;

(b) identify suitable crisis accommodation options in the event that the patient's current placement becomes unable to meet their needs;

(c) specify how the patient's sensory needs will be met;

(d) specify communication approaches appropriate to the patient's needs; and

(e) record the views of the patient’s family members or carers, where appropriate and with the patient’s consent.”

This amendment would ensure that care and treatment plans for patients with autism or learning disabilities include specific components addressing their particular needs, including crisis prevention strategies and identification of suitable crisis accommodation options.

Amendment 50, in clause 21, page 30, line 41, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of preparing a plan under this section, a discharge planning meeting must be held.

(4B) A meeting under subsection (4A) must include—

(a) the patient;

(b) the patient’s nominated person;

(c) any independent mental health advocate acting for the patient;

(d) a representative of the integrated care board;

(e) a local housing officer;

(f) a local authority social worker;

(g) a representative from the Department for Work and Pensions; and

(h) any other person or agency involved in the patient’s care or likely to support recovery in the community.

(4C) A care and treatment plan under this section must include—

(a) actions agreed by relevant agencies to support the patient’s recovery;

(b) provisions to address clinical, financial, housing, and social needs;

(c) steps to reduce the likelihood of readmission or further detention under this Act; and

(d) a record of any points of disagreement and how they are to be resolved.

(4D) Where an agency listed under subsection (4B) fails to attend a discharge planning meeting, the responsible clinician must take reasonable steps to obtain their input in writing and record it in the plan.

(4E) For the purposes of subsection (4A) to (4D), the Secretary of State must issue guidance on best practice for discharge planning meetings and multi-agency collaboration.’”

This amendment would require the clinician preparing a care and treatment plan to hold a multi-agency planning meeting to inform it, and specifies what must be included within the plan.

Amendment 16, in clause 21, page 31, line 26, at end insert—

“(g) following the patient turning 18 years of age during the course of a care and treatment plan.”

This amendment ensures that individuals turning 18 during a care and treatment plan have their plans reviewed to maintain continuity of care while transitioning from child to adult services.

Amendment 17, in clause 21, page 31, line 29, leave out from “so” and insert—

“(a) consult the persons mentioned in subsection (5)(f),

(b) ask whether there are children in the family and take actions to respond if the children need help or protection from harm.”

This amendment seeks to deliver earlier identification of children who might be in need of information, support, or protection from potential harm.

Clause stand part.

I hope the Committee will forgive me if I take some time to address the various amendments in this group. Amendment 48 would ensure that care and treatment plans do not stop at clinical intervention and address the underlying social and financial stressors that contribute to the cycle of poor mental health, and crucially, to avoidable future detention under the Mental Health Act.

We know that treatment is not just medication and monitoring. For many, the tipping point for crisis is social and financial stressors. The relationship between debt and mental health has been well documented. Nearly half of those behind on their bills experience mental health problems. Those experiencing mental ill health are three times more likely to be behind on at least one key payment—such as rent, energy bills or credit cards—compared with those without mental health problems. Social stressors are likely to be even more severe for people from racially diverse communities and the LGBT community, and disabled people. Including these stressors in care plans will help to address disproportionate detention rates and support more equitable care.

Just as the reason behind a crisis is multifaceted, treatment must also be multifaceted. We cannot ever seek to address anyone’s poor mental health without considering the variety of stressors that may be contributing to it. For treatment to be effective, it must offer support for stressors, be they social or financial, which can be a real driving factor behind many mental health crises. I hear from my casework about the delays and frustrations for those trying to liaise with the Department for Work and Pensions—if it wants to give someone the best chance at recovery, we have to look at such issues. As I said, these stressors are often magnified for people from racially diverse communities.

Amendment 14 seeks to ensure that economic stressors, which are often overlooked, yet are central to mental health and recovery, are explicitly addressed. Financial problems are a major contributor for people experiencing a mental health crisis and can make it much harder to recover from one. Last year, nearly 21,000 people in England alone were struggling with problem debt while in hospital for their mental health, and, sadly, an estimated 100,000 people in problem debt attempt suicide every year.

Tools exist to help support people when they are in a mental health crisis. Those include care and treatment plans, the documents health professions use to map out a patient’s support need when they have been detained under the 1983 Act; and advance choice documents, a preventive tool through which people can set preferences for care in the event that they experience a mental health crisis. But those tools are underused and currently do not consider someone’s financial circumstances by default. Ensuring that people’s finances are taken into consideration when they are in a mental health crisis will help to prevent further illness, reduce waiting lists and help people return to daily life, including work, more smoothly.

We were pleased that Baroness Merron agreed that care and treatment plans would include

“interventions aimed at minimising financial harm”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1783.]

Can the Minister confirm that commitment? Will he let us know when the Department plan to bring forward necessary regulation; whether requiring that financial difficulty be identified will be included in the regulation; and any more detail about the specifics of what interventions are being planned?

Amendment 15 is similar to our amendments 1, 51 and 4, which we tabled previously, and is designed to ensure that everyone—not just those with learning disabilities or autism—has the protection of housing and accommodation during and immediately after they are subject to a care and treatment plan. We discussed earlier in Committee that appropriate housing is absolutely crucial for people’s wellbeing and cannot be viewed as separate from effective and safe care. I will not delve further into that because I know we are pressed for time.

Amendment 23, in the name of my hon. Friend Ian Sollom, would ensure that care and treatment plans for patients with autism or learning disabilities include specific components addressing their particular needs, including crisis prevention strategies and identification of suitable crisis accommodation options.

The Care Quality Commission tells us that over half of delayed discharges stem from housing shortages; that crisis for autistic and learning-disabled patients continues due to no sensory or communication planning; and that staff often go untrained. This amendment directly tackles that, demanding plans that proactively prevent a crisis, secure appropriate accommodation and adapt to each person’s neurological needs. It reflects the real-world failings in current practice, particularly around crisis escalation, communication breakdowns, inappropriate detention and long-term hospitalisation. I would be interested to know whether the Minister accepts that the amendment directly responds to recommendations from multiple inquiries, including the CQC’s reports, which found that failure to adapt care to neurodivergent patients’ needs was a key safeguarding issue.

Amendment 50 directly addresses one of the biggest ongoing failures in the mental health system: poor or non-existent discharge planning. It formalises what should already be happening—joined-up, multi-agency, patient-centred discharge planning—and sets a clear statutory framework to hold services accountable. Social and financial struggles can play a major role in someone’s mental ill health and block their recovery. Patients should be viewed not just as a collection of symptoms, but in their whole context. Addressing someone’s housing insecurity, their debt or family breakdown should not be viewed as separate considerations, but as a core part of supporting someone to live happily, healthily and independently. For example, we know that if a child is being discharged into a home where they are left entirely unsupported as a young carer, or a young woman faces harassment from an abusive ex, or a man who has lost his job is placed back into a life dominated by bailiffs, creditors and the threat of eviction, their mental health will continue to be put in jeopardy.

Convening all the different agencies that are relevant to someone’s social and financial needs—whether that is their benefits, the support they receive for a disability, the respite care they desperately need, or so much else—is therefore crucial to ensuring that the support they receive under their care and treatment plan reflects the whole person and their needs. It would help to ensure that people are not left without support, due to different parts of the system refusing to accept responsibility. Crucially, it would help to address the underlying social and financial stressors that are central to driving many acute mental health crises.

Amendment 50 is not about creating new burdens; it is about making existing legal responsibilities work together. Right now, too many patients are stuck in hospital not because they are ill, but because no one has brought housing, benefits and community services to the table. The amendment makes that table mandatory. It ensures that patients have a voice, that agencies are present and that there is a written plan, not just verbal intentions. It is the kind of joined-up working that the Government say they support, so let us please put it in the Bill.

Amendment 16 ensures that individuals turning 18 during a care and treatment plan have their plans reviewed to maintain continuity of care while transitioning from child to adult services. This practical and essential amendment would strengthen continuity of care for young people transitioning to adulthood—a time when the risk of falling through the cracks between child and adult services is at its highest. Transition from child and adolescent mental health services—or CAMHS, as most of us will know it—to adult mental health services is one of the most fragile points in a young person’s care journey. National studies and inquiries consistently show that many young people experience a cliff edge in support at 18. There is often no overlap or co-ordination between CAMHS and adult services. The eligibility criteria for adult services differ, meaning that some young people are left without any support at all after CAMHS discharge, which leads to increased risk of relapse, disengagement, self-harm or crisis readmission.

Reports such as the Care Quality Commission’s “Growing up, Moving on” and the Health and Social Care Committee’s inquiry into children and young people’s mental health in 2018 have repeatedly called for structural reform to address that failing. The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that it

“is imperative that the Mental Health Bill strengthens safeguards against children and young people being placed in inappropriate settings.”

Amendment 16 would not require a new layer of bureaucracy or an overhaul of care planning. It simply creates a trigger: if a patient turns 18 during their care and treatment plan, the plan must be reviewed. This is not a burdensome amendment. Again, it is not about creating new processes; it is about using the existing care and treatment planning process to protect young people when they are most at risk of falling through the cracks. We have known for years that the CAMHS-to-adult mental health handover is failing way too many people. The amendment would create a statutory moment of review. It is a basic safeguard, long overdue, and vital if the Bill is to live up to its promise of putting patients at the heart of planning and care.

Finally, amendment 17 seeks to deliver earlier identification of children who might be in need of information, support or protection from potential harm. This small but important amendment is designed to help ensure that the children of patients detained under the Mental Health Act are identified and have access to support or safeguarding from any harm, if needed. Research suggests that up to 45% of psychiatric in-patients may be parents of dependent children, and it is estimated that more than one in 10 children are living with an adult with a severe mental illness. That is as many as three children in every class.

Living with an adult with a severe mental illness can have a huge impact on children if they do not receive proper support. Children with parents who experience mental ill health are themselves more likely to experience mental illness, including anxiety and depression, psychosis and borderline personality disorder. Research has also found greater risk of premature mortality. We are also seeing an increase in the number of children suffering serious harm or even dying where parental mental illness was a core factor. The last five annual reviews by the national child safeguarding practice review panel have all highlighted parental mental illness as a recurring theme in such cases. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services recently reported that parental mental illness has for the first time overtaken domestic abuse as the most common factor in children’s social care assessments. That is why it is so important that children are identified and supported at the earliest opportunity.

When it comes to mental health professionals identifying children of parents with a mental illness, we are way behind countries such as the Netherlands and Norway, both of which have introduced statutory requirements for mental health professionals to consider whether adults with mental health problems have children. I will conclude my remarks there, but—

Hear, hear!

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection, and I thank the Committee for considering these amendments. I hope the Government will either consider agreeing to them or give me an overview of how they will already be addressed in the detail of the Bill.

It is an honour to speak again in the Committee’s debates on the Bill. I really welcome clause 21, in that it introduces care and treatment plans, as well as a statutory requirement that all those patients formerly detained under the Act should have such a plan, apart from those who were only on short detention. It also brings England in line with Wales.

The clause fits with the fundamental purpose of the NHS. One of the founding principles in the NHS constitution is:

“The patient will be at the heart of everything”.

The constitution states:

“NHS services must reflect, and should be co-ordinated around and tailored to, the needs and preferences of patients, their families and their carers.”

It goes on to say:

“Patients, with their families and carers, where appropriate, will be involved in and consulted on all decisions about their care and treatment.”

Even though freedoms have, in a way, been taken from people through detention under the Act, it is so important that such detention should not remove all their choice, autonomy and ability to express preferences, whether that is simply over things in daily life, such as when they wake up, get up or go to bed. It is about making it really clear that patients can continue to express preferences and make choices over things that may give them a better quality of life, even while they are detained.

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. This is especially relevant when capacity fluctuates in some patients, which we expect to see more often with the kind of dementia that will potentially come forward —for example, some of the new illicit drugs that are available can cause significant problems. Does she agree that having that flexibility is key? That is why the clause will help to ensure that the patient is empowered at all those different moments, and that there is a robust statutory framework to hold them to account. We do not want them to slip through the net, because if they do, by definition, not having these treatment plans up to date and in place may lead them to other parts of the Act, and we are trying to avoid that in the first place. That is the problem with having CTOs, or the concern that she mentioned in our sitting this morning, which has also been raised by charities. Does she agree?

I agree that it is really important to put it on a statutory footing. Obviously, other provisions such as subsection (5) of proposed new section 130ZA will ensure that it is regularly reviewed. There is no point in having such a plan if it is not regularly updated to ensure that it reflects trigger points, which the hon. Member for Guildford raised. When circumstances change for the patient, that is obviously an important point at which to reconsider their care and treatment.

I want to go back to the Wessely review. The clause is such a fundamental part of realising all four of its principles. If I may, I will briefly read from the review:

“We must improve choice and decision making, both prior to and within a setting of compulsion…We believe that improving patients’ and service users’ ability to make decisions about their own care and treatment is essential to upholding dignity.”

The report recommended that where a patient has capacity, the care and treatment plan should record their wishes and preferences, whether expressed at the time or in an advance choice document.

Care and treatment plans are a central component of the Bill, and I hugely welcome their inclusion. The clause sets out in some detail who will work with the patient to put together the care and treatment plan. Importantly, it recognises the need to involve a wide range of people, in a spirit of co-production, which is so important for people who have complex mental health issues. The plans will also involve family members and carers—people many of us have been speaking to during this Carers Week—who often have key insights into the everyday needs and preferences of patients who do not have capacity, as well as of other patients who do.

The plans can also ensure that care is much more culturally competent and appropriate, perhaps by recognising people’s religious requirements. They can also ensure additional support with communication preferences, for example if English is not the patient’s first language, if the patient needs signing or if the patient needs other things to help with communication. I have done a lot of work over many years to look at how we support patients to express preferences and share decision making, and those are things that are in the best interests of patients and that ensure that they get higher-quality care.

The hon. Member for Guildford made points about the scope of the plans. The definition of relevant information is already quite broad. Indeed, the Bill suggests that, as well as things that may be particular to care and treatment, and discharge, there will be things about the patient’s life in the community, employment, accommodation and housing. I think it is expected that those things will be included, but perhaps the Minister can elaborate on Baroness Merron’s clarifications and respond to Liberal Democrat Members’ points about finances and housing.

Part of the clause relates to information sharing, which is vital. There are issues with the lack of join-up, particularly when people are drawing on health services as well as social care, community services and in-patient services. It is important that whatever is in the care and treatment plan can be shared with relevant professionals and other organisations, so that the patient and their family do not have to repeat things to different professionals in the multidisciplinary team. Those provisions are very important.

I welcome some of the sentiments and concerns behind the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Guildford, which seeks to ensure that those various facets are in scope of the plans. As I say, I think it is already recognised that there may be a variety of trigger events. Certainly from my own professional work, I know the challenges of the transition from children’s services to adult services. Obviously, education, health and care plans have a longer period of transition— up to 24—which mitigates some of the risks of a cliff-edge change in circumstances. I am sure that in this case mental health services will work closely together to ensure that they operate in the interests of the patient.

I have spoken to young carers who find themselves having to provide care to parents who may be suffering with mental health issues. The hon. Lady made the point well about the need to safeguard the dependants of people who may have fluctuating conditions or different abilities, depending on their mental health conditions, to safeguard their dependants. However, many of those things are already within the scope of the Bill, and I am sure that the Minister will say how they will be addressed. I support clause 21 and see the care and treatment plans as central to the Bill.

Clause 21 will introduce a statutory duty to provide care and treatment plans for most patients detained under the Mental Health Act in England. It is, in the Government’s own words, a cornerstone of the reform package, so it warrants thorough scrutiny.

Under the current legal framework, there is no universal statutory requirement for a written care and treatment plan for detained patients. Although the care programme approach is widely used in England, and the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 provides a statutory framework for care planning in Wales, provision in England is more variable. There is also the section 117 duty to provide aftercare for some patients, but there is no legal requirement to produce a personalised plan that spans care, treatment and discharge planning from the point of detention.

Clause 21 attempts to fill that gap. We welcome its aim of ensuring that all eligible detained patients in England have comprehensive, personalised and reviewable care and treatment plans in place. We particularly support the requirement for the plans to address both clinical and social needs such as housing and employment. The aim to embed transparency and collaboration will ensure that patients and those close to them are meaningfully consulted when it is practicable. The ambition to create a consistent national framework, which will improve the quality and equity of care, is also commendable, as is the recognition that restrictive interventions, including compulsory treatment, should be clearly justified in the plans.

Nevertheless, I have several important questions for the Minister. We have talked about the draft regulations; I assume that these plans will be encoded in them. Does the Minister have an idea of when the draft regulations are likely to be published? Given the interest in the plans, that is important. Much of the substance of what a plan must include, including how often it will be reviewed and how much information can be disclosed, is left to regulations. Without sight of it, how can Parliament be confident that the framework will be robust, enforceable and fit for purpose? I trust the Minister, but what if he is shuffled away and we get a different Minister? We may not know.

I turn to timeliness. Will the Government consider setting a clear deadline in regulations, for example within seven or 14 days of detention, for the creation of a care and treatment plan? The benefit of personalised planning can be realised only if plans are produced promptly.

That point leads me to enforcement and accountability. What happens if a care and treatment plan is not produced or is not updated appropriately? Will patients and their advocates have any legal recourse? What oversight mechanisms are being developed to ensure compliance?

Proposed new section 130ZA(6) of the Mental Health Act requires consultation with the patient and with their family or advocate, but only where practicable and appropriate. Can the Minister explain how that will be interpreted in practice? Would the Government consider strengthening the consultation duty to require a recorded justification when a consultation does not occur? It seems to me that in most cases it should happen, so providing a justification when it does not would allow accountability and ensure that it is being put in place.

How will the plans integrate within existing frameworks? Many detained patients already have a CPA plan, or a section 117 aftercare plan. How will the Government ensure that these new statutory plans complement existing requirements, rather than duplicating them?

On forensic patients and privacy, the clause allows for the inclusion of information about victim and public protection arrangements in plans for patients detained under part III of the Act. I completely understand why that is, but it raises a question: how will the Government balance the patient’s right to privacy, rehabilitation and focus with safety? We support the principle that everyone detained under the Act deserves a clear, person-centred plan that outlines not only why they are detained, but how they will move forward, recover and return to life in the community.

I turn briefly to the Liberal Democrat amendments. I assume that many of the points will be addressed in the regulations, so I will not go through all the individual applications, because I think that there is space there and the plan would be able to pick things up. However, I completely understand what the hon. Member for Guildford is trying to achieve. The thrust of all the amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled has been accountability and making sure that we consider all points. I just hope to make sure that the Bill is practicable, and I hope on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition that we can strike a balance between accountability and practicability and ensure that we have both.

The Minister clearly has support from both sides of the Committee for getting this right. I look forward to hearing his answers and hearing about how Members can work together to ensure that.

I thank hon. Members for this useful and insightful debate on care and treatment plans. I will begin by discussing amendments 14, 15 and 48. I reassure Members that the scope of the new statutory care and treatment plan has been made purposefully broad, so that wider matters relevant to a person’s mental health recovery, such as financial support and social care needs, are captured. We recognise that they can play a significant part in a person’s mental illness and can increase the risk of people with mental illness, learning disabilities and autistic people experiencing crisis leading to detention under the Act. Consideration of those issues can be critical to providing a comprehensive and effective programme of care and support.

As was promised by Baroness Merron and referred to by the hon. Member for Guildford and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, the required contents of the care and treatment plan, which we publicly consulted on, will be set out in regulations. More information on what we intend to include in relation to financial matters, housing and accommodation needs, and other issues can be found in the relevant policy paper in the parliamentary Libraries.

We will provide guidance in the revised code of practice that will set out that in-patients receiving acute mental health care should be offered financial support, among other interventions, aimed at meeting the person’s holistic needs. To ensure that a person’s wider needs are identified as early as possible by mental health professionals, we intend to encourage individuals to include this information in their advance choice document.

I turn to housing and accommodation protection, which are referred to in amendment 15. Where a person is detained in hospital and is receiving housing benefit, or their housing is paid for via universal credit, there are provisions already in place that allow for them to be temporarily absent from their property for a limited duration. We will use the code of practice to set clear expectations on mental health staff around care planning, including consideration of accommodation and housing needs. We will also highlight existing provisions that protect a person’s living arrangements while they are in hospital.

I turn to amendment 23, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. Under the Bill, all patients will receive a statutory care and treatment plan, excluding those under short-term sections. The patient’s statutory care and treatment should be created by the clinician in consultation with the patient and those who care for them, such as family members and carers. The clinician is expected to make reasonable adjustments to meet any communication needs, so that they can participate as fully as possible in making the plan to ensure that their wishes and feelings are reflected.

It is already our intention for care and treatment plans to cover information relating to a patient’s communication or sensory needs, if it links to their mental health recovery. That includes their wishes and preferences, information pertaining to their family or carers, and arrangements relating to their safe and effective discharge, which may include crisis planning. We will of course provide detailed guidance in the code of practice to ensure effective care planning for people with learning disabilities and autistic people that takes into account their specific needs.

I turn to amendment 50. Last year, the Government issued statutory guidance under the National Health Service Act 2006 on discharge from all mental health and learning disability and autism in-patient settings. That guidance underlines best practice on discharge planning and multi-agency collaboration between NHS bodies and local authorities, in line with statutory duties to co-operate under the 2006 Act. We intend to make the discharge plan a required part of the patient’s statutory care and treatment plan, and that will be made explicit in regulations. The scope of the care and treatment plan is broad, allowing for consideration of the patient’s holistic needs as part of their discharge plan. Under the Bill, the plan should be prepared and reviewed in consultation with the patient and others, such as their advocate, carer or family members, where appropriate and practically achievable.

Statutory guidance on discharge planning sets out that it should start on admission of the person to hospital, if not before. All detained in-patients are supported by a multidisciplinary team responsible for their care and treatment. Discharge planning should involve input from other agencies and the community team responsible for the individual’s ongoing care and treatment once discharged. Where a person is eligible for section 117 aftercare, planning should involve commissioners and local authorities too—

I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

Order. The Minister must finish his remarks first.

I did not know that, Mr Vickers. Thank you for clarifying that point.

To promote a patient-centred approach to discharge planning, we would prefer to avoid mandating in law which professionals should be present at discharge planning meetings. To formalise best practice, the Bill requires that the responsible clinician consults with another professional who has been involved in the patient’s treatment before discharge can take place.

I turn to amendment 16. We agree that a young person turning 18 is at an important transition point in their care and treatment, which usually involves the young person being transferred to adult services. Under the Bill, the responsible clinician is already required to review a person’s care and treatment plan following any change in their condition or circumstances that they consider significant. The transition to adult services clearly represents a significant change in circumstances, which rightly instigates a review of the patient’s plan by the responsible clinician. We intend to make that expectation explicit in the code of practice. In line with existing care standards and guidelines, we will also underline the importance of planning in advance of a patient’s transition to adult services and of collaboration between clinical teams, as well as other measures that seek to minimise disruption to the young person’s care and treatment journey.

We support the intention of amendment 17. However, there are existing provisions, both within the Bill and across other legislation and guidance, that aim to safeguard children and young carers. For example, statutory guidance on working together to safeguard children already sets out the importance of health and social care professionals acting proactively and in collaboration with other agencies to identify and respond to children in need, including where a parent requires mental health support. There is also an existing statutory duty on local authorities to assess the support needs of young carers.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill contains provisions that will strengthen multi-agency working with children and families, helping to ensure that local authorities deliver on their child protection duties. We also plan to reflect key requirements in the revised code of practice to ensure that children and young carers are safeguarded.

We understand that sometimes, when a person is detained, young carers are not appropriately identified. To address that, we plan to encourage individuals to use their advance choice document to ensure that the appropriate services are made aware. Under the Bill, carers should be consulted on the preparation and review of a patient’s care and treatment plan, where appropriate. We will include guidance in the code to ensure that young carers are appropriately involved and supported. We therefore believe that an additional duty would be unnecessary.

Clause 21 will introduce statutory care and treatment plans for all patients detained under the Mental Health Act, including patients under community treatment orders and those who are subject to guardianship. Only those who are subject to extremely short detention periods, such as those lasting a matter of days, are excluded.

The clause sets out in broad terms what the plans should cover, and provides the Secretary of State with the power to specify the contents in regulations. Setting out the requirements in primary legislation and further details in regulations will ensure that every patient’s care and treatment plan is comprehensive and that there is consistency across plans, which we know is not currently the case.

Under the clause, the clinician must prepare and review the plan with the patient and their close contacts, such as family members, carers or their nominated person. That helps to ensure that the patient’s wishes, feelings, beliefs and values shape the plan, thereby increasing the likelihood of their engagement with it. To help to ensure that the plan is kept up to date, the clause specifies important trigger points at which the patient’s clinician should review the plan with a view to potentially revising it.

Beyond providing a clear strategy for how the patient will be supported towards their recovery, it is envisaged that the plan will provide an important audit trail of key decisions made by the patient’s responsible clinician. To embed those new statutory requirements in practice, the clause will place requirements on the managers of a hospital, or the relevant authority, to monitor compliance with the duties. Sir Simon Wessely described statutory care and treatment plans as the cornerstone of the proposed reforms, delivering on each and every one of the guiding principles.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments and will support clause 21.

I thank the Minister for going in detail through the points raised in our amendments. It is good to hear how each of them is being addressed through the code of practice and in the Bill. I am reassured, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Adjourned till Tuesday 17 June at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.

MHB31 NHS Confederation

MHB32 British Psychological Society

MHB33 Professor Emma Wolverson

MHB34 Money and Mental Health Policy Institute

MHB35 Mind