Passing police detention powers to NHS staff ‘could cause significant harm'
The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, the Royal College of Nursing and Association of Directors of Adult Social Services are among those saying proposed changes to the Mental Health Bill will set a 'dangerous precedent' that puts people at risk.
In March, the Government suffered several defeats in the Lords as peers debated ways to modernise mental health legislation.
Conservative shadow health minister Lord Kamall proposed a change to the Mental Health Bill so that nurses, doctors and other staff could carry out detentions of patients without the need for police officers to attend incidents.
Delegating police powers without proper consultation or planning is likely to disproportionately affect those from minoritised backgrounds and would increase risk to patients and compromise the safety of others Dr Lade Smith, Royal College of Psychiatrists
Health minister Baroness Merron told the Lords the Government did not support 'extending police powers in this way' but peers backed the Conservative proposal, resulting in changes to the draft new law.
The changes mean powers previously reserved only for police could be transferred to health or other professionals to detain and restrain people in crisis, in public spaces or at home.
It comes after concerns have repeatedly been raised by police leaders about the pressures mental health issues are placing on policing.
Launching a joint statement, major health organisations have expressed 'grave concerns' and argue the 'police play a crucial role in carrying out many tasks that medical practitioners cannot perform, such as assessing whether a home is safe to enter'.
They said 'reducing police involvement in mental health emergencies could lead to serious risks for both patients and clinicians.'
The joint statement said wording accompanying the amendment 'states that 'the proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.'
Like mental health services, the police are facing significant workload pressures. It is simply logical and now vital that we work together to develop more effective ways of responding to mental health crises Dr Lade Smith, Royal College of Psychiatrists
'This is misleading as instances of detentions under the Mental Health Act where there is no risk are almost non-existent.
'It also negates the fact that the mere presence of uniformed officers can ensure that an otherwise risky situation remains contained and safe.'
Transferring police powers to health professionals also risks damaging their 'therapeutic relationships' with patients, the signatories said.
This has the 'double-effect' of hindering the ability to provide care, while also deterring people from seeking help from services where they might be forcibly detained, they added.
The organisations said the changes 'have not been tested' with health professionals or discussed with patients.
Their statement said: 'We are keen to work with police and Government to find ways to improve responses to mental health crises to ensure the safety of all professionals involved, patients and the community.'
Extending police powers to other professionals would represent a major shift in the roles, responsibilities and practice for health and care staff and would place additional resource on an already stretched NHS ... Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson
Dr Lade Smith, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said delegating police powers to health professionals 'would not be within the spirit' of the proposed reforms to the Mental Health Act.
She added: 'It is well known that at times, people experiencing a mental health crisis cannot be safely reached and cared for without the assistance of the police.
'Delegating police powers without proper consultation or planning is likely to disproportionately affect those from minoritised backgrounds and would increase risk to patients and compromise the safety of others. It sets a dangerous precedent.
'Like mental health services, the police are facing significant workload pressures.
'It is simply logical and now vital that we work together to develop more effective ways of responding to mental health crises.'
It also raises questions around whether it is right for the health and social care professionals to have powers to use reasonable force which could have implications for patient, public and staff safety, as well as potentially damaging the relationships clinicians have with patients Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'Extending police powers to other professionals would represent a major shift in the roles, responsibilities and practice for health and care staff and would place additional resource on an already stretched NHS at a time where we are trying to rebuild a health service fit for the future.
'It also raises questions around whether it is right for the health and social care professionals to have powers to use reasonable force which could have implications for patient, public and staff safety, as well as potentially damaging the relationships clinicians have with patients.
'We are grateful to health and social care stakeholders for their in-depth engagement on this complex issue.'
Signatories to the joint statement are:
– Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE)
– Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS)
– Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) Leads Network
– British Association of Social Workers (BASW)
– British Medical Association (BMA)
– College of Paramedics
– Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM)
– Royal College of Nursing (RCN)
– Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
38 minutes ago
- BBC News
Ken Ofori-Atta: Interpol issues red notice for Ghana's fugitive ex-minister
Ghana's former finance minister Ken Ofori-Atta has been placed on Interpol's Red Notice list for allegedly using public office for personal comes after Ghanaian prosecutors declared him a wanted person as well as a fugitive from justice, as he was outside the country, over his alleged involvement in several corruption cases when he was in government.A Red Notice is not an arrest warrant but a request to police worldwide to detain someone pending who is said to be out of the country for medical reasons, has not commented on the allegations, but he has said he has been unlawfully treated. The 65-year-old has been accused of causing financial losses to the state. The allegations include questions over procurement procedures in the building of a controversial national cathedral, which remains a hole in the ground despite the alleged spending of $58m (£46.6m) of government lawyers had offered to represent him but the state prosecutor said they could not respond to criminal charges on behalf of their who sued MP and won $18m hopeful he will pocket the moneyIn February, Ofori-Atta appealed to the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) to remove his name from the wanted list and provided a definite return date in prosecutor Kissi Agyabeng accepted Ofori-Atta's assurance and subsequently took his name off the wanted list. But in March Ofori-Atta filed a lawsuit, claiming unlawful treatment and requesting removal of related content from the OSP's social media this month, Ofori-Atta was re-declared a wanted person and a fugitive from justice after failing to appear before an investigative panel. Agyebeng subsequently formally initiated the Red Notice request, seeking international help in tracking down the former official, local media reported. "We want him here physically, and we insist on it. A suspect in a criminal investigation does not pick and choose how the investigative body conducts its investigations," Agyebeng the Red Notice released on late Thursday, Interpol said Ofori-Atta is wanted on charges of "using public office for profit".He was finance minister from January 2017 to February 2024, when the New Patriotic Party (NPP) was in NPP lost last December's elections to the National Democratic John Mahama, who was inaugurated in January, went on to establish an investigative committee known as Operation Recover All committee has received over 200 complaints of corruption, amounting to more than $20bn in recoverable has directed the attorney general and minister of justice to launch investigations into these allegations, stating that Ghana will no longer be a safe haven for some Ghanaians have criticised him for discontinuing cases against his former allies on trial. More Ghana stories from the BBC: Can Ghana's new president meet the voters' high expectations?The Maths Queen with a quantum mission to mentor girlsWhy some Ghanaians are fighting in insurgency-hit Burkina FasoGhana wants more for its cashews, but it's a tough nut to crack Go to for more news from the African us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves's spending review will reveal what this government's priorities really are
On 11 June, the government will unveil its long-awaited spending review, laying out how it wants to spend more than £600bn annually on public services over the next few years. That's about a fifth of the entire British economy. The choices made over funding for the NHS, schools, courts, prisons and much more besides will shape life in the UK in the coming years. It's no exaggeration to say this could be the defining domestic policy moment of this parliament. Rachel Reeves's first budget included a big tax rise and a two-year increase in borrowing to boost spending on public services. For future years, the chancellor has repeatedly reaffirmed her 'ironclad' commitment to borrow only to invest. Such is the dismal state of the public finances that even with tax revenues that are high by historical standards, spending growth in the coming years will be relatively modest. Overall day-to-day departmental spending is set to rise by an average of just 1.2% above inflation over the next three years. This will make the spending review tough. Allocating spending across departments will inevitably mean picking winners and losers. The single most consequential decision will be how much funding to allocate to the NHS. The NHS budget is big – it accounts for 40% of day-to-day spending on public services. That's comfortably more than is spent on schools, universities, the police, prisons and defence combined. For decades, the savings from declining defence spending were effectively ploughed into the health service. Those 'peace dividend' days are gone. The government has already committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% of national income. It's unusual for health and defence spending to grow at once – and unheard of for it to happen in a period of low growth and high interest rates. If the government also chooses to prioritise the NHS budget alongside defence, other departments' budgets will see cuts. Consider this scenario: if the government increases defence spending as promised, and opts for a 3.4% annual increase in NHS funding – below the long-term average and far short of the 6% growth seen under Labour in the 2000s – it would probably be enough to hire the staff the government's workforce plan says the NHS needs and deliver improvements to NHS performance before the next election. But the wider implications would be stark: it would require cuts of 1% a year to the budget for all other departments. The government could, of course, allocate less to the NHS. That could jeopardise the promise to substantially reduce hospital waiting times by the next election and to build an 'NHS fit for the future'. But it would free up resources for its other missions to 'break down the barriers to opportunity', 'make Britain a clean energy superpower', deliver 'safer streets' and 'kickstart economic growth'. When funding is tight, more money for a shiny new initiative inevitably means less money for something else. The prime minister noted that achieving the five missions of his government will demand 'relentless focus and prioritisation'. We'll soon find out, when push comes to shove, what this government's priorities are. Some departments, and some ministers, are likely to be disappointed. Once the spending review settlements are revealed, the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, may not be the only Labour MP calling for higher taxes to reduce pressure on spending. By autumn, however, disgruntled colleagues could be the least of Reeves's concerns. At the spring statement in March, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was significantly more optimistic about growth prospects than most other forecasters. Since then, global developments have been bad news for the UK's economic outlook. If the OBR downgrades its growth forecast, that could easily wipe out the chancellor's limited wiggle room against her fiscal rules – perhaps several times over. Last November, Reeves was adamant that she would not be 'coming back with more borrowing or more taxes'. But unless she gets lucky, she will have to come back with something to avoid a breach of her rules for borrowing. Assuming her fiscal rules remain 'ironclad', Reeves will have three options. She could cut departmental spending, just a few months after settling multiyear spending plans with her cabinet colleagues. She could make further cuts to the social security budget, when there is pressure – not least from some MPs – to do the exact opposite. Or she could raise taxes again to pay for the spending that has already been pledged. It's clear why speculation about potential tax rises will continue. But we should not let speculation about the budget distract us from scrutinising the spending review itself. The government's decisions on how to allocate more than £600bn of spending a year for several years will be of great consequence, whatever happens in the autumn. And, since speculation about the budget will inevitably continue, the discussion should shift from simply how taxes could be tweaked to raise more revenue to how they could be reformed to be less damaging to growth. Delivering higher growth deserves its place as the government's number one mission and should be a central focus across all areas of policy. Reeves is yet to show any interest in tax reform. She is missing an opportunity. With challenging years ahead, we need a government that seizes every opportunity to drive up economic growth. Achieving that mission would make everything else easier. Helen Miller is the incoming director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Starmer: Scots 'voted for change' in Hamilton by-election
The by-election was triggered following the death of SNP MSP Christina McKelvie, who had held the seat since 2011. Mr Russell overturned a significant SNP majority, winning with 8,559 votes, just over than 600 votes more than the SNP on 7,957. Reform UK placed third place with 7,088 votes, while the Conservative result plummeted to 1,621. Posting on social media on Friday morning, Sir Keir said: 'People in Scotland have once again voted for change. 'Next year there is a chance to turbo-charge delivery by putting Labour in power on both sides of the border. 'I look forward to working with you.' Read more: Disdain for Davy Russell comes back to bite political elites Labour wins Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election breakdown in full Labour's candidate, who is the deputy lord lieutenant of Lanarkshire, beat the SNP's Katy Loudon – who fell to her third defeat since 2023. he win comes against the backdrop of national polls which place Scottish Labour in third place behind the SNP and Reform UK – and will undoubtedly give a boost to Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar's bid to become first minister in next year's election. Mr Sarwar told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme he is confident Labour can win that contest. Congratulations to @DavyRussell4HLS and the team on a fantastic victory. People in Scotland have once again voted for change. Next year there is a chance to turbo charge delivery by putting Labour in power on both sides of the border. I look forward to working with you. — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 6, 2025 When asked if his party can defeat the SNP, which has been in power in Scotland since 2007, Mr Sarwar declared: 'Absolutely. I believed it before this by-election and I continue to believe it now. 'Next year the choice is simple – a third decade of the SNP with John Swinney as first minister or a new direction for Scotland with me as first minister. 'That is the choice facing the people of Scotland, that is the campaign over the next year, and that is a campaign I am confident we can win. 'I think what the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse did yesterday was lead the way to that change of government next year and a Scottish Labour government next year.' He also said he will 'continue to challenge the poison of Reform', making clear he is 'talking about the people who lead Reform' and not those who 'may be tempted' to vote for them. Read more: How The Herald is covering crucial Hamilton by-election Find all articles on the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election Much of the by-election campaign had been dominated by Reform's advert – branded racist by Labour and other political opponents – which had alleged Mr Sarwar would 'prioritise' the Pakistani community, something he did not say. A surge in support for Nigel Farage's party saw it come in third place in Hamilton, just 800 votes behind the SNP – although there had been speculation Reform could come second or possibly even win the seat. Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice insisted the party is 'delighted' with the result. But Mr Russell used his victory speech to suggest the community had rejected the 'poison' of Reform. He said: 'This community has sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.' Mr Swinney said Ms Loudon had 'fought a superb SNP campaign' and that he was 'clearly disappointed' his party was unable to win. 'Labour won by an absolute landslide in this area less than a year ago – we came much closer tonight, but the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse have made clear that we still have work to do,' he added. 'Over the next few days, we will take time to consider the result fully.'
