Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Rix (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 8 January 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Mental Health Bill [HL].


Mental Health Bill [HL]

Those were the New Year’s greetings that I expected, whether from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, or from his replacement. I knew that the Government would say what they did, because in my discussions with the Bill team last week and in the two letters that I received, in particular the one from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, more or less exactly the same points were made. I realise that I have a bit of an uphill struggle. However, I would like to meet the Minister again before Report to see whether we can reach some compromise and to discuss strengthening the code of practice, which I think is terribly important. The code of practice would be a very good background for sorting out this problem about learning disability, especially if Amendment No. 72 were passed, as that would make the code a little more enforceable. I have a sense of déjà vu. The conversation that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, 24 years ago was not dissimilar to the conversation, albeit one-sided, that we have just heard from the Minister, who put the same sort of arguments. Twenty-four years ago, I queried whether the meaning of the words ““abnormally aggressive”” and ““seriously irresponsible conduct”” was quite clear. I believe that if I were a diagnosing doctor—rather, if I were two diagnosing doctors—I could easily say that the person was being abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible and we would back each other up; it would be much easier and quicker to do that than to look for the root cause of the problem. I am not convinced, although I totally understand the Government’s arguments. For years, we described learning disability as a mental handicap. As noble Lords will know, we removed the words ““mental handicap”” from our organisation’s title; it is still called Mencap, as an abbreviation, although that could now apply to the Mental Capacity Act rather than to the Mental Health Act. The word ““mental”” and the stigma of applying the Mental Health Act to people with a learning disability are closely related. That is why I should like a clearer definition in the Bill. However, until we can have our discussions, as I hope we shall, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 [Changes to exclusions from operation of 1983 Act]:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c71-2 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Codes of practice Alcoholic drinks Autism Compulsorily detained psychiatric patients Diagnosis Drugs Ethics Discrimination Ethnic groups Learning disability Mental illness Prisoners Misuse Patients' rights Minority groups Psychiatric patients Mental health services Mental health Scotland Sexuality Behaviour disorders
Legislation
Mental Health Act 1983
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Mental Health Bill (HL) 2006-07
Draft Mental Health Bill (2004)
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk