Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 January 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Mental Health Bill [HL].


Mental Health Bill [HL]

I added my name to this amendment for a particular reason. The Joint Scrutiny Committee was regularly presented with very powerful evidence from users on just how little care plans are implemented. I remember one witness talking powerfully about the number of people detained on wards who did not have their care plans implemented and the sheer frustration, and boredom, that that gave rise to on their part, as well as frustration for staff. Many witnesses supported the idea that the care plan approach should be put on a statutory basis, but the Joint Scrutiny Committee did not agree. We disagreed because we thought that it perhaps ought to be left as a matter of practice, which would be easier to change. However, the Joint Scrutiny Committee made two recommendations. It recommended that, "““the Bill include a requirement on tribunals, when they are examining care plans, to consider wider concerns and considerations than purely medical matters—for example, social and housing needs””." That is not in the Bill; it is buried deep within the code of practice, so deep that I doubt that it would emerge to see the light of day. The committee went on to "““recommend that the codes of practice contain guiding principles for drawing up care plans which will govern the treatment and, for example, the privacy, safety and dignity of the patient””." At the very end of the code of practice there is a simple restatement of the law on data sharing, but nothing that would amount to a statement of principles about privacy, dignity and security. What has been included in the code of practice falls so far short of what was recommended by the Joint Scrutiny Committee that it is unlikely that it would make a great deal of difference in practice. Therefore I support the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, in his attempt to highlight this issue from another angle. Much of what he said underlines not just treatment for those who present no problem whatever, but for those patients who the Government have said all along they are concerned about, those who may become dangerous and violent. That is because a lack of implementation of care planning has often led to a build-up of tension in such patients which manifests itself in violence. That is why I have added my name to this amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c534 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Codes of practice Admissions Consent to medical treatment Doctors Health professions Guardianship Mental illness Medical treatments Protection Mental capacity Patients' rights Psychiatric patients Mental health services Mental health Young people
Legislation
Mental Health Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk