---

Mental Health Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 26: 26: After Clause 20 , insert the following new Clause— ““CHAPTER 2A Children and young people Consent to treatment for 16 and 17 year olds After section 131 of the 1983 Act, insert— ““131A Consent to treatment for 16 and 17 year olds (1) This section applies to a patient who is aged 16 or 17 years. (2) Subsection (3) applies if the patient is— (a) capable of expressing his wishes, and (b) requires treatment for mental disorder. (3) Arrangements may be made by the patient— (a) for him to be admitted to hospital and remain there and be treated for mental disorder, or (b) otherwise for him to be treated for mental disorder, and he may be so admitted, so remain and be so treated, or be so treated, in pursuance of the arrangements, even though there are one or more persons who have parental responsibility for him. (4) Subsection (5) applies if the patient refuses to consent to or resists— (a) being admitted to hospital and remaining there and being treated for mental disorder, or (b) otherwise being treated for mental disorder. (5) The patient’s refusal to consent or resistance may not be overridden by the giving of consent by a person who has parental responsibility for him. (6) References in this section to the patient being admitted to hospital and remaining there and being treated for mental disorder, or being treated for mental disorder, are references to his being admitted to hospital and remaining there and being so treated, or being so treated, in accordance with any of the provisions of this Act.”””” The noble Earl said: This brings us to the way in which the Bill impacts on patients who are children. There is a serious contradiction in the law as it stands in relation to children receiving treatment for mental illness. A young person who is deemed to be competent can consent to being admitted to hospital and can consent to treatment, but, if they refuse admission to hospital or refuse treatment, they can have their decision overridden by their parents under the provisions of the Family Law Reform Act 1969. In other words, a child can be compelled to receive treatment against his or her will despite being deemed competent to make a decision for himself or herself. I am aware from Young Minds that it knows of cases where parental consent has been used to admit to hospital 16 and 17 year-olds who have not consented to treatment. Young people who are admitted in that way have no access to the protective features of the Mental Health Act. That simply cannot be right or just. I like to hope that the Minister will be in agreement with me. Clause 202(5) of the 2004 draft Mental Health Bill stated that, for 16 and 17 year-olds, "““The patient’s refusal to consent or resistance may not be overridden by the giving of consent by a person who has parental responsibility for him””." That was encouraging, but it is disappointing that the provision was not carried over into the Bill now before us. I should tell the Minister that, anecdotally, there is a huge amount of confusion in the minds of some practitioners about whether to use the Mental Health Act or parental consent to override the young person’s wishes, when faced with a refusal from a child, either to go to hospital or to have treatment. Again, that cannot be at all satisfactory. Parents are often in the dark about what it may be best to do for their child and can agree to treatment for him or her simply on the basis that a doctor is recommending it. It is completely invidious to put parents and children in that position in the first place. Being a 16 or 17 year-old and having your wishes overwritten by your parents when you are adamantly against a particular treatment can severely compromise the parent/child relationship. The amendment would ensure that a young person was properly assessed under the Act, to see if it is necessary to detain him or her. He would then have the protection of that process: visits from the Mental Health Act Commission; legal representation at tribunal; and the review process within the tribunal. There would be no question of the parents feeling compromised, because they would have the assurance and knowledge that the care plan suggested was necessary and in the child’s best interests. I very much hope that the Minister will consider the amendment favourably. I beg to move.