Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 17 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 am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. I had a very useful discussion this morning with a number of stakeholders, including representatives from the care home sector and other organisations, who made the very point that the noble Baroness made on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The care homes were equally concerned to make sure that we did not move to a point where it was not clear who had the statutory duty and where the responsibility lay. I hesitate to say it, but requests could be made in an almost vexatious way, with people constantly asking questions. They wanted clarity. In statute, we must be clear that we are putting a duty on one body to identify anyone at risk of deprivation of liberty and to apply for authorisation. I do not say that to dismiss the concerns, but we must make sure that we have one body applying for authorisation and that we minimise the potential risks for individuals not to receive the safeguards to which they are entitled. That is why we have put it this way in the framework of the legislation. Where families are concerned that an authorisation should have been applied for, they will draw that to the attention of the care home or the hospital. It is important to recognise the reality of legal redress; therefore, a request should not be taken lightly. Families can take action through the complaints procedure, but if the question cannot be resolved, there is the opportunity to apply to the Court of Protection. There is a package of measures available but, having said that, I have been thinking about this quite a lot today. I am happy to go away and think whether there are any further steps I can take that would allay concerns, not least those of the family in the Bournewood case. I begin from the principle that one body needs to have statutory responsibility; it is a question of how best we can make sure that families, carers, and others are able to raise their concerns without muddying the waters in a way that would not help. I hope that on that basis the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c767 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Civil liberties Criminal proceedings Codes of practice Admissions Courts Bail Carers Compulsorily detained psychiatric patients Advocacy Emergency services Discrimination Ethnic groups Medical examinations Offenders Mental illness Powers of entry Police Powers Membership Management Members NHS trusts Monitoring Patients' rights Minority groups Mental health services Mental health Relatives Psychiatric hospitals Mental Health Act Commission Mental Health Review Tribunal Young people Social workers Police stations Community treatment orders
Legislation
Mental Health Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk