Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 January 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Mental Health Bill [HL].


Mental Health Bill [HL]

Indeed, but the point we on this side of the Committee are seeking to make is that the scope which it gives to individual hospitals to depart from the code in their policies is so wide that it does not offer sufficient protection to patients. That is why we think that the judgment in the Court of Appeal offered better protection and safeguards to patients, and why there ought to be a clearer statement about the status of the code of practice, or the status of parts of it. The Minister spoke of shifting the balance of protection. The Bill as it amends the 1983 Act shifts the balance away from patients and undermines their safeguards, many of which are set out in the code of practice. The Minister began his response by suggesting that noble Lords on this side of the Committee were wrong to seek to offer rights and protections to one group of patients over another. I go back to the beginning of our debates, to the very first amendment we considered in Committee. This is the only form of healthcare which can be given to people under compulsion. It is the only form of healthcare that they cannot refuse and which can be given in detention outside the judicial system. That is qualitatively different, and it is a difference we have reflected all the way through the four and a half days of our debate. That is why I believe the arguments put forward by the noble Lord are less than convincing. Clearly this is not a matter on which we will arrive at a decision tonight, but I ask the Minister to reflect on what we have said about the need for flexibility, on the fact that some parts of the code could be given statutory force, and in particular on what has been said about seclusion and restraint. Those matters are especially important in terms of human rights. I am not going to convince the Minister now, but we have had a helpful exchange of views. This has not been the usual practice in the way we talk about such matters; it is of a higher order and of greater importance than that. I hope that he will consider this further before the next stage.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c118-9 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Assessments Codes of practice Care homes Consent to medical treatment Compulsorily detained psychiatric patients Advocacy Families Mental illness Medical treatments Older people Mental capacity Patients' rights Mental health services Mental health
Legislation
Mental Health Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk