Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Neuberger (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 26 February 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Mental Health Bill [HL].


Mental Health Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She will hardly be surprised to hear that I am slightly disappointed. We accept part of what she said, particularly her fair point on Amendment No. 35 about the nearest relative not being able to act on the CTO, which is something that we will take back and look at. However, we are not convinced by the rest of the argument. This is a point that goes back to Committee. We are not convinced of the real difference between mental illness and physical illness or that one does not let a person make even limited choices about who can act as nearest relative on his behalf. We listened to what the Government had to say and limited the list concerned. We believe that there is enough differentiation in the system between people with physical and mental illnesses. We think that this is a difference too far, and that it is unnecessarily restrictive. We will take this away and look at it closely, and we will probably come back at Third Reading. Having made clear that we are not as yet content, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 26 [Community treatment orders, etc:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1405-6 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Consent to medical treatment Carers Conflict of interests Compulsorily detained psychiatric patients Advocacy Electroconvulsive therapy Offenders Medical treatments Patients' rights Mental health services Mental health Relatives Scotland Young people Community treatment orders
Legislation
Mental Health Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk