Proceeding contribution from Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 18 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Mental Health Bill [Lords].
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
I do not want to go into individual cases. The example that I cited was not the best example of the effect of a lack of advocacy services at the beginning because there was clearly a mental health problem in that case. I raised that case, however, because of the report that highlighted the problems experienced by many service users. It is fair to say that several Afro-Caribbeans would not be sectioned or subjected to electro-convulsive therapy if there was more understanding of their culture and needs. I will not press amendments (a) and (c) to new clause 3 to a Division because of the wider implications, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the nature of the specific problem and bring something forward to move us in a fairer direction in the longer term. Amendment (b) to Government new clause 3 would do something similar for children by extending the terms of the measure to make mental health advocacy available for all children who are voluntary patients, rather than just children liable to detention, or for whom ECT is being contemplated. I do not buy into the Minister’s argument about resources because estimates show that the measure would probably affect only 650 children a year, or one in each constituency. The numbers are not high, yet we should provide an extra safeguard for those children. It must be terrifying for a child to be admitted to an in-patient unit, especially, as is frequently the case, if their relationship with their parents has broken down. An advocate would be someone other than a parent, carer or clinician who could not only communicate with the child, but communicate that child’s interests and ensure that there was a right of appeal. Children can overturn parental responsibility only through a court order, so the system is completely stacked against them. We are talking about only a small number of people, yet they are vulnerable and at a crucial time of their lives, so although the Bill does much to improve conditions for children, I urge the Minister to think again on this matter. Given that I have heard supportive comments from Labour Members, I am minded to press amendment (b) to new clause 3 to a Division.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 461 c1108-9
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Carers Advocacy Patients' rights Psychiatric patients Mental health services Mental health
- Legislation
- Mental Health Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:59:16 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403618
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403618
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403618