---

Health and Social Care Bill

I support the amendments that were so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. My comments will closely reflect her concerns. My Amendments Nos. 184, 185, 188 and 191 in the group also concern orders made by magistrates. New Section 45L proposes that when a magistrate makes an order for a person to be detained in hospital or another suitable establishment, or to be kept in isolation or quarantine, the period for which the person can be kept locked up can be as long as 28 days. Under new subsection (2), that period may be extended by further order of a JP for a period to be determined in regulations. I share the noble Baroness’s concern; this is not satisfactory, as 28 days is a long time during which to detain someone who has done nothing wrong and who does not need treatment for a mental illness under the Mental Health Act. Of course, I understand that the incubation period for certain diseases may be three or four weeks. However, I believe we owe it to anyone whose detention is thought necessary only in order to protect the general population, to review the initial detention order at much shorter intervals than 28 days. The amendment proposes every seven days—it could be every 14 days—but the intention here is that the order could be renewed for as long as may be justified by the evidence of risk. What I am unclear about—and perhaps the Minister could tell us—is whether the extension referred to in new Section 45L(2) is a once-only extension or an extension which may itself be extended once the specified period elapses. The wording is by no means clear here, though the Explanatory Notes suggest that the extensions can if necessary continue indefinitely. I do not have a particular problem with that idea, but I think that the court should have to review the order at frequent intervals. I am not aware of what maximum period the Government are going to specify for any extension of a Part 2A order, and that leaves me feeling very apprehensive. Even if the Minister were to get up and say that the Government intended to make the period seven days, I would be apprehensive, because that period could be changed by any future set of Ministers in a new set of regulations. However, I fear that the maximum extension allowed will be longer than this. I see no reason why that maximum period should not be specified on the face of the Bill, as opposed to secondary legislation. In fact I think it would be infinitely preferable. Finally, Amendment No. 191 would provide that where an application was made to vary or revoke a Part 2A order, the relevant hearing should take place promptly. If, for example, someone is quarantined under a Part 2A order on the grounds that they are suspected of having viral hemorrhagic fever, and it then turns out that they do not, and that they are not a danger to others at all, it is unacceptable for the person to be kept in continued isolation for more than the shortest possible time. I hope that the Minister will consider this proposal very carefully, as it is not unknown for appeals to a magistrate to be deferred and delayed. A delay may not matter for some kinds of appeal, but when someone's liberty has been taken away through no fault of their own, it matters very much.