---

Health and Social Care Bill

Amendment No. 171 would remove the power for a justice of the peace to detain an individual in a suitable establishment that was not a hospital. However, the purpose of the provision as drafted is to give the justice of the peace the possibility of making the measure more responsive to an individual’s needs and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, to give flexibility. Most important, being able to choose an alternative location to a hospital could help to reduce the impact of the measure on an individual’s human rights. For example, if the justice deemed it ““suitable””, an individual could be detained in their own home. Support systems would need to be put in place, but this could be infinitely preferable to their being in a hospital. More likely, detention could be in a nursing home or hospice. Detention does not always need to be high-tech. To remove this provision would remove such options. I know that this amendment may be the result of concerns about the provision and I should like to address the valid concern expressed by the noble Earl about people being put in prison. I want to reassure noble Lords on the record that I do not think that it could be claimed that a prison would be a ““suitable establishment”” in which to place an infected or contaminated individual. Isolation requires a lot more than a set of bars; it may not even require a set of bars. I remind noble Lords that even prisoners are removed to hospital when they are seriously ill, because prisons and prison cells are not set up to provide intensive medical care. The purpose of the provision is to provide positive flexibility for people who may need to have a detention order made against them. I think that we would all welcome that flexibility. Amendment No. 172 would remove the power in Section 45G(2)(d) for a justice of the peace to isolate an individual. This may sound extreme, but it is a crucial public health protection measure and one of the most effective ways of ensuring that a disease does not spread, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, described much more eloquently that I can. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that, if an individual has an infectious disease, it may be important to limit their exposure to other people who have not caught the disease. In the most serious cases, isolation requires a negative pressure room, barrier nursing and other special measures. Allowing justices of the peace to order isolation, where this is necessary, builds on the powers that they already have under current legislation to detain an individual in hospital. The noble Baroness more than adequately described the difference between isolation and quarantine, so I will not even attempt to do so. Both isolation and quarantine were essential control measures used by Hong Kong and Canada to stem the spread of SARS in 2002-03. I hope that the noble Earl and others will agree that this is a sensible public health protection measure and that we cannot sweep away the power to order such interventions. I hope that, with that, I have satisfied those who expressed justifiable concerns.