Proceeding contribution from Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18 January 2012. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
My Lords, on the treatment issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and others, I am advised that the Bill covers them. The matters covered by the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are covered in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1, which includes treatment issues. Amendment 53 seeks to insert a paragraph to provide legal aid for cases concerning whether medical treatment is in the best interests of those incapable of giving or withholding consent. The amendment is unnecessary. As I have explained, paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 already provides for legal aid to be available for cases arising under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including cases concerning medical treatment of patients or those who lack capacity. Furthermore, paragraphs 9 and 15 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide for legal aid for advocacy for mental health cases before the Mental Health Tribunal. Paragraph 4 provides for advocacy before the Court of Protection where there is to be an oral hearing and the case will determine the vital interests of the individual—for example, medical treatment, including psychological treatment, life, liberty, physical safety, capacity to marry or enter into civil partnerships, capacity to enter into sexual relations, or the right to family life. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide legal aid for advocacy for any onward appeals to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on mental health or capacity issues concerning medical treatment. Furthermore, public law challenges to the lawfulness of public authority actions could be brought by way of judicial review, which is in scope under paragraph 17 of Part 1 of Schedule 1. We believe therefore that this amendment is unnecessary and I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw it. I am advised that in the particular case to which he referred the issue was the eligibility of the family for legal aid, because of their means. We have continued to emphasise that legal aid is means-tested in these circumstances and that our intention is to focus it on those who are most needy. I hope that, with those references and that explanation, my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 734 c611
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Children Compensation Admissions Asylum Detainees Consent to medical treatment Damages Debts Crown lands and estates Credit Equality Housing Education Legal aid scheme Immigration Domestic abuse Human trafficking Discrimination Learning disability Domestic service Landlords Evictions Drinks Duchy of Cornwall Medical treatments Patients Protection Nutrition Palliative care Migrant workers Social security benefits Water Special educational needs Sexual offences Refugees Repairs and maintenance Tenants Rented housing Repossession orders Debt relief orders
- Legislation
- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:55:16 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_801666
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_801666
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_801666