Amendment No. 24, in conjunction with Amendment No. 23, would remove subsections (3) to (7) of Section 12 of the Act and replace them with a regulation-making power. Section 12 concerns the two medical recommendations that must accompany an application for a patient’s admission under the Act. An application for admission is made by an approved social worker. Subsections (3) to (7) of Section 12 set out circumstances in which a doctor may or may not provide one of the two medical recommendations that accompany the AMHP’s application for a patient’s admission. For example, the two medical recommendations may not be provided by two doctors from the same hospital, except in certain specified circumstances.
The amendment would replace these provisions with the power to make regulations saying when a doctor may not provide the medical recommendation accompanying the application and when an approved mental health professional may not make the application. In particular, the amendment would allow the regulations to specify when a doctor or an AMHP may not act due to a conflict of interest, when they must have had professional involvement with the patient and when they must not, and when these requirements may be relaxed if they would result in delay involving risk to the patient or others.
We acknowledge that, if we were conducting a complete overhaul and replacement of the Act, there might be many matters of detail, such as these, that we would wish to adjust. But as the Committee will know, we have deliberately moved away from a comprehensive replacement of the Act to one which concentrates on the most significant and necessary amendments. We are reluctant, therefore, to make changes that fall into the category of desirable but rather less than essential.
This is a matter not just of the drafting of the Bill but also of its implementation, which will inevitably require considerable effort, especially if we are to bring it into force expeditiously. It will also require practitioners and others to learn and to become familiar with new rules and practices. Naturally, we are keen to focus their efforts and those of the department on key changes. However, I have heard the arguments made. We recognise that subsections (3) to (7) of Section 12 are complex provisions and that placing them in secondary legislation would allow more flexibility to ensure provision keeps pace with changes in practice over time. Given that, I would be happy to take the amendment away and consider whether it would be appropriate to come back to your Lordships with proposals that take account of these issues.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 January 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Mental Health Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c538-9 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:21:15 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369540
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369540
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369540