HC Deb 24 July 1959 vol 609 cc1714-5

Lords Amendment: In page 90, line 26, at end insert: and in the execution of a warrant issued under subsection (2) of this section the constable to whom it is addressed may be accompanied—

  1. (a) by a medical practitioner;
  2. (b) by any person authorised by or under this Act to take or retake the patient."

Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment here is for the avoidance of doubt. It deals with Clause 134 which makes provision for warrants where it is necessary to search for or remove patients. Subsection (2) provides for the issue to a constable of a justice's warrant authorising entry into premises in order to obtain access to patients who already under the Bill are liable to be taken to some place. That is to say, to be taken to hospital, for example, under Clause 31, or to be retaken under the provisions of Clauses 40 or 139.

This Amendment removes any doubt about the power of the constable to take with him a doctor, or the person who has applied for the warrant. Perhaps I should indicate that I appreciate the difference between the wording of this Clause as it will appear with the Amendment, and the wording of subsection (1), in that this is permissive and subsection (1) is mandatory. There the constable must be accompanied by a mental welfare officer or a doctor. The reason for the difference is that under subsection (2) it is only a question of retaking or taking a known patient who is already liable to be detained. That is the reason the difference is made, and in this case the power is only permissive.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.