Clause 29.—(APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION IN CASE OF EMERGENCY.) (Hansard, 5 May 1959)

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I beg to move, in page 17, line 7, to leave out from the beginning to "in" in line 8 and to insert: admission for observation may be made in respect of a patient". This Amendment falls to be considered with no fewer than nine other Amendments, eight of which are to this Clause and one of which is to Clause 48, page 32, line 31.
The object of all these Amendments is to confine the emergency procedure to an application for admission for observation. We had a long discussion on this point in Committee, when I indicated that I was sympathetic to this matter and 281 would like to make this change, but I saw two difficulties. I said then: I hope we can leave it on this basis, namely, that we will seek in a slightly more leisurely atmosphere to resolve these difficulties and to bring forward something satisfactory on Report.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 5th March, 1959; c. 356.] I think that I have now succeeded.
I will indicate to the House the nature of the difficulties which I saw at that time. They are really two. One was in the nature of a major difficulty and one in the nature of a minor difficulty. The major difficulty was that there might be cases which ought to be dealt with urgently under the emergency procedure but in which there was no need for observation because the nature of the illness and the need for treatment might be already clear. That was the major difficulty.
The second difficulty was that, at the end of twenty-eight days' observation under Clause 25, further treatment might be urgently necessary, but Clause 26 procedure might be ineffective because of objection from the nearest relative. I have already referred to the effect of Clause 30. Clause 30 (1, b), in fact, precludes a second application for observation being made during an existing period of detention under Clause 25. Therefore, the patient would have to be discharged unless an emergency application for treatment could be made under Clause 29. These two difficulties, I am happy to say, have now been met by the Amendments which we are asking to be made to the Bill.
The second objection in regard to Clause 30, and the objection of the nearest relative to which I have referred, is met by the Amendment to Clause 25 (3), page 14. line 20, which the House has now agreed, and which provides for the extension of the first period of observation if an application is before a county court.
The major difficulty which I had in mind is largely met by the new subsection (2) of Clause 25, with which we have been dealing and which redefines the first condition for admission for observation. Even in a case where it is clear what treatment will be needed, because the patient comes as an outpatient who is known, or a former in-patient, observation will generally be needed to determine whether the twenty-eight days' compul- 282 sory detention is likely to be enough. This revised wording of Clause 25 will enable a patient to be admitted with the primary object of giving the short-term treatment that is needed. The same will apply to emergency applications for observation under Clause 29.
The other Amendments to Clause 29 which go with this one in the long list which I gave are all drafting Amendments. Those in lines 15 and 16 are consequential on the limitation of the Clause to observation and those in lines 12, 18, 28 and 34 preserve the substance of the Amendment made in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) and Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) to insert "one of" at the beginning of subsection (3), but we have revised and improved the drafting.
The Amendments in line 9 and 35 to 39 are simply drafting and the Amendment to Clause 48, page 32, line 31 is consequential on the limitation of emergency applications for treatment by the present Amendment. Recalling the sentiments in Committee on this subject, I can commend with confidence the substance of the Amendment to the House.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
We welcome this series of Amendments almost as much as, if not more than, any on the Amendment Paper. We recognise that here there has been a considerable change of view following the lengthy discussions during the Committee stage. These Amendments can have a considerable effect in encouraging a much better attitude towards the new approach in the Bill, perhaps more than anything else we could have done.
There will be agreement on both sides of the House that it is in connection with the emergency procedure that most anxieties and fears in relation to individual liberty have arisen, and this is natural. It was because we felt this that we spent much time, obviously effectively, in stressing this point during the Committee stage and in insisting that if we could achieve a limitation of the emergency procedure to observation, including treatment where required, we would do a great deal to relieve anxieties and to improve the public atmosphere towards the Bill.
283 I take this opportunity of emphasising what is common ground, that our hope of operating the Bill, and the new procedure under it, depends largely upon being able to convince the public of its good sense and in getting their support for this new approach. Therefore, we congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and all those who must have done much work in preparing this series of complicated Amendments in order to achieve our major objective during the Committee stage. It may be that others will have detailed points on which they want elucidation, and we shall all have to see how this works out in practice, but we are pleased that the changes have been made.

§ Dr. D. Johnson
I cannot do better than reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). As one of the proposers of Amendments in Committee which led to the discussions and which have had this present happy result, I welcome this series of Amendments proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Gentleman said quite rightly that this point of observation affects the entire outlook of the Bill, because there was a genuine fear on the part of those of us who raised this matter that in its original form, under which emergency procedure could be translated immediately into treatment procedure with indefinite detention, the entire alternative procedure of short-term observation would be sidetracked and the object of the Bill would be defeated.
Our minds are now set at rest by this series of Amendments and we thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the attention he paid to what we said. We discussed the matter thoroughly in Committee, but one thing is worth repeating at this stage. It is, the view of the experts on the subject, to the effect that, given the months of observation and detention which will be needed for disturbed people to settle down in hospital conditions and receive the necessary treatment, there will only be a very small percentage of cases—the estimate is 5 per cent.—of those originally detained who will have to remain in detention for longer periods. Either it will be possible to discharge them or they will stay as voluntary patients. That fact will affect the outlook and procedure in our mental hospitals. Therefore, I again thank my 284 right hon. and learned Friend for the encouragement he has given through these Amendments.