HC Deb 05 May 1959 vol 605 cc286-8

Amendments made: In page 25, line 4, leave out "impose the condition" and insert "direct".

In line 6, leave out "granted subject to that condition" and insert "so granted".

In line 10, leave out from "where" to "under" in line 11 and insert: a patient is absent from a hospital in pursuance of leave of absence granted.

In line 13, leave out "patient" and insert patient's health or safety".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to move, in page 25, line 20, to leave out from "after" to the end of line 38 and to insert: he has ceased to be liable to be detained under this Part of this Act; and without prejudice to any other provision of this Part of this Act any such patient shall cease to be so liable at the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the first day of his absence on leave unless either—

  1. (a) he has returned to the hospital, or has been transferred to another hospital under the following provisions of this Act, before the expiration of that period; or
  2. (b) he is absent without leave at the expiration of that period."
This Amendment rewords the existing provisions in a shorter form which has been facilitated by the definition of "absent without leave" contained in an Amendment to page 26, line 34.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Even though this is a rewording of the Clause we should not leave this Amendment without making a brief comment on the fact that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to alter the period of what used to be called "licence", a matter which we discussed in Committee. In Committee there was some discussion about whether the period of six months ought not to be twelve months, and different views were expressed.

I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that he would consider the matter, although he gave no kind of undertaking about it. Some of us are still a little anxious about whether the effect of this six months' period will be that hospitals will recall patients just before the six months are up, which they would not have done had a longer period of licence been possible.

We realise that it is not easy to establish what is desirable here and we clearly recognise that there are dangers as well as advantages from having a longer period. However, we should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say more about this matter and assure us that our anxieties about the possible action of hospitals have no foundation. It will help if we can be assured that the matter will be at least considered in the natural course of administration.

Mr. Walker-Smith

As the hon. Gentleman has recalled, we discussed this at some length in Committee and we canvassed the respective arguments for six months or twelve months. I hinged my argument mainly on the relationship between, as it were, hospital responsibility and local health responsibility in this context, in that after-care is generically a local health responsibility stemming from Section 28 of the National Health Service Act. I felt that that was really a decisive factor in this and that it would not be right to extend the period to 12 months, although, of course, there are arguments for it.

I will continue to think about it, but that was my view then and it is my view today, and I do not apprehend that any disadvantage will ensue from sticking to this period. But, as the hon. Gentleman has said, from the administration point of view this is a point that can be carefully watched.

Mr. Blenkinsop

There is one further point on that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly points out that the question hinged on the availability of local authority services and the guardianship provision. I raised the point whether he was satisfied that there would be a sufficiently rapid increase in the provision to meet this requirement. Can we take it that the Minister hopes to secure a fairly rapid build-up of the local health authority services?

Mr. Walker-Smith

We are active in this regard, and these matters which we were previously discussing in the context of the Younghusband Report should be helpful to us in this regard. I am far from pessimistic about the progress which we can make in this matter.

Mr. K. Robinson

During the Committee stage the Minister made the point about transferring to guardianship. He said that the fears expressed by some of us that patients at the end of six months would be returned to hospital were exaggerated because, in fact, they could be transferred to guardianship. Why have the words transferred to another hospital or into guardianship, which were in line 30 of this Clause, disappeared from the Amendment which has been put down in substitution of that? I hope that the Minister is not in any way retreating from the assurance which he gave in Committee, which allayed our anxieties, and that it is still possible that this procedure will operate with the transfer of a patient into guardianship.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's point on that. He says that the words "to another hospital" have gone.

Mr. Robinson

The words "or into guardianship" have gone.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I am not certain of the reason for the difference in the new draft. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the purport of that at this moment. If it is something which has been inadvertently and mistakenly done I will be able to put it right in another place. I think it is all right as it stands because it is only a drafting Amendment, but I will have another look at it from that point of view. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a better reply at the moment.

Amendment agreed to.