HC Deb 19 October 1971 vol 823 cc645-7

Lords Amendment: No. 46, in page 28, line 33, at end insert: (2) Under section 90 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (as under section 82 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960) the Secretary of State shall only authorise the removal of a patient if it appears to him to be in the interests of the patient; and accordingly in section 90 after the words "and for his care or treatment there" there shall be inserted the words "and that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him".

Mr. Sharples

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

This Amendment deals with the difficult question of removal of a person on mental grounds. The Clause provides for the extension to Commonwealth and Irish citizens of the existing power under the Mental Health Acts to remove aliens receiving treatment for mental illness as in-patients to a country or territory overseas. The Amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall remove a patient, whether alien or Commonwealth or Irish citizen, only if removal appears to him to be in the interests of the patient.

This matter was discussed at some length in Committee. The Amendment now before the House meets an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend at that stage.

Mr. Peter Archer

For once I can respond to the hon. Gentleman purely as a matter of gratitude and without in any way being rude to him. This is a Bill much of which restricts the rights of people. Happily, most of the Amendments that we are considering tonight impose limitations upon those restrictions. This Amendment improves the existing law. The law will now be better than it was before the Bill was introduced, and in that respect the Amendment is unique among the Amendments that we have considered tonight.

The defect in the law was one which both parties had overlooked. I, personally, am most grateful to certain private associations for pointing it out, and in particular to the National Association for Mental Health. We in our turn pointed out the defect in Committee. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State listened, and this is the result.

Mr. Clinton Davis

I want to ask one question about the way in which this provision is to be administered. It may be that a large number of those who will be affected by the application of this provision will be students who have come here and have succumbed to ill-health, perhaps because of financial and other pressures. They may not succeed in what they are trying to do. They may recognise that a lot of money has been spent on them by those who sponsored their coming here, and that to go home would mean failure on their part. Before a decision is made whether it is in the best interests of such a person to go home, what consultation will be undertaken by the Secretary of State with, say, the student organisations? Is any consultation envisaged?

As regards the arrangements for their going home, will such people simply be sent to their places of origin? Will there be any safeguards to ensure that they could be adequately received there?

Mr. Sharples

Perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply.

The provision applies to those who are mental in-patients. That being so, I do not think that it would be appropriate to have discussions with other than medical representatives. The normal way in which this would be done is that advice would be received from the medical person who was looking after the patient, and of course one would take into account the facilities available in the country from which the patient came, and to which he is being sent. That is important.

I think it was understood in Committee that this provision would be exercised largely in the interests of the person concerned, and I feel sure that that consideration will always be paramount in these cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Forward to