CODE OF PRACTICE (Hansard, 18 October 1982)

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 35, line 2, after 'practitioner' insert 'to a patient detained under the principal Act or this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 49 to 51, amendment No. 52, and Government amendments Nos. 53 to 56, 58, 59, 61 and 63.

§ Mr. Clarke
The amendments deal with the Mental Health Act Commission and its functions. Although some doubts were expressed on Second Reading, it is now accepted on both sides of the House that the Mental Health Act Commission proposed by the Government is a valuable new body that will act as a watchdog for detained patients and, as a result of amendments in Committee, will have potential responsibilities for informal patients. It will be a watchdog for the treatment of psychiatric patients.
The work, statutory powers and duties of the commission were discussed extensively in Committee and, as with other features of the Bill, were improved steadily in the Committee. Most of the amendments honour commitments given in Committee to hon. Members and they are designed to widen the commission's duties, extend its powers and make it more accountable. The greatest extension agreed in Committee was to enable the commission at a future date to take on responsibilities for informal patients as well as for detained patients. That point was pressed especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester).
Amendments Nos. 47, 61 and 63 make some drafting changes to the amendments agreed in Committee, but new clause 7, which was moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) this evening and accepted by the Government, flatly contradicts amendment No. 47. In due course, I shall seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 47. If I do not, I assume that the hon. Member for Stechford will leap to his feet and say that I am snatching away with one hand what I conceded to him with the other. Amendments Nos. 61 and 63 make drafting changes to the amendment agreed in Committee—that the commission should at some time be empowered to take on responsibilities for informal as well as for detained patients.
I do not wish to underline at length what I said in Committee to my hon. Friend and to others. The amendment provides the commission with a statutory power, but we do not expect it to exercise that power when 164 it is set up. The first priority of the commission must be to concentrate on the special problems of detained patients. When we see how it copes with its work, we shall consider whether it can take on duties for informal, voluntary patients. We have not committed ourselves to extending the role of the commission. We wish to see how it gets on in the first stages. I accepted my hon. Friend's argument that if we did not insert the power in the Bill now, we might have to wait for another 23 years before a Secretary of State can extend the work of the commission. Therefore, we are altering the primary legislation and giving a future Secretary of State the power to direct the commission to take on more functions if he believes it appropriate.
Other amendments make it possible for the commission to investigate complaints by persons other than detained persons and widen its general duty to act as a watchdog over the use of the powers in the Bill. We have provided that the code of practice should be subject to the negative resolution procedure, which will give an opportunity for parliamentary debate. That point was pressed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). Another amendment requires the commission to send a report to any hon. Member who complains to it on behalf of a patient. That matter troubled my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).
I hope that the suspicions that some hon. Members expressed on Second Reading about the concept of the Mental Health Act Commission have been resolved. In response to undertakings given to the Committee, we are widening and broadening the commission's powers.

§ Mr. Proctor
We are discussing the major reforming legislation of the Session, and I make no apology for talking about the amendments at this late hour. Throughout the Committee stage I was concerned about the role of the Mental Health Act Commission which, with the question of consent to treatment, is at the centre of the Bill.
We have chosen that body to safeguard detained patients' interests rather than to provide a set of entrenched rights. Therefore, it is essential that that body operates vigorously and effectively, and is seen to do so.
I am pleased with the Government amendment requiring the commission to talk to any hon. Member who has filed a complaint on behalf of a constituent. I was delighted that in Committee the Minister was able to assure me that the commission would investigate complaints about clinical judgment, that a complainant could have the help of a friend when dealing with the commission and that the Government are satisfied that the projected manpower level will be sufficient for the commission to be effective.
I should like advice and an assurance about four aspects of the commission's work. First, will the complainants, Members of Parliament or others, in most cases be told not only the commission's findings, but the reasons for its findings?
Secondly, how will the commission enforce its findings? Will it—as I suspect it will as a delegated authority under the Secretary of State—have to rely on the Secretary of State to enforce its findings?
Thirdly, if the commission, in pursuit of its powers under clause 51, decides not to pursue a complaint, will 165 the complainant be told the reason for that decision and be able to have the decision reviewed by the Secretary of State?
Fourthly, which matters in clause 51(2) does the Minister envisage might be excluded from investigations? Perhaps the Minister will write to me.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
I was about to do my best to extemporise, but that might not be helpful. I shall write to my hon. Friend and circulate copies of the letter to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and other hon. Members who wish to be informed.