POWERS AND PROCEDURE OF TRIBUNALS (Hansard, 18 October 1982)

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
I beg to move amendment No. 21 in page 27, line 45, at end insert '(6) Any funct:ons conferred on the chairman of a Mental Health Review Tribunal by rules under section 124 of the principal Act may, if for any reason he is unable to act, be exercised by another member of that Tribunal appointed by him or the purpose.'. The amendment corrects an omission to which attention was drawn in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), who played a constructive role throughout the proceedings and was the author of a number of changes in the Bill. He pointed out that clause 37(5) extends the Lord Chancellor's power to make rules for mental health review tribunals to enable him to provide by rule for certain of the tribunal's functions to be performed by the chairtnar. of the tribunal. This means that the regional chairman may exercise some of the tribunal's functions on his own without summoning all his colleagues on every occasion, but it is important to bear in mind that the functions that can be delegated are limited to those relating to preliminary and incidental matters. As the Bill stood, it would not have been possible to provide for the appointment of a deputy to stand in for the chairman and exercise any of the functions that the rules may give him. This could have given rise to difficulties if, for example, the chairman became ill or was abroad. The amendment would provide more flexibility and would allow a deputy to be appointed for those purposes.
1.30 am
I have read the Hansard report of the proceedings in Committee. The relevant debate took place on one of the days when I was not present, but I have noted the matters raised in it. It was when my hon. Friend's proposals were put forward that the issue of section 25 patients was also considered. It was suggested by my hon. Friend and others that the chairman might be able to determine by himself, and similarly a deputy, an application from a section 25 patient seeking to challenge his detention. That was never the Government's intention, and in honouring our undertaking we have met the narrow point that the amendment that was tabled by my hon. Friend in Committee was seeking to meet.
I hasten to acid that the Government appreciate that there is considerable concern about the effect of the new rules on section 25 patients. There is some anxiety that by giving new rights to these patients we may be creating fresh pressures for them when they are under some strain when first admitted to a hospital. We appreciate that sometimes they experience considerable distress. There has been considerable correspondence between Ministers and a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston. We are anxious to make it clear that we realise that when patients are first admitted to a hospital against their will they may experience considerable distress. In their interests and in those of their relatives this matter has to be handled with some care and sensitivity.
The way in which patients are informed of their rights has to be handled with care. Obviously it is important to choose the right moment to tell patients about their rights, including those to a tribunal hearing. I trust that we can 151 rely on good professional staff to choose the right moment, but the guidance notes will enable staff to judge the moment properly.
We are considering also the rules of the tribunals in dealing with section 25 cases. The general power to make rules is given to the Lord Chancellor by section 124 of the 1959 Act. It is obvious that it is necessary to produce a new set of rules to cover section 25 cases. The Lord Chancellor will be consulted on the rules, but rules will be produced in an endeavour to make the hearings as informal and as relaxed as possible. There will be some limitation on the ability to be represented, for example, at these proceedings. The idea is not to have too formal or formidable a tribunal but to provide a fairly rapid means by which the tribunal will be able to consider the evidence upon which the patient was admitted, hear what the patient himself, or anybody on his behalf, wants to say about it, come to a quick and fairly informal judgment and ensure that nothing improper has occurred.
We shall try to ensure that the system works without damage to the interests of patients or those of their relatives, first by the guidance notes and, secondly, by the new rules which the Lord Chancellor proposes to make. We could not delegate the right to the chairman or to any deputy to conduct the full hearing in a section 25 case. That would be to take away the judicial quality from the review which the tribunal has to retain.

§ Mr. Terry Davis
The Minister has referred to the correspondence which has taken place. I imagine that many hon. Members have received letters on this issue. Will he make it clear that it is not the Government's intention, through the rules, to reduce the rights of section 25 patients to appeal against their detention?

§ Mr. Clarke
We are committed to providing patients with these rights. It was the wish of the clear majority of the Committee and the Government's wish that these rights should be given. However, we appreciate that there is genuine concern about possible unintended harmful effects on patients and their families if the matter is handled other than sensitively when the patient is first admitted or if the tribunal proceedings are conducted in such a legalistic and formidable way that they add to the distress and confusion of the patient.
Those are the points that we intend to cover in the guidance notes and in the Lord Chancellor's rules, but we have no intention of removing the legal protection that the Bill gives to section 25 patients. That matter was much canvassed in discussion on the amendment in Committee. I think that we can deal with it without legislating on section 25 cases, but on the amendment there is a narrow, but important, point. Had the amendment not been tabled, the value of clause 37(5) would have been much reduced.

§ Mr. Jim Lester (Beeston)
I welcome the contribution by the Minister on this matter because it concerned the Committee very much. It concerns many hon. Members as they have had letters from constituents who have children or relatives who suffer from schizophrenia. There is a fear, put forward by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, that this was the worst element of the Bill—that people who, under section 25, had been able to get a relative into hospital, would have to go through the 152 whole trauma again because within 14 days they have a right of appeal. It seems that that was an unnecessary form of protection.
The Committee refused to take away the right of appeal. I supported the fact that anyone who was to have his liberty taken away, even for 28 days, should have the right of appeal. It helps such people who are in hospital to know that they have that right, and gives dignity to the patient, but it is important that the fears of relatives who are deeply concerned about the trauma of getting someone into hospital, who could be "released", so to speak, immediately afterwards, are allayed.
The amendment is good and we accept it, but it does not follow from what we said in Committee—it is different. As a result, I went back to the Department because I was not satisfied. We had considerable discussion. I had a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, which states that the Lord Chancellor's committee will draft a different set of regulations for section 25 patients and that we shall have the chance to see them before they are finalised to make sure that the real fears of the people who concern us and many of our constituents will be taken care of. The amendment is trying to pick a narrow line between the protection of the relatives and the rights of the patients and a civilised and reasonable way of exercising those rights. We are still watching and waiting to see those regulations and make sure that they fulfil the wishes of the Committee and the House.