HL Deb 12 June 1979 vol 400 cc541-2

2.55 p.m.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will instruct port medical officers that passengers refused leave to enter the United Kingdom on grounds of mental illness should not be detained in prisons.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, where a mentally-ill passenger has to be detained, arrangements are normally made for his admission to hospital. Where detention in prison is unavoidable the need for medical treatment is taken into account when allocating the detainee.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, the Minister is probably aware of the case I am thinking of—that of Mr. Choonara, which was taken up with his honourable friend Mr. Timothy Raison. Does he not agree that when a consultant psychiatrist has expressed an opinion that the patient is fit to be released from hospital, and the chief immigration officer in charge of the case has said that provided medical advice is favourable he will agree the man can be released into the custody of his family, the port medical officer should not then step in and countermand the advice of the consultant without examining the patient or discussing the case with the psychiatrist concerned?

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, under Rule 61 of the Rules for Control on Entry it falls to the port medical inspector to use his clinical judgment as to the disposal of someone in this unfortunate position. I am aware of the case of Mr. Choonara to whom the noble Lord referred. It is true that Mr. Choonara had to go to the hospital wing at Pentonville because there was nowhere else available for him to go when he came out of hospital at Southall. The noble Lord may wish to know that arrangements were made for Mr. Choonara to go to Prestwich hospital in Manchester on 11th June.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Mr. Choonara has been in the Pentonville medical wing for four weeks as a result of the decision by the port medical officer? Quite apart from the immigration rules, does he not agree that this is a question of medical ethics and that the port medical officer should not make this decision without examining the patient and without discussing it with the consultant psychiatrist whose decision is was that he was fit to be released from St. Bernard's Hospital?

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, this is a question of the statute law and the practicalities of where people can be placed. The law is quite clear. Under Rule 61 it falls to the port medical inspector to use his judgment. In the case of Mr. Choonara, the best arrangements possible have been made—which have been, successively, hospital, the hospital wing at Pentonville, and now once again (for, I hope, a short time) hospital.