Clause 6
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
12:45 pm
Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing and Shoreham, Conservative)
As it stands, the alliance is not taking an official position on it, albeit that many of the component organisations of the alliance support the Lords amendment.
I think that I have dealt with all the interventions, for a change, and now come to the anomaly that I mentioned. The Government presumably recognise the anomaly as potentially hazardous to patients, because they proposed an amendment, prior to Report in the Lords, in an attempt to offer some medical input to the patients’ care by ensuring that the non-medical responsible clinician should consult with a psychiatrist at the time of section 20 renewal. However, the legal status of such a consultation is dubious, because there would be no compulsion on a non-medical responsible clinician to act on the recommendations and no authority for the psychiatrist to oversee his treatment plan. That could lead to interdisciplinary conflict, as well as unco-ordinated patient care. Why did the Government find it necessary to introduce a medical angle when the measure was going through the House of Lords? They cannot have it both ways. Either they think that a medical input is of great importance, or they do not. They have come up with a halfway house which is flawed and leads to more confusion.