Clause 36

Mental Health Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 11:00 am on 15 May 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

References

Photo of Tim Loughton Tim Loughton Shadow Minister (Children)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, page 35, line 35, leave out ‘16’ and insert ‘18’.

This is a rather simpler amendment than the last one, and enormously less long. It is about the referral to mental health review tribunals. Again, it reflects our concern about how children and young people are treated in the Bill. We are trying to ensure that safeguards are put in place for all children under 18. Its purpose is to ensure that children under 18 are reviewed at least annually by a tribunal. At present, only children under 16 are automatically entitled to an annual review. We think that they should have at least an annual review given the sensitivity of their position. After all we are talking about very vulnerable children. Children under 18 but over 16 who have no one to look after their interests, such as unaccompanied asylum seekers or those whose parents do not understand the mental health system, might not be reviewed for three years. Surely, that is far too long in the life of a young person.

The point of the amendment is simple. It reinforces the fact that those under 18 are regarded in law as children, and it would safeguard their rights. Although we are not talking about an enormous number of children each year, surely it is a worthwhile safeguard to ensure that children under 18 do not have to wait for up to three years, as they could in some cases, for a  review of their position——of their continued sectioning or other treatment——by the mental health review tribunal.

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton The Minister of State, Department of Health

Clause 36 provides a safeguard for patients who do not use their right to apply to the tribunal. It ensures that even when patients have not applied themselves, hospital managers will automatically refer them to the tribunal after a certain period. All patients under 16 who do not apply to the tribunal, other than under section 2, get referred after the first six months of their detention. If a year passes without a tribunal, then they will be referred again by the hospital managers. The amendment seeks to extend the annual referral to patients under the age of 18.

I sympathise with the intentions behind the amendment. I would like to look at the potential financial and particularly operational implications. I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that it is important to consider very carefully the best ways to ensure that children’s rights are properly safeguarded. I would like to consider the amendment further, alongside the commitment made by my noble Friend Baroness Ashton in the other place. That commitment was that no child under 18 should appear before the tribunal without having had some input from a child and adolescent mental health specialist. It is appropriate to put both considerations together. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment so that I can consider it further.

Photo of Tim Boswell Tim Boswell Conservative, Daventry

Would the Minister also consider that, if children under 18 are to appear before the tribunal, they should be adequately supported in what is bound to be a difficult process? They should not feel it to be any more difficult than it has to be. The Minister will be familiar with the many changes to young people giving evidence. Will she at least ensure that such vulnerable young people do not feel threatened by the tribunal beyond the bare requirements in their own interests?

Photo of Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton The Minister of State, Department of Health

I certainly would not want children to feel threatened by the tribunal. Of course I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman said.

Photo of Tim Loughton Tim Loughton Shadow Minister (Children)

That was short and sweet, but we appear to have made some progress. Perhaps we should keep all our amendments as short as that and we might get rather further than we have done in the rest of the Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she sympathises with the intention and that her support is conditional upon further investigation into the financial and operational implications. We do not think that many children are involved, but it is difficult to tell because the figures are not collected. Potentially, we are not talking about a big cost implication at all, if any. If it can be achieved operationally, then I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that she will come back, having considered it, and perhaps give us good news on Report. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 37 and 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.