I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling this amendment on the arrangements that govern the transfer of a patient from one hospital to another. I recognise the issues relating to BME patients as explained by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The amendment raises important issues of good practice and reflects one of the recommendations of the independent inquiry into the death of David Bennett, a mentally disordered person who died at the Norvic Clinic in Norwich in October 1998. We accepted recommendation 19, but we recognise that it is not being properly implemented. However, we do not think this amendment is necessary.
Transfers are arranged at the discretion of hospital managers, but patients and their families can make informal representations to hospital managers requesting a transfer, and hospital managers should consider any reasonable request. When doing so, they take account of such factors as the availability of beds and staff at the other hospital; the availability of suitable facilities there; and easier access for the patient to family and friends. These are just examples; there may be other relevant factors.
It would not be right to introduce a prescribed process for transfer requests of the sort that this amendment would result in. As I have said, this should be a matter of good practice. There is, of course, guidance on transfers in the draft version of the code of practice that will accompany the amended Mental Health Act, but it may be that there is more that can be usefully said. Indeed, I am certain that there is. We can certainly see no objection to giving guidance in the new version of the code about the possibility of transferring to another hospital; that all transfer requests should be recorded; and that written decisions should normally be issued in response to such requests. It would certainly be possible to list the sorts of factors that hospital managers should take into account when deciding whether a transfer is appropriate. The factors cited in this amendment will be relevant. But there will be others. We shall consult widely before drafting the relevant chapter of the code. Similar arrangements will be made in respect of the code of practice for Wales.
The range of factors that might be relevant in determining whether a transfer is appropriate is considerable. I agree that those mentioned in the amendment will be important, but there may be others in individual cases; for example, the level of security required may be a factor. By adopting the code of practice approach, it will be possible to get across to hospital managers more effectively than in legislation the range of factors that will be relevant.
I recognise that the amendment is extremely well intentioned and that it is necessary to ensure that recommendation 19 from the David Bennett report is properly implemented. However, in our view, the amendment would result in an overly bureaucratic and restrictive procedure, and we believe that it is much the best way to deal with these issues in the code of practice. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to reconsider the amendment.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 17 January 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Mental Health Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c752-3 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:29:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370186
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370186
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370186