Mental Health Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 67: 67: Before Clause 36, insert the following new Clause— ““Informal admission of patients aged 16 or 17 In section 131 of the 1983 Act (informal admission of patients), for subsection (2) substitute— ““(2) Subsections (3) and (4) below apply in the case of a patient aged 16 or 17 years who has capacity to consent to the making of such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) above. (3) If the patient consents to the making of the arrangements, they may be made, carried out and determined on the basis of that consent even though there are one or more persons who have parental responsibility for him. (4) If the patient does not consent to the making of the arrangements, they may not be made, carried out or determined on the basis of the consent of a person who has parental responsibility for him. (5) In this section— (a) the reference to a patient who has capacity is to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005; and (b) ““parental responsibility”” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989.”””” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in my response to the amendment on consent to treatment for 16 and 17 year-olds, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I said that in view of what I had heard in Committee I would take it back and see whether the Government should table an amendment in this area. Amendments Nos. 67 and 94 are the result of the Government’s deliberations. The amendments clarify the position of 16 and 17 year-olds who require treatment for mental disorder being admitted informally. Section 131(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 at present provides that a 16 or 17 year-old who is capable of expressing his wishes may consent to being admitted even though there are persons with parental responsibility for him. The intention of the amendment is to make it clear that a 16 or 17 year-old may decide whether to be admitted, regardless of the fact that there is a person with parental responsibility for him. That builds on the approach taken in Section 131(2) of the 1983 Act and is consistent with the age range dealt with in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which in Section 8 deals with consent by persons over 16 to surgical, medical and dental treatment. It is also consistent with the approach taken in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which in general applies only to people of 16 years and over. The amendment amends Section 131, so that patients aged 16 or 17 who have the capacity to consent to their admittance to a hospital or registered establishment for treatment for mental disorder can consent or not consent to such arrangements. If the patient consents to the making of arrangements, they can be informally admitted to hospital, and their consent cannot be over-ridden by a person with parental responsibility for them. If the patient does not consent to the making of the arrangements, they cannot be informally admitted on the basis of consent from a person with parental responsibility for them. Practitioners must, of course, satisfy themselves that, where the patient appears to be consenting, he understands what he is consenting to and the consequences of that consent. Where the practitioner is not content that the consent is sound, they may not use the consent of a person with parental responsibility. The patient can be admitted to hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 if they meet the relevant criteria. There is also, of course, the possibility of applying to the court for authority, but we would not expect that route to be used often where there is the statutory alternative of the Mental Health Act. The repeal of a sub-paragraph in a schedule to the Children Act is pure housekeeping. The sub-paragraph inserted new text into the current Section 131(2) of the 1983 Act and requires repeal. The other amendment in my name in this group replaces that text. In conclusion, I thought that the debate in Committee was very good. I was convinced by the arguments and have, therefore, brought forward these amendments. I beg to move.