I still have a problem because the definition is very clear, as the noble Baroness has said. It is about being related to “the mental disorder”. I know that the Minister said that this is standard legislative language and that it is not intended to be a singular disorder, but I disagree. First, the definition does not give us a sense that aftercare should be holistic and thus in line with the underlying well-being principle. Secondly, the use of the definitive article in “the mental disorder” is completely out of keeping with the Mental Health Act. I can give a couple of examples from some of the trigger sections of the 1983 Act. Section 1 of that Act defines mental disorder but Sections 2 and 3, which refer to mental disorder, have no definite article. The wording is completely separate from that of the Mental Health Act, so officials should go back to the drawing board and look at it a bit more carefully. It is very unclear and it poses huge legal arguments, as people will say that this is about “a mental disorder”.
Care Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Patel of Bradford
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 July 2013.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Care Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
747 c1577 Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-01-19 10:17:48 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-29/13072912000036
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-29/13072912000036
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-29/13072912000036