L

Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)

Speaking in the House of Lords on 14 January 2025

Debate

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Contribution

I too am supportive of the spirit and intention behind Amendments 19 and 20, but I want to raise two textual questions relating to whether they would give effect as was intended. In respect of Amendment 19, I am not sure that the explanatory statement accurately characterises what the amendment proposes. It says that the amendment ensures that ICBs and local authorities would “have a duty to carry out”, whereas at the point at which those words would be inserted it appears that the duty would also then fall to the patient’s responsible clinician. Amendment 19 by itself would essentially see CETRs overriding the judgment of the responsible clinician, which I think is quite a significant step to take. In any event, I wonder whether Amendment 20 undoes any of the good work that Amendment 19 proposes in the first place. It says that you can ignore the exhortations of Amendment 19 if there is a “compelling reason” to do so. My question to the drafters of Amendment 20 would be: what statutory interpretation should be placed on “compelling reason” and how might the courts be expected to adjudicate in the event of judicial review?

More from Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)

Other recent Hansard contributions by the same speaker.

About Hansard

Hansard is the official verbatim record of proceedings in the UK Parliament. Every word spoken in the Commons and Lords is recorded and published — this page is a single contribution from that record.

Partner sites