| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.57 am
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): I shall take two or three minutes, if I may, to make some remarks about the Bill, as I have been kindly mentioned by several speakers, including the Minister. I had made notes for a much longer speech, but most of the comments that can be made on the law have been made by other Conservative Members and I merely wish to make a couple of quick observations.
We had no debate on Second Reading, partly because some of my hon. Friends were persuaded that in order to deal with this urgent problem--an important issue of the human rights of another human being--we should allow the Bill to pass into Committee, after which we could discuss it here on Third Reading. That goes against all my principles of not allowing a measure to receive a Second Reading on the nod, without proper scrutiny. I apologise to my hon. Friends who rightly complained this morning that they could not participate in a Second Reading debate and that they would have liked to discuss some points in Committee, but if we had insisted on a Second Reading debate the Bill would have been killed, and would not now be before the House.
I am grateful to the Minister and to Lord Williams of Mostyn--an elegant and sincere man. It is wonderful to think that there can be life peers with all the status, breeding and tact of the hereditary peers. Lord Williams of Mostyn was kind enough to invite me and some of my right hon. Friends to the Home Office to explain the purposes of the Bill. I have concluded that, although I may have some worries, it was best to let the Bill proceed so that we might hold this Third Reading debate.
I appreciate that you must uphold the rules of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but some of my hon. Friends who went slightly wide of the tight restrictions on speaking on the Iain Hay Gordon Bill did so in order to cover issues that they could not have covered in debates on other matters.
I welcome the measure, even though there are concerns that it is retrospective, going back, as it does, more than 40 years. There are precedents for retrospective legislation, but the Bill also deals with a single case. There are a few examples of legislation dealing with hard cases, but often they cover a category wider than one person. Those points were discussed in more detail by my colleagues.
Mr. Mullin:
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is no reason for me to dwell on the subject. We have had quite a good debate. The point at issue is narrow and I have not detected outright opposition to the Bill from anyone who has spoken. I thought that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) summarised the position perfectly well.
I shall not respond to all the arguments made by hon. Members, as I suspect that some were motivated more by an interest in mink farming than by an interest in the Criminal Cases Review Commission or the Iain Hay Gordon case. [Interruption.] I do not want to wind up Conservative Members, so I shall not make anything of that point.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that the Bill was about a single case. That is not quite true. It is about a category of cases of which there are only, as far as I know, two known examples, of which by far the most prominent is that of Mr. Iain Hay Gordon.
The Bill has hardly any implications for resources. There is no need to become bogged down in the Iain Hay Gordon case, because the commission, not Parliament, will decide whether to refer the case back, and it is for the commission to decide what priority to give it, although in my view the circumstances are so exceptional that it should be dealt with as swiftly as possible. The commission has probably also reached that view.
Even assuming that the commission refers the case back to the Court of Appeal, Mr. Hay Gordon has another fairly high hurdle to surmount, which is to persuade the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal to quash the conviction. I shall watch carefully how the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal deals with the case. That court has a reputation for being--I put it generously--rather conservative in this area. It is perhaps under old management--unlike the British Court of Appeal, which, over the years, has suffered a few serious shocks which have caused it to look with a slightly more open mind at some of the cases coming before it. I hope that that process is now finding its way over to Northern Ireland and that Mr. Iain Hay Gordon will benefit.
As I detect no real opposition to the Bill, it remains for me to commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4--Right of appeal--
Amendment No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'may', insert
Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, at end insert--
Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 16, at end insert--
Mr. Forth:
We have now arrived at a crucial stage in the consideration of the Bill, which has indeed been through its process. It received a Second Reading, and the Committee, on which I had the honour of serving, considered the Bill briefly. In Committee, one or two questions arose, to which I believe that the House will want to return, so as to satisfy itself. I hope that it will be accepted that the new clauses and amendments are a genuine attempt to improve the Bill, to ensure that it takes a balanced approach to the problem that everyone accepts exists.
By good fortune--or, more probably, good organisation--I received in my mail this morning, from the Law Society of Scotland no less, a letter referring to the Bill. It says that the Law Society of Scotland supports the Bill. It then very eloquently describes the purposes of the Bill.
The letter states:
I read out the letter because I think that it states elegantly the purpose behind the Bill and the background to it, and because it lends the distinguished support of the Law Society of Scotland to the purposes of the Bill. So far, so good. The objectives behind the Bill are clear and at one level we can have little or no argument with them. However, I believe that the Bill raises a number of important questions and issues, with which the new clauses and amendments are designed to deal.
The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) is managing the Bill on behalf of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). We all wish the hon. Gentleman a speedy recovery. We hope to see him back in the House very soon. We hope also that the way in which we deal with the Bill will give him even more reason to feel better and to return. I hope that the hon. Lady and the Minister have given serious consideration to the new clauses and amendments. They are designed to improve the Bill in some important ways.
First, I seek to improve the Bill in the area of accountability. As soon as we start to talk about a vulnerable section of society--people who are by definition incapable in one way or another--and about someone else having responsibility and control over the assets of the incapable person, we are raising important issues of accountability and of possible appeal.
I would have thought that the purpose behind new clause 1 is almost self-evident. It states:
'(1) Where the managers of a hospital exercise their powers under subsection (3A) of section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, they shall submit regular reports in writing to the Mental Welfare Commission about the discharge of the powers under that section.
(2) A report under subsection (1) shall be submitted no later than 18 months after the discharge from hospital of the patient concerned, and thereafter on an annual basis, until such time as either--
(a) the patient is considered by the medical officer in charge of his case to be capable of adequately managing and administering his property and affairs; or
(b) a curator bonis is appointed in respect of that person.
(3) Any report submitted under subsection (1) above shall be made available on application to any person who, in the judgement of the Mental Welfare Commission, has a legitimate interest in its contents.'.--[Mr. Forth.]
12.3 pm
'( ) Any person shall have the right to appeal to the Mental Welfare Commission against--
(a) the holding by the managers of a hospital of money and valuables on behalf of a person under section 93(3A) of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1984; or
(b) the expenditure of money or disposal of valuables in pursuance of section 93(3) of that Act.
(2) Where the Commission upholds the grounds of such an appeal, it shall determine what recompense shall be payable by the hospital to the patient concerned.'.
', for a period not exceeding five years following the discharge of the patient,'.
'( ) The managers of a hospital may exercise their powers under this section until such time as either--
(a) the patient is considered by the medical officer in charge of his case to be capable of adequately managing and administering his property and affairs; or
(b) a curator bonis is appointed in respect of that person.
( ) Any person may at any time request that the patient's ability to manage and administer his property and affairs be reviewed by the medical officer in charge of the case.'.
'(3C) For the purposes of subsections (3A) and (3B) of this section--
(a) "money" shall include bank notes and coins and sums deposited in a bank or building society account;
(c) "money", "other financial assets and investments" and "valuables" shall include sums and items inherited by the patient when resident in hospital or subsequent to discharge from hospital.'.
"This Bill seeks to amend Section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which enables managers of a hospital to receive and hold money and valuables on behalf of incapable patients who are detained in hospital or are receiving treatment there. Section 94 does not permit the managers to release the funds to the patient or anyone else when the patient ceases to receive treatment in the hospital and returns to live in the community. Where there is no curator or other person legally authorised to receive money on behalf of the patient, the funds become trapped and patients are prevented from getting access to their own resources."
The letter continues:
"The Bill will attempt to resolve this specific problem by allowing the managers of hospitals to continue to hold monies and valuables which they are holding at the time of the patient's discharge, and empower them to spend money or dispose of the valuables for the benefit of the patient in terms of Section 94, even though the patient is no longer detained in hospital . . . The Society supports the Bill and recognises that it will solve a problem which is affecting a substantial number of former hospital residents in Scotland. The Bill is of great importance to vulnerable persons in Scotland."
The society urges me to give it my support.
"Where the managers of a hospital exercise their powers . . . they shall submit regular reports in writing to the Mental Welfare Commission about the discharge of the powers under that section."
Surely that is unarguable and almost self-evident. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I want to ensure and guarantee as far as we can that there can be no possibility of mishap, malfeasance or whatever in the handling of moneys of a vulnerable person by somebody else.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |