553
al.
The
ICS
the
or
ps
nd
ily
in
he
en
he
a
he
he
of
to
th
2259 € 4532
he
Id
lo
DECOCER LE
ly
nt
is
10
AC
id
y.
h
1-
af
بيه به پاد
e
S
ว
e
1
>
British Nationality.
sk 34011
ord Avebury moved Amentiment No. 150:
T13..OCTOBER 1984]
e 45, line 40, leave out (“of unsound mind 2) and, insert. (“actained under section 26, 60, 12 of the Mental Health Act 1959 **).
PA
The noble Lord said: My Lords in Committee I suggested that the words" of unsound mine should be qualified by the addition of the words" within the meaning of the European Convention of Human Rights". The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that this was a point that required examination, although he qualified his reply by pointing out that the phrase “not of unsound mind” in Clause 49(11) was identical with the definition in Section 32(9) of the British Nationality Act 1948, and that it had not caused any major difficulties of interpretation in that Act, although the noble Lord went on very fairly to say that I might well reply that the law had moved on since then and that the phrase might no longer be entirely appropriate even if it had not caused any difficulties.
I hope that the Minister has had time to look at the paper to which I referred on that occasion by Mr. Larry Gostin entitled, The Merger of Incompetency and Certification in which, to put it in a nutshell, what Mr. Gostin is saying is that patients who are not compulsorily detained in a psychiatric unit or hospital are considered capable of exercising all the normal functions of a citizen such as the ownership and management of property, the exercise of the franchise, and so on that a physically ill patient would be capable of; but if the psychiatric patient is a voluntary patient, or if he is being cared for in the community, there is no reason for treating him any differently from any other patient, and only if he is compulsorily detained. under one or other of the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1959 which I mentioned in this amendment would the law then consider him to be incapable of exercising certain of the functions of a citizen.
What I have tried to do in this amendment is, to use the words of the Minister on the last amendment, to replace an undefined concept with something which is watertight, because we are used to looking at the use of these sections of the Mental Health Act for the deten- tion of people in a psychiatric unit or hospital, and we then consider them to be incapable of making certain decisions for themselves but in other respects we treat mental patients as if they were ordinary citizens. I hope that this small improvement to the Bill will be accept- able as being more in line with current thinking about mental patients, and that, in accordance with the very positive reaction from the Minister when I last tried to draft a similar provision, the Government will see that this provision is more appropriate and will see that it is put into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, my noble friend undertook to look at this matter as a result of the previous amendment on this subject which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, proposed. We have done that but I regret that we do not see that the present amend- ment is really an improvement. As the noble Lord has already said, this phrase appears in Section 32(9) of the British Nationality Act 1948 and has not given rise to any difficulties.
Being of unsound mind " has in the past normally been generously interpreted for nation- ality purposes, as being unable to grasp, even dimly, the purpose of an application for citizenship or of taking
MOUSE OF LORDS
DEDATA
4138
the oath of allegiance. We have no reason to suppose that the term will be interpreted any less generously under the new legislation. On the other hand, where one is concerned with compulsory detention in a mental hospital, one is concerned with a person who is unable fly for himself, or who is a danger to himself, or who is a danger to the public, or who has been con- victed of some criminal offence and been found to be of unsound mind. These situations are so different that to equate them, as this amendment seeks to do, appears to be going in the opposite direction, with great respect, and far from improving the Bill it seems to be intro- ducing a false analogy. In the light of that considera- tion, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to with- draw this amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wonder how many people who were incapable of grasping the present purposes of citizenship have applied to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in the past. I am very surprised that this should have been so—or that anybody who was incapable of taking the oath of allegiance should put himself forward to take the oath, or that someone should put forward such a person, that some- one, presumably being a relative. I find it rather difficult to imagine the sort of circumstances in which this could have occurred in the past. In view of the lateness of the hour I do not intend to press this matter to a Division. I shall consult further with the National Association for Mental Health and see whether we cannot come forward with an even more acceptable formula.
I must say that it would have been helpful to have had some indication of the Government's thinking before I put forward this amendment, as I rather imagined I would do after the rather accommodating reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, at Com- mittee. However, I will make no great thing of that. I will study what the Minister has said and will come back to this point on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 151 to 153:
Page 46, line 8, leave out ("colony or associated state ") and insert ("territory ").
line 10, leave out (“ colony or associated state ") and insert (“ territory ").
line 12.
line 11, leave out from ("territories") to end of
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amend- ments Nos. 151, 152 and 153 when moving Amend- ment No. 145, and I therefore beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Schedule 6 [British Dependent Territories]:
Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 154: Page 60, line 34, leave out (“ Dependent ") and insert (“ Associ- ated ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment was to invite this House to consider
You
424
DATE
No. 134 14.10.81
cols.
354-365
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.