I thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central again for bringing the bill forward and congratulate him on the way in which he has done. 9.50 am Mr Charles Walker: I just want to express a few thanks. I thank my hon. Friend the member for Croydon Central (gavin Barwell) for piloting the bill so expertly : Column 496 through Parliament. What a fantastic job he has done! I thank rowena daw of the royal College of Psychiatrists, who has been a fantastic supporter of the bill.
The best Writing Prompts for Middle School
That makes no sense at all. The important provision about company directorships has not received a great deal of coverage during the passage of the bill, but it will make a difference to company directors who suffer from mental illness. Gentleman said, the bill is important not only for those provisions but for the broader message that it sends out about the view of this house and of society about mental illness. I, too, pay tribute to the organisations that he resume mentioned, which have campaigned and worked very hard not only on making sure that there is support for the bill but on helping to ensure that the stigma around mental health is eradicated. Will the bill in itself do that? No, it will not—I do not think that for one minute—but I hope that it will show, as the hon. Gentleman said, that this house is determined to ensure that mental health stigma becomes a thing of the past. It will take time to change peoples attitudes, but the debate in this house on 14 June and the passage of the bill show that mental illness is on the political radar and will not go away. I encourage the house to continue the debate because our recent debates show that this is an issue that we should talk about. Mental illness is often not prioritised in terms of resources or in the workplace because it is not talked about. Let us hope that we will continue to talk openly about mental illness, not as something that is an impediment to people making a full contribution to public life or to their own personal life and development, but as something that, with effective treatment and.
He can rightly congratulate himself—of course, he will feel in need of some congratulations in Croydon after yesterdays by-election result—on arguing so strongly for. As a member of the entry small club of individuals who have got a private members Bill passed by the house—i hope to welcome him to it—i know about the hard work that has to go into steering a bill through this house. He was right to thank the staff, who i think will not be encouraging him to put in for the ballot in future given the amount of work that they have done. The bill should be supported because it gets rid of anachronistic legislative provisions. The provision on the disqualification of Members of Parliament has changed very little since 1886. The only thing that has changed is the description of who has to draw up the report for you, mr Speaker. Possibly some of the language has been modified over the years, but in effect the same provision still applies. Another issue is jury service. The existing provisions stigmatise those who are receiving treatment for mental illness by saying that they can practise as a solicitor or a barrister but cannot serve on a jury.
Friend the minister and the officials in the cabinet Office who have provided very welcome help and support, and those in my own office. Members on both sides of the house will know of the huge contribution that our staff make in supporting the work that we do as Members of this house. I am hugely grateful for all that help. I hope that today the house will see the completion of the passage of this Bill, which will be a welcome landmark statement that attitudes with towards those with mental health conditions are changing. I also hope that it will have speedy passage through the other place. Column 495.46 am Mr kevan Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (gavin Barwell) not only on selecting this subject for his private members Bill but on eloquently arguing its case throughout its parliamentary stages.
That is another provision relating solely to mental health that is wholly unnecessary and stigmatising. Finally, and just as important, the bill amends the provisions relating to a member of Parliament who is detained under the mental health legislation for a period of six months or more. No equivalent provision exists in relation to preventing those with physical conditions from serving. Indeed, members can be sentenced to prison for longer than six months and not lose their position in this house. The bill deals with those issues, but I hope that it also sends a much wider message to society about the need for a change in attitudes to those with mental health conditions. I conclude by expressing my thanks to a few people for their support on the bill. First, i thank lord Stevenson of Coddenham, who in the previous Session introduced a very similar Bill in the other place that sadly was unable to complete its passage owing to a lack of parliamentary time. I thank mind, rethink mental Illness and the royal College of Psychiatrists for their support and the background work that they have done on the bill and the wider campaign that they have been running, time to Change, which is trying to change attitudes towards. Finally, i thank my hon.
How to say
Anyone summoned for jury service is entitled to request an excusal or deferral by completing the relevant section of the summons form. Such applications are then considered by officers of the jury central Summoning Bureau. Amendment 1 agreed. Third reading : Column 494.42 am gavin Barwell: I beg to move, that the bill be now read the Third time. I will speak only briefly because we had a very full debate on the bill on Second reading and a good debate in Committee.
I want to underline the importance of this Bill and what it is seeking to achieve. Over the period of my adult lifetime, this house has passed important legislation to deal with other areas of discrimination such as race relations, gender and sexual orientation, but on mental health there remain on the statute book several provisions that are openly stigmatising and. The homework bill tries to bring the law of this country into the 21st century by removing those provisions so that people with mental health conditions can serve on juries and contribute to our criminal justice system. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred to the nonsensical situation of people who are able to practise as solicitors in our courts of law but unable to serve on a jury. The bill also makes changes in relation to company directors. A provision in the model rules says that if somebody lacks capacity, as judged by their gp, they can lose their position as a company director.
The government are happy to accept the amendment, which, although it is technical and does not affect the substance of the bill, is very important in terms of presentation because through its inclusion the bill will more fully reflect the intention that we all share. I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend the member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that there are indeed measures that would still allow a person called for jury service to indicate that they felt unable to carry it out. I shall be happy to provide any further information that he requires on that. Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con As my hon. Friend the member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, i am happy to support his amendment.
I hope that he will not be embarrassed but I congratulate him on the expert way in which he described the technical effects of the amendment so clearly. Given his ability to do so, i think it is only a matter of time before he is summoned to the Front Bench. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) clearly explained his rationale for supporting the amendment. As I said on Second reading, the bill has two purposes. In certain clearly defined areas, it seeks to remove legislative provisions that prevent people from contributing to various aspects of our public life, but its wider aim is to challenge the stigma that people with mental health conditions experience in our society and to send. It is therefore absolutely essential to get the language right. That is why i support the amendment. In response to my hon. Friend the member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley the provision that he has in mind does exist.
Dad Is An Addict, because he loves Cocaine, addiction
The amendment would make a small change to the language, but I think it is important : Column 493 for the wider debate and for the wider implications of the bill to ensure that remote we end discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness. Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con i support the amendment and welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I want to raise a point that I do not think is covered by the bill but which is associated with the thought: whether someone who has or has had a mental health condition and who feels that they would not be capable of serving. Friend the member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) might not be able to answer straight away, but I would be grateful if the minister could let me know later, perhaps in writing. The parliamentary secretary, cabinet Office (Miss Chloe smith i support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). It is of a minor and technical nature and it builds on the amendments to the juries Act 1974 under clause 2 of the bill.
The substantive change that the bill makes to the 1974 Act, which is to remove the disqualification on service as a juror from those who voluntarily receive treatment in the community for a mental health disorder, remains the same. Mr kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab i support the amendment. It will not change the bills original wording to a great extent, but the language implications are very important. We must ensure that we deal with people who suffer from mental illness without the stigma of titles, so this small amendment is important. Clause 2 is also very important. Since we started discussing the bill, i have received numerous e-mails and correspondence advantages about. A solicitor wrote to me to say that although she practises in court every day, she cannot be a juror because she is currently undergoing treatment for a mental health condition.
to part 2 becoming Other. My amendment would make a minor technical change to the amendments the bill makes to the juries Act 1974. It would remove the term mentally disordered persons from section 1 of the Act and tidy up the cross-referencing between section 1 and the list of those disqualified for jury service in schedule. The amendment is supported by my hon. Friend the member for Croydon Central (gavin Barwell). Specifically, the references to mentally disordered persons in section ct will be removed and further provisions made in section 1 consequential to that. That will leave the section so worded as to provide that those persons listed in schedule ct will be disqualified from jury service. The title of schedule 1 to that Act will be amended to read Persons Disqualified for Jury service. The headings to parts i and ii of schedule 1 are amended accordingly, from Mentally disordered persons to persons subject to the mental health Act 1983 or Mental Capacity Act 2005 and from Persons disqualified to Other persons disqualified for jury service respectively.
I understand from a number of colleagues that that has become a pattern in the past few days. I paper am sure that you agree that all Members are entitled to the same courtesies and respect, so is there some way of bringing that to the attention of the government? Mr Speaker: i am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is a question not merely of drawing that to the attention of the government, as he puts it, but of drawing it again to the attention of all Members of the house. He has already played his part in so doing, and I feel sure that his point of order and my response to it will have been widely noted. Mental health (Discrimination) (No. Consideration of Bill, not amended in the public Bill Committee.35 am, clause 2, jurors, mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con i beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to, for in line 10 and insert— (1) In section 1 of the juries Act.
A, parent's guide to talking to teens about
Column 491 : Column 491. Friday 30 november 2012, the house met at half-past Nine oclock. Prayers, mr Speaker in the Chair, mr Speaker: I have received a report from the tellers in the no lobby for the division.30 pm on 29 november on the amendment to the main question. Members for livingston (Graeme morrice) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete wishart) have informed me that the number of no votes was erroneously reported as 321, instead of 311. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the. The ayes were five and the noes were 311. Point of Order.34 am, thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During his statement yesterday afternoon, the Prime minister referred to his predecessor by name, rather than by title.