Day 7: Twelve Days of Christmas #LBBill

Day 7 of the #LBBill Twelve Days of Christmas sees us moving on to Clause 5.

Clause 5 is Mark Neary’s original idea, that state bodies should lose the right to make arrangements for where disabled people live away from their existing home without the new arrangements being approved. Approval would have to be obtained in all cases other than arrangements made under the Mental Health Act 1983 when a person is ‘sectioned’

The approval would come from a person with parental responsibility for a child under 16, from a young person or adult aged over 16 if they had the mental capacity to decide where they live for themselves, or from the Court of Protection for a young person or adult who lacked mental capacity to decide where they live. (The cut-off for parental approval is 16 because this is the age from which most of the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 apply, including the presumption of capacity and the supervision of the Court of Protection for those who can’t make their own decisions).

To make approval meaningful, the disabled person and family members would have to be given specified information about why proposed arrangements are the ‘most appropriate’ available and what other options have been considered. This will help disabled people and family members challenge proposed arrangements which do not meet the tests set out in Clause 4.

There’s an audio introduction to Clause 5 with easy-read images here:

At the moment we do not actually say in Clause 5 that if the necessary approval is not given then the proposed living arrangements cannot be made and the state body will need to support the disabled person in their own home.

We have had some feedback that we should spell this out. Do you agree?

Are there any other changes you would make to Clause 5?

Let us know what you think, on the feedback pages of the blog, on facebook, twitter, or by email. Thank you.

2 thoughts on “Day 7: Twelve Days of Christmas #LBBill

  1. Definitely agree that this needs spelling out. If Approval is not given , then the person must be supported in their own home or the setting of their choice.
    Also is it worth specifying that those who are sectioned should be treated close to home?


  2. Sectioning under MHA, should be restricted to very extreme cases, as it is not appropriate for the autistic, and those ‘treating’ them, have little, if no, knowledge of autism, so most are being held illegally,but difficult systemically to get discharge, tribunal system not independent, secret and no legal aid.

    The thousands being continually held under the MHA, are just cash cows earning 4,500 per week for private corps. It is a huge scandal, which no one will do anything about- read my last blog post about this and anti psychotic drugs like rispiridol. on my blog finolamoss.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s