Mental Health Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister’s brief includes the apophatic tradition, and that she will no doubt tell us about it. Mine did not, but then I have the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, beside me, who tells me that the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. I shall briefly make three points that are not only important for our discussions but to be read perhaps at another time and in a different place. In response to a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister stated the Government’s belief that exclusions are, "““arbitrary obstacles to the use of compulsion””.—[Official Report, 8/1/07; col. 83.]" He also said that they would cause uncertainty. Many noble Lords will have been in meetings in which Professor Appleby, the Government’s mental health adviser, has spoken about the need to make this legislation inclusive. Memorably, in an all-party group meeting on 30 January, he said: "““Every exclusion is a person not receiving the treatment they need””." It is beyond doubt that statements such as that are made with good intentions, but it is equally true that those of us who disagree do so with good intentions. We on these Benches do not believe that we should set up exclusions to deny people treatment; we believe that every exclusion is someone not being wrongly subjected to mental health treatment. There may be people who are very seriously disturbed and whose behaviour is dangerous, but the central question that must be asked, and answered by practitioners, is whether that behaviour is to be treated using mental health legislation. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, we should not leave that decision solely to the discretion of individual practitioners. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, alluded to another important reason for accepting the amendment when she talked about other jurisdictions. I shall focus on New Zealand, in which the definition of mental illness is, "““an abnormal state of mind shown by delusions or disorders of mood, perception, volition or cognition””." The exclusions are, "““a person’s political, religious, or cultural beliefs, or sexual preferences, or criminal or delinquent behaviour, or substance abuse, or intellectual disability””." That is important because, frequently in the past few months, the Government have cited the example of New Zealand in their attempt to win support for their version of community treatment orders. In New Zealand, however, one must have gone through those exclusions and cleared those hurdles to be brought under mental health legislation at all. The Government, or their advisers, have therefore been presenting two things as the same. They are, however, radically different because they happen in a completely different context. That is why the amendment is of huge importance. We are talking about health and compulsory health treatment. We should confine it to the many, many thousands of people who we know need it and who cannot get it; we should not be including people whose problems are nothing to do with mental health.