Mental Health Bill [HL]

My Lords, I understand the Minister’s view on this issue. The fact is that we do not know how many patients will benefit from being on a CTO because the evidence, as I said, is simply not there, despite all that the Minister said. The evidence that we have is inconclusive, in that all the studies in this area have been unable to tell whether any beneficial effects of CTOs are due to the compulsory nature of the order or to the increased community services that are made available alongside the order. If enhanced community services support better outcomes on a voluntary basis, as we know they do, the addition of a compulsory order is likely to make no positive difference to those outcomes; indeed, it may detract from them because of the element of coercion. It is not often that I pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Warner, but it was he who emphasised in Committee that it is the so-called ““revolving door”” patients whom these provisions are designed to help. That is why the amendment proposes that only those patients who fall into the ““revolving door”” category are covered by the SCT provisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, told us succinctly the dangers of having a wider gateway. In response to the exchanges about the medical practitioner being involved, these amendments propose that, before a person is put on to a CTO, two professionals have to agree that that is clinically appropriate. That is all it amounts to. On an issue of this kind, it is right for me to test the opinion of the House, and I beg leave to do so. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33B) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 173; Not-Contents, 140. [Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.] [Amendment No. 36 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]