Mental Health Bill [Lords]

I should like to make some progress, but I would be happy to give way later. The focus must be on ensuring high standards of service provision. The Government put this rather well in their response to the Joint Scrutiny Committee, in which they said:"““In terms of the small minority of people with a mental disorder for whom compulsion might be necessary, we want to achieve a level and type of service provision that minimises the risk of people with a mental disorder deteriorating to the point where compulsion is necessary. When compulsion has become ""necessary, we want that service provision to be of a level and type to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent the need for any further episodes of compulsion. In other words, by improving the services to promote better mental health, we want to reduce the need for compulsion.””" I completely sign up to that statement of intent by the Government. It is a good basis on which to develop the law and our approach to mental health services. In the past 12 months, however, the deficits in the health service have had a damaging impact on those very mental health services in many parts of the country. I acknowledge the improvements that have been made in those services over the years, but in the past year, damage has been done. Before Christmas, the Health Committee produced a report on deficits which specifically highlighted mental health services as one of the ““soft targets”” that was suffering as a result of the cutbacks in funding. It is particularly depressing that those cutbacks should be happening just as the Government’s emphasis appears to be on creating more draconian powers. This undermines the fine aspiration that they expressed in their response to the Joint Scrutiny Committee. I want to highlight the concerns expressed by many people about the potential impact of the original Bill on black and minority ethnic communities. The Minister will be aware of the genuine fear that, without proper safeguards, the Bill could disproportionately affect people from BME communities. Last December, it was revealed that a report by a Government advisory group chaired by Rabinder Singh QC warned that the Bill could lead to more black and ethnic minority patients being subject to compulsory treatment. Already, as a result of the Mental Health Act 1983, in-patients from black Caribbean, black African and other black groups are between 19 and 38 per cent. more likely to be detained compared with the average for all in-patients. In November last year, the Department of Health published a race equality impact assessment on the Bill. However, on 7 February this year, the Commission for Racial Equality announced a formal investigation into the Department of Health to"““uncover the extent to which it is failing to meet its duty to promote race equality under the Race Relations Act 1976””." Anthony Robinson, the CRE’s director of legal services said:"““We are concerned about the Department of Health as we have reason to believe that they have not been meeting their obligations under the law””." What is going on? That is an extraordinary statement for the commission to make. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some reassurance on this matter. Improving the way in which people from BME communities are dealt with by mental health services clearly presents a significant challenge. The Commission for Racial Equality has called for amendments to guarantee the effectiveness of the race equality duty. Will the Government consider those proposals in a constructive way?