Mental Health Bill [Lords]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), many of whose concerns I share. Notwithstanding those concerns, my view is that the Bill should receive a Second Reading tonight precisely because of the welcome and protective amendments that were made on a cross-party basis and with great expertise in the House of Lords. I listened carefully and attentively to the Secretary of State as she introduced the Bill this afternoon. She invoked, in support of the Government’s determination to reform the treatability provision, the need to catch within the net people who currently are not being caught. Specific reference was made, and justification was provided, in the cases of people with severe personality disorders. I have to say that I have listened over a period of weeks and studied some of the evidence, and my distinct understanding was that there was a misapprehension about that category of person. In so far as such people have not been treated in the past, it is principally because of a combination of reasons, including an absence of resources; a mistaken and outdated belief that such people could not be treated; and, as the corollary of those two states of affairs, the lack of effective treatments to secure the desired result. If in fact one secures a proper interpretation of the existing legislation and one has the resources to deliver what is necessary, it seems that that fox is easily shot. I respect the Minister’s intentions and her humanitarian philosophy, but I suggest that she is wrong on this issue. The use of the term ““appropriate treatment”” is far too broad and potentially invasive. I do not think that it can be justified. Ministers were put to the test in the other place by Lord Howe, Baroness Barker, Baroness Meacher, Baroness Murphy and Lord Carlile—to name but a few—who tabled an amendment that said ““we don’t want that. What we want is to ensure that there is provision that will guarantee that the alleviation of, or the prevention of deterioration in, the condition should be the criterion that has to be satisfied if compulsion is to be deployed.”” That is entirely reasonable. If the Government think that people will benefit—that a therapeutic gain will be derived, or an improvement or prevention of deterioration in the condition will, in most circumstances be the predictable consequence—I do not know of what exactly it is they are afraid. I do not doubt the intentions of the Minister and I do not seek to impugn her integrity, but if the Government get their way, the inevitable prospect is held out of an expansion of preventive detention, if not on an industrial scale, at any rate in terms of significant increases in numbers. Simply as a matter of logic that must be what is portended by Government intentions. If the Government do not intend in any way to change the numbers, why do they need to go to such lengths to defy the professional wisdom and change the law? My view is that the Government are wrong. They should accept the Lords amendment and there is a powerful consensus on that point. It is the view of the Joint Committee and of the Richardson review, which was requested by the Government. It is the considered judgment of the House of Lords and the opinion of the Mental Health Alliance, as well as the determination of the Scottish Executive. In terms of humility, the Minister might like to consider the possibility that she is in splendid isolation for the simple reason that she is mistaken.