Offender Management Bill

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which we first discussed in Committee, as the noble Lord acknowledged—I am sad that the noble Lord was not here to discuss it with us, but he has retabled it—would require the Secretary of State to establish mental health diversion schemes to operate at all Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts and police stations. I made clear in Committee that, although we agree with much of the intent prompting this amendment, we do not agree that a legislative approach is the right way to achieve the outcome the noble Lord desires. We also desire that outcome, and other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate patently wish to see it. I cannot agree with the noble Lord’s assertion that there is no way that the proposal can be properly implemented as it is. I shall explain why. We want to have effective court diversion schemes, and we plan to work towards improvement in this area. There can be no doubt that people who come into contact with the criminal justice system and who suffer from a mental disorder should be given the treatment they need. However, we do not believe that this should be achieved through legislation. The amendment is overly prescriptive and would not allow local arrangements to reflect local needs. With the creation of a devolved National Health Service, we moved away from a top-down, centrally prescribed system. Local communities and local NHS staff have welcomed that change. We have committed to reducing the number of central targets and have concentrated instead on providing a framework in which local arrangements can flourish and meet the needs of communities. We fully accept that the court liaison and diversion schemes currently in operation vary in the quality of the support they can provide. There are areas of best practice, but there are also areas where schemes are failing to thrive. We also know that the better diversion services provide a range of multi-disciplinary team activities across the whole spectrum of the criminal justice system, and support the police earlier in the path to custody for those vulnerable patients who repeatedly come before them. We applaud these schemes and would wish to see more such services. However, the way to get there is not through legislation. We are fully committed to publishing central guidance this year to the NHS and partner agencies, which support the development of local services that build on the best of what already exists. We believe that it is much more likely that schemes will develop out of this and be well supported if local benefits are clear to local commissioners, and if a strong evidence-based message is given by the centre. To be really effective, we argue, these schemes need buy-in from all the relevant agencies. We believe that the way to win hearts and minds is by demonstrating the evidence, providing examples of best practice and setting out a framework through guidance. As I said, we shall produce that guidance later this year. We already know that the evidence from places where schemes work points to the importance of good governance, shared ownership, multidisciplinary working and schemes operating in an integrated system of offender care rather than in isolation. Factors such as multi-agency provision, financial stability, information-sharing protocols, effective leadership, an adequate level of staffing and clear role definition are vital. The benefits may include support for local community safety targets, targets to reduce reoffending, improvements in the appropriateness and timeliness of treatment and earlier intervention—I sense that that was where the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was coming from on this issue. If those who actually provide services on the ground understand the benefits, the support and enthusiasm will be greater and it is more likely that the services will prosper. Statutory arrangements are already in place to enable the courts and the police to divert people into treatment for mental disorder. I made this point in the previous debate but I will make it again. The courts already have powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 to divert offenders to hospital for treatment. Under Section 35 of that Act, they may remand an accused person to hospital for a report on their mental condition, and under Section 36 they may remand an accused person to hospital for treatment. Also, the police have the power under that Act to remove a person who appears to be suffering from mental disorder to a place of safety. This is to enable him to be examined by a doctor and interviewed by a social worker, and to allow any necessary arrangements to be made for his treatment or care. The Government fully accept that more should be done in this area but believe that we should work within the existing legislative framework and seek to bring change through other means. It is far better to convince communities of the need for these services rather than dictate from the centre. We should allow local health commissioners to make their own assessment of the needs of their local communities and provide the right people and services in the right configuration to meet those needs. We take very seriously the concerns of the noble Lord who introduced this amendment and all those who have spoken in favour of it today. I hope that the reassurance that I have offered will provide a good reason for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to withdraw his amendment. I was particularly surprised that—