---

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8--Court psychiatric assessment schemes--

'(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the establishment in magistrates' courts of schemes which provide for the psychiatric examination on court premises after conviction and before sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered.
(2) Regulations made under this section may be made so as to apply only in specified areas.'.
New clause 12--Court to be aware of provision in custody for mentally disordered offenders--

13 Jan 1997 : Column 49

'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be mentally disordered an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition.'.
Amendment No. 37, in clause 43, page 31, leave out lines 30 to 34.

Mr. Michael: The new clauses and the amendment--[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I ask that there be much greater quietness in the Chamber and that hon. Members who intend to leave do so quickly and quietly.

Mr. Michael: The new clauses and amendment deal with an important issue, which is the way in which we deal with mentally ill offenders. Hon. Members will be familiar with recent horrific headlines, such as the question posed by the Daily Express:

"Why Was Machete Man Free?"

The Times of 13 December 1996 proclaims:

"Zito's killer wins right to sue over 'inadequate' care".

The House must answer such proper questions. In the case of Christopher Clunis, who killed Jonathan Zito, there are questions about the efficacy of community care and about the system's failure to act on problems known long before the tragic offence that led to Clunis's court appearance. The introductory paragraph of the Daily Express story on Horrett Campbell states:

"A court knew machete maniac Horrett Campbell had mental problems months before he attacked children at a teddy bears' picnic."

Such facts demonstrate why we have introduced the new clauses.

We believe that courts must have powers and systems in place to ensure that mental illness is identified and dealt with, before sentence, by the courts and, after sentence, by prison staff or by means of the disposal chosen by the courts. Far too often, prisoners have mental conditions that are known to the responsible authorities, but far too little happens and there is inadequate treatment for the problems, with the result that offenders reoffend. The heart of this debate is the need to ensure that the courts and criminal justice system are effective in nipping matters in the bud and preventing reoffending.

One cannot prevent every breakdown in the system after the commission of an offence and a diagnosis of mental illness, but I should be surprised if anyone were to say that the system is perfect and there is no need for change. There is a need in the criminal justice system for change, for great improvement and for greater effectiveness.

New clause 2 would provide for

"psychiatric examination on court premises after conviction and prior to sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered."

It would provide courts, without delay, with the ability to satisfy themselves as to the existence of mental illness in cases in which there appears to be a problem, and with the provisions for a proper sentence.

13 Jan 1997 : Column 50

New clause 8 would provide the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations

"for the establishment in magistrates' courts of schemes which provide for the psychiatric examination"

of offenders after conviction, and would allow for those regulations

"to apply only in specified areas."

The two new clauses are, therefore, alternatives. New clause 8 would offer the possibility of addressing the issue over time through the introduction of specific pilot projects and experiments. If the Minister is unable to accept new clause 2, he may find that new clause 8--which would go part but not all the way to dealing with the matter--has some advantages.

Mr. Soley: Does my hon. Friend believe that, when a person who appears to be mentally ill is first brought before a court, the court might suggest that he or she should be held for observation under section 38 of the Mental Health Act 1983--which may enable the court, then or soon afterwards, to make an appropriate disposal under that Act?

Mr. Michael: I understand that point, but I think that the interface between the mental health and criminal justice systems is uneven. However, that issue goes way beyond what we want to achieve in new clause 8. We want the court, in taking its decision, to be in the best possible position to understand both the offence and the offender. New clause 12--the third new clause in the group--is extremely important in dealing with that issue. Various disposals--those not only under mental health but under criminal justice provisions--are available to the court, and, after considering reports, it may want to take one of those options. Under our proposals, the court would have the information that would allow it to do so.

In new clause 12, we want to place a duty on the Secretary of State

"to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be mentally disordered an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition."

Therefore, authorities would have a duty to ensure that the court is aware that facilities for the treatment of mental illness are available should it impose a prison sentence on an offender who requires such treatment. Moreover, the provision would increase pressure on the Home Secretary and the Prison Service to ensure that adequate services are available to treat people with mental illness in the prison system.

Under the proposals, courts would have a choice of disposal, and they might choose the option suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). However, as we know, many mentally ill offenders are simply sent to prison, and new clause 12 would ensure that appropriate treatment is available to them. The purpose of treatment is not only to deal with offenders' mental conditions but to reduce the likelihood of their reoffending. Many of those who enter the prison system and do not receive treatment for their conditions return to the streets more likely to reoffend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and some of my colleagues on the health team have taken a strong interest in the serious issue of

13 Jan 1997 : Column 51

the overlap between the criminal justice and health systems. We cannot be happy that the two systems, individually or together, do not provide the effective services that the public and those who require mental health treatment have a right to expect. I hope that those comments answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and set in context the first two new clauses. I also hope that they demonstrate how we are attempting to improve the situation more widely within the Prison Service.

Amendment No. 37, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), is grouped with the three new clauses, although I shall not deal with it now as I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will speak to it in his own manner. I am sure, however, that we shall be at one in attempting to make the criminal justice system more effective in tackling the problem of mental illness among offenders.

New clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish court psychiatric assessment schemes in magistrates courts, to enable both accused defendants and convicted offenders to be examined psychiatrically on court premises. It is framed so that the Secretary of State could implement it on an area-by-area basis.

In the year ending 31 March 1995, 2,481 psychiatric reports were prepared on defendants remanded in custody. Prison is one of the worst possible places for someone with a mental disorder. We all know of the gloomy conditions and restrictive regimes in the older Victorian prisons, which are likely to exacerbate the mental health problems of prisoners prone to depression and those suffering from a disorder with a depressive element. Such conditions can increase the risk of suicidal self-mutilation among those prisoners and do nothing to reduce the likelihood of them being released from prison in a condition worse than that in which they started their sentence.

Medical experts have made considerable comment on the issue. A recent research study published by the British Medical Journal in December 1996 of 750 male remand prisoners in 13 adult prisons and three young offenders institutions found psychiatric disorders, which were broadly defined to include substance misuse--that is not the subject of the debate, but will be debated when we come to a new clause to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North--in 63 per cent. of inmates. Even with such a broad definition, that is an enormous proportion of the prison population with psychiatric disorders. Apart from substance abuse, diagnosed in 38 per cent. of cases, the main diagnoses were neurotic illness at 26 per cent., personality disorder at 11 per cent. and psychosis at 5 per cent.

---