| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Irene Adams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the concern is not only for the person in that situation but for the parents who have given a lifetime of service? The couple that he mentioned must have spent 41 years not only visiting but worrying about what will become of their son when they are no longer there to visit. People's whole lives are often overshadowed by the fact that they have a loved one in such an institution and that they will not survive that loved one. They are often greatly concerned that the loved one will simply be forgotten and no longer enjoy the little treats that doting parents who visit every week provide.
Dr. Godman: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. Every one of us has constituents who literally devote the whole of their lives outwith work to caring for others. All of us have an obligation to ensure that those carers' lives are made a little easier. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) mentioned the important need for respite care for such people. We have a major duty to protect their interests.
When patients are discharged into the community--be it in supported housing or a house or apartment in a housing association complex--is it possible for aid to be given by way of the mental illness specific grant? I am a little disappointed that the grant is stuck at the figure of £18 million a year.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that MISG
As hon. Members have pointed out--and the Mental Welfare Commission agrees--the majority of those whom the Bill seeks to protect have no contact with relatives.
Given the years they have spent in hospital, their parents may be dead and their brothers and sisters may have moved out of the district in which they were born and raised. The former patients are vulnerable to manipulation and it is essential that those professionals who care for them are of the highest integrity. That might strike a sour note, but I have heard of vulnerable people being cheated of their funds, both in hospital and outside in the community. The Mental Health Welfare Commission has a duty, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, to protect those people, sometimes through the appointment of a curator bonis. Nevertheless, we must ensure that when vulnerable people come out into the community they are protected and their moneys are safe.
Mrs. Irene Adams:
Does my hon. Friend agree that 99.9 per cent. of the people who look after those who are not capable of looking after themselves, both in hospitals and out in the community, do sterling work? However, we as legislators must ensure that the protection of vulnerable people is paramount and that the little funds they have are looked after well. We need an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that vulnerable people cannot be cheated.
Dr. Godman:
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am married to a social worker who used to assess people coming out of hospital, including elderly people leaving hospitals for nursing homes, some of whom were suffering from senile dementia and other illnesses associated with ageing. I have every trust in our social workers and other professionals who care for people in such circumstances, but there are bad eggs in all professions, including the law and even Members of Parliament.
Vulnerable people need protection when they leave hospital, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said, many of them enjoy fulfilling lives in the community. I know a young lad who was in hospital for many years and is now in his 30s. He is delighted with his new house in a housing association complex. He is still not able to manage his money very well, but the local shopkeepers look after him. In fact, everyone in the neighbourhood looks after that fellow.
I understand that the Scottish Office has published draft guidance on the management of the finances of incapable adults, pending wholesale legislation. When will the final version be published and who will receive it? Will it be sent to local authorities, social work departments, trusts and health boards? The closing date for responses to the draft guidance was 31 October 1998, but there is no fixed date yet for the publication of the final form. I hope that it will be published in the next two or three months.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries):
I am delighted to take part in the debate this morning and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and his Bill. I am delighted that the Bill will pass through Parliament at the same time as the extensive review is
We should consider the history of mental health legislation in Scotland. Scottish mental health legislation has, since the war, tended to develop in parallel with English law, although there are significant differences, especially in the role of sheriffs in the relation to detention. The origins of the mental health legislation lie in the late 1950s. The Percy committee, which met between 1954 and 1957, was followed in Scotland by the Dunlop committee, and their recommendations led to sweeping reform in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960. That Act sought to ensure that people with mental disorders were not automatically subject to legal controls, and it protected the rights of those who were detained against their will.
In 1983, the 1960 Act was amended substantially and that was consolidated in the 1984 Act. The debate in the early 1980s focused on tightening legal safeguards for patients and defining more precisely the compulsory powers that could be exercised over them. Safeguards on treatment, not just detention, were extended, and that was consistent with the general growth of concerns about patients' rights, but it led to some problems. The powers of guardianship were constrained to such a degree that the legislation became discredited in the eyes of many professionals. The legislation enacted in the early 1980s was not extensively debated in Parliament. It is, therefore, reasonable to say that the Millan commission has the opportunity to undertake the first fundamental review of mental health legislation in Scotland--
It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday Sittings).
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown):
In the early hours of yesterday morning, the European Union Agriculture Council provisionally agreed a package of reforms to the common agricultural policy. These will be passed to the Heads of Government meeting in Berlin later this month for consideration as part of the overall package of European Union reforms known as Agenda 2000.
The outcome of the Agriculture Council represents a radical change in the direction of the common agricultural policy. It is a change in direction for which the British Government have been pressing strongly, and it has been achieved despite a reluctance to reform on the part of several countries. We have, however, worked closely with like-minded member states to ensure that the case for reform is fully taken into account. The deal is a very good outcome for British consumers, for our farmers and for the environment. It is also a good deal for the European Union as a whole.
The heart of the reforms is a further shift away from supporting farmers' incomes through keeping food prices artificially high. Cereals support prices will fall by 20 per cent. in two steps. The basic price for beef will fall by 20 per cent. in three steps, and the intervention price by 25 per cent. Dairy support prices will fall by 15 per cent. in three steps, beginning in 2003. Direct payments to farmers are being increased to help compensate them for the price cuts.
These cuts in price support will help bring Europe's farming industry closer to market forces and improve farmers' responsiveness to consumer wishes. Once fully implemented, they will benefit British consumers by £1 billion a year. That is equivalent to a saving of up to£70 a year for a family of four if the effect of the price cuts feeds through fully.
The changes in direction will also benefit farmers in several important respects. The cereals price cut will enable the normal rate of compulsory set-aside to be zero as from the 2002-03 marketing year. It should also normally permit wheat exports to take place without export refunds, thereby removing the World Trade Organisation restrictions on our farmers' capacity to export. The cut in oilseeds aid will safeguard British oilseeds growers from ever-increasing penalties arising from the application of the Blair House agreement.
In the case of beef, the price cut of 20 to 25 per cent. is significant, even though it will not quite take European Union beef prices to world levels. The negotiations on the direct subsidy schemes were particularly difficult. A majority of member states whose beef is reared mainly under intensive systems wanted to correct what they perceived as a bias towards extensive grass-based systems--such as characterise much of British production--introduced in the last set of reforms in 1992.
Despite that, I was able to secure a good deal for our producers, especially those from the hills. That included an increase in the suckler cow premium to 200 ecu per cow and a 100,000 head increase in our beef special premium regional ceiling. Changes to the proposed beef extensification rules will better meet our farmers' needs as well as benefit the environment. The cut in the
minimum age for payment of beef special premium will help hill farmers gain access to the premium and encourage quality beef production.
The negotiations on dairy reform were also difficult. Several member states considered that the regime should not be reformed at all and others wanted to enshrine milk quotas as a fundamental element of farm support. My own view, and that of three other member states, was that dairy price support should be reduced to world levels over six years, allowing milk quotas eventually to be removed. The eventual compromise between those positions was that support prices will be cut by 15 per cent.--taking them halfway to world prices--beginning in 2003. In that year, there will be a review of the regime, with the express aim of allowing the present quota arrangements to run out after 2006. The United Kingdom will receive a very welcome increase in its milk quota of nearly 240,000 tonnes, some of which is specifically earmarked for Northern Ireland.
"will continue to provide ring-fenced resources totalling £18 million a year towards community-based mental health projects in Scotland."--[Official Report, 29 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 291.]
I hope that when patients come into the community voluntary organisations might give them assistance, in line with what is sought in the Bill. The mental health development fund is of the order of £3 million per annum. Will voluntary organisations have access to that fund to help vulnerable people? The Bill will help vulnerable people and their families, if they have them, but they also need additional help. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) asked about protecting the interests of people leaving hospital, who may have £2,00 or £3,000 in their accounts. What protection can be given to ensure that those people are not cheated by those who undertake their care in the community? Social workers and others do an admirable job in supporting vulnerable people in our communities, but they need help with the management of their money, above and beyond that which is given by the Mental Welfare Commission.
11 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |