Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Winterton:
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman needs to look at the record tomorrow, because he said that the percentage would therefore be lower. The percentage who would qualify under the impaired decision-making test for not being detained is shown in the figures that I have given. He must accept that. [Interruption.] What percentage of people does he
think would not be detained? Given that he says that large numbers would have impaired decision making, how many people does he think it acceptable not to give treatment to?
Dr. Harris: It is about not imposing treatment.
Ms Winterton: Yes. We are talking about compulsory treatment. That is exactly the point that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was making. He believes that if an impaired decision-making test were introduced, some people would not get treatment. In that case, I ask Conservative Members how many people is an acceptable number to be turned away from treatment. Such people would be either suicidal or a danger to others. What number would be acceptable?
Tim Loughton: That is scaremongering and disingenuous argument of the worst kind. Which bit of the statement There is no evidence to suggest that the number subject to compulsion would be higher or lower under an impaired decision-making test does the Minister not understand? On which bit of that statement is she trying to misrepresent me?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not use such terminology in the House. Perhaps he will withdraw that remark.
Tim Loughton: I will, of course, withdraw misrepresent, but there is still some confusion about what I have said, which I would like the Minister to explain.
Ms Winterton: I am confused, because the hon. Gentleman has distanced himself from the points made by the Conservative spokesperson in the Lords. If he is distancing himself from what was said in the House of Lords, that is fine, but earlier he said that a very large number would have impaired decision making and therefore admitted that some would not have impaired decision making.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the evidence on whether some people would not be treated.
Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Winterton: I want to address some of the submissions about who would or would not get treatment. As I have said, it is important to admit that there are people who would not get treatment.
I have received a letter, which I know the hon. Gentleman will reject, signed by a number of eminent psychiatrists. It states:
It is not possible to say that because a patient has a particular condition, they necessarily will (or will not) have impaired decision-making. People differ. Their circumstances differ. Even the fact that two people are diagnosed as having the same mental disorder does not mean they will experience or be affected by it in the same way. While impaired thinking is a common feature of mental disorder, impairment of the ability to make treatment decisions specifically is not, of itself, a criterion for diagnosing mental disorder, or any particular mental disorder. For example:
Patients with a long-standing diagnosis of schizophrenia or severe depression, with a history of detention at times of acute illness resulting in high risk. These patients will usually have impaired decision making when in relapse but as they recover
this may no longer be the case. They may, however, not be prepared to accept that they have been ill or to accept the need for treatment. As a result, if we had an impaired judgment test, the psychiatrist would be unable to use Mental Health Act powers to continue treatmentuntil a further relapse occurred.
Patients with borderline personality disorder who do not have impaired decision-making, but who have a high risk of serious self-harm at certain times, and for whom the psychiatrist may well think that hospitalisation is needed during a crisis. Those patients may well understand the treatment that is being offered and the consequences of refusing it, and they may talk in a clear-headed way about committing suicide. If we had an impaired judgment test, the psychiatrist would be unable to intervene.
We know that young women with borderline personality disorders who have a history of abuse, whether sexual, physical or emotional, want to commit suicide at times of crisis, but they understand the options. The hon. Gentlemans new clause means that we, as a society, would say, We are not going to treat you under the Mental Health Act. There is absolutely no doubt that that would happen.
The British Psychological Society is in favour of an impaired decision-making test:
We recognise that this approach may mean that a very small number of people believed to be at risk of self-harm or suicide would be permitted to refuse treatment if their decision-making was not considered to be significantly impaired.
It has said that the new clause would allow some people to go out and commit suicide, which Labour Members find unacceptable.
Ms Winterton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell me how many people whom we treat now it is acceptable not to treat.
Tim Loughton: Does the Minister think it acceptable that 1,300 people commit suicide now? If it is all so rosy under her proposals, why are 1,300 not being prevented from committing suicide now?
Ms Winterton: That is a ridiculous argument. The hon. Gentleman has said that we should prevent people from committing suicide, but he has tabled a new clause that would increase the likelihood of its happening. His policy is to accept this Governments suicide prevention strategy, which includes measures in this Bill to ensure that we can get treatment to people when they need it. He has admitted that the new clause would allow people who are a risk to others to go out into the community in unsafe circumstances, because it does not discriminate between people who are a danger to others or a danger to themselves, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has said.
We cannot accept the new clause, because it would lead to more people being allowed to go out and commit suicide, more people not getting treatment and a greater danger to the public, too. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.
Tim Loughton:
The Minister has used her usual tactics of trying to confuse the Opposition into submission. Why is it that the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the BMA, Dr. Genevra Richardson, the British Psychological Society, the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, black
and minority ethnic groups and the Disability Rights Commission are wrong and she is right?
It being two and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the C hair, pursuant to Order [ 18 June ].
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
(1) Section 135 of the 1983 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection 1(a) leave out for neglected or kept otherwise than under proper control and substitute and neglected.
(3) After subsection 1(b) insert or (c) may be in need of treatment or care for his mental disorder and is living in any such place, and, access to that place is necessary for the purpose of establishing whether or not he is in need of treatment or care, and it has not been possible to gain such access without a warrant... [Tim Loughton.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 88, page 39, line 20, in clause 41, at end insert
(4) In section 135(6) for the words from means to the end of that subsection substitute
(a) (i) residential accommodation provided by a local social services authority under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29),
(ii) a hospital as defined by this Act,
(iii) an independent hospital or care home for mentally disordered persons,
(iv) any other suitable place the occupier of which is willing temporarily to receive the patient or, if, in the circumstances of the case it is impracticable to use any of these places,
(5) In section 136 (Mentally disordered persons found in public places) of the 1983 Act after subsection (2) insert
(3) Where a police station is used as the place of safety the person may not be detained there for a period longer than 24 hours..
Tim Loughton: We have only a little time left to consider the final groups of amendments, and I am sure hon. Members who wish to participate are especially keen to comment on the exclusions from mental disorder provisions in the second raft of amendments. I shall therefore speak only briefly about the first raft, and mainly about new clause 11. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) is keen to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss amendment No. 88.
The British Association of Social Workers has supported and provided briefing notes for the new clause, which covers warrants to search for and remove patients. It would update the 1983 Act, which is out of date and causes some problems. Section 135 of the 1983 Act allows magistrates, on the application of an approved social worker, to issue a warrant when it is necessary to gain access to private premises to assess someone for possible admission under the Act. Warrants are requested far more often than they were.
In addition, court procedures have been tightened up, and the approved social worker now needs to make a formal application to the court, supported by written evidence. That has served to highlight the shortcomings of section 135, which does not reflect the whole range of circumstances in which warrants are needed and, indeed, issued, forcing approved social workers and magistrates to bend the law to ensure that access can always be gained to someone who is in urgent need of admission to hospital. The reason is that the section basically dates from the Lunacy Act 1890 and the Mental Deficiency Act 1913. It has never been updated to conform with modern needs and circumstances.
The section provides for a warrant to be issued in only two circumstances: when the person lives alone and is unable to care for themselves, and when the person does not live alone but is being
Next Section | Index | Home Page |