Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The points about other countries are probably valid, but we must remember that we are legislating for this country. Given that clinicians have not detained people for their political beliefs for many years, the idea that the advent of an extreme Government will mean that they will suddenly start detaining people under the Mental Health Act is a little difficult to swallow.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Is the Minister confident that all the exclusions listed in amendment No. 91 are covered specifically in other legislation, and that there is therefore no need to name them to send the message outlined by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh)?
Ms Winterton: It would not be possible to detain people for their religious beliefs, because the Act states that people can be detained only if they have a mental disorder. A persons religion is not a mental disorder, and neither are his political or cultural beliefs or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda pointed out, his sexual preference or identity.
The existing legislation provides an ability to appeal to the mental health review tribunal. The principles that will be put in the code were accepted when they were considered by the Lords, and they make it clear that unlawful discrimination is not allowed. The relevant criteriathat the person involved has a mental disorder and is capable of causing serious harm to himself or others, and that appropriate medical treatment is available that must be delivered in a hospital settinghave to be met. If they are not, the person involved cannot be detained.
I can understand why people feel that the amendment would be nice, but I have some concerns about it. The Mental Health Alliance has said that exclusions act as a check on clinical discretion, but I believe that we should be trying to ensure that clinicians can treat people as they need it. The amendment is seen as a safeguard, but I do not think that it is because, as I said earlier, the circumstances that it lists are not mental disorders. Legal exclusions should cover things that are mental disorders, not things that are not.
Tim Loughton: I want to make three quick points. First, the principles to which the Minister referred are not on the face of the Bill. Secondly, I agree that we are legislating for this country, now. However, does she accept that the legislation on mental health and other issues passed by this House sets an example to the world, and that other countries with Governments even less scrupulous than this one take notice? Thirdly, does she admit that our proposal in respect of paedophilia lays to rest the fears that she might have had in that respect?
Ms Winterton: I certainly accept that the hon. Gentleman has made a case for the exception of paedophilia. He says that the legislation may last for a long time, and that to prevent the actions of some future Government we need to include exceptions now, but waving the Mental Health Act at a Government who are locking people up for their political, religious or cultural beliefs is unlikely to have an effect.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister has said twice that she believes there are things listed as exemptions that are not true mental disorders, but in paragraph 19 of her lengthy and helpful reply of 1 April to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, she says:
The Government does not share the Committees view...that gender dysphoria and transvestic fetishism could never be regarded as true mental disorders
Ms Winterton: They are not in the list.
Dr. Harris: But subsection (b) of the amendment
his sexual preference or gender identity
could clearly refer to transvestic fetishism and, by definition, gender dysphoria. Can the Minister explain that?
Ms Winterton: We are not discussing that [ Interruption. ] In fact, I said that most of the exceptions were not mental disorders and those are the ones that worry me.
Although there have been only a small number of challenges to the legislation, they have been worrying; for example, the Clatworthy case, in which the patient was convicted of indecent assault of two young girls and detained on grounds of psychopathic disorder. After the sexual deviancy exclusion was introduced his case went before the mental health review tribunal where it was argued that he did not meet a definition of psychopathic disorder because his only dangerous behaviour was sexually deviant and was thus excluded. The tribunal disagreed but the case went to judicial review and the judge found in favour of the patient. We must not imagine that such circumstances will not arise. There have already been four major cases and they have affected the operation of the tribunal.
Secondly, the more exclusions in the Bill covering conditions that are not mental disorders, the more the possibility of a challenge. Somebody could easily claim that they were detained because of their religious persuasionbecause they said, I have X, Y, Z powers. A challenge could be mounted on each of the exclusions. When people are detained against their will, they will look for ways to challenge their detention. There can be reasonable grounds that a person does not have a mental disorder, but we must not confuse the issue by including a range of conditions in the Bill that an individual could use to meet a challenge against their detention.
I want to back up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. He is right: it is patronising to say that we have to exclude sexual preference as a possible mental disorder, when it is clearly not a mental disorder. A similar issue arises in relation to autism. People from the National Autistic Society asked me why we were describing autism as a mental disorder, because some of them do not accept that description. If we say that sexual preference must be listed as an exclusion in the Bill because it is a mental disorder, we are sending the wrong message. That is why we cannot accept the amendment and I ask the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to withdraw it.
Tim Loughton:
The Ministers arguments are not new and I do not accept them. The point that I made about our being a beacon of legislation to the rest of the
world is particularly pertinent as we consider this very important part of the Bill. We do need to have these proper checks and balances, so I shall press the amendment to a Division and I ask hon. Members to support it.
Question put, That the amendment be made:
It being after Nine oclock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [18 June].
Amendment made: No. 50, page 44, line 14, leave out or different areas and insert
(including different provision for different areas and different provision for different descriptions of patient). [Ms Rosie Winterton.]
Ms Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Mental Health Act 1983 [ Interruption. ]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady, but it is quite unfair to the Minister at the Dispatch Box if conversations are going on in the Chamber. Hon. Members should stay if they wish to listen to the debate, or depart quietly.
Ms Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Mental Health Act 1983 is primarily about the circumstances in which people with a serious mental health problem can be detained and treated without their consent to protect themselves or others from harm. Not surprisingly, this is a sensitive matter, so any Bill to amend that Act is likely to provoke much debate and controversy.
It might be helpful if I set out why the Government want to update our mental health legislation. We want to ensure that people with serious mental health problems receive the treatment that they need to protect themselves and others from harm. We need to recognise that the world has moved on since 1983. Many more people can now be treated in the community, rather than in hospitals, so the use of compulsory powers should reflect that. Professional demarcation lines have changed since 1983, and functions are now being carried out by people with the right skills and experience, rather than individuals from particular professions. Again, our legislation should change to reflect that fact. We also want to strengthen patient safeguards, which includes tackling human rights incompatibilities.
The Government began their review of mental health legislation in 1998. Since then, reforming the legislation has been the subject of wide-ranging debate, which has been enormously helpful. We have listened to relevant stakeholders and made many changes as a result of discussions with them. The decision to proceed with an amendment Bill rather than the 2004 draft Bill was a response to the recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I take this opportunity to thank that Committee for all the work that it did.
We have had long and helpful discussions in the House on the Bill before us. The discussions in Committee were particularly helpful
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) (Lab): Superb.
Ms Winterton: Absolutely. I am glad that I was able to table a range of amendments on Report covering issues that were raised in the other place and in Committee. I am pleased that we were able to accept the excellent amendments from my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), which were supported by many other members of the Committee. I am glad that the Opposition parties also gave their support to a number of the amendments that we tabled. I am thinking particularly of the amendments on age-appropriate accommodation and, crucially, those on victims and on advocacy.
There has been much debate on other amendments that the Government did not accept. I hope that I have been able to explain why we have not accepted them, although I am not sure that I convinced everybody on the Opposition Benches of the merits of our case.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |