| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for her full response. I shall wish to think hard about what the Minister has said when I read Hansard. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 108A:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause--
(" .--(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.").
The noble Lord said: I think it is generally agreed that too many mentally ill and mentally disordered individuals are in our prisons, and that prison is not necessarily the right place for a person with a mental disorder. Various surveys have been undertaken to establish the truth of that proposition.
In December 1996 the British Medical Journal published a research study of 750 male remand prisoners in 13 adult prisons and three young offender institutions. That study found that psychiatric disorder (widely defined) was present in 63 per cent. of inmates. Apart from substance abuse, which was diagnosed in 38 per cent. of cases, the main diagnoses were neurotic illness, 26 per cent., personality disorder, 11 per cent., and psychosis, 5 per cent. The researchers judged that 9 per cent. needed transfer to an NHS hospital.
Other studies have been undertaken which support that general conclusion. The psychiatric liaison service at Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court published a study in 1991. The psychiatrists attending Clerkenwell court recommended hospital admissions in 39 of the 80 cases. The average number of days from arrest to admission for those who reached hospitals through the scheme was 8.7. In contrast, for those remanded to Brixton Prison, the average time from arrest to hospital admission was nearly 51 days. Having a proper assessment at the level of the magistrates' court not only helps the court in its disposals but also gets treatment carried out far more quickly and is of widespread benefit.
Some schemes are already in existence. The amendment ensures the availability throughout the country of psychiatric examination,
I believe that the amendment commends itself. However, perhaps I may make a few comments in support of the provision. The Law Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are keen on such court based mental health assessment schemes because they ensure early identification of defendants suffering from mental disorder and provide magistrates with appropriate information and expert advice to assist them in the exercise of their powers.
During the previous debate, the Minister talked about courts having the benefit of such advice. In that case she referred to courts for more serious offenders. I refer to magistrates' courts. For magistrates' courts, decisions involve, as in other cases, balancing the mental health needs of the defendant against the interest of public safety and the need to minimise the likelihood of reoffending. Such a scheme gives magistrates information about all possible options in the disposal of such an offender. At present, the service is patchy. If the amendment were to become law, it would assist throughout the country.
There are some harsh instances of mentally ill people in prison. A letter was sent to one of my noble colleagues from a family whose son was in prison. I do not wish to refer too much to the details. He suffered from a form of mental illness. He was murdered in the prison cell by another prisoner who was also mentally ill--a very tragic experience indeed. The parents who
"on court premises after conviction and before sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered".
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Again there is little between us on this issue. The importance and value added by such schemes are not in doubt. The value of mental health assessment schemes at magistrates' courts is fully accepted by the Government. There is no need for legislation to promote such schemes which are being readily set up in response to specific local needs. However, I respect what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. He is trying to chivvy on this policy. I wholly accept that.
The Home Office has been active in encouraging its development. Guidance was issued in 1990 and 1995, and funds made available to assist with the salary costs of medical staff who attend court. Support has increased from £500,000 in 1993 to over £1 million this year, and additional funding will be available from the next financial year.
In 1990 there were a handful of local arrangements. Now there are some 130 schemes already in operation around the country. We are helping to pay for 53 this year, and more will be funded from local resources.
It is important not to be prescriptive about how these schemes operate. I do not believe that the noble Lord argued that point. They are local initiatives, and it would be unhelpful to tie the hands of local agencies. They are best placed to devise the right response to local needs and to make the most effective use of local resources.
It would be a step back to restrict assessment to the pre-sentence stage, as this proposed clause would do. That would limit examination to convicted persons and exclude people on remand. A major benefit of assessment schemes is the early identification of mental disorder and the availability of advice to the court at first hearings. This can avoid unnecessary remands to prison.
This amendment is unnecessary. There is no dispute over the value of court assessment schemes. But prescriptive central regulation is not needed to promote what is already being achieved at local level. There has been an enthusiastic response to Home Office encouragement and financial support to get new schemes off the ground. These have quickly demonstrated their effectiveness, including their cost-effectiveness. But to be durable, they need to be part of a wider local inter-agency strategy for dealing with mentally disordered offenders. In that way, their success and continuation are likely to be assured.
We agree with what the noble Lord seeks. We should like to move faster if we possibly could. We believe that local initiatives are best encouraged. We are working through NACRO in research and promotion projects.
We need no prodding in this respect. As always, it is a matter of making sure that the resources match the provision.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. As a general proposition I would say that governments always need prodding, so I differ from her in that respect. However, it was a helpful reply. I am pleased she made the point about the need for prisoners held on remand. I had wanted the amendment to include that, but I understand that there are difficulties as regards the Long Title of the Bill. Otherwise the amendment would have included "remand". I understand from that that the Minister sees such schemes as applying to prisoners on remand as well as to convicted prisoners. Therefore beyond my wish that we make faster progress towards establishing those schemes, there is no difference between us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 108B:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause--
(" . It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within one year of the passing of this Act a report containing an assessment of the feasibility of arrangements for the payment to the victim, at the time when a court makes a compensation order, of the full amount of compensation ordered by the court.").
The noble Lord said: The new clause prods the Government to make amends for their treatment of the victims of crime when they virtually halved the budget of the criminal injuries compensation board. As I recall--it may well still be the case--when an order was made by the criminal injuries compensation board a compensation order made in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court was taken into effect. At the time the award is made, anything that is outstanding under the compensation order will then be collected and retained by the court itself. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, nods his assent to that proposition so I assume that it is still the practice.
This clause suggests a feasibility study which would try to ensure that the victims of crime received a lump sum from the magistrates' court or the Crown Court at the time of the disposal of the offender. The suggestion is that, instead of receiving the money in dribs and drabs over a long period of time, or not receiving it at all, the court itself should pay out a lump sum and then be responsible for collecting it from the offender through the usual court system. It is an idea which this Government proposed in the Green Paper, Punishment, Custody, and the Community in 1988. A White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public published in 1990, states:
"At present, many offenders pay compensation by instalments, which are then sent on by the court to the victims. There is considerable support for the idea that when a compensation order is made, the court should be able to pay the total sum awarded for the victim immediately, and then recover the money from the offender".
27 Feb 1997 : Column 1370
The Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group, in a report in 1996 entitled Increasing the Rights of Victims of Crime, said that it supported the proposal in principle. It continued:
- "However, we recognise that without an improvement in the enforcement of compensation orders and fines it has substantial resource implications: at present the annual shortfall between the amount of compensation orders imposed and the amount collected has been estimated at £18 million".
In other words, compensation orders exceed the amount collected by £18 million per annum. That is the kind of level of resources that would be required to implement a scheme of this sort.
It has to be said in relation to that figure that, first, it is only a relatively small proportion of the amounts of awards made annually now by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and, to the extent that the court makes a lump sum award initially when the offender is disposed of, that would be taken into account and set against any money that might otherwise come from government funds through criminal injuries compensation payments. Therefore it is not a straight payment out of £18 million per annum. There would be set-offs against that which would reduce the figure very considerably.
The benefits of such a scheme can be imagined. Victims complain, perhaps less now than they did, about delay over the payment of awards under the CICB scheme. They are also very concerned to see that the recompense that they receive is at least partly from the pocket of the person who caused the particular injury to them. So from all points of view it is desirable that victims should receive their money promptly and that the sums should be collected through the court system and be retained by the courts themselves. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page