| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hear the Minister saying "Hear, hear", but I cannot help wondering whether the employer in the road building firm would be quite as enthusiastic as he is. I say that because that might increase his security costs quite impermissibly. In fact, I wonder whether what the Minister is contemplating is the use of compulsion on the employer as well as on the employee and whether that will be quite as widely welcome in his own party as are some of the measures that he is undertaking at present.
The third thing that we had with conscription was a medical examination, as some of your Lordship will remember. Considering the amount of undiagnosed mental illness among people on benefit, I believe that that would be a very welcome precaution to introduce. I also think that some concern ought to be had for the suitability of the task that people are being sent to do. I recently heard of a case from youth training of a young man who was colour blind being required, as a condition of receiving benefit, to become an electrician. I will say only that I hope he does not come to mend my electricity.
The Minister touched on the issue of costs. He said, very fairly, that he did not accept my view. However, I will ask him: how does he know? Does he possess any figures? Does he possess any research study? We all agree that the law may influence behaviour but how can the Minister know how the law influences behaviour until he knows what has happened to people who have been disentitled to benefit? As he and his noble friend have admitted many times, they are in total ignorance on this point.
I shall conclude with the story of an 18th century Member in another place. He had been speaking excruciatingly tediously for three hours. I assure the House that my story does not last that long. At the end of that three hours he was speaking to an almost empty Chamber and began to read the riot act when Edmund
Burke of all people turned to him and said, "Ah, my friend, you are too late, see you not the crowd has dispersed?" It has and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot Regulations 1997
Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) Regulations 1997
Jobseeker's Allowance (Project Work Pilot Scheme) (No. 2) Regulations 1997
Jobseeker's Allowance (Contract for Work) Regulations 1997
Social Security (Jobseeker's Allowance and Mariners' Benefits) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997
8 p.m.
Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th January, 5th February, 10th February and 13th February be approved [10th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the above regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.1 to 8.5 p.m.]
Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I oppose the inclusion of this clause. However, I must begin by saying that I am now more impressed by the hospital direction than I was initially. From what I recall, to attempt to do what a hospital direction does would otherwise require a
person to be sent to prison although he was obviously psychiatrically unwell. The prison doctor then has to try to arrange for him to be transferred to a local psychiatric hospital until he is deemed psychiatrically fit. In that respect, I believe that a hospital direction has some merit.However, I believe this direction places the patient and the psychiatric staff in a difficult position. I believe it will lead to decisions being made by patients and the staff that will be counter-productive. I suspect that patients will be motivated to avoid appearing to have recovered and that staff will be reluctant to discharge a patient who will then have to go to prison. Bed blocking is the likely outcome. That ought not to be the case. If prisons were the places we would like them to be this would not be a problem. A prison is a difficult enough place to survive in at the best of times. A recent psychiatric patient is a vulnerable prisoner and transfer to prison is an unlikely place for such a person to thrive in. Patients normally have enough trouble readjusting to their own local community.
In prison a prisoner with a psychiatric history is likely to be sorely taxed by some other prisoners and may not have the wit to stay behind his door. That denial of association is in itself an injustice. For those reasons I oppose the inclusion of the clause.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble Earl for acknowledging that our discussions this evening have to some extent persuaded him that there is merit in the clause. For that reason it may not be necessary for me to say too much more, and certainly not to rehearse the arguments we discussed earlier.
However, it may be helpful to remind the Committee that at the present time, as I explained earlier, there are occasions when prisoners sent to prison by the courts require to be transferred to hospital and indeed require to be transferred by order of the Secretary of State under Section 71 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. If, having had treatment in the hospital, they are fit to be discharged from hospital, they can go back to prison if the sentence has some way to run.
Information available suggests that about 60 prisoners a year are transferred to hospital by the Secretary of State. About 20 a year are transferred back to prison. The remainder tend to remain in hospital until they are discharged into the community on the expiry of their sentence. That indicates that, while we are dealing with difficult problems as regards individual prisoners, there are not a huge number affected by the current provisions. We anticipate that that will apply when the new power comes into force. We expect that the courts will use this power only sparingly as an alternative option to the present powers.
The noble Earl mentioned the problem of bed blocking. It could arise for more than one reason. One suspects that trained and experienced psychiatrists will be aware in most instances of the prisoners who are feigning continued mental health problems, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, mentioned earlier, there are occasions when psychiatrists are misled by what the patient says to them. We do not believe that there will
be many such instances. I see force in the comments made during the English Bill debates that psychiatrists may have a reluctance to send prisoners back to prison for fear of undoing the good that treatment has brought about. However, I am sure that when the provisions come into force psychiatrists will be aware that to work properly they have to respect the intentions underlying the legislation; that is, to give this additional option to that of the hospital order which currently exists.We hope that people made subject to a hospital direction in addition to a prison sentence will not require to spend too long in hospital before they serve the rest of their sentence, and that bed blocking--it is undoubtedly a problem which will have to be borne in mind--will not prove to be as much of a problem as is suspected at present.
I hope that those further remarks have served to convince the noble Earl that the clause should stand part of the Bill and that he will not insist on his opposition to it.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, for the benefit of the Committee perhaps I may ask him about some other statistics. He mentioned the number of prisoners transferred into a secure mental institution on the direction of the Secretary of State. Can the noble and learned Lord advise the Committee how many are subjected to hospital orders on the direction of the court without the prison option introduced by the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not have to hand the information that the noble Lord seeks. It is part of the statistics that are published regularly. I shall ensure that copies of the relevant section are sent to the noble Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate explain what is wrong with the present system? As I understand it, if a person sent to prison is mentally ill, under an ordinary hospital order he can be sent to a hospital where he will remain and be treated. I fail to understand why it is necessary for the court to become involved in making an order of this type at the very beginning. I do not understand why it cannot be left in the hands of the medical people who look at a prisoner at a time when it is thought he needs assistance of that kind. The undoubted effect of the hospital direction order now proposed is that the psychiatrist becomes the gaoler. He determines when his patient returns to prison. A person who has been inside a psychiatric hospital and is on the point of recovery is at his most fragile at that point. He is to be sent back to prison without the support that he could expect to receive within the community. I have yet to hear the case made for giving this power to the courts to determine these issues at the stage of sentencing.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me but I do not recall whether he was in the Chamber when I discussed the matter earlier and referred to chapter 13 of the White Paper which deals
with this option. I cannot speak with any experience or knowledge of the position in England. But undoubtedly there are cases in Scotland where, when an accused person comes to be sentenced having been convicted of a serious crime which would undoubtedly warrant imprisonment as opposed to any other disposal, the issue arises as to whether the accused man requires medical treatment. With a measure of regularity, defence counsel draw this to the attention of the court. All the court can do at present, if it is not minded to impose a mental health order as frequently the court is not minded to do, is to indicate that the information presented to the court about the mental illness of the accused will be forwarded to the prison authorities. They will take such action as they deem appropriate to arrange for the prisoner to receive psychiatric treatment, whether as an outpatient while still in the prison, or by being transferred to hospital whether or not under the direction of the Secretary of State.This perceived weakness in the sentencing procedures in Scotland was examined prior to publication of the White Paper. As the White Paper records, the Government consider that there is a case for providing the court with a combination option. It will allow the court to recognise the offender's need for immediate hospital treatment yet also specify the duration of an overall custodial disposal. The Department of Health working group on psychopathic disorders chaired by Dr. John Reed recommended the possibility of such a hybrid order being looked at for psychopathically disordered offenders. Such an order might also be appropriate, for instance, for offenders who were sufficiently ill to warrant hospitalisation at the time of sentence but who were not ill, or were much less so, at the time of commission of the offence.
It is clear from the consultation that the Government have undertaken that this is a perceived gap in our sentencing options. There is support for filling that gap. Equally, there are certain practical problems. I recognise the force of what was said earlier about the problems that psychiatrists may face in individual cases. However, the perception is--in my respectful submission, it is valid--that because the hospital order hands over to the hospital authorities in many cases the decision about when the prisoner is released into the community, that may dissuade the court from following that route, while the alternative option is a simple prison sentence without the court having any input in a binding sense as to whether or not treatment is received. That is the gap which this provision seeks to fill. We are satisfied that the proposal has sufficient support to merit the provision in this Bill.
It is to have broader effect in Scotland than in England. That is because it appears to have the support which we feel is necessary to take it forward. It is unfortunate if an individual case gives the impression that the psychiatrist is a gaoler. That is not the intention. I hope that with experience of the provision that will not prove to be the case.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page