Clause 3
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
6:00 pm
Sandra Gidley (Shadow Minister, Health; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)
I note that a number of hon. Members hope to speak, and I want to add my support to many of the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. Indeed, as he said a lot of what I was going to say, I shall be brief. However, it is worth repeating a few points.
Opposition Members cannot say often enough that we do not raise these matters only for the sake of an argument or to prolong the debate, but out of genuine concern. There is such a consensus in the Mental Health Alliance, and given the disparate nature of some of the members of that alliance, it is telling that there is such agreement on many of the problematic aspects of the Bill.
As has been said, Richardson recommended in 1999 that a new mental health Act should contain a broader definition of mental disorder. He also stated that that needed to be balanced by some exclusions. It is not only us who say that: our stance is supported bythe Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society, the British Association of Social Workers and the Royal College of Nursing. They are all people with everyday contact with service usersand the very people who will be responsible for ongoing care.
It was mentioned that Scotland and New Zealand have introduced a range of exemptions. A number of states in Australia have done the same, despite the fact that in all those countries the definition of mental disorder or mental illness is narrower than ours. I hope that the Minister will tell us what note has been taken of the experience of other countries and why that line has been disregarded by the Government. I take her point, to a certain extent, that people have so far not been detained, for some of the reasons mentioned today. That does not mean that we should waste this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make it crystal clear that this will not be tolerated in the future.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists and others seem to be asking for clarity to help them in their jobs. The Minister seemed to think that it was insulting to suggest that they could not do the job already. They seem to disagree with that and would prefer stricter guidelines, so I do not think that it is a case of insult. I think that, particularly in a litigious climate, that they want to be absolutely clear about what is possible and what is not. They probably also want to safeguard themselves and rogue members from allegations of social control. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) pointed out earlier that any such transgressions should be dealt with by professional bodies. However, those of us who have looked into professional regulation will have noticed that it can take a prolonged pattern of aberrant behaviour before it comes to the attention of the authorities. One has only to look at the case of Harold Shipman to realise that malpractice can go undetected for a long time.