Clause 4
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
1:30 pm
John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Health; Southport, Liberal Democrat)
I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Miss Begg. Although I cannot imagine what you have done to hold such a positionfor the whole of Thursday when you were not even assigned to chair the Committee, I am pleased tosee you.
We debated exceptions the other day, most ofwhich could be resolved easily by including a statement of principles in the Bill. The Scottish Bill excludesany prejudice on the grounds of age, sex, sexual orientation, religious persuasion, racial origin, cultural or linguistic background and membership. I could not help reflecting that, had we had such a statement of principles, much of our earlier debate could havebeen avoided.
The clause that we are considering is verbatim the clause in the Scottish Bill and the Secretary of State seeks to remove it. In its submission, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said about the Scottish Bill that
“We consider that the Scottish Mental Health Act provides an excellent model for a new law for England and Wales. The positive experience of our colleagues in Scotland over the last year and a half has reinforced this view.”
I am mindful of the danger that all that we will do in the Committee is repeat the mantras and arguments of the other place. Despite the copious briefings that we receive, we shall just be marking time until the real trial of strength occurs between the Lords and the Government, which to some extent will mask the real and long battle that has been going on between the Government and the Mental Health Alliance, where briefings can simply be used as ammunition and Members of Parliament can be used as proxies for organisations outside this place and reduced almost to the state of ventriloquist dummies whereby discussions can be choreographed and so on.
I genuinely believe that that is a waste of our time. It is a misuse of what is obviously a talented, informed and able Committee. A Public Bill Committee hasvery real strength. We cannot rival their lordships’ eloquence or eminence—[Hon. Members: “Come on.”] Well, some of us cannot. There is far more interchange and challenge and more probing questions are asked in a Public Bill Committee, as we found out this morning. I was struck by the lack of interventions in the Lords’ debate and the rather respectful audience that they gave one another. That is fine if one wants to state a case, but less good for exploring, analysing and defining points of difference.
One of the best speeches in the House of Lords was from Baroness Murphy, whose contributions throughout the debate were splendid. She is a psychiatrist, and she said of the amendment—which is now clause 4—which might puzzle some members of the Committee:
“I do not believe that the amendment will change who is detained and who is compulsorily treated”.—Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2007; Vol. 688, c. 234.]
That may puzzle some members of the Committee. It prompts one to ask what all the fuss is about.