HC Deb 17 June 1971 vol 819 cc707-11
Mr. Peter Archer

I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 27, line 32, at end insert: (2) The powers conferred by the enactments specified in subsection (1) above shall not be exercised unless the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the written or oral evidence of two medical practitioners—

  1. (a) that the patient is suffering from mental illness; and
  2. (b) that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it would be in the interests of the patient for the said powers to be exercised;
and a person who is so ordered to be removed may appeal to an adjudicator against such order. I can be brief because this is an Amendment which I moved in Standing Committee in very similar terms. It has been re-drafted only to take account of one technical deficiency which the right hon. Gentleman, quite justifiably, pointed out in our original Amendment. Clause 30 states that if someone is undergoing mental treatment and is a non-patrial he may find himself deported. Of course that is not the word which will be written on the slip of paper, but I assume it will take a very persuasive lawyer to convince the victim and his relatives that that is not what has happened. To digress, I am not sure whether one consequence of this process may not be different from deportation; that is to say, if he is deported he can never return to this country unless the order is revoked.

In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett) inquired whether a patient deported under this procedure could ever return, and, if so, whom he would have to satisfy and on what evidence. The right hon. Gentleman then promised to take advice on the matter and he may be able to enlighten us on it in the course of this debate. But whatever the technical consequence, it is not surprising that the immigrant community see this as a process of deportation. I say at once, and not for the first time in the course of these debates, that the offending provision was already in our law in relation to aliens. I confess I was unaware of that until this provision appeared in this Bill, partly no doubt because, in fairness, there is no evidence that in the past it has operated harshly or unfairly.

In the course of our debates in Standing Committee I took the advice of Mr. David Ennals, formerly a distinguished occupant of the Front Bench and now Director of the National Association for Mental Health. He very fairly confirmed that he knew of no instance where in the past this provision had operated harshly. But the Bill proposes to extend the provision to Commonwealth immigrants and that is likely to produce a very different situation. I say that for four reasons.

The first reason is that there will be many more people involved. If an alien in this country does not wish to become naturalised the probabilities are that he is likely to remain here only so long as he is capable of earning a living. There are many more Commonwealth citizens who now regard this country as their own, who live here with their families and would be likely to remain here even if, unhappily, they are afflicted by ill-health. Probably, too, there is a somewhat higher incidence of mental health among Commonwealth immigrants. The tensions and anxieties of settling down in a strange country are exacerbated where it is necessary to become accustomed to a different way of life and a different cultural background; and those anxieties are not minimised by this Bill or by some of the speeches that have been made in the course of our debates.

Secondly, I hope it will cause no offence if I say that provision for the mentally sick in many of the developing countries is understandably at an earlier stage than it is in this country; and while I appreciate that under the Bill as drafted the Home Secretary has to be satisfied, before initiating this procedure, that proper arrangements have been made, the immigrant community would like an assurance as to what the Home Secretary would regard as proper arrangements.

Third, there is the matter raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Jill Knight), who pointed out that there is a great deal to be said for allowing mental patients to remain close to their family. Far more Commonwealth citizens than aliens have their families in this country.

Fourth—this is perhaps the most important point of all, and it was one to which the Minister assented in Standing Committee—in consequence of the background of the Bill and many of the things which have been said and written, rightly or wrongly many immigrants suspect that the Government are looking for an opportunity to deport them. I am not saying that that is true of the right hon. Gentleman—in fact, I am prepared to say that it is not—but this is a common feeling among the immigrant community. There is a real fear in many circles that this may discourage people from seeking treatment when they clearly require it.

For these reasons, the Amendment seeks to provide two safeguards. The first is a medical safeguard. I have looked again at what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee, that two medical signatories would be normal before someone was committed, and that after someone was undergoing treatment, it might be more appropriate to leave it to his own medical superintendent. We are prepared to discuss that. I see the force of it, although many patients and their families do not have complete confidence in the judgment of a single medical superintendent. That is understandable, when his word stands between the patient and his release. They might prefer to see the signature of one medical practitioner who stands outside the situation.

The second safeguard which we seek to provide is that this procedure shall operate only where it is in the patient's best interests. That is simply a recognition that we are dealing with human beings and not just with problems. Finally, we seek to provide some form of appeal. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to agree that some appeal procedure was desirable, although he thought that it should not lie with an adjudicator. We do not quarrel with that view, although we have kept in this provision until we heard how his own mind was working.

It is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman approached this with his usual fairness and open-mindedness, and it is not in any sense a political issue. He undertook to consult the Secretary of State for Social Services, and if he requires further time for consultation, we will not seek to press him for an answer tonight. But we take this opportunity to inquire how his consultations are proceeding.

Mr. Maudling

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) for the way in which he has moved this Amendment. As he said, this is not a new power but only an extension to Commonwealth immigrants of a power which has worked for aliens. From what he said, it seems to have worked satisfactorily in the past. People who are removed on this basis can come back, but no-one has ever been known to do so. The cases would be few and far between and the obvious intention is to provide for the best interests of the individual. The Bill was, therefore, a sensible extension of the existing law.

But hon. Members said in Standing Committee that this might be regarded by Commonwealth immigrants as something which might be used to harass them and that it might dissuade people from taking mental treatment if they deserved it. This seems to me a very sound point. I undertook to consult the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am sorry to say that those consultations have not been completed. My first idea did not work and we must think of another.

I still do not like the Amendment, although the hon. and learned Gentleman has corrected the technical matter of the definition of mental illness. I still think that one should provide for the patient's own medical practitioner to sign a certificate. I do not like an appeal to an adjudicator, because he would not be the right person in those circumstances. I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself recognised that.

I must apologise to the House that I have not been able to produce an alternative scheme. While continuing my consultations, I will undertake to provide some arrangements at a later stage which will ensure that the Secretary of State can take no action unless it is demonstrated by medical advice that to do so would be in the best interests of the patient. The interests of the individual must be paramount. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be satisfied with that assurance.

Mr. Peter Archer

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to