§
Amendments made: No. 60, in page 36, line 37, leave out 'section' and insert—
'sections (Review of treatment) and'.
No. 61, in page 36, line 41, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State may, at the request of or after consultation with tire Commission and after consulting such other bodies as appear to him to be concerned, direct the Commission to keep under review the care and treatment, or any aspect of the care and treatment, in hospitals and mental nursing homes of patients who are not liable to be detained under the principle Act or this Act—
(3B) For the purpose of any such review as is mentioned in subsection (3A) above any person authorised in that behalf by the Commission may at any reasonable time—
- (a)visit and interview and, if he is a medical practitioner, examine in private any patient in a mental nursing home; and
- (b)require the production of and inspect any records relating to the treatment of any person who is or has been a patient in a mental nursing home.
(3C) The Secretary of State may make such provision as he may with the approval of the Treasury determine for the payment of remuneration, allowances, pensions or gratuities to or in respect of persons exercising functions in relation to any such review as is mentioned in subsection (3A) above.'.—[ Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
§ Mr. Geoffrey FinsbergI beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 37, line 21 leave out 'publish annually' and insert
'in the second year after its establishment and subsequently in every second year publish'.The amendment requires the Commission to report on its activities every second year instead of annually. The requirement for an annual report was inserted in Committee as a result of an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).I understand that my hon. Friend, and those who supported him, were concerned that the Mental Health Act Commission should be effective and accountable and should be a first-rate watchdog and not a second-rate one. We all share those objectives. We want the Commission to be effective in protecting the interests of detained patients. That means its members and staff should concentrate their time and thoughts and resources on visiting hospitals, investigating patients' complaints and monitoring the way the powers in the Act are used. Producing an adequate annual report takes a good deal of time and preparation, by staff and members-that is the experience of all sorts of public bodies. It would be much wiser if the Commission reported on its activities every two years than that it carried out fewer activities because of a statutory requirement to produce an annual report-or that it produced brief stereotyped reports every year.
A requirement to produce a report in every second year will be quite frequent enough to ensure that the Commission is accountable for its general responsibilities to Ministers, to Parliament and the public. It will thus be under a duty to report to us every two years on its overall activities, including any matters it wishes to bring to public attention. I wish to stress that that does not mean it will be silent for the rest of the time. If the Commission thinks that public attention needs to be drawn urgently or separately to a particular issue or to something it has discovered in its work, it will have the right to publish an interim report or use some other means of putting the matter on public record, for example through revision to 167 the code of practice. The Bill sets out what the Commission must do, as a minimum, to give a public account of its stewardship, but in practice the Commission will wish to do more than this—in other ways—to make its views known, and it can.
This amendment seeks to reverse a Government defeat in Committee. Hon. Members will appreciate that we have accepted almost all the changes made in Committee, subject only to drafting amendments. This is a rather special Bill, and has been through a Special Standing Committee, and we would not lightly ask the House to reverse the decisions of the Committee. But we do feel strongly about this issue. The obligation to produce a report once every two years is quite sufficient. We are not, though, asking the House completely to overturn the Committee vote. As it was introduced in this House, the Bill required a report in the third year after the Commission is established and then every second year. There was strong' pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon for something at least earlier than that.
The amendment I am now proposing will require a report in the second year after the Commission is established, then every two years. That is a significant change, to ensure that we have our first formal report a full year earlier. I hope that my hon. Friend, who was the inspiration of the annual report, will feel that he can be satisfied with the step that we have taken towards him.
§ Mr. Mike ThomasI hesitate again to delay the House and also to blow my own trumpet, but, as the Under-Secretary of State knows, I was the inspiration behind this amendment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) for agreeing to move it on the one day that I was absent from the Committee, as it had coincidentally come up on that day.
I rise only to make a point that I made earlier. This is a direct reversal of what was decided in Committee. It is scandalous for the Minister to come before us and put forward false options. Annual reports do not have to be brief and stereotype. Indeed, the House would take great exception to an organisation established under an Act of Parliament that chose to make annual reports that were brief and stereotype. This is typical of the Under-Secretary's pettifogging approach to these problems. We now find our hearts sinking into our boots every time he moves or replies to a Government amendment. At this time of night there is no point in pursuing it, but I should point out that the Committee decided this matter. It was a sensible decision. If the average golf club secretary can produce a reasonable annual report for his members, there is no reason why this body should not produce an annual report. I suspect that this is a matter of pride for the Minister, or that he is back where perhaps he firmly belongs, in the hands of his civil servants.
§ Mr. ProctorI am not the inspiration for annual reports generally, still less the inspiration for the suggestion that we should have annual reports for the Mental Health Act Commission. However, I was glad to move the amendment in Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) have referred, on an occasion when the hon. Gentleman was absent. At column 625 and onwards I hope that I advanced some cogent reasons for the 168 production of annual reports. I was more concerned about the commission being a sensible and dynamic body and I felt that such a body should have annual reports. Other dynamic bodies normally produce annual reports.
As the Bill is a compromise in many respects, I am inclined at this late hour to accept my hon. Friend's proposed compromise. I am grateful for the fact that we were able successfully to urge him to bring forward the first report from the commission from the third year to the second. I am only sorry that the Government chose the amendment that I moved in Committee to be among the very few minor changes that they decided to make.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceEven at this late hour I shall attempt to stiffen the backbone of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), who moved the relevant amendment so ably in Committee. I hope that we shall be able to test the feeling of the House and discover how many Conservative Members are still present.
It is right to say that the Government have played fair. They have not reversed the majority of decisions that were taken in Committee, but they have decided to reverse the decision that was taken following the introduction of the amendment of the hon. Member for Basildon. I am not sure why they have done so. I suspect that the reason lies in one of the secret Treasury directives that swim around the Government. In a pathetic attempt to save money, they feel that biennial reports are broadly cheaper than annual reports.
§ Mr. Mike ThomasIt has just been vouchsafed to me by the Minister that this is the latest product of the Think Tank.
§ Mr. PriceI can believe that. I suspect that it must be a Treasury directive, otherwise they would not go to the length of stretching out this interesting debate in the wee hours for far longer than otherwise would be necessary.
A clear and sensible decision was taken in Committee to put the commission on exactly the same basis as all the other quangos that have the responsibility of reporting to Parliament and the public on the normal and regular basis of once a year. The Metropolitan Police produce their annual report and the prison authorities do likewise.
Even the Charity Commissioners produce an annual report. Why are the Government so adamant that we should have this anomaly? Why should they choose to create this extraordinary anomaly of a commission which produces a biennial report? That reminds me of when I was a small child and learnt about hardy annuals and biannual flowers. I cannot remember the names of the flowers, but I can remember that most of the flowers were annuals; some were perennials, but the biannual, which came and went every two years, was unusual.
§ Mr. Alan Clark (Plymouth, Sutton)It comes up twice a year.
§ Mr. Tom Benyon (Abingdon)May I correct my hon. Friend? Biannual flowers come up every second year, then die.
§ Mr. PriceI have two versions. I have woken up the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who tells me that biannuals come up twice a year. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) tells me that they come up every second year, then die. However, I think that the image was useful. It shows that it is a ridiculous anomaly 169 to have a Mental Health Act Commission that is utterly different from all the other respectable, worthy quangos of the English Department of Health and Social Security—Home Office scene, in that it produces reports every other year.
However, there is another reason. Annual reports are not just a formality. It is absurd for the Minister to say that somehow a report every two years will be much more informative than an annual report. I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. The discipline of producing an annual report for Parliament and the public is an essential piece of accountability, which Parliament should insist on every time we create quangos.
I was sceptical about this quango. I watched the Scottish version and was sceptical about that. I still reserve judgment about an English one. If we are to have it, the least that we can expect is that it reports to Parliament and the public once a year so that Parliament can comment on a regular annual basis each Session about how the Mental Health Act Commission is proceeding. The public and interested journals can do the same.
I accept that, come the Wexham Parks of this world and the scandals, which will come, as all Western countries have them in psychiatric hospitals, a special report can be made, to which we shall look forward. But a regular annual report is needed. I remain utterly unconvinced by the Minister's arguments. If he refuses to have second thoughts, my advice to my hon. Friends is to press the amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. Geoffrey FinsbergWe are carrying this matter a little far. When we consider the genesis of the Bill in the other place, we see that there was not going to be an annual report. The original intention was for there to be a Mental Health Act Commission. It was to meet requests in Committee that my noble Friend Lord Elton tabled an amendment to the effect that the Commission should report in the third year after its establishment and then every third year. It was as a result of an amendment tabled by Lord Wallace, who still represents the same party as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), that it was agreed that it should report every second year. Then, entering the stakes, Lord Winstanley tried to make it every year. We went through that matter at great length. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) appears to be satisfied that as the first of the reports has been brought forward to the second year, that would meet what he would like. I hope that the House will go along with that.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:— The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 22.
| Division No. 309] | [2.50 am |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Bruce-Gardyne, John |
| Ancram, Michael | Bulmer, Esmond |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Carlisle, John(Luton West) |
| Atkinson, David(B'm'th,E) | Chalker, Mrs. Lynda |
| Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset) | Chapman, Sydney |
| Bendall, Vivian | Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n) |
| Benyon, Thomas(A'don) | Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe) |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Cockeram, Eric |
| Best, Keith | Cope, John |
| Biggs-Davison. Sir John | Costain, Sir Albert |
| Blackburn, John | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Crouch, David |
| Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W) | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Bright, Graham | Dover, Denshore |
| Brinton, Tim | Dunn, Robert(Dartford) |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Faith, Mrs Sheila |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Page. Richard(SW Herts) |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Percival, Sir Ian |
| Goodhew, Sir Victor | Price, Sir David(Eastleigh) |
| Gow, Ian | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Grist, Ian | Rathbone, Tim |
| Hamilton, Hon A. | Renton, Tim |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Heddle, John | Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW) |
| Henderson, Barry | Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. |
| Hooson, Tom | Shaw, Giles(Pudsey) |
| Jessel, Toby | Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb') |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Shepherd, Colin(Hereford) |
| Lang, Ian | Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield) |
| Lester, Jim(Beeston) | Speed, Keit |
| Lloyd, Peter(Fareham) | Speller, Ton |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Spicer, Jim(West Dorset) |
| MacKay, John(Argyll) | Stevens, Marti |
| McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Major, John | Taylor, Teddy(S'end E) |
| Marlow, Antony | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Mather, Carol | Thompson, Donald |
| Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus | Thorne, Neil(IIford South) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Trippier, Davi |
| Mayhew, Patrick | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Mellor, David | Viggers, Pete |
| Mills, lain(Meriden) | Waller, Gar |
| Moate, Roger | Wells, Bowe |
| Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes) | Wells, John(Maidstone) |
| Murphy, Christopher | Wheeler, Joh |
| Neale, Gerrard | Wickenden, Keit |
| Needham, Richard | Wolfson, Mar |
| Neubert, Michael | |
| Newton, Tony | Tellers for the AYES |
| Osborn, John | Mr. David Hunt and |
| Page, John(Harrow, West) | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones |
| NOES | |
| Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) | Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Price, C.(Lewisham W) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Cryer, Bob | Spearing, Nigel |
| Davidson, Arthur | Thomas, Mike(Newcastle E) |
| Davis, Terry(B'ham, Stechf'd) | Thorne, Stan(Preston South) |
| Dean, Joseph(Leeds West) | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
| Dormand, Jack | Welsh, Michael |
| Eastham, Ken | Winnick, David |
| Ennals, Rt Hon David | |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Haynes, Frank | Mr. George Morton and |
| Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton) | Mr. Allen McKay. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.