§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the grounds of the Royal Earlswood Hospital have been considered as a suitable site for the location of a 60-bed forensic psychiatric hospital for the treatment of mentally ill offenders.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, the Department of Health and Social Security has asked each Regional Health Authority to set up a unit or units for the care of mentally disordered patients (only some of whom will be offenders) who require treatment in accommodation which affords a degree of security. The South West Thames Regional Health Authority set up a Working Party which included members of the Authority and officers representing medical, nursing, social work, personnel and planning interests, which considered the suitability of sites throughout the Region. Factors taken into account include proximity to other health and social service facilities, the availability of land already owned by the National Health Service, road and rail communications, staff availability and amenities, community aspects and cost. Following consideration of these factors, the Working Party recommended land adjoining the Royal Earlswood Hospital as the most suitable in the Region and thorough consultations with local and regional interests about this are in progress at the present moment.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend for that lengthy and considered reply. But is he aware of the widespread anxiety already created by the consideration of this site for the suggested hospital? Would it not be wiser to consider some alternative site, which is not adjacent to a hospital where over 600 mentally retarded people, including over 80 young children, are now receiving very excellent education and training?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, let me make it perfectly clear that we are mindful of the feelings locally, and of the opposition which there is to this particular siting; so much so that Mr. G. A. Turner of the South West Thames Regional Health Authority, with members of the Regional Working Party, has over a period of several weeks now met, I think, every objector, either groups or organisations—some 15 of them—to discuss with them the situation and the reasons why this site has been selected. Very careful consideration has been given to nine sites within the Regional Health Authority area. This particular site consists of 155 acres. I know it myself, and many of your Lordships know it even better. It is a magnificent place. The hospital, which caters for mentally handicapped people, has been there for several years, and the new security unit will cover about eight of the 155 acres. As your Lordships may know, it is intended to build a district general hospital there in the course of time, and it is desirable that this medical complex should be sited there where there is an abundance of accommodation.
§ Lord REIGATEMy Lords, will the noble Lord press on the Regional Health Authority the importance of giving publicity to the reasons why it has selected this site instead of some of the others which have been considered? Is the noble Lord aware that so far the Regional Health Authority has refused to give the names of the other sites which it has considered, including one which, it is understood, would from every point of view be equally advantageous?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the suggestion he has made. It is very desirable that the reasons should be given, 809 and I shall certainly see that the suggestion is made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The Countess of LOUDOUNMy Lords, following on from the last supplementary question, would it be possible to give publicity to the fact that the new hospital is not to be a top security hospital? I ask this question because I believe that many of the fears about the hospital have arisen due to the fact that it was leaked to the Press that it was to be a top security hospital, which in fact it is not. Could some publicity be given to that point?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess. I have seen the report which appeared in the Press on this matter. I take this opportunity to say that it will not in any sense be a top security psychiatric hospital, as we understand it. It will be a psychiatric hospital which can accommodate certain people who will need to be kept in secure conditions where they will be able to get the kind of treatment that their particular difficulty needs.
§ Lord REIGATEMy Lords, is the noble Lord correct? Because it is generally understood locally that there is a need for top security here and that there will be, putting it bluntly, a large wall around it, as there is around Broadmoor.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I hasten to say that I believe I am correct. It is not intended to be a top security psychiatric hospital and should not be mentioned in those terms. The proposed unit is designed to provide treatment for those mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients who, while not having dangerous or violent propensities which require admission to a Special Hospital, cannot be managed satisfactorily in the wards of existing psychiatric hospitals. It is merely to accommodate people like that, who need this particular supervision and care, that this hospital is being built, and we are hoping that every region in the country will have a similar one.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, in his original Answer the noble Lord himself used the word " security " in relation to this unit, but he has rejected the expression 810 "top security" in relation to it. For the benefit of those who are as ignorant as I am, would the noble Lord be kind enough to state the difference in definition between those two terms?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I was trying to draw a distinction between this hospital and the top security hospital for people suffering from grave mental disorder which we read about from time to time. I was trying to say that, while it will be a secure one, it will not be for persons who are exceptionally dangerous. Exceptionally dangerous persons will go to the two or three top security hospitals which are available at the present moment.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is not somewhat unrealistic during the present period of economic stringency to consider erecting a new hospital for breakers of the criminal law at a time when so many hospitals for law-abiding citizens are being closed down all over the country?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, that is not a fair interpretation of the situation. I thought I had made it perfectly clear—and if I did not I do so now—that it is not intended and it is not expected that this particular type of psychiatric hospital will have other than a very small number of patients who have been convicted in our courts and who need some form of security and some form of special treatment. The majority of people will certainly not come within that category.
§ Lord CARR of HADLEYMy Lords, is it not the case that there is a need for something less secure than, say, Broad-moor but more secure than the ordinary hospital; and is not the object of an institution of this kind, wherever it goes, to provide very much needed accommodation of this intermediate category, and therefore leave more room at Broadmoor and elsewhere for the really dangerous ones?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who has put it admirably. I was trying hard to avoid using the name " Broad-moor ", because it has given rise to a 811 great deal of misunderstanding. But that is precisely the position.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)My Lords, I wonder whether we ought to come to a conclusion of this Question. I should have thought that nine minutes on one Question was overlong. I understand, however, that there is anxiety on this matter and I would invite noble Lords to have a word with my noble friend outside.