HL Deb 07 October 1986 vol 480 cc122-5

2.47 p.m.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to tighten the controls on the discharge from special hospitals of offenders suffering from psychopathic disorders.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Home Office have recently considered the position under the Mental Health Act of offenders suffering from psychopathic disorder. They are currently seeking views on options for amending the present legislation and proposals for procedural changes within the existing statutory provisions. The aim would be to include any agreed amendments to the Mental Health Act in a future criminal justice Bill.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply which is at least as informative as the Answer he gave to my Question yesterday. Is the problem this: that Ministers are concerned that the mental health review tribunals, applying the statutory criteria to the best of their ability, have discharged restricted patients who then unfortunately turn out still to be a danger to the public? If that is right, will the Minister give us some indication of the size of the problem? Have there been just one or two cases that have gone wrong, or is the number substantially greater than that? Do the difficulties arise only in respect of psychopaths and not in respect of other mentally disordered offenders?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Home Secretary asked for an examination of the existing controls and options for change because of concern about the release from special hospitals of psychopathically disordered patients who might re-offend. I can tell the noble Lord that of 38 patients in this category who were discharged from special hospitals by a tribunal between 30th September, 1983 and the end of 1985, four are known to have committed subsequently a serious offence of a similar nature to their original offence. Although it is a small proportion we must make sure that the present procedures under the Act could be updated if necessary.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is vital that we should preserve a civilised attitude towards mentally abnormal offenders? It is not easy to do that if disruptive and dangerous people are released prematurely into society. Will the noble Earl further agree that in considering this matter we must bear in mind the interests of patients—these people are patients—the staff in these institutions and also the mood of the British public which, if affected adversely, could be very damaging to this whole issue?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, when there is a unfortunate incident and somebody who is released re-offends, of course it is natural for the media to seize upon this. It is not in the majority of cases that this happens, and of course we have to take that into account. I agree with the noble Lord that we should consider those who have to serve and who work in such hospitals, and those, too, who are suffering from this disorder.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, there is one aspect which is causing concern to staff in these kinds of hospitals. First, they are all at grave risk of being physically injured themselves, and sometimes, when they have no alternative but to exercise a degree of force to restrain a sick patient, they themselves are sometimes charged and brought before the courts. That is causing grave concern to the staff, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the British Medical Association. Would it perhaps be possible at some future date for the Government to have a look at this particular aspect of the dangers that face staff who do such valuable work in these hospitals?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I, too, should like to commend the staff for what they have done in the past and for what I know they will continue to do. I note the point that the noble Lord makes.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the consultative document to which he referred has led to a considerable degree of concern in the mental health movement, particularly the thought (and what lies behind it) that we may be amending the Mental Health Act 1983 in a criminal justice Bill? May I ask the noble Earl two questions? First, what research preceded this consultative document, and, secondly, is it not possible that proposals made in the document could lead to an increase in the prison population when the prisons are already bursting at the seams?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, considerable evidence came before my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Home Secretary that required them to institute this report, which, as the noble Lord knows, has gone out for consultation. Until we get replies to the consultation—I believe they are due by 17th October—I do not think that it would be wise for me to prejudge anything.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, is it not very unusual to be considering amending a major piece of legislation such as the 1983 Act only three years after it was put on to the statute book? Does not the noble Earl think that the mental health review tribunals are doing an extremely worthwhile and painstaking job, which, in the nature of things, cannot be 100 per cent. successful? Ought we not to be explaining to the public that unless they want to keep people suffering from mental disorders locked up for the rest of their natural lives, inevitable some mistakes are occasionally going to be made?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, although the noble Lord argues that it is perhaps too soon to be amending the Mental Health Act, I am sure that he would be the first to vilify us for not reacting to the concern that one aspect of the Act has presented. As I have explained, the concern which led to the report is a specific concern within the Mental Health Act, and we are at present planning no other changes.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale

My Lords, does not the prospect of having mental health legislation, which is outlined as a possibility in this consultative document, take us into pretty deep waters, involving, as it does, rather tricky considerations of treatment as against punishment, possibly the role of the Parole Board and the Mental Health Act Commission and also responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights? Will there be an opportunity for us to debate those issues before we plunge too deeply into legislation?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I agree that this is a tricky and complicated area. If the noble Lord would like to put his name down for a debate, or to approach my noble friend the Chief Whip in the usual fashion, I am sure that something can be arranged.