Mental Health Bill [HL]

moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4, at end insert ““but do propose the following amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill: 4A: Page 6, line 19, at end insert- ““( ) after subsection (5) insert- ““(5A) But the responsible clinician may not furnish a report under subsection (3) above unless a person- (a) who has been professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment; but (b) who belongs to a profession other than that to which the responsible clinician belongs, states in writing that he agrees that the conditions set out in subsection (4) above are satisfied.”””””” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we on these Benches appreciate the number of amendments that will be a real improvement to the original Bill and will, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has said, be a serious improvement overall to mental health services, certainly by 2010. However, I cannot help but express my profound disappointment that the change in culture and attitudes of the Government and the professions towards people with mental health problems, which we hoped a new Bill would introduce, has not happened after eight years’ serious hard work. I would be more depressed if it were not going to be easier for people who are depressed to be sectioned in future. It took from 1828 to 1845 for the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury to bring about the very significant changes in 1845. He had to battle away until 1880 to ensure that those changes were retained. Sometimes they were lost for a few years and then he had to fight again. In another 20 years, I hope that some of us will be back to introduce a Bill which seriously changes attitudes. On Amendment No. 4A, the renewal of detention is as important for the patient as the initial detention, which we have not taken as seriously as we should have done in the past. This modest amendment would require two clinicians, both of whom have to be concerned with the treatment of the patient. I make no secret of the fact that I would prefer safeguards—for example, in regard to the medical expertise that would be required in the renewal—to be at least as strong as those required under the Mental Capacity Act. It is not a matter of hierarchies but of appropriate training and competences. In accepting this amendment, what do the Government envisage will be in the regulations and the code of practice to ensure that the second clinician will see and examine the patient? At the moment there is nothing in the provision to determine that the patient will be seen and examined, which is pretty essential. Secondly, which of the professionals do the Government envisage will give the objective medical expertise on mental disorder, which has been determined by the European Court of Human Rights, to satisfy the criteria for detention under the Act? Which of the clinicians would that be? I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 4A.—(Baroness Murphy.)