Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 37: 37: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause— ““Mental health diversion schemes Mental health diversion schemes (1) The Secretary of State shall establish mental health diversion schemes to operate at all— (a) crown courts; (b) magistrates’ courts; and (c) police stations. (2) Under this section ““mental health diversion scheme”” means a scheme under which all those charged with an offence shall be considered for— (a) assessment by a qualified mental health nurse; and (b) if in the opinion of the mental health nurse the person charged is suffering from a mental health disorder, diversion from the criminal justice system towards treatment in a mental health facility. (3) For the purposes of this section a mental health diversion scheme may be established to operate at one or more of the places listed in subsection (1).”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry about the repetitiveness. This amendment was also discussed in Committee, when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, raising the question of court diversion schemes, said: "““The courts already have powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 to divert offenders to hospital for treatment. Under Section 35 of that Act, they may remand an accused person to hospital for a report on their mental condition, and under Section 36 they may remand an accused person to hospital for treatment. The police also have the power under that Act to remove a person who appears to be suffering from mental disorder to a place of safety””." He went on to say: "““The Government accept that more should be done in this area, but believe that the best way to take this forward is by non-legislative means. To legislate would be to force local commissioners to implement a one-size-fits-all service that took no account of local need””.—[Official Report, 12/6/07; col. 1657.]" It was therefore very difficult to find one way that might bring about the court diversion schemes and police diversion schemes for the mentally ill that this amendment seeks. My concern about the Minister’s answer is that he seemed to imply that there was no way in which this measure could be properly implemented. We are not looking for one-size-fits-all provision. We are interested in the provision of a diversion scheme in courts and in police stations to make certain that the mentally disordered are diverted to get the treatment that they deserve and need and are not then confined unnecessarily in custody. The Mental Health Act, which the Minister quoted, offers the way ahead. The Mental Health Bill has just been through this House, and diversion schemes were mentioned during its passage. I would have thought that that was the way of taking this ahead, and I commend it to the Ministry of Justice. It must be responsible for seeing that something happens; it is responsible for the courts. I know that the Home Office is still responsible for the police, but all this joined-up government that we hear about should be able to bring that about. Under the Mental Health Act, a requirement should be placed on local authorities. There will not necessarily be a one-size-fits-all provision, but it has to be laid down that it must happen. It must have legislative means of some kind, because if it is non-legislative that usually means that it will not happen. It has not happened up until now. When I tried to find out how many diversion schemes there were, I could only get information from the national schizophrenia society. Neither the NHS nor anyone else had a list of where the schemes were, which is unfortunate. As everyone has been paying attention to the needs of people with mental health problems, it behoves us to make certain that this provision to prevent them going into custody and to get them treatment is considered and not just put in the ““too difficult”” tray, when the Mental Health Act probably offers the way ahead. I beg to move.