Mental Health Bill [Lords]

That is true, but we managed to crank up the old car so that we could move forward again as we approached the end of the Bill’s passage through the House. I welcome the Government’s latest concessions, and I was especially pleased with earlier amendments on electro-convulsive therapy and age-appropriate treatment. It was with some sadness that I must relate that this is the only one of all the debates that we have had for which I did not receive a briefing from the Mental Health Alliance, which has otherwise given fantastic help throughout. I am grateful for the amendments that have been brought forward—and especially the one dealing with respect for diversity—although they are weaker than I would have preferred. In addition, it makes an awful lot of sense that the amendment dealing with the renewal of detentions should specify two clinicians. I welcome those changes, and the strengthening of the power to recall patients in the community, although I have some caveats as to how that can be done. However, I retain some deep concerns about CTOs, and especially about the ones that, year in and year out, will not work. I would have preferred a three-year limit on such orders. I would also have preferred the Lords to have included a Government amendment to provide an acceptable balance on impaired decision making. Unfortunately, I still feel that this is a bad Bill overall, but we have managed to make some progress in the end. I say that it is a bad Bill because people in my constituency—health service professionals—are still opposed to it for solid reasons. I believe that they are still confused by it in many ways, because of the peculiar processes involved in the old banger’s long journey, which has finally come to ““The end””.