Mary Henry (Independent)

I also welcome the Minister and I warmly welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. It is difficult to understand why a previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did not bring it forward at an earlier stage, particularly when one reads so much of the good sense in the 1978 Henchy report that was incorporated into the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for doing so, because it has been shameful to read newspaper reports on some court cases where people were obviously mentally ill and yet were being tried before the courts as though they were not.

High profile murder cases get most media attention because mandatory sentencing makes it essential that, if appropriate, a plea of insanity be brought forward. However, it is also important in the District Court where there are summary charges against people who are mentally ill. In some cases they may not been taking their tablets or are homeless. If we hear voices it does not matter if we go around the house shouting their owners, but if one is living rough and starts shouting at people in the street one can easily find oneself arrested on a charge of breach of the peace. What these people require is supervision in order to get them back on track. In the past, if one of these people was hungry and stole bread and milk from a shop they would have been in a very serious position. However, the legislation, which is good-hearted in nature, will allow something to be done about such cases. While high profile trials attract most attention, such attention will also be important in the type of cases to which I refer.

I have some difficulty with one area of the Bill. The last paragraph of the explanatory memorandum dealing with financial implications states that it is not anticipated that the proposals in the Bill will have significant financial or staffing implications but that there will be some extra costs associated with the new mental health review board because of its responsibilities as set out in the Bill. Those responsibilities will be more extensive and onerous than those of the ad hoc advisory committee the board is replacing. However, if the Bill is to be properly implemented, there will be substantial costs involved.