Mary Henry (Independent)

I will not argue with the Minister on the rights and wrongs of having a judge on the body, as he has greater expertise than me in this area. However, it would be wiser to treat mentally ill people the same way. We are hoping that these people are being detained in a medical facility. International obligations on the treatment of people with mental illness, such as UN principles and Council of Europe regulations, require that everyone is treated in the same way. I was sorry that the Immigration Act contained a clause preventing entry to individuals having attacks of florid schizophrenia. This is not allowed internationally. Instead, it is an obligation that some care be taken of the individual. If a person is mentally ill, he or she should be detained in a hospital. I know the Bill states it may be a prison but it is hoped that they are detained in a secure unit in a hospital with other people who are mentally ill but have not committed any crime. Those people may have been prevented from carrying out a crime but could be just as dangerous. The people covered by this Bill do not appear to have half the protections given under the Mental Health Act. Why is this so?

The Mental Health Commission is already established and must have in its composition a lawyer with ten years' experience ending immediately on his or her appointment to the commission. This cannot be a non-practising lawyer who has been brought forward simply to sit on the commission. The Minister informed the House that consultant psychiatrists' advice will be taken. However, many of them have advised that it would be wiser to have mentally ill people reviewed under the mental health commission tribunals. The Minister is right that a political officeholder should not be the person making the decision as to whether these people should be detained or allowed go free. Having looked again at the Mental Health Commission, I do not mind what recommendations the Minister makes as to who should be the chair. I assumed it should be a lawyer but it is fine if a judge is not constitutionally correct. However, I hope the Minister will look at the amendment again and see if the existing structure could be used rather than inventing another one. The body would have the same knowledge of these cases and the same type of people — although they have committed crimes — would be dealt with. The general public will understand this.

Yesterday, during Private Members' business on the proposed constitutional referendum, the Minister informed the House that the public was sophisticated enough to understand that it was not a racist issue. However, when discussing this Bill, the public has to be told that people are insane in capital letters because of possible confusion over the term "mental disorder". Either the public is capable of understanding these matters or not. The public will understand if the mental health commission tribunals investigate such cases and decide whether the individuals should be detained.