Mary Henry (Independent)

This is a very important issue to me. I pointed out during the debate on Committee State that in half the Bill, the description was "care or treatment" while in the other half it was "care and treatment". The terms appear to be randomly dispersed. However, to my horror, where I suggested we should have "care and treatment", the Minister has changed it to "care or treatment".

I looked up the meaning of "care" in legal dictionaries. They referred to matters such as reasonable care and custody and asserted that it was not limited to the physical well-being of a child in terms of the provision of meals and comfort, but also that he or she had to have proper education and so forth. However, therapeutic care of a person was not mentioned anywhere.

Treatment is extraordinarily important, as these people are ill. We could have a situation where we are simply warehousing these people in designated institutions. In the Mental Health Act, care and treatment is applied all the times. I do not care that is a civil Act while this is criminal legislation, it is all about people. It is about prisoners who have become patients. Mr. Justice Henchy, who was much admired by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, asks for care and treatment for people. There is no definition for either care or treatment in the Bill that we are discussing today. However, in the Mental Health Act 2001, treatment is defined as:

in relation to a patient, [which the prisoner has now become] includes the administration of physical, psychological and other remedies relating to the care and rehabilitation of a patient under medical supervision, intended for the purposes of ameliorating a mental disorder.

The Act uses the word "ameliorating". It does not state that there must be a possibility of cure. This is extraordinarily important because there is no point in moving people from one institution to another if one is not going to do something to help their situation.

I have only had a brief opportunity to examine the Government amendments on the transfer of prisoners. However, it appears to me that, according to later provisions in the Bill, someone might agree to a voluntary transfer to the Central Mental Hospital or another designated institution because he or she is considered to be mentally ill in a prison. If that person does not agree to treatment, he or she can be transferred back to the prison. Care alone will not be enough. However, in the Bill we are stating that either care or treatment will suffice. What about the prisoner who then decides he or she does not want treatment? That prisoner will be obliged to have it, even though the Bill earlier includes the wording, "care or treatment". I have never seen anything so confused in my life. I cannot understand why mentally ill people are not being considered as patients who are in need of treatment.