---

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

The Minister is correct to predict that Members on both sides of the House are likely to support the amendments, although that is no surprise given that the Bill has been 10 years in gestation. Throughout that time concerns about ECT have been raised, not only in pre-legislative scrutiny, but in the other place and in amendments tabled in Committee. The Minister correctly said that ECT is a controversial and quite invasive procedure. In Committee, I probed her about cases involving those under 18. On 12 June, she kindly wrote to me with a sample of the number of people under 18 who were subject to the procedure during a three-month period in 2002. She said that only four people under 18 had been administered ECT, and that none of those was under 16. Perhaps she could look again at those figures, because I note that the Mental Health Alliance briefing contradicts her letter and says that one individual under 16 was included. I am concerned about those under 18 because in the early adolescent periods the brain develops in ways that we do not understand. We are forcing a treatment that we do not fully understand on the bodies of young, vulnerable individuals at a time when the other major organs of the body are still developing. A number of people die following ECT, and I am concerned about those under 16, whose organs are still developing. I welcome the amendments, particularly those introducing the requirement for SOADs and extending safeguards to those under 18 who admit themselves voluntarily. I have a question for the Minister about when parents do not agree on what should happen to their child. If they do not feel able to respond by going ahead with ECT, they can go to the High Court; but what happens if the parents are in dispute? Would the case go automatically to the High Court? I am also a little confused about amendments Nos. 41 and 42. Amendment No. 41 appears to delete a large section of text that is simply put back by amendment No. 42. It might simply be a matter of drafting, and getting the order of provisions right, but I should be grateful if the Minister explained the reasons for deleting one amendment and repeating the same form of words in amendment No. 42. Finally, given the confusion about the number of people under 18—and particularly those under 16—who have had ECT treatments, would the Minister consider reporting to the House, or making some formal report, on how many people are subject to ECT each year, to monitor whether the number goes up or down, and with a focus on under-16s, as well as those under 18? Having made those points, I welcome the amendments and congratulate the Minister on tabling them.