David Amess

Conservative Party | Southend West

NHS Mental Health Services

Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), on his speech. He spoke for us all about the unanimous report and covered all the issues, but that will not stop me from making my own points.

I was moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) about stigma and I entirely agree with what he said. I also agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, West and Morley (Mr Gunnell) about electro-convulsive therapy. I have one such case at the moment: someone, not in my constituency, was given the treatment and asked to sign for it when they were not in the right frame of mind to know precisely what they were doing. Eighteen doses of the treatment were given and a relative of the patient involved is extremely upset about it.

The hon. Member for Wakefield and I share an interest in mental health because of our constituency experiences. Members of Parliament know that often the inspiration behind the many groups that are formed is someone with a loved one affected by an illness or trying to cope with a problem. Mental health groups are no different.

There are not huge numbers of votes for parliamentarians in discussing the state of our prisons, but we should discuss such a matter, even if it is not of great interest to our constituents. Mental health is like that, too: people do not want to get too involved in the issues. As a newly elected Member of Parliament I vividly recall visiting South Ockendon hospital, where I saw sights for which I was unprepared. I had gone along to a hospital event, where I bought bird baths, nesting boxes and so on, which all looked lovely, and then I saw how some of the people were cared for, which was pretty grim. I had not realised that people really were put in straitjackets and restrained.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford that in some cases it is difficult to know what is best for people, but restraining them in the way that used to be done at South Ockendon hospital is not acceptable. We must not forget that these patients are human beings, too.

We have all met people with mental health problems. Tragically, four weeks ago a friend of mine, a deputy head who was highly intelligent, committed suicide during school hours. I had no idea of his state of health. His wife told me that the day he committed suicide he had received a letter telling him that he had been awarded the MBE. For whatever reason, he had a tremendous feeling of inadequacy. The 2,000 mourners at his funeral said it all: he was a fantastic chap.

At our constituency surgeries, hon. Members meet many people--I choose my words carefully--who seem a little unusual in the way that they present their case. One of our colleagues was nearly killed as a result of what happened at a constituency surgery.

Members of Parliament get depressed. I occasionally get depressed when I look at Labour Members, and when I look at the opinion polls I feel even worse, but I am an optimist. I salute all the Committee Members for their efforts in producing the report. I agreed to be a member of a Select Committee because I felt that our debates on the Floor of the House had become a bit of a blunt instrument, and Select Committees were a sharper way of dealing with matters.

There is no point in our spending three hours in Westminster Hall debating these matters, and the Select Committee interviewing wonderful experts and having the help of the support staff--I went all round the country looking at all the different facilities--if a few weeks after our report is issued the Government send us a nice reply and the whole thing is forgotten. That has always gone on, so I am not making a point about this Government. The Health Committee has dealt with these matters calmly and its recommendations are excellent, but I suppose that I would say that.

I should just like to highlight five of the recommendations in the summary. Point (f) states:

"There have been undeniable failures in service since the policy of care in the community was first launched. But we feel that it is both misleading and unhelpful to state that the policy of care in the community has failed"

-- this is a unanimous report agreed by all members of the Committee--

"as the Government has done on a number of occasions. We urge the Government to make clear in the language it uses ... that care in the community is a positive policy and one which it supports."

When the Conservative Government delivered care in the community, I thought that it would cost a huge amount of money and I wondered whether we had thought it through. It has indeed cost a huge amount of money but the Health Committee certainly supports the policy.

Paragraph (h) refers to joined-up government. I hate that expression. It means everyone working together. Sadly, not everyone in the mental health services in south-east Essex is working together. I sought the opinion of a number of individuals in the area. A consultant psychiatrist said:

"reducing suicide rates is a very important issue. Southend...needs...semi-informal services...which can really rise to the challenges of the mental health problem in the community."

A patient who harms himself says:

"The day I left hospital I felt really alone. I couldn't phone the ward for support and felt alone. Instead I had to phone the Samaritans who told me to take up knitting."

The Samaritans do a splendid job and it is unfortunate if someone said that. I received a letter from a constituent who said:

"I have no idea where my husband could go for help now, as every door seems to be closing in his face and his mental state is becoming more fragile as a consequence".

A general practitioner said:

"David, there is a lack of consultants and conditions in the wards at Rochford are pathetic and I strongly feel that it needs urgent attention."

There are gaps in the services in south-east Essex and the various agencies clearly have a problem talking to each other. I do not have a magic, wand but if the Minister and his officials care to look at our recommendations and can deliver some of them, it would make a huge difference.I recently received a letter from a constituent who said:

"In 1999 I had problems and because I could not talk about them I was taken to Runwell hospital".

I know that at least three hon. Members know that hospital. It is an old asylum that has been threatened with closure for 10 years. Nothing happens. Most of the buildings are a disgrace to the modern national health service. I do not suggest that there are huge pots of money, but someone needs to come up with a solution to the problems at Runwell. My constituent continues:

"I hated it in there. In December 1999 I was allowed to return home on the condition I accepted help from a Mental Health Team Co-Ordinator and, that I had a CPN give me an injection monthly. I didn't want someone from Mental Health to visit."

My constituent now learns that she is no longer to receive help from her splendid support team.

Opposition Members talk endlessly about point (p), which deals with staff shortages. All hon. Members have received a briefing note from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which underpins that recommendation.

The Royal College said:

"The proposals, if implemented fully, would have significant implications in terms of personnel and training. In the light of the 14 per cent. vacancy rate for consultant psychiatrists there is much work to do in attracting people to the mental health professions;

The proposals would also be extremely costly financially--we are concerned that care and treatment will be based not on the needs of patients but on what can be 'afforded'."

Point (s) of our recommendations states:

"We are aware that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence... is currently considering guidelines on the management of schizophrenia".

Hon. Members have also received the briefing note from the Zito Trust, which tells us that NICE has recently announced the details of its inquiries into the treatment of schizophrenia. The Zito Trust believes that it is an opportune moment for that debate--perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is right. The Zito Trust states:

"NICE will be appraising atypical anti-psychotics. Atypical drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia dramatically improve patient outcomes, have fewer debilitating side effects and result in better compliance for patients. In nearly two thirds of patients, older typical medicines are associated with some terrible side-effects (including muscle tremors, rigidity, uncontrollable movements and restlessness which in many cases continue even after the treatment has ended). These side effects are one of several causative factors leading to patient non-compliance that can have serious consequences for both patients and the general public."

The trust is concerned that:

"pending NICE's guidance being launched many patients will be denied the effective, newer treatment they deserve. It is our view that this will put at risk patients who will have a lower quality of life because of inappropriate treatment and it is our deep concern that they may fail to take their medication as a result."

The final point is point (t), in which the Committee talks about a range of suitable accommodation--an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford touched on. The Health Committee report is very worthwhile, but if it ends up covered with dust and with no one taking a blind bit of notice of it, we will have wasted our time.

Dealing with people with mental health problems is a huge challenge. All the time one meets people who are in a deep depression; their carers are in despair that they cannot get the right help. Such help and support may not exist. I am sure that the Minister and his team will meet positively the challenges raised and the solutions recommended by the Health Committee's report.