Comments on: Mental health and Parliament

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:24:24 +0000

I would endorse the comments of Baroness Murphy. When we talk about physical illness, we recognise that this can incorporate a range of conditions, ranging from a cold through to a life-threatening condition. Yet when we talk about mental illness, we do not seem to recognise that this too incorporates a range of conditions. Mental illness is not necessarily a bar to getting on with work nor is it necessarily a danger to others. People with influenza are more of a danger to those around them than are those suffering a mild form of depression. As with physical illness, some mental illnesses can be minor and short-term and others serious and long-term. A person who is suffering from depression may be able to do their job to good effect. If we barred Members who suffered from some degree of mental illness, we would have lost some of our greatest parliamentarians, including Winston Churchill.

By: baronessmurphy

baronessmurphy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:06:55 +0000

Krishna, I don’t think the point you make is un-pc. Of course there will be times when it would be inappropriate for a person to return too soon after a mental breakdown or indeed to return at all. But that is surely for the individual and his/her medical advisors to determine, just as it would be in the case of someone after stroke for example. Because stroke is designated a physical illness, even though it can leave profound psychological and cognitive sequelae, we do not seek to exclude peers who have suffered a stroke from resuming their seats : Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for example has been very eloquent in the Chamber about his recovery from very distressing mental symptoms following stroke. The difficulty with our current legislation is that an assumption is made that whatever the cause of the episode of mental illness it will disable the sufferer for many months and can disbarr a person from resuming their seats. There are many other safeguards and supports around peers so I think we can afford to demonstrate a certain robustness about this so we can do our bit to lessen the stigma of mental ill health.

By: Krishna

Krishna — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:58:32 +0000

Lord Norton,
I do sympathize with those who have suffered a mental health problem but to equate mental and physical health for a legislator doesn’t seem quite right.
Consider professional sports- an athelete/sportsperson is considered suspect (or at least an injury risk) for quite a while after a physical injury- and this sometimes results in their not being selected.

For a legislator (where no physical requirements are called for) the mind must be the analog of the sportsperson’s body- i.e. if a serious mental illness was suffered, there must be some suspicion of the dangers of re-injury

I realise this is horribly un-P.C. but as you point out (in your next post) sometimes one needs to say things others “daren’t”

By: howridiculous

howridiculous — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:15:51 +0000

Lord Norton, I liked the Emrys Hughes story! Now that the parliamentary recess is almost upon us I wonder if you would consider doing a post on wit in the House of Lords? I am sure there are lots of anecdotes which are worth a wide audience.

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:10:38 +0000

Richard: Indeed, I remember the case. It was Senator Eagleton who was the VP candidate; he was replaced by Sargent Shriver. I doubt if it would happen today for three reasons. First, the nature of background checks are such that the issue would presumably be picked up and discussed prior to selection. Second, there probably has been a change of attitude; I am not sure, though, that the case was that clear cut at the time anyway – after all, Eagleton had proved able to serve as a well-respected Senator; third, a Presidential nominee may not be the ditherer that George McGovern was! McGovern one day said he was 100% behind Eagleton and the next day dropped him from the ticket.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:38:20 +0000

Interesting subject. Here in America, back in 1972 there was a vice-presidential candidate who had to drop out of the race when it was revealed that he had undergone mental health treatment. I’ve wondered whether he would have received the same reaction, had that happened now.

By: baronessmurphy

baronessmurphy — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:26:06 +0000

I’m so glad Lord Norton has raised this issue of the continuing stigma that people with mental health problems are subject to and how we in parliament can get our own House in order. I am pleased to be Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Mental Health which launched the ‘Mental Health in Parliament’ report last week to begin the campaign to do away with Section 141 of the Mental Health Act. We did talk about it during the passage of the mental health bill last year but there were so many other issues to deal with it got lost. I hope this time we will be more successful.

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:27 +0000

howridulous: the serious point, as I touch upon in the post, is that some members do have some experience of mental health problems or know someone who has suffered from mental ill-health. Many people can work despite suffering mental problems; others though need time off and it is an important factor for them (and their families) and for the economy.

Perhaps less seriously, I am reminded of the experience of Emrys Hughes, who was a Labour MP in the 1950s and 1960s. He had spent some time in a mental institution before recovering and being released. After he was elected to Parliament, he apparently liked to point out that he was the only MP who had been certified as sane.

By: howridiculous

howridiculous — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:32:25 +0000

Lord Norton, given the behaviour of some of our politicians, elected and non-elected, it could be argued there are already members of Parliament who have mental health issues.

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:13:32 +0000

That would in my view be for electors to decide. Electors in Northern Ireland didn’t seem to have problems in deciding that Ian Paisley should represent them in Westminster and Brussels (and Stormont!). It would be for the candidates to demonstrate there would not be a conflict.