DMH 158 Touchstone
28th October 2004 Our
Ref: AL/KS
Mr Richard Dawson
(Draft Mental Health Bill)
Committee Office Scrutiny Unit
House Of Commons
London
SW1A OPW
Dear Mr Dawson
Re: Draft Mental Health Bill
I am writing in my capacity as Director of Touchstone,
a mental health charity operating in Leeds for 20 years. I am
hoping that the excellent work of the National Standard Framework
for Mental Health will be supported by the new Bill and not, as
I fear, contradict it.
Mental health is a complex and sensitive issue.
I have been heartened by the thoughtful introduction of the NSF
and also the Social Exclusion Unit's report on re-engaging people
with mental illness through employment and other participation.
I would hope that the new Mental Health Bill would
build on this positive start and as such, I would like to point
out some of the areas where I believe further thought needs to
take place.
1. The Bill is likely to lead to increased use
of compulsory powers. The extension of the definition of mental
disorder as well as the conditions that justify compulsory treatment
will mean more people than before being detained.
2. There is insufficient detail in relation to
care planning during compulsory treatment. In order to offer
safeguards for patients and their carers, this detail needs to
be provided and consulted on prior to implementation. The emphasis
since 1991 has been on co-ordinating care for people in touch
with Mental Health Services through the Care Programme Approach,
which the voluntary sector has fought to be included in. I would
hope that the principles of multi-agency planning, involving users
and carers, could be continued and enhanced through the new Bill.
The proposals for advocacy are welcomed but more thought on how
these are to be funded needs to take place.
/continued………
- 2 -
3. The risk of contravention of human rights
is increased by the proposed arrangements for imposing mental
health treatments within the Criminal Justice framework. The
conditions for imposing compulsory treatment are reduced for the
Courts and this will directly discriminate against those involved
in the Criminal Justice system.
4. The abolition of the current free integrated
health and social care services for those discharged from compulsory
hospital treatment is a concern. That this abolition could also
lead to an unjustified extension of hospital detention of up to
8 weeks, is regrettable and I believe will be challenged.
5. The dropping of safeguards for "Bournewood
cases" is an opportunity lost. The first Draft Bill recognised
the need for these patients to be protected. Why has this protection
been removed when the Government made assurances that they would
be introduced following earlier legal action?
6. Similarly, the failure to give legal standing
to advance statements is a retrograde step which makes advance
statements themselves totally worthless.
7. The extra work on the statutory services of
the additional examinations, assessments and Tribunals proposed
in the Draft bill are likely to lead to more demands on the Voluntary
Sector Community Mental Health Services. The Draft Bill appears
to require a large input of resources without any clear explanation
as to where those resources will emanate.
I hope that you will be persuaded by my comments,
as well as those of others, and that the areas of the Bill which
are proving contentious can be re-thought.
Yours sincerely,
Alison Lowe
Director
| 
