DMH 30 Memorandum from Trudy Allen
Please see below my comments on the
new mental health bill. I currently manage an advocacy service
for adults with a learning disability, some of whom could be affected
by the bill.
I'm concerned about the sections of
this bill relating to advocacy and the impact that these could
have on the whole advocacy movement across the County. I'm
particularly concerned that there seems to have been little consultation
with independent advocacy organisations which would have assisted
in the development of a clear understanding of the principles
and practices of advocacy. Advocacy is a rich and diverse
movement in this Country and it is vital that it is this community,
and the people that it serves, who dictates what advocacy
is and isn't. I don't get the impression with this bill
that this is what has happened.
From what I can see of this bill advocacy
appears to be:-
* Restricted to those who have been
sectioned, therefore denying those who are voluntary patients
* being dictated by Service Providers
and Service Funders and not by the advocacy services or service
users
* at funding risk; funding is to be
attached to this bill specifically for advocacy services, which
is fantastic, but it will not be provided as ring-fenced money.
If this funding isn't ringfenced then Local Authorities are at
liberty to cut the current, and often sparse funds, they
commit to advocacy services and replace them with this funding,
rather than building on and developing existing services.
This in turn will reduce advocacy organisations to
being funded to provide services to only those who are sectioned
and a significant reduction to the levels of preventative work
undertaken, which can often provide the support needed by service
user preventing the need for hospital care or intervention.
If funding is to be attached to this
bill then, I believe, this needs to be ringfenced and safeguards
needs to be attached to protect existing funding, contracts and
services.
In addition to these comments regarding
advocacy I am also concerned about the proposal to remove the
need for ASW's when considering the need for intervention or sectioning.
I believe that it is vital to have an officer with a social care
background involved, and it has been proven that on many occasions
a social care professional has been able to suggest alternative
courses of action that do not necessitate a hospital stay.
Should this bill be adjusted so that 3 medical professionals can
make the decision to section a person without the involvement
of a social care professional, I strongly believe that many people
who could have been supported to seek treatment and support from
within the community will instead be forced into
an unwanted hospital stay.
Thank you for your time
MY CHOiCE Advocacy Services
| 
