The real Mental Health Bill
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17465729200700016 |
| Published date | 01 September 2007 |
| Pages | 6-13 |
| Date | 01 September 2007 |
| Author | Danny Dorling |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
The real Mental Health Bill
Danny Dorling
Professor of human
geography
Department of
Geography
The University of
Sheffield
Correspondence to:
Professor Danny
Dorling
Department of
Geography
The University of
Sheffield
Sheffield S10 2TN
danny.dorling@
sheffield.ac.uk
GUEST EDITORIAL
6journal of public mental health
vol 6 • issue 3
What follows is a tale from the
arcane workings of government
in Britain. It has, nonetheless,
wider implications for how
people and mental health are
viewed; how international consultancy, insurance,
technology and pharmaceutical firms gain influence
in determining the crucial details of public policy;
and how, despite all the consultation that is said to
occur, the key decisions are still quietly made long
before the debate occurs. My basic claim is that in
Britain the real Mental Health Bill is the new
Welfare Reform Bill.
In November 2006, the Mental Health Bill was
introduced to the House of Lords by Lord Warner,
the now retired Minster of Health. It finally
completed its journey on 5 July, bringing to an end
the debates about when and where folk can be
deprived of their liberty; for what exactly; and, if
they are so deprived, what rights ought they to be
left with, and ought they to pay the costs of their
own accommodation if so imprisoned. This is the
Mental Health Bill of the 2006–2007 session of
parliament. It is important to point out these dates,
since reading the details of the debate between
committee members – especially the Dickensian
penny-pinching – it becomes hard to tell the
century in which they are talking. Readers of
Hansard are given a clue when the chairman
reprimands committee members, like naughty
school children, for texting on their mobile phones
in his sight (Cook, 2007).
Depriving individuals of their liberty of course
requires serious debate and MPs should be paying
attention through such deliberations. What was
introduced by Lord Warner in November 2006 was
not, however, the real Mental Health Bill. That is
yet to come, but parts of it have just become law.
For, while the Commons was debating their
Lordships’ Bill, Jim Murphy, Minster for Work in
early 2007 (and at the other end of the demographic
from Lord Warner), had been agonising over those
too ill to work. In order to demonstrate his
transparency and fluency with new technology, he
went one step further than texting and had an
official blog. Very few people commented on his
blog, but a couple of weeks before Lord Warner in
the Lords introduced his Bill, Jim raised the issue of
how Personal Capability Assessment reviews
(PCAs) were too weighted, in his mind, towards
those with physical disabilities. More ought to be
done, in particular, to steer those with mental health
problems back to work, using his department’s army
of private physicians – outsourced through Atos
Origin, the international information technology
services company – employed to raise the sick to
their feet and set them to their labours. The first
response to this news was a comment posted four
days later:
‘I found the assessment very hard – I’m bipolar,
and yet the doctor had out-of-date notes – and
was arguing with me about things like what my
disability really was, and eventually told me that
all I needed to do was go onto medication and
then I’d “function normally”. As someone that’s
spent most of her life working hard to stay off of
medication, I thought this was a very mean and
out of line thing to say. As it turns out, I’m still
considered unable to work, but those interviews
really are terrifying, something I’d like to see
addressed. Y’can’t really go in there and show
your best if the place scares you into your worst.’
(Anon, 2006)
Jim was reassuring in his reply: ‘Nobody should have
to put up with a scary experience when they attend
an examination,’ he said. In the brave new world of
the internet, patients can easily come to believe that
they really are having a discussion with a
government minister. Is talking to ministers in
cyberspace akin to hearing voices in past times? A
dozen days later a second comment to Jim’s posting
came: ‘Very interesting and beautiful site. It is a lot
of ful [sic] information. Thanks.’ It received no reply
from the minister. The third comment, a couple of
days later, was again from someone who wanted to
work but found gaining work difficult because of
their irregular – hence perceived as not dependable
– employment history. Jim suggested they consult
the Disability Discrimination Act and perhaps try
out his department’s Job Introduction Scheme.
Jim’s heart might be in the right place, but does
he pause to wonder why so many now find
themselves in this position? Hundreds of thousands
of people have not worked for more than two years
because of mental health problems; indeed they
form the majority of the more than two million
© Pavilion Journals (Brighton) Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial