Media Centre

Government urged to take seriously Joint Committee on Draft Mental Health Bill

01 April 2005

The Bishop of Southwark has urged the Government to take seriously the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill, published on 23 March ( http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/jcdmhb.cfm).

“The Bill deals with important issues affecting the liberty and welfare of vulnerable people,” said the Rt Rev Tom Butler, Vice-Chair for Public Affairs on the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council. “We hope the Government will take full account of the Committee’s detailed analysis and far-reaching recommendations in seeking to strike a proper balance between patient rights and public safety.

“Because we believe in the God-given dignity and potential of every human being, we strongly support the Committee in stressing the primary purpose of mental health legislation should be to improve services and safeguards for patients and to reduce the stigma of mental disorder. The public must be protected from a very small number of mentally disordered people who pose a substantial risk of serious harm to others but this must not be allowed to override all other considerations.”

 

Notes

Responding to the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill, the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council noted:

  • We are encouraged the Committee has weighed carefully the concerns expressed by a large number of organisations and groups about the Bill’s possible effects.
  • We are pleased that the Committee has upheld many of the points we made in our written submission.
  • In particular, we welcome its conclusions that the Bill should set out a full set of guiding principles; that the conditions for the use of compulsory powers should be tightened; and that patients with severe personality disorders who are judged untreatable should be dealt with under separate legislation.
  • We note that while the Committee supports the principle of compulsory treatment in the community, it suggests that the scope of such treatment should be more clearly defined and the use of compulsion restricted to the minimum necessary.
  • Finally, we echo the Committee’s warning that without adequate resources of staffing and funding, many of the beneficial aims of the Bill will not be achieved.