Agenda item

Mark Trewin, Bradford Council, and Andy Bell, Centre for Mental Health, attended the meeting to give Board members an overview of the independent review of the Mental Health Act.

They outlined the scope of the review and the structure of the review team, noting that an interim report was due to be delivered in May or June, and that the final report due to be published later in the year would detail how the Mental Health Act should be updated. The aim of the review was to identify the main issues with the current legislation and offer recommendations as to how it should be improved. An advisory group of around 40 people, including social workers, police officers, service users and more, would be asking what the Mental Health Act was for, how it should be run in the future, how rights and risks should be balanced, and how service providers could focus on prevention. The review team would also be looking to simplify Section 117.

In the discussion which followed, Members raised the following points:

·         Local authorities have a key role to play in mental health care but there was no-one representing local government on the advisory group. Members recommended that an LGA Board member and an officer should be consulted as part of the review.

·         Members voiced concerns about the increase in detention rather than treatment, and wondered if this was a possible impact of cuts to funding and reduced resources. The lack of funding was also raised as a general issue, and comments were made about the need to clarify and simplify the Section 117 process and Deprivation of Liberty Standards (DoLS).

·         Points were raised about prevention of mental health crises, and how services ensure they do all they can to prevent low level mental health issues from spiralling. Members noted that those in crisis may be able to attend a few free counselling sessions but would then be referred to another service which needed to be paid for. Those who would most benefit from such a service often cannot afford to pay.

·          Members wanted the review to recognise the role of prisons in the use of the Mental Health Act and the fact that the criminal justice system, police, fire and ambulance services were all important partners. In terms of prisons, members noted that existing mental health service provision in prisons is disjointed and that if someone needed to be detained in the community, it would happen within hours but it can take up to two weeks in prisons.

·         Young people’s use of social media was discussed and members felt it was vital to consider the effects it could have on mental health.

·         The transition between children’s and adults’ services needed to be considered and members felt the review needed to be linked with CAMHS.

·         Housing providers play a key role in supporting people with mental health difficulties in the community. Members felt that the local housing allowance cap on rent cutting off after two years did not work for those with severe mental health needs.

·         Caring for people with personality disorders in the community was a concern for councils. Members wanted to know if the review would address personality disorders. Questions were also asked about whether the review would think about how the Mental Health Act worked for those with autism and learning disabilities.

Decision

The Board noted the presentation.

Action

Officers to send a list of members’ comments to the review team.