This letter is part of a major campaign by Liberation to contest the discriminatory Mental Health Bill which is progressing through parliament and to get change before the Bill becomes law. It will be going to key parliamentary figures.
Liberation is having an uphill struggle to get the government to listen and would hugely value support from other groups. If you agree with Liberation’s letter, and are able to provide an organisational signature for it, please urgently contact Dorothy (details below) to let her have your and your organisation’s name. If you are in contact with other groups, Liberation would also very much appreciate you encouraging them to co-sign the letter. Unless Liberation’s campaign succeeds, the Bill is likely to become law before parliament breaks for the summer.
Dear MPs/ministers
This email is a further strong appeal from Liberation against serious shortcomings in the Mental Health (MH) Bill 2025. As a grass roots organisation led by people in England with lived experience of the mental health system, we regard it as crucial for there to be fundamental changes still.
We are calling for a fundamental rethink of the Bill’s approach to risk
Despite serious concerns already raised by Liberation, the Bill remains rooted in the belief that, although involuntary detention in psychiatric hospitals and forced treatment need to be reduced, there should be a continuing use of them, to prevent us being a risk to others, or ourselves.
However, as the World Health Organisation and UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have stated (Box 2, pp. 15-16):
- There is inadequate research evidence that involuntary detention and forced treatment are effective in preventing risk. It is, therefore, very concerning that the Bill has a sustained emphasis on these measures instead of putting its focus on proven approaches
- In addition, there is extensive evidence that, rather than protecting people who may be at risk of harming themselves, involuntary detention and forced treatment are themselves a source of trauma and associated with high deaths levels. In the UK, this is all too apparent in areas such as Essex, Greater Manchester and Norfolk and Suffolk (hyperlinks)
- There is considerable evidence that people with mental health diagnoses are more likely to be victims of violence than to be violent
- Where there are genuine risks, not only can the growing body of non-coercive approaches be used instead, but these approaches have been shown to lead to better outcomes.
Because of this, we are strongly urging the government to replace its current emphasis on maintaining detention and forced treatment with evidence-based, therapeutic approaches which are genuinely effective and genuinely healing. In this regard, the UK has much to learn from other countries. (See below.)
We are calling for people with mental health diagnoses to have equal legal rights
The MH Bill continues to give people with mental health diagnoses – and people with learning difficulties/autism – fewer legal rights than other patients. As a result, the Bill is designed only to give us ‘greater’ choices and autonomy, not the same choices and autonomy that other patients have.
Yet:
- There is not an adequate justification for this on the basis of risk (see above)
- The assumption that these reduced rights are necessary because we can lack ‘mental capacity’ is also ill-founded. When adequate support is in place, for example the Personal Ombudsman Project in Sweden, it is fully possible for us to make judgements even at times of major crisis. The actual issue is that the UK lacks adequate supported decision-making systems.
Therefore, we are strongly urging the government to make sure that we have and can exercise the same legal rights as others, in other words to respect our right to legal capacity instead of treating us as 2nd class citizens.
We are calling for legislation which, in contrast to the MH Bill, is genuinely fit for the 21st century
The Bill has been described as initiating changes that will make mental health legislation ‘fit’ for this century.
However, in reality, it falls seriously short of doing so:
- It maintains the use of involuntary detention in psychiatric hospitals and forced treatment, including community treatment orders
- It lacks an adequate focus on the wide-ranging community resources which will be crucial if people with mental health diagnoses are instead to live independently in their local communities, as integrated members of these. Still more lacking is an emphasis on and support for the grassroots, user-led initiatives that are vital both for crisis support and for community inclusion
- The government has described the Bill as ‘compatible’ with the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People (UNCRPD). However, in reality it falls seriously short of genuinely progressive moves towards the Convention that a number of other countries have made (hyperlink).
For all these reasons, we are urging the government to recognise the Bill’s serious shortcomings and to replace it with legislation that is genuinely fit for the 21st century and so genuinely compliant with the UNCRPD.
We are calling for a meaningful influence over the Bill
The government has itself described ‘the insight and input of stakeholders’ as ‘crucial’ to the Bill.
Yet:
- That has not been the experience of those of us with mental health diagnoses who are campaigning for full human rights under the UNCRPD, still less so for those among us who experience more than one form of discrimination, related for example to gender, or gender identity, ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, physical or sensory impairments and/or LGBQI+ identity
- In further contravention of the UNCRPD, we have received either no responses to the issues raised above, dismissive responses or responses that do not accurately reflect concerns raised.
We are, therefore, urging the government to take a radically different approach and to ensure that we are meaningfully involved in decisions made about the Bill.
Our appeal to you is take our concerns seriously and, in partnership with (name ministers/shadow ministers etc) and with us to ensure legislation that is genuinely based on your responsibilities and our rights under the UNCRPD. (Exact wording here will be varied slightly according to the particular recipient’s role.)
Yours sincerely
Name plus name of organisation/affiliation