A-Z of mental health
Information and advice on a huge range of mental health topics
We've only just begun
Posted Monday 18 October 2010
The party conference season is now over, ending three weeks of intense discussions and debates. The third conference is traditionally the Conservatives. As one of the parties of power, it was the biggest of the three, and the big message over all the conference was "together in the national interest". We met ministers and MPs who were interested in mental health and understood our concerns.
Across the three conferences, there have been two major themes for us -the forthcoming changes to the NHS, and the changes to welfare reform. In both cases, it became clear that there are many ideas and proposals being discussed, but still a lack of clarity about what will actually happen in the end. Much of it rests on the results of the spending review this week.
In health reforms, the discussion is all about the GP commissioning ideas, more competition within the NHS, and then (and only then) the "patient experience". It feels to me that there's a real opportunity to create a better service which is more responsive and joins up physical and mental health care, but with all the focus on structural reforms, we must ensure that the quality of services 'on the ground' is not overlooked. We took the opportunity to reiterate the need for further access to talking therapies as our report highlighted the level of unmet need which still exists.
In welfare, we had an useful meeting with Chris Grayling, the Minister of State with responsibility for many of the welfare changes, where I shared with him many of the fears our supporters have expressed on this blog. He was clear that he appreciates the concerns of people on Incapacity Benefit, and stressed that the political rhetoric is not aimed at those who cannot work due to their ill health.
He told us that he recognises the limitations of the Work Capability Assessment and wants to get it right, and will give serious attention to the results of the Independent review and the pilots. Much of what he said was reiterated in his interview on Radio 4 last Monday as the pilots were launched. Mind was one of several organisations who spoke out about our concerns, and we made our points very plainly both publicly and privately. Many thanks to all those who contributed to our evidence for the Independent Review and shared their thoughts in other ways. As many of you will know, I sit on the Scrutiny Panel for that review, and will be using my position to ensure that your concerns are heard by government.
This week, as the dust has settled, the real impact of the proposed cuts is becoming visible – changing eligibility criteria so that services are open to fewer people, cutting services because they don't fit anymore. We'd like to hear your examples of "knee jerk cuts". Of course services need to change, and work more effectively together, and it certainly appears that mental health is not being singled out – in fact in some places it's being seen as a key priority – but I worry about the impact of these cuts on the lives of many vulnerable people.
Party conferences may be over, but our work with the new Government has only just begun.
Paul Farmer, Mind's Chief Executive
4 Comments
-
Many thanks for putting our fears to all parties and especially the Ministers. It's a very complicated and difficult situation and hard for people on large salaries living in the Westminster bubble to understand what it is like to have a difficult illness to deal with and to have no financial security.
I'm glad that they have finally begun to realise how demonising welfare claimants has frightened people with disability. They are beginning at last to say that people who cannot work through illness need not worry. And then in the next breath they threaten DLA and housing benefit.
But it is still misleading and simplistic to think you can test people and divide them in to two neat categories - those who can't work and those who can. Stephen Hawkins and Terry Pratchitt still work despite their conditions. Most people want to keep the hope and aspiration of possibly being able to do some work. But not at the cost of being sanctioned and threatened and pressurised in to more and more hours.
Somehow we have to explain to them that for people with severe disability - they need a safe intermediate situation - free from sanctions and with lots of help back to work especially lots of options to stick at the therapeutic level of six to eight hours of work a week which has proved so beneficial for so many people in the past - and no fear of sanctions being used to ratchett this up to more and more hours to meet targets of getting people off benefits.
People don't want to be written off but they don't want to be pressurised. People don't fall in to these two neat categories and so no test can get this right. ESA needs to be reconfigured to meet the needs of people with severe and enduring illness to give them a safe and productive place to work forward from that is free of conditionality.
Thanks again Paul, and please keep talking to them for us.
-
Well said Frances.
The UK has one of the lowest employment and education rates for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in Europe. It's something like 5% compared to 25% in other countries. It also has one of the highest standardised mortality ratios for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in Europe: 5 times as hgh as Finland. That may in part be caused by doctors giving people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia 25% fewer essential heart operations (and poorer quality healthcare to all people with mental health problems). There is much to change in society. Keep up the good work.
-
I wrote to my MP John Leech outlining my concerns about the persecution of the sick and disabled
I am not convinced that those like me with mental illness(Depression) will be safe guarded
I feel strongly that we are made to feel worthless and that it is our fault that the country is in the mess it is in due to greedy bankers
I sincerely hope that Mind will continue to put pressure on the Government and ensure the so called Capability For Work Assessment takes into account those suffering Mental Health problems -
Well what an informative response from Chris Grayling! How many of us knew exactly what he was going to say? Pretty bland, standard stuff and no real understanding of the effect all this is having on us. Then again, how could he possibly say anything else and still appear credible (and keep his job)? Platitudes come easy for politicians. Nothing he said has made me feel any better about what they are doing and I'm not convinced that he or any member of the coalition have any intention to act to stop or change it at all.
If he truly believes that "the political rhetoric is not aimed at those who cannot work due to their ill health", why did he not say so publicly earlier and suggest to his colleagues that the language was/is totally inappropriate?
He "recognises the limitations of the Work Capability Assessment and wants to get it right, and will give serious attention to the results of the Independent review and the pilots". Will he then ensure that those involved in the pilot schemes who are wrongly assessed as "fit for work", are returned to their previous status, with benefits reinstated, and that they are left alone for at least 12 months before being assessed again? If he really wanted to get it right, he would have listened to the criticisms and concerns expressed about the unsuitability of the WCA and not subjected vulnerable people to it - even in a "pilot" scheme.
Commenting is now closed.