Lasting peace requires the establishment of justice, the formation of an independent Palestinian state, and respect for the national sovereignty of the Palestinian people, writes NAVID SHOMALI
Latest editorial
Inside the Mental Health Bill
PROFESSOR ANSELM ELDERGILL explains why this new piece of government legislation is giving cause for concern
The West’s dangerous pesticide dumping in Africa is threatening biodiversity, population health and food sovereignty, argues ROGER McKENZIE
There is no substitute for hard work and on-the-ground organising when it comes to defeating the hard right, argues JOAO FELIX
EDDIE DEMPSEY explains why the RMT is calling for urgent action against assaults on staff and passengers on our public transport system
KELLIE O’DOWD reports on an event to highlight the GMB sisterhood
The Scottish labour movement’s rejection of the Supreme Court ruling on sex-based rights jeopardises not only the credibility of the unions but also poses legal risks and opens the door to far-right reaction, warns JANE McLENACHAN
THE government’s Mental Health Bill is currently before Parliament. It amends the Mental Health Act 1983, which is the Act of Parliament under which people are “sectioned.”
The Bill is the culmination of a process which the then prime minister Theresa May begun in 2017 when she commissioned an independent review of the 1983 Act by a panel under Professor Simon Wessely. I chaired the Patient Safeguards and Mental Health Tribunals Working Group which formed part of that review.
The Bill is disappointingly limited in scope and ambition. The current system is 66 years old, as old as the Lunacy Act 1890 was when it was replaced by the present framework in the 1950s. We needed a new Act. Eight years on, we have an amending Bill that preserves the framework and much of the old legislation.
Similar stories
ANSELM ELDERGILL examines the government’s proposals to further limit the right of citizens to trial by jury
PROFESSOR ANSELM ELDERGILL suggests ways in which the government can boost legal aid and support
Removing unnecessary bureaucracy and other avoidable costs could save up to a quarter-billion, giving us painless solutions to protect legal aid, writes PROFESSOR ANSELM ELDERGILL
ANSELM ELDERGILL details the problems associated with the Assisted Dying Bill which has its second reading on Friday