Dear Mr Young

 

Implementation of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

 

The Royal College of Psychiatrists welcomes the introduction of new powers to strengthen and supplement the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976.

 

We welcome the inclusion of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the list of public bodies proposed for addition to Schedule 1A (the general duty on public bodies to promote race equality), sponsored by the Department of Health. We also welcome specific reference to compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act 1983.

 

We suggest that consideration should be given to including other Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Schedule 1A.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists has in fact recently initiated a major systematic review of its structures with a view to introducing measures to eliminate any discriminatory practices which may be identified. This review is being undertaken by an independent external monitoring agency, the Ethnic & Health Unit, University of Central Lancashire.

 

This is one initiative being undertaken as a result of a review of ethnic issues in relation to psychiatric training and practice. A copy of the report of this review, which has recently been endorsed by the College’s Council, is attached. This includes an explicit statement that discriminatory practices by members of the College will not be tolerated, and that members must be aware of the possibility of discrimination or abuse when applying mental health legislation to black and ethnic minorities. The report also recommends that psychiatrists receive appropriate training in cultural competence and sensitivity, and that efforts should be made to ensure equal access to services for all black and ethnic minority communities.

 

A Special Ethnic Issues Committee is being established within the College to oversee these developments. This will also be responsible for the preparation of a comprehensive equality strategy, the regular monitoring of examination results, election results, and nomination of members for Distinction Awards. This Committee will also take on responsibility for examining the various ‘functions of a public nature’ in accordance with the new Act.

 

We recommend that mental health trusts are specifically included in the new legislation, with the Chief Executive being held accountable in order to ensure transparency. We would also suggest the inclusion of independent providers of mental health services.

 

The monitoring process within mental health services must demonstrate that discrimination is excluded. The distinction between practice and policy also needs clarification. This has hitherto been a shortfall, and needs to be addressed.

 

Finally, we note that there are some exemptions from the Act, which include immigration and asylum decisions. These exemptions are thought to be based on the grounds of nationality and/or ethnic origin, and cannot, therefore, be considered discriminatory in the same way that discrimination occurs in public practice. However, this is a problematic area in which there is a potential for conflict of interest. We would suggest that this work could be undertaken by Home Office employed psychiatrists. They could assess and manage asylum seekers who are not given leave to stay or granted refugee status. This could address the difficulty which already exists in this area.

 

Yours sincerely

Professor John Cox
President