Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Tyler of Enfield Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be speaking in this debate, conscious that I am a novice in this area of mental health legislation but very grateful that there are so many other noble Lords across the House with deep expertise in it. To start on a positive note, I welcome the intent behind the Bill and believe that it goes some way towards ensuring that the current high levels of bureaucracy, workforce hours and cost that have been a part of mental capacity assessments since the Supreme Court ruling in the Cheshire West case are offset by a more balanced ability to plan and deliver timely care while still safeguarding patients.

However, I have real concerns about its timing and its interaction with the Mental Health Act, and because it is silent on some of the key recommendations of the Law Commission report. I hope that at the end of this debate, the Minister will provide some explanation for the variance with the Law Commission proposals and the unexpected timing of the Bill, which seems to have taken many by surprise.

A quick glance at the statistics reveals the scale of the problem. Last year, more than 200,000 DoLS applications were made—a number certain to rise. The average time taken to complete the assessments was 120 days, with a backlog of more than 120,000 cases. The Law Commission has estimated that the annual cost of all this might end up being close to £2 billion, so there is clearly a major problem here that needs fixing.

The proposals in the Bill, essentially allowing NHS staff rather than the Court of Protection to oversee when and where to deprive people of their liberty, on the face of it seem to strike a better balance between care planning and the provision of what has too often been a box-ticking procedural safeguards process. The Bill comes at the same time as the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights only last week that a new legal definition of deprivation of liberty should be debated and defined, which could,

“produce greater clarity and would extend safeguards only to those who truly need them, whilst respecting the right to personal autonomy of those who are clearly content with their situation, even if they are not capable of verbalising such consent”.

All the briefings I have received from those working in the sector make it clear that the lack of such a new legal definition is a serious omission and risks jeopardising this legislation’s chance of successful implementation. That all adds up to my overall feeling about this Bill: that we risk acting with indecent haste before all the relevant pieces of the jigsaw are in place to allow a coherent and joined-up new system to be put in place—and I know that that new system is much needed. I note that Sir Simon Wessely, chair of the Mental Health Act review, said as much in a recent blog, drawing attention to the fact that at the moment some people lacking the capacity to consent to their admission for care and treatment will fall under the Mental Capacity Act and the proposed new liberty protection safeguards, and some will be detained under the Mental Health Act. But—and it is a big but—the boundaries between the two are not clear. My main concern about the Bill is that, in rushing ahead to fix the clear deficiencies of the DoLS procedures, we are creating further complexity in an area already beset with confusion and complexity. My view, like that of some other noble Lords today, is that it would have been far preferable to have a single, fully integrated Act covering both mental illness and mental capacity.

The interaction with the Mental Health Act is at the very least a messy one. There is a real tension between wanting to tackle problems with the current mental capacity law straightaway—I fully understand that—and the need to properly link it with plans to improve the Mental Health Act. I know that the JCHR has called on the Government to move quickly on reforming the Mental Capacity Act, but this should not prevent close consideration of the two pieces of legislation and how they relate to each other. In response to the Law Commission’s proposals, I noted that the Government stated that they would await the Mental Health Act review’s recommendations on interface issues, including how reformed DoLS would interact with the Act. I find that quite a confusing statement. Could the Minister say whether and how the Government plan to fulfil that undertaking?

I am also concerned, as are others, that the focus of the Bill is on deprivation of liberty alone, rather than the wider amendments to the Mental Capacity Act proposed by the Law Commission. In particular, the important recommendation to put particular weight on a patient’s wishes in any Mental Capacity Act best interests decision-making process is absent, as are any additional provisions about advanced consent. As I have said, I really feel—others have said it far more eloquently than me—that this is a missed opportunity to treat vulnerable people with the dignity and respect that they deserve in what we all agree is a very difficult situation.

I turn to the issue of including 16 and 17 year-olds in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, as originally proposed by the Law Commission. The main reasons for this are twofold. First, using parental responsibility to authorise Article 5 deprivation denies 16 and 17 year-olds the uniform statutory protections available to people aged 18 and older. Secondly, including 16 and 17 year-olds would create greater certainty and standardised practices for this age group than currently exist. It is all a bit technical but, as I understand it, presently Article 5 deprivation can be authorised by four different mechanisms: parental responsibility, a court order, a police protection order under the Children Act, or the Mental Health Act.

Front-line clinicians I have spoken to are often unsure which option to pursue. This can cause delays of a number of weeks while professionals argue with each other about the most appropriate option. In the meantime, the 16 to 17 year-old is in a legal limbo, often stuck in a paediatric ward or A&E while these debates take place. The situation gets even more confusing if two people with parental responsibility disagree or if the local authority shares parental responsibility—for example, for children on a care order. This is an opportunity to make the situation for 16 to 17 year-olds much better, and we should take it.

The Law Commission’s proposals also included the very interesting idea that we follow the lead of many countries and include in the Mental Capacity Act a framework allowing people to make formal support agreements. This would hugely benefit family members of the person under the liberty protection safeguards and value their input to the process. However, the wording in the Bill is unhelpfully convoluted, and will make it more difficult for staff, patients and their families to understand.

As the Bill stands, there is a heavy burden on care home managers to manage the applications. An individual would be reliant on the motivation, knowledge and skill of the care home manager to identify deprivation of liberty and to take appropriate safeguarding steps. Managers’ level of knowledge and experience will inevitably vary enormously, resulting in an individual’s human rights potentially being neglected if a manager simply does not recognise what constitutes a deprivation of liberty and takes appropriate action. As other noble Lords have said, a major training programme would be needed, as well as significant resources for implementation.

My final point relates to the phrase “unsound mind”, which I understand is still used because of the reference to the European Court of Human Rights. This is dated terminology which is offensive and stigmatising and has no clinical value. Imagine if you learned that this was an outcome of an assessment of your parent, partner or sibling. I stress again the importance of keeping the patient at the centre of our legislation, not the conventions or convenience of lawyers. Will the Government commit to removing the reference to “unsound mind” from the Bill?

In conclusion, I return to my concern about timing and the outcome of the review of the Mental Health Act, given that both Acts relate to the non-consensual care and medical treatment of people. The overlap between the two systems is one of the reasons that the current system is so complicated, and changes to address problems under one system will inevitably have unintended knock-on consequences for the other. What is needed is simplification and streamlining, rather than incremental, piecemeal reform. There is much to do to improve the Bill; I hope that the Government will be open minded and in listening mode.