Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

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

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, the nod has come that we are resuming the Second Reading debate on the Bill before the House. Tea might be the preferred choice of those who are not remaining.

I start by joining other noble Lords in complimenting and congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her most distinguished and illuminating maiden speech. Plainly, she is going to be a great strength in the House.

I spoke in the debate just over three years ago on the Select Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny report on the 2005 Act. I focused principally on the perhaps somewhat surprising decision of the Supreme Court in the Cheshire West case, a decision by a narrow four-to-three majority vote, which came out six days after the Select Committee’s report. It was a decision which gave huge relevance to the issues arising and highlighted an urgent need to legislate afresh.

The critical concept then under question was what amounted to deprivation of liberty. The central question raised was what was required to authorise it. Put simply, Cheshire West hugely increased the number of cases in which people were to be regarded in law as deprived of their liberty, and it left in place the need for two distinct categories of authorisation. One was for people detained in hospitals and care homes who continued, and continue still, to require authorisation under the Schedule A1 procedures known as DoLS, deprivation of liberty safeguards. The other is for those, like the two particular patients under direct consideration in the Cheshire West case itself, detained in community settings whose placements presently require authorisation by the Court of Protection under a Section 16(2)(a) order.

By the time of the March 2015 debate here, the Government had already asked the Law Commission to look into all this. As eventually the Law Commission came to note in its March 2017 report, there were more than 14 times as many applications for DoLS in the year 2015-16 than in the year before Cheshire West two years earlier, 2013-14. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights records in its recent June 2018 report, 70% of the almost 220,000 such applications in the past year were not authorised within the statutory timeframe and, I quote from the report’s summary:

“Consequently, many incapacitated people continue to be deprived of their liberty unlawfully and those responsible for their care, or for obtaining authorisations, are having to work out how best to break the law”.


Indeed, paragraph 32 of the report says that,

“hundreds of thousands of people are being unlawfully detained”.

Your Lordships will of course agree that that is no light matter. There is therefore real urgency in processing the amending legislation before us.

In that context, I touch next on one particular recommendation made by the Joint Committee in paragraph 45 of its report, which has already been alluded to by a number of your Lordships, the recommendation that Parliament should set out a statutory definition of deprivation of liberty that clarifies the Cheshire West test 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”.

For my part, while certainly not disagreeing with that recommendation, and while recognising that the majority of the court in Cheshire West may well be regarded as having inappropriately and needlessly—by which I mean going substantially further than required by the Strasbourg jurisprudence on Article 5—gone too wide in their categorisation of deprivation of liberty, I would be disinclined to burden and complicate this current proposed amending legislation still further by including within it a statutory definition. Better, I would suggest, to cure the all too obvious existing problems of authorisations as speedily as possible.

As to that, I broadly support the approach in the Bill, which essentially comes to this: first, a proposed replacement Schedule AA1 to authorise deprivation of liberty by new, proportionate and less bureaucratic means; and, secondly, extending the safeguards into domestic settings—in other words, to apply to all those deprived of their liberty irrespective of where they reside, thus including those who were the specific subject of consideration in the Cheshire West case and therefore relieving some of the pressure on the Court of Protection.

I am in no position today to comment helpfully on the various detailed criticisms of the Bill made by several of your Lordships in the debate, nor even to deal with the availability or otherwise of legal aid to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred. That will be for Committee.

The last matter I want to touch on, although I do not think it could or should directly affect the form in which the Bill should reach the statute book, is what has been called the Mental Health Act interface. In its hugely impressive, very long, 259-page report of March 2017, the Law Commission, in chapter 13, under this heading, pointed out that,

“the non-consensual care and treatment of people with mental health problems is governed largely by two parallel legal schemes – the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act”,

the former providing for detention based on protection of the patient and the public, irrespective of mental capacity, whereas the Mental Capacity Act applies only to those who lack capacity, and provides for deprivation of liberty based on the person’s best interests. But, as it goes on to say,

“there is considerable overlap between the two regimes, and the relationship can be extremely complex”.

Chapter 13 concludes with Recommendation 39:

“The UK Government and the Welsh Government should review mental health law in England and in Wales with a view to the introduction of a single legislative scheme governing non-consensual care or treatment of both physical and mental disorders, whereby such care or treatment may only be given if the person lacks the capacity to consent”.


Following that report, in October 2017 the Government commissioned an independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983, an Act which I ought perhaps to confess was enacted principally and specifically to deal with an ECHR challenge which, as counsel for the Government, I had lost in Strasbourg the previous year.

As your Lordships know, the present review is being conducted by the most distinguished group. It is chaired by Professor Sir Simon Wessely, and its vice-chairs include our own noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and a much admired, now retired High Court Family Division judge, Sir Mark Hedley. Its terms of reference include recommending improvements in relation to rising detention rates.

In its interim report of 1 May this year, the independent review discusses the interface with the Mental Capacity Act. At paragraph 7.3 of the review, it states:

“We agree and support the urgent reform of DoLS to make sure service users receive the most appropriate care for their needs”,


also pointing out that,

“there needs to be an appropriate calibration between resources spent on delivery of care and those spent on safeguards surrounding the delivery of that care”.

The review, having noted the Government’s broad acceptance of the Law Commission’s conclusions, continues:

“The government has also indicated that it awaits our recommendations on the interface issues”,


and observes:

“It is likely that, if only for practical reasons, we will be unlikely to be recommending ‘fusion’ between the MCA and MHA in the short term, but will be considering this as a longer-term option”.


Finally, to return to the Joint Committee report of 29 June, the interface between the two legislative regimes is thoughtfully discussed in paragraphs 70 to 74, and recommendations are made in paragraph 74. The Mental Health Act review will clearly want to note those recommendations and the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee. Clearly, the resolution of the critical interface between the two legislative schemes is a work in progress, and we are likely to have to return to the Mental Capacity Act yet again in probably well over a year’s time.

In the meantime, I would strongly support the amending legislation now before us, although I recognise that it will need to be considered carefully in Committee. I repeat: this Bill is urgently required now to end the lawlessness consequent on Cheshire West.