Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting - (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

I would like to add a few more points on training. An awful lot of people in an awful lot of new roles will require training to get whatever system that we are going to end up with up and running at pace. Which organisation will be responsible for setting up the programmes for ensuring the delivery of good-quality training? Who has the responsibility to ensure that nothing is implemented until all the appropriate professionals have received their training? There is nothing worse than determining a date to fire the gun if you discover that all the people who are going to run the system are not yet trained. Can the Minister confirm that all this will start with plenty of time before the rollout of this new system? We expect that training should be effective and ongoing. Who will assess the trainers? What is the process for ensuring quality and a national standard? We may well be able to twist something that currently exists and make it work, but I do not have that knowledge. Can he also confirm that, as part of this training, the rights of the individual will be reinforced? Will the training clarify the role that each of these professionals within this new system is going to have in ensuring that an individual’s rights are observed and respected?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to follow up the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, by referring to the recent CQC annual report, which had a section on the implementation and practice in relation to DoLS. The report laid out a number of key concerns about care home and hospital providers that are actually using DoLS at the moment in relation to the Act itself. There is a huge variation in practice and this variation is commonly linked with a basic lack of understanding of the law, which is complex and difficult to understand. The report says that the result is that there are unnecessarily restrictive practices that can result in the loss of freedom and, in some cases, the loss of people’s human rights. The problems are reinforced by limited staffing levels, a lack of time to complete applications and inadequate staff training.

I am aware, of course, that the intention of this Bill is to streamline some of those procedures, although I think that, because the safeguards have been drastically reduced, we might be landing ourselves in future problems once the courts begin to hear some of the cases that will arise. The point is that it is quite clear that, at the moment, effective training is not taking place among many of the organisations involved in the operation of DoLS. The risk is that the same will happen in relation to the new legislation. We need some guarantees that there are going to be resources and a concerted training programme to ensure that we mitigate that impact.

[Baroness Thornton]

I will add to the questions that have already been asked of the Minister: who is going to pay for this? Training is very expensive and I was waiting for the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, to ask that question but she did not, so I am asking it. As I recall from the impact assessment, I am not sure that there is a large sum of money in there for the amount of training that might be necessary to ensure that this Bill is properly enacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to all the noble Baronesses for their amendments and for speaking in the debate on this group. Let me begin with a statement of principle. I accept the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we need to move from principles to practicalities, or in our case to the appropriate legislation. There is genuinely no attempt in the Bill to restrict people’s access to independent advocacy. As has been clearly voiced, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere, there is a concern that that will be the effect of what is proposed, and that is something that we need to deal with. But let me say at the beginning that that is not the intention. It must be the case that anybody who needs support to navigate these difficult and complex situations must be able to find the right support for them. I will explain why the Bill is as it is in a moment, but let me at least give that statement of principle at the beginning.

I will deal now with the specific amendments in this group. Amendments 63 and 64 aim to ensure that the Bill is robust on the appointment of the IMCA. I completely agree that it is vital that the care home manager notifies the responsible body that an IMCA should be appointed. That is required by the Bill. However, I know that there is great concern about the impartiality of this person and a requirement for strengthening in this regard. It is also our position that a responsible body will be able to appoint an IMCA if there is a request by, for example, a family member or the person themselves, or if there is a disagreement with the notification given by a care home manager. I am considering how we can make the Bill clearer in that regard. As we home in on the issue of the incentives for the care home manager to follow best practice, as we would want, I am aware that we need to do more work on this to get it right.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that is a very helpful comment but will the Minister pick up the point that part of the problem is that the care manager is not only the co-ordinator but often the gatekeeper to the protections that noble Lords wish to see included? Take, for instance, the definition of “relevant person”. It seems to me, looking at this afresh, that far too much authority is being given to the care home manager in relation not just to co-ordination but to the protections.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. The debate we had last week was very much around the proper role for the care “home” manager—I take on board the rejoinder from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the specificity of terms. I do not want to rehash that debate, save to say that the care home manager model is the right one going forward, while recognising, as I did last week—here I agree with the noble Lord’s point—that there are a lot of concerns about conflicts of interest, training, the degree of responsibility and other things.

In this case, we are talking about notification of the appointment of an IMCA, where there is real concern that there is an element of marking your own homework. That is not what we are trying to achieve: we are trying to achieve the consideration of deprivation of liberty at the earliest possible point in care planning by somebody who is responsible for organising—although in lots of cases not personally delivering—that care. We are trying to deliver a more proportionate system than the one that we know is currently failing. As I committed to in last week’s Committee debate, I want to get that right. If we cannot get it right, the risk is that we end up replicating the system that we have now, which would be in nobody’s interests. I hope that, by restating that, I have satisfied the noble Lord.

Amendments 68, 71 and 72 relate to the criteria for appointing IMCAs. The Bill currently states that an IMCA should be appointed if a person has capacity to consent to being represented and supported by an IMCA and makes a request to the relevant person, and there is no appropriate person available. It also states that a cared-for person should be supported by an IMCA if the person lacks capacity to consent and being represented by an IMCA is in their best interests and there is no appropriate person in place.

I recognise the concern expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Thornton, about the term “best interests”. Let me state again the intention that, in the vast majority of circumstances, we expect it would be in a cared-for person’s interests to receive representation and support from an IMCA or appropriate person. However, there may be a small number of circumstances where that is not the case. For example, if a person is adamant that they do not want this sort of representation, and has refused advocacy support in the past, it would not be right to impose such an advocate on them. If we remove the best interests consideration, we risk a situation where responsible bodies can override the past and present wishes of the person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 78, but I should like to say a word in support for the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name. These amendments concern the arrangements for the appointment of independent mental capacity advocates and they sensibly seek to ensure that an IMCA must be appointed if the appropriate person would have substantial difficulty helping the cared-for person to understand their rights, involving them in decisions and assisting them to exercise rights of challenge if they wish to do so without the support of an IMCA. I want to make it clear that relevant rights include the right to make an application to the court and the right to request a review of the arrangements. The responsible body must ensure that cases are referred to the court when a cared-for person’s right to a court review is engaged.

The concern is that at the moment, referral to advocacy is controlled by the relevant person, who is the responsible body or the care home manager. An advocate must be appointed if the person has capacity and requests an advocate, which is likely to be very rare, or the person lacks capacity and the relevant person is satisfied that being represented and supported by an IMCA would be in the person’s best interests. The problem, which we have now debated a number of times, is that the right to advocacy seems to be more limited than under DoLS, and it is at the discretion of the relevant person not to refer if it is not considered to be in the best interests. As has been commented on, there are only three references to best interests in the entire Bill, and two are used at the discretion of the care home manager or the responsible body to actually limit the right to an IMCA. We have to build in some more safeguards, including referral to the Court of Protection. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which looked at the original Law Commission work, said that the responsible body should be under a clear statutory duty to refer cases where others fail to do so.

I was interested to receive over the weekend an email from the carers for HL in HL v UK ECHR 2004, otherwise known as the Bournewood case. They have always been critical when they observe bad practice and the failure to uphold a person’s rights. They say that reading the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill and following its passage through the parliamentary process so far has been depressing and leaves them feeling extremely frustrated and angry that the work they started in 1997 and the protections for the person that came about from that work are now being thrown away by this Bill. The lack of any of the protections they argued for individually and collectively, which at least had a fair hearing when they gave oral evidence to the JCHR and, they believe, were mostly reflected in its recent paper, appear to have been completely ignored, as has most of what the JCHR had to say. They say that anything less than the JCHR recommendations, along with nearly all of the proposals from the Law Commission, would be a reduction in the value of a person’s individual rights and against the concept of the MCA and even of the existing DoLS.

Interestingly, their acid test is this: if HL against Bournewood happened today under these proposals, would he be any better protected than in 1997 or under DoLS? They say that given the attitude of the professional employed by the hospital managing authority at the time, the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill places more control in the hands of those very professionals and shows less consideration of HL and those who were trying to get him out. In its current form, it is a monumental failure. I know that the Minister thinks that this is an exaggeration, but coming from the carers of HL, it suggests that there are real and genuine concerns about where the Government are going. My fear, as I said last week, is that essentially we are seeing a streamlining of the bureaucratic process and many of the safeguards are being reduced. That is why access to the Court of Protection is so important.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I have tabled one amendment in this group, Amendment 75. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments we had on the previous group but I want to put one question to the Minister. Why in paragraphs 36 and 37 do we suddenly see the term “relevant person” being introduced? It is quite confusing and I shall need to go back and look at Hansard. I do not want to make a wrong accusation, but I think there is confusion about the terms “relevant person” and “appropriate person”, when in fact they are two completely different things. My understanding is that a “relevant person” is either the responsible body or a care home manager, so why do we not talk about that? If that is what is meant, let us be up-front about it.

Amendment 75 asks why the appropriate person as we know them under the Mental Capacity Act has to have capacity to consent to being supported by an IMCA if the purpose is not just to put another hurdle in the way to make sure that these people—let us bear in mind that they do not have a right to be given information under this Bill—have to make a request of the care manager or the care home manager. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is right to say that the Minister has talked about care home managers and care managers; they are different, but all of them have a potential vested interest in making sure that someone does not have access to an IMCA. That, I think, would be a gross dereliction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 87, 93 and 94 and address the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. Amendments 93 and 94 are simply enabling provisions.

Amendments 86 and 87 would require that, before the implementation date of this legislation, the Secretary of State should lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of the updated code of practice giving guidance as well as a response to the review of the Mental Health Act that Sir Simon Wessely is carrying out. We have been half guessing in our discussions what might or might not be in it.

The Bill is not particularly easy to read and it is certainly not a guide for practice, and the ensuing Act will not be easy to read either—unlike the Care Act. The code of practice is absolutely critical to take professionals through what the legislation will entail and what they will have to implement in their practice. To that end, I have a little list. I wonder whether the Minister can indicate or confirm whether these issues will be covered in the code: the basis for detention and when the “necessary and proportionate” test applies; the role of IMCAs and appropriate persons; the professional qualifications and training of those undertaking pre-authorisation reviews; when an AMCP referral should be made; and obligations to provide information to the person and their family about the authorisation. The Minister may not have the answers on his person or from the Dispatch Box right now, but perhaps he could write to me and make that clear.

To make this happen, we would need subsection (2)(a) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 86 and a year’s wait. Many noble Lords have spoken both on and off and in Committee about the Mental Health Act. In our previous debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to the work of Sir Simon in reviewing that Act along with the Act we are trying to amend now. Between them, the two Acts define, among other things, the care and rights of the most vulnerable—those with mental health conditions and those lacking capacity—who are unable to make decisions about their care. Sometimes, but not always, there may be an overlap. It would not be prudent for the Bill to end its passage through Parliament without us learning the findings of the Wessely review and determining whether it is necessary to amend the Bill further—hence the need for subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 86. Earlier today, the Minister spoke about pushing ahead. I understand the need for urgency, but I fear that if we pass the Bill in haste, we may end up repenting or regretting at leisure. That is just me being slightly cautious.

Amendment 87 calls for the Secretary of State to,

“lay a copy of the report before both Houses”.

He or she—who knows who it will be by then—is being asked to look at how the Act is working and whether they are confident that there is an improvement in the process surrounding the deprivation of liberty. We have all discussed this issue; the Minister will have detected the Committee’s concern about this area of the Bill. Basically, I am calling for the Secretary of State to report back on the impact of the Act and ensure that the code is well and truly in place before we start to use the Act in earnest.

I added my name in support of my noble friend Lady Tyler’s amendment, which seeks to ensure that regulations are scrutinised and debated in both Houses. It would also ensure that consultation takes place outside Parliament, which is critical. It is fine for us to debate these issues here—clearly, some people have more experience and understanding than others—but I get many letters from not just individuals who are, or would be, affected by the Bill but the sector, saying, “Keep the Government’s feet to the fire. Make sure we get the very best Bill we can”. I do not doubt at all the Minister’s intention to achieve that end, but the devil is in the detail and there is a lot of it. We must make sure that we get this right through primary legislation. As I said, there is much expertise but we all welcome the opportunity to look at the detail of regulations, both accompanying primary legislation and in any future proposed changes.

Under DoLS, a number of important things were set out in regulations, particularly: who best interests assessors were and how they were to discharge their duties; the timeframe for carrying out assessments; the type of information that would need to be collected; and details of how disputes might be resolved. As my noble friend Lady Tyler will highlight, this is not just about ensuring that regulations are debated; it is about how those in the sector—families and vulnerable people themselves, I would suggest—are consulted and involved in getting the detail right in both initial regulations and any subsequent changes down the line.

To bring this matter into sharper focus, I wonder if the Minister might be able to confirm what he thinks might go into regulation? I hope he would also confirm that regulations laid accompanying this Bill, and any amendments down the line, are subject to the fullest scrutiny both in this House and in the sector. This will mean a decent time gap will have to be found between the laying of the regulations and the debates in both Houses.

I welcome Amendment 92, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, which would see another two independent reports commissioned by the Government. They would be laid within two and four years of implementation, to provide a valuable update as to how implementation was proceeding and highlight areas for improvement. We will need to monitor the implementation of the Act, however it may end up, really closely. We are dealing with the most vulnerable in our society.

These amendments are based on the PIP independent reviews, which have proven successful in highlighting problems. While I am sure many in this House would agree that there are still things to improve in terms of personal independence payments, the oversight provided by the independent reviews has been invaluable in terms of recommending important changes aiding implementation. There are many important issues to review: best interests decisions—ensuring that they are just that, and not based on commercial or other considerations; a monitor of advocacy offered and its uptake; the involvement of P—the cared-for person—and not just professionals, but also those who care for P, and the families of P. I am happy to support those particular amendments, and beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I have three amendments, starting with Amendment 87A. It sets out a number of requirements before the Act can come into force, embracing a set of independent reports that I would like to see commissioned by the Secretary of State. They address work on the rewording of the expression “unsound mind”; the availability of independent advocacy; appeals on behalf of cared-for persons; the availability of legal aid and support for cared-for persons participating in court proceedings; and short and long-term costs for implementing provision bills for local authorities, the courts and the health service. I recognise some of these points have already been discussed, on the second day of Committee in particular, and the Government are bringing forward amendments so the Bill reflects the need to consult the cared-for person. The Minister also agreed to look further at the expression “unsound mind”, which many believe is stigmatising and outdated language.

I hope the Government might just go further. This amendment is based on the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and reflects some of the issues it would like to see covered in legislation. I will not comment in detail, but I want to come back to the role of the Court of Protection. We discussed this on the second day of our proceedings, and I think the Committee was informed by the view that recourse to the Court of Protection should be avoided wherever possible, because of the stresses and strains involved and the cost. I am certainly conscious that we do not want to create a situation where mental capacity professionals defer their responsibility to the court, and individuals have to undergo court procedures unnecessarily.

According to Dr Lucy Series of the School of Law and Politics at Cardiff University, while the cost and stress of applications to the Court of Protection is undeniable, research by Cardiff has shown that the Government have taken the decision not to reform the Court of Protection, which would make it less costly, less stressful and more like the tribunal approach that many noble Lords would like to see. It is instead being managed by, essentially, restricting access to justice. A week ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said that,

“if a person wants to challenge their authorisation in the Court of Protection they have the right to do so”.—[Official Report, 15/10/18; col. 371.]

However, the practicalities are that people may experience extreme difficulty initiating a court action without assistance, as will their families. The evidence on this matter was very clear to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act and the Law Commission. I hope that the Government will consider it.