Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Steve McCabe Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Coming here tonight, I thought that this was in origin a well-intentioned but flawed Bill, but after listening to the Secretary of State I am not sure we are discussing the same legislation. It is hard to believe that in a free society such as ours, probably more than 125,000 people are currently denied their lawful liberty because of failings in the system. We need to improve the situation, not make it worse.

As with much of this Government’s legislation, the Bill seems to be more about reducing costs than protecting and promoting the rights of vulnerable people. As we have heard, the impact assessment was produced before a raft of Government amendments were made, so there is now a clear argument for producing an updated assessment before we proceed. The attempts to transfer some of the responsibilities set out in the Bill just do not make sense. I am not sure it is wise to transfer any responsibilities for things such as liberty to bodies such as CCGs. They are already very stretched and prone to questionable judgments on delivering equality and fairness in the NHS.

There are real doubts about the protections in the Bill. Access to legal aid is a Catch-22 if a person qualifies for it only after they have been deprived of their liberty. How can that be fair? There is also concern about the length of detentions and authorisations. Sir Simon Wessely recommended that initial detention should be reduced to three months, with a three-month renewal and six-month periods thereafter. Under the Bill, despite what the Secretary of State claims, a person can be subject to an order for three years.

The Bill does not put the interests of the cared-for person at its heart. The existing arrangements explicitly state that deprivation of liberty may be granted only where it is in the best interests of the cared-for person. The Government should make it clear on the face of the Bill that depriving a person of their liberty must be in their best interests, and should come only after the consideration of less restrictive options.

Proposals must ensure the right of a person to object to and challenge arrangements if they so wish, and that they have appropriate support and representation to do so. Access to an approved mental capacity professional is currently available only in limited circumstances. That is wrong: access should be made available in all cases. Scrutiny for pre-authorisation reviews should be extended to all situations in which a person might be considered vulnerable.

All cared-for people in private hospitals should have an independent mental capacity advocate appointed, and all authorisations must be carried out with approved mental capacity professional oversight. Independent oversight is essential in all cases, as cared-for people may not be able to object in the formal sense. Appropriate advocacy must therefore be available. The Royal College of Psychiatrists rightly draws attention to its concern that no one should have their liberty denied because of a mental disorder without first being seen by a qualified doctor.

It is essential that these matters are dealt with properly, which is why there are real concerns about the role of the care home manager. It is wrong that they should make the decision on independent representation. As drafted, the Bill makes the care home manager responsible for carrying out the consultation with the cared-for person, when the main purpose of that consultation is to ascertain that person’s wishes. Nor can it be right that the choice of assessor should lie with the care home. There is an obvious conflict of interest if independent health and care providers are responsible for both providing a service and deciding on that service’s suitability. The Bill allows for managers of independent hospitals to authorise deprivation of liberty when care is being delivered in their hospital. That is plain wrong.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Steve McCabe Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I do have that anxiety. I want to be a bit critical of the Government on that, because this is a two-year Session of Parliament and there is no reason why this could not have been done in a proper way. I am slightly conscious that there is not a great deal of time left today, however, so I am keen to bring my remarks to a close.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend concludes, since the code is going to be so central to the operation of the Bill, and since none of us will have seen it before the Bill concludes its proceedings, does he think that it is vital for the Minister to say today that there will be proper and extensive consultation on the code before it is implemented?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. The Government have effectively already said that, but to be really nasty, we should have had the code before today, in all honesty, even if it was only in draft form, so that we would be able to see what we are really talking about, and I would then not have been talking about these amendments.

I want to bring my remarks to a close as soon as I can. We need to build in an incentive to make sure that there is proper neurorehabilitation provision for people with acquired brain injuries. All too often, patients and carers in this field feel as though they are being processed. That is not because health clinicians are nastily minded, but because people sometimes end up having to deal with so many different departments that they feel as though they are being pushed from pillar to post. That is why it is really important that the Government strike the right note when it comes to the next stage of introducing the code.

Amendment 1 simply says that

“the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on”

the “likely effects” of the Bill on ABI before it comes into effect. Amendment 2 requires the “relevant person”, who could be somebody managing a care home, to consider

“the effects of any treatment undergone by the cared-for person, including prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy”

in addition to the length of time since the assessment was originally made. Amendment 3 would mean that an authorisation that was not renewed would lapse after 12 months, after a time specified in the original authorisation, or, as I would like it to be,

“at the end of a period of prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy”.

I think that is key to making sure that there is an incentive to ensure that therapy is provided. Amendment 4 refers to the renewal of an authorisation and requires the responsible body to take into account

“any treatment to be undergone by the cared-for person, including prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy”.

I do not think that any of those amendments would do the Bill any harm—no harm at all—and I am feeling a bit more grumpy with the Minister than I was yesterday when I met her, so who knows? We might end up voting on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I very much agree with that. We have heard about a code of practice and regulations, but we cannot see any of these things. With this Bill, we should have had the promised detail on the code of practice. We should not be passing the Bill without it.

First, I wish to talk about amendment 50, which addresses the role proposed in the Bill for care home managers. A number of Members have raised that issue, and we fundamentally disagree with that role, in the same way that we disagreed with the role in the liberty protection safeguards system being given to independent hospitals, which the Government are now amending. There is no logic in the Government removing one conflict of interest from the Bill and not the other.

When this Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, it placed almost all power and responsibility for the LPS in the hands of care home managers. It would have allowed them to be judge and jury, deciding when to deprive people of their liberty. I accept that the Bill has been marginally improved from the original position. The Government were forced to make concessions in the House of Lords, but what they have done so far is the bare minimum. The Bill still hands far too much power to care home managers. Stakeholders across the sector, including care home managers themselves, are very concerned about this. Care England, the representative body for care homes, has said:

“As providers we are very concerned about the inherent conflict of interest associated with placing Liberty Protection Safeguards assessment responsibilities on care home managers “

I also want to quote something that was written in evidence to the Public Bill Committee. A submission made by the Albert House nursing home stated:

“Managers in Care Homes are already stretched and heaping further responsibility on them could lead to more people giving up and looking for easier work.”

It seems clear that even care home managers do not want this responsibility to be given to them. I cannot understand why the Government are insisting on doing so, unless of course the reason is just cost saving.

Under the Government’s proposals in the Bill, local councils will be able to delegate the assessment and consultation process to the care home manager whenever they see fit. That risks creating a postcode lottery, where some local councils with adequate resources carry out LPS assessments themselves, while others will have to reduce their role to simply rubber-stamping the applications they get from care home managers. That cannot be right.

We have to be clear in this Chamber that one issue facing the current system is that some local councils are not able to properly resource their DoLS teams following years of cuts to their funding. This Bill would allow cash-strapped local councils to outsource the process entirely, with serious consequences for cared-for people. If care home managers organise the authorisation process, they decide who carries out medical assessments, and who determines whether the arrangements are necessary and proportionate. I have heard colleagues expressing concern that the statement provided by the care home manager forms the basis of authorisation. We know that many local councils do not currently have the resources to fund their DoLS teams properly now. Conservative Members have talked about the backlog and concerns about that, but in recent weeks we have seen a further £1.3 billion taken out of grant funding to local councils. The Minister has given us no reassurance that the Government will provide any new funding for the proposed system.

[Steve McCabe]

While my hon. Friend is on the subject of care home managers, may I ask whether she agrees that if they are responsible for the consultation, which is supposed to be one of the safeguards protecting a person’s liberty, the person cannot possibly be at the heart or centre of the Bill? Such a provision drives a coach and horse through the notion that their liberty is being protected.

[Barbara Keeley]

I absolutely agree with that. Local councils face a serious resource issue, and we see a pressing of this role away to care home managers. I have got some examples with me, but I do not know whether I will have time to go through them. However, we can see that there will be a strong temptation in local councils simply to presume that the care home manager is right. We have to recognise that over-stretched professionals in local councils will sometimes simply accept the word of care staff without fully investigating the case.

In the Public Bill Committee, I talked about the recent case of Y v. Barking and Dagenham. This was the case of a young man who was placed in an inappropriate care home. Initially his parents were satisfied with his placement, but over time the quality of his care deteriorated. We hear a lot and have great concerns about restraint. That young man was restrained in that care home 199 times in two years and suffered significant harm. Y eventually got out of that placement, following a court-appointed guardian visiting and raising concerns, but it took the intervention of somebody outside the care home—that is the key thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill and, in particular, to speak in favour of Government amendments 24 and 33.

Before I do so, let me respond to some of the points that have already been made. First, with regard to the timescale in which the Bill is being taken forward, there has been plenty of opportunity for colleagues to look at its details. I draw Members’ attention to the fact that there have been not just one but two detailed reports on this issue by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, one in June 2018—our seventh report of this Session—and then, in October 2018, our 12th report, in which we considered the draft Bill in some considerable detail. At that point, we welcomed the recommendations of the Law Commission. Of course, the Law Commission had itself been some three years in preparing its recommendations, so the Bill can hardly be described as rushed.

[Steve McCabe]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the Law Commission objects to the fact that its recommendations were not taken up by the Government when they constructed the Bill?

[Fiona Bruce]

I was about to say that the Joint Committee welcomed the Law Commission’s recommendations because they clearly highlighted the need for changes to be made.

As we pointed out in our seventh report, as far back as last June, the Cheshire West case that the Minister mentioned had resulted in a 10-fold increase in the number of DoLS applications. That is why there has been such a backlog. That case placed extreme pressure on local authority resources. Some 70% of the almost 220,000 applications for DoLS authorisations in the year up to our report were not authorised within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, many incapacitated people continued to be deprived of their liberty unlawfully. Those responsible for their care, or for obtaining authorisations, were having to work out how best to break the law. That is completely unacceptable, and it is why this Bill needs to brought forward in a timely way.

There also needs to be, as the Committee recommended in our 12th report, a definition in the Bill. I hear colleagues’ reservations about that definition, but, as we said—I am glad that the Government took up our recommendation—that it is important to give cared-for people and their families, and professionals, greater certainty about the parameters of any scheme so that we can ensure that scrutiny and necessary resources are directed where needed. We said:

“It is undeniable that any definition in statute may be refined by future case law”.

That remains that case. None the less, not to have endeavoured to provide a definition would, we believe, have been wrong.

Having made those preliminary comments, I will speak in more detail about amendment 24 and expand on the remarks made about the importance of family engagement and keeping the family informed. Information for the family and those who care deeply about the welfare of the person is the cared-for person’s greatest safeguard against exploitation and bad care. It is paramount that families have a role to play in their relatives’ care planning, wherever that is desired by the cared-for person, not least by giving them the option to stay fully informed and to object to proposed plans if they are not satisfied.

Families can play an important role in monitoring care if they are given sufficient information. The care itself is important. The quality of care will vary between and within care homes, but monitoring the care plan is essential to ensure that the cared-for person’s dignity is maintained. The cared-for person’s quality of life depends on how they are treated day in, day out and whether they receive care in a way that enhances their personal dignity or whether, sadly, they are treated less well.

Families are well equipped to monitor care, but only if they are kept informed. That is why I support amendment 24, which improves access to information for the cared-for person and their appropriate carers and supporters, which may well include their family. The requirement for information to be

“accessible to, and appropriate to the needs of, cared-for persons and appropriate persons”,

means that the cared-for person is placed at the heart of the liberty protection safeguards authorisation process. Not only that, but now that relatives can be informed about their loved one’s care plan, they will notice if the plan states something that is not happening and question why.

I am pleased to see that the amendment requires the publication of information on the cared-for person’s rights and the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to request a review or make an application to the court. People must know what their rights are and the legal procedures. This will not be costly. It will certainly be far less costly than the court cases that are likely to come if the requirement to provide information about all aspects of the process and the plan are not on the face of the Bill. It will save costs in the long term and ensure that the approved mental capacity professionals act always as they should.

The code of practice will play an important role. It would be helpful to see examples of family members working with the responsible bodies and the care teams to ensure that care plans are being delivered appropriately and are in the best interests of cared-for individuals. I am sure we all want to see that.

I turn to amendment 33. In the JCHR’s 12th report, we indicated that there has been concern as to

“whether care home managers have the necessary skills and knowledge to arrange or undertake the assessments and whether they are sufficiently independent to do so”

and whether care home managers are

“trained and resourced to take on these additional responsibilities.”

It is heartening to hear that the Government have listened and are clearly stating that care home managers and staff should not, and under these proposals will not, complete assessments. It is equally heartening that the Government, having listened to concerns expressed in Committee, are saying that all those doing such assessments must have the necessary skills, knowledge and qualifications—for example, as physicians, nurses or social workers—and that that will be specified in regulations. I want Ministers to put in place appropriate arrangements to assess whether implementation of this element of the Bill is working well—for example, to ensure that specifications of required qualifications and the experience of assessors are kept updated and that the revised system is working well and without difficulty in practice.

Ministers might consider taking up the recommendation in the JCHR’s 12th report that particular vigilance should be exercised by local authorities where care homes are rated by the CQC through an inspection as inadequate or requiring improvement, to ensure that those who are making referrals are properly competent to do so.