moved Amendment No. 61:
61: Schedule 6 , page 76, leave out lines 19 to 28 and insert—
““( ) Any person may make a request for a standard authorisation where it appears to him that the relevant person is likely—
(a) at that time, or
(b) at some later time within the next 28 days,
to meet all the qualifying requirements.””
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. As currently drafted the Bill states that wherever the managing authority of a hospital or care home identifies that a person who lacks capacity is being or risks being deprived of liberty it must apply to the supervisory body for a standard authorisation of deprivation of liberty. I believe that there is a strong case for extending the right to apply for such an authorisation to anyone who becomes aware that a person who lacks capacity is being or risks being deprived of liberty. Deprivation of liberty is a serious matter. As soon as anyone becomes aware that it is taking place it should be assessed and authorised or refused as quickly as possible. That could best be achieved by extending more widely than is currently envisaged the pool of people who are entitled to request an authorisation.
Hospital and care homes may not always be best placed to judge whether people in their care who lack capacity are being deprived of their liberty. It is not always obvious that a deprivation of liberty is taking place and a hospital or care home may believe wrongly but in good faith that one of their residents is not being or does not risk being deprived of liberty. In such cases a request for an authorisation would not be made. Widening the pool of people who can call for an authorisation to other interested parties such as inspection bodies, family members, friends or advocacy groups who may become aware of a potential deprivation of liberty before a hospital or care home does would provide an important additional safeguard.
Few cases of deprivation of liberty are likely to involve deliberate abuse. However, I have concerns about the implications of leaving the right to request an authorisation of deprivation of liberty solely in the hands of the bodies responsible for the deprivations of liberty in the first place. Where a deprivation of liberty is taking place but is not justified and would not be authorised, the supervisory body would refuse an authorisation and rule that the deprivation of liberty is unlawful. Some hospitals or care homes may seek to avoid such a ruling by failing to request an authorisation. While the deprivation of liberty might well come to light eventually, it would do so more quickly if independent third parties had the right to request an authorisation. Such a right would also be a disincentive to hospitals or care homes which might otherwise avoid requesting an authorisation.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are designed to ensure that third parties which request a standard authorisation are informed of the result of their request. I beg to move.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Howe
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 17 January 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Mental Health Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c765-6 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:29:29 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370215
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370215
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_370215