Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2019-02-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this Bill will ensure that vulnerable people are afforded protections should they be deprived of their liberty. It will increase access to protections for the 125,000 people who are potentially being deprived of their liberty without an authorisation in place. The Government have, in the other place, made a number of changes which we will consider today Amendment 1 was tabled by the Government to provide statutory clarification in relation to the meaning of a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of the Mental Capacity Act. This proposed new clause anchors the meaning of deprivation of liberty to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. My predecessor and noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy committed to bring forward statutory clarification in order to provide clarity to people and professionals. The clause delivers this by setting out non-exhaustive bounds of the concept of deprivation of liberty—that is, circumstances which do not constitute a deprivation of liberty. This is a matter that I have discussed with a number of your Lordships It sets out that a person is not deprived of their liberty if they are free permanently or temporarily to leave the place they are in and would not be subject to continuous supervision if they were enabled to leave if they expressed a wish to do so. A person will also not be deprived of liberty if arrangements are put in place to give medical treatment for physical illness or injury and these are the same as would be put in place for anyone receiving this treatment These boundaries to the concept of deprivation of liberty are drawn mainly from existing case law decided by our highest courts. We have taken this approach because it allows case law to evolve and helps ensure the definition remains valid as it does so. It is also very difficult for any positive definition to adequately address the range of cases that may be a deprivation of liberty, particularly while retaining the ability to reflect evolving case law. This clause will be accompanied by statutory guidance, which will be scrutinised by both Houses. We are currently working with stakeholders to compile case studies to illustrate when a deprivation of liberty occurs or does not occur under this definition, so that it will be more usable by practitioners and individuals Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, provides an alternative definition of deprivation of liberty. It specifies that a person is deprived of their liberty if they are confined in a space, "for more than a negligible period of time … have not given valid consent and the arrangements are due to an action of a person or body responsible to the state" Concerns about this amendment have been raised with me. It speaks directly to Article 5 of the ECHR, and we all agree on the importance of Article 5 in protecting liberty. It is vital to make sure that this is done right. If Parliament defines that concept, it must be clear how our statutory definition of deprivation of liberty relates to the ECHR definition. Our amendment clearly articulates the relationship between Parliament’s definition and the ECHR’s. Getting this wrong would mean further delays for thousands of people who were previously receiving protections. It does this in new subsection (1) by stating that deprivation of liberty has the Article 5 meaning, "and, accordingly", that there is no deprivation of liberty in the circumstances in the remaining subsections. Thus it is clearly stated that what is not a deprivation of liberty is the same under the Act as under the convention: there is no difference between the two Amendment 1B does not do that. The clause defines a deprivation of liberty only for the purposes of the Act itself. It does not link it to Article 5 of the convention. This would risk Parliament’s concept of deprivation of liberty diverging from the convention. It is not appropriate to have two divergent concepts of deprivation of liberty, one set by Parliament and another set by the ECHR. The difference between the two would risk creating confusion and uncertainty. It would also mean that people who fall outside Parliament’s concept of deprivation of liberty but within the Article 5 definition could not have their circumstances considered within the Mental Capacity Act and would have to take their case to the High Court, causing delays. That would not be acceptable. Too many people are already being failed by the current system because of delays. We cannot create a situation that creates further delay, confusion or uncertainty Amendment 1B would create a narrow concept of deprivation of liberty. Proposed new subsections (2) and (3) provide cumulative requirements for a deprivation of liberty. If any one of those requirements is absent, the situation falls outside the Act’s concept of deprivation of liberty. One of the requirements is in subsection (3)(b): that the person is, "subject to continuous supervision and control" On this definition, if a person is subject to a level of supervision or control that is less than continuous, they are outside the Act For example, a person may be locked in to their care home, unable to leave, regularly medicated and with little liberty. However, the level of supervision might be less than continuous. For example, they may be given just an hour a day to walk unsupervised in a confined garden. Under Amendment 1B, that person may not be considered to have their liberty deprived and would fall outside the Act’s protective framework. I am sure we all recognise that such a restriction as a deprivation of liberty, but the clause would not afford that person protections. Therefore, under the Government’s more limited draft, a person would not fall under liberty protection safeguards merely because there is some period of the day when their supervision is not "continuous". Rather, it would be only where this was coupled with the person being free to leave temporarily.