Mental Health Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. I am not wholly convinced by it for two key reasons. First, we are talking about serious medical treatment and it would stretch belief somewhat to think that an independent medical capacity advocate would have sufficient medical knowledge in such cases to make a judgment. They may be able to make judgments on whether such a treatment might be likely to be consistent with a person’s past and present express wishes and feelings, but that sort of decision is of a separate order. The other basis on which I disagree with the noble Baroness is that we are talking about people who are being deprived of their liberty and for whom there would be lesser safeguards than they would have if they were detained under the Mental Health Act. Therefore, I am not wholly convinced by her argument, on the basis either of equivalence or on the capacity of the people who will be making that decision. I understand what the Minister says about the intent of the Mental Capacity Act, but I am not convinced that it is sufficiently robust to deal with very serious medical issues—issues on which carers and family members may well wish to be consulted. It seems to me that stretching that consultation to people such as independent mental capacity advocates, rather than to those with medical qualifications, is not a sufficient safeguard for people who are deprived of their liberty. Nevertheless, I heard what the Minister said. I will take the matter away and perhaps she will reflect on my statements, too, and maybe we can discuss this further at a different time. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 6 agreed to. Schedule 7 [Mental Capacity Act 2005: new Schedule 1A]: [Amendment No. 68 not moved.] Schedule 7 agreed to. Schedule 8 [Amendments relating to new section 4A of, & Schedule A1 to, Mental Capacity Act 2005]: [Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 not moved.] Schedule 8 agreed to. Clause 39 agreed to.