Mental Health Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 73: 73: Clause 39 , page 35, line 25, at end insert— ““(6) P may not be deprived of liberty unless P has been examined and assessed by a registered medical practitioner who is responsible for his care and is satisfied that the following requirements are met— (a) P has been found to lack mental capacity; (b) the deprivation of liberty is necessary for P’s health or safety; (c) P’s condition is of a nature and degree that requires deprivation of P’s liberty and that the restriction of P’s freedom is proportionate to the expected benefit to P; (d) there is appropriate care or treatment available that will benefit P. (7) Where P has been deprived of his liberty, such deprivation shall not continue unless P’s underlying condition remains of a nature and degree that requires such confinement.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Carlile, who is away due to commitments to do with his role in relation to terrorism, it is my privilege to move AmendmentNo. 73 on his behalf. The Minister will probably have guessed that this is a probing amendment. It relates to concerns that have been voiced at earlier stages in our debates by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, and my noble friend Lord Carlile. It reflects a concern about people who may lack capacity and be discharged from hospital, perhaps into a residential or nursing home, and who may at that point be incapacitated, temporarily or for a longer duration. The purpose of the amendment is simply to establish whether the Bournewood provisionswould apply to people in that situation. It wouldbe enormously helpful if the noble Baroness could simply address that question tonight. I beg to move.