Mental Health Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 76B: 76B: Schedule 6 , page 82, line 21, at end insert— ““45A (1) This paragraph applies— (a) to the relevant person, or (b) to— (i) anyone named by the person as someone to be consulted, (ii) anyone engaged in caring for the person or interested in his or her welfare, (iii) any donee of a lasting power of attorney granted by the person, and (iv) any deputy appointed for the person by the court, when they are consulted by the best interests assessor under paragraph 4(7) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. (2) Any person specified in sub-paragraph (1) has the right to the support of an appointed independent mental capacity advocate during the assessment process.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 76B I shall speak also to Amendment No. 80A with which it is grouped. We return here to one of our running discussions not just about the Bournewood parts of the Bill, but throughout the legislation as a whole: the issue of advocacy. The amendment would ensure that the relevant person or, "““(i) anyone named by the person as someone to be consulted,""(ii) anyone engaged in caring for the person or interested in his or her welfare,""(iii) any donee of a lasting power of attorney granted by the person, and""(iv) any deputy appointed for the person by the court””," can have access to an independent mental capacity advocate during the assessment process if they feel the need for it. It will also ensure that a person or their representative can have access to an independent mental capacity advocate at any point during the authorisation period if they consider it to be necessary. At this stage I do not wish to restate the many points we have made throughout our consideration of this Bill and when we discussed the Mental Capacity Bill as it went through the House about advocacy being the cornerstone on which the whole matter rests. When a person lacks the capacity to consent to their care and treatment, they are likely to need support in expressing their views. While it is right that some of the representatives I have cited in that list may have the capacity to act as an advocate for a person, they may not truly be capable of acting as an advocate for the person’s welfare as opposed to, say, their financial circumstances. That is the reason for specifying the list and providing that a person should have access to an advocate during the assessment process. An advocate can enable detained patients to challenge decisions made by professionals where they lack the capacity to do so themselves. Again, when considering the proposals for the reform of mental health provision, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated: "““Even the most elaborative and collaborative system for conferring and protecting rights is unlikely to be fully effective unless, as a last resort, the patient has access to practical means of exercising and, if necessary, enforcing their rights””." For these reasons, I beg to move.