Mental Health Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 76C: 76C: Schedule 6, page 85, line 24, at end insert— ““58A (1) This paragraph applies if— (a) a request is made for a standard authorisation, and (b) the supervisory body are prohibited by paragraph 50(2) from giving the standard authorisation. (2) The supervisory body must give notice to each of the following— (a) the managing authority of the relevant hospital or care home; (b) the relevant person; (c) any section 39A IMCA; (d) every interested person consulted by the best interests assessor. (3) If the supervisory body are commissioning the care, they must do so in a manner that makes it possible for the managing authority to provide the care in accordance with the outcome of the assessment process. (4) The supervisory body should review whether the managing authority is providing the care in accordance with the outcome of the assessment process, and refer any concerns to the relevant inspection body. (5) The requirements listed in sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) must be complied with by the supervisory body as soon as practicable following the request for a standard authorisation.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would impose a duty to give information about unauthorised deprivation of liberty. It would place in the Bill the Government’s amendment in the draft code of practice—here I foreshadow a debate that we will move on to in a few minutes—that the supervisory body should inform certain people of the fact that a request for an authorisation was turned down. It would place in the Bill the Government’s proposal in the code of practice that the supervisory body commissioning the care must do so in a way that makes it possible for the managing authority to provide the care in accordance with the outcome of the assessment process. In addition, the amendment seeks to ensure that there is a mechanism for identifying cases where a managing authority has failed to provide the care in accordance with the outcome of the assessment process and for referring such cases to the relevant inspection body. I can guess what the Minister will say about the status of the code of practice and matters being placed on the face of the Bill, but we are talking about the detention of people and the deprivationof liberty; we are talking about people who are particularly vulnerable in that they lack capacity. In comparable situations in which people are detained, the force of statute is often brought to bear. We on these Benches believe that there is an equivalence and that therefore the matter should be enshrined in the Bill. While we recognise that it may be unnecessaryto inform an inspection body every time an authorisation is turned down, we believe that it should be informed if the supervisory body has any concerns that someone is still being deprived of their liberty when it has been decided that that deprivation is not in the person’s best interests. The supervisory body is the most appropriate body to fulfil the role of monitoring the situation and reporting any concerns to the relevant inspection bodies. That in a nutshell is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.