Mental Health Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 80: 80: Schedule 6, page 103, line 16, at end insert— 128A (1) This paragraph applies to the supervisory body if— (a) they are given a copy of a best interests assessment, and (b) the assessment includes, in accordance with paragraph 44(2), a statement that it appears to the assessor that there is an unauthorised deprivation of liberty. (2) The supervisory body must notify all of the persons listed in sub-paragraph (3) that the assessment includes such a statement. (3) Those persons are— (a) the managing authority of the relevant hospital or care home; (b) the relevant person; (c) any section 39A IMCA; (d) any interested person consulted by the best interests assessor. (4) The supervisory body must comply with this paragraph when (or at some time before) they comply with paragraph 128.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. This government amendment strengthens the arrangements for dealing with a case where deprivation of liberty is not authorised because it is not found to be in the person’s best interests but the best-interests assessor reports that the person is in fact already being deprived of their liberty. The safeguards that are already in the Bill areas follows. The person concerned, the care home or hospital, any IMCA involved and all interested parties consulted by the best-interests assessor would be told that the authorisation request had been turned down. The person concerned, the care home or hospital and any IMCA involved will be given a copy of the best-interests assessment. They will know the reasons why the assessor considers that the person is deprived of their liberty and the reasons why it is not in the person’s best interests. The draft code of practice states that the best-interests assessor should write their report in a way that will help commissioners and providers of careto avoid depriving the person of liberty, including making recommendations; that the supervisory body should liaise with the hospital or care home to ensure that the unauthorised deprivation of liberty does not continue; and that the supervisory body should alert the monitoring body if it has concerns. Your Lordships will see from what I have said that safeguards have been provided, but I agree with the view expressed in Committee about the importance of making sure that action is taken if something has gone wrong and a person is deprived of liberty when they need not be, so I undertook to look at whether we could strengthen the safeguards. The amendment will require the supervisory body to inform in writing the person concerned, the managing authority of the care home or hospital, any IMCA involved and every interested person consulted in the best-interests assessment that an unauthorised deprivation of liberty is taking place. That will strengthen the safeguards in two ways. First, it will explicitly draw attention to the fact that the way in which the person is currently being cared for is unlawful. It does not depend on people understanding that from reading any assessment report. Secondly, it includes family members consulted by the best-interests assessor among the people to be informed. I also committed to look again at the code, and we will include in the next draft more about the value of involving families in deciding how to end the deprivation of liberty and examples to make it clearer when the monitoring body should be involved. I am convinced that the safeguards in these amendments will ensure that any unauthorised deprivation of liberty is ended promptly. Again, I pay tribute to the noble Lords who invited me to consider doing so. I hope noble Lords will accept the amendment. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 80A not moved.]