Mental Health Bill [HL]

My Lords, I knew that my winning streak would come to an end at some point; I am rather sad that it has ended here, as this is a serious matter. I listened to what the noble Baroness said about the provisions only authorising deprivation of liberty and not treatment. My argument is that, if a person lacks capacity and is deprived of their liberty, there is a greater need to ensure that they are not subjected to wrong or inappropriate treatment. There is a need to provide greater protection than would apply to somebody who did not lack capacity and who, as the noble Baroness said, had the right to ask for a second medical opinion. That people deprived of their liberty should have to rely on an IMCA to obtain a second opinion is insufficient protection. I noted what the noble Baroness said about the IMCA pilots. Can she reassure me that, as the IMCA scheme rolls out, the matter will be kept under supervision? I have a sneaking concern that perhaps the pilots took place in an area where there was a well established tradition of advocacy and there were well trained advocates who understood what they could and could not do. That may not be the case all over; nor may homeowners be as supportive of advocates as they should be.