Contribution
My Lords, I should like first to speak to Amendment 160BC standing in my name. Although it may not look like it, this is a probing amendment. I have tabled it because I have been made aware of concerns that there is a serious lack of clarity around one aspect of the Mental Health Act 1983 that would greatly benefit from a clarifying statement from the Minister.
Let us imagine a patient who is detained in a mental health hospital under the Act and who requires urgent treatment in another NHS setting, such as a general hospital. The treatment, let us further imagine, is kidney dialysis—that is just a random example. Unfortunately, in this case, the patient is deemed to lack decision-making capacity for his own health and well-being, and the doctors therefore agree that if he is transferred to the other hospital, he will need to be restrained during the time that he is receiving the treatment, because if he is not, there is a likelihood that the treatment will not be deliverable.
The question then arises: in that particular situation, does the Mental Health Act 1983 allow for the patient to be deprived of his liberty in a setting other than a mental health hospital in order for necessary life-saving treatment to be administered? I am aware that there are contrary opinions among lawyers and clinicians as to the answer to that question. Some believe that, in that example, it would be necessary for the managers of the mental health hospital to apply to the court for a deprivation of liberty order under the Mental Capacity Act, which the court could grant under its inherent jurisdiction. I understand that this is standard procedure in a number of mental health hospitals. By contrast, other experts are clear that Section 17(3) of the Act already provides authority to place the mental health patient into the custody of the managers of the acute hospital and that there is therefore no need to apply for a DoL order under the Mental Capacity Act in order to achieve this.
Section 17(3) of the Mental Health Act says:
“Where it appears to the responsible clinician that it is necessary so to do in the interests of the patient or for the protection of other persons, he may, upon granting leave of absence under this section, direct that the patient remain in custody during his absence; and where leave of absence is so granted the patient may be kept in the custody of any officer on the staff of the hospital, or of any other person authorised in writing by the managers of the hospital or, if the patient is required in accordance with conditions imposed on the grant of leave of absence to reside in another hospital, of any officer on the staff of that other hospital”.
Those words appear to confirm the opinion that I have just set out—that the responsible clinician can authorise “leave of absence” in another hospital, with the patient being kept in custody so long as this is seen to be in the patient’s best interests.
Unfortunately, it also appears that there is more than one way of interpreting Section 17(3). There are those who maintain that what one might call the carte-blanche interpretation is too broad a reading of Section 17(3), which they insist needs to be read with Section 63 of the Act. Section 63 says:
“The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering, not being a form of treatment to which section 57, 58 or 58A above applies, if the treatment is given by or under the direction of the approved clinician in charge of the treatment”.
Taken together, those two sections say that the Mental Health Act authorises treatment only for mental disorders and physical disorders that are part and parcel of the treatment for the mental disorder; in other words, for treatment of physical disorders that are not directly connected to the mental disorder, a court would need to make the appropriate order under the Mental Capacity Act. Who is right? I should be very grateful if the Minister would use this opportunity to bring some clarity to bear on this area of the law, around which there appears to be a veil of fog. Whatever the answer, will she ask NHS England to examine the guidance contained in the relevant part of the code of practice to ensure that it is as clear as possible about what the current law permits?
Finally, I shall comment briefly on Amendment 149, which the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, has tabled jointly with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I fully support this amendment. At the same time, I regret that it appears to be necessary, and I say that with some personal feeling. The issue addressed by this amendment is precisely the same as the one which in 2014, as a Health Minister, I endeavoured to close down by means of a government amendment to the Care Bill, which now forms Section 73 of that Act.