---

Mental Health Bill [HL]

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for these government amendments, which, as the noble Baroness made clear, cover two principal policy issues. Accordingly, I have two sets of queries.

On the changes for the rules for authorising electroconvulsive therapy, I am sure it is not the Government’s intention in any way to water down the safeguards surrounding the administering of ECT. However, in relation to Amendments 16 and 17, taken together, can the Minister reassure me? The Bill, as modified by the proposed amendments, will posit that there could be circumstances in which a patient who has the capacity to consent to ECT but who has not consented to it could nevertheless find their refusal to treatment overridden by the decision of a single treating clinician. Even in a situation where the judgment of

the clinician was that ECT was necessary to save the patient’s life, it seems to me a significant change from the current rule whereby the decision of a second opinion appointed doctor is required in all cases where it is proposed to administer ECT to a non-consenting patient who has the capacity to consent.

Amendment 17 makes it clear that the regulatory authority—the CQC, in other words—may give permission for ECT to be administered only on the say-so of a single doctor where a SOAD is not available and “exceptional circumstances” apply. I will not ask the Minister to define what “exceptional circumstances” might consist of, but it is to be assumed that a primary example of such circumstances might be when time was of the essence and no SOAD could be located soon enough to avoid exacerbating the risk of harm or death.

So my questions are, firstly, has this proposed change been prompted by a general awareness across the mental health sector that the availability of SOADs can frequently prove a problem in circumstances where urgent decisions are needed? In other words, to put it bluntly, are we being asked to change the law because of habitual shortcomings in NHS communication arrangements? I would be concerned if that were the case.

Secondly, what guidance, if any, will the CQC formulate for itself to ensure that, when its decision is sought to temporarily waive the requirement for a SOAD, it will not do so just on the basis of a SOAD being unavailable? Will it also commit itself to a standard procedure whereby it will seek at least some background detail from the treating clinician of the case before him or her, such as the reasons why they consider that administering ECT to that particular patient carries particular urgency? In other words, can we be reassured that the treating clinician’s opinion will be subject to at least a modicum of testing and cross-questioning before the CQC issues the go-ahead for ECT to be administered? I hope so, because anything short of that could turn into a tick-box exercise.

The other government amendment on which I would appreciate further clarity is Amendment 26, which

“changes the process for appointing a nominated person”.

One of the changes proposed is that the various statements and signatures required for appointing the nominated person no longer have to be contained in the same instrument. The other is that the nominated person’s signature no longer has to be witnessed. I was grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but it implies that the written instrument that appoints the nominated person and is signed by the patient in the presence of a witness can be executed without the nominated person themselves being in the room, or indeed anywhere near. At the moment, the Bill says:

“The instrument appointing the nominated person must … contain a statement, signed by the nominated person in the presence of”

the same person who witnesses the signature of the patient.

I previously assumed that the reason for that provision was the responsibility that the Bill places on the witness—quite a serious responsibility—to ensure, as far as possible, that the nominated person, whoever they are, is a fit and proper person to act in that capacity. It

would appear now, with this amendment, that there is no need for the witness even to clap eyes on the individual who is nominated. How can that be right? Without at least meeting the nominated person, how can any self-respecting witness certify, hand on heart, that, in the words of the Bill, they have

“no reason to think that the nominated person lacks capacity or competence to act as a nominated person,”

or that they have

“no reason to think that the nominated person is unsuitable to act as a nominated person”.

Are they simply meant to take the patient’s word for it?

This alteration in the wording raises all sorts of question marks in my mind, given the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee about misplaced loyalty towards a particular individual, a naivety on the part of a child or young person, or even some degree of psychological manipulation of a young person—for example, someone who makes it their business to set a child against their own parents.

In Committee, the Minister herself emphasised the need for the law to prevent exploitation and manipulation. While I did not at the time think that her response was completely reassuring, I saw it at least as an acknowledgement that the role of the witness could not be fulfilled properly without some sort of contact with the nominated person. Was I right or wrong on that? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how my misgivings in this area, about the way in which the nominated person procedure comes to be implemented in practice, might be allayed.