Lords to debate report on the Mental Capacity Act 2005
9 March 2015 (updated on 13 July 2015)
Twelve months after the report's publication, the Committee will hold the Government to account for the action it has taken in response to the findings in a debate in the House, tomorrow, Tuesday 10 March.
- Watch the debate
- Read the text of the debate
- Report: Mental Capacity Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny (HTML)Report: Mental Capacity Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny (PDF)
- Report: Mental Capacity Act 2005: post-legislative scrutiny (Easy read version)
- Government Response to the Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005
Chairman's comment
Chairman of the former Committee, Lord Hardie, who will open the debate, said:
“Our report found that tens of thousands of people were being deprived of their liberty without the protection of the law. The provisions designed to protect them – the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards – were found to be unfit for purpose. We recommended that the Government start from scratch and replace them entirely. I am gratified that the Government listened and decided to refer the safeguards to the Law Commission for review.
Our report also highlighted the poor implementation of the Mental Capacity Act. People do not know about the Act, or do not understand it, even though many professionals have legal obligations under it, and those who may lack capacity have legal rights under it. In order to achieve the necessary change in attitudes and practice across the health and social care sector we recommended that overall responsibility for the Act be given to an independent body whose task would be to oversee, monitor and drive forward implementation.
That has not happened.
The Government has announced a ‘National Mental Capacity Forum', but twelve months on there are no terms of reference, membership or even a chair.
There is absolutely no cause for complacency – stakeholders tell us that practice on the ground has not changed; vulnerable individuals and their families are still being failed by poor awareness and poor understanding of the Act. This timely debate provides an opportunity to press the Government on the slow progress it has made in tackling such a major issue.”
Further information
Image: Parliamentary Copyright