Clause 6 - Section 5 acts: limitations
Mental Capacity Bill
4:00 pm
Mr Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Daventry, Conservative)
Perhaps I may again stand in for the absent Liberal Democrats and move the amendment. In this case, it is easier to divine the motives of those who tabled the proposal, which seem to me entirely admirable. We are moving to the limitations on section 5 acts. They seem inherently reasonable, which is why we do not propose to amend them heavily, although I have some small queries of my own.
The amendment tabled by Liberal Democrat Members is entirely congruent with the Bill's approach. It involves whether there is functionality for the individual person, so that acts done on their behalf because they do not have mental capacity should be relevant to the time and the circumstances, rather than being covered by a general dispensation that says, for example, ''You, the carer, may do what you like for the person because they lack mental capacity,'' or, ''You need never consider whether they might have mental capacity.'' That is important where restraint or any degree of coercion are concerned, which is, as I construe it, more or less the substance of clause 6. That is something none of us likes. We would not choose to be in a position where it was necessary to cut across somebody, because it might indeed intrude on their feelings. It has to be done appropriately and only in those conditions.
As I understand these amendments, they simply put down markers to say that any act should be proportionate and circumstance specific, and there should not be a general understanding that the carer may intervene to restrain somebody or restrict their liberty. That is an admirable objective. Perhaps the Minister will respond.