High level Parliamentary committee asks whether mental capacity laws are working

3 July 2013 by

Screen Shot 2013-07-03 at 09.23.12

Updated | The House of Lords ad hoc Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has now heard three sessions of evidence, and is currently calling for written evidence (deadline 3 September – details here).

The Committee, chaired by Lord Hardie (former Lord Advocate) and including such heavy-hitters as Lord Faulks (Ed Faulks QC as was) and Baroness Hollins (former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and current President of the BMA), aims to “scrutinise the legislation to see if it is working as Parliament intended” and to examined “whether the Government’s implementation programme was effective in embedding the guiding principles of the Act in every day practice, and whether there has been a noticeable change in the culture of care.”

The evidence so far has already covered a lot of ground – the compatibility of the Act with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the effectiveness of and ethos behind the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) and the vexed relationship between the MCA and the Mental Health Act, the Winterbourne View scandal and the workings of the Court of Protection – and that was just day one. Day two revisited some of the same topics, also touching on such important subjects as the availability of legal aid in Court of Protection matters.

The Committee is hearing from a range of witnesses from civil service, NGOs, charitable bodies, lawyers and academics. Invidious as it is to pick out individuals, the evidence Professor Richard Jones from the second evidence session makes lively if troubling reading on the implementation and day-to-day functioning of the Act and DOLS in particular.

The Committee has also published a call for evidence to gather examples of individuals’ experience of the Act in practice, stating “We welcome all views from experts and those having first-hand experience of the Act, and would encourage anyone who has an interest to send us their evidence and contribute to the debate.”

An interesting foretaste of the Committee’s likely findings came in the comments of Baroness Browning comparing the Act to the proverbial “curate’s egg” and commenting that “our report will show, I hope, from the evidence we have received, what needs to happen to make the Mental Capacity Act more effective and fit for purpose. I am basically saying that I [do] not think it is fit for purpose.”

Those with time on their hands can watch the sessions live on www.parliamentlive.tv. They are also open to the public. Transcripts of the evidence sessions are available here. I would highly recommend the digest and commentary on the sessions which Lucy Series has produces on The Small Places blog.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. Hello UKHRB, thanks for the link! I just wanted to bring to the attention of people considering submitting evidence about their experiences of the Court of Protection a reminder about contempt and parliamentary privilege: http://thesmallplaces.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/parliamentary-privilege-and-mental.html

    Hi Richard McTaggart, it’s great to hear people taking an interest in the UN CRPD. You are absolutely right, it does contain a right to independent living (that’s Article 19). You can read what the Joint Committee on Human Rights had to say about the right to independent living in the UK here:

    Under the CRPD there is a right to be supported in exercising legal capacity (Article 12) and a right to accommodations in order to be able to access justice (Article 13), but no straightforward right to legal assistance. However, it might be an implied right if it was necessary to support a person exercising their legal capacity or accessing justice (for example, to help them in court proceedings, or to explain a contract, etc).

    It’s worth bearing in mind that the CRPD can’t be enforced directly in the UK courts, although it is a ‘persuasive authority’ for interpreting other areas of law.

  2. truthaholics says:

    “The state spends much time and effort persuading the public that
    it is not really what it is and that the consequences of its actions
    are positive rather than negative.”

    ~ Hans Hermann Hoppe

    (1949-) German-born academic, libertarian theorist, Austrian School economist
    Source: A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism

  3. although I am not a lawyer*
    I am a disabled person!
    I suffered a brain-heamorrhage in 1990*
    I’ve taken an interest in human-rights!
    in particular the UNCHRDP*
    as I understand it,
    there is an article there that gives disabled-people the right to legal-asssistance*
    also as the UK* ratified this treaty in 2007,
    that should give the right to Independent-living,
    under EU* and UK* LAW?
    if anyone can confirm this*
    repies will reach me by E/mail

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: