---

Mental Health Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 33B: 33B: Schedule 2, page 46, line 9, leave out ““on their behalf”” and insert ““within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances of the case”” The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the duty of approved mental health professionals in applications for admission or guardianship. It has two purposes. The first purpose is to guarantee the legal independence of the approved worker. That person is currently an approved social worker and under the new remit will be an approved mental health practitioner. The second purpose is to ensure that there is a duty on the local social services authority to provide an AMHP to undertake an assessment within a reasonable time. The independence of the approved mental health professional is essential to the process of assessment. While two doctors or approved clinicians can, under the Bill, recommend admission, unless the AMHP agrees that there is no less restrictive way of providing the care or treatment needed, they can refuse to make an application and prevent compulsory admission. It is essential that AMHPs are able to make their decisions independently and free from even the slightest hint of being obligated to apply under pressure from some other body or person. They should, like the current approved social workers, be classed as an independent public body in law. The current wording of the Bill compromises this independence by implying that the AMHP will be working ““on behalf of”” or ““at the behest of”” the local authority, with the implication that his or her decisions can be countermanded by the authority and influenced by the interests of the authority, which may be different from the interests of the patient. The amendment clarifies the point by making it clear that the approved mental health professional is expected to make an independent assessment of the person’s health and social care needs and carries individual responsibility for their decision, not that the local authority can direct that decision. As regards the second issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has already suggested that the wording of the amendment would be improved if it stated, "““to make an independent assessment””," but she thinks that the part about, "““within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances of the case””," does not mean anything. But social workers believe that it might help them to cover cases which take an exceptional amount of time. This will ensure not only the independence of the assessor but also the availability of an AMHP at short notice, if necessary, and around the clock. The present Act requires local authorities to provide ““a sufficient number”” of approved social workers, but this duty has been widely disregarded. A recent survey funded by the Department of Health shows that there is currently almost a tenfold difference between the best and worst performing authorities in the number of ASWs they employ per head of the population. I beg to move.