Clause 2 - People who lack capacity
Mental Capacity Bill
4:00 pm
Mr Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Daventry, Conservative)
Those exchanges were useful. I am sure that the Minister will want to copy the letter to the other Committee members; a real issue is involved. I would have some diffidence in extending the full monty to persons of that age, let alone having them as appointees for other people, without a broad reconsideration of the age of majority. I do not think that that is the issue. One would feel uncomfortable if such young people got into some lacuna between the protections that they enjoy as children and those that they would enjoy as adults with mental capacity, who may make their own disposition by will or advance decision, for example. We have not discussed the issue, and I will not go on about it now, but there is an argument for people to build their advance decisions into their will making. That would be an example of good practice for the future.
To come back to the specific point, I understand what the Minister says. In practice, there is, rightly, a reluctance to put young people into the invidious position of having to take major strategic decisions on behalf of another person, be they their sibling, parent or whoever else. Equally, there is no bar on their being consulted about something when they know and love the person and may well have an informed view. However, children should not finally be put in the position of having to take the decision for the person who lacks capacity. That is not a problem.
My concern is about what used to be called the general authority, which has now become:
''Acts in connection with care or treatment''.
I do not differ from the Minister on the issue. It is not only often the case, but entirely desirable, that somebody should prepare a simple meal for their sibling, for example, if they happen to be around. That is a kind and loving thing to do and may well bring the family closer together. We live in a litigious world and are anxious to provide protection for such reasonable acts.
The only point on which I would pause is that in civil law a young child is, at some point, below the age of suability, because they are not regarded as having capacity. The Minister will know more than I do about the matter; I need to check the exact age. In light of his remarks, I wonder whether the authority for care or treatment should extend to such a young person, on the grounds that there is no issue about their suability anyway. That may be a consideration. Having said that, there may be circumstances—one reads and generally rejoices about them—in which a very young child does some caring act. Perhaps their mother has been taken ill and lost consciousness; they may ring up the emergency services to say, ''Come and help'', or perhaps they loosen the person's collar and get them
breathing again by whatever improvised means that they can use. Nobody would want to stop that, but he might like to pause on some of the issues.
The matter should certainly not be pressed to a Division, but it has been important to clarify such apparently loose ends. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.