Mr Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Daventry, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in clause 17, page 10, line 8, at end insert—

'(aa) where P is to travel on any journey exceeding 10 miles'.

I shall be brief. The idea of tabling the amendment arose when I saw a list and thought that I ought to establish whether it was sufficiently comprehensive. The list already encompasses most of the strategic decisions that might be taken by a deputy on a person's personal welfare. I claim no credit for the precise wording or for the figure given, but my purpose in tabling the amendment was to rehearse and to invite the Minister to consider whether the decision to allow, encourage or require P to travel would be strategic.

The way in which the amendment is drafted might seem unduly trivial. One might put in 100 miles rather than 10, for example, or one might make reference to the frequency of journeys or otherwise. However,

persons lacking mental capacity might feel uncomfortable with change and might not want to be distressed by unnecessary upheaval. The decision on whether they are to travel, possibly for treatment or other care or to go to an inquiry or other procedure, could therefore be intrusive and distressing for them.

I wonder whether the idea of setting some limitations on the power of the deputy to permit or require travel might be appropriate. I do not feel very strongly about the issue, but I think that the Minister should at least consider it and give the Committee a response.

Mr David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Tottenham, Labour)

We thought it would be helpful if the Bill included some examples of the sort of personal welfare decisions that the court or deputy might need to make. When such issues have arisen in the past, they have been dealt with by the High Court. The examples given in clause 17(1) of residence, contact and health care are the types of matter that come under the High Court's jurisdiction. The amendment would add another category to that list.

I appreciate that it might be useful to list a range of matters in which deputies or the court might make decisions. However, I am not convinced of the merits of setting down one particular matter—in this case, travel. It is true that, for some journeys, a deputy or the court may need to decide whether it is in the person's best interests to travel a particular distance—for example, there might be disagreement on whether he or she should stay with a relative in another part of the country. However, journeys of 10 miles or more might be frequent and routine for some, especially for those living in rural areas. It would be over-bureaucratic if a court or a deputy had always to be involved in such situations.

We indicate in clause 17(1) the important matters that, over the years, have come before the High Court. I do not want to go much beyond that. We ought to leave it to the code of practice to deal with that question. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press the point further.

Mr Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Daventry, Conservative)

I regard that a perfectly satisfactory response. As the Minister said, the precedent for the list is set by the decisions that have come from the High Court. He is also right to remind the Committee of the importance of the code, which should inform all decisions being made for a person without capacity. Clearly, travel is clearly a consideration. The question is whether it should appear in the clause. After the Minister's explanation, I am inclined to think that it does not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.