Clause 34 - Appointment of independent consultees
Mental Capacity Bill
10:15 am
Mr Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
I shall take a leaf out of the book of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston by saying immediately that the amendments are intended to probe the Government. I hope to test his theory and find out whether that evokes a more positive response, although perhaps the theory works for some and not for others. Nevertheless, that is the intention behind the amendments, although we also want to help to provide greater clarity on the purpose of, and intention behind, independent consultees, which is what this clause and the subsequent three or four clauses deal with. We also want greater clarity on the issue of advocacy, which is a cause of great concern for many organisations watching our deliberations and awaiting the Minister's response with interest.
Advocacy is one of the matters that the Joint Committee, appointed last year to scrutinise the draft Bill, had occasion to look at in great detail. In almost every submission that we on the Joint Committee received—there were perhaps one or two exceptions—the view was that advocacy was one of the keys to realising the potential of what was then the draft Mental Incapacity Bill. Advocacy was a means of enabling people to have as much autonomy, and realise as much of their independence of action, as possible. Having independent advocacy as a right was to be a key part of that. The organisations that made those points to us included the Making Decisions Alliance, People First, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Law Society and Citizens Advice. The Disability Rights Commission also made clear representations on the Bill, which I will refer to later.
In the Joint Committee's evidence sessions, it was clear just how fragmented, piecemeal and patchy advocacy services are. In parts of the country, there are advocacy services par excellence, which are beacons that provide a model that others could follow. In some areas, such services are frankly ropey, while in others there is no discernable advocacy service. The picture across the country is variable. To date, the Government's approach has been to respond to particular interventions and amendments tabled to legislation, often by Government Members.
The Government have extended rights of advocacy, but have done so in fairly narrow terms. For example, the last but one piece of NHS legislation provided for the independent complaints and advocacy service. Some would argue that that is a fairly narrow interpretation of what advocacy is all about, because the focus of that service is on facilitating use of the
complaints process and supporting people through it. My concern, and the reason for the amendments, is that to many people the provisions in the Bill are not even a form of advocacy. At very best, they are a narrow interpretation of what advocacy is about.