Clause 40 - Codes of practice
Mental Capacity Bill
11:00 am
Mr Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Daventry, Conservative)
As we move to this part of the Bill, I should say that in no sense do I regard the codes of practice as miscellaneous or supplementary: it is essential to the delivery of the Bill and the change in culture that we all seek that they should be taken seriously. It is reassuring that Ministers have referred to them in their deliberations. They may not be as legally binding as the Bill itself, but they are an important part of the delivery process. I have no problem with them; I simply emphasise their importance.
I do, however, have one little problem: I notice that Ministers have referred sometimes to codes of practice and at other times to a code of practice. We have a draft code of practice before us. There should be horses for courses. We probably need a collective document, which would be ''the code'', but that would not be sufficient unless it contained sub-codes targeted at particular situations, or at classes of people who may have occasion to refer to the code. In correspondence that I have seen, there has been some suggestion that the code is for professionals such as local authority decision makers and NHS professionals, and that if it goes to Auntie Flo, who happens to be a carer or the donee of a lasting power of attorney, she will not have the firepower or stamina
to wade through it all, and may not be used to the language in it.
The use of multiple formats—a possibility touched on in an amendment that I did not table, but the spirit of which I find congenial—is part of the issue. If the Minister's legislation is to succeed, we need to ensure that it is appropriate for people of all levels. The code should be in text, but there should be other ways of delivering it—for example, through training programmes. When I read the Public Guardianship Office report, I was interested to see that there have been a number of open days or training days, on which people could come and have part of their work explained to them. That is the beginning of some positive good practice—but I am conscious that we are discussing a group of amendments, and I do not want to go on at length about this subject, as we will return to it.
It would not be appropriate in Committee to rehearse the role or otherwise of the Lord Chancellor—a great person in the land, and a role that I hope will continue as an office, if not a person—nor to be derogatory about the likelihood that he would take advice from other people. Of course he would, and the amendment merely reinforces the point that—[Interruption.]
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—