Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Caroline Dinenage

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

We now have an opportunity to deliver reforms that will provide quicker and fuller access to protections for the 125,000 people who are not currently receiving them. That is 125,000 vulnerable people without the legal protection that they deserve, whose families do not have peace of mind, and whose care providers have no legal cover for supporting them. We now have an opportunity to rectify this situation.

In February, the other place considered the 56 amendments made to the Bill by the House of Commons, the vast majority of which were agreed with. However, the Lords tabled alternatives to two of the Commons amendments, and they are the focus of our discussions.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Minister has rightly pointed out that the Bill will provide a great advantage to those who are directly affected. I do not want to be a total patsy for my local authority, but will she explain what the benefit will be for local authorities, which are responsible for trying to protect people’s welfare and safety?

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. This issue has been a huge burden for local authorities: they have had to carry out multiple deprivation of liberty safeguards often for the same people and often when those people move from one setting to another. That involves a huge amount of bureaucracy and does not offer any better protection for the individuals concerned. The new service will enable local authorities to do this in a much more streamlined and efficient way. It will save them money and, at the same time, offer better protection for the individuals about whom we all care.

Lords amendment 1B was tabled by Baroness Tyler of Enfield to set out the meaning of a deprivation of liberty positively, rather than by using the exclusionary approach set out by the Government. Noble lords are, of course, absolutely right to want to ensure that any definition is understood by people and practitioners. However, a positive definition of a deprivation of liberty is likely to be subject to a legal challenge as article 5 case law evolves, and it would become unfit for purpose incredibly quickly. This is a view not only shared by the Government, but highlighted beautifully in the other place by the esteemed legal experts Lord Mackay and Lord Hope.

Lords amendment 1B does not link the definition of a deprivation of liberty to article 5 of the European convention on human rights, so creating a risk of the definition set out in statute diverging from the convention. This would mean that people who fall outside Parliament’s concept of deprivation of liberty but within the article 5 definition could not have their deprivation of liberty authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For those people, only the High Court would be available to authorise such a deprivation of liberty, which, in turn, would give rise to excessive delays in accessing vital safeguards.

That is precisely the situation that this piece of legislation looks to address—there are already too many people subject to delays when accessing safeguards, and we cannot introduce a provision that would further risk this.

Given that the Government have these concerns, we cannot agree with the noble lords in their amendment 1B. However, we know that concerns in the other place are reflected by many across the sector and we have taken that on board. We have listened carefully to the views of MPs, peers and other stakeholders and decided not to insist on amendment 1. Instead, I propose that the meaning of a deprivation of liberty will still be as defined under article 5 of the convention, as it is under section 64(5) of the Mental Capacity Act, but there will not be a clarification of the meaning of a deprivation of liberty in the Bill. The Bill will work alongside the rest of the Mental Capacity Act, so it does not impact on the existing definition.

I reassure the House that the Government are still absolutely committed to providing clarification regarding the meaning of a deprivation of liberty for both people and practitioners. We will use the code of practice to lay out in very clear terms and provide details of when a deprivation of liberty is and is not occurring, and this guidance will reflect existing case law. We will set out the meaning of a deprivation of liberty in a positive framing and in a way that is clearer for people and practitioners. We will also include case studies in the code to help bring this to life. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1B will prescribe that the code of practice must contain guidance on what kind of arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty.

Sex and Relationship Education

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Caroline Dinenage

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

As I have already said, we are currently considering all the options and are committed to updating the House during the passage of the Children and Social Work Bill. The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families will definitely be bringing the measure forward as part of the Bill, but the key is getting it right, not rushing it through just to satisfy loud voices on either side of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Just to translate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is talking about compulsory SRE. I would call it comprehensive SRE. Do the Government have any idea of how many young people miss out on effective sex and relationship education? Will the Government try to ensure that the number of young people who are missing out will be reduced to virtually zero within a few years?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The biology of sex and relationships is compulsory in schools, but we want to see a much broader look at healthy relationships, respect for oneself, respect for others and issues around consent. Those are all things that we have to look at very carefully as we move forward, which is why we are encouraging schools to use the Ofsted case studies as a resource while they tailor their own programmes to meet the specific needs of their pupils.

In addition, in 2014 the PSHE Association, Brook and the Sex Education Forum produced a supplementary guidance document on sex and relationship education for the 21st century, which provides valuable advice on what are, sadly, the all-too-modern issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has already mentioned, such as online pornography, sexting and staying safe online. That useful guidance provides teachers with the tools to support pupils on those challenging matters, developing pupils’ resilience and ability to manage risk.

As we have heard today, social media and interactive services are hugely popular with children and young people. They can provide fantastic opportunities for them to express creativity, to learn digital skills and to improve their educational attainment but, like all forms of public communication, they come with a level of risk. The Government expect online industries to ensure that they have relevant safeguards and processes in place, including access restrictions for children and young people who use their services.

We have published a guide for parents and carers of children who use social media, including practical tips about the use of safety and privacy features on apps and platforms, as well as conversation prompts to help families begin talking to their kids about online safety. We have also funded the UK Safer Internet Centre to develop new resources for schools, including cyberbullying guidance that helps them to understand, prevent and respond to this issue, as well as an online safety toolkit to help schools to deliver sessions through PSHE on cyberbullying, peer pressure and sexting.

We are also talking directly to young people about healthy relationships. The Government Equalities Office jointly funded a £3.85 million campaign with the Home Office to launch the second phase of the “This is Abuse” campaign, called “Disrespect NoBody,” from February to May 2016. The campaign encourages young people to rethink their understanding of abuse in relationships, including issues such as sexting. It also addresses all forms of relationship abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, and situations including same-sex relationships. Some of the campaign materials contained gender-neutral messaging, and others depicted male victims of female perpetrators. It was targeted at 12 to 18-year-old boys and girls, with the aim of preventing them from becoming the perpetrators or victims of abuse in relationships.

As I said, we are actively considering calls to update the guidance on SRE, which was issued in 2000. The feedback we have received indicates that the guidance is already clear that young people should be learning what a healthy relationship looks like. However, we do not consider the guidance we produce to be static, and we fully recognise that there will continue to be changes to update it. We are looking at the issue extremely carefully. As I have said, it is essential that we do not rush things. We need to adopt a fresh and responsible approach and listen to a range of views from young people and parents alike.

Transgender Equality

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Caroline Dinenage

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

Yes, I am more than happy to do that and I am keen to collaborate in any way with those from whose experience we can learn.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke presented her Bill today. We have not yet heard a convincing case for introducing gender identity as a protected characteristic. The Equality Act, and criminal, hate crime and employment legislation all offer protection for trans people. However, we will continue to keep an open mind, listen to testimony and monitor evidence to find ways to improve the lives of trans people.

My opposite number, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), asked about hate crime. We have improved the recording of hate crimes against LGBT people to support more effective prevention and action. Police forces are now required to collect those data, and the first set of data was published as official statistics in 2013. We have committed to review legislation on hate crimes and we are currently considering the options. The Crown Prosecution Service also recently launched a consultation on draft guidance on prosecuting cases of offences involving transphobic hostility.

The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East spoke about gender markings and gender X on passports. As she pointed out, UK passports currently recognise only male and female genders. Legal recognition is more broad than just changing passports and would need to be considered across Government. Introducing a third category, such as that denoted by an X in a passport, would require a change in UK primary legislation. However, on gender markings, as set out in the response to the Select Committee report, the UK has agreed with the International Civil Aviation Organisation to lead on a survey of member states on gender and passport markings. The gender questionnaire was circulated in October and member states had until the end of November to provide their views. We will review the responses, compile a report and submit it to the working group early in 2017.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Recognising that it is only 51 years since “transgender” was first used, I think the Government’s words on page 23 of their response to the ICAO are important because, as they rightly point out, we are now identified more by facial recognition and other things rather than by asking, “Is this person wearing trousers or a skirt?”

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend never ceases to amaze me with his encyclopaedic knowledge of all manner of important issues, and this is no exception. He is right that we must keep pace with modern technology and always keep it in mind when we make Government policy and change legislation.

Several hon. Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, who has campaigned hard on the issue, talked about managing offenders. When I was a Justice Minister, my hon. Friend and I worked closely on a number of particular incidents that he raised. Managing transgender offenders has been a major concern and we have taken action. A number of events involving transgender prisoners in autumn 2015 highlighted the need for the policy on their treatment to be given a more fundamental reappraisal. When I was in the Ministry of Justice, I led on that work and last month the Government published their review and confirmed the position. That is why we will, from now on, manage anyone received into services run by the National Offender Management Service in the gender with which they identify rather than the sex assigned to them at birth.