Member

The reason, as I understand it, why His Majesty’s Government laid the Motion is that statutory guidance cannot mandate anything unless it is in the Bill. But the question then arises for us to consider: is the reverse true? Can statutory guidance undo what is in the Bill? Does this mean, in practice, that the malevolent parent—who is swinging the lead and telling the AMHPs, at 3 am, that the very sick daughter has been living with him for three years and that the special guardian is no longer involved—is now armed with the Mental Health Act to say, “You have a duty to appoint me”? His Majesty’s Government’s Motion mandates that, if this person is willing to act, they must be appointed. To what extent can the guidance undo that? This potentially gives them back a hugely significant role in the child’s life that the family court deemed they should not have. Inadvertently, are His Majesty’s Government, while seeking to amend and close a loophole, opening up such a possibility?