How do we ensure that people who are unable to make decisions about their care or accommodation arrangements aren’t arbitrarily removed of their Right to Liberty? With the announcement of a further delay to the implementation of Liberty Protection Safeguards, or LPS, I want to reflect (as a previous MCA DoLS lead, and continued social justice and Human Rights advocate) on where this may leave people and health and social care authorities, currently experiencing and managing significant ‘backlogs’ for Deprivation of their Liberty authorisations. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) has long been criticised for being overly complicated and bureaucratic. The challenges being apparently compounded with the Supreme Court decision in the case of P v Cheshire West & Chester Council & another; (2) P & Q v Surrey County Council in 2014, which lead to the number of referrals increasing dramatically due to the revised criteria for people being identified as Deprived of their liberty.  

While the perceived simplification of criteria may have been welcomed from a practice development perspective, it has been an ongoing challenge for authorities to meet the fast and ever-increasing demands through referrals for Deprivation of Liberty Authorisations.

LPS has pointed to an opportunity and acceptance of the position that authorities faced in meeting this demand, and looked at opportunities to streamline the current process, making this part of the assessment processes currently in place.

Ultimately, however – this was an opportunity for anyone who provided care for, a person who was unable to make a decision about their care or accommodation arrangements to experience a more streamlined process to accessing their Safeguards, including access to a judge to hear their case and an advocate to monitor and review the arrangements in place.

…what it means to be deprived of liberty must be the same for everyone, whether or not they have physical or mental disabilities. If it would be a deprivation of my liberty to be obliged to live in a particular place, subject to constant monitoring and control, only allowed out with close supervision, and unable to move away without permission even if such an opportunity became available, then it must also be a deprivation of the liberty of a disabled person.Lady Hale, retired President of the Supreme Court

The proposed update of the Codes of Practice had mostly been widely welcomed, owing to the significant updates provided by case law. The consultation on the draft Codes of Practice had also raised many questions, including the interactions between children’s and adult’s legislation and Deprivation of Liberty, and the need to support families to understand what a Deprivation of Liberty is.

The largest concern for me remains: How do we ensure that people who are unable to make decisions about their care or accommodation arrangements aren’t arbitrarily removed of their Right to Liberty?

I spent time over the Easter period reflecting on the issues for Autistic people, and people with learning disabilities who continue to be detained in hospitals, (in some cases for decades) contact with families restricted and usually under the Mental Health Act. There are occasions where individuals are deemed no longer in need of Mental Health treatment, but are determined as unable to consent to a continued stay in the hospital, awaiting a community placement, and may therefore continue to be detained using the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

There remains an outstanding question about where a further delay to LPS implementation, will leave Autistic people and people with learning disabilities with the proposed Mental Health Act reforms, where they fall outside of it’s scope and Safeguards and may therefore fall under the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards criteria? Without reform to both areas, where will that leave people who are taken to Assessment and Treatment units and have nowhere else to go? (Dr Lucy Series explains this further in her blog

The importance and relevance of reforms required in this area were also highlighted in a research project by The University of Birmingham and Changing Our Lives: ‘Why Are We Stuck in Hospital?’. Over 2000 Autistic people or people with learning disabilities remain stuck in mental health units, some for decades, and without a legal framework in place, their legal right to challenge may become more difficult. The risk of abuse in these settings further highlights the need for urgent reform (see our Whorlton Hall report) for people who may need legal frameworks to ensure they can challenge arbitrary detentions.

My plea to the sector for now is: Do not forget that Deprivation of Liberty, is rooted in The Mental Capacity Act, and the requirements under the Human Rights Act remains. LPS discussions highlighted the continuation of poor understanding and implementation, across health and social care as well the continued reports of poor MCA practice leading to the premature deaths of people (as with Laura Booth). People subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are also likely to form part of the new CQC assurance framework and need close monitoring.

We must not forget the need to continue to embed good practice, good Human Rights based practice is never more needed and remains central to good social care and social work practice. We need to continue reviewing implementation and improving, with these improvements led by people who draw on social care. Alex Ruck Keene and Tim Spencer Lane have both, helpfully, detailed actions that leadership and practitioners should continue to take to support individuals under the Mental Capacity Act:

SCIE provides support to local authorities to review their approach to MCA and DoLS, including to backlogs. We ensure practice is legally compliant and based in human rights based approaches and offer support you to improve. In addition, SCIE provides training to teams on MCA and DoLS, as well as hosting the MCA directory which is a single place for information to support implementation of the Mental Capacity Act.

In 2009 I started my Social Work journey in North Yorkshire supporting adults to remain at home for as long as possible. I met people who had lived a long life without drawing on statutory care and support and were coming to terms with a loss of independence and the need to consider care for the first time. I met families who had cared for their loved ones for many years and were struggling with the emotional and physical requirements of the role and needed support. I also met young people who due to an unexpected situation in their life were now calling on care. I later moved to work with people with learning disabilities, Autistic people and people who had been in contact with mental health services.

I’ve supported people to move from residential care into their own home, which came with significant challenges from the care system and clinicians around them, where historical incidents were recorded and left unchallenged for decades and underpinned a restrictive approach to their care. One experience that continues to resonate with me, is where a person who had allegedly set fire to a bin as a teenager, 10 years prior, was moved from his family home to residential care and remained there over 10 years later with a folder detailing ‘risks’ if he were unsupervised.

The person was also repeatedly recorded as ‘lacking capacity’. I presented him with pictorial information about moving home, referred him for an advocate and eventually he began to talk to me about his life and what was important to him. He needed a little support to understand budgeting, but was already working in his local community, we worked together to move him to his own home and I saw his confidence grow. I’ll never forget the day of the move, carrying his treasured fish tank and fish in the car to his new home, but seeing him set his bedroom up, how he finally wanted it. What I have learned is to use my leadership skills as a Social Worker, to spend time getting to know people, the way they want to be communicated with, and help people to speak up using advocacy support and continue to pursue less restrictive care when everyone felt it too risky.

This is the key to preparing for Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS), recognising what restrictions look like, recognising that even when people are not demonstrating they are ‘unhappy’ with their care arrangements, they still may be deprived of their liberty and have a Right to liberty.

A flourishing life?

Liberty is not an absolute Right, it can be curtailed but must follow a process set out in law (for example, using Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards). But even when a person requires a level of care that amounts to a Deprivation of Liberty, are we doing enough to ensure that restrictions are not just accepted as the status quo? Are we focusing on a person’s need to live a flourishing life?

During the height of the current Pandemic, we all experienced a restriction on our liberty to prevent the spread of an infectious disease. However, once restrictions were lifted, disabled people continued to experience restrictions in their everyday life, including continued restrictions on family visits, leaving their homes and continued requirements to test regularly. Even when blanket restrictions are/were unlawful under the Mental Capacity Act, we continue/d to see evidence of blanket restrictions being applied, particularly around family visits. Disabled people continue to be far more restricted in their everyday life compared to the general public.

Being proportionate

Every practitioner I know has made a decision at some point to provide care to a person who is unable to make the decision themselves (under the Mental Capacity Act). However what is much rarer is naming arrangements when they become a ‘Deprivation of Liberty’ and identifying why those arrangements are both necessary and proportionate.

The State, the local authority, is the servant of those in need of its support and assistance, not their master.Lord Justice Munby A Local Authority v A (A Child)& Anor [2010] EWHC 978

If you are a practitioner and have increased the level of observation a person is subject to, introducing people to their life to provide care, reduced a person’s choices, you need to consider how you are implementing the care in a way that promotes Liberty rather than just restrict. Preparing for LPS involves becoming familiar with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards now, recognise when you make decisions that impact on a person’s liberty, and record it. Being a Rights based practitioner means challenging the status quo, think outside the box and promote social justice .You don’t have to be an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP – Mental Health Act) or Best Interests Assessor (BIA – Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) to be Rights based, you just have work get to know the people you work with and the impact of your role, and decision making, in their lives.

LPS does not yet have a new implementation date, but there is plenty to do to prepare in the meantime. People don’t want to be over processed in order to access their Safeguards under LPS, we should be looking at how we can incorporate the information into everyday practice, for example as part of Care Act processes. As soon as you determine a person is unable to make a decision about their care and where they live, start to think about how to promote and maintain Liberty throughout practice, keep working to reduce unnecessary restrictions, always ask: Is this Necessary? Is this proportionate?

Thinking back to the implementation of DoLS – Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards – I recall the anxiety generated across the country in 2009 as April approached and the embryonic DoLS services awaited the barrage of requests for standard authorisations. Would we be able to cope? How many staff would we need to manage the demand? The 1 April came and there was no barrage; hardly even a ripple Just as the Millennium Bug turned out to be a myth, so (on a much less global level, obviously!) did DoLS not produce the Armageddon that local authorities were fearing. Some local authorities only had a handful of cases during the first year – imagine that!

Planning for LPS

Just like the excitement generated in ‘96 when the country was gripped by hope that England bring home the Euros Cup, I am cautiously optimistic that LPS will bring protection of liberty into the care and support functions of the sector.

When preparing for LPS, the government has stated that much of the documentation is already there and DoLS is just duplicating work. I believe that has not always been the case, but there is an opportunity to plan for the new scheme and minimise the additional work required, by ensuring that the core Mental Capacity Act (MCA) principles are followed in the initial assessment and care planning processes. 

If robust capacity assessments and well-documented best interest decisions are on file, this will significantly reduce the additional burden when making authorisations for LPS. And it’s doing no more than following the requirements of the legislation since 2007. 

We don’t yet know exactly when LPS will be implemented, but this is work that can be done now to ensure high quality and legally defensible practice for now and for the forthcoming changes.

About Claire and Jack

Claire is a Team manager for the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) / Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) Team in North Yorkshire; and is responsible for Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) implementation. Jack is a Team Manager for a Community Learning Disabilities Team in Bradford and a previous DoLS manager. With the Liberty Protection Safeguards just around the corner (Current ETA April 2022) and with the new responsibilities placed on the new ‘responsible bodies’ (Local Authorities, Clinical Commissioning Groups & Hospital Trusts) it has never been more important for practitioners to embed MCA into everyday practice. As two self confessed MCA nerds, we decided to collaborate and put together an A-Z of the Mental Capacity Act. The following aims to bring together a selection of our favourite references to the Mental Capacity Act and associated guidance, legislation and case law.

A is for Advocacy

Advocacy comes in many shapes and sizes. It is a crucial role in supporting an individual to speak up, or to be their voice, for their views and wishes and is absolutely the cornerstone of social care. Having strong advocates is a sign of a well functioning system. This helpful document will give you a nod in the right direction if you need any help with an advocacy related decision:

B is for Balance sheet (and Best Interests)

Balance sheets are great. We use them all the time but in the context of MCA and decisions that can be made, a balance sheet really helps to show your working to anyone that might wonder what was considered and highlighting ‘relevant factors’ in the decision. It is important to note that balance sheets should be used as an aid to thinking, not as a substitute (see Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882). Often in case law you can see the use of the balance sheet process in the Court of Protection, particularly more recently when making decisions about giving the Covid 19 vaccination to individuals unable to consent and whose family were objecting against it. See the example below.

C is for Causative Nexus

Are you satisfied that the inability to make a decision is because of the impairment of the mind or brain? The Court of Appeal has made clear that the process to complete a capacity assessment should not start with determining the impairment or disturbance of the mind or brain – this should follow after the determination that a person is unable to understand, use, weigh, retain or communicate and then determine why that may be. Starting with that the person appears to have difficulty doing also helps you with the support principle: if you can help them overcome that difficulty, they have capacity to make the decision, and you don’t need go to further.

D is for Determination, Decision specific, and Dignity

No one should start a capacity assessment without being clear about the decision that needs to be made. Sometimes, decisions need to be broken down, there may be more than one decision to make at any one time. Don’t make it too difficult for someone to be a part of that decision by making it too complex or difficult to understand. Finally make sure to look at the final decisions together as a complete picture and ensure the outcomes of those decisions work together. Determination should be the determination to uphold rights but it is also an important term to differentiate between the process of thinking about capacity (the capacity assessment process) and the conclusion and recording (determination) of that thinking. This also relates to Dignity, and the importance of dignity in Mental Capacity Assessments. Advanced Statements and Advanced Decisions are vital here, dignity is subjective. To one person it may be- A statement not to receive Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) .To another it may be honouring their right to private and family life, respecting people’s wishes and feelings is key in promoting dignity in decision making.

E is for evidence

There is a reason it is regularly stated you need to ‘show your workings’ in Mental Capacity Assessments. Making any decision on behalf of an individual must be based on evidence.

F is for RE FX

The presumption of capacity is so important in MCA and this case has significant learning in that spending time getting to know the person can be make or break in assessing capacity. In this case the Social Worker had the advantage of being able to build up rapport over a number of visits whereas the medical professional cited in the judgment was unable to do this and it seems as though the two came back with quite different reports with the judge siding with the social workers conclusion that FX had capacity

G is for guidance

In particular differentiating between following guidance and following law. Differentiating between following ‘regulations’ (Law) and Codes of Practice (Guidance). One example of this is recent guidance on issues relating to testing, vaccinations and self-isolation. Some directions are set down in Law such as the need to self-isolate when you’ve tested positive for Covid-19.. Some directions such as the need to isolate after visiting certain places, is set in guidance (at the time of writing). What has never changed is the need to follow the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards when implementing any restrictions on a person unable to consent to the arrangements. We rely on our legal services to interpret interactions between law and guidance.

H is for Happiness, Human Rights and Hayden

Happiness may seem a simple concept, however seldom is it a significant consideration in best interests decision making. We all strive for happiness, happiness means different things for different people. Striving for happiness also strives for Human Rights Based Practice. How can we forget the important quote from Munby ‘what good is making someone safer, if it merely makes them miserable’. The Human Rights Act should always be central to decision making. Understanding that when you make decisions on behalf of an individual, involving where they live, the care they receive and the contact they have with others – they’re all protected rights under the Human Rights Act. And Hayden – the Vice President of the Court of Protection and supplier of some of the more recent revered quotes in Mental Capacity Law:

I is for IMCAs

IMCAs (Independent Mental Capacity Advocates) are a safeguard for people who lack capacity to make some important decisions. The IMCA role is to support and represent the person in the decision-making process. Essentially they make sure that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is being followed.

J is for JUMP

The Reason I Jump is a book written by Naoki Higashida and a reminder about what lengths we should be aiming for when working with people who have difficulty with communication. It will make you re-evaluate what lengths we should go to in order to support someone who has difficulty verbally communicating.

K is for CC v KK And K

“There is, I perceive, a danger that professionals, including judges, may objectively conflate a capacity assessment with a best interests analysis ‘CC v KK & STCC”

L is for Lasting Power of Attorney

The lawful authority to make decisions for someone when they are no longer able. Every so often we hear about situations where an attorney clearly isn’t acting in the persons best interest or that the professional involved hasn’t thought to check if an LPA exists. If in doubt you can check the status of an LPA below.

M is for Munby

And what will be his epitaph “What’s the point of making people safe if it merely makes them miserable”. That well spoken line is so true and so honest that it never gets old. Before his retirement Sir James Munby was one of the most prominent and well known Court of Protection Judges.

N is for Neary

Steven and Mark Neary are the pinnacle of why Human Rights based practice is so important. If you want an example of how NOT to use the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, read the outcome of London Borough of Hillingdon V Neary.

O is for Open Justice Project

A project founded by Celia Kitzinger and Gill Loomes-Quinn, it aims to make observing Court of Protection cases, more easily accessible to anyone wanting to learn more about how Mental Capacity Act cases are dealt with in Court. Celia and Gill helpfully blog cases that deal with complex issues such as life sustaining treatment, sex, and 21a appeals.

P is for Practicable steps

No one should be deemed to lack capacity to make a specific decision unless all ‘practicable steps’ have been taken to support them to make the decision. ‘Practicable steps’ might involve referring to supporting agencies such as advocacy, interpreters, Speech and Language Therapy, and learning disability nurses – to work with the person to help them understand the relevant information.

Q is for P&Q vs Surrey

The first decision on what constituted a Deprivation of Liberty, before the decision was finalised by the Supreme Court in ‘Cheshire West’. It involved ‘Mig and Meg’ an 18 and 19 year old in two different settings and opened discussion about the ‘relative normality’ of the arrangements based on the person’s needs, that later became part of the final Supreme Court Judgement and lady Hale declaring ‘A gilded cage is still a cage’.

R is for Ruck-Keene (Alex)

the face and name that comes to mind with anything Mental Capacity Law. Alex (along with his colleagues at 39 Essex Chambers) are the social care sectors go-to for advice on how to implement the Mental Capacity Act in practice and produce incredibly useful resources, that are both timely and informative. We recommend visiting (capacity law) and signing up for 39 Essex Chambers reports.

S is for Sex

The MCA can permeate every aspect of life up to and including the most intimate areas of someone’s private life. There have been a number of recent cases, testing the idea of capacity for sexual relations. The Most prominent being the Supreme Court ruling in the case of JB determining new relevant information when assessing capacity and that ‘Pragmatism does not require that consent to future sexual relations can only be assessed on a general and non-specific basis’. Capacity and sex – the Supreme Court decision in JB | 39 Essex Chambers, Capacity, consent and sexual relations – the Supreme Court decides – Mental Capacity Law and Policy. https://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/capacity-consent-and-sexual-relations-the-supreme-court-decides/

T is for talking Mats

A really helpful resource to aid decision making and to document a persons wishes & feelings on a specific subject. Search: ‘Talking Mats’

U is for unwise decisions

we all make them and people that have health and social care involved seem to have any decisions scrutinised as if somehow they have to be run by the professional involved. The wording of the Act is ‘a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision’. This is an important nuance on the often-heard statement that a person has the right to make unwise decisions. There are plenty of great cases to provide examples, but one that always comes to mind is the ‘woman who lost her sparkle’ or ‘C’.

V is for voting rights and values

A lack of mental capacity is not a legal incapacity to vote.1 Persons who meet the other registration qualifications are eligible for registration regardless of their mental capacityThe Electoral Commission

Being aware of your value base is key to ensuring that you understand how to apply the Mental Capacity Act with a Human Rights focus. When you decide to complete a Mental Capacity Assessment, first ask why you think one is required and reflect on it.

W is for Wye Valley and wishes and feelings/will and preferences

We take note of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) and want that to influence practice. The way we do that to be compatible with the Mental Capacity Act is that we pay close attention to wishes and feelings when constructing a best interest decision. That way we are ensuring that the person we are supporting has their voice right in the heart of decision making. You can see recent challenges in the Court of Protection, when trying to understand and achieve what a person really wants. This has been recently explored in decisions around vaccinations and withdrawing life sustaining treatment.

X is for Re X

One of the drawbacks (of which there are many) of the original DoLS scheme is the fact that when Supreme Court handed down the Cheshire West judgement, as well making applications soar through the roof it also posed the question about deprivation of Liberty in other settings such as shared lives schemes, supported living or the individuals own homes. The Re X procedure was the courts way allowing people to streamline the process. although it doesn’t seem very streamlined given the months it takes to process sometimes.

Y is for Re Y

A Supreme Court decision that not all cases regarding the decision to withdraw Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration, need to go to Court for a decision.

As long as family and professionals are in agreement, the decision can be made by the relevant clinician, following the MCA – BMA guidance.

Z is for Zone of Parental Control

“People with parental responsibility may in certain circumstances […] consent on behalf of a child under 16 to them being given medical treatment or being admitted informally for such treatment.” The moment that a young person wakes up on the morning of their 16th birthday, they are presumed to have the capacity to make their own decisions under the MCA. If on their 16th birthday the person does not have capacity to make a particular decision, a decision will need to be made as to whether to use the MCA or whether the decision falls under the zone of parental consent. In Re D [2019] UKSC 42, the Supreme Court held that where a 16 or 17 year old child cannot (or does not) give their own consent to circumstances satisfying the ‘acid test’ in Cheshire West, and if state either knows or ought to know of the circumstances, then the child is to be seen as deprived of their liberty. That is so whether or not their parent(s) are either seeking to consent to those arrangements if imposed by others or directly implementing them themselves.

More selected reading

From Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to Liberty Protection Safeguards

In this blog, I suggest that there is a lot that can be done to start applying ‘LPS thinking’ now, even whilst we wait for implementation. The first is front-loading thinking about the core components as early as possible in any care planning process. It is already necessary to think in care planning about the person’s decision-making capacity, whether any arrangements which may be put in place to secure their care and treatment will give rise to a confinement, and about there is any other less restrictive way in which to secure their care and treatment. But the earlier that this thinking can be considered and documented, the closer you will be coming to the LPS model. And, even under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the better quality the documentation, the lighter touch scrutiny the assessors will have to give it before they reach their conclusions.

When it comes to capacity, it is important – already – to consider whether the person can process the information that they are confined (See the case below). This will be central to the capacity test to be applied to LPS in due course, so getting familiar with this now will ease the transition.

Similarly, when it comes to thinking about the best interests requirement under DoLS, the greater the focus upon the consideration of necessity and proportionality (which forms part of the test), the readier you will be for the total focus upon this aspect under LPS.

Finally, making applications for so-called ‘community DoL’ orders is not only necessary at the moment to provide lawful authority to deprive someone outside the scope of DoLS. It is also the best form of training for LPS that can you undertake – it is, in essence, asking the same questions, and posing the same requirements in terms of such things as consultation, as will be required under the LPS. The sole difference is that, at present, the final application goes to judge, rather than, as will be the case in future, it will for Pre-Authorisation Review organised by the Responsible Body. For more detail about how to make such applications, see the guidance note below.

Most of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) related e-bulletins and newsletters that I have received lately focus on the major overhaul to The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) – and the new Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS). This is due to be implemented later this year. This is great as it ensures that we are all prepared for when the changes come into effect. However, we know DoLS, and LPS when it’s in force, are part of the MCA, the principles of which must be applied in all cases. Many of us know from practice that where the MCA is applied correctly, DoLS can even be avoided in some cases. Therefore, the MCA is a crucial obligatory foundation to DoLS / LPS but also to health, social care and beyond, so I am wishing to raise awareness of the other work that is happening alongside the LPS work. This is the review of the existing MCA Code of Practice.

  • Hopefully, you would have seen the call for evidence issued by the Ministry of Justice last year asking for people’s opinions on the code. I have had the honour of sitting on the working group that has been leading on the review. The group consists of members from a variety of backgrounds, including law, health, social care, the third sector, academics as well as government, all experts in the MCA and personally I have learnt a lot from.

I have seen first-hand that the review is no easy task; the group have literally looked through the code line-by-line and scrutinised the smallest of details; and often had constructive debate amongst members. The code is not the shortest of documents, so as you can imagine it has taken a while to get through the code in this level of detail. I can also assure people that as we have gone through each chapter, section, and line we have looked through the information people submitted through the call for evidence.

Helpful, accurate and up-to-date

Information from the call for evidence has been a key to the review. The code was written before the MCA came into force, and so was looking ahead at how it was thought the new law would work in practice. This review provides an opportunity to make changes to reflect how the law does and should work on a day-to-day basis, and so the call for evidence has helped with that.

The review cannot change the MCA itself. Many times as a group we have had to look back at the MCA and ensure that the code continues to reflect the law. But the review does enable us to ensure that the code is helpful, accurate and up-to-date with case law and best practice. I know that the Ministry of Justice have been looking for real life scenarios to include in the Code, as many of the current ones are out of date and all were written before the MCA came into force.

The working group have just had our last meeting and all the many months of work and recommendations are being looked over by the Ministry of Justice. They are now pulling together the final draft. Don’t panic though – this won’t suddenly land in your inbox; there will be a consultation on the MCA Code update alongside the new LPS guidance. I urge you to submit your thoughts. As we know the MCA is a fundamental backbone to health and social care; and to wider society as it effects so much more, from banking, to shopping and to someone’s everyday activities (really the list is endless). Therefore, we all need to ensure that the code, which is statutory guidance for how the law should work in practice, is right and fit for purpose, so look out for the consultation that will be out soon – and do please respond.