If I were not the parent of a young man with severe learning disabilities, and therefore involved in a world unknown to most lawyers, I would probably still be proud of our legal system.

Instead I feel ashamed when I look at the law from the point of view of my son.Mentally infirm people suffer a handicap in society, but it need not be exacerbated by the legal system.

More knowledge about the way the law addresses the needs of elderly and disabled people is not enough.

We need law reform.The Law Society's mental health and disability sub-committee has for the past ten years pressed for the individuals with capacity to be allowed to appoint someone to make personal, financial and medical decisions for them in the event of loss of capacity.

At present the only such powers relate to financial affairs.

We also want it to be possible, in the case of those who do not or cannot take advantage of this facility, for the court to be able to make decisions or appoint someone to do so.

We also want carers to be authorised to make everyday decisions.

The absence of these provisions results in uncertainty, vulnerability and the failure to implement even beneficial decisions.The sub-committee has concentrated on increasing awareness among lawyers and mental disability charities rather than achieving newspaper headlines.

It remains to be seen whether this low-key approach has been effective.In 1989, the sub-committee held a conference to highlight the vacuum in our law regarding decision-making for adults who lack mental capacity.

It was chaired by one of the Law Commissioners, and the Law Commission under her supervision examined the topic of mental incapacity.

A discussion paper and three consultation documents followed, upon which the mental health and disability sub-committee made its contribution.

In 1995 report no.

231 mental incapacity was published, containing a draft Bill including the proposals above.There was almost universal support for it among organisations concerned for those who lack capacity.

We said that legislation must follow, although the reforms were (wrongly) thought to introduce euthanasia by the back door.We did not allow for the Daily Mail, which claimed the Bill would allow euthanasia through living wills.

Sadly, the government took fright and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, said the proposals would not be implemented 'in their present form'.The sub-committee held a joint conference with the British Medical Association in 1996.

There was scarcely a murmur of dissent on the proposals, which were broadly accepted in the 1997 Green Paper Who Decides? Since then the legislation has gone no further.There are signs that financial constraints are influencing official thinking.

My fear is that we will be given the law without the procedures to make it accessible to those who need it, such as trained local judges who can obtain reports from welfare officers.

But it is encouraging that some of the proposals in the Law Commission's report have influenced our law through judges taking them on board in their decision-making.Canada is ahead of us in its legislation on mental incapacity, and the new Scottish Parliament has already introduced legislation on the lines of their Law Commission's contemporaneous report on mental incapacity.

What a pity it will be if other jurisdictions benefit from the work of our Law Commission before we do.The climate has changed since the sub-committee's work 10 years ago.

We have a Disability Discrimination Act.

The lack of legal procedures for decisions to be made on behalf of those unable to do so is the ultimate form of discrimination.

We also have the Human Rights Act and I doubt whether our system of treating the mentally incapacitated will withstand scrutiny when judged by the new international standards.