The Removal Of Local Authority Obligation To Provide Social Care Support

[onewheeldave 22]

The coronovirus bill being debated in parliment today, which is supposed to be about measures to combat the virus, includes removing the obligation of local authorities to provide social care support under the Care Act 2014.

How that is going to help combat coronovirus is anybodies guess, but, one thing is sure, long after coronovirus has been and gone, the removal of care will have, and continue to have, very serious effects on highly vulnerable people.

How typical of the government, to be putting on a show of caring for the vulnerable, while trying to slip through this highly damaging bit of legislation, knowing full well that the public are so overwhelmed with what is going on, that they will likely remain totally unaware until the Bill is established and implemented.

I know many on this forum won't care, but, for those who do, please read the following links, and, if you agree that this is a sinister assault on the vulnerable and in no way is an appropriate response to the pandemic, I'd suggest you share it with others, and encourage them to plaster social media with it.

 

 

 

https://www.inclusionlondon.org.uk/campaigns-and-policy/act-now/coronavirus-bill-could-leave-thousands-of-disabled-people-without-support/?fbclid=IwAR2GrxPl7euMfkmlzT8CAfuxHnN9MbzuHkzmm1SHOUo3m9OgXhR0vj0s7yA  

 

 

 

"The Bill will effectively free local authorities of their duties to provide social care support under the Care Act 2014 and will only oblige local authorities to provide support in cases where the human rights of Disabled people will be breached.

We know from experience that in order for human rights to be breached in social care context the situation has to be very critical or severe. "

    

 

38 degrees-

 

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/covid19-bill-disabled-and-vulnerable-adults-and-children?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1584876117&utm_campaign&utm_source=facebook&share=b81e7e16-700d-44b5-98d5-eb0cb24380ce&fbclid=IwAR2OAyPhehW1Cop9ryK-4jfG1dHftGXTnurQtEf1F2xeGEMEh3Pa1SexcW8     

 

 

 

If you pass it on it would be worth encouraging everyone to do their best to plaster social media with it, because I think most people are so overwhelmed with all the other stuff that is happening, that the government know full well they have a good chance of getting this through before people realise it is an attack on the vulnerable.

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by onewheeldave

[Anna B 1,401]

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou! I have been trying to get this message out. But people don't read the links.

[onewheeldave 22]

5 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou! I have been trying to get this message out. But people don't read the links.

People are very scared, they are understandably looking after their own.  Clearly the government know this. 

What kind of people are these authority figures, that they take advantage of a national crisis, to, once again,  remove legislation that offered some support to those who desperately need it?

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by onewheeldave

[Anna B 1,401]

Errr.....  Tories?

[*Wallace* 333]

Dig out your old REM best of album and put This Is The End Of The World As We Know It on repeat I think it will get that bad.

[Anna B 1,401]

This has been bandied about on the internet for years and been dismissed as fake news and 'conspiracy theory.' 

Now it's happening - this afternoon. Let's hope Labour can  keep it out, but without a majority it's unlikely.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Anna B

[onewheeldave 22]

31 minutes ago, Anna B said:

 

Now it's happening - this afternoon. Let's hope Labour can  keep it out, but without a majority it's unlikely.

The problem is, that any opposition to it is focused soley on the threat to civil liberty, hence why "Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn wrote to Prime Minister Boris Johnson on 18 March requesting that MPs be granted a vote to renew the bill every six months".

 

And that's it. Reassessing it every 6 months will do nothing to help those disabled people who have lost all their social support.

None of the opposition seem to be even remotely addressing Suspension of the Care Act, only organisations who advocate for the disabled, eg-

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2020/march/suspension-care-act-act-immediately

 

"

Implications of the Bill for Disabled people
What does it mean for disabled adults? 

The Bill suspends every duty in the Care Act, 2014, including the duty to meet the eligible needs of disabled people (Section 18) and their carers (Section 20).  Under the #CoronaVirus Bill, Local Authorities will only have to provide care ‘if they consider it necessary’ for the purposes of avoiding a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).  There is no human right to social care or positive obligation under the ECHR to meet care needs. See assessment from leading lawyers specialising in Social Care here: https://www.39essex.com/the-coronavirus-bill-schedule-11/"

 

In my opinion, relying on Labour, or indeed, any political entity to stop this going through is pointless. Given that this is clearly an attempt to disable the Care Act and is being hidden in the coronovirus legislation (very effectively- none of the opposition are addressing it), it seems to me that the best thing we can do is expose what the authorities are so keen to keep hidden.

 

Hence- post and share on social media, those who use twitter, get tweeting- do our best to ensure the public know that the government are using the global coronovirus emergency as a means to disable the already inadequate social support for disabled people under the soon-to-be-gone Care Act.

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by onewheeldave

[Anna B 1,401]

I know first hand how difficult it is to get this support, they use every trick under the sun, such as 'Dementia is not an illness.'

This will just give them carte blanche over a range of things which will affect us all as we grow older.  But nobody seemed interested - they're all focused on coronavirus. Bloody Tories, slippery AF.

[the_bloke 17]

2 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

How that is going to help combat coronovirus is anybodies guess

 

So you don't think the temporary re-provisioning of resources including funding, nursing and care staff in social care and bed space if needed temporarily has nothing to do with combating coronavirus?

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

So you don't think the temporary re-provisioning of resources including funding, nursing and care staff in social care and bed space if needed temporarily has nothing to do with combating coronavirus?

I believe the OP is right to draw attention to the executive power continent-grab under this draft bill. A crucial question (IMHO) is more, is this deliberate or, less ominously, well-meaning-but-ill-advised (-drafted, if you will) under time pressure? 

  

I guess social care provisioning and its chronic under-resourcing, likewise many further redundant aspects/measures of this bill, will quickly fall off everyone's radar, if the NHS (and mortuary services) eventually get so overwhelmed, that the army has to be brought in to dispose of the bodies... 

  

...like it has in some places in Italy.

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by L00b

[stillf 11]

A little bit of research actually finds the draft details in the bill (try here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-bill-summary-of-impacts/coronavirus-bill-summary-of-impacts)

 

The first part of the document details the fact that this is a temporary measure to cope with the current pandemic and allows for certain steps to be taken that will help with increasing demand and (further) reductions in staff due to them being unavailable to work due to the disease. The actual part the OP is discussing can be found and the summary of the details and rationale are there for all to see.

 

Extracts below

NHS and local authority care and support

This summary of impacts covers three provisions:

1. Provision that in a coronavirus outbreak a Local Authority (LA) may lawfully prioritise who and what type of needs it will meet, rather than being required to meet all eligible assessed needs as specified under the Care Act 2014 (as at present).
2. Provision that in a coronavirus outbreak LAs may lawfully determine whether and the extent to which it will carry out assessments of individuals’ needs or review care plans, or carry out financial assessments, rather than being required to carry these out in all cases required by the Care Act 2014 as at present.
3. Provision for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to direct LAs in relation to the prioritisation of services to meet care and support needs in accordance with guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Care.

 

These changes to the Care Act 2014 would only be triggered if the spread of coronavirus was such that the Secretary of State considered LAs to be at imminent risk of failing to fulfil their duties under the Care Act 2014 and would be deactivated at the conclusion of the emergency period. Even during the operation of these changes, LAs would still be expected to continue meeting all of their duties under the Act if they are able to do so. It would though allow them to prioritise the provision of services if needed, including requiring them to meet needs in order to prevent individuals’ human rights being breached.

[the_bloke 17]

So it's a temporary change to the legal obligations of the local authority in order to prioritise resources and services in the event of them needing to in a large scale outbreak. Makes sense to me.