The Removal Of Local Authority Obligation To Provide Social Care Support

[Anna B 1,414]

4 hours ago, stillf said:

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 giant getout clause here which should be highlighted in bIG red letters is 'if they are able to do so.' 

 

LAs are not able to meet their duties now, and haven't been able to do so for months/years. There is an ongoing crisis in the home care sector which has been highlighted frequently in the recent past. A much needed care bill has been in the pipeline for 10 years and been constantly kicked down the road, building to the current crisis. You have to fight tooth and nail and jump through multiple hoops to get even the most minimal care for the most vulnerable. A lot never manage it.

 

Coronavirus has come on top of it and might well break the  system.

 

Words are fine but it is  the action which is the difficult bit.

[Longcol 604]

6 hours ago, the_bloke said:

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.

Given the billions of extra spending recently announced by the Chancellor, perhaps one would hope that they might just give some to Local Authorities to help them meet their legal obligations?

[the_bloke 17]

9 hours ago, Longcol said:

Given the billions of extra spending recently announced by the Chancellor, perhaps one would hope that they might just give some to Local Authorities to help them meet their legal obligations?

There is only a finite pool of cash; the worst case scenario has to be planned for. There's no point in holding LA's to legal obligations to do things like 'meeting all assessed needs' if said needs are impossible to achieve in lockdown or a mass outbreak. One of the requirements being repealed is the legal obligation for schools and other institutions to admit a child to a school where they are named on an EHCP. In case anyone has missed it, nearly all schools are closed, so this removes the legal headache of schools, staff and the LA to sort out school admissions when resources are put to better use elsewhere.

 

If this provision wasn't made, the next thing we'd be hearing is people moaning at LA's wasting money on providing minibuses to take disabled people to closed day care centres in the middle of the lockdown.

[markfor 10]

On 23/03/2020 at 10:53, onewheeldave said:

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?

 

On allotment Friday black police plane circled low 6 timed over me! Prison for me ? Is this good use of police time?? (Crookes)

Edited March 28, 2020 by markfor

[andyofborg 11]

8 minutes ago, markfor said:

On allotment Friday black police plane circled low 6 timed over me! Prison for me ? Is this good use of police time?? (Crookes)

maybe you shouldn't have been gardening naked.....

 

though more seriously, one officer can cover a fairly large area with a drone and guide officers on the ground directlt to the culprit, so overall a pretty good use of police time and they may have wanted to make sure you weren't rustling someone elses carrots.

[petemcewan 27]

Onewheeldave,

Will do. I have  friends who are severely disabled.

"Temporary measures"  my ar..  !

Take care.