Social workers have the powers they need to protect vulnerable adults being abused in their homes and must improve their “legal literacy” in order to successfully do so, a minister has said.
Earl Howe made the comment in rejecting campaigners’ latest efforts to give social workers the power to enter premises to access vulnerable adults at risk of abuse, when this is being prevented by a third party.
The House of Lords defeated an amendment to insert such a power of access into the Care Bill by 143 votes to 72 this week, in a debate at the report stage of the legislation. A similar amendment was moved at the committee stage of the bill but was withdrawn before a vote.
Gap in the law
Adult safeguarding campaigners and social work leaders say such a power is necessary to fill a gap in the law to help practitioners protect adults who are being coerced into silence by their abusers.
The latest amendment was devised by Action on Elder Abuse and moved by its patron, crossbench peer Baroness Sally Greengross.
It would enable a social worker to apply for a court order to access an adult at risk, which would only be granted if the practitioner reasonably suspected the person was being abused, needed the court order to assess risk and could show that such an order would not increase risk.
Greengross said safeguarding agencies needed to “seek out abuse rather than passively wait for victims to appear”, particularly when people were being abused by family members. Greengross was backed by the Labour Party frontbench and other peers with a background in social care, including former social worker Baroness Meacher and former social services director and health minister Lord Warner.
‘Imprisoned in their homes’
“There are situations where victims of abuse are imprisoned in their homes by a perpetrator who subsequently denies access to adult safeguarding staff,” Greengross told fellow peers. “In such circumstances there are no current legal means by which access can be achieved.”
However, this was strongly rejected by Howe, who said the issue was not the availability of powers for social workers to protect people, but their knowledge of the law.
Howe quoted an advice note for adult directors published by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and Local Government Association, which said existing protection powers were underused because of practitioners’ lack of legal knowledge.
“What is needed is greater knowledge of existing legislative options,” he said. “If they have that professionals will be fully equipped to support people to be safe.”
Existing powers
Existing provisions include powers for the police to enter premises to protect life or limb, under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; seek an occupation order, excluding abusers from the family home, under domestic violence legislation; or remove a person with a mental illness from their home to a place of safety if they are suspected of being abused, under section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Councils can apply to the Court of Protection to move a person receiving care at home to a new setting if they lack the mental capacity to decide on where they should live and it is deemed to be in their best interests.
They can also apply to a High Court to use its “inherent jurisdiction” to intervene to protect adults who face suspected abuse, possess relevant decision-making capacity but are being coerced by a third-party, typically a family member.
This latter provision comes closest to the power being sought by Greengross and others; however Action on Elder Abuse, among others, have warned that applying to the High Court in such cases would be lengthy and expensive for councils, in making their case for a new power.
Professionals in favour; public against
The government originally rejected a power of access in May, following a consultation that found health and social care professionals were largely in favour of the change, and most members of the public who responded were opposed.
Howe said the consultation revealed “no clear consensus”, and also warned that the introduction of such a power would have adverse consequences.
“A power such as this might well ensure access but the central issue will remain – how will the professionals then work with the situation to achieve the best outcomes,” he said. “Trust will have been compromised and, short of a power of removal, which we certainly would not want to see, the options for action seem pretty limited.”
Improve your safeguarding practice
Community Care is holding a conference on safeguarding adults in care homes and hospitals on 4 December in Birmingham. Book now for a discounted place.
More on the Care Bill
No return to regular assessments of local authority adult services, says minister
A trauma-informed approach to social work: practice tips 
Problem gambling: how to recognise the warning signs 
Find out how to develop your emotional resilience with our free downloadable guide 
Develop your social work career with Community Care’s Careers and Training Guide 
‘Dear Sajid Javid: please end the inappropriate detention of autistic people and those with learning disabilities’
Ofsted calls for power to scrutinise children’s home groups
Seven in eight commissioners paying below ‘minimum rate for home care’
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Social workers need all the powers to undertake there job my concerns are that there is an element of practitioners who abuse the power and responsibility provided to them.
Until the profession can be accountable and individuals trusted any further power should not be provided.
Until individuals report accurately and truthfully carry out there employment along the guidelines provided this is how it should stay.
I agree, I find it hard to believe that most professionals wish to have more powers of entry which should be left with the police who may request SW’s accompany them – perhaps more interagency guidance and cooperation needed here. Changing this balance of power risks alienating people/the public. SW’s have enough power already ( as an agency worker I have just completed a contract within an adults safeguarding team and I did not find any evidence of SW’s wanting power of entry – who are all these SW’s who want this, no one asked me or the team I was in? ).
It is not the majority of social workers who were seeking this power- only a large proportion of the 300 or so responding to the College of Social Work and the vested interests of Sally Greengross of Action on Elder Abuse with a handful of supporting organisations.
MIND did not support it for reasons similr to your own and neither did the majority of the public who were not expected to respond to the DH consultation but did. So if you extrapolate these figures to total number of social workers and service users / carers the feelings against by the public would outnumber the ‘professional’ interests.
Also in the House of Lords debate the vote was 1/3 for 2/3 against- so again fitting the wider public view- thankfully.
For once the government is beginning to recognise the problems associated with the lack of skills. knowledge or evidence that many social work practitioner’s operate under.
Well educated persons in any accepted profession would be expected to have a high ongoing self learning capacity to be equipped to do their job properly.
As we see in this magazine social workers are not very equipped at understanding or properly using even the Mental Capacity Act, inspite of their retorts at being the expetrts in ‘safeguarding’ work. They abuse ‘best interests’ decisions because of this knowledge deficit, to control, as this is the way they operate, i.e. they are the experts in best interests decisions and not the client or those independent of social work, or who have had long term ongoing close contact with the client – so we have a damaging and paternalistic Court of Protection judiciary as a result- for the present.
Thank heavens for a sensible decision! It is high time that government went a step further and recognised that vulnerable adults and their families need protection from the actions of social workers!
Current laws are abused to target and bully famines who have dared to complain or stand up for the rights of the cared for person. If this proposed power had been granted then we old have situations where innocent families have their homes invaded, a loved and cared for person removed, innocent carers vilified and possibly made homeless, families torn apart etc. – and all because some bully boy in the town hall wants revenge!