Story updated 26 March
Coronavirus-inspired legislation, which would allow ministers to suspend key duties under the Care Act and its equivalent Welsh legislation, has passed into law.
The changes in the Coronavirus Act 2020 are intended to enable authorities to prioritise resources, if necessary, should they be unable to meet their statutory duties in full should demand spike and staffing resources shrink significantly as the Covid-19 pandemic reaches its peak.
The government has insisted that the provisions in schedule 11 of the act – which would come into effect through regulations – will only be applied if required. However, they have triggered significant concerns about the undermining of key entitlements to care and support.
The legislation as a whole will be in place for an initial period of two years, though this could be shortened or lengthened by regulations, and it will be reviewed as a whole every six months.
Suspension of Care Act and Welsh duties
Were the emergency powers triggered, the act would suspend the duties on English local authorities to assess the needs of adults, adult carers, disabled children in transition and their carers and young carers who appear to have needs for care and support – or support in the case of carers – and to determine whether such needs were eligible. Councils would also not have to carry out financial assessments though would not be able to charge for care and support without having done so.
More on the Coronavirus Act
Community Care Inform Adults subscribers can read a full outline of what the act means for practitioners written by legal editor Tim Spencer-Lane.
The provisions would also weaken the duty under section 18 of the Care Act to meet adults’ unmet eligible needs for care and support, which would only be required if it were necessary to prevent a breach of the person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The same would apply in relation to the duty to meet carers’ eligible needs under section 20 of the act.
The act also allows for the suspension of the requirement to prepare or review care and support plans for adults, or support plans for carers, and the duty to provide continuity of care when a person moves between local authority areas.
It would also suspend similar duties on Welsh local authorities under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 in the event of an emergency, as determined by Welsh ministers.
Emergency powers
Explaining the rationale for the provisions in a letter to social care organisations, Department of Health and Social Care director general, prevention, community and social care Jonathan Marron said: “I know that you will be committed to delivering on all your existing duties during the coming period. However, we need to prepare for the possibility that during the peak of an epidemic a greater number of people will need social care and many staff may be unavailable due to illness or the need to care for loved ones.
“This could mean that you need to focus your resources on ensuring the most serious and urgent care needs are met, and defer meeting some other, less acute or pressing needs.”
Alongside the legislation, the DHSC has published an ethical framework designed to guide local authorities in the event that they need to prioritise between competing needs. This states that decisions need to be made in a way that ensures people are treated with respect, minimises harm and is inclusive.
The act also provides for the government to issue guidance, which councils would have to have regard to, in relation to applying the Care Act provisions.
However, the proposals have triggered widespread concerns about the impact on people with needs and their carers.
BASW England: better ways to manage crisis
The British Association of Social Workers England said that while it strongly supported the government’s aim of enabling local authorities to prioritise services so they could meet the most serious and urgent needs, there were better ways of doing so.
It said it was “concerned that the significant level of legislative change proposed in the bill is likely to delay actions, because of the scale of the changes and the resources it will require to implement them. New administrative systems will be required, and social workers and other staff will require training in applying these systems and adapting their ways of working.”
‘Serious risk to life’
Speaking before the act became law, Campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) said: “As it stands the bill poses a serious risk to the lives of many disabled people, especially those of us who need social care support.
“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.”
Helen Walker, chief executive of Carers UK, said: “We recognise these are temporary measures which should help local services better deal with coronavirus – but it is essential that councils continue to assess the risks and vulnerabilities affecting carers and the people they support.
“Unpaid carers will be under huge stress currently, taking extra precautions and going above and beyond what they normally do to ensure their loved ones are safe. If they are not clearly recognised and supported during this emergency then more people will become unwell and need support.”
‘A dogfight for resources’
Legal experts were also critical. The legal advice charity CASCAIDr, headed by lawyer and trainer Belinda Schwehr, has produced a highly critical clause-by-clause analysis of the act’s impact on the Care Act.
In relation to the provision commuting the duty to meet needs under section 18 of the Care Act 2014, CASCAIDr said: “We fear that the only staff who know how to do a human rights assessment in adult social care are those who manage the case load made up of people with nil recourse to public funds – people with an immigration status, and there won’t be many of those around, for much longer!
“Most social work colleges will not have taught the newly qualified social work students how to do this, we have to say, in our experience. This is a recipe for turning social care into a dogfight for resources, determined by the principle ‘S/he who shouts loudest gets the services’.
It is not what the public deserves, having been told that the government will do whatever it takes.”
Alternative approaches
Three barristers from 39 Essex Chambers, all with significant experience of social care law, proposed alternative approaches to managing the impact of demand and workforce pressures on local authorities statutory duties than that proposed by the government in schedule 11 of the act.
Jenni Richards QC, Victoria Butler-Cole QC and Sian Davies said that the government’s objectives could be met by:
- “Retaining the relevant social care duties but amending their application so that local authorities are only required to implement them as far as reasonably practicable. Where the draft Bill says the local authority does not have to comply with a duty, the new drafting would say that the local authority has to comply with the duty only to the extent reasonably practicable. The ‘reasonably practicable’ rider would not apply where there were anticipated ECHR breaches.
- Alternatively, requiring the local authority, before treating the relevant social care provisions as disapplied, to be satisfied that compliance with the duties is incompatible with either compliance with other statutory duties or with the efficient use of its resources.
- In any event, adding an express requirement to carry out an assessment to verify whether there would be any ECHR breach. This would most likely be implied as a matter of law on the basis of the current drafting, but it would be clearer for local authorities for it to be spelled out on the face of the legislation – the current draft requires local authorities to be satisfied there would be no ECHR breach but says they have no duty to assess any individual’s needs, which would be the only way to ascertain this.”
What else is in the act?
- Mental Health Act applications for detention: an application to detain a person under sections 2 or 3 of the act can be based on a single recommendation from a doctor, rather than two, if seeking a second recommendation is “impractical or would involve undesirable delay”.
- Extension of Mental Health Act time limits: extending time limits for doctors and nurses to detain patients already in hospital pending assessment to 120 and 12 hours, up from 72 and 6 respectively; allowing the police to detain a person in a place of safety for 36 hours under section 135 and 136 of the MHA, up from the current 24.
- NHS continuing healthcare: NHS clinical commissioning groups would not have to comply with the duty to carry out an assessment of need for NHS continuing healthcare if it appears that the person may have need for such care.
- Social work workforce: the act provides for the creation of temporary registers of social workers in England and Wales so that the workforce can be bolstered.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Does anyone yet know how this all would impact on people already receiving a care package from their local authority?
Would an LA be able to cut pre-existing funding freely?
OR is this bill only going to impact on people coming into the social care system first the first time, or those requiring additional support in the wake of COVID?
Thanks.
Hi Mel,
From what I’ve read it will apply to people already receiving care adn support due the way the legislation is drafted but we will make sure we check that out and make it clear in future coverage.
Thanks,
Mithran
Oh dear, that’s worrying. LA’s are already looking for any excuse to cut people’s care/support funding any way they can.
Also worrying that disabled/vulnerable people who are employers through Direct Payments could potentially find themselves in hot water with employment law, if they have to reduce their employees hours etc.
Let’s hope the government find some kindness and see sense to make the necessary edits to the bill.
Thanks for the reply.
the provision in the bill, if implemented, would be that if LAs are not financially assessing they can’t charge, BUT THEY CAN FINANCIALLY ASSESS AT THE END OF THE EMERGENCY PERIOD AND BACKDATE IT! See Belinda’s analysis via link in article above (then click the link at the bottom of her short explanation to get her full analysis)
In N.Ireland my local authority has already from today unilaterally closed down all daycare centres and day opportunities for all learning disabled and autistic adults until end of April [but we all know its likley to extend much longer] and it has stopped all short respite breaks! So a young adult whose needs were assessed as needing 5 days per week daycentre care and several nights per month respite break has this stopped overnight [notice given by letter on Friday past!]..So that means the carers have to give up work to be at home full time with no negotiation, virtually no notice. What are the carers like me going to do especially given the restriction on public spaces and closure of all cafes etc?
Like the schools I have advised our health minister that the centres should remain open at least on a reduced basis as they are an essential service not a luxury, or for those parents who are essential workers like me. So those adults who are severely impaired mentally have no right to be ”minded” like the school children many of whom would be more able!
I contacted the BBC local health correspondent to ask why no one in the media has commented on this publicly as it is a huge stressor on already stressed carers/parents. But I got no reply. I dnt hear anything about it in the media. Are the daycentres in England all closed completely?
So overnight all assessed needs can be shelved quoting this crisis with the only response being if you have problems contact your social worker or duty socal worker! How on earth are they going to substitute for all those hours and days of practical help? If carers cannot cope in a few days or weeks time and then are more vulnerable to the virus due to their older age and extra stress that will mean more people looking for beds for their special needs adult children, and these beds wont be there
Does anyone know when the act will come in to force? Will it be down to local authority discretion as to when to use the Act?
Hiya, the act as a whole came into force today when it received Royal Assent. But the key bits for social care need to be commenced by regulations, which ministers would introduce if we enter an emergency period. At that point, local authorities would not be held to their duties under the Care Act as per the bill but it would be open to authorities to continue with them as they would retain the power to do what are currently duties. But the assumption would be that they would be so overwhelmed that they would just follow the reduced duties in the Coronavirus Act. Thanks
This morning we received a letter from the CCG responsible for my wife’s CHC funded domiciliary care package. It says as a result of the national coronavirus crisis, our care package is being reviewed.
It says while they will work to respond to our ‘wants and needs’ , they are informing us that they may need to provide support in different ways; for example by offering a care home placement until your domiciliary care provider can pick your care package back up.
Such a threatening letter, why the need to mention a care home placement and not mention other less drastic measures such as cuts to hours.
My wife is aged 37 and we have kids age 4 and 5. Where do we stand re: coronavirus bill in responding to this letter? Surely separating mother from kids age 4 and 5 is a human rights breach?
Any advice or signposting appreciated as this is a battle I can’t fight alone.
Sometimes CCG staff do not follow the legislation, there is no reason why your wife should be placed in a care home during this pandemic. Own home is safe.
All assessments and reviews have been suspended by NHSE. Why are they reviewing the care package?
I also have a granddaughter with complex needs and we always get threatening letters to review the care package.
It’s good I know the system so it bounces back to them.
Hi Good Carer
I am due to have my daughters first review via a Whats App video call tomorrow..She also has complex needs and receives a full CHC package.
It’s her first review for 2 years . I’m so anxious. I don’t know the system at all!!!
Any advice?
Taj, in your case, they would be compelled not to `breach human rights’ so your wife should be ok.
To everyone else complaining and saying the government “should be kind” etc……this boils down to life and death. What is coming is going to overwhelm everyone, the luxuries of `wellbeing and dignity’ will go out the window, we will be lucky if we can meet even basic needs of so many people in the next 6 months at least. Open your eyes. It’s going get bad, the government and LA’s will simply not have the resources and those of us on the frontline will no longer be Fairy Godmother’s waving a wand and giving people everything they demand.