The Coronavirus Act's Easements to the Care Act 2014: A Pragmatic Response or a Red Herring?

Easements to the Care Act 2014 were introduced in England in Spring 2020 to support local authorities (LAs) who were dealing with the impact of COVID-19 on adult social care. They were adopted by a small number of LAs that only kept them in place for a very short period. This article draws on the limited literature covering easements and on a synthesis of the views of twenty key informants with professional experiences of social care policy, advocacy, practice and law. It covers the way they were introduced and the opposition which they attracted, as well as contrasting views on the nature and necessity of easements. It also records the perceptions of interviewees on the rationale for the decisions taken to adopt or not adopt them. The article examines the reasons why government thought they should be in place and the concerns of some of those in the voluntary, human rights and legal sectors who challenged their introduction and operation. Whilst the findings contain messages for how to approach the management of a similar crisis in the future, the study identified a lack of evidence of the impact of easements on those using social care as well as their carers. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in England, the government passed legislation, granting it emergency powers to enable public bodies to respond to the public health crisis. The guidance which accompanied the Coronavirus Act 2020 enabled local authorities to suspend some of their duties under the Care Act 2014. This dispensation became known as 'easements'. This article explains how the 'easements' were defined and discussed. It examines why they were controversial and attracted opposition from some quarters. It is based on discussions with twenty experts on adult social care policy, practice and law who explained the grounds for their support of easements or the reasons for their opposition within the context of 2020-21. Their views are irreconcilable, falling as they do into two camps: those who view easements as a pragmatic response to a crisis where the trajectory was unclear and those who viewed them as an unnecessary curtailment of people's rights.

Parliament's One-Year Review of the Coronavirus Act 2020: Another Example of Parliament's Marginalisation in the Covid-19 Pandemic.

In this article, we consider the one-year review (OYR) by Parliament of temporary powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CVA). The OYR stands as a key concession on the part of the UK government to enable scrutiny of Covid-19 law making, after the CVA was rushed through Parliament at the beginning of the pandemic. The principal argument of this article is that despite appearances, this review was another example of Parliament being marginalised during the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, there were four obstacles to meaningful scrutiny in the OYR: inadequate parliamentary time scheduled for the review; the 'all-or-nothing' framing of the review; late and inaccurate government reporting prior to the OYR; and the failure to address key issues regarding the operation of the CVA, including major human rights concerns. In light of such obstruction to scrutiny, it is clear that the review represents a broken promise on the part of the current government to Parliament. The review is also part of a broader pattern of marginalising Parliament during the pandemic. In presenting this analysis, we argue that two changes could be made in the upcoming and penultimate review of the CVA in September 2021, in order to enable Parliament to engage in meaningful scrutiny in this review.

Disability Rights During COVID-19: Emergency Law and Guidelines in England.

Disabled people may be disproportionately impacted by the response to the COVID-19 outbreak because of the kinds of countermeasures needed to tackle it, and serious disruptions to the services on which they rely. There are reports from the disability community in England and elsewhere that measures taken to contain the spread of COVID-19 impact negatively on their human rights and experiences. This commentary focuses on the healthcare and social care systems in England and describes how laws and practices have changed under the COVID-19 pandemic, and how these changes affect the rights of disabled people.

Mental health and capacity laws in Northern Ireland and the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining powers, procedures and protections under emergency legislation.

This article examines the changes made to mental health and capacity laws in Northern Ireland through temporary emergency legislation, known as the Coronavirus Act 2020. The purpose of the legislation was to respond to the emergency situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular the increase pressure placed on health services in the United Kingdom. An overview is provided of the government's rationale for the changes to Northern Ireland mental health and capacity laws, as well as exploring how they are likely to be operationalised in practice. Consideration is also given as to how such changes may impact upon existing human rights protections for persons assessed as lacking mental capacity. It is argued that it is important that regular parliamentary oversight is maintained in relation to the potential impact and consequences of such changes during the period they are in force. This should be done in order to assess whether they remain a necessary, proportionate and least restrictive response to the challenges faced in managing mental health and capacity issues in Northern Ireland during this public health emergency.

"It's about how much we can do, and not how little we can get away with": Coronavirus-related legislative changes for social care in the United Kingdom.

The coronavirus pandemic, referred to here as Covid-19, has brought into sharp focus the increasing divergence of devolved legislation and its implementation in the United Kingdom. One such instance is the emergency health and social care legislation and guidance introduced by the United Kingdom Central Government and the devolved Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in response to this pandemic. We provide a summary, comparison and discussion of these proposed and actual changes with a particular focus on the impact on adult social care and safeguarding of the rights of citizens. To begin, a summary and comparison of the relevant changes, or potential changes, to mental health, mental capacity and adult social care law across the four jurisdictions is provided. Next, we critique the suggested and actual changes and in so doing consider the immediate and longer term implications for adult social care, including mental health and mental capacity, at the time of publication.several core themes emerged: concerns around process and scrutiny; concerns about possible changes to the workforce and last, the possible threat on the ability to safeguard human rights. It has been shown that, ordinarily, legislative provisions across the jurisdictions of the UK are different, save for Wales (which shares most of its mental health law provisions with England). Such divergence is also mirrored in the way in which the suggested emergency changes could be implemented. Aside from this, there is also a wider concern about a lack of parity of esteem between social care and health care, a concern which is common to all. What is interesting is that the introduction of CVA 2020 forced a comparison to be made between the four UK nations which also shines a spotlight on how citizens can anticipate receipt of services.

Spring in London with Covid-19: a personal view.

This is a personal view from London as the Covid-19 pandemic continues to spread here and the situation changes from day to day. As such it can only be a snapshot caught in time; it is not a diary of events. The Coronavirus Act 2020 gives Government enormous powers and was passed by Parliament in one day of debate immediately before it closed early for the Easter break. In March, the government imposed a "lockdown: the closure of all" but "essential" businesses and people other than essential workers must work from home but are allowed out for exercise and food shopping but must maintain 2 m apart, the "social distancing rule". The aim is to suppress the spread of the virus, reduce the death toll and "protect the National Health Service (NHS)" which needed time to empty wards and expand its intensive care unit (ICU) capability to deal with an expected influx of thousands of very sick patients. I discuss whether this strategy is working, how and why it has rapidly been altered to respond to criticism. Why was the Government so slow to seek the help of private laboratories to assist with testing? Why was the personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance altered only after criticism? I look at the impact of the lockdown on the UK economy, the changes to practice of medicine and speeding of scientific research. Cooperating with the lockdown has its price; is it harming the health and mental health of children, people living in households with potentially abusive partners or parents and those who are disabled or financially desperate? Is the cure worse than the disease? The Economy is being devastated by the lockdown and each day of lockdown it is worse. Is litigation being seeded even now by the pandemic? Notwithstanding unprecedented Government financial help many businesses are on the edge of collapse, people will lose their jobs and pensioners income. The winners include pharmacies, supermarkets, online food retailers, Amazon, online apps, providers of video games, services, streaming and scientific research laboratories, manufacturers of testing kits, ventilators, hand sanitisers, coffins, undertakers, etc. The British public is cooperating with lockdown but are we less productive at home? Parents with babies and children often child minders, school, grandparents or paid help which is not now available. Will current reliance on video-conferencing and video calls permanently change the way we work and will we need smaller city offices? Will we travel less? Will medical and legal practice and civil and criminal trials be generally carried out remotely? Will social distancing with self-isolation and job losses and business failures fuel depression? Is Covid-19 comparable to past epidemics like the Plague and Spanish flu?