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

ABSTRACT

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.