RESCARE
Call our Helpline
Donate to Rescare
The Society for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities and their Families
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages

 
Rescare on Facebook
Rescare on Twitter
Contact Us
RESCARE
Call our Helpline
Donate to Rescare
Rescare on Facebook
Rescare on Twitter
Contact Us

10925188_IFConsultancy_v2

The Society for Children
and Adults with Learning
Disabilities and their Families

10925188_IFConsultancy_v2
15231690_IFConsultancy_v2

Make a

Donation

Make a donation today and help Rescare

15231690_IFConsultancy_v2
13971694_IFConsultancy_v2

Supporting Campaigns

Lobbying MPs, ministers & agencies on legislation and policy changes
13971694_IFConsultancy_v2
13971694_IFConsultancy_v2

Helpline: 0161 474 7323

Here to help with questions relating to learning disability and its impact on family carers

13971694_IFConsultancy_v2

Leading social care interest groups warn government that its mental capacity reforms are not fit for purpose

The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill is proceeding through Parliament. Following upon the DoLS crisis, about which we  posted and wrote extensively in recent years, the Bill’s primary purpose is to replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) with the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) proposed by the Law Commission’s Review.

Last week Rescare received email alerts on a Committee Stage debate in the House of Lords, in which speakers with expert knowledge of the issues and an interest in learning disability, such as Baroness Hollins, voiced their concerns over assessments of capacity by care providers and ‘registered managers’, and over the introduction of  inadequately defined terminology, especially ‘unsoundness of mind’.

The Hansard transcripts of the Lords debate, and  background information on the contents  and intention of the the Bill are available here on the Parliament website.

If you require a thorough anaylsis of  the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, comprising ‘a series of perspectives’ written by barristers expert in mental capcity law, we can recommend the Special Report available on the 39 Essex Chambers website

But also. to coincide with the Lords Committee Stage debates, a consortium of organisations with shared concerns about the Bill published  a more concise press briefing, which we think is worth reproducing here in full – since it outlines clearly the most controversial elements of the Bill.

Leading social care interest groups warn government that its mental capacity reforms are not fit for purpose

Leading social care interest groups from across the care sector are calling on the Government to urgently rethink its Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill that is now at a crucial parliamentary stage.

Concerns about the legislation are outlined in a new paper ahead of the House of Lords committee stage when it will be scrutinised by peers. The paper reflects the views of a wide range of organisations that represent people using support services, their families, care provider organisations and infrastructure bodies.

The Bill aims to provide legal safeguards required under the European Convention on Human Rights and will replace the existing Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) with Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS). The aim is to reform the process for authorising arrangements that enable people who lack capacity to be deprived of their liberty so they can consent to care (an example of a deprivation of liberty would be preventing someone from leaving a care home of their own free will). The Bill will affect the human rights of over 300,000 people in England and Wales including those with dementia, learning disabilities and brain injuries. Under the proposals, care managers would have now responsibility for arranging these human rights assessments.

Changes to the existing, unwieldy system are necessary and the sector has worked with the Law Commission in preparing its independent report to the government ahead of the reforms. But the government’s proposals fail to mirror the Law Commission model – today’s paper calls on the Government to go back to the recommendations of the Law Commission’s original review.

One major concern is that these proposals undermine the safeguards that protect people who lack capacity to make decisions about their care. The Bill introduces a conflict of interest for registered managers who would be responsible for carrying out assessments (providers may face allegations they are depriving someone of their liberty to fill a vacancy).

The group is also uneasy about the focus on how reforms will save an estimated £200m a year which calls into question the motives for change. There are also fears about the financial and practical impact of care providers fulfilling their new LPS responsibility at a time when the sector is already under enormous strain.

Other worrying aspects of the Bill include:

  • the lack of focus on the views of the person being assessed – people and their families are worried there is no requirement to consider the person’s own wishes
  • the implications of transferring responsibility for dealing with the backlog of DoLS assessments from local authorities to providers.
  • confusion arising from the creation of three disparate systems for managing the LPS, in care homes, community care settings and hospitals.
  • the lack of definition or acceptability of the term ‘unsoundness of mind’ – DoLS apply to people with a “mental disorder” but LPS apply to people of “unsound mind” – there is no definition of what this stigmatising term means.

Judy Downey, Chair of the Relatives and Residents Association said:

“It is neither fair nor appropriate to give care home managers these new responsibilities for vulnerable and often isolated people.  It requires them to be judge and jury about decisions in which they themselves could be involved. Our helpline hears too many stories of conflicts of interest within families or with care homes, which benefit from the independent professional oversight now provided by Best Interest Assessors. Care home managers are already overburdened with a range of ever-increasing responsibilities in what is a demanding and challenging role.”

Dr Rhidian Hughes, VODG chief executive, said:

“The care sector has huge concerns about the potential conflict of interest and the cost saving motives involved in the government’s proposals. The reforms seem entirely at odds with the ethos of care and services which focus on respecting the rights and choices of people using care services. The government must go back to the drawing board and reconsider the Law Commission’s original model of reforming the laws designed to safeguard people who need support. People’s rights must be protected and we’re ready to work with government to get this legislation fit for purpose.”

Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, said:

“The Bill in its current form is simply unworkable and should it be railroaded through Parliament there are real dangers that the people that it seeks to protect will suffer a great injustice and inadequate safeguards. The government needs to go back to the first principles and align the Bill with the recommendations of the Law Commission which itself conducted an extensive in depth study of the situation.”

Notes:

The paper, A cross-sector representation of issues and concerns relating to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, is available here.

The briefing is published by the following organisations: Action on Elder Abuse, Association for Real Change, Association of Mental Health Providers, Associated Retirement Community, Operators, Care England, Care Association Alliance, Care Provider Alliance, Learning Disability England, National Care Association, National Care Forum, National Dignity Council, Shared Lives Plus, Registered Nursing Home Association, Relatives & Residents Association, United Kingdom Homecare Association, Voluntary Organisations Disability Group

 

RESCARE

The Society for Children and Adults
with Learning Disabilities and their Families

 

Rescare on Facebook
Rescare on Twitter
Contact Us
Rescare on Facebook
Rescare on Twitter
Contact Us
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Registered Office:
19 Buxton Road
Stockport
SK2 6LS

Website Design and Hosting by IF Consultancy

Rescare - Registered Charity no. 1112766