Parliamentary arguments on powers of access – the Care Bill debates
| Published date | 12 December 2016 |
| Pages | 318-328 |
| Date | 12 December 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-04-2016-0008 |
| Author | Jill Manthorpe,Stephen Martineau,Caroline Norrie,Martin Stevens |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Parliamentary arguments on powers
of access –the Care Bill debates
Jill Manthorpe, Stephen Martineau, Caroline Norrie and Martin Stevens
Jill Manthorpe is a Professor
of Social Work,
Stephen Martineau is a
Research Assistant,
Caroline Norrie is a Research
Fellow and Martin Stevens is a
Senior Research Fellow, all at
the Social Care Workforce
Research Unit, King’s College
London, London, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –Opinion is divided on whether a new power of entry should be introduced for social workers in
cases where individuals seem to be hindering safeguarding enquiries for community-dwelling adults at risk in
England who have decision-making capacity. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the prevalence and
circumstances of situations where access to an adult at risk is denied or difficult and what helps those in
practice. The study consists of a literature review, a survey of adult safeguarding managers and interviews
with social care staff in three case studies of local authorities. As part of the contextual literature review, during
2014 the authors located parliamentary debates on the subject and this paper reports on their analysis.
Design/methodology/approach –Following approaches were used in historical research, documentary
analysis was carried out on transcripts of parliamentary debates available online from Hansard,
supplemented by other materials that were referenced in speeches and set in the theoretical context of
the representations of social problems.
Findings –The authors describe the content of debates on the risks and benefits of a new right to access for
social workers and the role of parliamentary champions who determinedly pursued this policy, putting
forward three unsuccessful amendments in efforts to insert such a new power into the Care Act 2014.
Research limitations/implications –There are limits to a focus on parliamentary reports and the limits of
Hansard reporting are small but need to be acknowledged. However, adult safeguarding research has
surprisingly not undertaken substantial analyses of political rhetoric despite the public theatre of the debate
and the importance of legislative initiatives and monitoring.
Originality/value –This paper adds to the history of adult safeguarding in England. It also offers insight into
politicians’views on what is known/unknown about the prevalence and circumstances of the problems with
gaining access to adults with capacity where there are safeguarding concerns and politicians’views on the
merits or hazards of a power of access.
Keywords Adult safeguarding, Adults at risk, Power of entry, Right of access, Care Act, Parliament
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
There have been several themed analyses of UK Parliamentary debates, some spanning many
years of debate about important subjects, such as Fletcher’s (2008) analysis of how the subject
of asylum seeking has featured in parliamentary discourse. This paper reports a documentary
analysis of the parliamentary debates on, and pre-legislative scrutiny of, proposed English
legislation relevant to adult safeguarding. It follows a tradition of political studies scholarship that
treats such debates as important data sources for analysis, which can be traced back to
Aristotelian rhetorics, the study of how arguments are presented in order to convince or
persuade opponents in a debate (Billig, 1996). The subject of this present analysis is tightly
focussed. It reports on debate about whether the law should be changed in England to authorise
powers of access in cases of suspected abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult (with
decision-making capacity) when professionals cannot gain entry to the adult’s home or access
Received 15 April 2016
Revised 30 July 2016
2 September 2016
Accepted 21 September 2016
This study is funded by the
Department of Health’s Policy
Research Programme. The views
expressed in this paper are those
of the authors’alone. The authors
are grateful to the reviewers for
their constructive comments.
PAGE318
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
VOL. 18 NO. 6 2016, pp. 318-328, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203 DOI 10.1108/JAP-04-2016-0008
To continue reading
Request your trial