The Care Act 2014: a new legal framework for safeguarding adults in civil society
| Published date | 14 August 2017 |
| Date | 14 August 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-06-2017-0024 |
| Pages | 169-174 |
| Author | Bridget Penhale,Alison Brammer,Pete Morgan,Paul Kingston,Michael Preston-Shoot |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Bridget Penhale, Alison Brammer, Pete Morgan, Paul Kingston and Michael Preston-Shoot
The Care Act 2014: a new legal framework for safeguarding adults in civil society
Many of us may be able to remember the general air of excitement that surrounded the
writing and publishing of “No Secrets”(Department of Health, 2000) and “In Safe Hands”
(Welsh Assembly Government, 2000), although we might wish we were young enough not to!
At the time, the documents generated mixed feelings amongst service users/customers and
carers as well as professionals/practitioners. To some they were a major step forward on the
road to raise the status of “vulnerable adult protection”(as it was then known) closer to that
already enjoyed by child protection and domestic violence; to others it was a missed opportunity
to go even further along that road; and to a small number it was a step too far when the
perception was that existing legislation provided sufficient protection and any increased powers
amounted to state intrusion into the private lives of adults.
The constitutional situation across the four countries of the UK meant that England and Wales had
slightly different structures put in place to respond to situations of abuse and neglect, while Scotland
and Northern Ireland were responsible for their own processes and took different approaches.
Even within England and Wales, “No Secrets”and “In Safe Hands”were issued as guidance to
Local Authorities under existing legislation and, as such, did not place any requirements on any
other agencies or organisations to cooperate with the Local Authority. In fact, it could be argued that
Local Authorities did not have to act in accordance with guidance if they could see good reason why
not. Indicative of the anomalous position of the guidance is the situation in England regarding the
requirement of Local Authorities to produce multi-agency policies and procedures to protect
vulnerable adults –it is interesting to note how they had to produce multi-agency policies and
procedures, but no other agency was required to work with them to do so!
“No Secrets”was published in March 2000 and required the above-mentioned policies and
procedures to be forwarded to the Department of Health by October 2001. When one of us (PM)
took up the post of Vulnerable Adult Protection Coordinator with Coventry City Council in
mid-2003, he discovered that the Council had not submitted its policy and procedure to the
Department and that in fact the Council had not even finalised them. When he advised the
Department of Health of this, they did not seem unduly surprised or bothered and when he did
submit them later that year their receipt was not acknowledged; when he chased the
Department six months later to confirm that they had received them and to ask for feedback on
them, he was told they had received them, and, if they have had any negative comments to
make, they would have been in contact. Not really what you would want or expect if the
Department and the government were really committed to making vulnerable adult protection a
reality and to have a real impact on the lives of vulnerable adults and the services designed and
intended to protect them. However, given that both “No Secrets”and “In Safe Hands”were
launched with no key performance indicators and were announced as being “cost-neutral”
perhaps we should not have been surprised.
As suggested above, “No Secrets”was subject to criticism from the time of its launch; in itself,
this is hardly surprising. No piece of legislation, let alone statutory guidance, is going to command
a 100 per cent support across a range of constituencies covering service users, carers,
professions, agencies, organisations and sectors. “No Secrets”came under fire from most if not
all the above for a number of reasons including:
■the terminology of “vulnerable adults”was considered by some if not many to be
discriminatory and labelling of the very people it was trying to empower by making it appear
that they were some way the cause of their being abused and neglected;
Bridget Penhale is based
at the University of East Anglia,
Norwich, UK.
Alison Brammer is based at the
Keele University, Newcastle
under Lyme, UK.
Pete Morgan is based at
the University of Warwick,
Coventry, UK.
Paul Kingston is based at
the University of Chester,
Chester, UK.
Michael Preston-Shoot is
based at the University of
Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-06-2017-0024 VOL. 19 NO. 4 2017, pp. 169-174, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 16 9
Guest editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial