Leading the fight against      adult abuse

Need information or support?
Call our helpline     UK:   0808 808 8141
  ROI:    800 940 010  

About Us  |  Contact Us  

 What is the background to the Consultation and the Government's actions?

Because of our concerns about the process AEA were in discussions with the Department of Health (DH) for some considerable time in relation to the Consultation Report on No Secrets and the next steps for Safeguarding Adults, and this included representations by us at a Programme Board that was held on 1 September 2009.  Following our discussions the DH issued us with a clarifying letter which they agreed we could share with other people.

There are two aspects to the current situation; the first relates to what has happened to date, and the second relates to what is likely to happen (and in that regard we can do no more than predict what is possible). Both of these are important, because we need a firm foundation and understanding of what people contributed to the consultation if we are to understand the position and challenges of adult safeguarding and how to move forward.

Our view is that the consultation process was flawed, and that this was carried forward into the consultation report itself. For this reason we engaged in further discussions with the DH and we believe we established some understanding of our concerns.  The key points are:

• It is two and a half years since the consultation was first announced, twelve months since the launch of the consultation itself, and six months since the conclusion of that consultation. We still do not have a formal Government response, although it has been promised (in a Parliamentary reply to Paul Burstow MP) that this would occur before the end of 2009;
  
  

• Although the Government initially emphatically stated that the Consultation Report had adhered closely to the code of practice on consultations, it is now apparent that their aim was instead ‘to reflect it as much as possible’ in the report (which is of course not the same thing). While there is no doubt that they faced a formidable challenge in this regard simply because of the number of questions and the detail of the replies there is also no doubt that this was obvious at the end of January 2009 and should have been built into the planning;
  
  

• Individual chapters of the Report did not reflect a balanced analysis of submissions made and a good example is the Health Chapter which does not include the submissions or observations of any organization or individual who is not actually working in Health. No observations from organisations representing patients was reflected and this was not the intent of the consultation process. The DH letter went some way toward acknowledging this and stated that ‘the review team … will be going back to the original information rather than just looking at the consultation summary when considering specific issues in detail.’  This clearly is reassuring and is to be welcomed;
  
  

• The early chapter of the Consultation Report was poorly titled. It is now apparent that it is not ‘key messages’ from the consultation in its totality, but is instead a summary of the views of some organisations who are user-led (but not all those who are user-led). It therefore does not represent all the key messages from the consultation but is instead key messages from a particular part of the consultation. Our concerns in this regard related to the omission of legislation as a key message (given the overwhelming response seeking framework legislation) and we therefore welcome the DH response, ‘You asked me to confirm that the issue of legislation being placed in a chapter on legislation did not preclude it being ‘a key issue’. I am happy to do this;‘
  
  

• The question of legislation is a crucial one and we believe we established some common understanding with the DH on this matter. Our view was that the responses needed to be categorised in a manner that separated out concerns expressed about intervention powers from the overwhelming desire for a framework within which adult protection can operate. The Report had referred to 'legislation' without making this distinction and nor did subsequent presentation, thus giving an impression that concerns expressed were linked to legislation in its totality. Framework legislation can be introduced without negating the legitimate concerns expressed about powers of intervention.
  
   
  So, where do matters go from here? Ultimately the decision rests with the Minister who can, regardless of the strength of feeling on legislation, decide that it is not an option. That is how our democratic process works. However, we are satisfied that we have now established sufficient clarity on the consultation process that there is no point in pursuing the above points any further.
   
  All things being equal, it is probable that there will be a No Secrets version 2, and that there will also be sector specific guidance. There will be clarity on the full range of current laws in relation to safeguarding (which is certainly needed).  But it seems increasingly unlikely that there will be any concrete commitment to legislation that actually results in something reaching the Statute Book.  If the Minister has not already killed that option, it seems probable that the impending General Election has done so.