Alexander Ruck Keene KC (Hon)
Year of call: 2002
Silk: 2022
The Coronavirus Bill; Non-Statutory Guidance; Court of Protection Guidance; Commentary and Practical Suggestions
The MCA 2005 is designed to safeguard the rights and interests of some of the most vulnerable people in society, but this group now also includes some of those most vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic. Practical measures must be taken to ensure physical health and to prevent the spread of the infection, but must be taken within the structure of the MCA 2005.
The Coronavirus Bill
All remaining stages of the Coronavirus Bill were completed on Wednesday 25th March 2020 without any amendments to the MCA 2005 or the DoLS process. In the House of Lords on 24th March, at Second Reading, Lord Bethell, for the Government, addressed DoLS as follows:
I thank those noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who raised the issue of the deprivation of liberty safeguards. We recognise that we have to strike a careful balance between the need to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society with preventing the spread of the virus. Therefore, we have decided not to alter deprivation of liberty safeguards in primary legislation. However, we think that we can achieve significant improvement to the process through emergency guidance. That will include making clearer when a deprivation of liberty safeguards authorisation is necessary, and the basis on which an assessment can be made, including, for example, phone or video calling for assessment. We are especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other experts, who have worked with us on this.
The aspects of the Bill most likely to impact – albeit tangentially – on this area are:
Non-Statutory Guidance
Guidance on the DoLS process and the application of the MCA 2005 is expected imminently from the Department of Health and Social Care.
The two relevant DHSC guidance documents that we do have so far are very broad in scope:
This document, unprecedented in our experience, will be of considerable importance for those seeking to apply what duties (or powers) survive the passage of the Coronavirus Bill in relation to the Care Act and Social Services and Well-Being Act.
Guidance from the Court of Protection
Hayden J, the Vice-President of the Court of Protection, has issued four sets of guidance for judges, practitioners and users of the CoP, all of which focusses on the need to protect P, parties, witnesses and court staff from infection, whilst continuing the Court's work.
The key messages are:
A working group – the HIVE Group – has been set up under the Vice-President, with senior practitioners including Vikram Sachdeva QC and Alex Ruck Keene, to ensure that the processes of the Court of Protection are kept under review as the impact of the pandemic continues to unfold, and the interests of P kept central.
Advance care planning
Advance care planning is of importance at all times, but will be of particular importance in relation to those who are at particular risk of catching COVID-19, so that it is clear what they would, and would not, wish in terms of medical intervention, including admission to ICU and the treatments available on ICU. This may not guarantee access to such intervention, but is going to be of very considerable importance in terms of assisting medical decision-making, as well as securing, insofar as possible, the right outcome for the individual at a point when they may have lost decision-making capacity. Where implemented, the ReSPECT process[8] will be of importance (and is also of importance because it can be used even where a person does not currently have capacity). Individuals and their families can also be directed to charities such as Compassion in Dying, who have resources to create advance decisions to refuse medical treatment.[9]
Commentary
What we know so far clearly indicates that the MCA 2005 and the current DoLS structures remain in place during the pandemic. Plainly, however, there are going to be challenges for local authorities, social workers and carers to ensure compliance with the DoLS system in the light of Government guidance to work from home, maintain social distancing and the strong imperatives not to visit residential care and nursing homes.
Until we have guidance from DHSC as to the application of DoLS, in particular, local authorities are having to develop, at speed, their own processes to manage the competing demands upon them. By way of example, and with thanks to Lorraine Currie, MCA and DoLS Manager for Shropshire County Council, we reproduce the material parts of the guidance that she has prepared for her area. She – and we – would reiterate that such should be read in light of the guidance that is then forthcoming from the DHSC.
Practical measures for reducing the need to visit P, or the number of visits to P, as part of the DoLS process could include:
For urgent new applications for Standard or Urgent Authorisations:
For the BIA report: "This assessment occurred at a time when public health measures had been put in place by HM Government to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Professionals were being advised only to carry out essential visits to care homes. When completing this assessment, I had to balance the need to protect X's Article 5 rights against the need to protect him/her from transmission of the virus. COVID-19 infection would have posed a grave risk to X in view of his/her underlying health conditions. In view of these concerns, I therefore decided to base my assessment on existing documents and on the views of X's carers and family/friends rather than visiting him/her in person."
For the Authorisation document:
"I note that the BIA decided not to assess X face to face in view of the risk of COVID-19 transmission. I agree that this is the best way of promoting X's Article 5 rights whilst protecting him from serious illness. This authorisation will be reviewed when public health restrictions are lifted."[10]
For applications to renew a Standard Authorisation:
More broadly, and, as ever, it is essential not to "dress-up" resource-based decisions in relation to deprivation of liberty – even in a time when resources may be stretched to the limit – as best interests decisions. This is only likely to generate s.21A challenges, which will be a further pressure on resources.
Where it is necessary to deviate from normal practices or procedures (such as by taking the practical measures suggested above) it is essential that you have clear systems in place for explaining why those deviations took place, how they might have impacted on the assessments and what steps were taken to mitigate those impacts. The suggested wording for BIAs and authorisations above is a good example of this.
Finally, it is important to help P and P's friends and family understand what is happening and why it will be different from how things have happened before; consider using information from charities and other third sector organisations to explain about COVID-19 and what is being done about it.[11] Human Rights Watch has suggested that: "information about COVID-19 should be accessible and available in multiple languages, including for those with low or no literacy. This should include qualified sign language interpretation for televised announcements, as Taiwan has done; websites that are accessible to people with vision, hearing, learning, and other disabilities; and telephone-based services that have text capabilities for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Communications should utilize plain language to maximize understanding."
A good example of a practical resource is this resource produced by the charity Books Beyond Words, a wordless story that will help people to understand what to do if "you have Coronavirus and how to keep yourself and those who you care about safe. The story also shows how to safely help others who may be self-isolating."[12]
Further guidance will be forthcoming as the situation develops. For now, practical steps to protect P, carers, professionals and CoP users – whilst abiding by the MCA 2005 – is the order of the day.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-ethical-framework-for-adult-social-care/responding-to-covid-19-the-ethical-framework-for-adult-social-care#how-to-use-the-framework
[2]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874213/COVID-19_hospital_discharge_service_requirements.pdf
[3] https://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/CoP_HaydenJ_13032020.pdf
[4] Guidance from the Vice-President of the Court of Protection, 24th March 2020
[5] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/first-all-skype-trial-tests-crisis-working-at-cop-/5103541.article
[6]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/792782/cop-gn5-eng.pdf
[7] https://www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/VP-COP-Third-COVID-19-Guidance-23-March-2020.pdf
[8] https://www.resus.org.uk/respect/
[9] https://compassionindying.org.uk/
[10] Language suggested by Martin Sexton and the Salford DoLS Team, via Lorraine Currie.
[11] A very helpful summary of the issues in play here was prepared by Dr Oliver Lewis and is available here: https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk/post/102g27s/disability-coronavirus-and-international-human-rights
[12] https://booksbeyondwords.co.uk/downloads-shop/beating-the-virus