For many disadvantaged groups, including children, young people and those in need of care and support for a wide range of reasons, issues such as limited access to court review, removal of the public sector proactive duties and the lack of consideration of these rights and freedoms, is likely to have a significant negative impact.
The wording of the Articles in Schedule 1 of the Bill remains the same; however how they are applied, who by and against what threshold is set to change, and this has a number of wider consequences that will impact on those least able to stand up for their own rights within our communities and service systems. There are numerous areas of concern levelled at this Bill from many quarters, but the key areas of concern for health and social care / public service delivery include:
The government is currently in process of consulting or implementing four key legislation areas that the replacement of the Human Rights Act has the potential to fundamentally change, including –
The title coined by those lobbying against the current proposals of the ‘Removal of Rights’ bill is an accurate description for many of the most vulnerable in our communities. Whilst the detail of the Articles set out in Schedule 1 have not fundamentally changed, the detail of the Bill in which they are contained has wide-reaching impact in relation to the application of these rights across a variety of settings, including areas such as health and social care, minority rights and the boundaries in which our public bodies are required to take account of individuals rights and wishes. It also appears that this government has sought to minimise awareness of what the ‘Bill of Rights’ will mean in practice beyond the scope of immigration, courts, and criminal justice procedures. The scrutiny of this bill and its spirit will be an essential part of the legislative process and must be robust if we are to protect against the erosion of civil rights for groups who are unable to articulate or otherwise effectively represent their own interests, views, and rights. Daisy Long, 01/09/2022
Daisy Jackson-Bogg is a member of the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), an independent social worker and Director of DCC-I, an independent social work consultancy and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) organisation. Daisy is a practicing Approved Mental Health Professional and Best Interest Assessor, undertaking independent assessments and Serious Adults Reviews work alongside developing and delivering CPD for the health and social care sector.
Is it important to, or important for? A key question in strengths-based practice, an approach which is upfront and central in the part of the profession I occupy, adults and mental health. This is a question I can ask, and know to ask, because of the influence of the Human Rights Act. Without it, social workers, independent or otherwise (along with other health, social care and public sector colleagues), would still be making unilateral decisions based on what they believed was most likely to keep people safe, guided by what the moral majority thought was best (translated at points in our history as almost ‘warehousing’ people who didn’t fit the norm or who were seen as broken, weak or less than, those who were seen as not being able to ‘make a contribution’ to the society in which they live. Whilst I agree in general terms that safety is a positive and important aspect of both civil life and specifically social work practice within that. I also recognise that it is a subjective term, one that varies according to the individual, context, and choices available. There is a balance to be struck between what society believes is best, and what the individual may want and/or need, and this is the position that adult social workers occupy on a daily basis. For many of the people we work with, their view of the world is not the same as our perceptions as workers, or our health colleagues’ perceptions, or the perceptions of the wider society (including the press at some points!). We know that one persons’ safety can be another person’s worst fear, and without a framework to underpin our decision-making, social work responses would have no benchmark, no consistent way of navigating thorny dilemmas and would likely have limited consistency – based on the issue, the context, the players involved and the values of the practitioner rather than a sense of fairness, respect, equity, dignity and autonomy (aka the FREDA principles, the key principles that underpin social work practice overall). While many would argue this is the case anyway (which I can’t deny in general terms, we don’t always get it right and people are not always acting with positive intent), what I believe we do have is a common understanding of how the state should support its citizens, and a mandate which requires us, as professional social workers, to intervene and challenge when individual or community rights are being interfered with or otherwise eroded. For me the Act is the authority that the profession rests, and relies upon, to deliver both our statutory and non-statutory duties, often without knowing that this is the case. For me, social work sits on that boundary between the benefit of the many versus the benefit of the few / individual. We are both advocates for individual rights and, in some cases custodians of both individual and public safety. It’s a sharp double edge sword that we walk on, and for me, the Act is the constant that leads us through some thorny ethical dilemmas we (and the people we support) are faced with, often whilst managing conflicting demands, shocking resource deficiencies and subjective interpretations of need and risk. As an AMHP and BIA it is the cornerstone of practice, the very reason my role exists, it is the roots of professional social work practice, ever present but not always noticed. Daisy Jackson-Bogg 8th December 2021 |
AuthorSNews, views and rambling rants from the DCC-i Crew... Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|