Guidance

Operational framework for adult social care intervention in local authorities

Published 8 August 2023

Applies to England

Background and aims of the framework

This operational framework is intended to provide local authorities in England with information on the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC)’s approach to enhanced monitoring and support, and statutory intervention in adult social care.

It has been developed with input from the Local Government Association, Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, Care Quality Commission and other government departments.

The People at the Heart of Care: adult social care reform white paper, published in December 2021, set out our 10-year vision for adult social care. Following this, we published the Adult social care system reform: next steps to put People at the Heart of Care implementation plan in April 2023, setting out how we are building on progress in adult social care reform by implementing the highest impact proposals, along with some new commitments.

This includes the new duty for the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to independently review and assess the performance of local authorities (authorities) in delivering their adult social care functions, as set out under Part 1 of the Care Act 2014 (Care Act). These assessments will provide a greater understanding of practice and provision at local level, making it easier to see what is working well or not, and make good practice, positive outcomes and outstanding quality easier to spot and share nationally.

CQC will also be under a duty to inform the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (the Secretary of State) if it considers an authority is failing to discharge its functions and to recommend any special measures it considers the Secretary of State should take.^{[footnote 1]}

In addition, in February 2023, we set out our roadmap for improving how adult social care data is collected, used and shared in Care data matters: a roadmap for better data for adult social care. Better data and insights across authorities and care providers, together with a new way to assess how well authorities are supporting people with care and support needs and unpaid carers, will help us know whether our social care reforms and investment have been successful.

Where improved data and CQC’s assessment of an authority’s performance highlight failures, we want to take a more active role in supporting authorities to improve. Our priority will remain supporting authorities to lead their own improvement wherever possible but, where there are serious and persistent failures, we will offer ‘enhanced support and monitoring’, asking the authority to produce and implement an improvement plan. Where the authority demonstrates improvement, this support may be withdrawn or tapered off.

If an authority has not been able to tackle sustained problems, the Secretary of State can use new intervention powers introduced through the Health and Care Act 2022, which commenced in April 2023.

These powers will enable the Secretary of State to intervene where they are satisfied that authorities have failed or are failing to discharge Care Act functions to an acceptable standard.^{[footnote 2]} We expect these powers are likely to be used in the most serious cases – for example, where a serious and persistent risk to people’s safety has been identified, and other forms of support are insufficient to drive improvement. Unlike interventions in children’s social services, there is no power to set up independent trusts.

This framework is designed to be a living document that is updated as we learn lessons from implementing the new adult social care intervention process. We expect to review this document in April 2024. In this spirit, we would welcome suggestions from authorities as to omissions or additions. These can be sent to asc.dasengagement@dhsc.gov.uk.

Intervention powers

Authorities are democratically elected bodies that operate in accordance with a range of statutory requirements. They are independent of central government. Authorities undergo external scrutiny from their external auditor and a number of other government bodies, such as Ofsted and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Since 1 April 2023, authorities will also undergo assessment by CQC on the delivery of functions set out in Part 1 of the Care Act 2014. We understand that authorities also have internal arrangements for challenge through their statutory scrutiny arrangements. Most importantly, they answer to local residents through local elections and legal mechanisms such as judicial review.

The powers in the Care Act^{[footnote 2]} enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to intervene when the Secretary of State is satisfied that an authority is failing or has failed to discharge any of its functions under Part 1 of the 2014 Care Act to an acceptable standard. The nature of the failure, impact and likelihood of it happening again are all key areas that will be considered by the Secretary of State. Decisions to intervene will be based on:

• a judgement by the Secretary of State of all available information
• considered engagement with authorities to understand their capacity, capability and commitment to lead their own improvement

The Secretary of State may use a variety of information and evidence to assess failure, although, in practice, we expect CQC local authority assessment reports will be the main source of independent evidence.^{[footnote 1][footnote 2]} Other sources of information that may be considered could include any:

• ongoing engagement with local authority leadership and DHSC
• publicly published data and documents (for instance, local authority, council and cabinet papers)
• information from the sector and other government departments - particularly the Department for Education (DfE) and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC)

Other intervention regimes are not covered in detail in this guidance. But it is important to be aware of 2 main ones that may interact at times with the intervention process described in this framework:

• children’s services (DfE) – the Secretary of State for Education has legal powers to take specific action to improve their services for children. This power may be exercised to provide evidence for the Secretary of State to make a robust judgement on whether to intervene, but an inspection is not formally required prior to statutory intervention. Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an authority is failing to carry out its functions, Section 497A of the Education Act 1996 provides powers for the Secretary of State to intervene on a statutory basis in that authority
• best value (DLUHC) – where the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has concerns that an authority is failing to carry out its functions in compliance with its best value duty, Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 provides significant powers for the Secretary of State to inspect and, subject to there being sufficient evidence, intervene in that authority. DLUHC also has powers in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to appoint someone to develop a local plan for them

While any decision on whether to intervene will be for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care prior to any statutory intervention, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will consult with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to assess and further understand any wider context that may impact the local authority. We have also committed to working in partnership with DLUHC and DfE to share intelligence on common challenges, and ensure a co-ordinated and collaborative approach is adopted across national government.

The process

Figure 1 below shows an overview of the process for support and intervention. More detail is provided in the following ‘Improvement support’ and ‘Statutory intervention’ sections of this framework.

The flowcharts at Figure 1 give an indication of the likely process. There are likely to be variations reflecting the specific circumstances of each authority that is subject to intervention. It is important to note this will be an evolving process as we learn lessons.

It should be stressed that intervention will generally only occur after a process of dialogue with the authority. If appropriate, partners may be consulted – for instance, those funded by DHSC to deliver improvement activity. These conversations will aim to explore other options for improvement and the authority’s capacity to turn itself round.

Figure 1: flowcharts indicating the process for support and intervention

Text alternative to the flowcharts

CQC publish assessment report and/or notify Secretary of State for Health and Social Care highlighting failure. This may include other sources of information.

Consideration of factors to inform a decision on action (refer to figure 1):

• if signposting and targeted support from improvement partners – updates are given as part of routine reporting by improvement partners
• enhanced support and monitoring – see ‘If enhanced support and monitoring’
• statutory intervention – see ‘If authority considered for statutory intervention’

If enhanced support and monitoring:

• early DHSC engagement with authority
• letter sent to authority requesting improvement plan and appointing improvement adviser or panel
• is DHSC assessment of improvement plan robust and realistic, and does it drive sustainable change?

Yes: see ‘Authority publishes improvement plan’.

No: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is consulted – see ‘If authority considered for statutory intervention’.

Authority publishes improvement plan:

• improvement adviser provides update to DHSC and ministers
• authority reports locally on progress against improvement plan
• CQC reassessment
• assessment made by DHSC: is there progress and confidence in ongoing improvement?

Yes: exit enhanced support and monitoring.

No: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is consulted – see ‘If authority considered for statutory intervention’.

If authority considered for statutory intervention:

• Secretary of State issues minded letter giving authority opportunity to make representations (generally 10 working days)
• Secretary of State issues directions, including, for example, commissioner appointments
• improvement plan updated or new one produced
• ongoing monitoring and reporting as per enhanced support and monitoring process can lead to 4 different outcomes:

Outcome 1: commissioner does not recommend variations or revoking and directions expire

Yes: written confirmation to chief executive (and possibly meeting) confirming no further actions will be taken.

No: see outcome 4

Outcome 2: commissioner recommends directions lifted (revoked)

Yes:

• Secretary of State for Health and Social Care issues ‘minded to’ letter to authority explaining why intervention directions are being revoked
• written confirmation to chief executive (and possibly meeting) confirming no further actions will be taken

No: see outcome 4

Outcome 3: commissioner recommends extending or changing (varying) directions

Yes:

• Secretary of State for Health and Social Care issues ‘minded to’ letter to authority explaining why intervention directions are being revoked
• Secretary of State for Health and Care must consider additional representations if varying directions (unless not significant)
• DHSC issues and publishes updated directions or issues written confirmation to chief executive (and possibly meeting) confirming no further actions will be taken

No: see outcome 4

Outcome 4: no recommendation by commissioner – directions continue until review point

Key process points

Where the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care considers that neither enhanced support nor statutory intervention is appropriate, we expect DHSC will work with improvement delivery partners to signpost authorities to resources and training and/or tailored support available through the national improvement programme to ensure the authority is aware of the range of improvement resources that are available. We will work with improvement delivery partners to target help to where it is most needed, and understand the impact of support and progress authorities are making.

Support and challenge on a non-statutory intervention may range from signposting or providing bespoke support from DHSC-funded improvement partners through to an enhanced support and monitoring approach.

Where the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care considers the failure is more serious but does not warrant statutory intervention, we envisage asking the authority to work with a non-statutory improvement adviser that we expect to fund and appoint to provide guidance, support and constructive challenge. Authorities will be expected to engage with DHSC monitoring, the intensity of which will reflect the authority’s own circumstances and oversight arrangements. An assessment of the authority’s grip of its own improvement will be informed by the views of CQC, the improvement adviser, DLUHC, support partners and other stakeholders as relevant.

Where an authority has failed to produce a realistic improvement plan or engage with support, the Secretary of State may consider escalating to statutory intervention.

The authority will have the opportunity to make representations on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care’s proposals (expected to be within 10 working days). However, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is not required to give authorities an opportunity to make representations where they consider that it is impractical to do so for reasons of urgency.

During the intervention, regular reports on progress to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be expected. We will work with the CQC and the authority to ensure these are streamlined and not duplicative.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will consider evidence from the commissioners, where appropriate, and any other relevant sources to consider if sufficient improvement has been made before withdrawing directions.

Improvement support

National improvement support

We will support authorities to lead their own improvement wherever possible.

DHSC funds a national improvement offer to help authorities in their delivery of statutory duties and to tackle operational challenges. We know that the resources, training, expert advice and support provided to authorities and providers are valued by those who use them, and we encourage participation in the sector-led improvement initiatives and/or to seek other targeted support. In addition to the national offer, DHSC will fund the use of improvement advisers in enhanced support and monitoring.

There are a range of ways in which the DHSC-funded sector-led improvement offer can help authorities. In 2023 to 2024, the support offer includes:

Regional sector-led improvement

This includes networks and groups that help directors of adult social services and their teams to collaborate with peers in their region and nationally to:

• self-assess their performance
• identify improvement priorities
• find solutions
• share great practice

This is supported by the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS).

Partners in Care and Health

Delivered by LGA and ADASS, Partners in Care and Health (PCH) is a support programme for authorities and their partners. PCH provides practical toolkits and tailored, expert support to authority leaders and managers to help local systems to deliver the best possible care for people with support and care needs.

Support is available to health and social care systems at both a regional and local level for:

• improving assessments
• commissioning
• safeguarding and social work practice
• information advice and guidance
• assessing and managing financial risks and efficiencies
• digital transformation and join-up between health and care system leaders

Social Care Institute for Excellence

The Social Care Institute for Excellence works with DHSC to identify best practice and successful innovation. They provide resources, training and support for practitioners to help them adopt best practice in their own work. They support the spreading and scaling up of innovation across local systems.

Think Local Act Personal

Think Local Act Personal (TLAP) has extensive experience and insight into the policy and practice of personalisation, rooted in the lived experience of people who draw on care and support.

What good personalisation looks like is clearly laid out in Making it Real, which has been co-produced with people and the care, health and housing sectors.

TLAP provides:

• resources
• learning and development
• support for co-production
• facilitation of peer networks
• by agreement, direct support to local systems to improve their approach to delivering personalisation

Enhanced support and monitoring

Where improved data and CQC’s assessment of an authority’s performance highlight failures, we may move to an enhanced monitoring and support approach.

In these circumstances, DHSC may appoint an improvement adviser to work with an authority. The improvement adviser will provide support, guidance and challenge to the authority to develop and deliver a robust improvement plan. DHSC will generally fund the appointment. We expect improvement advisers will have a broad remit that could cover:

• leadership development
• chairing improvement panels
• acting as a scrutineer or facilitator of services
• providing recommendations

As such, we expect they will have extensive experience of successfully leading improvement activity, including a demonstrable ability to identify reasons for service failure and instigate the measures necessary to stabilise service delivery and implement improvement.

Improvement plans and support

When developing an improvement plan, the authority should liaise with its improvement adviser, where one is appointed, and with DHSC in respect to any additional improvement support required.

Support can be accessed through either existing relationships with sector-led improvement partners or other partners delivering the national support offer, which covers a wide range of support including:

• social work practice and safeguarding
• best practice resources
• finance and resourcing
• market sustainability and commissioning
• workforce support

While each improvement plan will vary according to the situation, we would expect as a minimum that improvement plans should contain:

• prioritised actions and outcomes – for example, linking to CQC assessment findings
• named individuals and key leads against each action
• clear and realistic timeframes
• a plan for monitoring progress, including appropriate indicators
• any costs to deliver the required improvements
• oversight and scrutiny arrangements to drive delivery of the plan

The improvement plan should be shared with DHSC and CQC within a set period, which we expect to take no longer than 3 months, to ensure the plan is developed and resourced effectively.

DHSC will review the plan as soon as reasonably possible. Officials may challenge an authority’s improvement plan if it is considered to be insufficiently robust, feasible or timely.

DHSC will consult with relevant partners and other government departments where necessary on the improvement plan to ensure there is a co-ordinated approach across national government.

Communication and monitoring

DHSC will publish a notification to the authority setting out the support and monitoring agreed with the authority, and the possibility of statutory escalations should the authority fail to improve in line with an agreed improvement plan. The expectation is that the authority will also publish its improvement plan and periodically update it to show progress and completion of actions.

To minimise burdens on the authority and ensure attention is not diverted away from improvement activity, reporting on progress against the improvement plan to DHSC will be proportionate to the issues identified and actions outlined in the improvement plan. This can be aligned, where possible, to CQC monitoring and other internal reporting the authority may be undertaking – for example, for local overview and scrutiny arrangements.

We expect the improvement adviser will also provide regular reports to DHSC outlining the progress made in meeting outcomes and objectives in the improvement plan.

Where possible, the authority should draw on existing data to inform reporting to DHSC. However, where necessary, authorities may be asked to share additional information requested by improvement advisers or DHSC.

Exit and escalation

Once an authority has been given a reasonable period to improve, and where the authority is making clear and evidenced progress against the improvement plan, the Secretary of State will consider whether the enhanced support and monitoring will be lifted or scaled back.

Evidence to determine whether the authority is able to lead its own improvement may include:

• whether or not the authority has responded to a CQC assessment report within agreed timelines, and has capacity and local accountability to drive delivery of the plan
• ongoing CQC assessment reporting
• the outputs of engagement with the authority leadership
• the assessment of DLUHC and DfE
• the assessment of improvement advisers, panels or boards
• he assessment (if appropriate) of improvement partners

Where the authority is not able to demonstrate it is on a trajectory of sustainable improvement and there is limited confidence in the authority’s ability to improve, the Secretary of State may consider escalating to statutory intervention.

We recognise adult social care is one element of many authority-led services and other issues may also interact with the progress of improvement. As noted above, the decision on whether to intervene will be for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care but, prior to any statutory intervention, they will consult with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to assess and further understand any wider context that may impact the authority.

Statutory intervention

The new powers in the Care Act allow the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to intervene in an authority where they are satisfied that the authority is failing or has failed to discharge its Care Act functions (under Part 1) to an acceptable standard.

Putting in place a statutory intervention in an authority is a very significant step for the Secretary of State. As we have outlined earlier in this guidance, we expect this will generally be used only in the most serious cases and where an authority does not have capacity to lead its own improvement.

Intervention may involve a range of responses from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care – for example, from requiring the authority to take further action to ensure improvements are made to address significant failings through to specified functions of the authority to be exercised by the Secretary of State or a nominee. These instructions will be specified in the form of directions.

Unlike the enhanced support and monitoring process, where DHSC funds an improvement adviser, the new powers give the Secretary of State scope to require authorities to meet costs incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to the directions. In practice, this means an authority may need to pay for the costs of nominees and related expenses. This is in line with the approach taken by DLUHC.

Statutory intervention tools

If adult social care statutory intervention is deemed appropriate, the powers enable the Secretary of State to deploy a range of tools. We anticipate deploying these tools flexibly to reflect the needs of each specific situation.

The lists below include examples of what an authority might be directed to do, with an explanation of what this might mean.

The authority must:

• act in accordance with advice given by the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State. For example, the authority might be directed to:

  • act in accordance with actions in an improvement plan or work with a commissioner to write an improvement plan
  • take specific actions to bring services in line with their 2014 Care Act functions
• collaborate with the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State in taking steps specified in the directions (see ‘Nominees’ below for further details). For example, the authority might be directed to work with the Secretary of State, DHSC and/or external commissioners appointed by DHSC to implement the steps outlined in the directions
• provide the Secretary of State, or a person nominated by the Secretary of State, with information of a description specified in the directions, on request or otherwise. For example, the authority might be directed to provide information on improvement plan progress as requested and on a regular specified basis

The directions may:

• provide that specified functions of the authority are to be exercised by the Secretary of State, or a person nominated by the Secretary of State, for a period specified in the direction or for so long as the Secretary of State considers appropriate – this means that, if the Secretary of State is satisfied it is necessary to address the issues, commissioners might be given authority to make decisions on their behalf and exercise authorities’ functions specified in the directions for a period of time
• require that the authority comply with any instructions of the Secretary of State or the nominee in relation to the exercise of the functions – this means that the authority might be directed to follow the Secretary of State or the nominated persons’ instructions on functions. As above, the instructions must be considered necessary for the purpose of addressing the failure
• require the authority to provide financial assistance to the Secretary of State, or a person nominated by the Secretary of State, for the purpose of meeting costs incurred by the Secretary of State or the nominee as a result of the directions

Monitoring and reporting processes will differ according to the type of intervention, but there is an expectation that, if appointed, commissioners will report regularly to the Secretary of State. Formal reporting will generally be in writing, publicly available and followed by meetings with ministers where appropriate.

Practical process

If the Secretary of State is considering statutory intervention, a ‘minded to’ letter will be sent to the chief executive and the director of adult social services of the relevant authority from a senior civil servant.

There are 2 elements to the letter – the main text and the annex.

The main text:

• summarises the Secretary of State’s proposals
• details the reasoning and evidence behind them
• invites representations from the authority (and possibly others if they are directly affected, normally within a defined period such as 10 working days, but this can be less)

The annex sets out in detail:

• the form of the intervention
• how it is proposed to work
• the evidence underpinning it

At this stage, it is important to be very clear that the Secretary of State has only made proposals and that these could be changed by representations from the authority in particular and other parties.

The ‘minded to’ letter will be published as correspondence on GOV.UK. Ministers might also wish to contact key politicians (local MPs) to update them on progress.

Any representations received will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State and may receive substantive responses where appropriate. It should be noted that the Secretary of State is not required to give authorities an opportunity to make representations where they consider that is it is impractical to do so for reasons of urgency.

Directions

Once the Secretary of State has considered the representations received in response to the ‘minded to’ letter, they may decide either not to go ahead with the intervention, or to put in place the directions (which may be amended in response to representations received) as described below.

Directions (instructions) are the legal mechanism through which the Secretary of State exercises his or her powers under the 2014 Care Act to put in place an intervention, including, where appropriate, provision for specified functions (in Part 1 of the Care Act 2014) of the authority to be exercised by the Secretary of State or a nominee rather than by the authority.

Directions may vary significantly depending on the extent and type of the intervention involved but may include:

• explicit references to the evidence for this decision, including representations received as well as references to the legislation
• actions that the authority is required to take – this generally includes definitions and all the measures around access to documents and the payment of fees and expenses with which the authority must comply
• description of any specified functions to be exercised by the Secretary of State or nominee
• if relevant, the duration of the directions
• explanatory memorandum, which may cover:
  • the context for the intervention
  • an outline of representations received
  • where appropriate, details of the nominees that have been appointed and explanation of their powers
  • explanation of the requirements placed on the authority

The directions must be set out in writing. A letter will be sent to the chief executive of the authority and the director of adult social services covering the directions and explanatory memorandum.

If required, appointment letters and nominations are also sent out at this point, as are any letters that the Secretary of State may wish to send to local MPs.

Nominees will normally liaise with the authority to agree when they will first arrive. The letter to the chief executive, the directions and explanatory memorandum, nominee’s letters of appointment and any other letters will normally all be published on GOV.UK.

Nominees

We envisage the use of 2 types of nominees, which we refer to as commissioners, who may work on both a non-executive and executive basis.

Non-executive commissioners may work on a full-time basis within existing authority accountability structures. However, should the Secretary of State think it is necessary, an executive commissioner may be appointed who would exercise adult social care functions.

Appointments will be made following an internal process of drawing up criteria, identifying candidates (often in partnership with the sector on a confidential basis), shortlisting and interviewing.

Each intervention is different and will require correspondingly varied skills from nominees, but the following experience will be key in the statutory roles:

• demonstrable evidence of leading transformational change in the context of growing demand and increasingly constrained resources, while ensuring that the adult social care needs of the population are met
• demonstrable track record of leading, motivating and managing teams to achieve high-performing, significant and sustainable service improvements and outstanding results through internal and external partnerships
• demonstrable evidence of working within a complex political or policy environment, including of successful work with people holding elected office

Once any appointments have been made by the Secretary of State, the prospective commissioner will be told informally.

Formal letters of appointment are only issued when the intervention has been announced and will be copied to the authority. The letters will include details of their appointment, such as fees, arrangements for expenses, expectations around the amount of time they will spend at the authority and the likely duration of their appointment.

During an intervention

Interventions can take many forms. Should a commissioner be appointed, the scope of the directions will impact on the way in which they will need to work. Subject to this, they will be largely free to shape their activities themselves according to the needs of the authority subject to the intervention.

Authorities should expect an early dialogue to establish how they will meet the directions and conduct their relationship with the commissioner (where applicable), and agree how they take decisions compliant with the normal expectations for good governance and transparency.

Progress will be recorded through the authority’s own processes for reporting and scrutiny, and there will be an expectation that commissioners will report regularly to the Secretary of State. We expect reporting and scrutiny to be transparent and open to external challenge. These reports will generally be in writing, published on GOV.UK and followed by meetings where appropriate.

The commissioners will be based at the authority and will generally be supported by DHSC officials.

What is expected of the authority under commissioner-led intervention

The authority under intervention will be directed to provide all resources and support required by a commissioner to carry out their role.

This may include:

• allowing full access all necessary files and records
• providing suitable office space and facilities
• providing financial assistance
• providing administrative support as required
• where necessary, allowing the nominees to access their legal services and personal indemnity insurance

Other requirements may be set out in the directions and can vary during the course of the intervention.

Ending or varying an intervention

Where the Secretary of State decides to either revoke or vary the directions, a ‘minded to’ letter will be sent to the authority chief executive and the director of adult social services. The letter may set out (if relevant) what functions are to be returned, why and, briefly, the background to the intervention. The ‘minded to’ letter may also be copied to key interested parties.

We would expect there to be a final meeting between the authority leadership team and ministers, and for DHSC officials to write to the chief executive confirming that no further action will be taken or that directions will be varied. All letters will be published on GOV.UK.

In considering whether to vary directions, the Secretary of State must consider additional representations from the authority unless the Secretary of State does not consider the variations to be significant. In addition, we expect the advice of nominated commissioners and/or other key partners such as CQC will be a key source of evidence to support a decision on whether or not to revoke or vary directions. 

1. Under amended Section 50(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, if CQC considers that a local authority is failing to discharge its functions to an acceptable standard, CQC will be under a duty in each case to inform the Secretary of State of this and recommend any special measures it considers that the Secretary of State should take. ↩ ↩²

2. Powers for the Secretary of State to intervene in a local authority were inserted by Section 164 of the Health and Care Act 2022 into the Care Act 2014. Under new Sections 72A and 72B of the Care Act 2014, where they are satisfied that local authorities have failed or are failing to discharge any of their Care Act functions to an acceptable standard, the Secretary of State may give to local authorities directions that they consider appropriate to deal with the failure. ↩ ↩² ↩³