“This isn’t just guidance. This is ‘guidance backed by law’. ”
Today Programme Friday April 2nd. At 8.10am. After 6 months the BBC finally woke-up. Transcript below.
MH: In 10 days time England will be on the brink of a significant easing of lock down but not it would appear for the rules around care homes. One part of the current guidance, the people over 65 leaving residential care for visits is being challenged by campaigners who believe it is unlawful. The guidance says “Because spending time with others outside the care home increases the risk of exposure to COVID it should only be considered for those of working age. In exceptional circumstances, such as end of life, the trips should be supported but any trips out would require 14 day isolation for the resident on their return”. Well, The challenge comes from John’s campaign which works on the rights of people with dementia to be supported by their family carers. And Julia Jones who is its cofounder, is on the line now. Good morning, On what basis do you believe that you can challenge this legally ?
JJ: Well, I’m going to declare an interest. And I’m going to say that I’m 66 and I’m shocked to find that I’m become part of a group that can be discriminated against purely on the grounds of my age. I’m Amazed that department of health thinks it’s ok to write a bit of guidance that discriminates against people purely on the grounds of their age….. it does make me stutter.
MH: “Even though we know that the risk of being hospitalised with COVID is much higher for older age groups.”
JJ: “Well, actually, we also know that the BAME community has very great risks in COVID, we also know that have middle aged men have very great risks with COVID. Do you think that we should discriminate against all middle aged men — just because their group has a higher risk ? Because I don’t !
We seem to have got to a situation where we. Not ‘we’ ! Where the dept. of health and particularly public health England, looks at care home residents as if they are a different species. They’re not.
There’s no species called a Resident. These are people living in care homes and they have the range of; morbidities, of problems, of disabilities, and of capabilities.
And although, at John’s campaign, we particularly advocate for the people living with dementia (which is about 70% of people living in care homes) — You have to remember that there are people living in care homes who have full mental capacity. Now, I’m just wondering how this sits with the right to liberty; if people who are living in care homes can be prevented from going out to do something as simple as a walk in the park, or perhaps to goto to church on Easter Sunday.
MH: “This is guidance not law….Have your lawyers said that… this can be challenged legally ?”
JJ: OH NO! It’s ILLEGAL ! It’s ILLEGAL to discriminate !
We live in a country which has the equality act. Which means you must take people’s individual situations and disabilities into account.
We have the mental capacity act which says that if you’re depriving someone of their liberty because they have a mental condition, there must be safeguards.
The government, once again, are disregarding fundamental legal obligations and they are leading care homes into doing the same. And they are leading care homes and themselves into unlawful behaviour.
MH: “the goverment did say …. looking into opening up opportunities as we move along the road map …..”
MH: Do you know what, the first point they did this was July, last year. They said there ‘looking in’ to guidance for visits out of care homes and they’ve been looking into it, ever since.
And people living in care homes are people very often, living towards the end of their lives ,or they’re living with a learning with a disability, for whom their well being is dependent on their routines.
These people have been comprehensively ignored. We understand this guidance was prepared very hastily we sent a message back at the time they’ve had almost a month to make it better, they haven’t done so we’re just not going to wait. This is just unlawful and wrong.
