VERY URGENT – RISKS for LGBTQI+ older and Disabled people in the ‘Coronavirus Bill’

img_4441

Given the lack of commentary on LGBTQI+ social media, I am not sure the sector is aware of the urgency of challenging the emergency powers Coronavirus Bill as it stands and why this is an issue which will impact most on the LGBTQI+ community. In a nutshell – there is plenty of in-depth information available online – the Bill removes local authorities’ responsibilities towards Disabled people whatever their age (two-thirds of Disabled people are over 60), and despite the fact that this is the group already on lock down because we are the most vulnerable. This will leave many LGBTQI+ people without access to food as well as personal care, and will in turn fill up hospitals and nursing homes just when beds are needed most as well as leaving people to die.

LGBTQI+ Disabled people are more likely than other Disabled people to be dependent on local authorities for social care, because we are the least likely to have family support from partners, children and siblings, and least likely to be living in the areas we grew up and to have support from childhood friends. LGBTQI+ people are also the most likely to socialise away from their homes as adults, and so do not have support structures from friends in place when they become ill or disabled.

Local authorities only provide social care now to people deemed to be in ’substantial or critical need’. This means that current social care recipients either have NO family or friends available at all to provide support with the real risk that they will die without care, and/or that they will die without professional support. Removing that right to care will prevent people recovering from coronavirus from leaving hospital, and will quickly send many Disabled people into hospitals and nursing homes to block beds, while others will die. There is no logic to this Bill whatsoever, only a deep lack of understanding of how social care operates and who receives it now.

The Government has also exempted PA employers from the protections given to other employers to pay 80% of wages. People from ‘protected characteristic’ groups are most likely to employ support directly and therefore to be affected by this move, and in particular LGBTQI+ people. Many LGBTQI+ people opt for Direct Payments because of widespread discrimination in the care sector (see Stonewall and Regard’s research for the figures). In terms of intersectionality, women often opt for Direct Payments as the only way to be supported by someone of the same gender, and People of Colour and People of Faith opt for Direct Payments as the only way to have their cultural needs met. It takes months to recruit and train PAs, so if they cannot be retained now whether or not they have the protection to work (and Direct Payments Users are being told by the Care Quality Commission that it is down to Disabled people to find masks, gloves etc), then again Disabled people will end up blocking beds in hospitals and nursing homes and the long-term care worker shortage will only increase.

Regard is pressing Stonewall and LGBT Consortium to challenge on these issues during the Bill’s reading tomorrow.

COMMENTS