Care Settings: Right to Maintain Contact

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dan Carden]

My hon. Friend totally grasps the seriousness of the issue. It is why campaigners are fighting for a legal right—Gloria’s law—to maintain contact. That would put into law the right to at least one care supporter, a trusted loved one, to provide support and advocacy in all health and care settings, so that no one is ever alone when they need help the most. The campaign is supported by cross-party MPs; more than 100 organisations, including covid-bereaved groups from all four UK nations; charities; disabled rights groups; and bodies such as the National Care Forum.

In response to pressure, the previous Government amended Care Quality Commission regulations to make facilitating visits part of the fundamental standard of care. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) who steered that through Government in the previous Parliament. The newly inserted regulation 9A requires that in-person visiting in care homes, hospitals and hospices and accompaniment to appointments should always be facilitated by providers in line with people’s needs and preferences. Only in exceptional circumstances should that be restricted.

Although that is a welcome step forward, it has fallen short. Just like the guidance that preceded it, regulation 9A lacks clarity, oversight and accountability. In practice, it is too often misunderstood, misapplied or outright ignored. This past winter, Rights for Residents received hundreds of calls from distressed families who were blocked from seeing their loved ones. Outbreaks of flu or norovirus were being used as justification to deny all access, in some cases for more than two weeks, despite regulation 9A being in place.

I will give a couple of examples. Tina’s mother, who has dementia, was in hospital being treated for pneumonia, when a blanket visiting ban was imposed due to an outbreak of norovirus. It took days of trying before Tina received any update on her mother’s welfare. Days later, she received a voicemail of her mum’s frail voice whispering, “Don’t give up on me, Tina.” Her mental and physical condition deteriorated rapidly during that time, which Tina believes was exacerbated by their separation.

Amanda’s mother, who lost mobility after a brain haemorrhage, depends on family support for personal care and emotional wellbeing. During another blanket ban, Amanda, despite quoting regulation 9A, was told that her mother’s right to contact was not worth the risk. By the time visits resumed, her mother had lost weight and become visibly withdrawn.

Many similar experiences have been reported to Care Rights UK’s advice line, from people denied access to their friends and family, including when the care provider was aware of regulation 9A, but still chose not to comply with it. For example, the charity recently supported someone living with dementia who had had visits stopped as part of a settling-in process in their care home. The provider failed to recognise the importance of maintaining support from familiar loved ones as a key part of dementia care.

To understand the scale of the problem, Rights for Residents ran a national survey between February and May this year. The results are deeply concerning. Four in 10 respondents had never even heard of regulation 9A. One in four reported care settings implementing complete visiting bans since April 2024. Even when family members were aware of and cited regulation 9A, in more than a third of cases that had no effect on visiting arrangements. Many care settings continue to regard regulation 9A as guidance only, which can be ignored without consequence. As Rights for Residents put it:

“These findings indicate that the introduction of CQC Regulation 9A has not been effective or sufficient in upholding the visiting rights of those using health and care settings, and that as a result, people are experiencing avoidable harm from unnecessary visiting bans.”

The conclusion is clear: without a clearly defined legal right to maintain contact, access will continue to be patchy, precarious and far too easy to deny. The postcode lottery of uneven implementation was unacceptable during the pandemic and is unacceptable now. I stress that this is not about unlimited access. Care supporters would be subject to the same appropriate safety precautions as staff. It is about protecting the principle that the connection with loved ones is not an optional extra, but essential to dignified care. No member of staff, no matter how professional or compassionate, can replace the bond between a parent and child, husband and wife, brother and sister, or with a lifelong friend or partner. Loved ones are more than companions. They are vital safeguards. They are the eyes and ears that notice what others might miss. They protect against neglect, spot subtle signs of distress and speak up when something is not right.

To leave this matter to the discretion of individual managers, without clear legal underpinning, is to leave the most vulnerable at the mercy of arbitrary decisions that could severely impact their wellbeing. It is not only a matter of compassion; it is a matter of rights. We all have a right to a family life. That right should not disappear behind locked doors when someone requires care. That is why we are calling on the Government to guarantee the right of every person in a care setting to have at least one essential care supporter—not just guidance and not tinkering around the edges of regulation, but a right, protected in law. During the general election, my party, Labour, promised to make that change in government. That promise must now be delivered. It said:

“We will guarantee the rights of those in residential care to be able to see their families.”

The only way to guarantee that right is through the law.

The review of regulation 9A is due shortly and, from 30 June to 31 July, the covid inquiry will hear evidence on experiences of the care sector during the pandemic. As families relive the trauma of that period, the Government have the opportunity to show them that they have been heard, that lessons have been learned and that action will follow. If we truly believe in dignity and compassion in care, that cannot be delayed any further. We owe it to every family torn apart. We owe it to every patient or resident still facing the risk of being isolated. We owe it to every one of our constituents who fears that when the time comes, they too might be left without a loved one’s hand to hold. This change will cost the Government nothing, but for those it protects, it means everything.

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.