The government’s latest economies are hitting people who need care to continue to live independently. This seems to be in opposition to another core ‘value’ they announced, not all that long ago – to reduce fire deaths in people’s homes.
If people who need care have less care, they are more at risk in the event of a fire. If they live in a building with a stay-put policy – meaning that they don’t leave their home unless the fire actually puts them at risk – and, without care, are unable to self-evacuate when needed, the result will be more deaths from fire, in the home.
Registered Social Landlords have a duty to house and also a duty to identify those who cannot self-evacuate and provide them with a Personal Evacuation Plan. However, without the resources to provide the facilities to do so they are in a situation where they are unable to fulfil their duty.
Part of the assessment process may identify that people are living in the wrong premises, being on an upper floor where they are unable to get out without help. This leaves the housing provider with difficult decisions – how do you move someone out of their home?
Even now there is little discussion between the housing providers and the care providers. The very young, elderly, inform and disabled are already not getting the proper care – what will happen when the budgets are slashed even further?
Less care equals more risks in relation to fires. That doesn’t equate to a reduction in fire deaths in the home. Could someone please make their mind up – and consider human beings in the process of their decision making?