Lancaster Guardian Once More...

Beds in the Orchard went back into the Lancaster Guardian for the second time today.

If you're a regular follower of this blog, you may remember our first mention in the Lancaster Guardian where we were told that the closure to women was because of those long dark winter nights.

Things have moved on a lot since then, but we kept in contact with the Guardian and they decided to talk more about our campaign in today's edition.  We made it onto the front page, no less, and the full article is here - Won't take bed battle lying down.

We'd like to thank both Rebecca Wilkinson and Philippa Molloy for speaking out so clearly about what this campaign means to us and why we are fighting on. 

A lot of the article focuses on how we believe that the Trust did not adhere to the Equality Act when making the decision.  This is something that our MP David Morris is taking up for us.  The Trust believe they have adhered to the act, but the truth will be in the detail.

While you don't need to do a full Equality Impact Assessment or consultation for a temporary decision, we have been advised that you do still need to pay due regard to the Act and be able to provide the documentation showing how such due regard was taken.  Without such documentation indirect discrimination will have occurred.

As the Trust have been unable to show that such due regard has taken place, or provide the details of why they believe such due regard did not have to take place, our position remains the same.  Hopefully this is something that will be clarified one way or another through our MP.

Our spokesperson is still working with the Trust and has been in contact with them this week, although the feedback from her is that its "in progress" we expect that there will be further updates as time goes on.

So what did we learn on the radio today?

This morning Beds in the Orchard was back on BBC Radio Lancashire.  The Trust is vulnerable to Judicial Review after failing to pay due regard when closing The Orchard to women.

We sent our spokesperson.  They sent a spokesperson.  What did we learn?

1. That they are still using the "clinical need" line when we know that this is nothing to do with women who may need PICU care.

2. That they are still saying it's not for financial reasons despite knowing that they had to close a ward in this financial year and the Lancashire Telegraph had already reported that it was to save £720,000.

3. That they are still saying that it had nothing to do with closing the ward in Burnley, despite FOI information showing that they themselves said that the loss of 22 male beds was "unmanageable" before they closed it.  The FOI further showed how they had to close female beds elsewhere to make up the shortfall.

4. That they are still talking about more community care when our FOI request showed there had been no increase in staff in North Lancs or Burnley.

5. That it's preferable to deny ALL women from North Lancashire local care then send any men out of area.

6. That they weren't willing to address the issue of the Equality Act when challenged.

And last of all, they would rather have the terrible publicity of making a group of women with mental health issues take them to court rather than sort it out.

Well done Lancashire Care NHS Trust.  Well done.

Judicial Review - Letter Before Claim to be sent to the LCFT

After taking advice yesterday, Beds in the Orchard contacted their solicitor and asked for a Letter Before Claim to be sent to the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust with regards to taking them to court for a Judicial Review into their action of closing The Orchard to women.

When taking action, even temporary, that has a direct affect on a Protected Characteristic as outlined in the Equality Act of 2010, in this case a person's sex, a public body must pay due regard to the act and must publish documentation about how due regard was given when asked. The Trust as unable to provide such information and are therefore liable to Judicial Review.

Below are some of the questions that have been asked amongst campaigners and our responses.

What does this mean?
The Letter Before Claim will lay out the case for how the Trust has made a decision in a way that contravenes the Equality Act.  It will give them the opportunity to negotiate a resolution with our campaign before it goes to court.

Sounds expensive.
Judicial Review claims are eligible for Legal Aid.  For someone to be eligible for Legal Aid they need to be in receipt of certain benefits - in our case ESA, have savings of less than 8K and less than 100k of equity in any property they own.  Because of the nature of the people we are supporting, there are a number of our group who qualify for Legal Aid.

Do you really want to go to court?
This campaign has always been about returning inpatient care to the women of North Lancashire and that is all we want.  We would naturally prefer to do this out of court so that the public money that funds the NHS was spent on patient care rather than court cases.  

What next?
We would appeal to the LCFT to find a way to return The Orchard to a mixed sex facility as soon as possible and to not close the facility to women again.  We are still at a stage where we can resolve this together and as our case is quite clear cut it would benefit no one for this to be taken fully down the legal route.

With all due regards.

Today I met with representatives from the Trust, including Keith Dibble, Deputy Network Director.  This is a brief overview.

We focused mainly on the legality of the closure and how the closure of male beds for financial reasons had caused an unmanageable demand that resulted in the loss of 11 female beds across the county, 8 of which were at The Orchard in Lancaster.

We believe that the women of North Lancashire are the victims of cost cutting measures that artificially caused a shortage of male inpatient beds and we will not be moved from that position.

Both sides have taken legal advice.  The Trust has been advised that it has acted legally.  The campaign has been advised that this is indirect sexual discrimination and is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.

We have not seen any documentation regarding the due regard to the Equality Act that the Trust should have undertaken with regards to the closure.  We asked that it be supplied to us by the end of today as if it exists, it should be readily available.

We have not received any such documentation.

We have advised that the campaign will continue.  A full report of the meeting will be posted to the blog tomorrow.

If they dismiss our concerns, what about the others?

One of the questions that keeps coming up at the Beds in the Orchard campaign meetings is; "If they are happy to casually discriminate against women, is the Trust meeting its obligations to other groups protected by the Equality Act 2010?"

We ask ourselves how they are taking care of young people with mental health problems.  We wonder what structure they have in place to take care of their elderly service users.  We question whether they they sensitive to the LGBT community.

What about those with disabilities other than mental health issues?  Are they able to support those who are deaf or blind?  Are their facilities properly equipped and their staff sensitive to the needs of those with physical disabilities? 

We look at the response that we've had from the Trust about our issues with women being turned away from The Orchard.   The response has, in our opinion, been dismissive of our concerns.   Their replies that it's only temporary, that they don't believe its harmful, that it's 'clinically appropriate' and that they are flexing, rather than removing beds, all seek to minimise what we are telling them; that its hurting us.

The Trust have offered to meet with us and we're looking forward to doing so, but will it be more of the same face to face?  Will we hear anything new?

We wonder now if we are just scratching at the surface of how the Trust deals with the concerns of its Service Users.  Do they dismiss our complaints or bury them under empty statements while doing nothing to address them? 

All of us have had treatment in the community provided by the Trust.  Some of us have had inpatient treatment as well.  All of us have our own experiences, both positive and negative and all of us want our voices to be heard.  Let's hope they're listening.

How wrong does something have to be before they CHANGE it?

This is a quick summary of the main points made in this blog with links to the relevant posts.

In his interview with BBC Radio Lancashire, Keith Dibble, Deputy Network Director of LCFT was asked "Do you accept that moving these women further away from their families and children could be damaging?"  He replied "We believe not".

Well we are telling you that it is damaging, Keith.  We believe removing all local inpatient care for the women of Lancaster and the surrounding area is wrong and damaging because...

It discriminates against women.
http://bedsintheorchard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-equality-act-2010-how-is-this-not.html

It punishes women and families on low incomes.
http://bedsintheorchard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/closing-female-beds-punishes-women-and.html


It can lead to increased detentions under the Mental Health Act.
http://bedsintheorchard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/can-closure-of-female-inpatient.html

It deters women from seeking, or accepting help.
http://bedsintheorchard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/is-based-on-need-self-fulfilling.html

It affects families and children.
http://bedsintheorchard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/away-from-family-and-early-release.html
http://bedsintheorchard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/so-i-asked-my-children-what-was-it-like.html 
http://bedsintheorchard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/clares-story-near-miss-distressed.html


It damages women by isolating them from their support networks.
http://bedsintheorchard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-full-article-published-today-on.html

And lets not forget that even some LCFT Staff agree with us. 
http://bedsintheorchard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/views-of-worker-in-lancashire-care-nhs.html

How wrong does something have to be before Lancashire Care NHS Trust will change it?

The Equality Act 2010 - How is this not discrimination?

The Equality Act of 2010 sets out a list of Protected Characteristics.  These are: (in no particular order)

1. Sex.
2. Sexual orientation.
3. Race, including colour, nationality, ethnic or national  origin.
4. Being or becoming transsexual.
5. Age.
6. Disability.
7. Being pregnant of having a child.
8. Being married or in a civil partnership.
9. Religion, belief or lack of religion/belief

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

1. at work
2. in education
3. as a consumer
4. when using public services
5. when buying or renting property
6. as a member or guest of a private club or association

We believe that the women of North Lancashire are being discriminated against due to their sex when using public services.

The Trust says it's flexing, not discrimination,  but we'd like to change male and female for a few other protected characteristics to make our point.  How about...

There are more heterosexuals needing beds than homosexuals, so we will only treat heterosexual patients at The Orchard. All beds will be made for heterosexual use only and all homosexual patients will be sent out of the area.

There are more White British needing beds than Asian British, so we will only treat White British patients at The Orchard. All beds will be made for White British use only and all Asian British patients will be sent out of the area.

There are more young people needing beds than older people, so we will only treat young patients at The Orchard. All beds will be made for use by young people only and all older people will be sent out of the area.

It sounds so wrong doesn't it.  So why is THIS acceptable?

There are more men needing beds than women, so we will only treat men at The Orchard.  All beds will be made for male use only and all female patients will be sent out of the area.