Government guidance on care home visits must be underpinned in law to protect the rights of residents and their families, according to a report.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) said it is “completely unacceptable” for some care home providers to argue it is not safe to follow Government guidance.

Current guidance says every care home resident in England can nominate up to two named visitors for regular visits, and residents with the highest care needs can also nominate an essential care giver.

It says staff should not make blanket decisions for groups of people and that the individual resident’s views, needs and wellbeing should be taken into account when making visiting decisions.

But MPs and peers said providers have not felt bound by the guidance as it is not underpinned in law.

The committee said anecdotal evidence heard as part of its inquiry suggests a “large number” of care homes are not following the Government’s guidance.

This could include blanket policies on length and type of visit, and denying residents the right to an essential care giver, as well as blanket bans.

It said it is “astonishing” that, during evidence in April, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) said it was not aware of any care home in England failing to follow the guidance.

The Committee has drafted a statutory instrument to lay before Parliament addressing these concerns.

Harriet Harman, Labour MP and committee chairwoman, said the pandemic has been heartbreaking for “far too many” families whose right to family life has been breached.

Because care homes see guidance about allowing visits as advisory rather than binding, the Government must now bring forward regulations to give their guidance on visits legal force

She said: “The Government has listened to recommendations from this Committee and others that restrictions on visiting rights must be only be implemented on the basis of an individualised risk assessment which takes into account the risks to the resident’s physical and mental wellbeing of not having visits.

“By not underpinning this guidance in law, care homes have not felt bound by it and important rights have therefore not been respected.

“The Care Quality Commission (CQC) assurances that visits are being allowed properly now in all homes is wholly unconvincing.

“Because care homes see guidance about allowing visits as advisory rather than binding, the Government must now bring forward regulations to give their guidance on visits legal force.”

The CQC also said it does not collect quantitative data on how many visits have occurred across care homes, when giving evidence to the Committee.

The Committee urged the CQC to “get a grip” and ensure robust processes are in place for monitoring adherence and collecting data on visits by the end of May.

Kate Terroni, chief inspector of adult social care at the CQC, said: “We have been clear throughout the pandemic that the individual must be at the centre of decisions around visiting. Blanket approaches to visiting are unacceptable and may trigger an inspection.

“We have sought assurances from care home providers about how they are supporting visiting to happen and we are verifying this information when we go out and inspect.

“We have a mandatory question on each of our care home inspections which looks at how visiting is being supported to happen in a safe way and over the last eight weeks we’ve undertaken 941 inspections.

“We have found that 95% were enabling visiting to happen, and action was taken with those 5% of providers where we were somewhat assured or not assured.

“Concerns have been raised with us about 30 potential blanket bans and we have taken action in every case, including following up with providers, inspecting, raising safeguarding alerts where appropriate and following up with local authorities.

“We expect providers to follow Government guidance on visiting where people are entitled to have designated visitors, and where we are made aware that this is not happening we will follow up with the provider and inspect if we consider that there is risk.”