Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 18 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill.


Health and Social Care Bill

We are debating one of the enduring themes of the Bill. In Committee, Members on both sides made several attempts to beef up its human rights aspects. Most of us were concerned about the fact that 90 per cent. of care homes are run by the private and voluntary sector and are therefore not covered by the Human Rights Act 1998. That was never Parliament's intention when the legislation was introduced, but case law and decisions in the courts have brought us to where we are today. It is right and proper that we try to amend that, but there is also a wider problem that probably cannot be dealt with in this Bill. We need to think of ways to avoid a situation whereby people can sit side by side in the same private nursing home with different rights because one person is funding their own care and the other is having it paid for by the state. The Minister has been genuinely sympathetic as regards this state of affairs, and it may be easier to deal with it in stages. However, it is worth pointing out that it has been allowed to exist for far too long. We missed an opportunity with the Equality Act 2006, when several amendments were tabled, and the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) never saw the light of day. We would not be doing our duty if we were to allow yet another opportunity to slip by. If we leave it all to a consultation as part of a Green Paper on a possible British Bill of Rights, that may be too little, too late. It is helpful that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has considered the Bill in such detail. I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments, because they give us a chance to debate the issue once more. In the summary of its report, the Committee says:"““Although the Committee prefers a general solution to clarify the meaning of 'public function' in the HRA, it also sees the need for an interim solution in the Health and Social Care Bill. The Committee is sympathetic in principle to an amendment moved in Committee to make all providers of health and social care public authorities for the purposes of the HRA. But this may go beyond what Parliament intended””." That sums up the situation very neatly. The fact that this presents a difficult challenge does not mean that it is not worth doing. I welcome new clause 2, which would make it clear that the new commission should adopt a human rights-based approach. It will have to deal with a wide range of legislation, and it is important to many that the human rights aspects are not just a tick-box exercise to be thought about afterwards. The thrust of its work should have human rights principles at its core. I am disappointed that new clause 3 was not selected—indeed, I am disappointed that several new clauses and amendments were not selected, but perhaps a little more of that later—because its inclusion would have sent a clear message to providers that the CQC could investigate any transgressions of the Human Rights Act. If there is a problem with the amendment, it is that it does not deal with the devolved Governments. I am slightly uneasy about supporting a situation whereby there are potentially weaker human rights in the devolved nations, and I should like that to be addressed. Certain comments in the Committee's report do not require legislation to implement but should nevertheless be borne in mind. I was struck by the emphasis on accessible information about human rights, and how that applies to health care settings. Such information will be available for care home residents, relatives, carers, advocates and the public as a whole. At the moment, the professionals involved know what is required of them, but it is sometimes not set out in black and white. Members of the public do not feel empowered, and making more information available to guide them through the process, letting them know what is acceptable and what is not, will do them a great service. I did not quite catch whether the hon. Member for Hendon planned to press his new clause to a vote. As a matter of principle, we would want to support it, despite our reservation that the devolved nations are not included.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c51-2 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Charities General Medical Council Health services Fees and charges Human rights Enforcement NHS Nutrition Regulation Social services General Optical Council Care Quality Commission Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator Local involvement networks
Legislation
Health and Social Care Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk