---

Older People's Rights (Health Care)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There are two types of complaints: those that can be resolved locally and quickly without too many problems and others that are more serious and require further detailed investigation. Handling the latter category requires a degree of independence, which is why we have made our recommendations. I tabled amendments on Report, but unfortunately Mr. Speaker did not select them, otherwise we would have been able to debate the matter fully then. One of the advantages of a Joint Committee is that we have representatives from both Houses. I shall be surprised if my colleagues from the other place do not table amendments on the matter when the Bill starts its passage through the Lords. One of our concerns related to the risk of eviction. We were alarmed by how little protection care home residents have against eviction, compared with tenants in rented accommodation. That is particularly relevant in the context of complaints: care home residents and their families and carers are less likely to complain about the care that is provided if they are worried that the response will be eviction. We heard of a care home resident who used the emergency buzzer at night. The care assistant took half an hour to come, by which time the resident had wet the bed. The resident was left in the wet bed, the buzzer was thrown across the room and, after making a complaint, they were given 28 days' notice to leave. In another case, a low-level complaint was made to the care assistant about the resident's bed not being made. Twenty-eight days' notice was given to look elsewhere. The ““YL”” case arose out of similar circumstances, with the proposed eviction of Mrs. YL from her home in Birmingham. In Denmark and Sweden, residents have the same security as other tenants. As their needs increase, the level of care steps up from sheltered accommodation to highly dependent, all in the same home. Will the Minister consider making it harder for care homes to evict residents? I am sure that hon. Members are familiar with the ““YL”” case, given the intense interest throughout the country in its outcome. In essence, users of services provided by the private and voluntary sectors but commissioned by public bodies are excluded from the protection of the Human Rights Act, as a consequence of the House of Lords judgment. That raises issues that go far beyond our debate today, but the consequences have been brought into sharp focus by the impact on care home residents: 77.9 per cent. of care homes are private and 13 per cent. are in the voluntary sector, which means that residents in 91 per cent. of homes have no direct protection under the Human Rights Act. This year, for the second time, I have introduced a private Member's Bill to attempt to resolve the general issues; and for care home residents in the interim, I moved on Report a new clause to the Health and Social Care Bill to restore the law to what everyone believed to be the case before ““YL”” and the earlier authority established by the Leonard Cheshire case. I am pleased that the Minister responded positively, with an undertaking to report to the other place with the Government's own proposals. I hoped that that would result in a Government amendment, so I withdrew my amendment. Will the Minister bring us up to date on Government discussions and tell us what amendments he anticipates will be tabled in the other place? I come now to the question of leadership. Until recently, the Department of Health manifestly failed to ensure that human rights were at the heart of health care policy and practice. It was left to voluntary organisations to provide leadership and fill that vacuum. We need nothing less than an entire change of culture throughout the health service and care home sector. Recently—perhaps because of our inquiry as well as the work of non-governmental organisations—Ministers and senior officials have come to understand better the importance of human rights in health care, and I very much welcome that change. The references to human rights in the policy documents that we have seen are good. I certainly cannot fault the Minister's personal understanding of the issue and commitment to progress. However, we are concerned about how that translates into policy making and implementation in practice. At the end of our inquiry, we remained without confidence that the Human Rights Act was"““an integral part of policy-making””" in the Department. Initiatives such as the British Institute of Human Rights pilots are welcome but piecemeal, and there is no clear strategy on making human rights integral to the work of the Department as a whole. There has to be much clearer guidance, and we need a much stronger cultural steer. The reluctance to use the language of human rights must be overcome. It is not an embarrassment, but a guarantee of good practice. The Government told us that they were focused on improving their performance, drawing on support from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Will the Minister tell us whether there will be a departmental human rights strategy, so that human rights considerations can be at the heart of the Department's work? How will the Department demonstrate leadership throughout the NHS on human rights? The Department said that it would review its policy-making processes to ensure that they reflected human rights considerations. Has that been done? If so, what was the outcome? This year, the NHS is celebrating its 60th anniversary. It has been a remarkable success story overall. In our inquiry, we pointed to ways in which it can be more successful still by putting human rights at the heart of its work, which will make the rights and needs of users central to the work of the NHS, helping to ensure that financial or staff pressures, or the sheer weight of the bureaucracy, do not drive policy and practice. As one consultant told us, ““Looking after older people well is a lot cheaper than looking after them badly.”” That can be done without spending enormous sums of money, but it requires a cultural shift from the top of Richmond house down to the staff on the hospital reception desk or in the call centre. The welcome political commitment recently shown by the Minister and his colleagues must be both intensified and sustained, so we will continue to keep the Department of Health under scrutiny until the human rights of older people in health care receive the respect to which they are entitled.