---

Health and Social Care Bill

I support this group of amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. Collectively, these amendments would ensure that not just the CQC but all registered providers really have to think about the human rights of people in their care and that the CQC can back that up through its inspection process. The noble Baroness has moved the amendments comprehensively, so I wish to make two points in general support. The first is a general point and, secondly, I will support in particular Amendment No. 19. On the general point, the Minister has stated that the whole establishment of the CQC and the implementation of the legislation will take place and be deeply implicated in an ethos of human rights; but I am not sure that the drafting of the Bill bears that out. Clause 16, for example, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, contains the regulation-making power. Clause 16(2) simply says that regulations ““may”” make provision with a view to various things that do not include rights. That is why Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 have been tabled. They seek to ensure that regulations ““shall”” make provision with a view to, "““securing the health, safety, rights and welfare of persons for whom any such service is provided””." The other amendments in the group go through strengthening the legislation in respect of rights. Amendment No. 23 is also necessary to insert ““rights””, and Amendment No. 28 has been tabled in general terms to provide: "““The protection and promotion of human rights shall be central to the performance of the functions of the Commission””. " Amendment No. 72 prescribes the content of standards and Amendment No. 76 would provide that respect for rights may be a quality indicator in periodic reviews. I submit that there is quite a lot in the drafting of the Bill to indicate that it needs quite a lot of strengthening before we can be confident that it will be implemented in an ethos and culture of human rights. Secondly, I support Amendment No. 19 in particular, as it is an area of which I have particular knowledge, but also as proxy for the whole group. The JCHR has suggested that the CQC should perform its functions in a way that encourages health and social care providers to improve the information given to service users about their rights. In commenting on the JCHR’s recommendations, the Minister in another place relied on the fact that the commission, NHS bodies and local authorities are all public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act and that the courts have a role in enforcing rights, such as access to information. Therefore, we can rely on the fact that the Human Rights Act applies to these public bodies and that the courts will be there to enforce human rights where necessary. In its 15th report at paragraph 3.25, the JCHR characterised the Minister’s response to its recommendations as simply standing pat on the status quo and said that it regarded it as ““complacent””. It referred to its report on the human rights of older people in healthcare, which, "““drew attention to the inadequacy of information provision, in accessible forms””," and to the fact that it had subsequently made similar findings in relation to adults with learning disabilities. It pointed out: "““Reliance on the Human Rights Act has largely failed to improve the provision of accessible information about healthcare to vulnerable groups. Public authorities have tended to take a minimalist view of compliance with the Human Rights Act and not used the Act to positively enhance the protection and promotion of rights””." I can illustrate this matter from an area within my own knowledge by reference to a provision in the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People, which the UK has signed and I am sure shortly will ratify. Article 21, ““Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information””, says that states parties must provide, "““information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost””." I draw two morals from that. First, if there is not a binding legal obligation on the UK Government to ensure disabled people’s rights to information, there very soon will be in the light of the UN convention. That being the case, it is, at the very least, highly desirable, if not absolutely essential, that this obligation should be reflected—the Minister may say anticipated, but why not since we are promised ratification by the end of this year—in the Bill in relation to disabled people’s rights to information from providers of health and social care. The second moral I draw is that, as the JCHR says, it is absolutely essential to go further than the status quo if the situation is to be in any way satisfactory as regards the provision of information to disabled people. For health services alone, a recent survey of blind and partially sighted people in the UK showed that 95 per cent of respondents had never received health advice leaflets or information from their local surgery in their preferred format; 96 per cent had never received letters from their GP, results of tests or other correspondence in their preferred format; and 95 per cent had never received medicines labelled in large print. That is the situation for disabled people, but I am in no doubt whatever that the situation in relation to the provision of information to other elderly and vulnerable people, and to people with learning disabilities will not be found to be materially different. Therefore, I speak in support of Amendment No. 19 in particular, but as an illustration of the need for this group of amendments as a whole.