---

Health and Social Care Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 9, Amendment No. 10: 10: After Clause 2, line 4, after ““safety”” insert ““, rights”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise if I misunderstood the position. I would like to respond to the Minister on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and myself and speak to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, and Amendment No. 53, which is consequential. These amendments are not agreed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights; they arise as a result of the Government's response to earlier committee proposals and are totally in accord with the thinking of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Bill. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 amend government Amendment No. 9. They put a reference to ““rights”” in the objectives of the commission. Amendment No. 53 is grouped with them. It is a definitional clause that defines ““rights”” as inclusive of the, "““rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998””." I warmly welcome the Government’s amendments in the group. In Committee, it was clear that there was considerable support for ensuring that health and social care delivery had to be within a human rights framework, which really means nothing more demanding than that every human being should be treated as an individual with dignity and respect. We heard many examples in Committee of reasons why this should be taken more seriously, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The Government listened to that and have tabled Amendment No. 9. We, together with a range of other bodies, warmly welcome the Government’s amendments in the group, and I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about how the Government have responded to the points we made. These amendments propose that the CQC’s main objective should include a requirement to protect and promote rights. Currently, the main objective is limited to the protection and promotion of health, safety and welfare, and that the CQC should perform its functions for the general purpose of encouraging, "““the provision of health and social care services in a way that focuses on the””" ““rights”” of service users, rather than the government amendment which is limited to encouraging a focus, "““on the needs and experiences””" of users. We have included the definitional clause, proposed in Committee, to define ““rights”” as inclusive of "““human rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998””." The amendments to which I am speaking today seek to go a little further than the Government have done. We suggest that this very welcome inclusion of rights should not just appear in matters that the commission should have regard to but should appear also in its objectives. The very helpful briefing I have had from Help the Aged supports the view that the commission should have a clear remit to, "““place human rights principles at the core of its work””." The amendments propose that part of the main objective should include a requirement to protect and promote rights. Will the Minister explain why the Government consider that the protection and promotion of the rights of service users should be less important for the commission than the protection and promotion of safety or welfare? Do the Government accept that it should be part of the commission’s ethos to encourage regulated service providers to provide their services in a way which protects and promotes the rights of service users? If the noble Baroness agrees, why was it not possible to include an express reference in the Bill under the provision on objectives? I should be grateful if the Minister could share her thinking on these questions with the House so that we can be clear why the stronger position originally advocated by the Joint Committee on Human Rights has not found favour with the Government. I beg to move.