Proceeding contribution from Baroness Stern (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health Bill [HL].
Health Bill [HL]
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 69. These amendments have been suggested by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As a former member of that committee, I am very happy to move the amendment in the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Perhaps I may give a brief explanation of the point at issue here, and I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the modest suggestion made in the amendments. Clause 31 gives effect to Schedule 5, which will extend the remit of the Commission for Local Administration, which runs the three Local Government Ombudsmen, to enable it to consider complaints about privately arranged or funded adult social care. The Commission for Local Administration may investigate action taken by an adult social care provider or complaints that it receives. The Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomed this provision, which, it said, ""has the possibility to enhance human rights for service users"." However, the committee raised concerns with the Minister about one aspect of the provision—namely, that the person who complains is unable to comment on the representations made in response to his or her complaint. In replying to the committee, the Minister pointed out that the proposed new scheme is modelled on the existing procedure for dealing with complaints about local authorities and that the procedure would be largely a matter for the commission to determine. However, he noted that the usual procedure was for the complainant to be provided with the local authority’s representations and the commission’s provisional conclusions so that the complainant’s views might be taken into account before a final decision was made. He said that the Commission for Local Administration intended to adopt a similar procedure in relation to its enlarged function. Therefore, the Minister implied, there really was no problem, as good practice was likely to be followed. The Joint Committee on Human Rights felt that this was not good enough on the basis that an individual retains due process rights under the common law of procedural fairness at all times. This amendment would make the procedure fairer and put the requirement on a legislative basis, rather than leave it to the ombudsman’s discretion. I hope the Minister will accept this small improvement.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 710 c639-40
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Children Asylum Advertising Direct payments Health services Drugs Labelling HIV/AIDS Private sector NHS Pharmacy Packaging Marketing Retail trade Tobacco Social services Smoking Spinal injuries Vending machines Personal budgets
- Legislation
- Health Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:35:30 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_554615
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_554615
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_554615