Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rix and Baroness Greengross

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 87ZA and 104A. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for what she said and I heartily agree with her.

We read far too often about frail older people blocking beds in hospital wards and, apparently unintentionally, making the health service very difficult to function properly. However, they are there due to inadequate planning. These two amendments are intended to try to ensure that the discharge process is started when somebody goes into hospital—that is, right at the beginning of their stay in hospital.

We all have experience of very poor practice. My personal experience is of a 94 year-old who was admitted to a London hospital as an emergency and therefore arrived in pyjamas and with bare feet. He was returned home in pyjamas and with bare feet in the late evening in winter. He had to cross a grassy patch, go into his block of flats and up a flight of stairs in that condition in order to reach his home. There was no planned process to look after him. That sort of thing is totally unacceptable. The aim of this Bill is to stop that sort of practice and to make sure that it does not happen in the future. I think that all your Lordships feel the same about this: we have to get it right. As I said, I feel that the discharge plan should be initiated when someone is admitted to hospital and it should be used as the template for the discharge, when it occurs.

I declare an interest as chairing the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia. We know from one of the inquiries that we have carried out that most frail older people who go into hospital have comorbidity—that is, they have more than one condition. If they have gone into hospital for a fractured femur to be fixed or for some other physical condition to be dealt with, they will stay in hospital for much longer if they also have, for example, dementia. They stay in hospital longer partly for the same reason: that no plan has emerged to look after them when they come out. It is very bad for them to be in hospital and it is bad for all the other patients as well, for obvious reasons. We need to ensure that the local authority and relevant partners know about the special conditions of a patient to get the planning right. We need to ensure that special care and support needs are taken into account long before they leave hospital. That is the reason for those two amendments, which I very much hope that the noble Earl will accept as part of good practice.

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 87ZB, so wholeheartedly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. It would add providers of relevant services to the list of relevant partners of the local authority. The amendment lays the foundation for a number of amendments which I have tabled in the safeguarding section of the Bill, which will be taken later. There has been widespread concern that the mechanisms and procedures in place to safeguard adults at risk of abuse or neglect are totally inadequate.

Time after time, we have witnessed how processes have failed or safeguarding has not been taken seriously, which has led to serious consequences for people with a learning disability. For example, there is the death of Francesca Hardwick and her mother Fiona Pilkington, the murder of Steven Hoskin, and more recently, the abuse scandal at Winterbourne View. There have been a number of prominent cases where the provider has failed to co-operate in providing information on adults at risk or where cases have occurred such as that reported in the aftermath of Winterbourne, where the provider declined to share information for the serious case review and there was no requirement on it to do so.

The amendment is therefore intended to add providers as relevant partners, so that they are in the frame for further amendments to the safeguarding part of the Bill in Clauses 41 to 46. When we talk about providers, I am referring to those who are providing a service which has been commissioned from a person's care plan, such as care and support or education services. Although I appreciate that regulations will set out other relevant partners, we feel that providers should be named explicitly in the Bill. This will emphasise the importance of the provider of services being subject to the duty to co-operate and will bolster the safeguarding process accordingly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Rix and Baroness Greengross

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, if I am a very frail, vulnerable, sick person in need of support or care, and I go into a residential home, my human rights will be protected. In this case, that means the right to dignity, respect, and privacy if I am having intimate care. If I have exactly the same needs and exactly the same services provided for me in my own home, my human rights are not protected. But I am the same person. My human rights now depend on whether I am down the road in a residential home or have the same services in my own home. That cannot be right. This amendment is designed to close the loophole in the law that allows this. It means that if a public body has arranged or contracted the service, it is a public function within the meaning of Section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act, so it brings certainty that I will get my human rights protected. These are not controversial rights—it is just decent care.

We know that almost half a million older people receive essential care in their own homes, commissioned by their local authority in England, excluding the other devolved areas. Approximately 84 per cent of these people lack the protection of the Human Rights Act because their care is provided, as we now know, by private or third sector organisations. We received compelling evidence of the extent of human rights breaches in home care settings in the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s formal inquiry into the human rights of older people receiving home care. As the lead commissioner on ageing, I was part of that inquiry.

This amendment is supported by many organisations. Among them are Age UK, the British Institute for Human Rights, Disability Rights UK, the Equality and Diversity Forum, Justice, Liberty, Mencap, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. In its report Implementation of the Right of Disabled People to Independent Living, published on 1 March 2012, the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that the Health and Social Care Bill should be amended in this way.

My understanding, however, is that while the Government have no argument with the view that the Human Rights Act should apply to private and third sector organisations providing publicly commissioned home care, it seems that they consider that the law provides this coverage already and that this amendment is therefore unnecessary. I share the commission’s view that private providers of services, under arrangements made with the relevant statutory bodies under the NHS Act as amended by the Bill, will not necessarily continue to be carrying out a function of a public nature. The Equality and Human Rights Commission feels that the Department of Health’s analysis of current case law is a bit overoptimistic. Were this question to be determined by a court, the outcome could not be predicted with any certainty.

I want to thank the Minister for giving a huge amount of his time and consideration to these issues. I know that he is wholeheartedly in support of the principles behind my amendment. It is plain that he has an undoubted commitment to avoiding human rights abuses in health and care settings. However, the fact remains that any relevant assurances that he might give us, while very welcome, must fall short of providing the urgent legal clarity about the scope of the Act that I believe to be very important. They would not provide service users with clear legal redress for human rights abuses or breaches, or give providers an immediate legal incentive to apply human rights standards to service delivery.

I am not suggesting that legislative provisions are the only guarantee of human rights protection, but I would argue that they are an important part of the solution. I recognise that, going forward, the Government’s policy agenda could—and, I hope, will—provide opportunities to embed more effectively a human rights approach in health and social care. Seeking change in service culture and practice of services is very important. However, while these policy opportunities are very worthy of consideration, closing this legal loophole would put down a clear legal benchmark that would positively help to build cultural change in the health and social care sector. Such policies that the Government now have, however well-intentioned, are not a substitute for clear legal obligations under the Human Rights Act. Those would give individuals the right of redress against service providers for human rights breaches.

The Government might also have reservations that making express reference to human rights in a health context could cast doubt on other areas beyond health or social care where public services are provided by private bodies. However, I do not agree that a reference solely in health and social care would cast such doubts on other policy areas. Thinking about the operation of such a reference in reverse, it would be difficult to see how a specific reference in justice or education legislation could reasonably affect social care or healthcare.

In closing, I must reiterate that I feel that the law is not certain. In my view, the current legal position is evidently unsatisfactory. There may good arguments to support the view that providers should consider themselves bound by the Act and the duty. There are also legal arguments against that position. There is no way to predict what view a court might adopt. Support for this amendment will clarify beyond doubt the fact that a person commissioned to provide home-based social care or healthcare is performing a public function with the responsibilities that are within such a function and within the meaning of the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to support this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, I wish to support Amendment 292A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Greengross. As I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, I approach this issue from the perspective of people with a learning disability and would argue that the provisions of the Human Rights Act should be universally applied and not dependent as to whether an individual receives personal care in a residential setting or in their own home. Such a disparity is both unfair and unjustified, and it is right that we take the necessary steps to clarify matters.

For example, let me remind your Lordships of the appalling abuse highlighted by the BBC’s “Panorama” programme in May of last year. Winterbourne View, near Bristol, was a privately owned assessment and treatment centre where residents with a learning disability were subject to an horrendous culture of ongoing bullying combined with physical and psychological abuse.

I make reference to the abuse at Winterbourne View because, following an amendment in 2008 to the then Health and Social Care Bill, which is now the Act, the law was changed to ensure that care homes in the private and third sectors, when providing care that is publicly commissioned, were within the scope of the Human Rights Act. This was the correct step to take and ensures that all legislation, regulations and guidance regarding personal care which is publicly commissioned and provided for in residential settings is underpinned by the tenets of the Human Rights Act.

For those who face the ongoing consequences of prejudice and discrimination every day of their lives—such as people with a learning disability—the Human Rights Act can have benefits that go well beyond the preconceptions of those who are eager to dismiss it as a dangerous irrelevance. However, while the individuals concerned who suffered abuse in Winterbourne View or any other residential setting are able to turn to the Human Rights Act in seeking recourse for what occurred, if a similar type of abuse happened while they were receiving publicly funded personal care within the parameters of their own home, it may be assumed by victims, local authorities and others that they would not be able to do so due to the lack of clarity. This is self-evidently a completely unacceptable state of affairs and we should not be willing to tolerate such an absurd inconsistency. I would also add that if the CQC had the resources to undertake a greater number of unannounced inspections in all residential settings, it would be easier to identify abuse at an even earlier stage.

When applying the Human Rights Act the principle question must be, “To what extent has an individual’s human rights been violated?”. It should not be, “Under what type of roof did the alleged abuse take place?”. In my view, abuse is abuse is abuse, and it is as simple as that. Respecting an individual’s human rights should be universally applied and not subject to arbitrary levels of determination, such as the situation in which we currently find ourselves.

The Government claim that the loophole does not exist and so there is no need for the matter to be clarified in the way that the amendment requires. What is not in doubt is that, under the current circumstances, it is explicit under statute that when receiving publicly funded personal care services in residential settings, an individual’s human rights can be upheld via the Human Rights Act. However, when that care is received in their own homes, the situation is much more ambiguous and less certain. Therefore, I remain hopeful that the support of Ministers for this amendment will be willingly and freely given.