Care Bill [HL]

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

83: After Clause 47, insert the following new Clause—
“Human Rights Act 1998: provision of “care and support services” to be public function
(1) A person (“P”) who provides regulated “social care” is to be taken for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities) to be exercising a function of a public nature in doing so.
(2) This section applies to persons providing services regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
(3) In this section “social care” has the same meaning as in the Health and Social Care Act 2008.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 138A and 138B, which are in my name in this group. I shall get those amendments out of the way first, as the debate is likely to focus principally on Amendment 83. Clause 75(6) says that anything done or not done by a third party authorised to carry out a particular function is treated as done or not done by the local authority. In effect, the local authority is solely responsible for the third party’s acts or omissions, subject to a couple of exceptions in subsection (7).

The Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill recommended an amendment to make clear that a person with delegated authority is subject to the same legal obligations as the local authority itself. This reflected concerns that there should be a clear chain of accountability by which the individual could hold the third party, not just the local authority, responsible if their rights were infringed. The Government have contended that the clause already provides for continued accountability. They said that the local authority,

“will remain liable for the proper discharge of that function”.

This misconstrues what the Joint Committee was recommending. The Government are viewing accountability solely in terms of the relationship between the third party and the local authority. Subsection (6) precludes the possibility of the individual seeking redress from the third party, so it does not accord with the Joint Committee’s recommendation. The Minister in Committee said that care providers with delegated functions must carry them out in a way that complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 and that any failure to do so will be a failure by the local authority. That is not the same as the third party being subject to the Human Rights Act; the third party would be failing in its obligations to the local authority, but to no one else. The Minister effectively conceded as much when she said:

“By that device, the Human Rights Act would end up having an effect on what those third parties could do, even if they were not themselves directly responsible”.—[Official Report, 29/7/13; col. 1587.]

The noble Earl, in his letter to Peers following Committee stage, confirmed that individuals will have recourse only to third-party dispute resolution procedures or the local authority’s complaints process.

Without these amendments the individual will have no remedy against, for example, a private care home delivering poor service, or a private company failing to carry out proper assessments. We therefore need these amendments to give effect to the Joint Committee’s recommendation that a person with delegated authority should be subject to the same legal obligations as the local authority.

On Amendment 83, I set out the arguments in detail in Committee and shall not repeat them at length here. The matter is really quite simple and straightforward and can be stated briefly. The Human Rights Act 1998 applies to all public authorities and to other bodies when they are performing functions of a public nature. That means that it should apply to all providers of care, given that the provision of care is a public function. However, the matter was thrown into doubt in 2007 by the case of YL v Birmingham City Council, which held that care home services provided by private and third-sector organisations under a contract with the local authority did not come under the definition of “public function” for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. This meant that thousands of service users had no direct remedy against their care provider for abuse, neglect or undignified treatment. Though the public body commissioning the care remained bound by the Human Rights Act, that was of little practical value to the individual on the receiving end of poor or abusive treatment, or the person given four weeks’ notice to leave because they had antagonised their provider, about whom the noble Lord, Lord Warner, told us in Committee.

Accordingly, Section 145 was introduced into the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to clarify that residential care services provided or arranged by local authorities are covered by the Human Rights Act. There has been concern that this Bill would undo Section 145 by repealing Sections 21A and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, under which persons were placed in residential care and through which Section 145 has operated. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, responding to the debate in Committee, set minds at rest on that when she provided the assurance that,

“there will be a consequential amendment to Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 so that there will be no regression in human rights legislation”.—[Official Report, 22/7/13; col. 1118.]

However, there remains concern that Section 145 does not cover all care service users, or even all residential care service users. It only protects those placed in residential care under the National Assistance Act. That being so, it is anomalous not to treat residential care provided under other legislation and domiciliary care in the same way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, reflecting the position put to the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill, further stated that the Government’s position is that all providers of publicly arranged health and social care services, including those in the private and voluntary sectors,

“should consider themselves to be bound by the duty imposed by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and not act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right”.

However, there are two things wrong with this. First,

“should consider themselves to be bound”,

is not the same as “covered in law”. Secondly, the Joint Committee was not convinced. It concluded that, as a result of the decision in the YL case, statutory provision is required to ensure this. As I said in Committee, I have seen a letter in which it is stated that the Government’s position is that care providers are covered, and should not just “consider themselves to be bound”. However, the House of Lords in YL said that they were not and the Joint Committee was not convinced either. Given such uncertainty, it is surely essential that the matter is put beyond doubt in legislation and Amendment 83 would achieve this by deeming that all those providing social care services regulated by the CQC are exercising a public function for the purposes of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act.

The amendment would also include those who are eligible for care but who, due to means testing, have to arrange and/or pay for their own care—so-called “self funders”—and therefore currently lack the full protection of the Human Rights Act. To date, it has been the case, at least for those who were found to be eligible for care in their own home, that the obligation for the local authority to arrange care regardless of the person’s resources provided them with a degree of protection under the Human Rights Act. However, the changes to the system of arranging care to be introduced by the Bill weaken this protection. My amendment follows the approach of the Joint Committee and, if accepted, would provide equal protection to all users of regulated social care regardless of where that care is provided and who is paying for it.

The Government believe, as the Explanatory Notes to the draft Bill make clear, that protection under the Human Rights Act extends to care arranged by a local authority, even if it is self-funded, but the Joint Committee does not accept that this does not require explicit statutory provision. However, regardless of this view, it makes the point that it does not address the situation of self-funders, who arrange their own care and support. The Government, they say, will need to consider whether it is right that, of all adults in need of care, only this group should lack the protection of the Human Rights Act.

Given the manifold ambiguities and uncertainties surrounding this question, surely it is right to take this opportunity of putting the matter beyond doubt, as my amendment would do. What reason can the Government possibly have for resisting it, when all it does is to spell out in words of one syllable in the Bill that to which the Government have no objection—indeed, already believe to be the case—but which is subject to so much doubt in everybody else’s mind? I beg to move.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 138A and 138B, but will not add to the excellent comments of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I speak in particular to Amendment 83.

I apologise to your Lordships for not having made any comments in Committee but, as I have pointed out, I was away from the House on the orders of my wife. In supporting Amendment 83, I acknowledge the excellent supporting brief from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who sadly cannot be here today, for his considerable guidance.

The amendment stems from a failure by successive Governments to heed the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill to legislate to tackle the problem created by the majority decision of the Law Lords in 2007 in the case of YL v Birmingham City Council.

In YL, the issue was whether a care home, such as that run by Southern Cross Healthcare Ltd, was performing functions of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act when providing accommodation and care to a resident such as Mrs YL under arrangements made by Southern Cross with Birmingham City Council under Sections 21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

The Law Lords decided by three votes to two—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, dissenting—that they were not performing a function of a public nature. However, anyone reading the dissenting judgments of the noble and learned Lord and the noble and learned Baroness would understand why the majority ruling appeared contrary to the objective and purpose of the Human Rights Act. The previous Government thought that YL was wrongly decided and I assume that the present Government share that view. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm that that is the Government’s position.

The previous Government then sought to resolve the problem by intervening in test litigation to clarify or overturn YL, but that did not prove possible. The JCHR twice recommended remedial action, but the previous Government refused to take such action or to support the efforts of Andrew Dismore MP, as the chair of the JCHR, to do so by means of a Private Member’s Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

I think that I covered that point when I said that the courts have ruled that there is no single test to determine whether a function is of a public or a private nature. They have also pointed out that there are serious dangers in trying to formulate such a test, which is what the amendment is trying to do, in its own way. If we go back to the noble Lord’s example of the 90 year-old lady in the care home and even if the Human Rights Act were to apply, it is impossible to predict the outcome of an application to a court for—let us say—an injunction to prevent her removal, because each case is fact-specific. It may be found that the lady’s human rights were not violated, but it is not possible to predict that in advance. I hope that clarifies the position and answers the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, although it obviously leaves me a little disappointed. I do not propose to respond on Amendments 138A and 138B, because I do not propose to press them to a Division when we finally reach them. However, I should like to say something in response to what has been said about Amendment 83.

First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, especially those who have spoken in support from all quarters of the House. It has been a high-calibre debate which does credit to a House noted for characteristically engaging in debate of a high calibre. This one was, I think, particularly authoritative. Without wishing to be invidious in any way, I particularly give thanks for the exceptionally thoughtful, careful and authoritative analysis to which we were treated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

I also observe that we were deprived of the analysis of two of my other supporters who attached their names to the amendment, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Lester, who were unable to be here. In those who added their names to the amendment, those who have spoken and those who would have spoken had they been here, we could not have had a more authoritative and heavyweight line-up in support of the amendment in this House.

There has been general agreement that the matter should be put beyond doubt. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out, it would actually be dangerous if we were not to do so. If I understood the noble Earl correctly, he said that we should stick with the position that was arrived at as a result of Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, made clear, when he said that noble Lords should not pray in aid the position arrived at by the previous Government, this is unfinished business. No one can pretend that we have reached a final resolution of these matters with Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act. That is why it is so important that we should take the opportunity presented by the Bill to take the further steps necessary to put the matter beyond doubt.

We have heard what the noble Earl had to say in response to the debate, but I confess that I am baffled. Between Committee and Report, the Government seem to have executed a complete volte face and completely changed their position. The position explained to us in Committee was that the Government did not believe that the amendment was necessary because the matters that it sought to put beyond doubt were already provided for. Today, the noble Earl tells us that he must urge the House to reject the amendment because the matters should not be provided for. The Government need to make up their mind what their position is.

The Minister also made the point that we should not take this step because it would deliver to service users rights over and above those available under the ECHR. I am sorry, but I simply do not understand that point. The amendment simply delivers to service users rights which are available under the Human Rights Act, which is predicated upon the ECHR. Even the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, agrees, I think, that we should put the matter beyond doubt; he just does not think that we should put it beyond doubt in this way or that the Human Rights Act should be extended this far. Having listened to all the debate, I submit that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and of course the Minister in adopting his remarks, are on their own in this matter in the House. There is general agreement not only that we should put the matter beyond doubt, but that we should put it beyond doubt in the manner which this amendment secures. Indeed, until today this agreement used to include the Government.

I think we should put the matter to rest, as the Minister has said, decisively and emphatically in the terms this amendment provides for and which the Government, until very recently, supported in substance, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.