New clause 9 - Public authorities and human rights
Equality Bill [Lords]
1:30 pm
Sandra Gidley (Women & Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
On Second Reading and at various stages in Committee, there have been concerns about the definition of a public authority and whether organisations exercising a public authority function are covered by the Bill. I feel that many of those matters are unresolved at this stage.
The new clause seeks not to deal with the wider problem, but with the particular concern that care homes are not covered. There is a particular problem, because many older people spend time in a care home that might not be run by the local authority but is paid for by it. There is widespread concern that there have been various abuses of human rights in some care homes, although I stress that I mean more poorly run ones, because many clearly have very high standards.
There is no redress under the Bill. The amendment seeks to extend the definition of a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998, to protect those older people who receive care services from private and voluntary agencies. That would include care homes, day care and domiciliary care in people's own homes. It is important to consider that because of the sheer scale of private provision. In 2004, more than 91 per cent. of care home places and two thirds of domiciliary care services were provided by private or voluntary sector providers. This is an area where there is currently a large loophole.
We have previously discussed the Cheshire case of 2001, which established case law in this area. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to repeat the arguments, because they are widely on the public record. Case law means that an older person in an independent care home or who is receiving care from an independent agency is not protected.
I believe that that is contrary to the Government's intentions. It is a matter of public record that they are committed to seeking a case to challenge, to try to address the issue. However, four years on, it is disappointing to learn that that case has not yet come to light. What resources have been put into seeking out a case? How has the situation been monitored to ensure that an opportunity has not been missed? Have any cases been considered potentially suitable for the Government to take action on but then for some reason dismissed?
If, in four years, a case has not come forward, it is disappointing to think that we might be here in two, three or four years' time re-rehearsing the same arguments. A fairly simple amendment should be able to settle the matter once and for all.