My Lords, I count it a great privilege to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House. To reciprocate the spirit of the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, it is a particular pleasure to speak in a debate initiated by my noble personal, if not political, friend. He and I entered the other place following the 1983 election and I took part in many debates there which he initiated, although it has to be said more often to oppose than to support him. That said, I can also say—and wish to say with appreciation—that as constituency Member for Orkney and Shetland for 18 years, I found the noble Lord one of the best Ministers to deal with when it came to understanding constituency problems and attempting to address them.

When I left Westminster I regularly answered the question, "Do you miss it?" with the response, "It's people I miss". One of the real pleasures of being here in your Lordships' House is in re-establishing old friendships and acquaintanceships as well as making new ones. I have very much valued the warmth of the welcome that I have received and appreciate the genuinely friendly ambience of the House, its Members and not least the staff who, in addition to their friendly demeanour, could not have been more helpful in helping a new boy learn the ropes.

I received a particularly warm welcome from two Scottish Members of your Lordships' House, who explained that my arrival meant that they would almost certainly no longer be in any danger of topping the annual travel expenses table.

I have the most northerly residence of any Peer in the United Kingdom. Indeed, my title reflects the Tankerness home where I have lived with my family for more than 24 years. I had the great privilege to represent the people of Orkney and Shetland in another place for 18 years, and to represent my adopted home of Orkney in the Scottish Parliament for eight years. They are very distinctive island communities, proud of their heritage, but ever ready to embrace new challenges. While much legislation affecting the isles now originates in the Scottish Parliament, I hope that from time to time it will be appropriate for me to bring a very northern perspective to your Lordships' deliberations.

A key reason for wishing to take part in this debate is that two issues in which I have taken a keen interest, in the other place and in the Scottish Parliament, are freedom of information and human rights legislation. Both subjects have topical relevance to the accountability of non-governmental organisations providing public services. Next week, the Ministry of Justice's consultation on the designation of additional public authorities under Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act closes. I very much welcome the general approach of the consultation, which starts from the Government's belief that,

"there are good reasons for reviewing coverage of the Act".

Many organisations receive large amounts of taxpayers' money to carry out functions of a public nature, but are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as public authorities to which the Act already applies.

Prima facie there is a very strong case for extending the coverage of the Act. However, having been responsible for taking the Scottish freedom of information legislation through the Scottish Parliament, with a similar Section 5 provision, I am well aware that this is not as straightforward as it may seem. As articulated in the consultation paper, there is a balance to be struck between the public interest and whether the burden is proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Best, reminded us of the importance of housing associations in the delivery of services for the public service, yet we have a great breadth between very small and very large housing associations, which may have to cope in very different ways if freedom of information is extended. But believing that freedom of information is to be celebrated as a contribution to better governance, rather than a burden to be tholed, my preference is for the option that proposes a progressive widening of coverage. I recognise that any decision to extend coverage will require further, more specific, consultation, but I hope that that consultation does not become an excuse for unreasonable delay.

The issue that I want to raise concerns the Human Rights Act 1998 and follows the decision of the House of Lords, sitting in a judicial capacity, in the case of YL v Birmingham City Council, that private care homes, even when publicly funded, are not carrying out public functions and as a result an individual could not sue those care homes for an alleged breach of convention rights. Even before the YL decision, the Joint Committee on Human Rights had raised concerns about the inconsistent judicial interpretation of public authority. That matter was promptly raised in your Lordships' House by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on 27 June, when she asked how the Government sought to protect the human rights of vulnerable people in care homes in the light of that decision. The reply from the now Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, was encouraging; and in fairness the Government have expressed disappointment at the judicial decision.

Notwithstanding that, and assurances given after the decision, there is a continuing concern about the position of private care home residents. There have been suggestions that this issue is best left to a Bill of Rights at some unspecified date, but that is less than satisfactory. Using the Health and Social Care Act to strengthen the regulatory framework may help, but I note that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has questioned the effectiveness of such an approach. Individuals will still not be able to enforce convention rights against private care homes; the proposal will not directly affect the scope of the Human Rights Act to cover care homes; and the new Care Quality Commission will have no power to investigate complaints from individual residents and provide them with remedies. I ask the noble Minister to respond to these concerns when he winds up. Each of these topics could command a short debate in its own right and I suspect we shall return to them.