Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 220:"After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—"    ““PUBLIC AUTHORITIES: CARE STANDARDS (1)   This section applies to any establishment or agency within the meaning of sections 1 to 4 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14). (2)   Any care establishment or agency is deemed to be a public authority in relation to the provision of care services subject to the Care Standards Act 2000 for the purpose of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (acts of public authorities).”” The noble Baroness said: This is the last amendment that we shall debate. I feel strongly about it. It would extend the definition of public authority under the Human Rights Act to protect those people—usually older people—who receive care services from private and voluntary agencies, including care homes, day care and domiciliary care in their own homes. We know that more than 91 per cent of care home places in 2004 and two-thirds of domiciliary care were supplied by private and voluntary providers. The Human Rights Act sets out to protect the equal dignity and worth of all individuals, their right to have their life protected by law to ensure that they are able to live their lives free from inhuman and degrading treatment, and that their right to private and family life is protected. Older people are entitled to the same protection of human rights as everyone else, but they can often be victims of abuse. Abuse of older people takes many forms; some older people receiving care services experience bullying and a lack of respect and dignity, which we should not have to tolerate. They are very rarely in a position to make a complaint or to demand their rights because of fear of reprisal. We know this. As things stand, following the judgment in the Leonard Cheshire case in 2001, older people receiving care from private and voluntary agencies are not protected by the Human Rights Act, which only covers services provided by public authorities. The way in which case law has defined public authority under the Human Rights Act means that, contrary to the intentions of Parliament when the Act was passed, any older person in an independent care home or receiving care from an independent care agency is not protected by the Act. At Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, made clear the Government’s intention that human rights duties should extend to private bodies carrying out public functions. That was reiterated by the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw. The problem relating to care users is symptomatic of a wider problem regarding the definition of ““public authorities””. I know that the Government were waiting for a suitable test case in which to intervene. However, we are concerned that it could be a long time before a suitable test case comes along because of all the fears and the worries. Indeed, many people are not in a position to complain anyway. At Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady   Ashton, explained that the Government would issue guidance on how the contracts between public authorities and private organisations may seek to protect convention rights. While that would help two-thirds of older people receiving care services, they would still be at a disadvantage because they would have to claim their rights through a third party—the local authority—rather than directly. Moreover, a third of people in care homes are required to pay their own fees because they have some savings or a house to sell, and so have an independent contract with the home. They would not be covered by a contract between the home and a local authority yet they are just as vulnerable to human rights abuses. I seek urgent action to tackle this issue relating to care users, many of whom—usually very old people—simply cannot wait to be afforded protection in the longer term. The law really does need to be amended now to protect that very vulnerable group of people. I ask the Government for a clear statement that this issue will be considered by the discrimination law review and that the Government will take swift rather than long-term action to remedy what I consider is a very serious problem. I beg to move.