Closing the loophole: Care services and human rights protection – Sanchita Hosali and Helen Wildbore

22 May 2013 by

Care homeMuch of the House of Lords debate surrounding yesterday’s Second Reading of the Care and Support Bill focused on seeking solutions to complex issues around the future provision of care. Additionally, as several peers flagged, the Bill also provides a timely opportunity to clarify which bodies have legal obligations to uphold protections under the Human Rights Act. Baroness Campbell noted “those who receive their care not from a public authority but from a private body lack the full protection of the Human Rights Act…[This] is a loophole that must be closed.”

What loophole?

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act essentially creates a legal duty to respect, protect and fulfil certain human rights (drawn from the European Convention on Human Rights). This duty is placed on public authorities and those performing “public functions”. The second type of body – those performing public functions – has proved somewhat awkward in practice, particularly in relation to those who receive care services.

The Human Rights Act itself does not define public functions, a flexibility which can be traced back to the intention that the law take “account of the fact that, over the past 20 years, an increasingly large number of private bodies, such as companies or charities, have come to exercise public functions that were previously exercised by public authorities.”The loophole has arisen from interpretations about which bodies carry out ‘public functions’ and therefore have duties under the Act (YL v Birmingham City Council and Others [2007] UKHL 27).

The loophole was partially closed, following calls from a range of groups, by the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (section 145). Thus, those whose care is arranged under the National Assistance Act 1948 are now covered by the Human Rights Act. However gaps in protection remain for those whose care is organised outside of the NAA. For example, people who receive their care in a home but pay for it themselves and people who receive their care at home by an independent provider, currently lack the full protection of the Human Rights Act.

Why closing the gap is important

Without direct access to human rights protections people at risk of poor treatment have limited options to hold their provider to account. There is indirect protection through regulators of care services such as the Care Quality Commission and via the positive obligations on local authorities (and other relevant public authorities) to take action to protect people at known risk from harm.

However, this is a distant means of redress often removed from people’s daily realities. Recent investigations show how failures of care can give rise to human rights issues, and how those who lack the full protection of the Human Rights Act are at risk. For example an Inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission  revealed serious, systemic threats to the basic human rights of older people who are receiving home care services.

As Baroness Greengross pointed out in yesterday’s debate on the Care and Support Bill: “there are some serious problems in ensuring that human rights protection will follow people, however their care is provided…Whoever the provider of care might be, frail and vulnerable people, who are usually very old, need that protection. We have seen too many instances of human rights being abused and quite dreadfully breached.”

Added to this is the lack of certainty about the legal obligations of various providers. Clarification of legal duties is important for compliance, but as practice-based work shows it can also be a powerful driver for developing right-respecting services.

Closing the loophole

A group of organisations including BIHR, Age UK and Liberty, are calling for an amendment to the Care and Support Bill which would close the loophole by clarifying that the Human Rights Act applies to any person who is receiving care services regulated under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

During yesterday’s Second Reading debate several peers highlighted the need for the Care and Support Bill to be strengthened by ensuring the loophole in human rights protection is closed, an issue which will no doubt be carefully considered during the next stages of the Bill.  Such a provision would also set down in law what the Government has previously said on this issue, namely that “the requirement for people to have their human rights protected and respected is not negotiable.”

Sanchita Hosali and Helen Wildbore are Deputy Director and Human Rights Officer respectively of the British Institute of Human Rights

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;

  1. A says:

    Very interesting and good to have some upto the minuet discussion and thought on the Care Bill.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: