DCA calls for Human Rights Act exception

3 May 07
The Department for Constitutional Affairs is urging the Law Lords to avoid making registered social landlords and foster carers subject to the Human Rights Act, Public Finance has learned.

04 May 2007

The Department for Constitutional Affairs is urging the Law Lords to avoid making registered social landlords and foster carers subject to the Human Rights Act, Public Finance has learned.

The issue has been sparked by a case this week in which the Lords were told the Human Rights Act should apply to private care homes. At present, the Act applies only to public sector care homes, but the DCA believes it should also be applied to private care homes, as they are effectively fulfilling a 'public function'.

But PF has been told that the DCA is also trying to persuade the Lords to introduce only a very narrow change in law, as it does not want the same rights afforded to asylum seekers housed by social landlords, or applied to other outsourced accommodation services.

'The DCA is really terrified it will have a knock-on, coach-and-horses effect through government procurement policy,' said Nony Ardile, legal policy adviser to Age Concern, who is involved in the case. 'They are trying very hard to avoid RSLs being drawn into it.' She said foster parents were also a concern for the DCA.

Eric Metcalfe, director of human rights policy at legal action group Justice, added that the biggest single contractor of private accommodation – the National Asylum Support Service – was also a 'prime issue' for the DCA. It provides private accommodation for up to 20,000 asylum seekers, and Justice could allege human rights abuses in a number of cases, he said.

The current case was taken to the Lords by 'YL', a private Birmingham care home resident threatened with eviction after the owners disapproved of her family's behaviour. YL, Age Concern, Justice, the DCA and others argue that this was an infringement of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which affords a right to a private and family life.

Although the UK HRA only applies to public bodies, they argue it should be extended to private bodies to which public functions are outsourced.

While the DCA wants that interpreted to apply just to publicly funded residents of care homes, Age Concern argues it should apply to all residents, including those privately funded. In their evidence they cited the example of a woman evicted from a care home because she made a formal complaint that she had been denied medical help for an illness. If the Lords find in favour of YL, such evictions would be clamped down on. Homes would also be obliged to better afford residents dignity, such as not leaving them undressed or on the toilet in public.

The DCA and Birmingham City Council would not comment on the case. But Metcalfe told PF that both the council and the care home had told the Lords that a change in law would be 'too onerous' and would mean that even if a care home went bust, it would not be able to evict residents. That was not true, said Metcalfe, as the HRA allowed for competing rights to be balanced, and a care home operator would be able to assert their right to have an economic interest.

Judgment is expected in June.

PFmay2007

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top