The Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to people in private care homes whose places are funded by local councils, the House of Lords has ruled.
In YL v Birmingham City Council, the law lords rejected the argument that the Act should apply to an elderly Alzheimer’s sufferer because her care home place was being paid for by the local authority, which had a statutory duty to ensure she was cared for.
YL was attempting to use the Act to stop her care home, run by Southern Cross Healthcare, evicting her because of disagreements with her relatives. However, by a 3-2 majority, the law lords held that patients in the care home were not covered because arranging care was a private matter, not a “public function” within the meaning of the Act.
Summarising the views of the three law lords who backed the ruling, Lord Scott declared that “an act (or an omission) of a private person or company that is incompatible with a convention right is not unlawful under the 1998 Act”.
Eric Metcalfe, director of human rights policy at JUSTICE, says the case exposes a loophole in the law which needs to be closed by statute.
“Parliament intended the Human Rights Act to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The courts have failed to honour that intention and now it falls to Parliament to correct that mistake. Local authorities should not be able to duck out of their duty to care home patients simply by using private providers,” he says.
Baroness Ashton, the Minister for Human Rights, says she is disappointed by the ruling, which could affect up to 300,000 residents in the UK, and plans to speak to all interested parties in the case to discuss their options.
Solicitor Andrew Dismore MP wants the government to back his private members Bill, the Human Rights (Meaning Of Public Authority) Bill, to correct the position—or to urgently bring in its own legislation.
