I am very grateful for that further clarification. It is reassuring to hear that the third party is under an obligation to carry out its functions in a manner that is compliant with the Human Rights Act. However, it would offer further reassurance if we were told that there was a remedy against the third party to which the function was delegated as well as against the local authority. I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said about a remedy against the local authority. However, as appeared when we talked about the application of human rights legislation a week ago, for remedies to have a practical effect so far as third parties carrying out delegated responsibilities are concerned, it is desirable—this was the view of the Joint Committee—that there should be a remedy against the third party to which responsibilities were delegated as well as against the local authority. In this instance that is, if I may put it this way, little more than a backstop. The remedy bites much more effectively if it can be seen to bite on the third party, to whom the responsibilities are delegated, and not just on the local authority. I hope that that further clarification of my point will make it easier for the noble Baroness to come back to me when she has looked into the matter further.
Care Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Low of Dalston
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 July 2013.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Care Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
747 c1587 Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-01-19 10:17:49 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-29/13072912000078
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-29/13072912000078
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-29/13072912000078