BIHR is working alongside health and social care organisations to help advance the Building the Right Support agenda, which is a national plan to develop community services and close outdated inpatient facilities for people with a learning disability and/or autism. This summer, we’re running a series of two-part workshops with a range of public bodies and professional roles to upskill staff in the Human Rights Act (HRA) legal duties and boost confidence to use their knowledge in practice. We were delighted to deliver the first workshop this week, which explored the HRA as a practical framework as well as three relevant rights for their work.

After the workshop, one participant said: “great session to get you thinking about something that rarely gets mentioned or challenged in the day to day healthcare work but has such an importance that it needs to be at the forefront”.

This week, the Mental Health Bill moved to Committee Stage, which is when a Committee of MPs looks at the proposals in detail and decides whether to accept, change or remove them. One of the things the Committee will be looking at is a proposed new clause supporting direct human rights protections for people whose mental health care is arranged by the State but outsourced to independent providers – read our explainer on how the Human Rights Act currently works when public services are outsourced.

In our briefing with the National Care Forum, we urge the UK Government and MPs to support this change to the Mental Health Act, which would close a loophole in our current law highlighted by recent legal case known as Sammut vs Next Steps. In this case, a man named Paul was receiving mental health aftercare in a private care home, with his support arranged and paid for by the NHS and local council. Paul died in the care home from pneumonia and intestinal issues related to a side effect of a medication he was taking, and his family brought a human rights case against the care home and the NHS, saying Paul’s human rights had been breached. The court found that the care home was not carrying out a public function, and so they did not have a duty to protect Paul’s human rights. The court hasn’t yet said if the NHS breached Paul’s human rights. At BIHR, we believe that human rights protections should not be based on how the State fulfils its duties and whether services are delivered directly or contracted out.

In the briefing, we hear from independent care providers such as Exclusive Secure Care Services who said “We believe that human rights protections should be in place to protect everyone who is receiving any care or support. It should be seen as the normal practice and not an additional burden.”

This week our CEO Sanchita, and Head of Policy & Programmes Carlyn were in Glasgow for a residential hosted by JustRight Scotland, the Legal Services Agency, Clan Childlaw and the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland. Across three days organisations from across the UK shared their insights and learning on using the law for social change, from community action through to strategic litigation. It was the final annual gathering from over the last four years, supported by the Baring Foundation, ensuring groups are able to link up, collaborate and learn from each other. It was a space for BIHR to share a range our work to put the Human Rights Act into the hands of people as a tool for advocacy, sharing the impact of our community programmes.

The UK Government published its 2025 Spending Review

This week the UK Government published its 2025 Spending Review. This is a process which sets out how it plans to spend public money and what it hopes will change as a result of this.

The UK Government’s commitments included increasing spending on defence, NHS services and the Department of Health and Social Care, schools, prisons, and investment project aiming to supporting economic growth.

The Human Rights Act puts a legal duty on the state and its services (also known as public authorities), such as Government departments, NHS trusts, prisons and schools, to respect, protect, and fulfil people’s human rights at all times.

Find out more about human rights and the cost of living.

The High Court denies a judicial review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s consultation on changes to its Code of Practice

The UK Supreme Court recently issued a ruling about the legal definition of sex as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act, in a case known as For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (we covered this case in our April weekly news, here). In light of the judgment, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has opened a consultation on updates to its Code of Practice for services, public functions, and associations. The consultation was initially open for two weeks, but was extended to six weeks after concerns were raised by the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee that two weeks would not provide enough time for stakeholders to contribute.

Liberty has applied for a judicial review of the EHRC’s Code of Practice consultation, arguing that a six-week period breaches one of the legal requirements on public consultations, known as the Gunning Principles, which states that “adequate time must be given for consideration and response”, and that the EHRC has not had regard for the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act. The High Court refused Liberty’s application, stating that six weeks was fair and that the EHRC had given due regard to the public sector equality duty.