Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I shall speak particularly to amendment No. 78, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). Without rehearsing the arguments advanced in Committee about the removal of the defined right to inspect, I shall focus on one definition that is important because it goes to the heart of the message from the Government about how they value the new LINKs. The Minister reassured me and others in Committee when he said that it was not the intention to change any powers by removing the word ““inspect””. He went on to say:"““There is no restriction, limitation or curtailment of the powers of the patients forum in connection with the word ‘inspect’ as opposed to the powers of LINKs in connection with the words ‘view’ and ‘observe’.””—[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill Committee, 6 March 2007; c. 546.]" That confirmation is helpful but, even if that is the Government’s intention, it is the practice that concerns forum members and the public. People such as the present forum members of Barnet and Chase Farm and Enfield look to the Department’s draft document for the guidance and how it will be followed through in constituencies such as mine. The document states that LINKs members will not be able to visit"““until they have written to the relevant regulator, indicating their intention to visit a facility, and received a reply—this is to ensure ""that there is coordination of activity at local level; it may be that the regulator already plans a visit in which case it will have the ability to request that the LINk holds off, or just as possible joins in with its review.””" One can understand the practical need to ensure co-ordination, but one can also understand why, in evidence to the Health Committee, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health expressed unhappiness with the draft document and stated:"““In effect the proposals make a mockery of the visiting rights of the new LINks. It appears that before any visit can take place, they will have to write to, and obtain a reply from the regulator, i.e. the Healthcare Commission! This gives the lie to any notion that the LINks will be able to be free and independent in the way that they work, and other proposals will severely curtail the locations which they will be permitted to enter and observe services in delivery.””" The issue is the value placed on the proposed LINKs, and that is at the heart of the amendment. What has attracted hard-working members of forums in my area, and has enabled them to carry out spot inspections of cleanliness and patient management across a variety of services, is their valued freedom and independence. The essence of the Government’s practical guidance is that it challenges the assurance properly given by the Minister that there will be no change in any powers. That is what people care about. That reassurance is vital if we hope to attract many of the same members who have done such sterling work in constituencies such as mine and many others. Even at this 11th hour, I invite the Minister carefully to consider the amendment that would retain the word ““inspect””. It is not just a question of wording. I am worried that the operation of LINKs is being mainstreamed and absorbed, and that the value of hard-working volunteers will be lost for ever. I ask him at least to review the draft document and guidance to provide the proper freedom and independence that will allow the forums to do their sterling work.