Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 238M: 238M: Clause 223, page 155, line 24, at end insert ““nor a provider of local care services”” The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It would obviate the difficulty of having, as a host organisation, a person or body directly concerned with providing local care services. Why should that situation pose a difficulty? The difficulty, of course, is that it would present a financial conflict of interest. One activity performed by a LINk will be to contribute to commissioning decisions about local care services. Another activity will be to scrutinise those services. If a host is an entity that is being scrutinised, if it is a provider of services that the LINk wishes to criticise publicly or if it is an organisation that is competing to provide care services that the LINk is assessing, it would be impossible for that entity to provide impartial support to the LINk. The conflict of interest at the very least puts the host in a difficult position. The host might, for example, wish to influence a commissioning decision in its own favour, or provide critical reports on a rival service provider, but would be constrained from doing so by virtue of its role as a host. Similarly, the host, as the secretariat for a LINk, could find itself accidentally in possession of information that might be commercially sensitive and directly useful to it; for example, information relating to a rival service provider. It surely cannot be appropriate for that situation to arise. The Minister may well talk to us about Chinese walls being created within a host organisation. I want to hear more about what these walls would look like before being reassured that there might be ways around the problems I have just outlined. I am concerned that unless the issue is addressed we are storing up problems for both LINks and host organisations, which would be unfair for them. This amendment provides a simple way forward. In this group I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 238VA, 238VCA and 238ZZAA. Clauses 224 and 225 cover the duties of service providers to respond to and allow entry to local involvement networks. When we look at who falls within the definition of service provider, the list is surprisingly short. Why is that? Why does it not include, for example, independent treatment centres where NHS patients are treated? Why should it not include a private care home where individuals are being looked after at the expense of a local authority? There is a provision in each of the clauses to make regulations. Can the Minister say whether regulations will bring such service providers within the scope of these statutory duties? Naturally, this is a probing amendment. I fully appreciate that care homes present particular sensitivities. I am not suggesting that all parts of a care home should be open to members of a LINk to enter as a right. The privacy of residents must be respected. I would be glad if the Minister could tell us what exactly the intention is as regards care homes in the context of the duties contained in these two clauses. In particular, what would be the role and remit of a LINk outside the boundaries of its own local authority, when services had been commissioned out-of-area? Amendment No. 238VCA contains an unfortunate double misprint. I speak to the amendment only in passing because the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, will be covering the matter of commissioning in a substantive way. For the benefit of the Committee, the word ““proscribed”” should be ““prescribed”” and the phrase ““by regulations”” should read ““in regulations.”” The amendment, if taken with Amendment No. 238SB, is otherwise self-explanatory. I beg to move.