Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I follow on with a brief word on Amendment No. 238S. Following what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, have already said, there are concerns around the Chamber about conflicts of interest and how these relationships are going to work. We have tabled an amendment which suggests that a link could have the power to direct the actions of the host in pursuance of some of the arrangements. The reason for this relates to what the Minister said earlier on, which is that the host is a servant of the LINk. How does the LINk have power over an unco-operative host? The unco-operative host may have a conflict of interest because it is already a provider of services. Does the LINk have the capacity to ““fire”” the host? This point was made very powerfully to me by Robin Tuck, the chairman of Kensington and Chelsea patients’ forum. His view is very clear. He says that in the proper discharge of its duties, for instance, a LINk needs to commission research about what is happening on its patch. It will have to do that if it is going to make sense of what is going on. How can it do that if it does not hold the budget? The host holds the budget, but what if the host does not agree with the LINk about the need for such research, at least in part because the host is a provider of services and does not want them looked at too closely? Surely the LINk must have the power to compel the host to fund research or whatever else is required. In other words, it must be the LINk that has the power in this relationship rather than the host if the LINk is to be effective. It would be good to be given some clarification on this issue.