Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I believe and hope that the Minister will reassure the Committee that there is nothing to prevent LINks from forming collaborative arrangements if they wish to do so. The reason I am worried about this is the wording of Clause 222. When a host organisation makes arrangements to deliver the activities listed in that clause in a local area, it will be obliged to look at what the clause says. It refers to activities that are wholly and exclusively focused on local care services. A national or regional umbrella organisation for LINks would inevitably have a wider purview than the local area of an individual LINk. The benefit of such a body would, as we have heard, enable LINks to share ideas and best practice, provide information, co-ordinate efforts and generally promote good communication between members. LINKs are almost certain to want a national voice. For example, there may well be occasions when a national survey on some particular aspect of healthcare is called for. To the extent that an individual LINk contributes to that activity by means of a financial subscription, it will not be directing its budget to those activities prescribed for it in Clause 222. How should a host organisation view that eventuality, if it were to happen? The Minister may give perfectly sincere assurances on this, but against a literal interpretation of the clause, the host organisation might well find itself in some difficulty. There should be an explicit mandate in the Bill to create a national representative body—not necessarily in terms of this precise amendment, but something along those lines—because otherwise my fear is that someone will come along and accuse local involvement networks, and possibly also their hosts, of acting ultra vires. We ought to put the matter beyond doubt.