Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

At one level, Amendments Nos. 238T and 238U address a detailed semantic issue, the like of which we always enjoy. If we unpick them, noble Lords will see that the change is unnecessary as well as undesirable. However, the noble Earl has done an excellent job in pointing out the difference between ““dealing with”” and ““responding to””, but the merit in this case lies in ““dealing with”” for almost exactly the reasons that he put forward. I know that he thinks that ““dealing with”” has a negative connotation, suggesting that a service provider would not have to provide LINks with a proper response. However, that is not the case, because ““dealing with”” covers everything that could be put in regulations on responding to a report. It allows also for regulations to state what a services provider should do if it received a report or recommendation, but was not the body that was required to respond to it. Commissioners of services should respond to reports and recommendations as they are ultimately responsible for the services that are provided within an area. They are certainly best placed to deal with a strategic report. If the report were to be sent to the provider, the regulations could place a duty on that service provider to forward it to the relevant body that commissioned the services. The use of the phrase ““dealing with”” is deliberate, because it gives a wider power than ““responding to””. It allows for services providers to pass reports to the relevant body with a duty to respond. It therefore gives more purchase on the system than does merely ““responding to””. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that. I turn to Amendment No. 238UA and the proposal to take a power to allow regulations to impose a duty on a body receiving recommendations from a LINk to demonstrate that, where relevant, it has acted to improve services in response. I completely agree that a PCT or local authority receiving a report from a LINk should be required to take some action and certainly should respond to the LINk. We intend that a local authority or PCT be obliged to acknowledge receipt of a report or recommendation, and supply an explanation of the action that it intends to take or why it does not intend to take any action. Those bodies receiving reports and recommendations will need to take account of many factors when considering a LINk’s ideas—many of them may not be known to the LINk. Not every LINk recommendation if followed would necessarily lead to improvements in services, and the bodies responsible for the services would need to take a view on whether the advice was followed. I hope that the noble Earl, bearing in mind that slight complication within the actions, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.