Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I had prepared a great deal to say about these clauses, but I am going to spare the Committee the pleasure of hearing those remarks, although I may bring them back at the Report stage. For now I shall confine myself to just a few brief comments. In her letter of 9 July the Minister said that it was not possible to adapt the current system because of the way that forums are set down in legislation. She said that one would have to change their statutory basis completely. I think I need to understand a little better why that is. It does not seem to be a proposition that is self-evident, and the advantage of that approach as opposed to the one taken by the Government is that it would have afforded a measure of continuity, the lack of which endangers the good will of the volunteers in the field. I want to comment on Amendment No. 252A. The abolition of patient forums, we understand, is set for 31 March 2008 and from the Minister’s letter of 9 July it seems inevitable that we are facing a gap between their disappearance and the arrival of LINks, the very thing that many of us most want to avoid. In her letter the Minister said: "““We do not believe that a small gap will be a serious concern””." I disagree with her on that very strongly. I do not know what she means by a small gap—perhaps she will tell us—but it has to be a cause of concern that any kind of gap in the provision of patient and public involvement is considered acceptable to her department. My questions to the Minister are these. Has a gap been built into the department plans? What steps is the Minister taking to make sure such a gap is avoided? What, if any, financial or organisational obstacles exist to militate against the desirable aim of achieving the smooth transition that many of us want to see?