Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I, too, had prepared a quite lengthy speech for these clause stand part debates but, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I shall address only a few points because we are running so late. On the letter from the Minister of 9 July, I, too, am very concerned about the gap. It is extraordinary for the Minister to say that she does not believe that a small gap is of serious concern. I believe it is a very serious concern and noble Lords all round the Chamber are clear that it is of serious concern. I say that for two reasons. First, if we are serious about patient and public involvement, the shortest of gaps will destroy the drive to do it better and just discourage people. Secondly—the Minister was well aware I was going to raise this point because I have raised it privately with her and the Minister in the other place, Ann Keen—the abolition of the patient forums and treating the volunteers who are part of those patient forums in such a cavalier way is unacceptable. To say that it does not matter if there is a gap suggests that we are better off without them than with them. It is an extraordinary thing for the Government to do. The Minister knows that I have had many representations made to me by members of patient forums. She also knows that I have this new and somewhat strange role as volunteering champion for the Prime Minister. I find myself now in an impossible position as far as the treatment of volunteers in this arena is concerned. The hundreds of people making representations should not be treated in this way. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that such a gap will not occur and that there will be continuity in patient and public involvement. Even if the systems change and the two run in parallel, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, thinks they will, I hope there will be continuity in patient and public involvement and no gap. Therefore the date of March 2008 does not need to stand.