Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I could not agree more. There are very effective forums that enjoy a tremendously good working relationship with the trusts in their area. They can, and do, have influence. The Minister who replied to my Adjournment debate repeatedly said that patients forums would remain the cornerstone of patient and public involvement in health. I should like to look briefly at a few things in the Bill, some of which have been mentioned. It is a good thing that the Bill brings together health and social care in the remit of the bodies that will replace patients forums. Clause 153(2) was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedford, and like him, I am at a loss to understand clause 153(3), which gives the Secretary of State power to alter everything in the preceding subsection. Much has been said about the limitations of the right of access. The Minister confused me further by saying that the right of access had to be limited because of the number of people who would serve on the LINK bodies. That brings me back to the efficiency of the present forums. They are the right size for members to have access even to residential care homes, nursing homes and so on. Even if they are called LINKs, we need a small group to act as the central body co-ordinating all those who contribute their views on health and social care. The right of access is crucial. The Bill mentions the right of referral to overview and scrutiny committees only in relation to social care services. I do not know whether that is an omission. I assume there will still be a right of referral to the health overview and scrutiny committees. Enough has been said about the concerns about independence. Nothing has yet been said about clause 163, which deals with consultation. The worry is that the clause introduces the word ““significant”” before describing the degree of change in the health service that would warrant a duty of consultation. The word ““significant”” weakens the provision considerably. I agree with hon. Members who have commented on the lack of detail in the Bill. There is certainly a lack of detail about funding. In my Adjournment debate back in July 2004, the Minister responding said:"““The current budget for the commission is £33.3 million. There will be no cuts to that budget . . . We will invest more resources in patients forums, and any savings that accrue from the abolition of the commission will be invested in patients forums and in providing expert advice on patient and public involvement.””" Uncertainty has been expressed about the function of LINKs. Again, the Minister responding to my Adjournment debate said:"““I shall describe how patients forums will be affected. As I said, they are the cornerstone of patient and public involvement. They will not be abolished, nor will their independence be undermined. Rather, the support they receive is to be strengthened. It is key in the new arrangements that forums remain as independent as they currently are, so that they can continue to be responsive to the views of local people.””—[Official Report, 22 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 583-4.]" We have also heard mention of the loss of a national co-ordinating body, which is essential.