Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Let me make two points. First, the debate is being conducted on the false premise that patient forums are perfect organisations, yet by the hon. Gentleman’s own admission the situation is patchy. I supplied figures to the Public Bill Committee and I will not delay the House further by running through them all—[Interruption.] That is not my whole point. The hon. Member for Billericay intervenes from a sedentary position before I have reached the conclusion of my premise. I wish that Conservative Members would listen to the argument rather than to who is saying it. I have looked into this issue and we debated it in Committee. I strongly believe that the powers of LINKs to enter premises and look at what is going on— whether we call it inspection, observation, viewing or whatever—are still available, but I do not accept the idea that patients forums or LINKs should be inspectors in the formal sense that the Audit Commission is an inspector. They are not—and neither should they be, because they are not qualified to be so. They are looking at this from the point of view of lay viewing or lay inspection—let us not have an argument about semantics. The point is that what was asked for was that LINKs should be given the right to enter premises. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have that right, and the right to view, observe, monitor and make reports. But we are talking about social care as well as the NHS. We are talking about people’s homes. I know what fun Conservative Members have when anyone dares to suggest that a valuation officer should check that people are paying their full council tax, and it really is going too far to say that there should be unfettered access. I reject the amendments, and I have made concessions on the points raised in Committee by tabling amendments to satisfy some of the reasonable points that have been made. It is now time to move on, to establish LINKs, to trust local authorities, to have flexibility and to create a body that can hold to account our national health service and the social services from the point of view of the patient, not the provider. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 33, page 121, line 25, leave out ‘,varying or omitting’.—[Mr. Woolas.]