Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 238R: 238R: Clause 223, page 155, line 36, at end insert— ““( ) Nothing in the arrangements shall prevent a local involvement network from— (a) making collaborative arrangements with another local involvement network; or (b) utilising monies received from H for such a purpose.”” The noble Baroness said: Again, this is a probing amendment. Almost all the amendments today have been probing amendments. It seeks to test out whether some LINks can make collaborative arrangements with other LINks; whether they can use the money that they get from the hosts for this purpose in order, perhaps, to form themselves into a representative body, either regional or national; and whether the hosts can stop them doing that—in other words, whether there are no limits on what they may do. If they are going to do that, there will need to be some basic principles. The Involvement Network suggests that these should apply to LINks, hosts, local authorities and NHS health and social care commissioners and providers, and that the principles should include being committed to working positively with other LINks and other bodies of whatever nature involved in commissioning, supporting or otherwise improving the health and well-being of local communities and communities of interest. It suggests that that will need some kind of national network. Ministers have suggested that the proposed National Voices project or the already existing NHS Centre for Involvement could replace some of the functions that the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health now serves or that some kind of joint body of LINks could create. However, it is rather difficult to see how either the new National Voices project or the NHS Centre for Involvement could play the same kind of direct part in protecting the independence of LINks in the same way that LINks banding together could do. One of the reasons for that is that neither is set up or funded to fulfil that function, or was expected to have the same direct connection with LINks as the commission has at the moment with patient forums. National Voices is still some way from being established, while the national centre is a Department of Health contractor and so, you could argue, not appropriate to be a national independent body for LINks. If there is to be a system with LINks, there remains a clear need for an independent national body to promote patient involvement as well as promoting some of the broader issues around health and social care on behalf of all the people involved in that world. LINks need to be allowed to work together and to use the money they get from hosts to do so. It may be an extension of the present National Association of Patient Forums or it may be some other model that might suffice, but we need to be clear that there is nothing to stop them doing that or using money from hosts to do it. I beg to move.