---

Health and Social Care Bill

moved Amendment No. 16: 16: Clause 2, page 2, line 8, after ““public”” insert ““(including in particular local involvement networks)”” The noble Earl said: I also speak to Amendments Nos. 26 and 64. I make no apology for continuing with the theme of patient and public involvement. We have in the Bill an opportunity to accomplish something really worthwhile: to make an explicit connection between the CQC and the Government’s latest vehicle for patient and public involvement,; namely, Local Involvement Networks. Members of the Committee who took part in the passage of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill last year will remember that, despite the improvements made during its passage through the House of Lords, we were left with a feeling of uncertainty, not say apprehension, as to whether these new and rather nebulous creatures would really take root and thrive—and, if so, what they would look like. The truth is that no one yet knows what a typical LINk will look like. None, as far as I know, is yet formed. It is of course early days, but it is too soon to tell even approximately what the likely membership profile of a LINk will be. We hope that it will be what Ministers have talked about; that is, a broadly based grouping of individuals and bodies that is able to take an active interest in the delivery of health and social care services in an area, with the necessary energy and commitment to translate that interest into a positive contribution to service quality and service planning. There are two things in particular that make LINks an ideal point of reference for the commission. First, like the commission, LINks will have the ability to enter and view both health and social care facilities, and to talk to patients and service users. That is, in part, an answer to the point raised, very tellingly, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The second advantage is that of all the bodies collating the views of patients and the public, LINks is likely to be the most broadly based and, hence, the most representative. The potential for useful feedback from LINks to the commission is enormous. Members of Committee may recall that when the local government Bill was debated a degree of concern was expressed at the idea of LINks needing to get permission from the appropriate regulator before entering and viewing premises. That fetter on the freedom of LINks was not a popular idea and, I am glad to say, was thought better of. But the idea that no one disputed, because it was eminently sensible, was that the health and social care regulators should work closely with LINks, where possible co-ordinating its respective visits, and that the regulators should stand ready to receive from LINks any information which could be relevant to the exercise of its regulatory functions. Particularly when it comes to healthcare facilities, but not exclusively, the work of LINks and the work of the regulator could be seen as, in some respects, complementary. It is with that thought in mind that I have tabled Amendment No. 64, which proposes that where the commission issues any sort of a notice to a registered service provider or manager—whether it is a notice granting registration, a warning notice of some sort, or a notice to suspend or vary someone’s registration—it should inform the relevant LINk that it is doing so. In making this suggestion, and in the context of my other amendments, I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the submission made by the CSCI to the Public Bill Committee in another place where it said in paragraph 43: "““It would be useful if there were an explicit expectation that the new care Commission had a relationship with Local Involvement Networks””." Perhaps I could cover just one aspect of this idea. There are some who look at the proposals for the CQC and who regret that the new body, unlike the Healthcare Commission, will not have a role in handling complaints. A group of amendments later covers this concern. I have to say that it is probably right to try to do what the Government propose and to make complaints handling, as far as possible, a more locally based process, which is undertaken by the organisation involved, and to have the ombudsman in the background as the second tier back-up. However, there is no doubt that if we look at the Healthcare Commission’s current role in handling complaints, it gives it a perspective on the quality of healthcare and health services, which is of value and which it would not otherwise have. In particular, it enables it to discern trends with patterns in the matters complained about, which can prove to be informative and useful. If a mechanism could be found for feeding the views and experiences of LINks into the work of the CQC—a service user panel could well be that mechanism—we could hold out the prospect of replicating the wider benefit that currently flows from complaints-handling; namely, the ability to discern patterns or trends in the concerns expressed by service users. I hope that the Minister will look constructively on these amendments. I beg to move.