|
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
28/02/2007
The Bill in its current form is deeply flawed
- Weak powers. Currently, PPI Forums have power to “enter and inspect, receive information and report”, anywhere NHS care is carried out.The Bill only specifies the public sector: do not leave the private sector obligation to ‘Directions’ from the D. of H. Where is the input to the Healthcare Commission?
- No independence. The ‘host-organisation’ is left to the councils and the membership of the LINks is left to the discretion of the ‘host’. Funds are not ring-fenced.
- Conflict of interests. LINks would be monitoring services provided and commissioned by the councils. Voluntary organisations have their own agendas.
- Temporary! Clause 153 (3) allows what ‘powers’ there are to be scrapped by the Secretary of State.
- Wasteful. £120m has been spent, most by CPPIH. Leave a small HQ to manage Forum Support Organisations, and distribute the budget straight to Forums to strengthen and scope their work.
- Unmanageable. Thousands of LINks members constitute diffuse transience, administrative mayhem, much outlay and no end product. Big, specialist Trusts (acute, ambulance, mental health, learning disabilities) are commissioned by many councils and PCTs.
- Premature. The Select Committee Enquiry into Patient and Public Involvement in Health is still taking place. Its findings should inform any legislation.
- Vague. Where is the detail of shape and budgets and support?
- Unnecessary. Forums do a credible and valued job. PPI Forums already have the requisite powers to function in a pluralistic market
- Dangerous. Established relationships between Forums and Trusts will be broken, vital expertise squandered, credibility lost, services deteriorate.
With so much change and ‘reform’ already, why further destabilise ppi
Ruth Marsden, Chair of Specialist Forums of Yorks and Humberside.
Lead, Associated Forums of London, Leicester, Rutland,
Yorks, Humberside and Teesside
|
