Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Patrick Hall (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 22 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.


Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

A great deal of work needs to be done, and as far as I am concerned—I have not heard anything to the contrary—existing patients forum members have a great deal of positive work to contribute to that process. In fact, I have not heard anyone suggest that either those individuals, or their ideas, would not be welcome. Indeed, it is essential that such people are involved in the process. Discussing the absence of firm detail, someone told me that envisaging the way in which LINKs will work requires an act of faith. Yes, that is the case, but we need a little bit more than an act of faith when we legislate in Parliament, as I have said. If we are to encourage innovation and, to use a well-worn phrase, let a thousand flowers bloom, we need to know the structures on which that is to be based. The process of fleshing out the provision could be assisted by the parallel inquiry that the Health Committee intends to hold on patient and public involvement next month, while, in parallel, the Bill is in Committee. I should be grateful if Ministers would assure me that the outcome of the Select Committee’s deliberations will inform the Bill, and that the programme will allow that to happen, otherwise it is a waste of parliamentary time. The Secretary of State has repeatedly stated that we live in a time of change and reform. There are concerns about the way in which health services are delivered, so we particularly need effective patient and public involvement, hopefully on an informed basis, as that will help to deliver the improved and reformed health services that we want. As those changes take place and as the new PPI process is not yet clear, we must consider how we will undertake the transition from patients forums. It is therefore important that strong signals are sent on transitional arrangements. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reflect carefully on those matters and to introduce a framework for LINKs that is sufficiently detailed to generate a more positive debate on the way in which PPI can be better delivered.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c1205-6 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountability Constituencies Audit Community development Councillors Conduct Cooperation Best value Council tax Audit Commission County councils Health services Elections Inspections Legislative competence Functions Ethics District councils Local government Powers National Assembly for Wales Referendums Primary care trusts Local government services Public participation Parish and town councils Local government executive Standards Reform Sustainable development Unitary councils Regional government Overview and scrutiny committees Patients' forums Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health Local Government Boundary Commission for England Mayors Valuation Tribunal for England
Legislation
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk