127. Evidence submitted by Mr U Hawtin
(PPI 57)
1. The Purpose
If the national Health Service is to provide
a credible and acceptable service then there needs to be A SYSTEM
providing for a means of two way communication which is capable
of providing a credible procedure and understanding, two ways,
between the providers and the patients. Not only to inform as
to the needs and desires; opportunity to submit, comment and criticise
but also to convey compliments and gratitude.
2. The Form
The system needs to provide for auditing to
ensure it works, to ensure credibility and that notice is taken
of it. It must provide for cross representation of the public,
independence of Dept. of Health and other governing bodies, both
Central, National and local government. There must be partnership,
close working and a good relationship and just going through the
motions or establishing a peasant and lord of the manor approach
is not acceptable.
2(a) In my opinion and experience, the elimination
of Community Health Councils was a mistake and has been shown
to be based on political party and Government desires to reduce
the involvement of patient and publics, except when an election
is in the offing. It has been demonstrated that none of the replacements
have shown to be an advancement in the 3 issue. Not only in the
membership then represented but in the Council employing appropriate
staff to perform the functions that they decide they are capable
of. Not necessarily a Commission employing a middle man organisation
of persons appointed by any other Commission. (Appointments) Certainly
the majority need to be established from those citizens who already
have or are willing to experience working for or in voluntary
and charitable institutions with experience of health systems
even in a lay capacity. Many of whom have experienced the problems
and traumas of involvement in health systems.
2(b) If it is to be that most of them if
not all will be expected to participate as unpaid volunteers,
apart perhaps from the Chairman then this organisation should
be empowered to avail themselves of professional administration
and organisational staff and deal with their own budget, as well
as being empowered to co-opt members (As full members or just
for a particular exercise). There exist only too many departments
and bodies who are willing and able(?) to give advice and some
form of supervision in regard to efficiency and financial matters
( Not always efficiently). It surely is a system that provides
value for money.
3. Existing Reform
The present course of reformation is just a
continuation of the disease that seems to have effected the Health
Service for many years. The perception is that either those in
authority do not know the answers or are prevented by party dogma
from taking the steps that have been identified as being needed
and are expressed at the moment as a close working relationship,
partnership working, transparency etc etc, but which the authority
is not willing to take.
4. LINks
Again it is noticeable that someone seems to
think that the answer is provided by a reorganisation. Another
disease that the Health Service suffers from; devise a new gimmick
or a new buzz word. Why is not possible to retain a title that
everyone is just getting to know and recognise? Is it done in
order to provide a placebo for local government bodies and to
keep the political party structure in place.
4(a) The next six bullet points, from the
press release, simply repeat the philosophy that seems to have
been established over the rules by the academics and administrators.
Establish rules, constitutions, then the administrators and the
supervisors are not required to operate whatever personal skills
they have but can quote the rules, which are so often restrictive,
so as to remove from them any danger that their ideas may not
be acceptable to their political bosses. This should be simple
and not complicated but should be devised in such a manner as
to allow the organisation room to breathe, to evolve and change
in such a manner that new legislation is not always necessary
That would often avoid the debates(?) that occur between political
parties and members usually to the detriment of the voters.
5. National Coordination
I am not sure that national co-ordination, whatever
that means, is necessary apart from perhaps a circulation of good
and identified practice and providing a convenient system for
the administrators. Cannot the Resource Centre provide that. Experience
certainly seems to show that problems that concern the patients
and the public are local(?). Are not the needs local, the patients
and the public live in localities it is only the need for specialist
skills which are best served by specialist centres.
Mr Hawtin
January 2007
| 
