Clause 12 - Patients' Forums: Annual Reports
Health and Social Care Bill
6:45 pm
Mr Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
We have probably trodden this path several times today, but I want to refer again to the non-statutory basis of the independent area consultation bodies that are being established by the Government, but which is not covered in the Bill. During our discussions on the abolition of CHCs and their replacement, I began to wonder if anyone had drawn lines on a chart to show the connections between the various bodies, and I thought that I would have another look at the NHS plan to see whether there was a chart to help me navigate my way through the system. There is not, nor is there a chart in the briefing notes that we were provided with in advance of the sitting.
I imagine that a chart does exist, but I have not found the right document. It would be useful to see such a chart that showed the lines of accountability for the new bodies, their lines of appointment, the lines of communication between the bodies, the lines of authority for the gathering of information and details about from whom it can be gathered. That would provide us with a better understanding of how the different entities will operate with each other. That is why I want to return to the matter of the local advisory forums.
Earlier, the Minister said that the Government wanted to assure themselves and the public of the independence of patients forums—and rightly so. He said that the best way in which to secure such independence would be to give them a clear statutory basis. However, for some reason a body that has within its title the word ``independent'' does not need to have a similar statutory basis. Simply to call a body independent does not make it independent, so I tabled the amendment to give the Government a further opportunity to consider including in the Bill a measure that would deal with that problem.
The matter about which I am concerned is not the same as that regarding PALS. The Minister rebutted the amendments that dealt with the patient advocacy and liaison services on the basis that they were specific, managed services within the NHS. My argument is not about a managed service, but about the accountability mechanism that the Government want to put in place. It should have a statutory basis—at least as clear as the one that CHCs have had until now. Not to outline that in the Bill will be a cause of constant concern. It will give rise to the possibility of a considerable divergence of practice from one health authority to another.
Moreover, as a result of the reconfiguration of health authorities in London, we shall have large health authorities in London and probably in other parts of the country, too. Those bodies may have to consider whether one independent advisory forum is necessarily the appropriate structure. I hope that the Minister will give some further thought to how a statutory basis for the bodies can be secured in the Bill, so that they can act genuinely independently of health authorities when giving their advice to the authorities about the priorities for the local health economy. Without that, the patients forums that are independently based in statute will perhaps not have enough confidence that they should have in a body to which they will be obliged to provide information. I hope that the Minister will not only give us some reassurances on this matter, but will say how a statutory base could be provided.