I am trying to make the point that the change in the service rather than that in the service provider is important. Let me reassure my hon. Friend. One of the difficulties in the debate is that we are comparing existing scrutiny arrangements in the health service with proposals that cover health and social services. Points have been made about inspection and viewing. At the moment, patients forums do not view social services. We are talking about going into people’s homes—residential, shared homes and individuals’ homes. The comparison is therefore invalid.
We are trying to create a scrutiny and accountability structure that considers the patient, not the building or institution. All Members of Parliament recognise that, when constituents come to us with a problem, the interaction between public agencies and other providers most often causes the problem—for example, a stroke victim’s treatment by the ambulance service, accident and emergency, the hospital, those responsible for aftercare, the benefits office and so on. We are trying to provide for accountability and scrutiny in the round in the patient and public involvement forums.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Phil Woolas
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 17 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c839 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:31:02 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397781
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397781
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397781