Skip to main content

Definitely no Relation.

Your Norfolk, the glossy September issue of the "County Council's magazine for all residents" dropped through my letterbox this morning. Its foreword is by Daniel Cox, the Leader of Norfolk County Council.

Now I know, after years of experience in these matters, I shouldn't expect accuracy from County Council nabobs but this is pure ignorance of very important probable changes in legislation. Talking about The failed Norwich City Council application for unitary status he says:
However, when the Local Government and Improvement in Health Bill (my italics) becomes an Act....


There is no such Bill - what he is obviously referring to, because he is talking about potential local authority boundary changes, is the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.

What is more important than the Leader of the County Council getting his facts wrong about which Bills are in Parliament is that in his mindset, he has ignored the really important Part 14 of the Bill, which is the Public Involvement in Health bit.

One of the things Part 14 of that Bill is seeking to do (apart from unnecessarily wasting more public money abolishing PPI Forums which the Government expensively set up only 3 years back) is to include local authorities in the service user and public scrutiny of social care services in addition to the now established scrutiny of healthcare services in the NHS.

Part 14 seeks to make local authorities (those with social services responsibility) the lead for what is presently Patient and Public Involvement in Health (PPI). And Part 14 makes provision for those local authorities to be allocated substantial non-ringfenced finance to do so.

A difficulty with this either naive or solidly cynical government measure is, of course, that local authorities are delighted to get finance that is not ringfenced as they immediately slosh it off into other budgets in deficit.

And it's, possibly, already started:
21 August 2007

Funding given to each Local Authority to help ‘Get ready for LINks'
With Local Involvement Networks (LINks) planned to replace patient forums from 1st April 2008, £1.5m has been allocated to help communities prepare.
Guidance has already been published outlining (a) what steps local communities need to take to plan their LINk and (b) giving local authorities the information they need contract a ‘host’ organisation to set up and support a LINk.
The £10,000, given to each local authority with a social services remit, is aimed to support the implementation of this guidance.
The money has been allocated and should with all local councils by 24th August 2006.
A letter has also been sent from the Department of Health to each local authority LINk Lead flagging the new guidance, the new money and the next steps in terms of getting ready for LINks.
Once the legislation to establish LINks receives Royal Assent, a further announcement is planned outlining the funding available to each local authority for the three-year period from 08/09.


So Daniel Cox, we immediately have problems with Norfolk: the DoH (Florella Baker) has for some months now been asking each relevant local authority to produce a named person who will be a focus for the development of LINks. They have been chasing Norfolk to no avail - there is still no named person here. So. Norfolk received £10,000 at the end of August to prepare guidance. Where has it gone?

Obviously not to enlighten their leader!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...

inappropriate!!!

I tried to respond to a Patient Citizen Exchange blog by Laura Greene today. I said: Hello Laura. Welcome - and my admiration? for you "single-handedly representing the entire health voluntary sector and 1000+ PCX membership..." My first question has to be: what is the composition of the Strategic Advisory Board? And my second question: what proportion of service users to professionals is there on that Board? There are indeed millions of impatient citizens out there. They are called Service Users (primarily because 'Patient" carries the labels 'One that has things done to her/him'; 'One that is subservient to the "We know what is best for you" approach'; 'One that is at the wrong end of an imbalance of power.' etc). The Americans prefer the term 'consumers', but whatever, we should avoid the term with the negative connotations. I was listening to the 5 Live debate this morning on the Strictly Come Dancing row about whether...