Skip to main content

Letter to a Health Minister.


Ruth Marsden has written a letter in response to Ann Cryer’s rather dismissive letter to her in December last year. Ruth’s letter makes important points and it is copied here:

Dear Ann,

Thank you for your letter of 19th December in reply to mine of 12th December in which I was at pains to point out that there had been no ownership at Ministerial level of the shape and powers of LINks. Your reply seems to fail to recognise this. The change from PPI Forums to LINks was not asked for by the people but imposed by the government, and as such, you have a responsibility for this imposition. However, you say, “I am asking my officials to ensure that your views are taken fully into account”, and from this it seems you intend the final content of these vital Regulations to be simply an aggregate of whatever responses received, as assembled by civil servants. This will not serve.
.
I made but passing and oblique reference to “responses to the Draft Regulations” but your reply seems wholly predicated upon this Consultation. Processes of themselves are without value if the qualitative is not taken into account, the knowledge-base of the respondents known and weighted. Further, “Points that have already been raised” should not be ruled out purely on that basis. The iteration of these points should alert you to their central importance and thus inform and steer the decision making process.

We have dealt with Meredith Vivian throughout the long period of the government’s drive towards LINks but as a civil servant he is not in a position to direct policy. That capacity rests with Ministers.

The National Association of Forums is a body democratically elected to be a voice for members on national issues. NAPF is currently moving towards becoming a ‘national Link for LINks’ in order that there remains at the centre a resource for LINks’ members and other stakeholders after the abolition of CPPIH. Our representations to you are made on the basis that NAPF and the D of H are key stakeholders in the success of LINks and it would be valuable if this were acknowledged and you were able to respond accordingly.


Yours sincerely,

Ruth Marsden,

Chair, Specialist Forums of Yorkshire, Humberside and Teesside
Vice Chair, National Association of Patients Forums

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...

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.