I feel I need to comment on your recent articles, editorials and letters on the CHC issue.
Barnet CHC in particular has performed a valuable role over the years in scrutinising the health service. However the quality of CHCs is not uniform throughout the country and whilst some perform well, others are clearly failing.
The NHS is undergoing major restructuring and modernisation, with the benefit of massive extra investment, and as part of that process I believe that it is right that there should not be no 'no go areas' but all NHS bodies, including CHCs, should be reviewed.
The government's proposals, which are subject to consultation, propose major benefits, such as the new patients' advocated who will be able to intervene to sort out problems at the time it is important, when the patient is undergoing treatment, not just as a complaint after the event.
Whilst we should certainly not 'throw out the baby with the bathwater' equally we should not condemn any new ideas out of hand if they do address shortcomings within the existing arrangements.
It seems to me the best way forward is for the CHCs to come up with proposals which address the acknowledged shortcomings in the existing CHC system and which incorporate the good ideas in the government's scheme, together with best practice from within existing CHC arrangments, as part of the government's consultation.
If together we can come up with a scheme which draws on the best of both, then that would be a very good way forward to ensure the health service is held to account, patient interests are best represented and people can have confidence in an independent voice.
This may well mean new bodies and arrangements to replace CHCs, but what is important is not what an organisation is called but what its responsibilities and powers are, how accountable it is, and how effective it is in looking after patients' interests.
Andrew Dismore
Labour MP for Hendon
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article