Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


NHS Lothian battles move to elect health board members

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 November 2008
NHS Lothian chiefs are fighting plans to elect health boards, saying it would confuse the public and allow pressure groups to take over the running of hospitals.
The Scottish Government wants a proportion of health board members to be directly elected by the public in a bid to make them more accountable and transparent.

But NHS Lothian, which was due to give evidence to MSPs today, wants the plan scrapped.
It will instead put forward alternative plans to increase public involvement in health decisions.

At the moment, health boards are made up of appointed members, council nominees and senior NHS personnel. Under the Government's favoured model, directly-elected members and councillors would form a majority on boards, with NHS executives in the minority. Elections, using the single transferable vote, would be held every four years, with a voting age of 16, and two pilots would start in 2010.

In a written submission to the Scottish Parliament's health committee, NHS Lothian's board argues the existing system was delivering benefits to the people of Lothian and there is no need to change.

It said: "We suspect further wholesale change to the current system has potential to destabilise boards. The fears of elections being overwhelmed by single issue candidates is we believe a real issue.

"A mix of four types of board members – appointed chair, stakeholder appointments (employee director, etc), local authority and directly elected members – could stand to confuse the public and the board itself." The board said it was looking at its own alternative for increasing accountability to local people and "a new type of participation with local communities".

"NHS Lothian is proposing to build on the long history in Scotland of mutual societies and create an NHS Lothian mutual membership forum. This membership will then elect representatives to a new 'Involving People Committee', which would be a formal board committee."

It called for pilots to be set up to assess alternatives to the Scottish Government's proposals.

"We suggest that by only testing direct elections, an opportunity is being missed to achieve the ambition of widening and strengthening the involvement of the public in our NHS. The emphasis on one model could detract from, and focus scarce resources on a single solution, where actually other models could be tested."

Livingston SNP MSP Angela Constance, however, said health boards should stop "squirming, wriggling and manoeuvring" to avoid direct elections.

She said: "The question has to be asked, what are they afraid of?

"Why should they be different from democratically-elected councils which also have to deal with complex issues, large sums of money and make difficult decisions?

"I would call on NHS Lothian to step up to the plate, bite the bullet and put itself forward for a pilot for direct elections."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 November 2008 9:32 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 12/11/2008 12:09:45
These quangos should have been dumped long ago.
It is high time that the public had the right to elect their representatives directly on to all the boards of public bodies.
This already happend in the US and does not seem to cost the horrific amounts that our health boards are predicting. As usual using scare tactics in Scotland will work and we will be left being served (?) by those who know what is best for us. They must do as they have been appointed by the government who always knows what is best for us, unless of course it is an SNP government !
2

antifa,

12/11/2008 12:56:32
"I would call on NHS Lothian to step up to the plate, bite the bullet and put itself forward..."

Three cliches in 12 words. Jesus.

NHS Lothian is bound to resist democratic oversight but there's no reason why the government should listen.
3

Da Doo,

Edinburgh 12/11/2008 14:15:58
I completely agree with NHS Lothian (and other Boards)................... surely the Board meeting are long enough without having to translate into "normalspeak" for locally elected people.
Why can't people just be content that a group of well motivated people will make decesions that are clearly in their best interest
4

Nurse a4c,

12/11/2008 15:13:31
#3 I agree..........
5

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/11/2008 15:40:25
#3 Absolutely. Board members have to take very difficult decisions on the basis of extremely complex interrelated pieces of information. To try to simplify these into voter-friendly chunks would be a recipe for disaster. You would essentially elect any candidate who claimed they were going to "save hospital X" and remove any possibility of rational, logical long-term planning for the overall good of the board area.

A stupid, populist idea from a stupid, populist party.
6

NorT,

Edinburgh 12/11/2008 16:46:52
#3, 4 and 5 have obviously not read the consultation proposals or the responses. It is well know that NHS Lothian do not like criticism or public involvement preferring to have their own little fiefdom. I hope the committee and Ms Styurgeon don't listen to them and side with the people who want proper representation.
7

Alan B,

12/11/2008 18:23:08
#Duncan in Edinburgh

I am not convinced about the proposal myself but, currently the nhs is a disorganised shambles in so many ways so how do we deal with that.

Any nhs board is going to be filled by who; people appointed by elected officials. Political appointees do their master bidding so often. And then when another political party gets elected it has lumbered people that the previous party chose. Labour brought the whole system of appointees into quangos into disrepute.

We need to have a degree of political accountability to decisions. How is the best way to ensure that. It is not just about unelected people making health orientated political decisions.

Also taking your argument to its logical conclusion it basically says the people in the country should not be able to make a choice for the direction of things in the political area if it is too complicated.

Where do we draw the line the economy, education, transport etc. Your argument basically say the people are not able to take such decisions and therefore a body of experts should do it on their behalf and are now directly accountable to them.

In some way having seen the mess Brown has made of the economy it is an argument for moving economic management out of the countrol of democracy as you are arguing for health boards as the extremely complicated nature of economics is far too difficult for politicians who in most part have little formal education in the economics field and little experience post education. Abit like Brown wisely took the decision that him and other politicians were the wrong people to run monetary policy and took politicians and the public out of the loop.
8

Alan B,

12/11/2008 18:35:03
#Duncan in Edinburgh

It is not just about saving hospitals which non elected boards should close against the public opinion even when local medical people are on the same side as public opinion.

People have a right to decide whether they should have a local A&E ward or whether they are prepared for it to be rationalised and move much further afield.

But it could also be about other priorities. Should we have ivf and tattoo removal on the nhs when people cannot get drugs for illnesses etc. What should be the priorities of the nhs. The nhs is about rationing. How should we ration and what are the priorities. Not yours but the publics at large.

Unfortunately politics is about politics parties that on the whole act in a tribal manor bringing the purpose of democratic politics into disrepute. It is difficult to say that most politicians are not just in it for themselves and power. Few could really say they actually are qualified to bring anything to improve the lives of others. As such party politics has just got so corrupt for it ideological nature.

I think we know if the public were asked about policies directly say in referendums like in the US attached to elections they may not come to the same conclusion on some issues as politicians.

While i am sceptical about it for nhs boards i do think it would be good for things to do with crime. For too long it is all the parties talking to appease public opinion and doing something different in office. Most of it to do with politicians and the establishment thinking and believing they know best and taking the public for a ride.

Unless we can genuinely move to a system where people are really willing to switch votes between parties at elections and get away from the tribal football type support for a political party where people support it all their lives then party politics will never fullfill its potential.

9

plord,

edinburgh 13/11/2008 10:48:15
#3
"Why can't people just be content that a group of well motivated people will make decesions that are clearly in their best interest"

exactly what letting the public in will attempt to stop and they don't want that.
As for "normalspeak" we call it English perhaps if they spoke English instead of NGO patois they might understand the needs of their "clients"
10

Da Doo,

Edinburgh 13/11/2008 10:54:12
Dear Nor T
I know that I don't post many comments, therefore it would likely be difficult to determine the thrust of my comment without knowing a bit more about me............however my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I posted that comment.
It seems democratic representation is not something that NHS Boards aspire to, this would be much too inconvenient ....and risky

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.