If they have any wit, they will say that they believe that they can do it and will have done some work in order to prove that they are up to the job. Anyone who thinks about challenging must put together all sorts of things to prove the viability of their outfit and the people involved. Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am holding the line with the Bill. Service users are a key aspect of the community, so we have to push this. The Minister himself said that this was about handing power to the community. It might not have to be a substantial number, or whatever the legal phrase is, but this should happen because it is fundamental to the issue of the community's right to challenge. I will go away and think about this, and I would appreciate it if the Minister thought more about it and talked to his officials to see whether there is any way in which we could strengthen the provisions of the Bill that push those heading the new services to talk to service users. You have to force them to do it because it delivers goods. My anxiety about not putting that into the Bill is that services will not do it it will be an excuse not to do it. I am sure that in his heart of hearts the Minister believes that. It is crucial that this provision-that you cannot deliver a service without engaging service users-is in the Bill. It does not matter whether two or three groups want to consult with service users they should, because while they are consulting them and asking them what they want, they might learn something about what they should be doing and how they should be delivering their service. People have a huge appetite to be involved. That would not have happened unless we had engaged with the so-called most difficult, hard to reach groups. With their evidence and their views, we produced an outcomes model. They mirrored what that evidence base said and highlighted what drug users want and how they want it. This effected the best evidence base ever gathered on drug treatment in prisons. They underpinned everything that happened. Ultimately, the views of those drug users affected the way in which the final report-the Patel report-was written. We anticipated that at most 50 people would respond, but in those six weeks 550 current and ex-offenders and drug users responded. On a shoestring budget and in the space of six weeks, we engaged user groups across the country and asked them to talk to offenders, users, carers and families. No offender or ex-drug user will engage with the process, but have a go".
We were not given a budget for itīecause they said, "It is not practical. One thing on which I insisted was talking to service users, offenders, people currently in prison, ex-offenders and their families. We spent 18 months meeting, arguing and fighting. Everyone came round the table to explore a strategy for commissioning and producing outcomes. We brought together 20 experts: governors, a chief probation officer, experts in the drugs area and academics. We looked at the huge amount of money that we spend on drug treatment in prison, which is a very difficult environment. Over the past 18 months, I have chaired a review group on the effectiveness of drug treatment in prison. What matters is how we do that and the value that we give it. I can give noble Lords example after example of people with mental health problems having impacted on social policy and on the policy of the organisation and teaching professionals how they should inspect services. You can engage with service users, and there was huge appetite for that.
0 kommentar(er)
