Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2011

By Mark Weiss, FPH Policy Officer

As the Health and Social Care Bill makes its journey through the Committee Stage at the House of Lords, FPH continues to actively engage with members, key stakeholders, parliamentarians, as well as through its representation on strategic working groups and supported by its wider media work.

Committed to ensuring the Bill will provide the structures and safeguards necessary to protect and improve the health and wellbeing of the people of England, FPH is working hard to ensure a strong and viable public health workforce is maintained and strengthened for the future; and a rigorous framework for the statutory registration and regulation of all public health specialists to protect the public is established. 

As we continue to press hard for amendments to the Bill, at the forefront of our minds the risks to the public posed by the Bill – E.Coli, SARS, pandemic flu, Buncefield, heatwaves, flooding, immunisation and screening – loom large. To meet this challenge, with Lord Patel taking a lead on FPH’s amendments, we maintain a focus on statutory regulation; the role, qualifications and accountability of directors of public health; the organisation independent of Public Health England; public health expertise in the new NHS Commissioning Board; employment conditions for public health professionals at parity with the NHS.

Over the past few months, FPH has developed and implemented a firm lobbying strategy. We have written to all MPs and peers taking part in the Health Bill readings in both the House of Commons and Lords, setting out a clear case for our amendments to the Bill. We have the support of a broad range of peers from across all political parties – and have regular meetings with peers to discuss the possible impacts of the Bill in the context of public health.

We are also working with other health and public health organisations through our chairing of the PHMCC task group, and actively engaging with local government colleagues – including producing a joint statement with the Local Government Group. We also have representatives on key strategic groups, including the Public Health England Group (feeding into the development of the PHE Outcomes Framework) and the Workforce Advisory Group and have taken an active involvement in the NHS Future Forum Process with a submission recently sent in for the Second stage. FPH also maintains close working relationships with other faculties, Royal Colleges and stakeholders to share information and horizon-scan.

Informing our position, three member surveys have been conducted to ensure that we are engaging our members in a full and meaningful dialogue. At present we are in the process of analysing the results of our latest survey of members’ views of the Health Bill, with a full analysis to follow shortly. In addition, FPH works closely with its Local Board Members to encourage their active engagement with local MPs and relevant stakeholders.

Our lobbying work around the Bill has been supported by our wider media work, delivering news articles including a recent response to the Health Select Committee 12th Report on Public Health appearing in the Guardian (a copy at this link); and letter to the Times outlining our key concerns with the Bill. In turn our monthly bulletin continues to keep all of our 3,500 members abreast of the latest developments.

For all the latest news on our work on the reforms visit www.fph.org.uk

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

by Dr Geraint Lewis

For the past eight years, I have had the sometimes-dubious pleasure of living in London’s King’s Cross neighbourhood.  Being so close to the centre of the city, I do my best to cycle as often as I can around town. However, my repertoire of safe cycle routes is rather limited, and I dread straying too far away from my familiar routes and ending up somewhere where I have to battle my way home through the frenzied London traffic. The result is that I cycle less often, and less far than I would like to.

To be fair, these days there is a wealth of websites and apps that could help me navigate safely around London by bike.  The trouble, though, is that the safe bike routes themselves are just too complicated.

Take an example. Let’s say I wanted to cycle from my home in King’s Cross to St. Thomas’s hospital near Waterloo.  Although I know the walking route I would take to get there, I have no idea how reach the hospital safely by bike.  Go to the Transport for London  (TfL) website and it suggests a route that involves no fewer than 57 stages—as compared with two stages for the same journey by tube (Piccadilly line to Leicester Square, then the Northern line to Waterloo).

Indeed, London’s cycle network is so complicated that TfL appears incapable of displaying it as a complete map on its website.  Instead cyclists must order 14 paper maps to cover the whole city, plus a separate PDF for each of the new cycle superhighways that are currently being built.  Even where individuals have gallantly tried to produce simplified bike maps of London, the end result still bears too much resemblance to a plate of spaghetti.

Other cities have had a go at creating much simpler cycle maps aimed at encouraging more people to cycle. In Edinburgh, for example, Mark Sydenham and Martin Baillie have developed a tube map for bikes.  But the reality is that Londoners, like the citizens of many large cities, actually use the public transport network as their “mental map” for getting around their city.

The idea that Tim Miller and I suggested is that planners should build a bike network that recreates this mental map we are all so familiar with.  London’s bike network would directly resemble the tube map; Newcastle’s would follow the metro map, and so on.  In the jargon, what we are calling for are cycle networks that are “homeomorphic” or “topologically equivalent” to their public transport network. So in London, the cycle network we would like to see built would join up every tube station using analogous bike lanes to the tube lines – sharing the same names, colour codes and destinations as the tube lines.

So in this new world, my journey from King’s Cross to St. Thomas’s would simply involve taking the “Piccadilly bike lane” to Leicester Square, and turning left to go down the “Northern bike lane” to Waterloo.

What would be the costs and benefits of this proposal? Clearly, to build a network of safe cycle routes would take a large, sustained investment.  It would require building tens of kilometres of off-road bike lanes and closing off a considerable number of streets to through vehicular traffic.

However, the London tube map is a fixed asset that will be with us for generations to come, so this expenditure should be viewed as a very long-term investment. Just as with the tube network’s 150 year history, we would need to start small and build up the cycle network slowly, bike lane by bike lane and tube stop by tube stop.

From a public health perspective, I suspect the benefits of this proposed scheme would be at least fivefold.  First, it would encourage more people, including visitors to the city, to make longer journeys across town because they would now have more confidence that they could get to where they were going and be able to find their way back in one piece.  Second, it could reduce fatalities if more cyclists used off-road cycle lanes and quiet roads that had been closed to through vehicular traffic.

Third, it would reduce the city’s carbon footprint. Fourth, it would encourage cross-modal journeys because the cycle network and the rail network would now be inextricably linked. But finally, and rather sneakily, we might be able to increase journey distances from point A to point B by designing cycle routes between tube stations that were slightly more circuitous than were strictly necessary.

Read Full Post »