Trust Still Resists Explaining Why!

The following has been received from Peter Kinsey of the Surrey & Borders Trust in response to FOIA request quoted.

Note the Trust uses an exemption to conceal a full answer to the ' Why' part of the FOIA request for information. Note also the involvlment of Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health's Dr Bob Grove as Team Leader of the Project Management Team. So was this a local decision made in favour of service users or was it a political decision made to suit Dr Bob and his friends at NIMHE?

I wonder who else was on the Project Management Team.

Director of Adult Mental Health Services

Oaklands House

Coulsdon Road

Caterham

Surrey

CR3 5YA

24th July 2006


Thank you for your email requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act. My understanding is that you have made the following request:-

"As you insist that you consulted with and have the full backing of your stakeholders, perhaps you won't mind explaining who they were and how, when and why you discussed having disabled people work in your garden centre for nothing and include the documentation as well".

Response to your request

The Trust confirms that it holds the following recorded information relevant to your request:-

1. In a briefing to the Board, the following information was stated:



"An open meeting has been held with service users and carers, advocacy support has been provided and people have been told that as from a certain date, payments will no longer be made and an explanation has been given for the reasons why. Overall the response has been one of acceptance rather than dissatisfaction".

The Trust also confirms that it holds a business case which was prepared in conjunction with Surrey County Council, East Surrey Primary Care Trust and East Elmbridge & Mid Surrey Primary Care Trust. The Trust, however, considers that this document is exempt from disclosure under Section 36 FOIA as, in the Chief Executive's opinion, disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and advice between members of the Trust or between the Trust and other public bodies. The Trust is aware that this exemption is qualified and has considered the public interest factors outlined below:

Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption

o This document has been produced as a means of communication between members of the Trust management and the Trust and other public bodies. This information was not recorded in the expectation that it would be disclosed and therefore records frank expressions of individual staff members' opinions.
o The Trust must be able to, either internally or in conjunction with other public bodies, engage in free and frank discussion and obtain advice in relation to issues concerning finance and Trust management. The public interest would not be served in there being a loss of confidence between organisations to discussions between them or between individual members of staff.

Factors in favour of disclosing the information

o It is in the public interest to promote accountability and transparency of public bodies for the decisions taken by them.
o Disclosure of information may further the understanding of, and participation in, the basic issues of the day.
o Disclosure of information concerning public bodies' decisions may enable individuals to question or challenge these decisions.

Following consideration of these factors, the Trust has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

However, to address your question directly, the Trust can confirm that there has been extensive informal consultation with stakeholders regarding the future direction of employment and day services and ongoing involvement of service users in shaping the final proposals. There has been in-depth stakeholder consultation of individual needs assessments, focus groups and meetings, which have shaped the final proposal for modernising East Surrey. The Works Services Steering Group and Works Services Commissioning Group set up by the Trust contain two or three service user representatives and were overseen by the Project Management Team led by Dr Bob Grove from the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. The team heard from service users across all areas and developed commissioning service specifications in line with stakeholder need and evidence-based best practice.

I hope that this has been of assistance.

If you are unhappy with the Trust's response to your request, you have the right to complain to the Trust and should contact me. If you remain dissatisfied, having exhausted the Trust's internal complaints procedure, you have a right under Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to seek a determination from the Information Commissioner on whether the Act has been properly applied by the Trust.

May I also take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your most recent FOI request and complaint, which was received on 18th July 2006. In relation to the FOI request, the Trust will endeavour to respond within the statutory time period of 20 working days, i.e. before Tuesday 15th August 2006.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries about this request.

Yours sincerely



Peter Kinsey

Director of Mental Health Services