Message to ICSurreyOnline from Jill
Jill has just sent this to ICSurreyOnline who published the original article.
Dear Sir,
In June you published the following article:
The father of a man with learning difficulties is furious that health bosses have axed his £3-a-day wages for working at a NHS Trustowned garden centre.
By Joan Mulcaster
© owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2006
This means that for digging, hoeing, weeding, shovelling, planting, moving and potting at The Moat Garden Centre in Epsom, owned by Surrey and Borders NHS Trust, Brian Hall, 44, now gets nothing. And the same goes for his other £3-a-day job, filling envelopes at the trust's Office Project in Cobham.
Brian's father, David Hall of Green Lane, Ewell, said: "From very, very cheap labour he and his friends are now being used as free labour - how low can you get?"
Brian, who lives in a trust community home in Langley Vale and others housed in similar homes and also employed in its various commercial enterprises, are having their pay docked as part of a modernisation policy.
Bosses claim this is not a cost cutting exercise.
Mr Hall added: "I am disgusted at this treatment of the most vulnerable members of our society who carry out hard manual work for what is a commercial garden centre." "News of this was broken at the centre last Friday."It was 'we won't be paying you any more' and some of the chaps didn't realise what was going on.
"It is disgraceful that this penny-pinching NHS Trust should penalise these vulnerable, disabled people working for them.Epsom and Ewell MP Chris Grayling said: "It is beyond belief that they save money by depriving the people who work for them.
"They paid them hardly anything and now they are paying them nothing."
The Moat House Garden Centre was launched as a showpiece project to be run as a commercial enterprise and staffed by supervised adults with learning difficulties.However, the £3-a-day pay - described by the trust as therapeutic reward money - compares badly with pay convicted criminals earn on prison enterprises.
A statement from trust director of operations Peter Kinsey said: "Payments are a throwback to the days of large mental health and learning disability institutions when patients were rewarded for work or therapy activities.
"This is now outdated and many mental health institutions do not recognise the practice so the trust has decided to end these payments.
"Work services are being remodelled to reflect modern practices which clearly distinguish between paid work, voluntary work, training and therapy."( so clearly that 3 months and twice as many FOIA requests later we are still waiting for Mr Kinsey to simply explain what these modern practices are - Ed )
Link to icsurreyonline
Since the article we have had a campaign blog protesting about the £3 a day cut and that the disabled workers are now being used as unpaid labour. The blog is atwww.justice4sabtworkers.blogspot.com/
It has recently come to our attention that the project manager for the 'modernisation' and cutting the £3 a day payments to the disabled workers is Helen Lockett who for 18 months has been seconded from the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health is funded by charity money of some £20 million a year from The gatsby Foundation.
The first thing on the Gatsby Foundation website is :
Welcome to The Gatsby Charitable Foundation website. The Foundation makes grants for charitable activity which it hopes may make life better for people, especially those who are disadvantaged.
But instead of making life better their money has gone on cutting the already mean £3 a day payments to the disabled workers. Helen Lockett herself should also know better because she was co-author of a report: 'Paying a Real Wage to People in Work Projects'. But instead of paying the disabled workers any kind of real wage she has project managed the decision to cut their payments altogether.
We have found out a lot about the issues involved although the managers at Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust have done everything to delay and avoid answering our Freedom of Information Act requests. We have also complained to the Minimum Wage Act and Disability Discrimination Act people but we are people with mental health problems ourselves and would like the press to help with our campaign to get justice for the disabled workers.
Yours Sincerely
Jill Goble
posted by simply human @ 7:02 pm
Listen to this article
16 comments
Dot This
16 Comments:
Well done, Jill. This is great.
Rosemary in Surrey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine
I'll second that.
Thanks but its just part of our job here. We can't rest until we see the disabled workers in Priority Enterprises get proper conditions of work, contracts and pay as is their right according to the law. It is the managers who are breaking the law and we can't let them get away with this discrimination and exploitation. On behalf of all our fellow disabled people everywhere we have to fight our corner don't we.
Anyway let me know who you want me to write to next? The United Nations? The Prime Ministers Office?! Well actually I'm probably going back to the Low Pay Unit who said I could make representations a while ago. They are doing some thing on getting loopholes in the law over the Minimum Pay Act changed I think.
I did not hear back from Jo O'Neill about my FOIA replies today either. For every further day they delay I think I'll send the story to another newspaper...
I have finally recieved my FOIA reply from SABPT and they are saying they sent it last week? (I did not recieve anything last week) It doesn't really answer much (there is nothing about the minimum wage investigation for example)and I am now putting together my original questions so the answers or lack of answers I've been given can go underneath. This may take me a while but when I've finished it can go up here on the blog.
Here are the first 2 FOIA questions I asked and answers I have received today from SABPT today. It is taking me a while to sort them out into question and answer format so bear with me for the rest.
************************************************************************
My first question is how many workers does the withdrawal of the £3 a day wages affect both in total and in each of the Priority Enterprises businesses?
FOIA ANSWER from Peter Kinsey, Dir. of Operations, Mental Health Services Surrey and Borders NHS Partnership Trust:
As at the 5th June 2006 the following numbers of clients were undertaking therapeutic work at the various priority enterprises:
Queen’s Park Garden Centre 19 Old Moat Garden Centre 35
Arts and Craft Matters 40 Assembly Matters Redhill 40
Netherne Printing Services 25 Assembly Matter Horley 20
COMMENT
This means that even though SABPT claim stopping the £3 a day payments is not a
cost cutting exercise they have saved £537 a day, £2685 a week, £139,620 a year plus
administration costs.
***********************************************************************
My second question is what is Surrey and Borders NHS Trust doing to comply with minimum wage legislation for disabled workers? This matter has now been reported by our campaign to the Minimum Wage people and my next question is for you to make details of that investigation public to me.
FOIA ANSWER from Peter Kinsey, Dir. of Operations, Mental Health Services Surrey and Borders NHS Partnership Trust:
Mr Kinsey has not answered this question. There is no mention of their minimum wage policy for disabled people and no mention of the Minimum Wage investigation.
COMMENT
Unlike other parts of the letter where Mr Kinsey gives me very longwinded explanations as to why he is not going to reply to my questions he has simply ignored anything to do with the minimum wage. This is a crucial part of our campaign as we have already shown
reports indicate a national problem of employers using disability of workers to pay below minimum wage. We really need Surrey and Borders to give us some straight answers over this issue now.
**********************************************************************
Here is my third FOIA question and Peter Kinsey's response.I have to go out now so will do the others tomorrow.
***********************************
My third question concerns the accounts of both Priority Enterprises and The Old Moat Garden Centre in particular. Specifically I am concerned about how much money is being spent on these projects which now use disabled workers as unpaid labour? How many people are employed altogether to ‘supervise’ the workers and the costs of their salaries? Are any profits made? How are the projects financed as a whole and individually?
FOIA ANSWER from Peter Kinsey, Dir. of Operations, Mental Health Services Surrey and Borders NHS Partnership Trust:
In the last year, prior to recent changes, the cost as a whole was £1.3 million although for the year 06/07 as the garden centres are being transferred to the voluntary sector (in line with government policy) the cost has been reduced to £500,000. The Old Moat itself costs £150,000, net of sales income. The enterprises do not make a profit.
There are 7.28 whole time equivalent posts at the garden centres employed to supervise the clients. There are also non-disabled employees. However, any post that is advertised at the garden centres are open to all clients to apply for. At present there are two former clients employed as technical instructors at the garden centres. In the last, five years, four former clients have been employed as members of staff in the garden centres.
COMMENT
I wanted to know the sales income for each of the enterprises. Then we could see how much is being made by each disabled worker even though they now get paid nothing for their efforts. Instead the sales income plus £1.3 million of subsidies (£500,000 after the garden centres are sold off) goes on employing supervisors and managers. None of this money goes into the hands of the disabled workers who have to work as unpaid labour.
It is good that the garden centres have employed a couple of former clients as staff but a couple isn’t a very good percentage in the numbers involved. Without the sales figures it is hard to analyse the figures in more detail.
Jill,
Well done on getting a response and particularly for highlighting the amount of money Priority Enterprises are using to provide products and services, pay their staff while the least able to grasp what is going on are paid nothing.
SABP are probably claiming they sent out your response earler as I've just invoiced them for Peter Kinsey's unreasonable conduct for:
1. Deliberately delaying answering one FOIA question ( and using cost as an excuse ) when he had the requested information all the time ( it was prerequisite to any 'comprehensive' review of work services ) so he could easilly have provided it without expending much time, money or effort.
and;
2.Deliberately refusing to even acknowledge the other question about why the Trust had established a system of ' deserving and undeserving service users ' , where the time of users engaged in official user involvment iniatives is and has been officially valued and rewarded but the manual labour of those working in the garden centre and , prsumably , some of its other work schemes was but is no more.
More of the Same
Peter Kinsey appears to have adopted much the same approach with you as by simply listing the numbers of individuals engaged in therapeutic work throughout the Trust he is not answering your question at all as he has already stated in his response to my FOIA request that none of these people work to employment contracts or pay scales and they work varying hours for varying amounts of money.In other words, he is simply confirming that SABP's work services are still a mess.
This is the same man who stated 3 months ago to a local news reporter no less , that " modern work practices made a clear distinction between paid work, voluntary work, training and therapy."
Question requiring clarity
Why are we then , 3 months on, still waiting for this then confident bureaucrat to explain exactly what those modern practices and their clear distinctions between all these work related activities are?
Silence of Dr's Bob , Lockett et al
He's certainlu had the well paid expertise of academic MH employment experts Dr's Groves, Lockett and Secker so really, one has to ask, what is the delay in providing simple explanations for public consumption here? Are these usually media attention seeking learned types struggling with weighty concepts and issues of intelectual copyright in their desperate attempts to try to assist SABP clarify the current ' Work Services ' situation and verify their own theories or could it be that the whole 'Modernisation' and ' Externalisation of Social Firm ' thing at SABP is one one big politically correct , hypocritical and ' Who gives a shit as long as the public and Gatsby Foundation pick up the tab' sham?
Line? What Line?
I have today asked both SABP's FOIA and complaints officers to cease and desist from troubling me over the specific issue I have invoiced the Trust over because they do not seem to recognise the line that exists between not wishing to divulge too much information and bureacratic harrassment and provocation . I have now withdrawn from SABP's complaints process as in addition to the bureaucratic abuse the Trust had never meaningfully applied or adhered to NHS complaints procedures anyway.
Imposed Costs
I spent around two hours dealing with SABP over Peter Kinsey's abuse of the FOIA procedures and I have made it clear to SABP CEO Fiona Edwards that I expect the Trust to value and pay for my time and her to explain the actual purpose of the FOIA legislation at the next SABP Board meeting as Mr Kinsey's take is not only unreasonable and provocative , it creates additional work for and reduces the standing of the Trust's PPI Forum. I have copied the PPI Forum in as well and trust they will look into the way the FOIA legislation has been inverted by SABP .
Sorry you have had such hassles with ASBPT today. Anyone would think the way they carry on with us that they have something to hide isn't it...
You know this evening I did a few sums in my head and then later checked them on the calculator.
If you take £1.3 million in subsidies and divide the 179 disabled people in the projects you get £139.66 a week is being spent per disabled person in a priority enterprise. That is reduced down to £500,000 for 125 disabled people after the garden centres are sold off which makes £76.92 per week per disabled person in a priority enterprise.
All this money spent on managers and supervisers to keep disabled people in pseudo jobs they don't even get paid to do. All this money spent keeping people exploited and discriminated against. What is the point of it? Might as well close all priority enterprises let the disabled workers have a few allotments and use the money to buy their own plants. At least an allotment is a recognised hobby not slave labour. Same goes for part or full time training courses in colleges or on the internet. I'm sure quite a few hours of one to one tuition can even be bought for over £75 a week. In dustry also takes on students to do work experience training. Oh but I forgot. These options wouldn't keep the supervisors and managers in their well paid apparently unaccountable positions would it. They need the unpaid disabled workers to give them a reason for being employed but are the disabled workers getting any kind of good deal out of the set up? Not from where I am looking...
Like direct payments for care costs I think this makes a good case for giving us disabled people direct payments for training costs... I realise this is getting a little off the point of our campaign but the way we get patronised by all these managers who have decided what is best for us and then can't even write us FOIA answers which are clear and informative is so annoying. And yet it is only us disabled people and other 'clients' who are keeping those same managers in work. I wish we could be free of them and run our own services...
Jill,
Those sums tell the truth . You know about ten years ago I used to gate crash the meetings of the South London & Maudsley NHS Trust and say that they should employ their users in ordinary jobs , reception staff, cleaners, porters, gardeners etc. rather than just shove people in ' User Involvment jobs.
ps
Paul just got on the radio over the Birmigham campaign:)
You may recall me posting the employment stats for my Trust on Uksurvivors. No users were employed in ordinary jobs.
SLAM's then Director of Services for Lewisham now overall Director of Operations Tracey Power ( nee Gummer ) claimed to be and was officialy recorded as a 'Service User' but she did nothing to see other users got jobs because - as she told me in one memorable trip to the CEO's office - the staff unions resisted .
Over 10 years later the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health's in house guruDr Robert Groves is weakly arguing for the same thing , only he wants the NHS to employ users in situations that pay him. I would like an open session to debate with Groves, Lockett and Secker as i believe they have perpetuated discrimination and , as with priority enterprise, cost the taxpayer a great deal of money for doing the exact opposite to what they claim to be doing.
Here is my fourth FOIA question parts 1 2 and 3 from Mr Kinsey. There are a few more parts I'll have to organise into question and answers later on. These are the questions the Disability Dicrimination Act Rights Commission asked me to ask.
My fourth question was phrased as follows: we have also approached the Disability Discrimination Act Rights Commission who have asked me to ask the following questions.
‘In order for us to provide a correct record and provide you with the relevant advice we would ask that you inform us of the following details. This is to establish whether disability discrimination has occurred.’
1. How does the Garden Centre operate?
Answer from Mr Kinsey:
The service to clients works on the basis that they are referred. There is an assessment period to ensure the referral is appropriate. The aim is to provide realistic work experience and nationally recognised qualifications working in partnership with East Surrey College. The aim of the service is to return people to employment, to provide work experience and voluntary work externally to clients with mental health and learning difficulties.
Comment
We are still not being given any clear definition between employment, work experience, voluntary work and training? Are they all the same except some are lucky enough to be employed with contracts and conditions of work and paid at least the Minimum Wage for their efforts while others have no conditions of work, no contracts and now no pay?
.
2) Does the Garden Centre employ non-disabled employees and have they had their salary reduced also?
Answer from Mr Kinsey
There are also non disabled employees…None of the employees have had their salaries altered as a result of the changes.
Comment
One of the factors in disability discrimination is that you are not allowed to treat the disabled differently but we know that over the £3 a day cut they have all been treated differently to the others.
3) What reason has the Garden centre given for this decision? ( The £3 a day cut in pay)
Answer from Mr Kinsey
The garden centres are part of a large change project which the Trust is undertaking to modernise and improve work related services for people with mental health and learning disability problems in line with modern and best practices.
Comment
How can reducing the workers derisory £3 a day pay cut to nothing be in any way seen as an improvement?
"We are still not being given any clear definition between employment, work experience, voluntary work and training?"
This is the nub of the issue , from the minimum wage and every other critical perspective .
Three months ago SABP's Director of Operations Peter Kinsey informed the public through ICSurreyOnline that
"Work services are being remodelled to reflect modern practices which clearly distinguish between paid work, voluntary work, training and therapy."
Ever since Peter Kinsey and SABP have evaded explaining exactly how these ' modern practices' make such distinctions.SCMH's ' Experts by Political Expedience' dont have much to say to themselves either.
Wonder why.
Oh he has again ignored a later question on the same subject just like he ignored my minimum wage question but before that here is my next question answer and comment in the FOIA saga
4) What action have the disabled employees taken?
Answer from Mr Kinsey
…and the majority of clients have continued to attend and carry on with their ‘skills for working life’ or NVQ accreditations.
Comment
Have the disabled workers and their carers been informed of their rights to make representations under the Disability Discrimination and Minimum Wage Acts?
I think we could produce an easy to read hand out for the workers which explain their rights. For example that as people who are not being treated as paid workers they are not obliged to do any work at all and certainly do not have to keep production lines going or meet any deadlines. Also where they can get legal help for taking out a case of disability discrimination or for not getting the minimum wage. With 179 disabled workers involved group class actions would be ideal but I have yet to hear if this is possible. As an ‘expert’ in this field why hasn’t Ms Lockett let the now unpaid disabled workers know all about their rights? Her document ‘Paying a Real Wage to People in Work Projects’ may be good for listing as a research paper after her name but it does not seem to have been put to any real use in practice. My main comment is that the disabled workers have not taken action because they have not been informed of any action they can take. Although disabled people have started fighting for their rights this is a slow process in a world of discrimination and ignorance. Unison the union which the Health Services employees with real employment contracts can belong to but which our disabled workers without any rights are excluded from has produced this:
http://www.unison.org.uk/disabled/pages_view.asp?did=2677
Perhaps we could get copies of the posters sent to the priority enterprises?
Beyond the barriers
(01/12/2005) UNISON has taken part in a major new poster campaign called “Beyond the Barriers” to promote disabled people’s rights.
Along with the Disability Rights Commission and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UNISON’s Policy Development and Campaigns Committee was the third partner in the series of 6 posters.
The posters portray some of the major social policy issues; employment, transport education, health, leisure and the important right to organise as disabled trade unionists.
Two of the posters include UNISON Disabled members talking about their past experiences of discrimination and their expectations for the future.
UNISON branches are being encouraged to get their employers to display sets of the posters as a statement of their commitment to promoting the new Disability Equality Duty which comes into force in 2006.
Order your set of the Beyond the Barriers posters from the DRC’s helpline on 08457 622 633, (08457 622 644 text) by quoting reference “AWARE4”.
You can take a look at all the posters in the 'Beyond the Barriers' series in PDF format.
K1851.pdf
K1855.pdf
K1856.pdf
K1852.pdf
K1853.pdf
K1854.pdf
K1855.pdf
K1856.pdf
Peter Kinsey wrote:
"and the majority of clients have continued to attend and carry on with their ‘skills for working life’ or NVQ accreditations.
confirming that, as an earlier SABP newletter article made clear, the garden centre workers are not engaged in ' therapeutic work' at all, and are simply ' workers', the term used in the newsletter item covering their obtaining Retail NVQ certificates , being used as cheap labour .
There is a clear conflict of interests here with Kinsey trying to both rob and represent the garden centre workers. I think its got to the point where we should be calling for Mr Kinsey to resign as he has clearly lost sight of the interests of the vunerable people for whom he has a duty of Care.
Yes we can see a clear conflict of interests between the managers and the disabled people they are supposed to be representing. In fact is anyone representing the interests of the disabled workers except disabled people like us? I don't think so from the evidence so far.
Anyway here are the final questions and answers from the FOIA reply and I've included the whole of Mr Kinseys letter at the end so it is clear I am not misrepresenting his reply:
5) What date did the Garden Centre make this decision?
Answer from Mr Kinsey
The Trust’s decision in relation to clients at the garden centres was made at the end of January 2006…
6) Does the Garden Centre employ the disabled workers? (contract) or are they on an employment scheme? (Please note in relation to the last question I see on the websites that these workers are often referred to as ‘trainees’. Could you please clarify their status as far as SABT are concerned and make clear what contracts/insurance arrangements are made for these disabled workers?)
Answer from Mr Kinsey
There is no answer from Mr Kinsey to this question. The closest we get is his referral to the aim of the service being ‘to return people to employment, to provide work experience and voluntary work externally to clients with mental health and learning disabilities.’
Comment
Just as Mr Kinsey has ignored my questions on the minimum wage so he has ignored this question on the status of the disabled workers. Why is Mr Kinsey avoiding these questions? They are essential in determining whether breaches in the Disability Discrimination Act and Minimum Pay Act have occured. Mr Kinsey must be afraid the law has been broken and instead of fessing up he is trying to avoid and ignore the issues
7) Have the disabled employees been dismissed from the garden centre?
Answer from Mr Kinsey
None of the clients have been asked not to attend the garden centre as a result of the changes.
Finally I asked: ‘I see you are planning on selling off the Garden Centre to a limited company and I would like to know details of this financial transaction? But Mr Kinsey does not seem to have noticed this question either.
That is however the end of the specific questions I asked and Mr Kinsey’s replies take up one and a bit pages of the four page mail that was sent to me. The rest of the mail is taken up with telling me that I can receive the same responses as others who have sent in FOIA requests but then goes into longwinded explanations about why they are withholding the information requested.
I am now going to copy and paste the whole of Mr Kinsey’s letter out so you can see I have not distorted the reply I have received but in my opinion the serious omissions over the Minimum Pay Act and the workers status and conditions as well as the longwinded reasons why I can’t have information I didn’t even ask for in the first place do more to further confuse the whole issue that to provide us with clear useful information about the plight of the disabled workers who now have to work as unpaid labour.
Mr Kinsey’s FOIA reply letter in full:
23rd August 2006(NOT RECEIVED UNTIL 29TH)
Dear Ms Goble
FOI Requests
I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you with regard to your FOI request. I am now in a position to respond to you. As you know, under FOIA you are entitled to recorded information that the Trust holds but if it takes the Trust longer than 18 hours to essentially locate, extract and provide the information to you, it does not have to respond. Given the breadth of your requests I have obtained as much information as I can within that limit.
As of the 5th June 2006 the following numbers of clients were undertaking therapeutic work at the various priority enterprises:
• Queen’s Park Garden Centre 19
• Old Moat Garden Centre 35
• Arts & Craft Matters 40
• Assembly Matters Redhill 40
• Netherne Printing Services 25
• Assembly Matters Horley 20
The service to clients works on the basis that they are referred. There is an assessment period to ensure that the referral is appropriate. The aim is to provide realistic work experience and nationally recognised qualifications working in partnership with East Surrey College. Clients attendance is reviewed regularly and progress is fed back to community teams/professional carers. The aim of the service is to return people to employment, to provide work experience and voluntary work externally to clients with mental health and learning disabilities. The funding for the placements comes from service level agreements with Primary Care Trusts however, Social Services also purchase individual placements. In the last year, prior to recent changes, the cost as a whole was £1.3 million although for the year 06/07 as the garden centres are being transferred to the voluntary sector (in line with government policy) the cost has been reduced to £500,000. The Old Moat itself costs £150,000, net of sales income. The enterprises do not make a profit.
There are 7.28 whole time equivalent posts at the garden centres employed to supervise the clients. There are also non-disabled employees. However, any post that is advertised at the garden centres are open to all clients to apply for. At present there are two former clients employed as technical instructors at the garden centres. In the last five years, four former clients have been employed as members of staff in the garden centres.
The garden centres are part of a large change project which the Trust is undertaking to modernise and improve work related services for people with mental health and learning disability problems in line with modern and best practices. The Trust’s decision in relation to clients at the garden centres was made at the end of January 2006 and the majority of clients have continued to attend and carry on with their “skills for working life” or NVQ accreditations. None of the clients have been asked not to attend the garden centres as a result of the changes. None of the employees have had their salaries altered as a result of the changes.
You may find it useful to consider an information note from the Department of Trade and Industry, which is available on their website at www.dti.gov.uk/files/file11883.pdf.
( THIS LINK DOES NOT GO ANYWHERE)
The following list of information has also been provided to others who have made Freedom of Information Act requests and it seems that you should receive the same response as well as, although not all your requests cover the information it may be helpful for you to have the material. The Trust confirms that it holds the following:
1. Minutes of the Trust Board Meeting dated 26th January 2006
2. Notes of meeting held at Oakland’s House on 4th May 2005
3. Questionnaires completed by service users
4. Business Case dated January 2006 plus Appendices
5. Documents from Judy Scott Consultancy
6. Emails between various members of the Trust and Social Services
7. Risk Management documents
8. Outcome document on “Building the Best” public consultation
9. Legal advice – various
I can confirm that the Trust considers the following documents are disclosable to you under FOIA:
1. The Minutes of the Trust Board meeting held on 26th January 2006, in redacted form
2. Meeting held at Oakland’s House on 4th May 2005
3. Template blank questionnaire
4. Outcome document on “Building the Best” public consultation
The Trust considers that the information which has been withheld or redacted is exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Trust has outlined below the reasons that it has come to these conclusions:
1. Legal advice
Currently, the information contained within legal advice, and the extract of the Trust Board Meeting Minutes which has been redacted, is exempt from disclosure under Section 42 FOIA as it is information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained. The Trust is aware that the exemption provided by Section 42 FOIA is qualified and it is considered whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The factors which the Trust has considered are set out below:
Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption
• Legal professional privilege exists so that a person may consult a lawyer in confidence. If he was not able to do so, it would be difficult for individuals to communicate openly and frankly with their lawyers and therefore obtain effective legal advice.
• Parties should be able to discuss all potential options for management of a situation with their lawyers without fear that the consideration of these options would be disclosed.
Facts in favour of disclosure
• There is a public interest in ensuring transparency of decisions made by public authorities.
• Disclosure can enable the public to more effectively consider the decision-making process adopted by the Trust and to challenge it where appropriate.
Having considered the factors, the Trust has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
2. Business case + appendices, emails and risk management documentation
The Trust can confirm that it holds this information but that the Chief Executive’s opinion is that disclosure of it 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. Once again, 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
• The documents have 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.
• 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
• It is in the public interest to promote accountability and transparency of public bodies for the decisions taken by them.
• Disclosure of information may further the understanding of, and participation in, the basic issues of the day.
• 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.
3. Documents from Judy Scott Consultancy
The documents held by the Trust consist of a Curriculum Vitae-like synopsis of Ms Scott’s qualifications and a PowerPoint presentation which she produced entitled “Passport to Employment: Working during a claim for benefits and getting a job”.
The Trust is not prepared to release these documents until it has the consent from Miss Scott. The first document constitutes her personal data and is exempt under Section 40 FOIA as disclosure would be in breach of the Data Protection Act. The second document was produced by Miss Scott and is her “intellectual property”. The Trust has written to Miss Scott to ask whether she would consent to the disclosure of the presentation to you and we hope to revert to you as soon as possible.
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.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries about this request.
Yours sincerely
Peter Kinsey
Director of Operations
Adult Mental Health Services
Peter Kinsey wrote:
"and the majority of clients have continued to attend and carry on with their ‘skills for working life’ or NVQ accreditations.
What about the ' minority?
Is Brian Hall one of them?
I have written to the CEO of SABP asking what has happened to these people and asked how much she earns and have clearly indicated that both questions are FOIA requests.
I want to make a short film about this issue and post it on www.youtube.com and post stills and details of issue on www.flickr.com and tag them, including geotag for maximise exposure.
Any volunteers to help?
" "is anyone representing the interests of the disabled workers "
I asked Declan Flynn and the PPI this question back in June 2006. They declined to answer. I also tried to get Mind involved to represent the SABP garden centre workers but its CEO Paul Farmer had the organisations Director of Policy Sophie Corlett inform me that Mind were not aware of the problem at SABP, even though I had explained it to them and pointed them towards this blog.
Sophie also explained that Mind had no policy for looking out for the interests of service users engaged in therapeutic or permitted work.
Mr Farmer wants to transform Mind into a service provider so its easy to understand why he is not prepared to allow the appalling way NHS Trusts and other MH charities treat service users to negatively impact upon Mind's own corporate aspirations.
Perhaps Paul wants Mind to use the exploitative garden centre at Mind. Who knows?
Interestingly, tarnished ex- Mental Health Media Director David Keay used to call Mr Farmer ' Pill Pharmacy ' on his clandestine Psychotic website . I'd link to it but David was recently instructed to take the site down by Steve Lowden chair of the CCPIH after Steve was hassled by two very cross MP's.
Nice to know these people are working for us isnt it?
Post a Comment
<< Home