E-mail to Jill from Fiona Edwards PA
From: Wilhelmina Cox, PA to Fiona Edwards, Chief Executive of Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust
Sent: 23 October 2006 10:36
To: 'Jill '
Cc: Jo Young
Subject: RE: http://justice4sabtworkers.blogspot.com/
I am forwarding this e mail to Jo Young who is leading taking the Trust Board paper action forward and who would like very much to take stock with justice4sabtworkers all of their outstanding issues and concerns you have. Should you be willing to take up this offer please can you send to her directly your contact details. Her telephone number is 01276 605555 jo.young@sabp.nhs.uk
Wilhelmina Cox
PA to Fiona Edwards
posted by simply human @ 4:34 am
Listen to this article
11 comments
Dot This
11 Comments:
After complaining last week that the responses from Surrey County Council and the PCT were much faster and more open than those we have had from SABP and MCCH it was quite a shock to get mails from both the latter yesterday. And both inviting us for meetings. And SABP wanting to take stock with ALL our outstanding issues...
Now that we know the Richmond Fellowship contract has gone ahead, in all the Priority enterprises except the OLd Moat, despite it not creating any new jobs for service users and despite the disabled workers losing their £3 a day completely under it, this offer does seem a little like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
But we do have the future of the Old Moat to consider. There are also issues like how many service users does the Trust employ? This was asked as an FOIA question at their board meeting and they still have not replied.
Again I'd please ask for as many comments as possible ,either here or by email if you prefer, concerning what our responses should be to this offer from SABP.
I think we should talk to Jo but make it clear to Fiona Edwards that the FOIA requests are not negotiable and need to be dealt with first as finding out how many people SABP employ at NMW and how many jobs externalisation through Richmond Fellowship has created to date is information that would obviously inform discussions with Jo about the future of the Old Moat Garden Centre .
Are the minutes of meeting of 28th on SABP website yet.
I would say that before any meeting with Jo Young, Director of Learning Disabilities, you should make sure you have in writing the answers to all the questions you have raised.
I don't think that anything the campaign for the Garden Workers is doing is "shutting the stable door after the horses have bolted". However, I do think that the Trust and all the other organisations around it, have put "the cart before the horse" and have not provided basic information or have - as I have said before - lied by omission.
This campaign is about the Moat Gardens, yet the vital information that no contract had been signed, nor any agreement finalised - has been withheld, simply by not pointing out that the contract would not be held by the Richmond Fellowship.
The people who are now under the Richmond Fellowship, have an opportunity to fight their own corner to a large extent since they can monitor the effectiveness of the way RF is running things. I've posted the comments from the Mid & East FoCUS meeting which was attended by two people who are Moat Gardens workers. The gist of these comments were that the MG workers were satisfied but concern was expressed about the activities now being run by the Richmond Fellowship.
As to the minutes from the S&B AGM and Board meeting on 28 September, they are not online and will not be until about two weeks before the next Board meeting - the last this year - which is on the programme to take place at Dorking Halls in Dorking on Thursday 30 November at 2pm.
To get confirmation of this and to ask for hard copies of the Agenda, minutes and supporting documents, contact Paul Mitchell.
The next main FoCUS meeting (which is a governance committee) will take place two days before that - 28 November. And before that, the three Area groups will have their FoCUS meetings with the reps who will go to the main FoCUS meeting.
We have not yet had the Notes from the FoCUS meeting that was held on 19 September and I am asking for these.
They will be with the papers for the Board meeting on 30 November.
I was checking on something else on the S&B site today and found that the FoCUS Notes AND the consultation on the user/carer payments are both online.
The payments documents are here
http://www.sabp.nhs.uk/serviceusers/folder.2006-10-19.3984531814/view
with the heading
DRAFT PAYMENT POLICY FOR SERVICE USERS.
This is to do with paying people to sit on working groups, committees and staff appointment interviews.
I think it is important to note the criteria laid down for the definition of a user and carer - points 1.4 and 1.5 in the Service User and Carer Payment and Reimbursement Policy document. That is, they receive or have received in the last 12 months, services from Surrey & Borders.
This rules out both myself and my two siblings as we do not receive any services from Surrey & Borders.
The other important point, in my opinion, is in the letter from Ian Church, Head of Service User Involvement, dated 15 October 2006 covering the Consultation document.
On the third page under "Funding" it states that
'This policy requires services that involve people to fund involvement payments from their own budgets. There is no "new" money to support this. It is impossible to estimate the likely cost of funding the payments. The effect of this policy will need to be reviewed after a few months. In particular, we must look for any instances where the obligation to pay reduced a service's willingness to involve people'
This of course raises a question about where money comes from to pay for the existing (for many years) involvement of patients and unpaid carers.
The documents that are the Notes of the Area FoCUS meetings and the two main FoCUS meetings that have taken place are here
http://www.sabp.nhs.uk/serviceusers/focus/index_html/view
As I've mentioned before, the Notes from the meeting held on 19 September had not been given to the members of the Area groups, and although those Notes are now online, they have still not been sent to us.
These Notes include information about the reinstatement of the therapeutic payments.
The closing date for comments on the User/Carer reimbursement policy is 17 November, which means that the document can be discussed at the Area FoCUS meetings that will take place on 8,9 and 13 November.
I expect people will pick up on the point that the Trust has just had over £4 million lopped off its budget and is going to have to make even more cuts to the services, so factoring in payments to non-professionals is unlikely to be popular.
The first board meeting of our new Surrey wide Primary Care Trust took place yesterday in Woking. I didn't manage to get there myself but one of the FoCUS reps from the North did go. We are much more concerned with the threatened closure of the general hospitals in Surrey than with anything else.
As you know, the next Surrey & Borders Board meeting will be on 30 November. Before that, the Surrey PCT will have its second Board meeting on 20 November.
Rosemary in Surrey
Thanks for your comments Rosemary. I am afraid I have been suffering from food poisoning the last couple of days and still don't feel well so I am not able to concentrate on the campaign at the moment. Will be back as soon as I feel better.
That sounds horrible, Jill. Hope you get over the food poisoning soon.
I don't think there is anything that needs to be done urgently at the moment on the campaign and anyway you are still waiting on the information you have been promised.
All the best
Rosemary in Surrey
Hi Jill
I hope you feel much better soon.
Take care of yourself.
Mandy
Thanks for your good wishes. i am feeling better now if still a bit weak. I have managed to do this reply to Wilhelmia Cox which I have also CCd to anyone who may be relevant. Hopefully I'll get around to doing a reply to Karen Wooding of MCCH Ltd sometime today.
Here is the mail I have sent:
Dear Wilhelmina Cox,
Thank you for your email of the 23rd October below. I welcome the offer you make for our campaign to discuss our outstanding issues and concerns with Jo Young. However we also expect our Freedom of Information Act questions to be answered in writing by Fiona Edwards and/or the other relevant managers, as is legally required. We believe that answers to these questions will influence our future discussions with Jo Young and others.
In particular we are still waiting for an answer to the FOIA question asked at your board meeting in September about the number of service users Surrey and Borders Partnership Trust (SABPT) employs and in what positions?
Since writing to you last I have been very disappointed to find out from the Primary Care Trust that a five year contract to run the Priority Enterprises work schemes, excluding the Old Moat Garden Centre, has already been awarded to the Richmond Fellowship, although some of these schemes will not transfer over until next year. I understand this means that the disabled workers £3 a day payments will not be continued and neither will any hope the workers could have had of opportunities to hold down real jobs paying at least the minimum wage or above be fulfilled under the Richmond Fellowship regime. This is one of the reasons our campaign believes that the contract with the Richmond Fellowship is not in the best interests of the disabled workers. I am still waiting to see a detailed copy of this contract that has been awarded to the Richmond Fellowship.
I have also found out from the Primary Care Trust that no contract has yet been awarded to run The Old Moat Garden Centre. MCCH Ltd has been doing a consultation on the centre and their report is due in December. My original FOIA questions asked for details of the accounts of the Priority Enterprises and in particular I want to know details concerning the Old Moat Garden Centre sales figures and running costs. In view of the fact that a contract has not yet been awarded it is essential we see detailed accounts of the Old Moat in order to be able to compare alternative plans for the centre.
Other campaigners such as Mr Des Curley and Mr Paul Tovey have put separate FOIA requests to you and these also need to be answered in writing as is legally required.
As I say, we welcome the opportunity to discuss outstanding matters with Jo Young but we also expect our FOIA questions to be answered in writing as soon as possible bearing in mind that some answers are already months late.
I am sending copies of this mail to Fiona Edwards, Jo Young and other relevant persons.
Yours Sincerely
Jill Goble
Hi Jill
Glad you are feeling better. Although food poisoning knocks the stuffing out of the system and is no wonder it is taking time for you to get back to tickety boo wellness again.
I can't get my head round FOIA requests. If it is a legal requirement that these organisations respond and they aren't there must be a next route to/level/layer of accountability. I.e. the overseeing body (whomever they are).
I have had a brief look at the Freedom of Information act and it is quite explicit in regards to a public body's need to respond to such a request unless they formally refuse and that has to be put in writing and backed up by reasons and open justifications.
Couldn't find the body that one goes to if they have not had responses to FOIA requests but am keen as mustard to find out who they are. And more importantly how effective they are in ensuring public bodies comply with the law.
It seems like the organisations who have received FOIA requests are playing cat and mouse and because I believe in fairness...it shouldn't be allowed to be the case, not without the law putting some balance back into the equation.
Hi Mandy
Yes thanks. I just don't seem to have my usual energy to get things done quickly but I have just managed to do a reply to Karen Wooding which I'll put up later.
Yes Private Eye are always complaining about delays in Freedom of Information Act answers. I am not sure who to complain to about it either and anyway the very problem of having to complain also delays matters even more and a lot of these questions need quich answers rather than months of uncertainty. Although like I said the other week I did seem to get clearer answers the other week by phoneing people up rather than waiting for email replies. But we need answers to be put in writing and like you say they should follow up their legal obligations without wriggling out of supplying the information they have a duty to provide.
Hi again Jill
This site may or may not prove useful to you:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/. This is the organisation that oversees FOIAs, requests et al.
There is a section on: Getting Official Information with the sub heading: Enforcement Orders.
I am not writing this because I think you should use it. As you said sometimes the 'so called' helpful systems hold things up and by the time you have an answer there is a bucket load more questions to be asked or issues that need resolving.
I have just posted it as a reference point, if you ever feel the need to use it.
Mandy
Post a Comment
<< Home