The scrolling images above are of board members , directors and senior managers of SABP and MCCH Society Ltd. These images are already available online on SABP's and MCCH's own websites. Click on images for details of who these people are.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Is Surrey County Council putting people first re. externalisation of SABP's work services?



I couldnt find anything directly related to the externalisation of work services in Surrey County Coucil's reports, agendas or minutes available online here
but the sites dedicated search engine returned the following when I typed in Surrey & Borders Partnership trust ' and I am wondering if SCC still has a Councillor on the SABP Board and if so who it is. SABP definitely seems to be out of step on a number of issues set out in this agreement and if it still applies there are a number of grounds for complaining about the way the externalisation of the Old Moat Garden Centre and Therapeutic Payments issue has been handled to Surrey County Council , including irregularities in the bidding process.

The Council also has a Best Value policy that it should perhaps look at again before signing off the dodgy deals around the Old Moat Garden Centre and MCCH and the other SABP services being handed over to the Richmond Fellowship.

Raise your concerns with Surrey County Council through the Action Links


Memorandum of Understanding


This Memorandum is made the 1st day of September 2005 between:-(1) Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust of Ramsey House, West Park,Horton Lane, Epsom, Surrey KT19 8PB and (2) Surrey County Council of County Hall Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN and(3) Hampshire County Council of The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8UQ

Introduction

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to describe the way in which services will be planned and provided by effectively sharing and allocating responsibilities between the Trust and the Councils for the benefit of people who use services, carers and staff. This document sets out an agreed framework, notwithstanding that the parties may wish in the future to consider alternative arrangements for partnership working.

For the purposes of delivering the services Surrey County Council will represent and be accountable to Hampshire County Council as Hampshire’s agent as set out in Appendix 1 to this Memorandum of Understanding.

Definitions and Interpretation

The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:-Councils means Surrey County Council and Hampshire County Councils Trust means Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust Authorities means to the Councils and/or the Trust. Officer means any employee of either party who has authority to undertake a specified action, including authority to manage staff.

1. Trust purpose

The purpose of the partnership is to jointly plan, co-ordinate and deliver the services that each of the parties are required to deliver pursuant to their respective statutory functions.

The Trust’s overall vision, supported by the Partnership is “Capturing hope and
building on dreams”.


2. Principles


Surrey and Borders Partnership Trust is committed to being an organisation which
• Treats people well ( which it has just admitted it did not do)
• Involves not ignores
• Creates respectful places

And is
• Open, inclusive and accountable

The following principles of partnership working have been agreed between the
parties:

The parties will respect and reflect the statutory rights and duties of each
party.

The parties will ensure that there is clear accountability for all decisions and actions.

The parties will ensure that management arrangements will be such that they will engage partner directors, managers and elected members in corporate considerations of policy and strategy.

The parties will ensure that the ambitions and aspirations of the parties will be incorporated within the Trust strategy.

The partnership arrangements will reflect and support national initiatives and
governing bodies including the National Service Framework, Healthcare Commission and Council for Social Care Inspection (CSCI).

The partnership arrangements will place responsibility for service provision where this can be demonstrated as being most effective, subject to any statutory obligations.

The parties will ensure that there will be a single (non-duplicated) process of assessment, treatment and care.

The partnership arrangements shall make provision for variety in the delivery of treatment and care.

The partners shall recognise the proper employee relationships and contractual obligations of each party.

All managers will receive induction or training in the roles and key relevant policies of the partners.

The partnership agreement will support integrated governance and supervision.

The resourcing of services shall be explicitly agreed. There will be no arrangements for pooling of budgets within this arrangement.

3
The partnership arrangements will be sufficiently robust that will easily provide
for amendment, including the addition of new services and partners, including those in the voluntary sector.

3. Duration
This agreement is initially intended to serve from 1 April 2005 to March 31st 2008 unless replaced by an alternative agreement within this period, and will be subject to an annual review.

4. Overall structure

The Trust structure will take account of partnership needs at the highest level. The new Chair and Chief Executive will co-opt a Surrey County Councillor onto the Trust Board in consultation with Surrey County Council in accordance with the arrangements set out in Appendix 2 to this Memorandum of Understanding. The Chair will meet with the co-opted County Councillor on an annual basis to monitor and review this role.

The Executive Team will include a Director of Social Care and Carer Involvement.
This critical post will include accountability for the Trust’s social care strategy and for ensuring that the Council’s needs, both practical and legal, are built into Trust working arrangements. The post-holder will also provide professional leadership and accountability for social care staff working within mental health and learning disability services.

The Director of Social Care and Carer Involvement will be employed by, and thus
accountable to Surrey County Council through the Area Director with the Strategic
lead for Mental Health. He or she will play a full part in the work of the Trust and will be responsible for this, reporting on a regular basis to the Chief Executive.

5. Staff management and development


For the duration of this partnership arrangement the Trust and the Councils will
remain as employers of staff within joint working arrangements. Employees will
continue to be employed by the body that employed them at the start of this
arrangement. The Trust and the Councils will continue to assume all employer
obligations under individual contracts of employment and HR policies approved by
the Trust or the relevant Councils as the case may be, in accordance with the
employment status of the individuals concerned, in consultation or negotiation with
the relevant recognised trade unions, where appropriate.

It is important therefore that there is a clear mutual understanding with regard to the status, number and arrangement of posts within joint working and whether these
posts are:

• Council posts meaning posts that are subject only to employment by Surrey or
Hampshire County Council
• Health posts meaning posts that are subject only to employment by the Trust
• Joint posts meaning posts that are subject to employment by either Surrey or
Hampshire County Council, or the Trust

4
Examples of Trust Director-level posts are currently in place for the following
• Director of Social Care and Carer Involvement (Council post)
• Director of Merger and Integration (Trust Post)
• Director of Operations (Joint post as above)

Where employment is by the Surrey or Hampshire, staff will be employed on
standard county council pay, grading, and terms and conditions of employment
unless the Councils, in consultation or agreement with the relevant trade unions,
determines otherwise. In the case of Approved Social Workers (ASW’s) this will
include statutory duties under Section 114 MHA 1983 in accordance with Appendix
3 to this Memorandum of Understanding Where employment is by the Trust, staff will
be employed on appropriate Trust pay, grading, and terms and conditions of
employment unless the Trust in consultation with the relevant Trade unions
determines otherwise. In either case, existing arrangements for regular supervision,
Annual Appraisal and Personal Development Plans will continue. The pay and grading etc of joint posts will be individually determined in relation to the established procedures for both Councils and the Trust which will result in
employment by one employer or the other.

If either party wishes to make organisational changes that would result in potential
redundancies then before any such decision was taken to implement the changes it
would be discussed first with the other party. While both parties accept that the other may be constrained to implement organisational change that results in redundancies of staff, both parties agree that discussions would be held in advance of any such decisions to agree on how the funding of any costs associated with meeting the appropriate organisations redundancy policy could be met.

Management Employment Procedures

As a matter of principle, issues initiated by line management in relation to any
particular member of staff subject to joint working will be progressed under the
normal procedures relevant to that employer. For example, a matter relating to
sickness/attendance for a Surrey or Hampshire County Council employee would be
progressed under the relevant Council's Attendance Management Procedure.
Similarly, issues initiated by an employee will be progressed under the normal
procedures relevant to that employer. For example, a grievance raised by a Trust
employee would be progressed under the Trust's grievance procedure.
Managers responsible for handling such procedural matters in relation to staff under
their direction will receive support in relation to the use and operation of these
procedures from the relevant employer's HR function.

There may be circumstances where potential conflicts and/or difficulties arise with the strict application of these principles. If such circumstances arise which cannot be resolved they should be referred in the first instance to the appropriate Operational Director for the Trust, and the Director of Social Care and Carer Involvement. If the issue still cannot be resolved it will be referred jointly to the Area Director, Surrey County Council (Strategic Lead for Mental Health) (or the Assistant Director, Adults for Hampshire County Council) and the Chief Executive of the Trust.
5
Operating Procedures with Employment Implications

County Councils and the Trust have established separate and individual
arrangements for joint consultation, health & safety management, etc. which will
remain in force for the duration of this initial agreement.

6. Complaints

All complaints will be dealt with at as local a level as possible with an integrated
approach. Initially the line manager will attempt to resolve any complaint informally. However, if a complaint about a service that is being delivered by a Council/Trust employee or funded/provided by either Council(s)/Trust cannot be resolved informally or at a local level, the procedure of the Council/Trust will be followed at the appropriate stage.

7. IT systems and performance management.


All staff will be responsible for appropriate input into Trust IT systems. County
Council staff must input into the relevant County Council IT system as required by
each Authority and line managers will ensure that performance management reports
are completed as required by each County Council as well as Trust reports.

8. Finance

Each party to this agreement shall maintain existing separate financial arrangements.
Accounting for services, including costing and budget management shall be
managed by the authority through which those services are funded and provided in
accordance with its normal standing financial instructions and accounting
procedures.

9. Equality and Diversity statement


All parties to this agreement are committed to valuing and promoting diversity in
employment, service delivery practices and its general environment. A particular
expectation of all leadership posts within the Trust is that each individual will take responsibility for promoting open, inclusive and accessible service provision, staff development and valuing and respecting different cultures.

10. Premises

Each party shall be accountable for the maintenance of its own premises to
acceptable standards. Where it appears that there may be surplus property the ‘owner’ shall consult with the other in respect of any intended change of use or planning application.

11. Making partnership work


All Parties shall consult with each other on the health and social care strategy; ideally this process will be cohesive and complementary. Every effort will be made to
achieve this since successful service delivery is based on an explicit needs based
strategy. The development of the consultation process will be facilitated by the
6
Director of Social care and Carer Involvement, Area Director with Strategic
responsibility for Mental Health, Trust Directors and Chief Executive.
If there is any disagreement between the parties or their officers about any aspect of service planning or delivery, every effort will be made to achieve agreement as
locally as possible. In the event of failure to agree below authority level one report shall be written by each/all senior officers describing the facts and placed
simultaneously to the Chief Executive of the Trust and Area Director, Surrey County
Council (Strategic Lead for Mental Health) or the Assistant Director, Hampshire
County Council

The parties to this agreement recognise that this agreement will not address all the
issues that may arise as a result of a developing health and social care partnership.
The absence of detail and legislative context within the Memorandum of Understanding is not intended to prevent but to actively promote and encourage the
development of a mutually supportive and positive culture.

8 Comments:

At 12:43 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right. I have some news...

I have spoken to Diane Crane who is service manager based at East Surrey PCT.

She says there is not yet ANY CONTRACT for the Old Moat Garden Centre.

MCCH Ltd have just been asked to do a report on what can be done with the centre which will be in in about a month. I can ring her up again in about a month to see if this report is in yet.

So why couldn't MCCH just have emailed that information back to me I wonder?

Next information is that the contract with Richmond Fellowship has already been signed for 5 years for all the other projects and even if Surrey County Council don't take over this contract it still stands.

The change over of the different projects has been staggered and she said that Queens Park, Craft and Art Matters and Assembly Matters will not go over until next year but the contract for these has still been agreed already and will not be reviewed.
She said that they see 'therapeutic earnings' as discriminatory and against the minimum wage act in themselves which is why they will not be continued under the Richmond fellowship. But she did not seem to appreciate my point that this way noone will be paid the minimum wage either and all the disabled workers will be worse off as 'volunteers'. Anyway when we see the contract we can comment further.

The contract itself is based on a standard Task/force 3rd sector document which can be found on the Department of Health Website. I have not looked this up yet but she said she will email me a copy with the sensitive info like salaries taken out.

She said she will also send me information on the monitoring of the new services which are going through an Emmanual Goetuwa who is Mental Health Commissioning Manager and is on the Work Services Operational Group (WSOG) which is a group made up of people from each of the providers. She did not know if the reports from this group will be public but we can find out more about the monitoring of how Richmond Fellowship performs later.

I must say after months of wondering what is going on a couple of phone calls in a couple of days have told me more than a load of emails so maybe phoneing people up gets quicker and more open responses?

So there is NO contract yet for the Old Moat Garden Centre...

Interesting.

 
At 2:19 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At last a piece of firm information on the Moat Gardens. Although we don't know for certain about the letters and backpayments although that must surely have been actioned by now.

As you can see from my post that quoted some of the information in the Notes from the Mid & East Surrey FoCUS meeting on 2 October - someone who works at the Moat Gardens was at that meeting and hopefully will continue to attend.

You've asked, Jill, if anyone on the S&B Board is from Social Services. Yes, Graham Wilkin but there is no information about him on the S&B biographies page, just a title and his photo. If you look at the latest Partnership People on the S&B site, September 2006, you'll see Graham Wilkin's photo and under that "Congratulations. Graham Wilkins has been confirmed in his position as Director of Social Care and Involvement. He is based at the Ridgewood Centre."

I think he is still employed by SCC but based with S&B. This is an advertisement for a Social Work job from Community Care that gives Graham Wilkin as one of the contacts:

Job Details
You are in: Home > Jobs > Job Search
Approved Social Workers - Surrey
Salary:£27,138 - £31,128Location:South East (excl London) Surrey Employer:Surrey County CouncilDate Posted:5 Oct 2006Close date:24 Oct 06Job Reference:038082/GW/3345Job Description
Approved Social Workers
£27,138 - £31,128

One of the most rewarding things about being a social worker is the recognition you receive from people and their families. But what about recognition in the workplace? At Surrey County Council we reward you in more ways than one, starting with a golden hello of £2,000. We’ll give you dedicated off-site training, allowing you to really focus on your future rather than fitting your ambitions in around your work schedule. And you’ll find we offer all the career structure, professional support and career opportunities you could ask for.

Our unique commitment to working in formal partnership with organisations such as Surrey Borders Partnership NHS Trust, enables our social workers within an integrated team to provide the best possible help and care to our service users. It’s just one of the reasons we were given a 4 star overall performance by the audit commission.

An enhanced Criminal Records Bureau disclosure will be required for these roles.

For an informal discussion, please contact Donal Hegarty on 07968 833159, email: donal.hegarty@surreycc.gov.uk or Graham Wilkin on 07968 833137, email: graham.wilkin@sabp.nhs.uk

Ref: 038082/GW/3345

To apply, click here

Interview dates: 25 October and 24 November 2006.

=============
Rosemary in Surrey

 
At 2:23 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is where the job advertisement came from:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Jobs/Job.aspx?liJobID=340013282


Rosemary in Surrey

 
At 3:24 pm, Blogger Made by Mandy said...

Re: Slide show

I can't get over the fact that people are earning £100,000..(use the term 'earning' quite loosely).

Sure they have things like degrees and letters after their names but as the song goes "That don't impress me much".

What these people exel in is bureaucracy.

Most Trust Managers spend most of their time in meetings. Do they ever go out and actually see what is happening in the services they make decisions about? Some intend to, but never quite get there.

I think they are overpaid. When you look at service, or ex service users, giving of their time and often with more appropriate skills..freely..or claim pathetic amounts because of 'earnings disregard' boundaries and can't speak for others but alot of my time seems to be taken up with chasing managers who don't follow up on agreements or in having to do alot of footwork to find out why services aren't doing what they should be.

I don't think what I do warrants a large salary, and appreciate that my mental health problems makes continual work a problem, it just makes me question the sort of salaries that are being paid.

 
At 4:03 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right, Jill. Realised that it was the County Council rather than Social Services when I read the screed properly. However, in the hierarchy chain, Social Services people are I think Council rather than NHS people.

with regard to Mandy's comments about high salaries, although I agree I think the real issue is whether people are accountable or not and how much they have to lose.

I've just today got yet another consultation document issued by S&B on payments to users. Haven't looked at this properly but I think it is slanted towards paying people for having an opinion and sitting on appointment boards for staff and so on. These people are not trained (except in obedience) and need not have any expertise other than willingness. They have no proper contracts.

I'm going to try and get this consultation on line. it is certainly relevant to this campaign.

And looking at it from the contracted staff's point of view, they are extremely vulnerable. This is not an excuse of any failure to do their jobs, rather it explains I think why so few people under the yoke can actually put their patients first. i am still wondering why Peter Kinsey left in the way he did.

Rosemary in Surrey

 
At 8:35 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it is relevant that people are on very high salaries and be they pretendy accountable or not £100,000 is an awful lot of money. Personally, I think they are accountable only to audit trails...that make no sense.

Would they warrant that sort of money by being more accountable to service users?

Would be better if service users got fair shares of the collective MH money pot and in decent services and quality of lives.

It is all relative.

 
At 8:36 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry for anonymity of last e:mail.

Tried logging in and it wouldn't let me and forgot to put name at the bottom.

Mandy

 
At 12:52 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rosemary said:

"I'm going to try and get this consultation on line. it is certainly relevant to this campaign."

Of course it is Rose as SABP agreed in principle to look for ways to financially reward ' User Involvment ' at the same meeting where the garden centre cuts went through on the nod.

So Fiona Edwards goes out of her way to ignore the opinions of one group of service users and workers and keep them in the dark while embarking on a process to pay kept service users for their input.

No lessons have been learned here at all, Ms Edwards still thinks she can get service users to do manual work for fuck all , either for the Trust or outfits like the Richmond Fellowship and MCCH, while she works out ways to keep slipping cash under the table to the 'white collar' service users engaged in ' User Involvment'.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

toolbar powered by Conduit