Jill Goble's Letter to MCCH

Ms Sandy Hampson

Project Development Manager

MCCH Ltd


Dear Ms Sandy Hampson,

I have been given your name and number as the person responsible for The Old Moat Garden Centre in Surrey by your Head Office. I left a message on your answer phone yesterday but so far have not heard from you. Since June I have been involved in a campaign to get justice for the disabled workers at the Old Moat Garden Centre and our campaign can be found on the internet at:

http://justice4sabtworkers.blogspot.com/



The campaign started when we found out that the disabled workers at the garden centre had their £3 a day wages cut to nothing by Surrey and Borders NHS Partnership Trust (SABP) who currently run the centre. In the course of the campaign we have complained to the Disability Rights Commission, on the Minimum Wage and to SABP who delayed answering our freedom of information requests. In the course of our investigations it became clear that there is a pattern of avoiding paying the minimum wage to disabled people in this country and that many are in exploitative situations without rights or equality. The best interests of the garden centre workers were not taken into account and they have been treated particularly badly.



Finally on September 28th at their board meeting SABP backed down and offered written apologies to all the disabled workers affected as well as return of their £3 a day payments which will be backdated to when payments ceased. SABP also agreed to conduct a review in which they would:



(c) Require the Director of Operations (Mental Health Services) and the Director of Services for People with a Learning Disability to develop an action plan
which will:

• Assess activities undertaken and develop guidelines to differentiate
between ‘work’ (for which the NMW or higher will apply), ‘therapy’, ‘training’ or ‘voluntary work’ (for which no payment, other than expenses,
will apply).

• Undertake individual assessments on those attending in order to ensure that payment for attending ‘work’ does not adversely impact on benefit.

• Ensure that the work centres (other work services are affected but we believe these are due to be taken over by the Richmond fellowship rather than MCCH Ltd) remain viable with any increased cost associated increased payments for work undertaken. Any change will be subject to further consultation.

The plan will be developed in conjunction with people using the services, their
families and carers and care workers. Legal advice will be sought on the action plan prior to its implementation.



While our campaign has been pleased with this progress on behalf of SABP in the best interests of the disabled workers we have also been informed by Ms Fiona Edwards, the Chief Executive of SABP, that the transfer to external providers will go ahead. I am therefore contacting you because we have many questions concerning your plans for the centre and your treatment of the disabled workers.



In particular I was especially concerned by a phase in Ms Edwards report that indicates MCCH Ltd as the external provider would now become reluctant to take over the centre because you would see the obligation to pay the disabled workers their £3 a day as well as be assessed for their entitlement to the minimum wage as a liability

Could you confirm whether or not you are going ahead with taking over the Old Moat Garden Centre under these circumstances and on what date you expect to take over?

Could you please also confirm that you do not see the disabled workers as a ‘liability’, are there to work in their best interests and will continue to honour their right to receive their £3 a day and preferably be employed properly on at least the minimum wage?



I have read the document ‘Paying a Real Wage to People in Work Projects’ which was published by MCCH Ltd and edited by Helen Lockett who coincidentally project managed the modernisation at SABP which cut the disabled workers £3 a day payments.

I am troubled by the emphasis you and Helen Lockett place on the unpaid labour of disabled ‘volunteers’ in these projects. The government also describes these ‘volunteering’ positions as exploitative in the report below:



From 'You can work it out. Best practice in employment for people with a learning difficulty' :

As services seek to help people find more meaningful activities than sitting around in day centres, employment is acknowledged as playing a crucial role in people’s lives. But success in getting people in to paid work remains woefully inadequate. Instead, services have created a world based on work for which few people get paid. There is a growing variety of training, social enterprises, work-related projects, work experience and volunteering schemes. There are people who to all intents and purposes are working, but who receive little or no payment.

This is illegal unless there is genuinely no obligation to attend and no obligation to do anything.

There are people who are described as volunteering- this conveniently gets around the issue of employment contracts and payments. These situations are exploitative.’

This guide can be found at:
www.valuingpeople.gov.uk/EmploymentGuides.htm

I am therefore very concerned that the disabled workers at the Old Moat Garden Centre will go from one bad situation of being exploited as very cheap labour by SABP to another with MCCH Ltd where they will be classed as ‘volunteers’ rather than workers entitled to at least the minimum wage and their exploitation will continue. Could you please reassure us at the campaign that you are not planning on using the disabled workers as unpaid labour and give us a full explanation of what your plans are to protect their best interests, make sure they are treated equally and not discriminated against because they are disabled.

I would also like to ask if you are planning on keeping the garden centre as a commercial business and expanding on the services it currently offers such as in internet and mail order sales and in increased opening hours? I ask this because although it is said that the garden centre is currently a commercial business it is not being run in a way to maximise the potential opportunities available for the disabled workers. This is important given recent reports that disabled workers all over the country are illegally not being paid at least the minimum wage they are entitled to and good opportunities are very limited. I would also like to ask if any purely therapeutic element of activity will remain at the centre given concerns by some campaigners that more vulnerable people might otherwise be excluded?

Finally I would like to say that we hope our campaigns communications with your organisation will be productive and all responses we receive or do not receive will be reported on our campaign blog.

Yours Sincerely

Jill Goble

Help us get Justice at:

http://justice4sabtworkers.blogspot.com/