Unanswered Letter
Dear Ms Edwards
Old Moat Garden Centre
I wrote to you 18.09.06 and you were kind enough to respond.
Perhaps you are now in a position to advise if and how my submissions ( see below) are being taken into account and I would appreciate such information. Thank you.
Walter Dean (prof)
Dear Ms Edwards
Old Moat Garden Centre
I’m concerned by plans to transfer ownership of the Old Moat Garden Centre site to Richmond Fellowship ( read MCCH Society Ltd ) perhaps not in the best interests of taxpayers or employees. Asset stripping may appear immediately attractive but in the longer term is usually counter-productive.
Do you not agree it is in the public interest to suspend current plans for disposal of the Garden Centre until other options have been examined especially but not only the possibility of business development as described in my attached submission?
Yours sincerely
Walter Dean (prof.)
BSc, MIIE, MBA, BIM, FRSA
Hon. Lect., European Ctre. for Prof. Ethics
Retired Professor of Business Studies
Warwick (University) Business School
----------------------------
Old Moat Garden Centre
Business Opportunity Discussion Paper
Briefly reviewing the situation of this enterprise it appears there is a good case for consideration of business development
A. The land is a significant borrowing asset and there may be considerable
untapped local product demand including supermarket and other distribution outlets which could be proved by survey
B. It seems that promising promotion/distribution possibilities such as Direct Marketing; Internet; Home Deliveries, targeted A&P etc., etc. have not been considered
C. Understanding of these issues together with review of opening hours, customer-oriented staffing levels and training may well demonstrate a significant business opportunity offering income and retaining assets within the public domain
D. Hence I suggest Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust employ local professional business expertise to produce a Business Opportunity Development Plan for public consultation and Council review before final decisions are made
Walter Dean (prof.) 18th September 2006
BSc, MIIE, MBA, BIM, FRSA
Hon. Lect., European Ctre. for Prof. Ethics
posted by simply human @ 5:22 pm
Listen to this article
11 comments
Dot This
11 Comments:
I agree that S&B needs to think again about disposing of the Moat Gardens but am dubious about the notion of using yet more "experts" and "consultants" to decide....what?
I think the question that needs to be answered is what this NHS Trust is claiming it is providing people with learning disabilities and mental illness. By that I mean ALL the patients under its care across the county.
Rosemary in Surrey
Dixie wrote this before we knew that the deal with Richmond Fellowship and MCCH Ltd was going ahead and it was an attempt to get them to look at alternatives for the garden centre that would promote the opportunities available to the disabled workers. In his submission the use of consultants in this case is to project the potential profitablility of the garden centre and to see it as a valuable asset that should not be disposed of lightly. As SABP and others like the County Council and Primary Care Trust involved don't seem to do anything without consulting some consultants I don't think recommending a different brand of consultants to the SCMH Helen Locket's 'make disabled people work for free'one she has project managed is that bad. They could recommend how the garden centre could be run as a thriving and sucessful business which would create many more concrete opportunities for the disabled service users. Creating more opportunities for disabled service users is something the current plans completely ignore.
On the wide subjectt of what the NHS Trust is claiming it is providing all patients under it's care across the country I have no idea! It is hard enough getting them to answer small specific questions let alons a summary of their overall aims and goals but I wish you luck if you try to get them to answer!
I have also not given up trying to get some answers, despite our history of being denied any straight talking, so here is my latest reply to Fiona Edwards which I have ccd to practically everyone! I live in hope someone will answer...
Dear Ms Fiona Edwards , colleagues and MCCH Ltd staff,
Thank you for your mail below. I am afraid your reply does not clarify my outstanding requests.
The Building on the Best document which you attached does not specify any details or terms of
the contracts that have been awarded to the Richmond Fellowship and ,in the case of the Old
Moat garden centre , MCCH Ltd. My Freedom of Information Act questions concern all the
details of these contracts. I wish to see the whole contracts that have been made, all the terms
and conditions, the financial details and everything else they contain.
I would also like to know who will be paying the Richmond Fellowship and MCCH Ltd to place
service users in the projects and how much will this cost per service user?
I also asked for the accounts of the Priority Enterprises and Peter Kinsey, before he left, failed
to provide answers about the running costs and sales figures of each of the projects. If he had
provided me with the accounts as I asked in my original FOIA questions that I sent in months ago
these questions would now have clear answers.
My questions may seem a tiresome inconvenience to you but I am trying to compare the costs of
the new proposed services with alternative models that have been suggested to you like
expanding the Old Moat garden centre’ s commercial activities and thus increasing the
employment opportunities for the disabled workers. I am afraid that the need to create more
employment opportunities that are paid at least the minimum wage or above for the disabled
workers is being overlooked by the Richmond Fellowship and MCCH Ltd who prefer to use the
disabled workers as volunteer labour and make them work for free.. Indeed at one public meeting
Peter Kinsey was reported as saying that one of the reasons for cutting the £3 a day payments to
the workers is that the Richmond Fellowship as a Trust are not allowed to pay wages. Is this
true? If so how can a contract with them be in any way seen as in the best interests of service
users? MCCH Ltd also use a lot of disabled workers as volunteers as is reported in their
document ’Paying a Real Wage in Work Projects’ which just happens to have been edited by
Helen Lockett who project managed this ‘modernisation’ for you. Helen Lockett seems to
have forgotten any need to provide more employment opportunities for service users even though
unemployment among the disabled is now seen as a huge problem and the need to create more
job opportunities for service users should have been given a very high priority but it has been
ignored. The only new jobs that seem to have been created are in a host of non disabled
managers and advisors and supervisors. The two managers that I have been in contact with
from MCCH Ltd have not yet answered any of my questions concerning their plans for the garden
centre disabled workers and they have not denied they will be using them as unpaid volunteer
labour. They have not even answered my question about what date they expect to take over and
this has also been omitted from my FOIA answers you have sent below. So please could you
give me definite dates when the transfers are expected to take place?
Although you say that the transfer is a done deal and will go ahead, in the light of these
doubts and unanswered questions and the way the rest of the modernisation, in cutting the £3 a
day payments, has been discredited, surely there are means at your disposal for having the
transfers delayed and the way forward reassessed with alternative proposals considered?
Helen Lockett’s involvement with MCCH Ltd as editor of their report ‘Paying a Real Wage in Work
Projects’ and then their being awarded the contract for the Old Moat garden centre even though
they only came second in the tender process is rather dubious as well. It may be cosy doing
business with her friends but that does not mean her ‘modernisation’ is in the best interests of or
promotes the rights and equality of your disabled service users.
Please can you tell me if this matter can be looked at again and the transfers postponed pending
further investigation? I understand the contracts are with the County Council but surely they can
be persuaded to delay matters when there are such doubts about the proposed changes?
On the subject of the minimum wage investigation I have reported this again and have been
assured that all complaints are investigated and that such an investigation could be taking place
even though the Trust may not be aware of one. However as a third party I am not allowed to
know any details of the investigations which is why I asked you for details as an FOIA question in
the first place.
I would also like to see a copy of the letter of apology you said you would send to the disabled
workers stating that they will get their £3 a day back and would like to know if the repayment of
their money has happened yet? If not on what date is this expected to happen?
Given the time factor involved I hope I can receive a quick response from you and /or other staff
at SABP on these matters and all responses or lack of responses will be reported on our
campaign site at http://justice4sabtworkers.blogspot.com/
Yours Sincerely
Jill Goble
> Message Received: Oct 09 2006, 05:05 PM
> From: "Fiona Edwards"
> To: jill goble Cc: des.curley, "Christine Carter" , "Liz Nicholson" , "Stanley Riseborough" , "Patrick McCullagh"
> Subject: RE: http://justice4sabtworkers.blogspot.com/
>
>
Dear Mrs Gobles
You have asked for information on the following questions:
1. Details of an investigation on national minimum wage legislation at the Old Moat Garden Centre. The Trust is not aware of any investigation being conducted on the national minimum wage, either at the Old Moat Garden Centre or elsewhere. I apologise that the Trust did not respond to this request earlier, but we have been checking that such an investigation is not underway.
2. Details concerning the transfer to alternative providers are covered in the consultation document attached.
Further, you have requested information on the following:
3. The request to transfer work services to an alternative provider has been made by the commissioners of the service, East Surrey PCT and Surrey County Council. As we understand matters, the transfer will continue as requested.
4. Transfer of all services was covered in the consultation document and no further consultation is expected. The decision to cease payments was made by the Trust, whereas the decision to transfer services was made by the commissioners.
I hope this clarifies your outstanding requests.
Yours sincerely
Fiona Edwards
Chief Executive
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust
Thanks for that information, Jill.
Yesterday, I was at a meeting in Woking and heard from Stuart Craig (who was at the S&B Board meeting and AGM on 28 September) that our new Surrey wide Primary Care Trust (PCT) is having its first board meeting at the H G Wells Centre in Woking on 30 October. I have just confirmed that this is so and that the meeting will start at 2pm.
Like the S&B Board meetings, these are open to the public and questions can be raised in the same way.
This new Trust came into being on 1 October and amalgamates five former PCT's in Surrey.
The interim HQ is at Bournewood House, Chertsey, where our North Surrey PCT was based.
The Chair of the new PCT is Douglas Robertson who was the Chair of the North Surrey PCT and the Chair of the Bournewood Community and MH Trust before that.
The Chief Executive of the Surrey PCT is Mr Chris Butler who was the the CE of the Hammersmith and Fulham PCT.
The Moat Garden issues can be raised with the Surrey PCT as this is the funding body for S&B and has a monitoring role.
Rosemary in Surrey
And to add to the message just posted, on re-reading the response to you from S&B CE Fiona Edwards on 9 October, I see that Mrs Edwards says:
"3. The request to transfer work services to an alternative provider has been made by the commissioners of the service, East Surrey PCT and Surrey County Council. As we understand matters, the transfer will continue as requested"
So it seems to me that this is an added reason to take the matter back to the PCT (and Surrey County Council) since this is where the decision to transfer the services actually comes from.
Rosemary in Surrey
Yes the contracts are supposed to be with Surrey County Council and someone is supposed to be ringing back from there about the situation. I couldn't find much on the PCT website and perhaps asking questions at their AGM would get some answers.
There is a report by Helen Lockett written in May which says after the consultation about the Building on the Best document the new services will go ahead and then she writes:
'The implementation and continued operation of these new services will be monitored through the performance framework by the PCT Commissioning Manager and through the Work Services Operational Group (WSOG) which reports to the Local Implementation Team.
That sounds like the new services are being monitored but when I search for any of the above, either PCT Commissioning Manager or Work Services Operational Group (WSOG) or Local Operational Team I get no search findings on the webites for SABP or Surrey County Council or the PCT. I don't suppose you have heard of this Work Services Operational Group (WSOG) have you Rosemary? Or anyone? I'd like to get some names of people who are in these implementation and monitoring groups so we know who is dealing with what and can email them for further information on the monitoring of the new services.
You're doing very well in chasing these things down to their source, Jill.
I haven't got a clue about WSOG but will probably be made up of some familiar names.
I've thought for some time that the S&B Trust is a redundant body. In fact MH Trusts as such are. What are they actually doing?
That is really the point of what I was saying in the first message I posted on this set of comments following on from Dixie dean's letter to the Trust.
The Trust doesn't want to provide anything it seems and is apparently just engaged in farming various services out to what they like to call external providers or partners.
No, you won't find too much on the Surrey PCT website yet. I couldn't find the information about the Board meeting on 30 October, so phoned one of the numbers on the site and a helpful person from one of the former Trusts (they are continuing to act separately for an interim period) confirmed the information and explained they are having some trouble with the website. She thought the information was on the website but on checking couldn't find it. So it should be there at some point.
Rosemary in Surrey
Just heard from the contracts officer at Surrey County Council that they are currently not agreeing to take over the contracts for the Old Moat Garden Centre and other Priority Enterprises even though the PCT wants them to do this. I have now got a contact person at Surrey PCT who may be able to help clarify what is going on when I can get to speak to her. Watch this space...
Well, it now looks as though Fiona Edwards, the S&B CE, either doesn't know what is going on or has been lying by omission.
I've just been reading my post received today that includes the Notes from the East & Mid Area Group meeting on 2 October (which was the day before the PPIF meeting in Redhill - 3 October - and three days before our North West Area Group meeting in the afternoon and my AllSorts meeting that evening - 5 October).
We have still not got the Notes from the main FoCUS meeting (with 6 reps from each of the 3 Areas) that was held on 19 September with the CE, Chair and Directors, and discussed the payments issue which was decided at the S&B Board meeting on 28 September on the basis of Fiona Edwards' report to the Board. Nor do we have the Notes from the North Surrey Area meeting on 5 October, nor from the West Surrey Area meeting on 12 October.
So unless you were one of the six reps, you wouldn't know what was said at the meeting on 19 October, except what has been reported verbally at one of the Area meetings.
The Notes from the Mid & East Surrey Area meeting on 2 October have quite a bit about the Payments and the wording of the information under the title "Therapeutic Earnings" suggests that it had aleady been decided that Moat Gardens was not going to be managed externally, or at least that it was still under discussion and a final decision had not been made:
"Therapeutic Earnings
It is good that the Trust is going to re-instate these earnings and then make a new decision based on individual circumstances and assessment - but the real problem in the East + Mid is that all the work services apart from Old Moat Garden Centre are now being managed by Richmond Fellowship.
***** told us that he works at the Old Moat. He really enjoys his work and is pleased his payments will start again.
Has the Trust made the right decision to allow the Primary Care Trust to contract the works services to Richmond Fellowship? Was there pressure to move the services to Richmond Fellowship who refused to included payments in the contract?
A number of people with learning disabilities or mental health problems need to be in an environment that is supportive, secure and protective.
Carers are finding themselves in the position of having to provide more money to support the people they care for - to make up the shortfall - The earnings may not have been much but paid for things like magazines, drinks, cigarettes, etc. A number of these carers are older now and rely on pensions.
The question for FoCUS is:
Can the Trust make representation to the Primary Care Trust about the contract and their responsibility to service users?"
As you can see, there is someone who attended the Mid & East Area FoCUS meeting on 2 October who works at the Moat Gardens.
Rosemary in Surrey
So from this it looks like the contracts for the Richmond Fellowship and also MCCH Ltd have already gone through and are with the PCT because Surrey County Council have not agreed to take them over even though the PCT wants them to.
So on what date were these contracts signed I wonder? It could have been ages ago and Fiona Edwards and co could have just been stringing us along with promises of the £3 a day back to the disabled workers and apologies and the promised review of every workers situation. But that can't happen if the contracts have already gone to the Richmond Fellowship and MCCH Ltd.
Well a woman is supposed to be ringing me back from the PCT tomorrow about the contract situation so I hope to know more then.
Interesting that an Old Moat worker was at one of the meetings and is pleased to get his £3 a day back. The trouble is the people who cut the money are on big salaries and don't have a clue the difference an extra £15 can make to someone on a low income or to the carers. Unfortunately the security of that worker keeping his £3 a day or getting any better is in big doubt under these new providers.
Yes I think this transfer has been pushed through regardless of objections and I want to know why?
Jill,
The contracts were probably considered a done deal all along, as evidenced by the political involvment of SCMH and the minimum effort put into the consultation process , but if Surrey County Council wont play ball it would be interesting to know why .
Are Surrey County Council a party to the contract?
According to the Building on the Best document, well they have a little question and answer section where they ask:
'How do we know Richmond Fellowship will provide the services?
and then they give this answer:
'The Richmond Fellowship will have a contract with Surrey County Council that says how they need to provide these services. They will be monitored by service users, carers and other stakeholders to ensure quality services are provided which are responsive to individual needs. The contract they have is based on what service users, carers and other stakeholders have said that they want.'
(Yeah right...)
Anyway when I spoke to the contract officer at Surrey County Council she said the PCT want them to take over the contracts but they are currently refusing to do so. I explained about the disabled workers having their £3 a day taken away and that SABP had now backed down on this but that we didn't think the disabled workers would get any kind of good deal under these new providers. I said that it was difficult to get them to be able to keep their £3 a day let alone get the minimum wage and she immediately said they should get the minimum wage same as anyone else and not be treated differently because they are disabled. I said that in the Building on the Best document it says that the contracts would be with Surrey County Council and she said 'Where does it say that?' and 'We have not agreed this.'
She gave me the contact name of the person at the PCT that I hope to speak to today about these contracts.
Surrey County Council have developed a lot of material on their learning difficulties section on the Valuing People scheme which comes from the same government site initiative where I got the quote I keep using about how these work schemes that don't pay wages are exploitative. So why should they sign up for contracts with providers that will undermine the Valuing People work they are already doing?
Post a Comment
<< Home