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.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Surrey & Borders Refuses to disclose how Many service Users it Employs

Des Curley
Yesterday I received the following delayed and totally evasive response to my Freedom of Information requestof September 18th 2006 which I also put in person to Surrey and Borders Chief Executive Fiona Edwards and Trust Board at the pre-AGM Board Meeting the following day.

I asked how many service users the Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust employed in manual jobs at the national minimum wage.

Ms Edwards, who dodged answering the question at the time although she was clearly aware of the figure , and the Trust Board were clearly aware that I was not limiting this question to the Trust's work services but trying to establish what the Trust's track record was as an employer of its own service users as we already obviously knew the Trust expected those involved in its exploitative work services to work for nothing as this is the reason why this blog exists.

The Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust is desperately trying to conceal the fact that it is guilty of employment discrimination and prefers to have people with mental health and learning difficulties do odd jobs around the Trust like filling envelopes for nothing rather than pay them the national minimum wage and employ them under the same terms and conditions of employment as non-disabled employees.

This campaign has managed to help restore the pathetic £3 a day payments that Fiona Edwards on a salary of around £120,000 deemed it necessary to deprive from the 150 or so disabled workers using her Trust's work services but we need to move on from there to get any disabled person working for the Trust or its work services externalised to or still being greedilly eyed over by MCCH Ltd and the Richmond Fellowship paid at the national minimum wage level or above.

We should not view helping to get the exploited disabled workers their £3 a day back as a victory as it is totally disgusting that they were expected to work for so little in the first place .

There is no excuse for Surrey and Borders ,the above charities or anyone else to force disabled people to work for nothing or £3 a day while triggering massive payments for themselves for doing this.

Take a look at the people in the pictures scrolling by above, these largely elderly professionals grew up in a society where it was commonplace to simply pity and infantalise people with disabilities while viewing working on their behalf as somehow virtuous in its own right.i.e.These people are good people because they work with people with disabilities.

In fact they are exploiting and living off the very people they claim to ' care ' for since their disability employment schemes are an unwaged ghetto walled in by barriers to mainstream employment that these people and their organisations have erected to ensure that they not their service users generate an income.

Barriers like the Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust not bothering to employ its own service users , barriers like MCCH Ltd and the Richmond Fellowship basing work on imposed volunterism to fund and perpetuate themselves and create impressions of success that simply do not bear up to scrutiny .

The huge growth in the disability employment industry with its prevailing model of workers engaging in work preparation , work placements , work opportunities and other jargonistc variants of unpaid work is exploitative and that growth has only occured because there is a ready political supply of funding unattached to any meaningful requirement to audit these schemes for effectiveness rather than any real demand for these fraudulent exploitative schemes from service users.

Disabled people who are able and want to work should be able to do so without being exploited and abused by these self-serving parasitical organisations, they should have access to professional recruitment and employment agencies and real paid employment training and work.

This is not available instead we see millions of pounds being wasted on the useless disability employment sector as organisations like MCCH Ltd , the Richmond Fellowship and the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health fall over each other to shunt service users , whether they are able to or want work or not, into useless unpaid disability work schemes to pay themselves nice salaries or, in SCMH's case, to make fraudulent claims about being academic disability employment experts.

Its funny how Helen Lockett and Dr Bob Groves, who both made sure thay took a cut out of the Surrey and Borders externalisation project, never commented on the barriers to employment and employee discrimination the Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust clearly maintians in place and continues to try to conceal.

These people are simply targetting service users with their useless unpaid disability work schemes - which also route funding away from non-work related provision - because it funds their status, careers and lifestyles rather than provides disabled people who are able and want to work in real jobs at the national minmum wage or above the law says they are entitled to.

Here's the response from Surrey & Borders totally avoiding the question of how many service users it pays the minimum wage or above to for doing ordinary manual work these exploitative disability employment schemes make them do for nothing.
.



from Jo Young

Wilhelmina Cox ,
Angie Ellis ,
Vicky Wattridge
date Nov 10, 2006 4:59 PM
subject FOIA request ~ Work Service's Review

Dear Desmond

As the Director now responsible for leading on the 'Payments Project' I am contacting you regarding your question raised at our Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust Board on 28th September 2006. Your question was with regards the numbers of people who use the services currently being paid the minimum wage or above for manual work and this was specifically related to the work services.


I can tell you that as of the 28th September 2006 we wrote to 159 people who attended Netherne Print, Assembly Matters, Art and Crafts Matters, Old Moat Garden Centre and Queens Park

Garden Centre. All of these people were previously receiving "therapeutic payments" for their attendance. All of these people have had these payments re-instated.

None of these individuals are employed by Surrey and Boarders Partnership NHS Trust



Please contact me if you require anything further.


Jo Young

Director (PLD), SABP, Ridgewood Centre, Old Bisley Road, Frimley, Surrey. GU16 9QE

T: 01276 605555 M: 07770 876028

jo.young@sabp.nhs.uk



..but wait there's more, a legalstic disclaimer that could have been written by the Monty Python team. These people would have made great Nazi's as they are paying lawyers to draft this shit to intimidate their own service users.

Is this the modern face of professional care ?


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender and delete it immediately.

Any information, statements or opinions contained in this message (including any attachments) are given by the author. They are not given on behalf of the Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust unless subsequently confirmed by an individual, other than the author, who is authorised to represent Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust.

4 Comments:

At 7:51 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've had the same thing from Jo Young avoiding answering my questions and making out everything is hunky dory with the Richmond Fellowship contract that provides no real new opportunities to service users. Nothing about the accounts for the Old Moat garden centre and no answer to how many service users are being employed by SABPT. It sounds like a deliberate avoidance of the facts. Here is her mail to me:
JY/ame
10th November 2006



Ms. Jill Goble.
jill@goblej.freeserve.co.uk



Dear Jill,

I am pleased that you would be willing to meet to discuss your outstanding issues and concerns with me and will attempt to provide you with the responses you are requesting under the Freedom of Information Act.

For ease of reference I have summarised your questions in the order set out in your email of 07th November:

1. Question at the Board in September about the numbers of people who use services employed by Surrey and Borders NHS Partnership Trust?

I hope I am interpreting this question correctly. At the Board it was asked how many people were using the work services and were affected by the discontinuation of ‘payments’.

I can tell you that as of the 28th September 2006 we wrote to 159 people who attended Netherne Print, Assembly Matters, Art and Crafts Matters, Old Moat Garden Centre and Queens Park Garden Centre. All of these people were previously receiving “therapeutic payments” for their attendance. All of these people have had these payments re-instated.

None of these individuals are employed by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust.

2. Contract for Priority Enterprise with Richmond Fellowship and your discussions with the Surrey Primary Care Trust.

I note your comments and assume you are waiting for information from the Primary Care Trust in this regard. I would however like to reassure you that the Richmond Fellowship have a wealth of experience in providing employment advice, training, work experience and support into employment for people who use services. I expect therefore that their expertise will bring new opportunities for people with disabilities to attain real work, paid at minimum wage at least - so you should not give up hope.

3. Information with regards the Old Moat Garden Centre sales figures and running costs?

The assignment I have been asked to lead following the Trust Board decision on 28th September – the ‘Payments Project’ (as I am now calling it) will be working towards ensuring the Trust’s treatment of people who use the work and day services is compliant with benefits regulations, national minimum wage act and employment law.

The Payments Project will require the Trust to review the activity being undertaken in our work and day services and the £3 payments being made, as they are not compliant with these regulations and laws.

I will therefore be taking a further paper to Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust Board in due course setting out the project proposal. This project plan will be available to share with you once I have Trust Board support to proceed and will include seeking answers to the questions relating to the income sources of the Old Moat Garden Centre. I do not have this information available at present and the sensitive nature of this commercial information may need to be preserved and not disclosed. I am seeking further advice in this regard.

The ‘Payments Project’ does not change the decision already made by the commissioners of services to transfer work services to independent and voluntary sector providers over the coming months and years.

4. Separate FOIA requests?

I am responding directly to other requests for information and apologise for the delays there has been in providing these responses.

I hope this provides you with some of the information you are seeking. I will ask Vicky Wattridge, Personal Assistant, to arrange for us to meet. I would appreciate if you could indicate in advance the days and times that are best for you and your colleague campaigns so that she is able to review my diary and find a convenient time for us all.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,





Jo Young
Director of Services for People with Learning Disabilities

c.c. Wilhelmina Cox, PA to Fiona Edwards, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust

 
At 10:08 pm, Blogger simply human said...

Jill,

Do you want Jo's response and your comments about it blogged rather than left as comment?

It seems to me that SABP forgot about these FOIA requests , you reminded them and they were hastilly answered in most evasive way and attributed to Jo Young. .

Fiona Edwards struck me as pretty absentminded at the September Board meeting when she kept forgetting peoples names.

All our FOIA questions could have been addressed and answered very quickly , simply and factually around the time of the Board meeting, a move that would have allowed the Trust to clear the decks and take any flack due in one go while at least getting some credit for reinstatating the payments and agreeing to base whatever happened next on proper assessment of individual service users circumstances and needs and more widely consulting on what it was going to do with the Old Moat Garden Centre

Instead, the FOIA requests were ignored , hastilly answered well outside the required time period and totally evasive.

Is Jo Young the new Kinsey?

 
At 10:40 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You may as well leave Jo Youngs mail as a comment since it doesn't tell us anything new. To be honest I feel she may be being used as a scapegoat as we have only been directed to communicate with her recently and she wasn't even in the picture when we first asked these questions. I also notice that Christine carter who took over from Peter Kinsey has been conspicuous by her complete silence. Wonder why that is the case? I am mainly concerned with getting the accounts for the Old Moat before the MCCH Ltd report becomes available in December. I will write back next week and repeat that the outstanding questions still need answering and see if that gets any results. It is so annoying when they are so obstructive isn't it...

 
At 11:10 pm, Blogger simply human said...

It is annoying when SABP is obstructive but its also revealing. The trust website also appears to be down again.

Can you access it Jill? I havent been able to for a couple of days .

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

toolbar powered by Conduit