Long Overdue Response to Jill Goble from Surrey PCT

Dear Ms Goble

Please find attached letter from Diane Woods in response to your email of 25th January. ( asking what had happened to FOIA request made in October 2006 - Ed ) Also attached are the RFET Contract, the Public Consultation document and Outcome document.

Regards

Dianne Pullin

PA to Diane Woods, Director of Commissioning for Surrey Mental Health and Learning Disability Surrey PCT, East Surrey locality St John's Court, 51 St John's Road, Redhill, Surrey RH1 6DS DD : 01737 214848 Switchboard : 01737 780209

Dear Ms Goble

RE: Freedom of Information Act Request

I am responding following your e-mail of the 25th January where you are concerned that you have not received a response to your FOI request in October. There has obviously been some confusion as I forwarded by post to your address in Brighton the RFET contract and the Public Consultation and Outcome document that was done regarding all of these services that address the majority of the questions. I reattach these for your information and have broken down your questions and answered them below.

With regards to your request for the MCCH viability report on the Old Moat. There has been further information that needed to be sought in order for this report to be completed. The Commissioning Group met and received a draft report from MCCH this week and this will be available in 1-2 weeks following the inclusion of comments received from this meeting. I will forward this to you at that point.

The answers to the further questions you have raised are:

1. What Opportunities Will There Be for Further Consultation?

Public consultation took place last year. Local targeted consultation will take place with the service and the current service users on the outcome of the viability report and the recommendation for the Old Moat put forward from the Commissioning Group.

2. Will It Be Possible to Make Representation Concerning Alternative Options for Old Moat, &, Will the Option to Keep the Old Moat as an NHS service and managed and run by service users be considered?

This work has had, and remains to have local service user, staff, current provider and health and social care commissioning representation throughout the work. The option to keep the Old Moat as an NHS service and to be managed and run by service users has been considered. Options that have been considered for the services are: Social Enterprise, Social Firm, Closure, Remain with Surrey and Borders Partnership, transfer to Voluntary Sector. The viability report shows that the deficit that the service currently works with and is projected for the next 3 years is too high a risk for the service to take off as a social enterprise or firm status and so is not a viable option. It was agreed at the beginning of the work that with the externalisation of the services that Surrey and Borders Partnership would no longer have the expertise and appropriate infrastructure to support these services in the manner that they require to modernise and develop and so remaining with them in the medium to long term is not a viable option. This leaves 2 options; closure or transfer to voluntary sector. Throughout this work it has been an aim to avoid closure for services that were reviewed in line with national guidelines as appropriate to develop. The Old Moat is in line with this guidance and so we would not, where possible, wish to move to closure. This leaves the transfer to voluntary sector as the preferred option. However the service has been running with a deficit and more work was required to source further funding support and opportunities to reduce this gap and demonstrate viability. This is what has been taking place through 2006. There has been identification of new sources for funding and the PCT are able to put in a level of extra funding for a period of three years. The new sources of funding have not been totally secured as yet and so final financial calculations will take place as soon as this has been completed. If this shows to be successful and the consultation with the service and it’s service users approve the recommendation then the preferred option of transfer to the voluntary sector will be taken forward.

3. What Group of Staff Will Be Responsible For Awarding the Contract

Surrey PCT Mental Health Commissioning will be the organisation and staff responsible for awarding the contract.

4. Are the WSOG Reports Made Public

These are minutes of the meeting not reports and do not get posted onto a public website

5. How is the Contract with RFET going To Be Monitored

There are regular monitoring meetings against the service specifications and outcomes. The frequency of these, the terms and manner in which they occur, and what is monitored is described within the contract that is attached. This is the template contract that the PCT use for all of the supported employment, social firm and community connections contracts in eastern Surrey.

6. Funding Concern for RFET

RFET funding for other services outside of Surrey are not connected to Surrey PCT funding. Surrey PCT funding is governed by the specific contract between Surrey PCT and RFET as attached.

7. Surrey County Council

In Surrey there has been aligned commissioning between health and social care in mental health. This means that we work to joint aims and approach strategic work and service development together. The work and day service review was jointly commissioned and the organisations are still pursuing a Section 31 for the commissioning budgets for these services.



Yours sincerely



Diane Woods

Director of Commissioning

Mental Health and Learning Disability

Email : dianne.pullin@surreypct.nhs.uk