Skip to main content

Norfolk LINks setting up costs

Norfolk County Council have given the information I requested. This is the text of their letter:

Dear Mr.Cox

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST

I refer to your request for information dated 28 June 2008.

In accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I have now processed your request for a breakdown of the £10,000 given by central government for the preparation of the implementation of LiNks and the response is as follows:

£6,175 was spent on two large public consultation events in January and February 2008.

• Event 1 -

£2382.50 - venue and refreshments
£235.00 - PA system
£323.12 - hearing loop
£58.75 - screen
£29.38 - lecturn

• Event 2 -

£2500.00 - venue and refreshments
£235.00 - PA system
£323.12 - hearing loop
£58.75 - screen
£29.38 - lecturn

£5000 was spent on support provided from the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation in the procurement process, at the events, in drafting documents including the interim contract.

All the above totals £11,175 and the balance of £1,175 (after taking out the £10,000 contribution from central government) was funded by Norfolk County Council.

Should you have any queries regarding the information provided, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Karen Witham

Departmental Freedom of Information Officer

Let me put some flesh on this:

Both venues were at a large posh hotel and golf club on the outskirts of Norwich - 25 miles away for me; more than that for other disabled people. I know of large facilities in villages, towns and the city of Norwich holding the same number of people and costing a fraction of that. Disregard for the needs of disabled people? Disregard for the needs of local rural communities?

The Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation is the body challenged in my pplog entry of 20.02.08. That challenge was countered by the entries on pplog of 27.02.08 and 06.02.08. As a direct witness, I remain unconvinced by those counters. Was the involvement of this large and costly fringe-commercial consortium really necessary or appropriate?

No mention is made in the above details of David Hayman’s costs, the lead person for LINks for Norfolk County Council. Yet Mr Hayman entitles himself “Principal Consultant.” So is he a part of ESPO? If he is, is there vested interests at play here? There is no mention of his salary in the above details.

Comments

PatientGuard said…
I think I would looking for a breakdown of numbers who attended and who they were in terms of group identity etc . Normally an attendance sheet is signed and lists peoples interests ..

This is however a whole area where bullshit can be played out by a Council without much end achieved apart from doubts being raised over them ..
12 July 2008 at 19:46
Made by Mandy said…
Hi Mike

Would be interested to see the end result of this 'consultation'.

Cos usually consultations are a facade. Expensive ones at that.
14 July 2008 at 09:38
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...
Post a Comment
Read more

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...
2 comments
Read more

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.
Post a Comment
Read more