This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/the-guardian-view-on-social-care-funding-cant-pay-must-pay
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on social care funding: can’t pay, must pay | The Guardian view on social care funding: can’t pay, must pay |
| (13 days later) | |
| Who cares for the carers? The unexpected answer is the taxman. It is HMRC that enforces the minimum wage. Earlier this year, in a case brought by Unison, an employment tribunal ruled that carers who stay overnight so that they are there if their client needs help should be paid at the minimum wage. This is well-deserved good news for carers, who often do very demanding and skilled work with elderly people and those with learning disabilities for little more than £7 an hour. It is very bad news for providers – some private, some charitable like Mencap, one of the largest – who are not funded by local councils to pay the full rate overnight. It is bad news for the councils themselves who already juggle strained resources to meet their existing obligations. And it could be very bad news indeed for the cared-for, whose complex care packages may come apart, and who could even lose their independence altogether. | Who cares for the carers? The unexpected answer is the taxman. It is HMRC that enforces the minimum wage. Earlier this year, in a case brought by Unison, an employment tribunal ruled that carers who stay overnight so that they are there if their client needs help should be paid at the minimum wage. This is well-deserved good news for carers, who often do very demanding and skilled work with elderly people and those with learning disabilities for little more than £7 an hour. It is very bad news for providers – some private, some charitable like Mencap, one of the largest – who are not funded by local councils to pay the full rate overnight. It is bad news for the councils themselves who already juggle strained resources to meet their existing obligations. And it could be very bad news indeed for the cared-for, whose complex care packages may come apart, and who could even lose their independence altogether. |
| The background is simple: until now, a special dispensation has meant overnight carers have been paid less than half the minimum wage. Most usually sleep through the night. Nonetheless, they aren’t at home and they are on call at any time and for any length of time. It seems entirely right that HMRC is now demanding that employers cough up the maximum of six years’ back pay. Under pressure, ministers delayed the effect of the ruling until the beginning of October, but there is real fear in the care sector that cash-starved local authorities won’t be able to pay the £400m bill. Some private sector providers are already struggling with contracts that have been pared to the bone, and councils are nervously anticipating that some will be handed back as unviable. Some may even go bankrupt, in a nightmare re-enactment of Southern Cross’s collapse, which left thousands of elderly people fearing that they would have to be found new places. Councils will try to find other providers; but carers would still – rightly – be entitled to back pay. | The background is simple: until now, a special dispensation has meant overnight carers have been paid less than half the minimum wage. Most usually sleep through the night. Nonetheless, they aren’t at home and they are on call at any time and for any length of time. It seems entirely right that HMRC is now demanding that employers cough up the maximum of six years’ back pay. Under pressure, ministers delayed the effect of the ruling until the beginning of October, but there is real fear in the care sector that cash-starved local authorities won’t be able to pay the £400m bill. Some private sector providers are already struggling with contracts that have been pared to the bone, and councils are nervously anticipating that some will be handed back as unviable. Some may even go bankrupt, in a nightmare re-enactment of Southern Cross’s collapse, which left thousands of elderly people fearing that they would have to be found new places. Councils will try to find other providers; but carers would still – rightly – be entitled to back pay. |
| Innovative and humane improvements in care for the 178,000 people who have learning disabilities should be protected with pride by councils and central government. It is little more than a generation since the bleak Victorian asylums were finally torn down. Now it is possible for almost everyone who would like to live independently to do so, although there are still more than 3,000 people in assessment centres, many waiting to find a permanent place to live. Another 1,000 are supported by their families, themselves often living on low incomes. They too would be liable for back pay for the carers they rely on overnight. | Innovative and humane improvements in care for the 178,000 people who have learning disabilities should be protected with pride by councils and central government. It is little more than a generation since the bleak Victorian asylums were finally torn down. Now it is possible for almost everyone who would like to live independently to do so, although there are still more than 3,000 people in assessment centres, many waiting to find a permanent place to live. Another 1,000 are supported by their families, themselves often living on low incomes. They too would be liable for back pay for the carers they rely on overnight. |
| The truth is that the ferocious seven-year squeeze on the cost of social care is simply unsustainable. It is an absolute given in a rich economy and a compassionate society that care workers must be properly paid, and the cared-for decently looked after. Yet with shameful dishonesty and a total absence of leadership – and egged on by an equally irresponsible and partisan media (recall the way that ideas for funding social care are branded a “death tax” or a “dementia tax”) – this great issue of our time is suppressed by conspiracy, a collective refusal to look squarely at the challenge and address fairly the question of how to fund it. Yet another green paper is in preparation. This time, all parties must work together and build a consensus that will at last deliver the clarity required, and the money it takes. | The truth is that the ferocious seven-year squeeze on the cost of social care is simply unsustainable. It is an absolute given in a rich economy and a compassionate society that care workers must be properly paid, and the cared-for decently looked after. Yet with shameful dishonesty and a total absence of leadership – and egged on by an equally irresponsible and partisan media (recall the way that ideas for funding social care are branded a “death tax” or a “dementia tax”) – this great issue of our time is suppressed by conspiracy, a collective refusal to look squarely at the challenge and address fairly the question of how to fund it. Yet another green paper is in preparation. This time, all parties must work together and build a consensus that will at last deliver the clarity required, and the money it takes. |
| Care workers | Care workers |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Minimum wage | Minimum wage |
| Social care | Social care |
| Older people | Older people |
| editorials | editorials |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |