Care workers applaud Andy Burnham's words, but how much has really changed?
At this week's Labour Party Conference and in the days leading up to it, those of us who follow adult social care closely are likely to have felt bowled over once again to hear words of such passion from the Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, about the need for fundamental change in social care. We have been waiting for social care to rise to the top of the political agenda for such a long time. For none other than the Prime Minister to centre social care as a priority issue - and so emphatically - is music to our ears.
But words are not the same as action. Even if our whole orientation of what good care and support looks like and how money is spent were transformed, the demographic pressures of an ageing society alone warrant a serious reckoning around how adult social care is funded. It is essential to engage public opinion on this burning question. That is precisely what the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care (the Casey Commission) is already doing.
The Prime Minister stood shoulder to shoulder with Baroness Louise Casey to launch its 'Big Conversation' back in July, which has since attracted hundreds of thousands of responses, where he also announced that the Commission would present its final recommendations in 2027 - a year earlier than originally planned. Yet this week The Prime Minister announced he would hold off on reforming how social care is funded until after the next General Election - a full three years away in 2029 - and rely on the electorate voting his party back into office before change gets underway. Is this not precisely the kind of delay many in the sector predicted when the new Labour government originally announced the Casey Commission?
In his Conference speech, The Prime Minister's committed to introducing a National Care Service. Next year, the first cycle of a brand new Fair Pay Agreement for Adult Social Care begins. Meanwhile, Yvette Cooper announced a national collective pension scheme for care workers. All three depend on sufficient government funding for social care. Yet a change in the funding model is now at least three years away, dependent on the outcome of an uncertain election.
If the Labour Party does not win the next General Election, what then for Andy Burnham's mission to reform social care? What then for people who rely on social care, unpaid carers and care workers? But more to the point: what now? For the foreseeable future, very little has changed. As one member of our network put it:
(For homecare workers) "This is of course about pay, but it's also about availability policies, non-payment of working time, low mileage rates, lack of transparency in payslips and holiday pay, lack of rest periods between working days and lack of support from the organisations that should support us. None of this needs a General Election. A lot of it is current employment law, or set to come in under the Employment Rights Act. Shift-based pay in homecare would solve so many issues straight away, improving recruitment and retention."
Former homecare worker and member of Homecare Voices
A cartoon by Ben Jennings for The Guardian - re-produced here with written permission - captured beautifully the feelings expressed by people in our network this week:
There were no major announcements for our migrant colleagues, either. In her address to Conference, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood hinted that the government may consider scrapping plans for migrant care workers to have to work in the UK for fifteen years instead of five before being eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). But hinting is not the same as confirming, despite the scores of migrant care workers engaged in an incredibly emotive protest outside (excellently organised by Unison) which depicted their being chained to an employer.
Earlier this year, our Behind Closed Doors report explored a range of the issues based on a survey of over 500 homecare workers.
We continue to push for the introduction of shift-based pay in homecare having found that 72% of the homecare workers we asked are paid for contact-time only, whilst their legally payable travel and waiting time goes unpaid. We also found that only 37% of respondents were paid for all of their training time, and only 29% were paid the full approved rate for mileage. This exposes homecare workers to a high risk of National Minimum Wage underpayment, no matter how high the hourly rate stated on their contract. The Homecare Association - representing employers - also wrote clearly about this issue in a recent report:
"Many homecare employers pay a headline rate for client contact time only because councils and ICBs (Integrated Care Boards) pay them for client contact time only. A careworkerās day, however, also includes travelling between visits, waiting between calls, training and other duties, all of which count as working time for the National Minimum Wage. When total pay is spread across all this working time, the effective hourly rate can fall below the minimum wage, even though the headline contact rate appears to sit comfortably above it."
For homecare workers to be paid their contracted rate and not a penny less, shift-based pay is essential. This is a basic foundation ahead of next year's Fair Pay Agreement.
So, we push on. Next week, thirty members of Homecare Voices are contributing to a project led by the Department of Health & Social Care about how homecare is commissioned by local authorities. Trade unions have been invited to be involved, too. But we can't do this on our own. Show your support for Homecare Voices' work by raising your hand on our homepage. We'll keep you in the loop.
Comments