There are increasing calls for the government to reverse the decision to insist that six years’ worth of back pay for ‘sleep-in’ carers should be paid by providers, costing charities and small operators a possible £400million. The back-pay ruling is the result of two recent tribunals, which have overturned guidelines going back two decades.
The pay is owed to carers who provide ‘live-in’ care to clients with severe learning disabilities. Now, major disability charities have warned the proposal could result in a £400million bill that could bankrupt companies that provide at-home help.
In response, some 178,000 people in the UK who receive live-in support could lose it altogether, with the knock-on effect impacting on other vulnerable clients too, such as those with severe learning disabilities.
Paying carers for their work
However, both the government and unions have said that it is up to providers to ensure their carers receive a fair wage, including during hours when they are required to sleep over at a client’s home and provide on-call cover. Unions have said that providers cannot now ‘plead poverty’ due to ‘poor planning’, and that the revision in the guidelines was well overdue.
The guidelines were originally drawn up some 20 years ago, and specified that carers who provided at-home care should only be paid for the hours they are awake. But two recent employment tribunals have challenged that ruling, and the new guidelines ensure that carers are paid for the whole time they are on-call at a client’s home, whether they are awake or asleep.
HMRC responds
In response, HMRC has issued orders for back pay to many of the 200 organisations providing learning disability care. That could end up costing anything from between £160 to £400million. Labour and other campaigners have asked the government to step in to ensure that charities do not go bankrupt because of the new ruling, and can continue to deliver care to thousands of clients with learning disabilities who rely on round-the-clock care.
The fault, commentators believe, doesn’t lie with the providers, who were merely following the original government guidelines. It is only the intervention of the tribunals that has found the original guidelines to be incorrect. Now, they say, the resulting bill for back pay could lead to a complete collapse of the care sector, particularly since social care is already regarded as being in crisis. They fear that contracts could be cancelled or handed back, and some charities and providers could even go to the wall.
Possible bankruptcy
Philip Connolly, of the charity, Disability Rights UK, has said that around 100,000 people could be forced to meet back-pay claims from their own assets, “…forcing people into bankruptcy, risking their homes, and causing them enormous personal distress.”
However, it is not just the charities that could feel the knock-on effect of the ruling, but severely disabled people and those with learning disabilities too. With qualified care already overstretched and in very short supply, a reduction in the number of providers could result in a huge shortfall in the number of carers available. Smaller providers could face disastrous consequences, and people with severe learning disabilities could be left without the support they so desperately need.
MS Society spokeswoman Genevieve Edwards added: “The government clearly hasn’t thought about the impact of its actions on those who need care – or on those who provide it.
“The social care system has already been pushed to the brink of collapse through underfunding and now HMRC is threatening to push it over the edge. If this happens, disabled people will be the ones who pay the real price, losing out on vital care and support.”
Poor planning by charities
However, UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis emphasised that carers should be paid for the work they’ve done, and that it is and always has been the charities and providers’ responsibilities to pay workers the national minimum wage. He countered: “Charities and care companies have bid for contracts for years knowing they should be paying at least the national minimum wage for staff who do sleep-ins.
“Employers can’t now plead poverty and ask for an exemption from the law based on their own poor planning. The staff have done the work – now they should be paid for it.”
The debate is set to continue.
