Speech by Simon Macfarlane on Personalisation to Community Care Providers Scotland Conference on 25th November 2010 (as part of a debate on whether workers had been dealt a full hand or no hand by personalisation).
UNISON’s position on personalization is clear - we support it, we have policy in support of personalisation; as recently as 2nd November our first ever Community Conference for our new dedicated voluntary sector service group passed a motion clearly stating our support for the principles of genuine personal choice and control and independence in personal care. The motion also though set out our real concerns around the impact on the personalised workforce and the funding and quality of care.
This is entirely consistent from a union that has equality at its core and has pioneered self-organisation and vigorously addressed access issues within its own organisation.
So UNISON’s position is not that the work force has been dealt no hand, our concern is much more that the current construct of personalisation is in danger of becoming a house of cards due to inadequate resources.
UNISON has long been engaged in the personalisation agenda and the challenges it brings. In the past, UNISON was wrongly criticised for what was seen as our opposition to direct payments, and assertions were made that our members discouraged their take up.
To counter this in 2006/7 UNISON met with various representatives of disabled people’s organisations, such as the Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living (GCIL), Scottish Personal Assistants Employers Network (SPAEN), and the Scottish Consortium of Direct Payment Support Organisations (SCODPSO). A joint statement followed confirming our support for the principle of independent living. More importantly, all parties agreed to work together on areas of mutual acceptance.
The statement acknowledged that direct payments had a legitimate role. However, it was clear that direct payments were not a substitute for other flexible and responsive public services, and were not appropriate for all people’s needs. It was further agreed that direct payments must complement a range of public services and must not be used to cover for inadequacies in public provision. Additionally the organisations agreed to jointly promote union membership.
UNISON believes that the personalisation and transformation of social care has been introduced without adequate funding, with the focus being on reducing the cost of supporting individuals and reducing the proportion of provision in the public sector and potentially the voluntary sector.
In England which is further down the track of personalisation the evidence is clear on the impact on staff personalisation is having:
The National Minimum Data Set for Social Care in England shows that between December 2008 and February 2010 the following occurred to pay rates in the following posts:
Care Workers at NVQ 1 or 2 level saw their pay in the private sector drop from £6.30 to £6.00, in the voluntary sector it dropped from £7.04 to £7.03 and in the public sector is went from £6.80 to £7.73.
For higher graded staff the results were equally stark. Senior Care Workers above NVQ2 saw their wages drop in the private sector from £6.85 to £6.80, in the voluntary sector from £8.34 to £8.08 whilst in the public sector they rose from £9.11 to £10.69.
In Scotland I’ve spent the last 18 months in brutal negotiations with many organisations here today, seeing pay freezes, redundancies, terms and conditions slashed, and so far I have seen no evidence that a move to personalisation will lead to any reversal of this trend.
There is an issue that personal and privatised care has not increased the quality and choice of care for all care recipients, it has also produced a sector of the care market and workforce that is unregulated and provided little incentive for employers to invest in a well trained and paid workforce.
Not all service users wish to take a Direct Payment and become an individual employer. UNISON believes that individual service users would benefit from the option of paying for a Personal Assistant (PA) but not being their direct employer. This could be done by local authorities or voluntary organisations directly employing a pool of PAs which service users can select from. In this way PAs would be employed by the local authority and not budget holders acting as micro employers.
In Scandinavia models such as this are common and they offer significant benefits to the person requiring support and the personal assistant.
We need workforce remodelling agreements both at national level and at employer level. The direction of travel is clear and the key stakeholders are broadly signed up to this. So we need the Scottish Government, Local Authorities and Health Boards to set out some minimum standards and safeguards for individuals needing support, workers and providers. There is an opportunity for some joint work between CCPS and UNISON here.
It is incumbent on voluntary organisations to be clearer and louder about the need for care services to be adequately resourced and in particular about the pay and conditions of workers in the sector. It isn’t right to portray pay freezes as evidence of the voluntary sector’s efficiency. Poverty pay and poor conditions are simply inimical to high quality personalised care. The right to a personalised care service can’t be an unfettered right, it comes with significant responsibilities. Many will need help and assistance in meeting those responsibilities and the voluntary sector has a unique and crucial role in assisting people to get the personalised support they need whilst acting in an ethical and responsible manner.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Personalisation can and should be introduced with adequate funding and safeguards for staff. The voluntary sector needs to get active in campaigns such as UNISON’s Public Works and the STUC’s There is a Better Way campaigns. There’s too much fence sitting going on when many of the people you and our members support will be deeply affected by benefit cuts and the myriad of other cuts.
So I say to you don’t let personalisation tumble like a pack of cards. Join with UNISON and the STUC in campaigning for a better settlement for public services however they are provided. If your organisation doesn’t yet recognise a union, come speak to me about how we can work together to make personalisation work for service users, organisations and staff.
