Call that a career?

But what about opportunities for extra qualifications? Annual appraisals? Experiential credits? That's a career, not a job.

As a direct payments user I want to be a good employer. It is in my interests to offer an attractive job package so that people will want to work for me, for them to be content while they are working so that there is less staff turnover, and for there to be a happy working environment - which also happens to be my home. I am also human enough to want my co-workers (because that's how I see them) to have a good deal in life.

Dr Janet Leece's research (outlined in Community Care, 27 November,) affirmed my personal fears and experiences, that personal assistants and carers employed directly by service users have a worse deal than home care workers employed by local authorities. Not only do they not have all the benefits of working for a large employer, such as pension schemes, trained managers responsible for sorting out difficulties, favourable contracts and in-built training opportunities, but also they tend to have lower rates of pay.

Within my budget, I can't match the terms and conditions of the local authority's home care service. I don't even have funds for refreshing my workers' essential skills - manual handling and food hygiene, for example. If I had a pension scheme, I'd have to pay everybody less each month - and I know which option my PA's would go for.

Successive government ministers have talked about improving the profile of caring as a profession, and have made the mistake of thinking that means turning it into a career, rather than just offering good pay and conditions.

That would make caring just a good job - which I suspect is all that's needed. If the personalisation agenda is going to move ahead in a sustainable way, service users are going to need some support to improve the outlook for the people who work for them.

Simon Heng is a wheelchair user and involved in service user groups