The plan to halve the pay of some service users and carers whose expertise informs adult social care inspections has been halted temporarily.
Earlier this month it emerged that Remploy, the company that will take over delivery of the Care Quality Commission’s Experts by Experience programme in the north and south of England from 1 February, intended to reduce hourly pay for experts from £17 to £8.25 per hour (or £9.40 in London).
But now the inspectorate has agreed to give more money to Remploy so that existing experts are paid £15 per hour for the first six months of its contract. This brings the rate into line with what Choice Support, the charity that has the contract for the Midlands, intends to pay experts.
The Remploy deal does not appear to apply to new experts and talks between the CQC and Remploy about what happens to pay after the first six months are ongoing.
‘Enormous value’
Chris Day, director of engagement at the CQC, said: “The Experts by Experience programme is of enormous value to the CQC and will continue to be critical to the success of our work. We have listened to the concerns that some experts by experience have raised with us about the changes to their contracts – and although we do not set pay rates, we have tried to address these concerns and to ensure as much protection for existing experts as possible.”
One expert told Community Care that while the £15 rate was welcome, experts by experience remained in the dark about other changes such as which local groups would be sub-contracted as ‘hosts’ by Remploy to provide service users and carers for inspections.
‘Extremely appalling’
“We’re here now on Friday, Remploy’s contract is due to start next week,” said the expert, who wished to remain anonymous. “This is technically my last day but my host company hasn’t had any information. I find it extremely appalling that there has been no admission of ‘sorry, we’ve made a bit of a mess here’ from the CQC. This statement from Remploy is better than a poke in the eye but the continuity is falling apart.”
The expert said that some service users and carers had decided not to continue as a result of the pay row while others were adopting a “wait-and-see” approach before deciding whether to carry on with their CQC inspection work.
In addition some are objecting to working with Remploy in principle because it is majority owned by Maximus, the US company that handles work capability assessments of disabled people for the Department for Work and Pensions.
“I’m very, very sad it’s come to this because for a lot of people doing this is not about the money – it’s about what impact you can have on care services,” the expert added.
Remploy has previously said that the rates of pay had been decided following discussions with the user-led organisations it would be sub-contracting with.
A spokesperson for the company said last week: “User-led organisations will deliver the majority of the contract, supported by Remploy. Service users are at the heart of the programme and will be involved continuously in the development and improvement of the programme.”
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Sad that the only way of us finding out about these developments is through the press.
The CQC’s claim that Remploy has written to current experts with their revised offer is simply untrue. Remploy can’t do that as they don’t have our contact details. They don’t have our contact details as they have refused to accept that TUPE applies. And so it goes on – spin, half-truths, etc etc. I think ‘omnishambles’ is the best way to describe the CQC’s continued mishandling of this issue.
No one has ever been able to answer the simple question – what is the current problem that re-tendering the service is intended to solve….
the CQC have let down those people whos expertise can not be learned from a book or at univeristy , lived experinece is the most powerful form of learing and surviving .
Why has the not fit for purpose regualtor sold out to gloabal corporations ? because thats where so much of the health and social care and public contracts are going …. quality has been quoted time and tima again , but if we look at the say the contract won by by Arriva from the NHS to delier hosptial transport in manchester, this was gained back to the NHS after failingis and 600 complaints of poor service . the tender was won on “quality ” by Arriva !!!! need i say any more
Is there not a serious procurement issue here? other bidders may feel that Remploy won with a lower bid based on halving pay rates, but have then effectively upped their payment from CQC when that became public. M’learned friends may be interested!