Councillor under fire for telling care group 'I would not mind working for £12.65 '

A SENIOR city councillor has come under fire after telling care groups worried about their income that he "wouldn't mind working for £12.65 an hour".

Deputy health leader Norman Work made the comments in an e-mail response to care providers, who were angry about the proposed re-tendering of care and support services for nearly 800 of the Capital's most vulnerable.

They fear that a proposed 12.65 cap on direct payments, where clients are given money by the council to take the employment of carers into their own hands, will not be enough to ensure a decent quality of care.

But SNP councillor and part-time taxi driver Councillor Work said that the groups should actually be campaigning for him to get more money.

In the e-mail, to the Garvald Edinburgh Action Group, he argued that firms could join forces and cut costs.

He added: "I wouldn't mind working for 12.65 an hour. I also would like to get overtime, extra pay for nights and weekends, not to mention double time on public holidays, maybe I could get you to help me campaign on my behalf."

The comments have incensed opposition politicians and disabled groups, and Cllr Work is now facing calls to quit.

Health leader Paul Edie has already come under fire in the wake of the failed plans to re-tender care and support packages, which were halted at the last minute after city leader Jenny Dawe discovered "a number of outstanding issues" surrounding the tendering process.

Itay Idan, a member of the Support Workers' Action Network, said: "This response from Cllr Work shows a complete disrespect for both service-users and their care and support staff.

"More alarmingly, it demonstrates that one of the main councillors behind the tendering process, the council's vice-convener for health and social care, does not have a grasp of the facts.

"We think it is only appropriate that both Paul Edie and Norman Work resign. Hundreds of vulnerable people's lives were set to be ruined by this process."

However, Cllr Work, who earns a 22,000 salary for his role and claimed 666 in expenses in the six months to the end of September, today stood by his comments, although he said they had been "taken out of context".

He also claimed that his salary worked out at 10.42 an hour.

"As a councillor, I work a lot of unsocial hours and don't get overtime and that was the point I was trying to make," he said. "It was probably lost in translation.

"I can leave the house at seven in the morning and maybe not return home until 10 at night so I'd love that sort of rate of payment – I'd be loaded."

Councillor Lesley Hinds, Labour group spokeswoman on health and social care, said: "It is totally insensitive."

WHAT THE E-MAIL SAID

"THE direct payment is linked to the tendered bids and if we paid 16 per hour we would leave yourself (sic) open to legal challenges as the winning bidder would want the same per hour even though they bided (sic) lower.

I'm sure the many organisations out there could join forces, cut down on the amount of Managing Directors, save on administration costs by sharing buildings and they could find that 12.65 per hour would be achievable . . . It makes sense to fund fewer organisations . . . I wouldn't mind working for 12.65 an hour. I also would like to get over time, extra pay for nights and weekends not to mention double time on public holidays, maybe I could get you to help me campaign on my behalf."