A LONG-STANDING row in Botton Village, a Christian community set
up for people with learning disabilities, has led to a High Court
battle between the charity that runs the village and those who live
with the disabled residents.
Botton Village, in North Yorkshire, was founded 60 years ago as
a place where adults with learning disabilities could live and work
side by side with able residents - sharing houses, workshops, and
farms together. It is part of a worldwide network of more than 100
Camphill communities.
For the past four years, some of the non-disabled residents,
known as co-workers, have been in dispute with the Camphill Village
Trust (CVT), which administers the community, over proposed changes
to the model of shared living.
Critical reports into its work at Botton prompted CVT to shake
up the way in which the village was run, introducing outside
managers for the first time and more independent trustees. Now, the
charity wants to turn the co-workers from volunteers who receive
expenses into salaried employees, and ensure that they work within
conventional social-care guidelines. But some of the co-workers are
resisting, arguing that the changes will destroy the
Christian-infused shared living for which Botton is known.
One of those battling the proposals, Kathryn von Stein, a Botton
co-worker for 11 years, said on Wednesday of last week that she
could never become an employed care-worker.
"It goes against the fundamentals of the set-up of the
community," she said. "It creates a subtle segregation that, over
time, will turn into total segregation." Mrs von Stein, who, with
her husband, has lived with people with learning disabilities at
Botton, said that CVT wanted the co-workers not to live in the same
homes as the disabled residents, and to have defined working
hours.
"[Botton] is based on Christian principles, and treats people as
valuable and equal, no matter what their abilities or
disabilities," said Mrs von Stein, who runs Botton's candle
workshop while her husband manages the village's bakery.
These sentiments are echoed by the Revd Michael Hazelton, Vicar
of the nearby village of Danby. Many Botton villagers attend his
church, and he said he feared its unique Christian ethos was under
threat.
"What struck me most was that there is no 'us' and 'them',
care-providers and care-consumers. Everyone was part of the
community, and had something to contribute," he said. "In trying to
reform, they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
In reply, CVT says that it has no choice but to professionalise
Botton, and argues that shared living can co-exist with modern
social-care standards. The charity's chief executive, Huw John,
said: "We recognise that some people have a desire to retain the
co-worker model of care at Botton and elsewhere. However, it's
clear that the model creates issues around financial control and
governance, as well as quality of care. We are disappointed to be
forced to spend charitable money and time and energy on legal
matters, rather than focusing on people we support, and their
families."
Problems emerged in 2011 in a critical inspection report by the
Care Quality Commission (CQC), which regulates social care, and
which failed Botton in four of their nine inspection categories.
The inspectors said that there were unsafe procedures for handling
medicines, staff were not aware of potential abuse issues, and that
the users were not given enough choice in what care they
received.
Concerns were voiced to North Yorkshire County Council and the
Charity Commission. Both organisations began investigating Botton.
The Charity Commission raised concerns about safeguarding
vulnerable adults, "excessive" benefits for co-workers, and
financial reporting.
The County Council raised similar concerns, and encouraged the
charity to stop taking new referrals of people with learning
disabilities. A spokeswoman said on Monday of last week: "We
believe that this suspension is right, given the level of
uncertainty and anxiety there has been within the village around
CVT's proposals to change the staffing and co-worker models. Now is
not the time to consider new admissions."
By 2013, CVT had made enough changes for a follow-up CQC
inspection to pass Botton in all categories. The Charity Commission
said last year that CVT had also adequately addressed their
concerns.
But more radical alterations to Botton's shared life were
proposed by the charity, after it approached the authorities to
inquire about the tax status of the co-workers. Her Majesty's
Revenue and Customs (HMRC) said that, although there were no
written contracts, the fact that the co-workers received money for
working and caring meant that they were effectively employees.
A spokesman for CVT said that this forced them into dismantling
the voluntary model and turning the co-workers into salaried and
contracted employees. "The challenge is how we can be compliant,
and stay within the law, and meet the standards from our
regulators, and keep that sense of community," the spokesman
said.
This is disputed by the campaigners, who argue that HMRC was
merely observing rather than prescribing employee status. They
suggest that CVT could tweak the circumstances at Botton and retain
the voluntary model.
"Employment is in some ways a bit of a red herring," CVT's
spokesman said in response. "There are other Camphill places where
co-workers have moved into employment and it doesn't necessarily
need to mean that the ethos is destroyed." He denied that CVT
wanted to turn Botton into a standard care-home, but said that
modifications would have to be made, such as co-workers living next
door or in annexes rather than in the same homes as disabled
residents.
Responding to this move, Action for Botton, a group opposed to
CVT's proposals, launched two court cases. One, which claimed that
the human rights of the disabled to a private and family life were
being breached, was rejected by the High Court earlier this
month.
Another legal action claims that CVT is going beyond what is
permitted by its founding articles.
While the activists wait for permission from the Charity
Commission to bring this case, CVT has agreed not to impose any
changes at Botton until the case is concluded. This could take
several months.