[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Social Care FUNDING : GREEN Or RED HERRING PAPER ? Various Schemes And Utter Madness : All Together In This Thread - Page 13 - Carers UK Forum

Social Care FUNDING : GREEN Or RED HERRING PAPER ? Various Schemes And Utter Madness : All Together In This Thread

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
179 posts
Here are 1.4 million reasons why social care crisis must now be confronted by next PM - Mike Padgham.

How should social care be funded in the future ?

Campaigner Mike Padgham is demanding answers from the Tory leadership contenders.



WE have all seen this week the very moving and poignant tributes to those who sacrificed so much at D-Day, a reminder of the great debt we owe previous generations. We have seen war veterans remembering their fallen comrades with courage and dignity.

How shocking it was to then witness the way we are now looking after some of that same generation, and others, in the BBC Panorama expose on social care. The comparison could not have been more stark, nor more shameful.

We are now in the midst of a leadership election for the Conservative Party and whoever emerges victorious will be our next Prime Minister. You would be forgiven for thinking there was just one topic – Brexit.

Of course, this is important but there are many other issues which need to be looked at too – not least the ever-worsening plight of social care which, to me, is now the number one domestic priority. And so, today, I pose the following questions to the candidates:

* How do you intend to ensure that adult social care has adequate funding to deliver a service that older and vulnerable adults deserve?

* Given that there are more than 100,000 vacancies, and the Government plans to make it harder to recruit workers from overseas, how will you tackle this staffing shortage?

* How best can we integrate NHS healthcare and adult social care so services complement one another and provide seamless care?

* How will you address the treatment of people with dementia to ensure they are treated fairly and in the same way as those with illnesses like cancer and heart disease?

* What are you going to do to address the current shortage of nurses and GPs?

* How can we reform the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to ensure it provides the best service to both protect users and support care providers?

* How do you intend to advance this newspaper’s award-winning loneliness campaign to help combat social isolation?

* Where was your response when I wrote to all 650 MPs on the crisis in adult social care last November?


For those who did not see them, the Panorama programmes exposed the reality of social care in 2019, highlighting examples from the 1.4 million people who aren’t getting the care they need. It showed local authorities unable to cope because of spending cuts, a point supported by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which reports that spending on adult social care fell by five per cent in real terms between 2009-10 and 2017-18.

People are talking about social care but sadly, as has been the case now for many years, that is all they are doing. And, in the most part, they are saying the same old things we have been hearing for a decade or more – something needs to be done!

We had hoped that the long-overdue Green Paper might finally provide us with a way forward, but Care Minister Caroline Dinenage is now reducing expectations by saying that it is not a “silver bullet”.

The leadership candidates should be viewing this as a big opportunity to speak to the country about issues other than Brexit. Those 1.4 million people, and many, many thousands more who fear for their future, are looking for hope – and leadership – on the care of older and vulnerable adults, which, let’s face it, will be all of us one day, including politicians.

This is a big opportunity to be bold, to tread where politician after politician has feared to go before and to resolve the issues that have dogged previous governments.

All of the leadership candidates would do well to visit social care on the front line to see the crisis for themselves. I would make each and every one of them most welcome here in Yorkshire.

None of the Conservative leadership candidates replied to me when I wrote to all 650 MPs on the crisis in social care and two in particular – Matt Hancock, who is currently Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and Jeremy Hunt who was a long-serving Health Secretary – haven’t tackled it when in the most relevant post.

For me, I would like to see any future Prime Minister promise to properly fund adult social care – even if this means we have to increase taxation or National Insurance. We deserve excellent care and we will need to pay for it.

We need to see greater integration with NHS care so that care is seamless and not disjointed, as it is at the moment. Properly-funded social care saves the NHS money because it keeps people out of costly NHS beds by looking after them in their own home or a care or nursing home.

We need to recognise dementia as an illness, so that people with it are looked after in the same way that people 
with cancer or heart disease are 
cared for and not left to fend for themselves.

And we need to protect the social care workforce. We are going to need more and more carers to look after an ageing population and we need to make sure that the supply is going to be there after Brexit.

If politicians aren’t persuaded 
by the human argument (and they should be), there is also a strong economic case for better supporting social care. The sector contributes £46.2bn to the economy and employs 1.5 million people (that’s more than the 1.3 million employed in the NHS). Conversely, if it is allowed to deteriorate further, more people will have to leave work to look after loved ones and that will hurt the economy.

When the Government needs to tackle an emergency, they call a meeting of COBRA. I would say that this, too, is a national emergency. For, if I was rating the Government’s performance on this issue, I would have to say it was ‘inadequate’ and recommend closing it down. We deserve better. And, to quote Winston Churchill in the week of D-Day, action this day.

* Mike Padgham is chair of the Independent Care Group based in Scarborough and a national campaigner on social care.



ANOTHER £ 1 COIN FINALLY DROPPED ?

I SHOULD HAVE PATENTED THAT " PATIENT SUFFERING FROM BOTH CANCER AND DEMENTIA " ANALOGY ... ???
PLEASE ... DON'T ALL GROWL TOGETHER ?

Tory leadership : Matt Hancock quits contest.



Image



" Our Boy " is back with us ... when it comes to social care , the pm's job would have been a soft option ???

And , when that Green Paper hits the floor of the House , a little more than the usual half and hour ?


Image
Extract from another thread ... included here as it has a considerable Green Paper element :

House of Lords Debate : 17 June 2019 :

Baroness Pitkeathley Deputy Chairman of Committees, Deputy Speaker (Lords) 2:44 pm, 17th June 2019

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to guarantee support for family carers following the cuts made to local authority and voluntary sector support services.

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care


My Lords, the Government have given councils access to £3.9 billion in dedicated funding for adult social care in 2019-20. Last June, we published the carers’ action plan, a cross-government programme of targeted work to support carers, including a £5 million carers’ innovation fund to encourage new and creative ways of doing so. We are also working with local government to ensure that carers can access the support that they deserve and promote best practice in carer breaks provision.

Baroness Pitkeathley Deputy Chairman of Committees, Deputy Speaker (Lords)

I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, which I listened to with great interest. I am the first to acknowledge that much progress has been made for carers in recent years, especially winning rights for them under the Carers Act. But I wonder how the noble Baroness would respond to the carer I spoke to on Friday. She is 79, recovering from cancer that has left her with severe back pain and caring for her 91 year-old partner, who has vascular dementia. Fourteen times she has asked her local authority for the assessment, to which she knows she is entitled. Fourteen times she has either been ignored or refused. Her local carers’ group, which was a support to her, has closed down because its funding has been cut. “It is no good telling me I have a right to services”, she says. “There are no services. There is only me and I am about to go under”. How does the noble Baroness respond to her?

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

The noble Baroness has raised an important point, which is that we need to provide carers with the support they need, because they do an amazing job. Unpaid care is a vital part of a sustainable health and social care system. This is why the long-term plan has put in place an ambition to ensure that we provide sustainable support across the public health system, and will ensure that we have a quality mark for primary care to highlight best practice. I am very sorry to hear about the experience of the carer in the case that the noble Baroness highlighted and would be pleased to follow this up with her directly, after today’s Question Time.

Baroness Browning Conservative

After decades of being a carer myself, I can say to my noble friend that it would help carers enormously for there to be an integrated approach to the carer and the person they are caring for. I cannot remember how many times I filled in a form asking what my needs are, and wrote across it, in large letters, “If the needs of the person I care for were met, my needs as a carer would be greatly reduced”. Until there is that joined-up approach in practice, carers will continue to suffer.

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care


As so often, my noble friend speaks with common sense and insight. This is something that our carers innovation fund is supposed to root out, with its creative and innovative ways to drive reform and improvement through the system. That is why we brought it in, but it is also a commitment of the long-term plan. Best-practice quality marks in primary care are supposed to drive better identification and support of carers in the system. We will ensure that we see that.

Baroness Brinton Party Chair, Liberal Democrats

My Lords, 160,000 young carers have been assessed and can get support, but it is thought that there are up to 800,000 young carers. Councils have admitted to the Young Carers Trust that they cannot assess these young people at all. Some of them are doing over 50 hours of caring a week. They know that it is impacting their own physical and mental health. A third of young carers drop out of university and college. What are the Government doing to ensure that the basic funding to provide assessment for these vulnerable young people is in place, and to join up the work between social care and education?

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

This is crucial. We must ensure that young carers, who are often unseen in the system, have the support that they need and are not overburdened by caring responsibilities. That is why we have been working with the Carers Trust and the Children’s Society. The Children’s Society has led a project to identify and disseminate best practice to support and enable young adult carers, between the ages of 16 and 24, to make a positive transition. Guidance and resources have been published this week, and we will ensure that this is implemented effectively. As the noble Baroness rightly says, this is a crucial part of implementing the carers action plan.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Labour


My Lords, one group that is desperately in need of support and respite care is the carers of children who are dying. A recent report stated that hospices for children are no longer able to help parents in those categories. They are having to shut down some of their facilities because of lack of investment. What are the Government going to do to help the families who keep these kids going, without whom the whole system will fall apart? The Government must help children’s hospices.

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. This is an important part of the system. I noted those reports with serious concern. Significant work has been put into providing carers’ breaks and respite care within the Carers Action Plan. Local authorities are required to provide that support. We shall investigate what has happened in those instances

The Countess of Mar Deputy Chairman of Committees, Deputy Speaker (Lords)

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, made it clear that what is needed is action now, not a long-term plan. What plans do the Government have to help people who are having problems now?

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

I am sorry if I have given the impression to the noble Countess that action has not been happening now. I can outline that the Government have been taking ongoing action to support carers. The Care Act 2014 introduced important new rights for carers, putting them on the same footing as those whom they care for. Through the Better Care Fund, the NHS has contributed £130 million for carers’ breaks. The Carers Action Plan, published in 2018, set out a broad, cross-government programme of work to support carers, which included 64 points which have been delivered since that time. A review will be published in July. A £5 million Carers Innovation Fund to support innovation was announced just this week and will include innovative ways to improve care for patients. This is all ongoing work which is helping carers now, but we recognise that it is not enough, because carers deserve the very best. That is why we will continue to strive to improve support for carers within the system going forward.

Baroness Thornton Shadow Spokesperson (Health)


My Lords, according to Carers UK, 8.8 million people are carers in this country—that is up 2 million since 2011. Are the Government reviewing the funding provided in last year’s Carers Action Plan to take account of that? What discussion is the Minister’s department having with the department that funds local government? That is the nub of the problem: austerity has starved local government so that it cannot provide the right kind of care, and carers all over the country are suffering as a result.


Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Of course, £10 billion has been provided for adult social care between 2017-18 and 2020, with an extra £240 million for adult social care to reflect winter pressures and an extra £410 million to improve social care for older people, people with disabilities and children. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that a sustainable long-term plan for social care is part of the discussions taking place on the spending review and as part of the Green Paper planning. The consideration of dedicated employment rights and reviewing financial support for carers is part of those discussions.



WE OFTEN THINK OF JUST THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WHEN IT COMES TO THE GOVERNMENT.

OCCASIONALLY , THE SECOND CHAMBER ... THE HOUSE OF LORDS ... SHOWS UP THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS !!!

ODD ... HOW THE LORDS AND LADIES ARE MORE IN TUNE WITH US THAN OUR MPs ???????
Care for the elderly is a scandal – but don’t expect a solution from Hunt or Johnson.

Elderly people are left home alone dying needlessly because of austerity. It’s time to tax Britain’s soaring property wealth.


Social care services are in freefall, with tens of thousands of people getting no help at all. What’s new? This week’s withering assessment from local authority directors of adult social services in England brings yet more evidence of the unfolding disaster hidden behind the lace curtains of 1.4 million neglected old people, home alone. More than 54,000 people have died waiting for care services that never came. Lip service is paid, nothing is done.

There is a fiction that an ever-disappearing green paper, six times cancelled, will solve the problem. That’s a hollow hope: expect no more than a few hazy options, though even these are too politically frightening to see the light of day. Among the Tory leadership candidates, Jeremy Hunt made a token nod that cuts went too far, but care doesn’t feature in his eye-watering list of tax cuts and defence spending plans. Boris Johnson hasn’t mentioned it: he probably doesn’t know what it is.

Pressure on care services has been stretched to breaking point since 2010, with local authorities stripped of nearly half their funds, and the numbers in need soaring. A third of councils have seen some residential homes close, nearly half have had home care services collapse with no cash to cover the rising minimum wage for staff. Day centres and meals on wheels are now vanishingly rare. Wait for the “forthcoming spending review”, says the department, but councils would be advised to keep their expectations extremely low.

Reports and commissions analysing the problem have poured out, with the basic solution staring everyone in the face. But the political facts of life make the answers unpalatable, because they reach deep into the maldistribution of everything in the economy.

Here’s the problem: currently care is means tested. People start paying for home care when savings reach £23,000. If they go into residential care, the value of their home is taken into account too: families often have to sell up to pay. That causes outrage as few people are aware of the pitfalls until a family needs care. Middle-aged offspring see inheritances eaten away, when most assumed care was as free as the NHS.

The injustice they see is the randomness: lucky if you drop dead fast and need no care, financially crippling if you linger on with dementia in a care home. Any just system would even out the risk and the costs, so the sick are not penalised.

But remember the “dementia tax” row that helped to shipwreck Theresa May’s 2017 election. Bravely raising money for the devastated care system, her manifesto threatened to take the value of property into account in paying for home care, as well as residential care – to the outrage of Tories and the press. She retreated and promised the green paper that never seems to appear.

What would a just system look like?

Everyone would get the same quality of care at the point of need, as in the NHS.

Where should the money come from? Not from general taxation, where the working young are already burdened with the cost of the baby-boom generation’s healthcare. They already struggle, earning less than their parents at the same age, with fewer able to buy a home and rents rising. Wealth has accumulated among the elderly in properties denied to the young – that property wealth should be drawn on to pay rising social care costs.

But any new plan has to be carried out fairly, with people paying according to their means, and able to predict the cost of their contributions – pooling risk and removing the random nature of the current system. Labour’s 2010 manifesto had the right idea: on retirement everyone would pay a lump sum into the pot according to their wealth and income, which could be a lien on their home to be paid with interest after death, just like with equity release. As at present, the state would pay for those with virtually no assets.

However, as with May’s manifesto, that plan caused uproar and was branded a “death tax” by the Tories. Fair, predictable, removing risk and redressing some of the intergenerational divide, it was blown out of the water. Why? Because any further encroachment on property or inheritance is anathema to Tories, which is why the green paper never emerges. Everyone knows the property wealth of the elderly must be tapped, but the government dare not whisper it.

There are lots of excellent arguments made for creative ways to tax ever-rising property wealth, but they often encounter rabid opposition. This month Labour published an admirable discussion paper, Land for the Many, written by George Monbiot and others, proposing land value taxation. But read the double page spread in the Mail on Sunday for a flavour of the fury such solutions face: “Corbyn war on homeowners”. The paper’s finance editor was incandescent: “Spiteful raid that will horrify millions”. The sentiments in the Express, Sun and the rest were identical.

Some call for cross-party collaboration. Labour tried that but David Cameron pulled his people out of the committee just before the 2010 election to unjustly attack as a “death tax” the very things his own participants were on the point of agreeing. Labour’s attack on May’s “dementia tax” was equally shortsighted – but in the heat of elections, parties use any weapon. For any government to grasp this nettle needs careful preparation, with a royal commission and a citizen’s assembly to thoroughly air the problems, spread the facts and win consent.

Would Johnson or Hunt? Not a chance. The best councils can hope for is a bit of sticking plaster, an emergency bung now and then, but no ambitious long-term solution. Neither future prime minister is a brave, good or far-sighted man, that much we know.

• Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
MAJOR DISASTER WARNING AHEAD ... POSTED IN SEVERAL THREADS

Let councils charge higher taxes to pay for austerity, says LGA chair.

James Jamieson urges ministers to inject billions into adult social care.


Local authorities should be given the freedom to impose higher council taxes to help cope with the unprecedented funding crisis facing social care services after a near decade of austerity, the Tory chair of the Local Government Association has said.

James Jamieson urged ministers to inject billions of pounds into adult social care and give councils more control of local health services to protect elderly and disabled people and give them the support they needed. “It is a measure of a good society how well it treats it most vulnerable,” said the councillor.

Reflecting increasing concern over the impact of the reductions, he called for major extra investment in children’s social care, a reversal of cuts to Sure Start-style early-years family support services and a review of special educational needs services funding.

His comments reflect a growing cross-party consensus at local level that national government has little grasp how continuing austerity cuts are hurting local communities and putting people at risk. Last month, Jamieson’s Tory predecessor, Lord Porter, warned that vulnerable people would die because of social care cuts.

There is little confidence that the government will be in a position to deliver its promised three-year spending review this autumn, effectively imposing a further year of austerity on town halls and forcing them to plan for service cuts and staff redundancies they had hoped would be unnecessary.

The LGA warned earlier on Tuesday that the deteriorating outlook for council finances would see a fifth of authorities forced to impose drastic controls on spending this year to avoid insolvency, while a third of councils would struggle to deliver statutory services within three years.

Jamieson, in his inaugural speech at the LGA annual conference in Bournemouth, said the council tax referendum cap, introduced by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2012 and currently set at 2.99%, ought to be abolished. “Residents should be given the choice; if they want to pay more for extra services, why can’t they?”

He said that councils in England had lost 60p out of every £1 of central government funding since 2010, while the number of new child protection investigations had doubled, there had been a 56% increase in homelessness and the number of older people aged over 85 had increased by a third.

The communities secretary, James Brokenshire, said in his speech to the LGA that he recognised councils’ uncertainty over future funding, adding: “It is right that we look at the challenges and opportunities you face, and the funding you are currently relying on, including for social care, when we consider what a sustainable settlement looks like for local government for the coming years.”

Meanwhile, a survey of council chiefs found nearly half expect that Brexit will damage their local economies by reducing exports and overseas investment. This would critically reduce council income from business rates at a time when they were already struggling to maintain the quality and breadth of core services.

PWC’s annual survey of council leaders, chief executives and finance directors revealed that more than half believed that some authorities would get into serious financial difficulty or fail to deliver core services at some point over the next year.

A PWC survey of 2,000 UK users of council services found that 67% were concerned about cuts on their community, up from 61% a year ago; 77% said they or their family had been impacted by cuts; and 51% opposed the need for cuts, up from 48% in 2018.

Councils must hold a referendum if they wish to raise council tax beyond the 2.99% limit. No local authority has taken up the option. In January, Northamptonshire county council was given special dispensation by ministers to raise council tax by an extra 2%, raising £6m, to aid its recovery from insolvency. Similar requests from other councils have been turned down.

Local authority directors of adult social care warned last week that the escalating financial crisis in social care had put tens of thousands of older and disabled people at risk of being denied basic support such as help with washing and dressing.



COUNCIL TAX TO RISE TO FUND SOCIAL CARE ?

FOR ALL LOWER EARNERS , FINANCIAL ARMAGEDDON JUST GOT NEARER !
Theresa May condemned over " National scandal " of social care failure as 400,000 people stripped of help.

Peers say £8 Billion needed " To return quality and access to an acceptable standard " - warning government has " Ducked the question for too long. "



( Oi your lordships , what about us ??? )



##############################################################################


Peers call for extra £8 Billion to tackle social care scandal.

Cross-party committee says over a million vulnerable older people left without support.



Peers including former Conservative and Labour chancellors have called for an immediate £8bn investment to tackle the “national scandal” that has left over a million vulnerable older people without proper social care support.

The Lords economic affairs committee said this would restore access and quality of social care services in England to pre-austerity levels and relieve unsustainable pressure on unpaid family carers. A further £7bn a year should be spent to extend NHS-style free personal care to all by 2025, to be paid for out of general taxation.

The chair of the cross-party committee, Lord Forsyth, said it was time for government to stop “faffing around” and properly fund a system that was riddled with unfairness and left people enduring real suffering. “Our recommendations will cost money, but social care should be a public spending priority,” he said.


The committee’s report comes amid growing concern at the state of adult social care after a decade of austerity. The outgoing Tory chair of the Local Government Association, Lord Porter, recently warned that vulnerable people would die as a result of the continuing failure to properly fund social care.

Forsyth, a former Conservative government minister, told the Guardian the fairest and most efficient way to meet the £15bn cost was via taxation. “I’m a Thatcherite Tory: I support reducing tax and controlling public expenditure. But this is the minimum requirement to provide a decent standard of care in our country.”

The committee said 1.4m older people were denied the care they needed as a result of cuts, means tests and rationing, while others received extremely basic “clean and feed” levels of care. Many as a result were housebound and unable to fulfil everyday tasks like washing or going to the toilet.

With growing demographic pressures – by 2040 a quarter of the UK population will be over 65 and there will be thousands more working age adults with severe disabilities – social care funding reform was an urgent priority, the committee said.

At least 17 white papers, green papers and official reviews of social care funding have been published in the past 20 years, the committee estimates, none of which have led to meaningful reform. The latest promised government green paper has been delayed at least six times over the last 18 months.

The committee questioned the point of publishing yet another report. “Let’s not have a green paper,” said Forsyth. “If you have to, have a white paper, and write a cheque to the local authorities. Let’s stop faffing around and get on and do it.”


Politicians had been too quick to denigrate proposed changes as a “death tax” or a “dementia tax” to gain electoral advantage, thwarting reform, the report said, adding that there must be cross-party agreement on a way forward on adult social care and have an honest conversation with voters about how it is to be paid for.

Social care surfaced in the Tory leadership contest when Jeremy Hunt – a former health and social care secretary – admitted cuts had gone too far. While Hunt and rival Boris Johnson have pledged tens of billions in public spending, neither has mentioned social care.

The committee’s members include former Labour chancellor Lord Darling, former Tory chancellor Lord Lamont, former Treasury permanent secretary Lord Burns, ex-cabinet secretary Lord Turnbull and former Talk Talk boss Lady Harding.

Free personal care was introduced for over-65’s in Scotland in 2002, giving recipients help with daily tasks such as bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, going to the toilet, and meal preparation. Numbers of people receiving care doubled as a result, but it ultimately saved taxpayers’ money by preventing costly hospital admissions.

However, free personal care should not include the costs of accommodation, which would be met as now by the individual, the committee said, but government should explore introducing a cap on individuals’ financial liability.

Without urgent action to address social care funding, much of the burden of caring for vulnerable individuals would continue to fall on family and friends. Most unpaid carers were women, the report said, with 63% of female carers aged between 50 and 64 caring for at least 50 hours a week.

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “We have given local authorities access to up to £3.9bn more dedicated funding for adult social care this year, and a further £410m is available for adults and children’s services. We will set out our plans to reform the social care system at the earliest opportunity to ensure it is sustainable for the future.”
Matt Hancock : social care green paper held up by " Partisan politics. "

Labour says health secretary’s claim that delay is due to lack of consensus " Simply not true. "


Matt Hancock, the secretary of state for health and social care, has blamed “narrow partisan politics” for the ongoing failure of the government to produce the long-awaited social care green paper.

The issue of how to provide social care for the growing number of older people in the UK has troubled successive governments.

Admitting that social care has “for many years not received the attention and support that it deserves”, Hancock blamed the delay in the government’s green paper – which has been delayed at least six times over the last 18 months – on “narrow partisan politics”.

“It’s been held up by the parliamentary logjam and a lack of cross-party consensus,” he said. “Social care has been bedevilled by a failure to build a cross-party consensus. Narrow partisan politics has got in the way of a solution.”

Hancock’s speech comes on the same day that Damian Green MP publishes his report for the Centre for Policy Studies.

In Fixing the Care Crisis, Green, who commissioned the government’s social care green paper, argues that the current system is “financially and politically unsustainable, opaque, unfair, and actively discourages local councils from investing in social care and housing for older people”.

He suggests the adoption of a state pension model by introducing a new universal care entitlement that guarantees everyone a decent standard of care.

There are 5.3 million people aged over-75 in the UK today. That number will double over the next 40 years. These people, experts agree, will not just be living longer but will have more complex and expensive care needs, creating an enormous increase in demand for social care.


In Hancock’s speech at the Local Government Association conference, however, the minister was unable to give a date for the paper, in which the government has pledged to set out how it will deliver that care. Instead of engaging with the important issues raised by the UK’s increasing longevity, Hancock encouraged communities to work together with the NHS and local authorities to make decisions about their local health services.

Hancock announced £3m to help to train care workers to care for people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health issues, as well as an increase from £500,000 to £5m in the Carers Innovation Fund.

“We’re also going to look into dedicated employment rights for carers,” he said, claiming that it will help 5 million more people to benefit from personalised care in the next decade.

But his speech was heavily criticised. Barbara Keeley, shadow minister for mental health and social care, rejected Hancock’s claim that the green paper has been held up a lack of cross-party consensus,

“This is simply not true,” she said. “For there to be consensus, Conservative ministers need to come forward with their government’s proposals for much-needed reform of social care funding. Instead, constant delays in bringing anything forward on the issue is causing an even deeper crisis in the care system.”

Hancock’s speech was also criticised by Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK. “The secretary of state is a hugely energetic man who clearly wants to get things done, which makes it all the more embarrassing that with just three weeks of this government to go he was unable to make any commitment about when, if at all, the social care green paper will emerge.

“In truth I think most people have given up on ever seeing it but the challenge of meeting the needs of increasing numbers of sick and disabled adults, and older people, remains and is getting harder to fix with every month of delay,” she added.

Anna Dixon, chief executive at the Centre for Ageing Better, said: “The government must move beyond warm words to exactly how it intends to deliver the long-term and sustainable social care system that we so desperately need.”
Act now on social care crisis, Lords report tells Government
The Economic Affairs Committee publishes its report Social care funding: time to end a national scandal today. The report recommends that the Government immediately spends £8 billion to restore social care to acceptable standards and then introduces free personal care over a period of 5 years
various forms of the report available on this link
https://www.parliament.uk/business/comm ... rt-launch/


.
Key conclusions and recommendations
The Government must increase funding by £8 billion to restore levels of quality and access to those observed in 2009/10. This should be its top priority.
The Government should introduce a basic entitlement to publicly funded personal care for individuals with substantial and critical levels of need. Accommodation costs and the costs of other help and support should still be incurred by the individual. The Health Foundation and the King's Fund estimate this would cost £7 billion if introduced in 2020/21.
To avoid catastrophic accommodation costs, the Government should also explore a cap on accommodation costs.
The Government should adopt a staged approach to providing the additional funding recommended by this report. It should immediately invest £8 billion in adult social care, then introduce free personal care over the next five years. Free personal care should be available universally by 2025/26.
Additional funding should be provided as a government grant, distributed directly to local authorities according to an appropriate national funding formula which takes into account differences between local authorities in demand for care and ability to raise funds from local taxation.
Funding social care should be approached in the same way as any other funding pressure. We recommend that social care is funded largely from general taxation.
comment from twitter re above

.
What makes this report so significant is 2 former Chancellors & Treasury Perm Secs on committee - and they recommend immediate injection of £8bn & move to free personal care paid for largely by general taxation - a pooled risk approach.

Is something shifting?
Section on unpaid family carers
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... tAnchor025

x
Thanks R ... in essence , a glorified summary of what appears in this thread already !

Us ? A mere addition as opposed to anything else !


The phrase " We also heard " near the bottom just about sums it up ... nothing else !

PRIOR TO THAT , DID THEY NOT KNOW ???

THE INVISIBLE ARMY ONCE AGAIN ??????????????????????????????

TIME FOR US TO BE HEARD ... WHOSE PRESENTING OUR CASE ???

WE ARE NOT LEMMINGS BUT ... HOW DO WE PREVENT FALLING OVER THAT CLIFF ??????



Chapter 2: Challenges

8.This chapter examines political and policy challenges within the social care system. It considers Government attempts to reform social care funding and why they have proved difficult, before moving onto those issues of underfunding and unfairness identified in the previous chapter.

Political challenges of reform

9.There have been numerous attempts by governments to address the funding of social care in the last 20 years. The Voluntary Organisations Disability Group said that since 1998 there had been “12 green papers, white papers, other consultations, and five independent reviews” that attempted to solve the issues of social care funding. Some of these attempts are summarised in Box 3.

Box 3: Government reviews and attempted reforms of social care funding since 1999

1999: A Government-appointed Royal Commission published proposals for reform. These included a more generous means-test and free personal and nursing care. The proposals were accepted in part by the then Labour Government (free personal and nursing care was introduced subsequently by the Scottish Government, citing the Royal Commission’s recommendations).

2009: A Green Paper by the Labour Government proposed a National Care Service, and a subsequent White Paper proposed a two-year cap on social care charges initially, followed by free social care after 2015.

2011: The Coalition Government established the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support (the ‘Dilnot Commission’). This Commission proposed a cap on lifetime social care charges and a more generous means-test.

2014: The Coalition Government legislated to implement the Dilnot Commission’s proposals with cross-party support, but the newly-elected Conservative Government in July 2015 postponed their introduction from April 2016, citing funding pressures and a lack of preparedness by local authorities. In 2017 the implementation of the proposals was postponed indefinitely.

2017: The Conservative Government committed to publishing a Green Paper on social care in the March 2017 Budget, a commitment reiterated in the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2017 general election, which also included proposals to introduce a floor on the costs an individual could incur. The Green Paper has been delayed numerous times: the latest revised date for publication was April 2019 but the Secretary of State blamed “Brexit and the need for bandwidth” for the missed deadline.

Source: House of Commons Library, Social care: forthcoming Green Paper (England), Briefing Paper, 8002, 13 May 2019

10.These attempts have not succeeded in addressing the challenges. Care England said they were “frustrated by the lack of progress” despite all the reviews, “all of which seem to come to similar conclusions—the system needs to be properly funded.” The Institute for Government explained how some of the proposals became contentious politically:

“Proposals included in a government discussion paper in 2010 on how to fund free social care were quickly dubbed a ‘death tax’ by the Conservative opposition and dogged the Labour Party throughout that year’s election. During the 2017 election campaign the shoe was on the other foot. The Conservatives’ social care manifesto commitment quickly became known as the ‘dementia tax’ and is widely seen as contributing to the Government losing its majority … Painful precedents such as these mean that political parties are reluctant to discuss how to raise money to fund health and social care.”

11.The Local Government Association said “national governments past and present have tended to put political prospects ahead of difficult but necessary decision-making.”

Cross-party consensus


12.Witnesses called for a cross-party consensus on any solution. The Institute for Government said: “a minority government muddling through or acting decisively on its own is highly unlikely to achieve a long-term sustainable funding solution.”

13.The Secretary of State acknowledged this was one of the main reasons a solution had not yet been found: “The main political parties have not yet come together across the divide to agree this” and that it would be wise for a discussion between parties to take place “outside the immediacy of an election cycle.”17 The Nuffield Trust said that new proposals “are often put forward as part of election campaigns at a point in the electoral cycle when there is minimal incentive for cross-party cooperation.”

Public understanding

14.Some witnesses believed a lack of public understanding of the social care system was hindering reform. Care England said there was “a hesitancy by politicians to increase funding for a system that is not well understood by the public”.19 The Health Foundation said that one of the “political challenges” was that the Government needed to raise awareness of the problems with the current system: “raising awareness of these problems is a risky thing to do … But you can’t have a conversation about solutions to the social care challenges unless the public is informed.”

15.Iain MacBeath, Director of Adult Services at Hertfordshire County Council, said there was a need to ask “some urgent questions” about the gap between people’s needs and expectations and have a “transparent conversation with the public about what is available from the state and what is not”.

Complexity of the present system

16.The complexity of the present system was cited by witnesses as a barrier to public understanding. A Local Government Association survey found that 48 per cent of English adults said they had “little to no understanding of what the term ‘social care’ means”, 44 per cent thought social care was provided by the NHS and 28 per cent thought social care was free at the point of access.

17.The King’s Fund and the Health Foundation published a joint report into public attitudes to social care in 2018. The Health Foundation said that the reaction to the current funding model “was unanimously negative. People were often shocked when the details of the means test were explained to them.”

18.Kari Gerstheimer, Director of Information and Advice at Mencap, said the system was “confusing”; even people working for the charity’s information and advice service struggled “to help people navigate that extraordinary complex system.” Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director at Age UK, believed that reforms such as that proposed by the Dilnot Commission “would have been almost impossible to communicate to the public. I am not sure that you would ever succeed in raising public awareness.”

19.Cross-party cooperation will be necessary if progress is to be made on reforms to social care funding. It will be easier to achieve if reforms make the system easier to understand. Evidence shows that people who have not had direct exposure to the social care system do not appreciate the extent to which people are responsible for paying for their own care, and that the system is too complex. This inhibits discussion around reform, as proved by the ‘death tax’ and ‘dementia tax’ refrains in recent election campaigns.

20.After decades of reviews and failed reforms, it is not clear how another Green Paper is going to make progress on addressing the challenges in social care funding. With each delay the level of unmet need in the system increases, the pressure on unpaid carers grows stronger, the supply of care providers diminishes and the strain on the care workforce continues. Government action, rather than further consultation, is required.

21.To avoid further delay, the Government should produce a White Paper, not a Green Paper, with clear and plausible proposals for sustainable adult social care funding.

22.Our inquiry found that there were three main challenges within the social care system: a lack of funding, unfair outcomes for individuals using the care system and workforce retention and recruitment.

Funding for adult social care

23.Witnesses were agreed that there was inadequate funding for adult social care and that increases in the proportion of working age people with care needs and an ageing population would increase this ‘funding gap’. We also heard there were substantial unmet care needs and that the system was dependent on a large number of unpaid carers.

Inadequate funding

24.Local authorities spent around £18 billion gross on adult social care costs in 2017/18.25 Over half of local authorities overspent against their adult social care budgets in 2017/18 and just under half financed that overspending from their reserves.26 While short-term injections of funding have increased funding since 2015/16, Figure 1 shows that funding was still £700 million lower in 2017/18 than in 2010/11. This does not account for increases in care demand in the intervening period, meaning funding per head is even lower.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... diture.png
179 posts