Care for elderly must be fair and affordable
Liz Kendall, Labour MP for Leicester West, discusses her goals as she takes up her new position as shadow minister for care and older people.
Last week, I was appointed Labour's shadow minister for care and older people. Ed Miliband told me this is one of his top priorities, so I will be attending the shadow cabinet to help make sure the issue gets the attention it deserves.
Too often, people talk about our ageing population as if it is something negative. It is not.
The fact that people are living longer brings huge benefits to families, communities and society as a whole.
But it also raises big challenges about how we provide services and support for older people who need it.
I know from my constituents, and my own family, how hard it is to get the right care and support at home if an elderly relative has a fall, stroke or is diagnosed with dementia.
If they end up having to go into a home, families worry about finding somewhere that is decent and which they can also afford.
I am very concerned that the Government's cuts to council budgets will harm vital services for older people and their carers, many of whom have worked hard and paid their taxes, only to find they cannot now get the care and support they expected.
These cuts will affect some of the most vulnerable people in society.
They do not make economic sense, either.
If older people cannot get the help they need to stay healthy and independent in their own homes – or if carers do not get breaks and end up ill themselves – it costs us all more in expensive hospital and residential care.
So, my first priority is to campaign for good-quality services for older people and their carers, which will help save money for taxpayers, too.
My second priority is to help secure a sustainable system for funding social care in future.
Andrew Dilnot's recent report on this issue found that the average cost of residential care for people over 65 who used it was £50,000.
One in 10 people over 65 faced costs of more than £100,000.
Dilnot said the only way we could realistically fund these costs was by a partnership between individuals and the state.
He proposed increasing the current means-tested threshold above which people have to pay for their residential care from £23,250 to £100,000, and to place a cap on the overall amount they pay of between £35,000 and £50,000.
Dilnot also calls for an end to the postcode lottery in social care so that people's substantial needs are met, rather than only the needs of those assessed as "critical", which is currently the case in many councils.
Labour has taken a bold stance on this issue by offering to work with the Government in taking Dilnot's proposals forward.
Our goal must be to develop a system of funding for social care that is both fair and affordable and which has broad-based support in the long term.
It is time we got to grips with the issues raised by our ageing population.
I am determined to play my part in ensuring that we do.
8 Comments
by RuralOutBack
Wednesday, October 12 2011, 5:29PM
“Nursemad I trust you reported this safeguarding issue to the local authority and the Care Quality Commission, one poor provider is not most and this type of care is unacceptable.
vriyait the NHS actually was more efficient pre Labour and you are correct Labour poured millions into the NHS but productivity is worse now than it has ever been. We have more managers in the NHS than we have ever had who for obvious reasons are opposing any changes to the NHS, they are not interested in patient care they want to retain control and deny patients that control.”
by Higgo1979
Wednesday, October 12 2011, 4:53PM
“I thought Councils are prioritising social care as someone has previously pointed out. At the moment Labour are shouting about every cut without any credible alternative.
Councils have other forms of raising money other than the Central Government Grant and also their are "seperate" from Central Government in deciding on what they spend it on.
Canada cut many years ago when it was in a real mess and this has been seen by many economists as a good example.
The Government has cut, Labour would have cut, the Country simply could not afford to keep spending the way it was. Hopefully with targeted spending the "cuts" Ms Kendal talks about won't happen by the Labour controlled City Council or the Conservative controlled County Council.
Regarding the comment about no democratic mandate... I think the Coalition has a mandate as, by the law of the land, they have formed a Government. Ironically it probably is the only Government who has had more of the popular vote than if the Conservative or Labour had won outright. The voters returned no overall party and, maybe indirectly, pointed to parties working together to sort out the mess.
It does seem to be a Government with mainly Conservative Policies with a hint of Liberal smatterings reflecting the size of each party within the Coalition. The Liberals are also getting some of their own policies delivered which just would not have happened if they remained in opposition.
In 1997 Labour had a golden economic legacy given to them and in 2010 they had not only blown that but put the Country into so much debt the "Interest" was eating away resources that could be put to better use (I think the interest was the size of the Defence budget)”
by Higgo1979
Wednesday, October 12 2011, 4:48PM
“I thought Councils are prioritising social care as someone has previously pointed out. At the moment Labour are shouting about every cut without any credible alternative.
Councils have other forms of raising money other than the Central Government Grant and also their are "seperate" from Central Government in deciding on what they spend it on.
Canada cut many years ago when it was in a real mess and this has been seen by many economists as a good example.
The Government has cut, Labour would have cut, the Country simply could not afford to keep spending the way it was. Hopefully with targeted spending the "cuts" Ms Kendal talks about won't happen by the Labour controlled City Council or the Conservative controlled County Council.
Regarding the comment about no democratic mandate... I think the Coalition has a mandate as, by the law of the land, they have formed a Government. Ironically it probably is the only Government who has had more of the popular vote than if the Conservative or Labour had won outright. The voters returned no overall party and, maybe indirectly, pointed to parties working together to sort out the mess.
It does seem to be a Government with mainly Conservative Policies with a hint of Liberal smatterings reflecting the size of each party within the Coalition. The Liberals are also getting some of their own policies delivered which just would not have happened if they remained in opposition.
In 1997 Labour had a golden economic legacy given to them and in 2010 they had not only blown that but put the Country into so much debt the "Interest" was eating away resources that could be put to better use (I think the interest was the size of the Defence budget)”
by nursemad
Wednesday, October 12 2011, 4:24PM
“RuralOutBack.. what are you talking about ????
"The vast majority of care provided and commissioned is to a good quality, effective and efficient giving real value for money."
My own experience is that for my nan most homes, unless they had an actual moral stand point were seriously substandard, especially compared to care given whilst people are in hospital. She was abandoned most of the time, left her in her own urine and faeces most times when we visited. Most times the finance woman who collected the fees was the only one who talked to us. And this was a home run from the largest of private health organisations that advertises how brilliant it is all the time.. robot , robot , robot.”
by nursemad
Wednesday, October 12 2011, 4:20PM
“RuralOutBack.. what are you talking about ????
"The vast majority of care provided and commissioned is to a good quality, effective and efficient giving real value for money."
My own experience is that for my nan most homes, unless they had an actual moral stand point were seriously substandard, especially compared to care given whilst people are in hospital. She was abandoned most of the time, left her in her own urine and faeces most times when we visited. Most times the finance woman who collected the fees was the only one who talked to us. And this was a home run from the largest of private health organisations that advertises how brilliant it is all the time.. robot , robot , robot.”
by vriyait
Tuesday, October 11 2011, 10:55PM
“Given that the IFS today has released their report stating that we face a decade of rising poverty as direct consequence of the coalition government's policies http://tinyurl.com/685b55f I'm not sure the Labour Party necessarily needs to take lessons on this from David Sprason and his colleagues. Couple this with zero economic growth over the last nine months and high inflation means it will be harder to get the deficit down not easier. It's funny how the govt now want to blame outside factors for this!
Those of us with longer memories will remember that the Tories left the country with one of the worst funded health services in the developed world and well below the european average. It was Labour who put in the investment and again it's the Tories looking to dismantle the NHS without a democratic mandate!”
by vriyait
Tuesday, October 11 2011, 10:53PM
“Given that the IFS today has released their report stating that we face a decade of rising poverty as direct consequence of the coalition government's policies http://tinyurl.com/685b55f I'm not sure the Labour Party necessarily needs to take lessons on this from David Sprason and his colleagues. Couple this with zero economic growth over the last nine months and high inflation means it will be harder to get the deficit down not easier. It's funny how the govt now want to blame outside factors for this!
Those of us with longer memories will remember that the Tories left the country with one of the worst funded health services in the developed world and well below the european average. It was Labour who put in the investment and again it's the Tories looking to dismantle the NHS without a democratic mandate!”
by RuralOutBack
Tuesday, October 11 2011, 5:21PM
“I welcome Liz Kendalls response as it was her Government that created the 6 billion gap in social care funding which local authorities have picked up or addressed, She is incorrect to say many councils only provide for the critical band as over 80% provide for substantial & critical, only a handfall provide for critical only. Derek Wanless reported to Gordon Brown many years ago on having the partnership approach to meeting the cost of care, he and the Labour Party ignored it and did nothing to address the gap and promoted means testing.
The vast majority of care provided and commissioned is to a good quality, effective and efficient giving real value for money. The scaremongering about cuts are no different to what was planned by the Labour Party pre election, so being honest should be Liz Kendalls first priority. The fact that the Labour government was aware of the pressures on social care for thirteen years and did nothing is the real disgrace.
The coalition commissioned Andrew Dilnot which has now reported a real solution for the future funding of social care which needs all party support to make it a reality. Making cheap political points at the expense of vulnerable people is not a good start for a Shadow Care Minister who needs to grasp her brief before going out with this type of scaremongering letter. If she had done her homework she would have found that most Councils are prioritising adult social care in their budgets with increased funding.
David Sprason CC. Cabinet Lead Member Adults & Communities.”