It is terrific that the IPPR Condition of Britain report’s chapter on older people begins by celebrating the achievement of an ageing population, but how good are its policies?
A decent income in retirement is crucial and depends largely on your lifetime earnings and savings, and we agree NEST should be able to offer a wider range of products. ‘Collective defined contribution schemes’ are worth exploring too, though we are sceptical many employers will offer them. It is disappointing that with one in seven older people still in poverty, nothing new is suggested to help them.
Any enhanced rights for carers are welcome, but the proposed extension wouldn’t be our priority; allowing carers to make a request from day one in employment, and offering them paid time off to make care arrangements, would make much more difference. Also, why shouldn’t the public sector lead with a ‘flexible by default’ approach for all workers?
More support for people on low incomes with moderate care needs is an advance but with two big problems: first, the policy is far too timid. Care quality is at best patchy, 980,000 older people who need care do not get it, and this ‘care gap’ is growing all the time. The crisis in care is probably the single biggest problem facing older people. Tackling it has significant financial implications but we cannot keep kicking the can further down the road – the suffering now being experienced is simply too great.
Second, the funding mechanism of restricting winter fuel payment to those eligible for pension credit would exclude many who need the money to keep warm enough to sustain their health in the cold – there were 31,000 excess winter deaths in England and Wales last year, mostly to over 75s. A footnote correctly observes that one in three older people do not claim the pension credit they are entitled to and that is the flaw in the proposal: means-testing, as suggested here for WFP, does not really work with older people. The good news is we could potentially dispense with WFP in future if, as proposed, we upgrade the energy efficiency of our housing stock, but this must happen before WFP is removed, to protect older people’s health.
The idea of advancing social insurance to protect against the cost of care is interesting and deserves further development.
Quite rightly the problem of loneliness is raised and we agree communities are central to the solution and that a good local infrastructure really matters. Are the Leeds networks the model to scale up? I am not sure; the Leeds networks are brilliant, but how much is due to the outstanding people driving them there, and how replicable is their approach? It is also stated that Leeds has taken 20 years to get to where they are today; a less prescriptive approach might achieve more for less, more quickly.
Finally, the requirement on councils to establish neighbourhood networks as a condition of receiving the full amount of additional funding for means-tested social care (if both policies are adopted) unhelpfully muddles loneliness with social care. A volunteer-based local project can do a lot to tackle loneliness but it is no substitute for social care – we are talking apples and pears. If you need help to empty your commode every morning it is not fair or appropriate to expect a volunteer to do it, 365 days a year. That us why we need a properly functioning social care system.
So I warmly welcome the positive approach and some good ideas, but the really big issues for older people are not always grasped or addressed.
———————————
Caroline Abrahams is charity director at Age UK
———————————
Photo: Catherine Smith
These are comments on the points raised in the article.
1. Pensions. The present situation is a mess, with the value of people’s savings having been eroded over the years by inflation and poor investment products provided by the private sector.
If the government got a real grip of things, it would offer lots of (index-linked) granny bonds and, even, index-linked annuities (so people could be reliant on getting value for money, rather than being beholden to the whims of the financial markets and the manipulations of the operators in it. There is no competition for the City as a whole, so the government ought to provide it). The money raised by the sales of these bonds and annuities could provide for a large amount of infrastructure and the government wouldn’t have to be so pathetic about “deficit reduction”.
2. Winter fuel payment. This should not be means-tested. People forget we have a tax system, which should be used if they want to put the not-so-poor at higher risk in winter. Frankly, the amounts involved are not worth bothering to means-test and, if you want a one-nation Britain, you have to cut out as much means-testing as possible.
3. Social insurance. In my innocence, I believed that that is what the National Insurance system was for. Clearly, HM Treasury, over the years, has perverted that admirable aim.
4. Loneliness etc. The taxation of owner-occupied housing is not fit for purpose. There is no provision for multi-generational, or, alternatively, collective, ownership of housing accommodation to be encouraged. This might reduce the need for social workers and nurses to make home visits at £15 per quarter hour, as my mother was offered five years ago – heaven knows what the current charge is.
To my previous comments, I would add that the index-linked annuities that government should sell should include flexible deferred ones. One could thereby secure a safe income in retirement, which would be available without having to wait for a fixed date. Naturally, the amount would vary according to the starting date. The actual inflation index to be used needs to be one relating to the cost of living of older people and the existing ones being used may not be appropriate for that purpose. As can be seen from recent history, with RPI v CPI changes, governments cannot be trusted in their approach to inflation to do other than ratchet costs down.