The personal care at home Bill is a bad policy, appallingly handled. As we go into an era of fiscal stingency, it involves expenditure of at least £680 million a year, rising to £1.7 billion in real terms in five years. All this money goes to the better off; not a penny to provide the better basic services that the mass of people needing care should get. The government’s bid to rush it through parliament as if it were a piece of emergency legislation must be thwarted.
Lord Lipsey
Care charges for those with critical needs are often a crippling cost to families already struggling with the financial impacts of illness or disability. This Bill would mark a historic end to means-testing and charging for some of the most vulnerable people in our society to provide for their most basic care needs. Older and disabled people and their families and carers have long called for an end to charging for care services – and they would not forget if this opportunity was missed to end unfair charges for those most in need. People want to know what care they will get and how much they will be asked to pay.
The care and support system is in need of a complete overhaul, and this Bill does not come close to solving the inequalities, inconsistencies and profound funding challenges of our creaking care system. However the principles set out in this Bill are a vital first step in reforming social care, and we urge all parties to come forward with a firm commitment to rapidly deliver proposals for an ambitious vision for a well-funded, transparent, fair care and support system. As we move ever closer to a general election, we need the better funding of social care to be high up every politician’s agenda.
Stephen Burke, chief executive, Counsel & Care
The government’s proposals in the personal care at home Bill offer a groundbreaking programme of national support to some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society: a hallmark of the progressive Labour approach. Local councils stand ready to deliver on this but need urgent clarification of how the system will be funded.
The government is counting on ‘efficiency savings’ from councils to fund £250 million of the programme, but local government is already the most efficient part of the public sector and our efficiencies can’t be counted twice. Since ADASS estimate the cost of the programme will be far higher than currently accounted for, we would like to see a firmer commitment from the government to make these noble proposals a workable reality.
Sir Jeremy Beecham, leader, LGA Labour Group