Barely a day goes by when we are not reminded of the parlous state of Britain’s system of care for the elderly.
At a time when medical advances mean many are living into deep old age, the finances of local authorities charged with providing it have become ever more precarious.
Former Tory minister Damian Green, a long-time confidant of the Prime Minister, deserves credit for daring to raise the idea of a surcharge to National Insurance contributions to fund the system.
Barely a day goes by when we are not reminded of the parlous state of Britain’s system of care for the elderly
For the question of how to pay for our creaking social care system has become, after Brexit, the most toxic subject in British politics.
It was a major issue in two recent General Election campaigns, and a Green Paper which the Government promised would show the way forward has been delayed many times — with ministers insisting it will be published ‘at the earliest opportunity’.
Pilloried
At the last General Election, the Tories’ campaign was severely damaged by its cack-handed presentation of social care reform plans.
Their proposal meant that only £100,000 of a pensioner’s total wealth, including savings and property, would be protected from long-term care costs.
The plan was branded a ‘dementia tax’ by Labour and embarrassingly withdrawn.
This followed the 2010 General Election campaign when Labour wanted a £20,000 compulsory levy to fund a national care service — they were pilloried by the Tories, who called it a ‘death tax’.
At a time when medical advances mean many are living into deep old age, the finances of local authorities charged with providing it have become ever more precarious
Pressure on the social care system has increased massively as result of the growing number of elderly people and the fact that many care homes have closed (at least 735 since 2016) or been taken over by private equity firms which charge bigger fees.
Among the most serious consequences is that too many people end up in hospital.
They ought to be better cared for — and more comfortable — in their own homes, with visiting carers, or in private or local authority residential care.
In the last year, I, like many of my fellow ‘baby boomers’, have experienced the problem while helping elderly relatives.
First, in a modern residential home in South Wales, I watched compassionate young staff — some locals and others foreign-born — provide loving, 24-hour care to my mother-in-law as she faded away with cancer.
Fortunately, because she had been careful with her finances, she was able to pay her way in a private nursing home.
My other experience of the system, on the South Coast, showed that similar high-quality care can be provided by local authorities.
In this case, the council supplied the money for us to look after my father at home.
Carers would arrive breathless from visits to other patients. The system seemed to be dreadfully overstretched and carers given too many appointments for the hours in the day. But they remained unfailingly professional.
I was almost brought to tears when a young carer who had looked after my father turned up on his 103rd birthday, unannounced, with a bunch of flowers and a card, and sat holding his hand.
The humanity and professionalism of such people impressed me at every turn.
Yet they are struggling to provide the care they should — and want to — because of a deep-seated funding shortage, which is getting worse.
Politicians have been aware of the problem since a Royal Commission on Long-Term Care reported in 1999.
But successive governments — Tory
