Skip to main content

Osborne fails on social care

George Osborne has missed the mark on tackling the growing social care crisis.  He has failed to provide a coherent analysis or strategy to deal with the problem. We need a national strategy.

The crisis in social care funding was recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer  in his autumn statement today.  He announced that local authorities will be allowed to increase council tax by up to 2% to help meet social care needs.  This appears a good move. It is a step, but much more is needed.

It is anticipated that the new social care "precept" in council tax of up to 2% will allow local councils to raise £2bn for social care. It is good that more money will be available,  but I anticipate a fundamental problem with this approach.

Not only does need varying geographically, but those areas with the greatest needs are not those with the greatest potential for raising revenue. It may exacerbate the north-south divide in resourcing.

Data from the ONS and from the National Audit Office show that local social, economic and demographic factors lead to variation in the level of social care need in each local authority. Thus, there are more self-funded residents in care homes in the South than the North.   In the Northeast, almost 80% of those in care homes are funded by the local authority.  In the South that figure can be less than 50%. There will be large variations across local authorities - the areas where there is the greatest need may not be those where there is the greatest potential to raise income through the new precept. 

Local authority spend on care depends on local need, but also on local policies and priorities. It depends also the local authority’s commissioning and financial management skills. But as the National Audit Office has pointed out,  many factors are outside a local authority’s control or can only be influenced long term or by national economic and social policies.  

Need for care is also linked to an adult’s health, the quality of their housing and the effectiveness of other support and services, in preventing needs developing. This again is why the burden falls disproportionately in some areas and less in others.  The poorest areas of the country are also those with the poorest health and the greatest social care needs. 

Demand for care varies according to need, availability of informal care, quality of formal care services, voluntary provision, health, housing and other services, plus individuals’ wealth, choices and expectations. These factors combine to create different levels of demand in each local authority area.  Meanwhile the distribution of wealth and the ability to pay for services is disproportionately distributed.  It is an old problem - the areas of greatest need are the less able to meet that need.  This is why we need a national approach.  

Allowing local authorities to raise a precept is not in itself bad.  It is a strong move to devolve local decision making and priorities.  That much is right.

But we need more. If there is to be a hypothecated approach then we need this at the national level too.  We need a national strategy not simply throwing the burden onto cash-starved local authorities. Just as we have a national health service, so we need a national approach to care. 

Osborne has failed to address the problems of care nationally. We need a joined up care and health system responsive to need and not a post-code lottery in care dependent on a local authorities ability to pay.

We need resources fairly distributed so that the areas of greatest need do not fall short of meeting those needs.  Much more needs to be done to address the issues.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha