The elderly

The Care Quality Commission (another quango) estimates that about 4,000, or about one in six, care homes, are providing sub-standard care for elderly people. About 80,000 old folks are in these homes.

This becoming a political hot potato, especially as elderly people struggle to look after relatives in their own homes, because they cannot afford the fees charged by care homes.

The problem, which will not go away, is the result of at least three factors.

1) We are all living longer, but many are living longer with poor mobility and other health problems. The elderly are big consumers of health and care provision.

2) We contributed through our lifetime via our national insurance, in the belief that it would cover us "from cradle to grave". The problem is that national insurance contributions were not invested or funded, very often used to care for those who had worked before national insurance was started and thus had not contributed, and very often just lumped together with all other taxes for government purposes.

3) Residential care is expensive, and should be even more so if carers were paid a decent wage for all they do.

So we have a growing elderly population supported by those who work or pay tax.

The response of Mr. Brown is to say some may have free care, others will have to pay, and as it is very expensive he will offer the cheaper domiciliary provision, - something vastly inferior.

The Tories have suggested a lump sum payment by people on retirement of £8,000, which will ensure that they will not have to pay or lose their house when they eventually need care. If this is not funded, but is merely used for those already beyond 65, then the problem is not resolved.

Somehow, we have to get back to Beveridge, with a Beveridge mark two. Contributions over a lifetime should provide a fund for residential care when it arises. This does little to help the millions of people already near to or already in retirement.