News

Stephen Ladyman seems to be one of that rare breed - a politician who commands public and professional respect for his genuine commitment to his brief. At a King's Fund breakfast seminar last month, where he launched his green paper on adult social care, Independence, Well-being and Choice, he made his position on charging clear. He was scathing about what he called the "mechanistic" approach to social care in Scotland, which he said followed from it being free at the point of delivery. As he put it, you stay at home until it costs more than residential provision. Then, when residential provision costs more than nursing home care, you are moved there and when that costs more than long-term hospital, you are moved on again.

There is certainly no question now of a Labour government after the general election extending the Scottish model to the whole of the UK. Only the Liberal Democrats of the three main political parties have committed themselves to abolishing social care charges. The Conservatives' proposal of free long-term care after three years neatly sidesteps the issue, since it is in these first three years that most service users are likely to be around to need free care.

Why is the political response to free personal care so lukewarm when, as Community Care's own recent survey found, most professionals want to see it; big charities like Age Concern and Help the Aged are strongly behind it and service users are emphatic about its importance? Service users consulted on the development of the green paper identified charging as one of the three main problems of social care, alongside underfunding and poor quality provision.

Charges adversely affect thousands of service users. The largest group are older people who have become disabled. Only those on the lowest incomes can expect to be exempt from charges. People on disability benefits - disability living allowance if aged under 65, attendance allowance if older - are liable to have these whittled away. The crucial buffer zone such benefits offer, keeping people above the poverty line, is taken from them.

No wonder that so many people who need support at home desperately try to avoid getting it because of the cost. They struggle to keep washing and dressing themselves when it is too much of a strain. They have falls trying to do things without help that they can no longer manage. Unable to go out unassisted, they become increasingly isolated - a form of house arrest that has prompted no national outcry. They are more likely to become ill and have to go into hospital. How this is supposed to square with any economic argument for charging remains a mystery. Finding the logic in getting the district nurse for free and paying for care assistance must beat some of the finest brains in the land.

But charging for social care is worse than this. It is a national scandal. How can a society which from December 2006 imposes a duty on the public sector, including councils and government departments, to eliminate unlawful disability discrimination and promote disability equality at the same time impose a tax on disabled people by charging them for the essential support they need?

No less important, how will we ever outlaw ageism in our society if one of the pillars of social policy, the provision of social care, is itself inherently ageist?

Charging for social care treats the frailty that ageing often brings as a source of income generation, rather than ensuring people their entitlement, paid for over a lifetime spent working, contributing and paying taxes.
Elections are not perhaps the best time to expect reason, decency and honesty to shine through in politics. Artificial election agendas focusing on travellers, asylum seekers and hospital waiting times bear witness to this.

But if the contribution that younger disabled people can make and that older disabled people have already made to society is to be recognised and valued, then some brave member of government is going to have to put their head above the parapet and lead the charge for free social care in Britain. That rare bird, the politician with principles, is going to have to be at a very high premium if we are to see this happen.

Peter Beresford is professor of social policy, Brunel University, and is involved with the psychiatric system survivor movement.