by Andrew Holman
It was inevitable there were going to be inconsistencies. Decision making in social care has been increasingly devolved to local authorities over the past few years. This has been portrayed as a way of empowering local democracy and conveniently avoiding tedious questions about a lack of funding, by being able to say budget allocation and spending is all down to local decision makers. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that there are differences between areas. Indeed how could it be otherwise, this was surely to be expected?
So, why all the fuss?
So why the fuss this morning about the new reportfrom the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) stating the bleeding obvious that there are differences in deciding who gets help, what level of support they get and who leaves with nothing?
And why does Ivan feel the need to waste more money launching “a fundamental review of the system which determines who gets care." Surely the answer is because we have set the system up to behave in this way? With the ever increasing pressures on budgets and local authorities facing threats should they go overspent or put their up rates too much how could it be otherwise? And like him though I do, if Lewis says one more time that this is simply "not acceptable” I shall scream.
It’s simply not acceptable
Of course this system is not acceptable, it hasn’t been acceptable for a very long time and it will remain unacceptable until, as a country, we get to grips with what we are prepared to pay for social care and what we are not.
The pressures are not going to go away, the demographics are clearly showing we face a huge challenge and this cannot be pushed into the future by hoping some miraculous intervention will magically occur.
The time has come to be clear about this and to deciding what commitment we are prepared to make towards paying for it, because so far all we have got are sets of fine aspirations for services set by government, that a few are allowed to achieve (and are then endlessly trotted out as examples of what can be done), but no way or means for the majority to get anywhere near them.
£10 each?
I believe we are actually scared of the result if we do ask the country how much they are wiling to pay for social care. Worryingly I fear the answer will be “not enough”.
This debate on social care has started, and the green paper that has prompted it will be on its way before too long. To achieve a level playing field I believe the time has come to put together all the auxiliary stuff for people requiring social care into the same pot as the funding debate to enable realistic decisions about what can be made available for all.
Now I hope that the result of that will shock us into raising that level, as I fear everyone will just get a tenner each. But at least we will do away with the inequity there is at the moment and be realistic about what you can and should expect, this would enable us to then move on and up from there.