PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

115 Debate on the Address
9 MAY 2012
Debate on the Address
116
[Chris Skidmore]
One might have expected the population to opt for
the higher payment, given that the social care package
seems to be more sophisticated and pays more in euros,
but in fact 49% of Germans decided instead to opt for
the direct cash payment, which gave them greater choice
and freedom in how they spent the money, or spent it
for their relative. That control is every bit as valuable to
individuals as money. It gives them the opportunity to
stay in their own home and receive informal care from
relatives. They can purchase the service they need without
an additional layer of bureaucracy getting in the way.
We can learn from what Germany did in modernising
social care. Local authorities have traditionally focused
on a one-size-fits-all response, in effect acting as a
single, inflexible state supplier that cannot hope to offer
the choice that people approaching their old age
nowadays—baby boomers who have lived their lives
having choice—will want equally as they get older.
What would happen if we introduced such a system
in this country? In 2009-10, local authorities spent
£3.4 billion on residential elderly care. On that basis, if
the same thing happened here as in Germany, with half
this group opting instead for cash payments and staying
at home, we would save £1.14 billion a year, with people
receiving £566 million instead of £1.7 billion. We could
free up £1.1 billion or £1.2 billion a year, which could go
a significant way towards producing the money that
might then implement Dilnot.
Above all, the way in which people contribute to their
care must be something that they can control rather
than something that is done to them. We need to ensure
that in modernising social care we make the best possible
services available. People will not put up with paying for
the current levels of services if they do not think that
they are good enough. If we are going to expect people
to pay more for their social care in old age, knowing, as
we do, that it has never been free of charge—it is a bit of
a nasty shock for some people when they find out that it
is not provided free—then they need to have the best
possible services for their money, and that, essentially,
means choice.
With choice comes competition. We must ensure that
there is thriving competition between social care providers.
We must not only introduce direct cash budget payments
but ensure that agencies are available to guarantee a
level playing field. The Good Care Guide website is a
fantastic resource, but we should be looking to introduce
a TripAdvisor-type service into social care so that people
can analyse which are the best care homes and write
about their own experiences of what they are like. We
should trust the people to make those judgments.
I want to end by reflecting on this year. Many Members
have spoken about it being the year of the diamond
jubilee, but it is also 70 years since William Beveridge
published the Beveridge report on 1 December 1942.
On that day, there were queues at the shops to purchase
the report, and in the first week 600,000 people did so.
The report set out what the welfare state would look
like for most of the 20th century.
In many ways, Beveridge still casts a shadow over us.
The NHS and pensions were established, but when
Beveridge wrote his report the average life expectancy
was 69. When people received their pension at 65, their
pensionable age was only meant to last an average of
four years. Beveridge never gave any thought to how we
should care for the elderly. It was assumed that families
would look after their elderly loved ones. Somewhere
along the line, we have gone wrong. I am not blaming
any one political party, but why is it that in many
countries it is a mark of honour for people to look after
those who have brought them into this world? Why do
we pay people child benefit in recognition of being
parents but not focus on rewarding carers who look
after their parents? There is an imbalance, and I hope
that by focusing on social care, as all parties must in this
Parliament, we can try to redress the balance.
I wish to end with a quote from Beveridge. The odd
thing is, the Beveridge report cannot be found online,
but I managed to dig out from the Library a copy of the
original 1942 report. Everyone remembers the five giants—
Idleness, Squalor, Want, Ignorance and Disease—but
in the passage after that famous part Beveridge stated
that
“social security must be achieved by co-operation between the
State and the individual. The State should offer security for
service and contribution. The State in organising security should
not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a
national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for
voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that
minimum for himself and his family.”
Beveridge understood 70 years ago that we needed a
contributory principle in our public services. Somewhere
along the line, that has been lost. Only through individuals
making contributions towards their elderly care will we
achieve the best social care services. I hope that as we
consider how to modernise social care, the draft Bill
that will be published as a result of the Queen’s Speech
will focus on all the matters that I have mentioned.
Much of the media’s focus has been on the other
place, which we might call a retirement home for rather
successful eminent politicians, but what we actually
need to focus on, and what our constituents want to
focus on, is retirement homes for the elderly population
as a whole and what is happening to them. We would do
well to remember that. I recognise that I have spoken
only about one specific point in the Queen’s Speech, but
I believe it was possibly the most important one.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James
Duddridge.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.