SCC9
For the Attention of
Mr Mark Isherwood AM
Committee Chair
A Response to Legislation Committee No.5
Proposed Social Care Charges (Wales) Measure.
As introduced by Gwenda Thomas AC, Deputy Minister - Health and Social Services.
I am responding on behalf of "UNITE FEDERATION” which is the largest pensioner organisation in the UK. The organisation includes occupational pensioners predominantly from Royal Mail, BT, British Steel organisations, although any occupational pensioner can now become a member. [NB: 'Unite the Union’ is a totally different, unlinked organisation].
I am Chairman of the Cardiff Branch of this organisation and have recently taken on the role to provide the Welsh Assembly Government (legislation) link to our Headquarters Executive based in Luton Bedfordshire. Our executive members interact directly with Westminster and interested party organisations on issues affecting our membership in areas of state pension, taxation, occupational pension, health and social care, transport and parliamentary legislation.
Having read through the considerable information outlining this complex subject, I arrive at the following conclusions:
The work by all parties involved has to be complimented in its breadth, depth and detail in establishing the complexity of the issue to enable everyone involved to reach a suitable conclusion to the questions:
Is this measure appropriate and necessary? Answer - Yes absolutely.
To assist the committee to reach an appropriate conclusion I do not intend to expand much further on the considerable evidence that has been submitted for everyone’s consideration as in principle I agree with most respondents comments as follows:
a) Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) Comments - Agree
b) Coalition on Charging Cymru comments (COCC) - Agree
c) The Equality and Human Rights Commission comments - Agree
d) The UK Home Care Association’s Comments - Agree
However in relation to the actual Care Service providers across Wales this is probably an area that needs further detailed study to see what services these organisations are actually providing, the quality of the care and the cost of providing that care.
The important question being are Local Authorities and their clients receiving true value for money?
e) Services Users’ Comments - Agree
I fully endorse the cautionary comments in this response as a key consideration: - It is therefore crucial that care requests are met with humanity and sensitivity, not just by the Social Workers but also by the Finance Officers, Directors of Social Services and Council Members. The level and quality of debate in Council meetings sometimes displays a frightening gulf between Members’ and Officers’ understanding of these issues and reality, and the resulting decisions and policies place disabled people, older people and Carers under increasingly intolerable stress.
This underlines the importance of enhanced governmental control, scrutiny and monitoring which is essential to ensure a fair and reasonable system is introduced countrywide. It also stresses the need therefore of WAG intervention and the power of control through the introduction of the proposed Social Care Charges (Wales) Measure for the benefit. Adjustment and enhanced application can then follow via informed legislation to the benefit of those in need of care in our society. #
f) Regarding the Study into Local Authority Charging for Non-Residential Social Care Services Contract: 35/2008/09.
Presuming that charging is eventually considered the most appropriate way forward, then I feel that the following suggested options have merit in simplifying the process for everyone:
• Option 6 - £50K savings ceiling as the only financial assessment threshold
• Option 13 - Set a flat rate charge of £15/week for all those who "fail” the means test.
This is also supported in principle by the following key report issue: - As long as there is charging for care we support the David Groves model, otherwise known as Option F, because it is simple, intrinsically fair, easy to apply and understand by service user and council officer alike, and requires agreement on only two issues: level of savings and level of charge.
g) Regarding the questions relating to the listed:
Proposed Social Care Charges (Wales Measure): Consultation Questions - I agree fully with all comments and questions listed and believe that the measure will fully satisfy its intended aims.
In Addition
I do have a few points which I would like to present for serious consideration by the Legislation Committee, Assembly Members and Welsh Assembly Government as I feel it is the key to resolving a number of associated issues and problems for the people and Local Authorities in Wales.
There is a vast array of support and care benefits and schemes for all manner of issues across the board including; Income Support, Living Allowances, Disability allowance, Social Care Charges etc! This is highlighted by many reports and respondents as considered both complex and confusing for everyone.
This leads to problems for the quality of appropriate administration of care service charges and can adversely affect the entitlement and take up for those in need of the care and financial support.
I would like to suggest that in addition to this important measure a sensible progression would demand a review of all support allowances in such a way as to enable a schematic view to be built and produced showing the interactions of one on another and the implications relating to their benefits, interactions and cost implications. This can then lead to a fully simplified system both for the Local Authorities who have to implement the support packages and for the understanding of those who require the social care and financial support.
In relation to Care Services as I have stated above [e) service Users comments #] a complete review is needed to establish uniformity of offering, charging and delivery throughout Wales for a streamline, uniform, fair and workable 21st Century Care System.
If absolutely necessary I would be agreeable to speaking to the Committee.
Robert Blundell Chairman Cardiff Branch - UNITE FEDERATION
25th August 2009
For the Attention of
Mr Mark Isherwood AM
Committee Chair
A Response to Legislation Committee No.5
Proposed Social Care Charges (Wales) Measure.
As introduced by Gwenda Thomas AC, Deputy Minister - Health and Social Services.
Additional Personal Submission
If it is felt that this is not appropriate to Social Care Charges (Wales) Measure committee I would appreciate you redirecting the information to: - Gwenda Thomas AC, Deputy Minister - Health and Social Services for her information please.
I have just responded to the UK Government White Paper on paying for long term care.
I offer the following information for serious consideration by all concerned with a view to enhancing the future Care Service delivery and as an important contribution to the above measure discussion.
The funding system through the means test is unfair and no one should be forced to sell their home to pay for long term care. It is wrong for a person to be impoverished just because they become frail and in need of care. Medical and social care should be funded through taxation!
If asked, should people pay for the care themselves?
The answer has to be NO!
There are too many problems and variables to assess and encompass, it’s open to unfair practice and costs and as one report commented, people have already paid into National Insurance through their working lives.
Should the future care be paid for by insurance?
I have a basic problem with 'commercial insurance' as from my experience; the insurer makes a very good income, works in a building most businesses can not afford and all at the payee's expense. The real problem is that the payee often ends up with less than was originally promised and sometimes nothing at all for the expenditure! Its often legal "highway robbery" for want of another term so would be inappropriate for a new care system!
But-
If the Insurance Scheme was run by the Government (like National Insurance, Vat & Income Tax) then I would prefer this system so long as it included the following important points and was properly regulated and monitored:
There should be no one taking fees, it should be run by civil servants as - Nat INS, VAT etc!
All payments/contributions to go 100% towards the (payees) eventual care costs/requirements.
There should be two system flows:
NatCare 1. The working population.
NatCare 2. The already retired, immigrant and others (low income, disabled etc) population.
In NatCare 1. People contribute through their pay/Nat Ins. throughout their working lives and would automatically have only one benefit option - A) Premium Care Package as discussed below.
In NatCare 2. People already retired or immigrant/other can still be catered for through a two tier pay into system towards care costs; NatCare Package A or NatCare Package B.
NatCare 1. - would include just Package A Premium
NatCare 2. - would include Package B Basic or Package A Premium (dependant on the premium paid).
Package A - includes all eventualities the system can provide (e.g. funeral service, travel ins).
Package B - should provide everything for basic care services, accommodation, food etc.
The benefits package should be very clearly laid out and structured for each category package.
For people already retired, immigrants, the low paid etc. the two system option would be a stop gap to help fund the eventual system and pay for care services while 'economies of scale' come into play for the future ongoing system.
All care should be overseen and controlled by government, through local authorities to enable a uniformity of approach and delivery with all service costs, pay and facilities being nationally uniform as with the NHS. If the two systems are linked NatCare & NHS then health care can be provided directly through the NatCare and fund directly the NHS for services used such as; dental, nail clipping, optician, physiotherapy, diabetic, dementia, orthopaedic, psychiatric etc.
For those who are unable to pay, disadvantaged/disabled, no or low income etc. then like the current NHS they would be treated as special cases through - NatCare 2 - Package B.
Whether one has a house, savings or whatever, it should not be an influencing factor when introducing a system that does the job across the board similar to and linked directly to the NHS and Nat Ins*. For people who want specialist treatment; the rich, famous, insurance executives and bankers, then presuming they can afford it, they can (as now) pay for their own specialist needs.
*Although personal asset assessment sounds a good and reasonable idea it's difficult and costly to administer, can be unfairly applied, open to abuse while invariable introducing care provision delays for those needing care and financial support while waiting for reports etc. I would NOT consider this as a viable option in this system.
To my mind a NatCare System as I have suggested is the only way that a national care system could and should work to everyone's benefit in a fair and civilised society for Wales and the UK.
If absolutely necessary I would be agreeable to speaking to the Committee.
Robert Blundell Chairman Cardiff Branch - UNITE FEDERATION
25th August 2009
