Article
In Beveridge's footsteps - making care free for all
A National Care Service will be a radical Labour initative to rank with the NHS and welfare state
The National Care Service will save families from having to pay for elderly relatives who need support. Photograph: Jeffrey Coolidge/Getty Images
Now more than ever, Britain needs an invigorating election campaign that takes politics back to what it should be – a clash of ideas, a choice of values. In these pages on Saturday John Harris suggested that Labour's "dysfunctional relationship with its past", and a battle between old and new Labour, is standing in the way of a bold approach.
Not so. Ed Miliband is preparing a manifesto with radical ideas that, like all Labour's best social reforms down the decades, are not a choice between old and new Labour but a synthesis of the best instincts of both.
The National Health Service, the Open University, the national minimum wage, Sure Start – all policies true to Labour's roots but also speaking directly to the aspirations of the fair-minded majority.
And today we launch a policy which I believe is in the same tradition, of the same magnitude and with all the hallmarks of the best of Labour.
A new National Care Service, providing personal care and support to adults on the basis of need and free at the point of use, will ensure that an ageing society remains a decent and fair society.
It speaks directly to the aspirations of millions of families who want good quality care and support when they need it without the fear of losing their homes or their savings.
The social care system is the only remaining part of our welfare state that is not organised on a collective, population-wide, risk-sharing basis. When the welfare state was created, life expectancy was 12 years shorter. But, as we live longer, a sixth giant has emerged to add to Beveridge's five – fear of old age. Many older people today experience a real anxiety about the costs and quality of care. Too often they simply don't know what the future holds for them as they get old and frail.
That's because we currently have a random dementia tax – where people can see tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds wiped out by the costs of care, the loss of their homes, their savings and every ounce of their financial security. And, because we have an overstretched care system, it doesn't provide the dignity that all deserve. Families can face a wearying battle to get help and often find that it falls short. If we fail to reform this system now, unfairnesses will only intensify over the next decade.
Today's generation of pensioners are the first real home-owning generation. They rightly want to help their children and grandchildren; but their ability to do so is at risk in the cruel care lottery.
To make the National Care Service work, everyone will have to make a contribution. But because of this, the costs of covering everyone's care needs will be reduced. This means people of all incomes will get peace of mind in old age and be able to protect everything they have worked for. Like the NHS before it, it will end catastrophic care costs.
It is a policy that will promote social mobility, helping lower-income families keep their foothold on the property ladder. It is also an economic policy. Most of us can expect to be carers in later life and will need high-quality support and control over services if we are to make balancing work and caring possible. But, most importantly, it will promote a more positive vision of the ageing society, where older people are not always spoken of as a burden and can look forward to a retirement with peace of mind.
So this is a big choice for the country. It will require tough choices. Today I will propose reform in stages with a freeze on inheritance tax allowances for the next five years to begin this process, as well as moves to encourage more to work after 65.
It is unquestionably a major reform, and we need to continue to build a consensus around it. I will be asking the Tories again today to open their minds to the possibility of a comprehensive system. That's because it is clear to me that any voluntary system will not provide the long-term solution that the country is looking for. It is more expensive, pricing out many people in the middle and bottom third.
The future of care of older people brings the clash of ideas that this election desperately needs. As this is one of the biggest issues the country faces, it is right that it will at last be centre-stage in an election campaign.
There are, of course, risks for Labour in proposing the comprehensive, compulsory approach – but now is the time for strong hearts.
The National Care Service shows Labour still has the courage, confidence and capacity to shape a new century and a fairer society.
Related Content
User Comments
salaciousbcrumb
30 March 2010 12:07AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
goldmine
30 March 2010 12:10AM
Today I will propose reform in stages with a freeze on inheritance tax allowances for the next five years to begin this process, as well as moves to encourage more to work after 65.
How about getting a few more people under 65 off benefits and into work?
TotalMadness
30 March 2010 12:11AM
" Britain needs an invigorating election campaign that takes politics back to what it should be ? a clash of ideas, a choice of values"
- So will Labour be refraining from smear tactics and demonisation of opponents?
As for free care for all, after 13 years you've got a nerve. You couldn't do it during the boom time with majorities of 179 and 167, so you're hardly likely to be able to do it now.
Battistan
30 March 2010 12:12AM
To you, the party that gave Patricia Hewitt billions of our money to squander on PFI and feather her nest by screwing NHS budgets:
No.
Fucking.
Chance.
I'd rather vote Lib Dem.
First time for everything...
TheotherWay
30 March 2010 12:13AM
"To make the National Care Service work, everyone will have to make a contribution. But because of this, the costs of covering everyone's care needs will be reduced. This means people of all incomes will get peace of mind in old age and be able to protect everything they have worked for. Like the NHS before it, it will end catastrophic care costs."
!) Will such contribution be "hypothicated" for the care of the elderly or go into the common tax pool like the NI and be spent on Politicians whim? Experience has taught me to suspect the latter and that this in another tax raising wheeze in these hard times rather than genuine concern about the care for the elderly.
2) What is the level of contribution from who and from what age?
3) What standard of care would be provided. I suspect it will be something like the "Care in the Community" for the mentally ill which sounded great when politicians spun it but horrid in practice.
raymonddelauney
30 March 2010 12:17AM
When the welfare state was created, life expectancy was 12 years shorter.
What part of "from the cradle to the grave" don't you get Andrew?
raymonddelauney
30 March 2010 12:20AM
The National Care Service shows Labour still has the courage, confidence and capacity to shape a new century and a fairer society.
Perhaps Messrs Milburn and Hewitt could give you the benefit of their advice and experience.
You could even ask for mates rates..
alisdaircameron
30 March 2010 12:20AM
Whoa. Lovely idea a free national care Service, but that's not really what you're proposing is it, more of a woolly pledge that if you can take money now, then perhaps some folk might get some care down the line (and even that's not cast-iron) :check the details with New Labour,always,don't rely on the spun headlines.Oh, and actually, Andy,all of Labour's genuinely big and effective social reform came with Old Labour, nothing to do with New labour at all, but that doesn't stop you trying to claim credit and glory for the deeds of a party which you betrayed and personally helped eviscerate and remove both its nobility and principles. Aye, and you just sneaked in, alongside the inheritance tax line those words about "moves to encourage more to work after 65". New Labour has a chilling track record with encouragement.
Revround
30 March 2010 12:23AM
...but they never dared to tell private health care to get lost though did they? The rich got to push in the queue as per usual in the NHS.
And anyway why trust Labour or Conservative regarding the National Health Service they have both done their best to creep, slime, slither, and slide privatisation in the back door. A curse on both their houses.
So what will actually be any different with this National Care Service?
Not much I suspect. And really how long has it taken for all those politicians to suddenly realize what has been called for for the last 40 years?
Sorry Labour but going for the elders vote when you like the Conservatives have already cost us an arm and a leg is small fry.
You had plenty of time to introduce proportional representation and you blew it. You are going to hand power to your very very close friends the Conservative Party because you want to.
CaptainJackHackett
30 March 2010 12:35AM
Stop pumping money into advertising, health and general bossiness campaigns and initiatives telling people to lay off the booze, fags, fried food etc.
Abolish the war on recreational drugs. Legalise the lot, licence and regulate the suppliers, and put a tax on them.
Allow assisted suicide subject to stricture along the lines of Terry Pratchett's lecture on the matter not long ago.
SeaBee
30 March 2010 12:37AM
Perhaps Mr Burnham could explain to we uneducated peasants how a compulsory contribution scheme differs from a tax.
Has anyone noticed that the labour government hasn't spent anything since 1997, it has all been 'investment'.
RosemaryUK
30 March 2010 1:13AM
A National Care service already exists in the strong foundation that family carers provide.Any future funding for care cannot and must not be looked at in isolation away from them.Both NHS and Social Services rely on families now, and will do more so in the future.
Burnham mentions a fair and decent society , yet we live in a society where the govt and other main parties exploit the love and care provided by families, year in, year out.
If we support family carers early enough, both financially and practically with services, many future elderly will still be cared for at home,may not need residential care.Preventive measures are a necessity.
Reform is definitely needed,noone can deny that but they are all starting from an incorrect position. Start with what is already working and build from that,start with families. Not all future elderly are going to need care,the govt itself states it wants people to work after 65 yrs of age.Whether an elderly person is disabled/ill health due to the many various illnesses',the one common thread running through the lot of them is family support.By continuously ignoring this fact, no new system will be sustainable no matter which proposal is implemented.
I will be asking the Tories again today
Whether they agree or disagree, the Tories have a duty to attend these talks.By willingly excluding themselves from the talks they forfeit any right to be taken seriously. This is not tit for tat in a playground, it is peoples lives,it is a future we all have an interest in, and to that end they cannot refuse to attend.
To do so again, for Lansley not discuss these issues,for Cameron to allow his party to be excluded shows weakness not strength.
No one even comes close to walking in Beveridges' shoes. We need someone with a bold vision, that will tear the system apart and start afresh.
However, to build such a system that will last,family carers need be at the heart of it.
BoudiccaBrent
30 March 2010 1:54AM
'In Beveridge's Footsteps'? You must be joking. If Beveridge were alive today he would be absolutely appalled at the way the welfare state has worked out. What was that about a safety net, for those too young, too old or too ill to help themselves? And for those briefly out of work?
It never was quite like that, in part because private health care was retained and those with enough money could always opt out. But also because soon, it became possible for large numbers of people to live off welfare as a way of life. And now we have an increasing number people retiring early and living sometimes more years than they worked.
So you have more and more people taking out of the pot, while less and less people are putting into it. The present situation has been obvious for several decades, but only now, and after thirteen years of Government, Andy Burnham thinks it is time for a radical initiative. It is a pity that Gordon Browns destruction of the economy is going to make it so much more difficult to do anything of the sort.
AlbertaRabbit
30 March 2010 2:25AM
Burham...
1. Refers to the program as "free" when obviously somebody has to pay for it.
2. Refers to a tax as a "contribution".
3. Makes no estimate about what it will cost or how much taxes will need to be raised.
When a salesman goes to such lengths to avoid talking price, it's time to turn tale and run. When he sprinkles the word "fair" all over the place, it's time to run fast.
SeanThorp
30 March 2010 2:31AM
Not so. Ed Miliband is preparing a manifesto with radical ideas that, like all Labour's best social reforms down the decades, are not a choice between old and new Labour but a synthesis of the best instincts of both.
Nobody trusts you, Ed Milliband or any promises you care to write down on a bit of paper. Gordon went to court to get a ruling that Manifesto Pledges are Not Subject to Legitimate Expectation. Have you forgotten this?
How about the fact your 1997 manifesto was full of lies? Or what about the fact that you personally claimed £479 from hardworking tax payers in order to pay for a leak in your bathroom? How is a leak in your bathroom connected with you doing the job of MP? It isn't is it? You're a scam artist and you're leader is a scam artist. You should be up under the Fraud Act the lot of you.
Leon13
30 March 2010 3:13AM
There is no such thing as "free" anything. If the government gives you something at no cost to you, it must first take that money from your fellow citizen to pay for it. Or it can pay for the "free" service by printing money, in which case everyone pays with higher inflation. Or it can borrow the money from wealthy nations which means your kids pay back the principle, with interest. The money must come from somewhere. And by the way, if it's "free" it can't be worth much. How about the guy that died because an NHS nurse wouldn't give him a glass of water? That happened to another guy a couple of weeks ago who actually phoned the police because a NHS hospital refused him water. The police were turned away at the door and the poor fellow thirsted to death. And these are the only stories that manage to see the light of day. I imagine there are thousands of people who die in their own body wastes because of unprofessional and uncaring NHS staff. That's what you get when the government gives you something for "free".
Leon13
30 March 2010 3:26AM
A follow-up thought, if I may. Doesn't it anger all you died-in-the-wool libs that the elites have their own health care system? The same people that make the rules for you have a separate set for themselves. Google "the pigs of Orwell" if you still don't get it. You have to wait in line, receive inferior service, and possibly die in the process, while they waltz right up to the head of the line and get the best of everything. And then they take even more of your money, schmooze you for your vote, lie through their teeth about how much they care about you, openly and brazenly steal public funds, and keep getting reelected. LIke Orwell's pigs, they have their snouts buried deeply in the trough. And you all continue to pay for this nonsense with still higher taxes.
Modernguitars
30 March 2010 7:15AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
myfellowprisoners
30 March 2010 12:07AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.