Social care is currently means-tested
Related Stories
Social care costs in England should be capped so people do not face losing their assets, a review is to say.
Council-funded home help and care home places for the elderly and adults with disabilities are currently only offered to those with under £23,250 of assets.
The independent Dilnot report, being published later, will say the threshold should rise to £100,000 and suggest a £35,000 cap on costs would be “fair”.
But ministers have indicated the level of any cap will need to be discussed.
Last year the coalition government asked economist Andrew Dilnot to look into how the system of funding social care in England could be changed amid concerns it was getting harder for people to get access to state support.
The ageing population and squeeze on councils budgets have led councils to impose stricter criteria on who can get help.
Care across the UKMany councils in England have stopped providing support to those with low and moderate needsThe Dilnot Commission was set up in July 2010 to establish how to achieve an affordable care system for adults in EnglandWales and Northern Ireland both have means-tested systems which are similar to EnglandScotland provides free personal care, but in recent years has tightened the eligibility criteria for the same reasons as councils in England
It means while 1.8m are getting state funding, another 1m-plus either have to pay for support themselves or go without.
Instead of this system, Mr Dilnot’s commission will recommend a partnership between the state and individual whereby the high costs are covered by the government – one in 10 people aged over 65 faces care costs of more than £100,000 over their lifetime.
But the individual should be liable for the first tranche of care with a cap in costs set at between £25,000 and £50,000, the report will say. It will suggest £35,000 as the ideal figure.
The hope is that with the state paying for the high-cost cases, the insurance industry would be encouraged to develop polices which would cover any care costs below the cap.
Means-testing should remain so that the poorest would not have to pay, the commission will recommend, but it will say the threshold should be raised for those going into residential care.
At the moment, people with assets, including the value of their house, of over £23,250 pay for all their care.
The commission will say this should be increased to £100,000 to better reflect the rise in property value seen over the past 20 years.
The report will also call for an end to the ever-tightening restrictions being placed on access. Instead, it will say that there should be a national standard so everyone has the same access no matter where they live.
However, an overhaul on this scale is likely to cost the government more.
It has been suggested an extra £2bn will be needed immediately – on top of the £14bn that is already spent by councils – although this would increase in time with the ageing population.
The Treasury is known to have doubts whether more money can be found in the current financial climate.
Speaking before the publication of the report, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said ministers were likely to give it a “positive response” and “treat it as the basis for engagement”.
However, he said the level of any cap, how it would paid for and the threshold for means testing were among a “range of issues that need to be resolved”.
Michelle Mitchell, of Age UK, said action was long overdue: “Social care is at crisis point. Vulnerable people are going without care and that means their conditions are worsening and they are ending up in hospital and costing the government more. We cannot go on as we are doing.”
Age UK was one of 26 charities which wrote to the Sunday Telegraph calling for politicians to hold cross-party talks on the issue and “not let reform fall off the table for another generation”.
Any overhaul of the system would take about five years to introduce.
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Graffiti may be art to some, but it is seen as a nuisance by others
A landmark sculpture project is at risk because of spiralling costs – including the budget for keeping it graffiti-free. How do you protect public artworks from vandals?
It was meant to be a towering monument – a 50m (164ft) white horse in the fields of Kent greeting Eurostar passengers to England. But now sculptor Mark Wallinger’s so-called “Angel of the South” project is at risk because of rising costs.
The price tag for the Ebbsfleet Landmark Project (ELP) has gone up from £2m to £12m, according to reports, with the budget for removing graffiti over 80 years part of the revised bill.
Keeping outdoor artworks like sculptures and murals unsullied by vandalism is a constant preoccupation of local authorities and the hygiene industry. Various types of anti-graffiti protective coatings are commercially available and “target-hardening” – making landmarks more difficult to vandalise – is also an option.
The proposed white horse sculpture designed by artist Mark Wallinger
However, some experts argue that a more effective method is to ensure communities feel ownership of their public art.
The authorities responsible for the proposed white horse have good reason to be wary of graffiti. There are many examples of much-loved outdoor artworks falling victim to vandalism.
The Superlambanana sculpture in Liverpool, though it came to be widely cherished in the city, was an occasional victim to graffiti during its early days on display.
In 2010, a newly-restored statue commemorating the struggles for a living wage by striking miners in Tonypandy, South Wales, was defaced with silver paint, causing fury in the community.
And even the apparently impenetrable bronze bull, nicknamed “Bully”, which stands outside Birmingham’s Bullring centre, was vandalised with an ice skate in 2006.
There are, however, technical solutions for protecting such landmarks.
The answerProtective coating that can be used to guard against vandals”Target-hardening” techniques, such as lighting, gates fences and anti-climb devices, can deter graffitiBut some experts argue that community engagement is the most important factor
According to the Anti-Graffiti Association (AGA), there are two types of protective coating that can be used to guard against vandals.
The first are sacrificial coatings, which are designed be removed with steam or hot water, taking away any paint or ink on the surface along with it.
By contrast, permanent coatings stay in place for years and allow the graffiti to be wiped off them.
The AGA says objects and buildings can also be protected using “target-hardening” techniques, such as lighting, gates fences and anti-climb devices.
However, such techniques would tend to defeat the one of the key objects of public art – that is, to be accessible to the public.
WHO, WHAT, WHY?
A part of BBC News Magazine, Who, What, Why? aims to answer questions behind the headlines
As a result, Prof Lorraine Gamman, of Central Saint Martins School of Art and Design and director of the Design Against Crime research centre, argues that “top-down” initiatives generally fail when it comes to encouraging people to preserve and treasure works of art.
Instead, she says, community-led initiatives are usually far more effective at ensuring that public art is protected by self-policing.
“There are lots of things you can do but ultimately it’s about bringing a sense of ownership to the community,” she says.
“If you achieve that, the people on the street are the eyes and the ears protecting it.”
And, indeed, she says that local people will often become protective of the very graffiti that others might see as a menace.
“Ask the community what they want,” she adds. “In Bristol, they protect their Banksys.”
Jill Partington, spokesperson for the anti-litter campaign Keep Britain Tidy, concurred with this community perspective.
“When a community respects a piece of public art it is much less likely to be vandalised,” she added.
“Prevention is better than cure and an awareness project about the local significance of the art, might have a greater impact on its protection in the long-term.”
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
