Fairness, Freedom and Responsibility in Social Care

Fairness, Freedom and Responsibility were the buzzwords of the first Queens Speech under David Cameron’s Government.

Yet we have little detail, so far, how these ideals will be applied to social care.

We had the promise of a Commission which will look at the structure of social care but will the Commission be given the freedom and responsibility to look at all aspects of the care system and the much of the unfairness that is inherent in the system.

Yes, we know there is the question of the fairness of people having to sell their homes to pay for care but there are many other issues of unfairness to, such as the variation in services across authorities, the level at which people are able to access services, the difference in fees charged by some providers to private or publicly funded users, whether or not Local Authorities pay sufficient care fees etc. There is also the question of whether care workers are treated fairly in being asked to provide intimate services for such low remuneration, is it fair that the carers allowance for those who provide unpaid care for loved ones is just £53.90 per week?

There is also, perhaps, a question of whether the Government will be fair and responsible with social care. Is it responsible to launch another Commission into the funding issue following on the double consultation process undertaken by the last Government. To waste money going over the same ground (and I am sure that many of the submission from charities and lobbying groups will be near identical to those submitted earlier in the year) seems irresponsible, surely it will be much better to focus on the wider issues of social care that impact care users and those who provide support for the vulnerable.

Whether or not the Government gives Social Care fair time in Parliament is another question. According to the 2001 census details more than 6 million people provided unpaid care, add to this the 1.2 million people working in social care in England, the 1.78 million people receiving Local Authority care packages in England (plus those in the Devolved Governments) and you find that over 15% of the population have a stake in care policy, a number that will increase with the rapidly ageing population.

The Government has committed itself to a very full Parliamentary programme of the next 16 months or so and it is difficult to see where social care will find the time to have the debates in Parliament that the demographics and economics suggest it deserves.

There will, of course, be freedom for some as personal and individual budgets are pursued by the Government but the question here is how much Local Authorities will be able to make available to individuals who may not, because of financial restraints, have sufficient budgets to make real choice in their care services.

It is obvious that Social Care will be impacted by the cuts announced so far (and those yet to be announced!) so there needs to be an immediate debate on how those who depend on social care are to be protected from the cuts.

The most vulnerable in society must have fairness and freedom but it needs a responsible Government to achieve this.

Please sign my petition calling for the Government to make Social Care a High Priority: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/social-care-should-be-a-government-priority.html

The Economic Imperative: The New Governments Challenge

       You will have had to have been locked away for the last few months if you did not know that any Government formed after the General Election would not have to face tough economic times and make swathing cuts in public spending. The UK budget deficit currently stands at around 11% of Britain’s GDP with the prediction of a further rise making it the worst in the EU (even worse than Greece at present) so the need to take action now is obvious.

            David Cameron has promised £6 billion in economy savings straight away, and if this does equate to just £1.00 for every £100 spent in government it should be easy to achieve and, actually, somewhat unambitious. Anyone who has had dealings with aspects of the Government or Civil Service will know the endless waste and innumerable ‘arms lengths’ bodies, whose roles often seem to overlap, are ripe for economic rationalisation.

      Yet it seems obvious further cuts will be needed which will lead to a fall in public sector jobs, a concern given the rise today (completely masked by other news) of the number of ‘economically inactive’ people of working age, having increased by 88,000 over the quarter to reach a record high of 8.17 million.

            Therefore the challenge facing the newly formed Government is not only one of cutting spending but also helping those who want to find work.

            This is where we have the flip side of economic policy that has been barely mentioned in all of the campaigning – Economic Growth. Cutting spending is a part of reducing the deficit but increasing GDP is the other important side. This is not something that the Government has any real control over but it can put policies in place that stimulate and encourage growth and it is these we need to here as a confidence booster to the UK.

            Economic growth is not just something to be handled by the new Chancellor, George Osborne, but one that extends across a multitude of Government Departments. The principle of which will be the Department of Business (whichever name it goes under now) under the leadership of Vince Cable. The role of his team will to be find ways British business can grow under the current economic climate and, in turn, help the UK grow out of its budget deficit.

      Chris Huhne, at the Department of Energy, will need to find ways businesses and household can cut their energy costs as lower energy costs will be a huge boost to economic growth as it frees up disposable income. Added to this is their role of creating a more carbon efficient economy with a boost in green energy production jobs.

      The Department of Work and Pensions will need to engage with the private sector to find ways in which employment can be boosted, genuine employment not just schemes created to massage the unemployment figures.

            Beyond these obvious Departments others have a role to play such as the Foreign Office, under William Hague, can play a vital role in promoting British goods around the world but, more profoundly, it can play a role in Europe where the economics of the Euro affect British exports. There is a need for reform in the EU and there should be a British lead call for efficiency savings to be made by the EU freeing money that can be used by the member states to protect their own front line services.

            Eliminating Britain’s budget deficit must be the economic imperative of this Government but David Cameron and Nick Clegg must ensure that their cabinet team can deliver growth as well as spending cuts.

Europe – Nick Cleggs Biggest Hurdle

As Nick Clegg enjoys his meteoric rise in popularity following last weeks leaders, he must now turn his focus to the next debate on Thursday where he will have to tackle the one issue that puts the Lib Dems outside the mainstream of British Society – the European Union.

 The Lib Dems are the most Eurocentric party in a generally Eurosceptic British society. They are committed to Britain joining the Euro and a stronger EU in general but in reality is this a viable position?

 Historically, especially during the 20^th Century, it has been shown that nations prefer their own sovereignty over joint government and where joint government has existed it has had to be instilled by dictatorship and force. As soon as those disappear nations seek once more to revert to their former, smaller states. This has happened with both Yugoslavia and the USSR. Even here in Britain there has always been a desire in Wales and Scotland for more self rule. Given al of this the expansion of the EU into political union seems at odds with what societies in Europe want.

Secondly there has to be some consideration of the economics of the EU. Where are the billions pumped into the EU better focused, surely on reducing the budget deficits of all member states rather than propping up a seemingly infinite bureaucratic machine. The EU could probably still function adequately as an economic union if all member states reduced their annual contribution by 15% or so, money that could be better used by individual states to help them through the tough economic times ahead.

One of the manifesto pledges by the Lib Dems is to “Fight to stop MEPs having to travel to the Strasbourg Parliament every month, wasting 200 million Euros a year”. But why not go further and scrap the EU parliament altogether. As an institution it has very little in the way of power and spends most of its time scrutinizing issues that will also be scrutinized by the legislatures of each member state. Perhaps it would, therefore, simply be easier to send those scrutiny committees to Brussels once a month to discuss the issues rather than spending the current billions on expenses etc for MEPs and the associated bureaucracy.

 Perhaps it is time for the Lib Dems move away from their Eurocentric beliefs and return to the more traditional Internationalist viewpoint.

 In their manifesto the Lib Dems propose to tackle world poverty, world trade and climate change through the EU, this seems, to me, a waste of resources and an overly bureaucratic process of getting things done.

 Britain has a unique position in the world and by firming up our other international ties we can tackle many of this issues more directly, and more cost efficiently allowing greater aid to countries that need it and more direct talks to tackle climate change.

In this instance I am talking about the Commonwealth, which is the better way to help the poorer nations of the world, both in terms of aid and trade? Which is the better way to tackle CO2 emissions from developing nations? Probably by dealing with them directly rather through complex negotiations controlled by the Eurocrats.

 Why do we need an EU defence arm when such things can be dealt with through NATO, why do we need an EU foreign policy arm when all EU members are members of the UN and can deal with common issues through that forum?

The key to a successful EU has to be cooperation rather than centralisation, where the member states can work together with minimal cost to those states and minimal interference in the running of individual states, yes lets have common protection of working rights to give a fair playing field in trade across Europe etc but do we need so many other laws imposed that do not impinge on the ideal of a free market area?

The challenge Nick Clegg faces bow is to convince those who liked him last Thursday that his international policies can produce a better Britain rather than one controlled from Brussels with British Taxpayers money!

Labour’s Plan to Continue Wasteful Spending

Remember Budget Day? All that talk of halving the budget deficit followed by various departments announcing how they would contribute to £11bn worth of ‘efficiency’ savings.

Well a few days after that the Government published a White Paper which shows that Labour is still intent on carrying on its wasteful bureaucratic spending.

“Building the National Care Service” was intended to showcase the Labour Party’s Social Care agenda, but, leaving aside the actual care issues, it highlights the bureaucratic waste that has been endemic in the Labour Government over the last 13 years.

Under the Care Standards Act 2000, the General Social Care Council (GSCC) was set up with the intention of regulating both social workers and social care workers. Whilst it has registered the former, getting all social care workers registered has proved a thorny problem. The Governments answer to this is to take the job away from the GSCC and give it to the Healthcare Professions Council.

And this is where the waste of taxpayers money comes in!

This change of responsibility for both organisations means the Government wants to change their names, the GSCC will become the General Social Work Council and the Healthcare Professions Council will become the Care Professions Council. On top of this the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence is to be renamed the Council for Care Regulatory Excellence.

This all, of course costs a great deal of money. Not just in terms of getting all the paperwork and stationery changed but in the time taken up by civil servants in organising the regulatory instruments to go through Parliament to enact the changes in name and job role.

This is, of course, not an isolated incident. Ministries and Quango’s have been in constant flux under Labour (social care is now on its 3^rd regulator since 2001). Rather than even making an attempt to solve the underlying problem of registering the huge number of social care workers the Labour Party are reverting to their well-established policy of spending money on changing departmental names and pretending the whole thing is all a new idea (which will, inevitably, face the same problems).

It seems that, given the evidence from their own White Paper, all the rhetoric from Labour on reducing spending and cutting the budget deficit is hollow talk.