- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@dailyecho
Daily Echo on Twitter
@the_saints
Saints News on Twitter
SceneSouth
Leisure news on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
Facebook
Daily Echo on Facebook
Councils told to loan cash for care (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Councils told to loan cash for care
5:33pm Thursday 12th July 2012 in News
By Tom Moseley, Parliamentary Correspondent
Councils told to loan cash for care
CASH-strapped Hampshire and Southampton councils will be told to provide loans to pay for the care of elderly people.
Under reforms announced by the Government yesterday, the loans, which would accumulate interest, would be repaid after a person died.
Ministers said it would mean elderly people no longer had to sell their home while they were alive to pay care costs.
Hampshire’s executive member for adult social care Cllr Felicity Hindson welcomed the idea of the reforms saying the county actively invests in services to help older people stay independent for as long as possible.
But questions were raised as to how the reforms would be funded.
And last month experts warned the system in Hampshire was “at breaking point” after a Daily Echo investigation revealed some vulnerable elderly people were receiving just 15 minutes of care every day.
Both Southampton and Hampshire County Councilshave made cuts to their adult social care services in recent years under pressure from a squeeze on funding. Around 550 elderly people lost their entitlement to free care in the past two years in Southampton – a 49 per cent reduction.
The county council, meanwhile, is slashing £21 million from its adult social budget, with the fees charged by councilrun care homes increasing.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley told MPs a universal threshold would be set up to end the “postcode” lottery of eligibility criteria in different areas.
Currently both Hampshire and Southampton councils offer help to those whose needs are assessed as “substantial”.
The minister also revealed £300 million would be switched from the NHS to fund social care over the next two years.
But there was no word on a cap on costs that experts say is needed – or where funding would come from.
Cllr Felicity Hindson, said: “I am pleased to see that our investment in Extra Care facilities and models of care is being backed by the White Paper with the promise of financial support, but would like to see a more significant financial commitment from Government so that we can offer even more older and disabled people the choice of independent living with support in a property which better meets their needs.”
“The paper imposes new duties on local authorities with very little new funding, so it is disappointing that there is no settlement on the future funding of adult social care.”
Comments(19)
Lone Ranger.
says...
5:50pm Thu 12 Jul 12
.
The Govt cant give any figures on the cap because the costs are going to be too great.
.
The govt are still continuing to look at alternative solutions that are cheaper........ Should they find one then it willl be a minimum of 6 years before anything can be implemented.
.
And as usual people that have looked after their money by saving and investing will loose a fair amount of it ...... Whilst the lazy beer swilling layabouts will get everything for nothing ........ as usual
arthur dalyrimple
says...
6:01pm Thu 12 Jul 12
good-gosh
says...
6:18pm Thu 12 Jul 12
Fatty x Ford Worker
says...
7:15pm Thu 12 Jul 12
Condor Man
says...
7:56pm Thu 12 Jul 12
good-gosh
says...
8:37pm Thu 12 Jul 12
Condor Man wrote:I thought there was one. Wasn’t it called the National Insurance scheme.
There was talk about an insurance based scheme for pensioners to pay into which would cover the cost of the care- a bit like Den Plan.
OSPREYSAINT
says...
8:58pm Thu 12 Jul 12
Condor Man wrote:Who was doing the talking?
There was talk about an insurance based scheme for pensioners to pay into which would cover the cost of the care- a bit like Den Plan.
loosehead
says...
9:26pm Thu 12 Jul 12
Labour actually agreed with the plan in principle but wanted to know how it's funded?
I know I'll get a lot of hate aimed at me but why is it a parent has to go in a home when with a bit of help from their own children they could live quite happily in their own home?
When they die those children will get the house so surely they're getting paid for looking after their own parents?
a single person or couple with no family won't care if the house is sold & the Government take the loan money back will they?
opera phantom
says...
11:28pm Thu 12 Jul 12
would cost nearly 2 BILLION LESS
per year
than what this government gives away in foreign aid.
India gets millions and has told this country it doesn't need the money and Doesn't Want it.
That's crap politicians for you
opera phantom
says...
11:36pm Thu 12 Jul 12
I can't remember where but last year some council paid a guy 1000's a year, his title was
Street Games Coordinator.
You couldn't make it up.
OSPREYSAINT
says...
3:02am Fri 13 Jul 12
loosehead wrote:All very well if they have families, many for various reasons have not. Who has the duty of care then?
If their families looked after them as my family did with my gran & then my mum it won't cost a penny will it? Labour actually agreed with the plan in principle but wanted to know how it's funded? I know I'll get a lot of hate aimed at me but why is it a parent has to go in a home when with a bit of help from their own children they could live quite happily in their own home? When they die those children will get the house so surely they're getting paid for looking after their own parents? a single person or couple with no family won't care if the house is sold & the Government take the loan money back will they?
OSPREYSAINT
says...
3:18am Fri 13 Jul 12
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:... and how old are you?
TORYS WONT GET MY HOUSE AGE 79.
Taskforce 141
says...
8:52am Fri 13 Jul 12
absolutely disgusting!
good-gosh
says...
9:02am Fri 13 Jul 12
We are ready to go, go go.
Kiss me my children and visit each day
and help me to quietly pass away.
Or the council will come to take me away
and take our house and take my pay.
Fieldbean
says...
10:01am Fri 13 Jul 12
ng hidden costs) to replace Trident?
Georgem
says...
11:34am Fri 13 Jul 12
Fieldbean wrote:Simple. Successive governments spent too much money they didn't have. The government IS always broke, they DO always need us to pay more. That's why it's called a DEFICIT.
How is it that Government has asked us to pay for more and more things out of our own pocket, during the last thirty years and yet the Government declares it is always broke. Oh but we can apparently afford £130Billion(includi
ng hidden costs) to replace Trident?
Trident is a tricky one. On one hand, it sounds ridiculous to get rid of one thing we spent a fortune on, knowing we'd never use it, to replace it with another thing that will cost a fortune, that we will never use. On the other hand, if we didn't have it, there's an increased chance we'd suddenly wish we did.
OSPREYSAINT
says...
1:06am Sat 14 Jul 12
Georgem wrote:Love your logic here, the fact is we have to maintain a detterent in this unstable world, with our highly depleted armed forces we would be very vulnerable if we didn't have something to put off any potential enemy. The important thing is to maintain it as a detterent not a threat.
Fieldbean wrote: How is it that Government has asked us to pay for more and more things out of our own pocket, during the last thirty years and yet the Government declares it is always broke. Oh but we can apparently afford £130Billion(includi ng hidden costs) to replace Trident?Simple. Successive governments spent too much money they didn't have. The government IS always broke, they DO always need us to pay more. That's why it's called a DEFICIT. Trident is a tricky one. On one hand, it sounds ridiculous to get rid of one thing we spent a fortune on, knowing we'd never use it, to replace it with another thing that will cost a fortune, that we will never use. On the other hand, if we didn't have it, there's an increased chance we'd suddenly wish we did.
loosehead
says...
9:25pm Fri 3 Aug 12
OSPREYSAINT wrote:I think if you read my post I answered that
loosehead wrote:All very well if they have families, many for various reasons have not. Who has the duty of care then?
If their families looked after them as my family did with my gran & then my mum it won't cost a penny will it? Labour actually agreed with the plan in principle but wanted to know how it's funded? I know I'll get a lot of hate aimed at me but why is it a parent has to go in a home when with a bit of help from their own children they could live quite happily in their own home? When they die those children will get the house so surely they're getting paid for looking after their own parents? a single person or couple with no family won't care if the house is sold & the Government take the loan money back will they?
hedge end bob says...
5:49pm Thu 12 Jul 12