Councils told to loan cash for care

Councils told to loan cash for care

Councils told to loan cash for care

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Parliamentary Correspondent

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)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:49pm Thu 12 Jul 12

hedge end bob says...

What a con..we will pay for your care while your alive and then we will sell your home when your dead to get our money back plus interest. HOW IS THIS HELPING THE OLD PEOPLE THAT NEED CARE??
What a con..we will pay for your care while your alive and then we will sell your home when your dead to get our money back plus interest. HOW IS THIS HELPING THE OLD PEOPLE THAT NEED CARE?? hedge end bob
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Lone Ranger. says...

This care programme is a complete and total farce.
.
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
This care programme is a complete and total farce. . 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 Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Thu 12 Jul 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

those thatcher right to buy discounts taken back in one fell swoop.
those thatcher right to buy discounts taken back in one fell swoop. arthur dalyrimple
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Thu 12 Jul 12

good-gosh says...

If I ever have to go into hospital, I will go in disguise.
If I ever have to go into hospital, I will go in disguise. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

TORYS WONT GET MY HOUSE AGE 79.
TORYS WONT GET MY HOUSE AGE 79. Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

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.
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. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Thu 12 Jul 12

good-gosh says...

Condor Man wrote:
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.
I thought there was one. Wasn’t it called the National Insurance scheme.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]I thought there was one. Wasn’t it called the National Insurance scheme. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

8:58pm Thu 12 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Condor Man wrote:
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.
Who was doing the talking?
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]Who was doing the talking? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Thu 12 Jul 12

loosehead says...

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?
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? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:28pm Thu 12 Jul 12

opera phantom says...

To give FREE care to the elderly
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
To give FREE care to the elderly 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
  • Score: 0

11:36pm Thu 12 Jul 12

opera phantom says...

I forgot to say that Hampshire County Council spent about 40 million on it's HQ. Then there are all the silly titled jobs on huge salaries. That again is crap politicians for you.
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.
I forgot to say that Hampshire County Council spent about 40 million on it's HQ. Then there are all the silly titled jobs on huge salaries. That again is crap politicians for you. 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. opera phantom
  • Score: 0

3:02am Fri 13 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

loosehead wrote:
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?
All very well if they have families, many for various reasons have not. Who has the duty of care then?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: 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?[/p][/quote]All very well if they have families, many for various reasons have not. Who has the duty of care then? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

3:18am Fri 13 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
TORYS WONT GET MY HOUSE AGE 79.
... and how old are you?
[quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: TORYS WONT GET MY HOUSE AGE 79.[/p][/quote]... and how old are you? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

8:52am Fri 13 Jul 12

Taskforce 141 says...

Daylight GRAVE ROBBERY!

absolutely disgusting!
Daylight GRAVE ROBBERY! absolutely disgusting! Taskforce 141
  • Score: 0

9:02am Fri 13 Jul 12

good-gosh says...

Are we downhearted? No! No! No!
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.
Are we downhearted? No! No! No! 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. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

10:01am Fri 13 Jul 12

Fieldbean says...

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?
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? Fieldbean
  • Score: 0

11:34am Fri 13 Jul 12

Georgem says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Fieldbean[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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. Georgem
  • Score: 0

1:06am Sat 14 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Georgem wrote:
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.
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.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fieldbean[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Fri 3 Aug 12

loosehead says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
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?
All very well if they have families, many for various reasons have not. Who has the duty of care then?
I think if you read my post I answered that
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: 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?[/p][/quote]All very well if they have families, many for various reasons have not. Who has the duty of care then?[/p][/quote]I think if you read my post I answered that loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree