Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
300-319)
MR RICHARD
HUMPHRIES, MR
JAMES LLOYD
AND MR
DONALD HIRSCH
5 NOVEMBER 2009
Q300 Chairman: How long did it take
for us to get there?
Mr Hirsch: We are nearer, having
moved there very slowly. The crucial thing is about releasing
more resources and there is a slight difficulty in that we do
not have any money in the public coffers. There is a rather ingenious-sounding
solution helped by the kinds of scheme which James has developed
of releasing equity from homes in that way. The real question
is whether we have the courage. Are we willing as a society to
go with one of those options? It is about whether we are willing
to bite the bullet and raise more public resources, more resources
for the system in this kind of way.
Q301 Chairman: Do you agree with
that James?
Mr Lloyd: Yes, to an extent. The
debate has advanced enormously. The policy wonks, some of whom
are here today, have been busy working away for the last few years
and have developed models, developed arguments, done research.
Enormous progress has been made. The fiscal situation is problematic
and it will affect going forward how much public funding can be
put into social care. In a sense, ultimately when we are talking
about old people's long-term care, this is actually about private
household wealth and how that is used and how the Government give
people the opportunities to use the wealth that they have. It
is very important to have a clear picture of where we want to
go to in 30 or 40 years and to make sure that we are all agreed
on that and that we make sure that whatever steps we take now,
whatever route we take now, ultimately goes to a place we are
all agreed on which I believe will ultimately be working-age contributions
towards long-term care insurance. The other big issue, which I
probably have to make, a point I made before, is that everybody
in this debate, even the lowest-paid care workers recognise that
there has to be long-term political consensus. In effect this
is a non-partisan issue; it is like pensions. Unless there is
political consensus you will not have any reform. For some of
us then the recent announcements around the party conferences
were a little bit frustrating because they almost suggested that
while everybody in this debate realises that it is a non-partisan
issue, the politicians perhaps do not. It is useful to have a
forum like this which is cross-party to air these issues and for
everybody to recognise that when you have these conflicting proposals
ultimately it is just going to confuse the public and push reform
back and it is not actually meaningful. The critical point I would
also make is that we have to be realistic that this is never going
to be an issue which will really be a vote winner. It is never
going to be a way of accumulating political capital, it is going
to be a government which says "Right, we've got the agreement,
we've got the political capital to expend, we're going to take
the difficult steps to reform the system". One way or another
we will all have to pay more at some point in our life course
if we want to have a decent long-term care funding system. Those
of us in the policy world and research world are doing what we
can. Whether those in the political world are doing what they
can remains to be seen.
Mr Humphries: I would endorse
that. I would just add that some of the political noise around
this is the price that we have to pay for moving it forward. I
would much rather have a Prime Minister saying anything about
social care than saying nothing whoever that Prime Minister is.
This is my 33rd year working in social care. We are probably closer
than at any point I can remember to a point of recognising the
need for radical reform. The momentum must be maintained. The
problems we have been addressing this morning are not going to
go away whatever the outcome of the next election or whatever.
We must keep this on the agenda.
Chairman: On that note, may I thank all
three of you very much indeed for coming to help us. We will see
whether our report has any influence in spheres where yours do
not. Thank you very much.
| 
