The British social care system has been condemned by a government reviewer.
Branding the UK system as the “most pernicious means-test in the whole of the British welfare state”, Andrew Dilnot – the chair of the Dilnot commission on funding and social care and support – stated that a new tax was required to support the provision of adult social care.
Although just over a fifth of the population will pass away before they need any support, the average person, during their lifetime, will require around £20,000 worth of social care. However, care costs may be significantly higher for around one in ten of the UK population. Up to £1 million may be needed for a couple spending the final 20 years of their lives in residential care.
At present, the system offers care for adults of working age, people with mental health issues, sensory loss or frailty as well as older people with disabilities. Support both personal and practical can be given in the individuals’ own home, in the community, in a hospital or in their care home.
The state covers all care costs for those with capital and savings totalling under £14,000 but will pay nothing for those who have over £23,250. Mr Dilnot stated that in its current state, the system creates a “massive sense of inequity and encourages a significant amount of cheating”.
April 2016 was the initial date for means test amendments to come into effect but these have been delayed until April 2020. They will result in the lower limit rising to £17,000 and the upper to £118,000.
Disputing the system, Dilnot believes that the means testing element of the process should be eradicated.
Following the end of his five-year term as chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Dilnot delivered a lecture at the Resolution Foundation. Stating that the state pension triple lock should be rewritten, Dilnot focussed on the need for a non-means tested, social care guarantee to be included.
The original report conducted by the Dilnot commission determined that the first £35,000 of care should be paid by an individual if they have assets worth over £100,000. The government would then provide free social care after this point. Despite being embraced by the prime minister at the time, David Cameron, as well as the then health secretary, Andrew Lansley, the plans, were never brought into force.
During the lecture, Dilnot spoke about a social care forming part of the triple lock, stating: “I think it would be entirely reasonable to look again at the triple lock and say, ‘Let’s substitute some of the more expensive elements of the triple lock. Let’s turn them into a new triple lock with social care as part of the triple lock’.”
In essence, the funds saved from losing the most expensive element of the triple lock conditions could go towards covering the cap.
Rejecting claims that Britain is unable to afford an effective care system, Dilnot stated that: “There’s plenty of money. GDP in real terms is more than 5.5 times as big as it was in 1948. So if anyone says to you, we can’t afford X, Y or Z, the appropriate response is: ‘That is not a well-formed formula”. We may choose not to afford it but the notion that we can’t afford something, given what has happened to our income is striking and quite surprising, and doesn’t strike me as correct.”
