There has been quite a bit of negative publicity about proposed changes to support of the elderly in the Conservative manifesto. Personally, I think it unjustified. But let's consider it in more detail - starting with the background policy context. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to governing in the interests of everyone. I share her commitment. I also have a long standing
personal interest to supporting the frail elderly, the number of whom is
increasing very quickly indeed. We cannot carry on as we have been doing over recent decades. The system of care will collapse. The voice of the frail elderly is not being heard. The challenge is to create a care system that is both fair
and sustainable.
There are three changes in future policy written into our manifesto which affect the elderly. Let's consider them in turn. Firstly, we want to introduce a system of financing domiciliary care similar to the current rules on financing residential care - only fairer. For my constituents in Montgomeryshire, its important to note that no change is proposed in Wales, where social care is devolved to the Welsh Government. As the changes affect England, two crucial points are being ignored. Firstly care will be free to anyone worth £100,000 or less. And no matter what value assets anyone has, there will be a maximum total payment (suggested in recent years as likely to be about £70,000).
Secondly, it is proposed that what is known as the 'triple
lock' on state pension increases is being replaced by 'a double lock'. The state pension will not automatically increase by 2.5% if inflation is lower. So while inflation is 2.5% or above, which it currently is, the change has no effect
whatsoever because it will rise by inflation anyway. In future, there will be a 'double lock' which guarantees that the state pension will increase by inflation or increased level of earnings, whichever is the higher. The problem to be addressed was that following the long period of very low inflation, a degree of inter generational unfairness developed, creating unacceptable pressure on
young families and support payments. The 'triple lock' has the potential to divert too much of the welfare budget into the state pension at the expense of everything else. Adopting a 'double lock' is a
small change which will deliver more fairness in the long term.
The third change relates to the Winter
Fuel Allowance, which will in future be means tested and will continue unchanged for those who need it. Over
recent years I've received many emails calling for this change, usually from
people who have given their allowance to charity because they felt they had no
need of it.
I simply cannot agree that the Prime Minister is being unfair.
She, and I are both focussed on fairness, creating a sustainable affordable
system of welfare payments and a manifesto which is open and honest about
future policy.
