From DiabilityNow

As demographics indicate a greater need for social care, Andy Rickell ponders the ins and outs of its provision by the state

Government is very worried about the increasing cost of the “social care” budget particularly due to the increasing number of older people needing support, or as I would call them, older disabled people. It is currently consulting about how this might be changed before, I suspect, making proposals to make disabled people pay more for their own care.

It is right for all governments to seek to use public money efficiently and to judge which costs should be borne by the state and which by people themselves, making the case to voters.

But it feels really weird that we are having that debate at all. In a society where the state provides education and health services free at the point of use, it seems odd that social support, which is clearly about meeting individual need, should not automatically be part of the same welfare state package. In comparison to the costs of education and health, social support is small beer and free social support is easily affordable, if Government is prepared to make the case to voters.

Certainly the disabled people I have talked to think that social support can only be fairly provided by the state. They don’t expect a Rolls Royce service, just a standard free entitlement, like we all get in education and health, which any individual can choose to add to with their own money.

Of course, if there are many older people being paid for by relatively fewer working age taxpayers, the affordability suffers, but perhaps it’s time we discovered the idea of having an actual fund for national insurance that cannot be raided by governments, to smooth out demographic bulges.

Furthermore, Government should firstly be checking that existing social support funding is truly well spent. I hear from disabled people that they think the costs of administering social support are excessive, and significant parts of social support spending go on provision that disabled people say they don’t want. To some degree personalisation and individual budgets will help to root out this wasteful spending.

If Government reduces access to state funding, the need for support remains and the burden falls elsewhere. The first place it falls is on the disabled person. They must pay for their unmet need, go without, or get it provided by charity or unpaid family and friends. Such a burden is unfair.

None of us can predict our need for support, and in many cases the need for support will be greater for those with fewer resources.

Furthermore the very meeting of the need may be a prerequisite for the disabled person to be able to earn income.

There is potentially a virtuous circle whereby by providing free social support by the state it releases both the disabled person and their erstwhile family carers to all earn a living and pay the taxes that cover the state’s costs. Social support is an investment, not a burden.

• Andy Rickell is a disability rights campaigner