5.30pm
Right, I'm signing off now. To recap: the white paper looks like a bold attempt by Labour to overcome the negative publicity created by the Tories "death tax" campaign and set up a workable National Care Service providing care free at the point of need. You can read the news story here.
The reception has been mixed: there was a broad welcome for its aspiration to provide a element of free residential care, remove the postcode lottery from social care, and its promise not to grab pensioner's weekly allowances to pay for it all. As IndigoShrimp puts it in the comments on this blog:
Despite the disappointment over the funding issue, we shouldn't lose sight of some really good stuff in here - national assessment criteria is a very significant proposal that would help to establish a much fairer system. This in itself makes the white paper significant.
But there's no escaping the concern over the lack of detail on funding, and the long timescale for implementation, which means we won't see reform until at least 2016. Disability groups are unhappy at the emphaisis on older people, and others are wondering exactly what the Tories will do if they win the election (there's real anger at the Tories' opportunistic behaviour on this issue).
Jonathan Ellis, director of public policy at Help the Hospices puts it succinctly:
"We understand that seeking consensus on a reform of this scale is vital but clear timeframes need to be set. People with life-limiting and terminal illnesses don't have the luxury of time. They can't wait around while politicians squabble over how social care should be funded.
Health secretary Andy Burnham has promises to offer compromises tonight in the Commons to ensure his Personal Care at Home bill gets through, so keep a look out for that. You can read the white paper itself here
4.55pm
Society Guardian columnist and blogger Peter Beresford has added his thoughts to the white paper debate on our own Joe Public blog. He calls the white paper "a document of lofty principles in significant contrast to the narrow and unsatisfactory green paper that preceded it". He reflects:
"The government's determination to produce a white paper before the general election has puzzled many. Is the aim to manage expectations should Labour be re-elected or is it to set a marker for political opposition if a Conservative government comes to power? Whichever, this response could serve either purpose. Its principles are Beveridgean in scale: for social care to be universal, free at the point of use, to work in partnership, ensure choice and control, support family, carers and community life and be accessible."
Community Care points out that the white paper proposes that the General Social Care Council becomes the General Social Work Council, with its responsiblities for regulating the social care profession transferred to the health professions council.
Mark Lever, chief executive of the National Autistic Society, adds his voice to those who feel the white paper concentrates on the growing needs of older people at the expense of younger disabled social care service users. He says:
"Debates about "death taxes" have completely overshadowed the needs of working age adults with disabilities including those with autism. It is about time Parliament recognised that the social care debate is not just about older people. It must be acknowledged that people with serious, lifelong and disabling conditions may be less able to save and pay for their social care."
4.00pm
So who - as in which generation - will pay for all this, and is this fair? My attention is drawn to a piece by blogger Craig Dearden Phillips, who posted on the social care funding issue last week after a debate at Suffolk county council, where he is a Lib Dem councillor. Craig, who is (I think) 40 years old wonders why his generation should again be stumping up for the baby boomer generation
"We are asking for a small number of people aged 25-50 to pay for a much bigger cohort aged 50-75. This is a very big ask. And not only do my generation have the biggest personal debts (we have to pay silly money for houses sold to us by the generation ahead), we will also be responsible for paying the national debt they, as society's dominant generation, has left us."
He adds:
"So you can see why I am a bit irked by this bill. It feels, to me, like a very large and dominant generational cohort working the system - again - to its advantage. I, for one, am not having it!"
3.30pm
Now the Tories are pitching in. Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley is saying the white paper is merely delaying the inevitable:
"The death tax is alive and kicking – despite [the government's] attempts to bury it in the small print of policy in the hope people won't notice. The simple fact remains that if Labour wins the election, they'd introduce plans for a death tax to pay for care. Once again, when Gordon Brown sees a problem, his reaction is to place a new tax on working people. Labour have had 13 years to sort this issue out. Their failure has caused misery for thousands of families. These proposals will do little to alleviate that suffering. Thousands of people will still have to sell their family home to fund their care."
Ace blogger Fighting Monsters (The Life and Thoughts of a British Social Worker) has been reading this morning's contribution to the Guardian on social care from Andy Burnham:
"As for me, the rhetoric is pleasant sounding and hard to argue against. The fight will be in the details and, don't get me wrong, I'd love a system like this for all run on the basis of the National Health Service – but there is a real price to pay and trying to hide behind that fact or ignore the necessity for payment will just build unrealistic expectations."
Fighting Monsters reckons a more strategic approach would pay dividends:
"I think if there were more focus on the money and the way the funding is divided, more money could be saved through properly-thought-through preventative services – although there seems to be a tendency to veer from crisis to emergency at present, and only providing care for the highest defined needs buys into this system when a more substantial base of care at lower or 'moderate' needs may well prevent a more expensive longer-term role for formal care."
3.20pm
Here we go, at last a really robust, "no holds barred" rant at the white paper, from Mike Parsons, founder of Barchester Healthcare, a care home company:
"This really is a cop out; the case of presentation over content. Lots of noble words but read the small print and it is a sleight of hand – capping the cost after two years of residential care is easily done when the average length of stay in a care home is less than two years! The personal care at home bill states that £670m will look after 400,000 people with highly acute needs in their own homes, but what does that actually amount to? Divide one number by the other and you get the princely sum of £31.25 per week. How much care do you think that buys? Less than a few minutes each day!
The London School of Economics has pointed out that care at home is only cheaper than residential care when people need less than 30 hours' care per week. For a person with highly acute needs, four hours a day is very little – the government is talking about the containment of people, not care of people. Where will the money come from? The health secretary does not say. But he suggests another royal commission. Exactly what Tony Blair did on assuming power in 1997. It took two years to report and then his government ignored the findings; another royal commission will be another attempt to kick the issue into the long grass."
Seems like the honeymoon period for the white paper is nearly over. The redoubtable Emma Soames, editor-at-large of Saga magazine also has some no-nonsense views:
"We're disappointed by the delay, lack of detail and any figures. Overall, it seems like a lot of waiting just to be told that they are going to a royal commission – which they could easily ignore as they did with long-term care in 1999 – to draw up proposals for a change in the system for 2015."
She adds:
"Our concern is that a change of government will herald yet more uncertainty, because the three main parties are so far apart in their views. While another Labour government will likely see this plan driven through, a Conservative government would inevitably result in a further review, and a coalition could well yield further delays at the hand of political favour bargaining. While we welcome the comprehensive model of care free at the point of delivery, the question is whether it will survive post-election. The response from those who are likely to be affected – those needing care, and those providing care – is: 'For heaven's sake, please chart a course and stick to it. If we know it's going to be uncomfortable, then at least we can prepare. But right now, we're unclear as to what we need to prepare for.'"
I love that "for heaven's sake". Soames sounds like a lady you wouldn't mess with. Could she be the Joanna Lumley of the social care movement?
And it seems as though the disability lobby is not too happy either. Ruth Scott, director of policy and campaigns at disability charity Scope, says the white paper has "failed to grasp the nettle with regard to the current social care crisis facing working-age disabled people", and is silent on the question of who will be eligible for support.
"The proposal that working-age disabled people will have to pay for social care unless they are on a low income is fundamentally unfair and likely to exacerbate already high levels of poverty and exclusion."
Lord Adebowale, chief executive of the social enterprise Turning Point, is concerned that the government doesn't get too fixated on the social care needs of elderly people:
"Any future social care system must not cater just for the elderly. People with a learning disability and younger adults with social care needs also require long-term support and we need to ensure their needs are not ignored."
2.40pm
Community Care magazine points out that the white paper rules out scrapping attendance allowance and disability living allowance for the duration of the next parliament. Proposals in last year's green paper to transfer these attendance allowances – essentially cash payments made direct to pensioners – to pay for social care triggered opposition from pensioners, charities and the Conservatives. Burnham had already said disability living allowance was safe, but this secures attendance allowance, too. A shrewd move a few weeks before a general election: around 1.6 million people claim attendance allowance and on average they receive £60 a week. That would have been a lot of unhappy voters.
The Local Government Association is pleased that councils will have a big role to play in implementing the reforms. But it is twitchy, too, about funding. It's asking three key questions:
• How will immediate problems with funding adult social care be addressed while the details of how to implement and pay for these proposals are worked out?
• How will the funding be balanced to take into account local provision versus national entitlement?
• How will the expertise of local government be incorporated in shaping these plans further and ensuring they are realistic?
2.20pm
The National Pensioner's Convention (NPC) calls it "the beginning of the end of means-testing and unfairness". It also wants real people on the proposed funding commission to
"ensure it adequately reflects the views of older people themselves and isn't simply taken over by the great and the good who have no real understanding of how older people live their lives".
I was just thinking about how far the general response to the white paper had been pretty positive – notwithstanding the worries about funding and timing – when I came across this, from Lord Lipsey (who led the opposition to the National Care Service in the Lords) He told BBC Radio 4's World At One that the white paper does not make sense.
"This system proposed by the government today is unfair because it is going to mean the poor paying money, but the benefits going to the better off. It is unaffordable, even more expensive than the proposal that I was attacking in the House of Lords, and, worst of all, it doesn't provide the better services that elderly people and their carers really need."
1.55pm
A welcome for the white paper from thesnufkin, an incisive and well-informed poster on the Guardian website on social care and social services topics, who picks up on the proposed removal of the postcode lottery:
"The big change appears to be that it will be a national care strategy, and that local authorities will no longer decide their own eligibility and charging criteria. That is a change of jaw dropping magnitude – but long overdue."
Michelle Mitchell, charity director for Age Concern and Help the Aged, says the idea of a National Care Service "sounds fantastic". It's true, but these white papers almost always do. She points out, however, that the government has to put its money where its mouth is:
"Almost everyone can agree with the principle of a new system that guarantees more flexible support, earlier help and clear national entitlements rather than a postcode lottery of unmet needs. But if it isn't adequately funded, the vision of a new national care service cannot be delivered and will ultimately fail the most vulnerable people in our communities. Ministers must say how much it will all cost and how they plan to plug the immediate £1.75bn black hole in social care funding expected to open up within the next two years. By the end of the next parliament, we'll also need billions more to fund the growing need for social care, implement the new national entitlement and fund the free care at home proposal."
Carer's UK chief executive Imelda Redmond says the white paper plans are exactly what older and disabled people, their families and carers have been calling for.
"The[y] promise to end the social care postcode lottery and protect families from the crippling costs of care which they currently see draining their savings and putting at risk family homes."
She's also worried about the money, though: there's not enough detail, and the "promised commission on funding must be brought forward as a matter of urgency to deliver on the specifics".
1.40pm
Here's a more detailed outline of those three stages, helpfully provided by the Department of Health.
Stage one
• Build on the best of the current system through reforms that are already under way and deliver the personal care at home bill.
Stage two
• From 2014 extend the coverage of free care so that people will receive free care if they need to stay in residential care for more than two years.
• Set up a commission to support consensus and advise the government on the fairest and most sustainable way that people can make their contribution to a care system that is free when they need it.
• Set up a National Care Service Leadership Group of expert stakeholders who will advise government on the implementation of the National Care Service, focusing on the systems and business processes that need to be put in place to make the National Care Service a reality.
• Introduce a national care service bill to set the legal foundations of the National Care Service.
• Enshrine in law for the first time nationally consistent eligibility criteria for social care, helping to remove the postcode lottery of care that exists now.
• Push forward with the prevention agenda and continue the drive towards personal budgets so that by 2012 everyone who would benefit from a personal budget will have one.
• Ensure accurate, relevant and accessible information about what people are entitled to, how the assessment process works, and how to access care services is provided to everyone.
• Improve the gateway for accessing social care and disability benefits to make it simpler and easier for people.
• Introduce a quality framework including a body to drive up quality in social care.
Stage three
• The introduction of a comprehensive National Care Service that is free when needed for all adults with an eligible care need, funded by contributions.
The respected King's Fund thinktank, meanwhile, has welcomed the white paper. Its acting director, Anna Dixon, says:
"The government has set out a bold and ambitious plan for reform which if realised would establish a National Care Service free at the point of need. Defining a national entitlement would mean that people receive help based on their needs, not their postcode - a major achievement that would tackle the perceived unfairness of the current social care system."
But she warns it leaves a number of key questions unanswered.
"What level of need will be covered? How much is it going to cost and who will foot the bill? The absence of any costings makes it difficult to assess how affordable these plans are and how sustainable they would be in the long term. Our own analysis suggests the introduction of free personal care would see net public spend rise from £10.7bn in 2015 to £16.8bn in 2026."
1.25pm
The press conference is over. Looks like there are three main stages to reform proposed in the white paper:
• The personal care at home bill. Andy Burnham says Labour is prepared to compromise to push through its personal care at home bill through parliament tonight. He says: "I have listened and reflected on what the Lords have said ... we want to get reform ... I will give some ground when I speak to the Commons later in respect of what the Lords have said."
• The white paper would be implemented in the next parliament. It will include free residential care after two years, at a cost of £800m. This will affect around 55,000-60,000 people the paper estimates.
• A commission will be set up to work out the finer points of how to pay for it all. The commission will report in the course of the next parliament, but legislation on options for payment will not come in before 2016. Its proposals will be put to voters at a general election before being enacted, says Burnham
1.05pm
The prime minister Gordon Brown is visiting a sheltered housing project in Stockwell, south London this morning to launch the white paper. He says:
"We're changing the social care system stage by stage, so we get to a universal comprehensive system. The real aim is to ease the fears in people, people's worries about their savings, worries about their homes. Worries about what might happen in retirement. This new system in social care, a national social care system, ends the postcode lottery."
Journalists are still "locked in" to a press briefing on the white paper, so we don't have precise details yet. But Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman is saying Labour have kicked the issue into the long grass because nothing will happen until 2016.
"A White Paper without any commitment to substantial change in the next Parliament is barely worth the paper it is written on. We're now being offered a series of piecemeal reforms that have not been properly thought through or costed."
12.38pm
The government today unveils its long awaited white paper on the funding of social care, setting out the route to a "national care service". We'll have full coverage of the paper and the reaction to it throughout the afternoon. According to my colleagues Patrick Wintour and Andrew Sparrow this is what we can expect:
Today's white paper will set out "the route to a national care service". It will propose new laws to cap the cost of residential costs after two years in a home.
The cap will be funded by freezing inheritance tax thresholds for the lifetime of the parliament, increasing the statutory retirement age of 65 and by greater efficiencies in the care system. The white paper will also set in place the building blocks for a national care service, including its minimum national standards and entitlements.
Launching the white paper, Burnham will set out his preferred plans on how to fund the final stage of a national care service, but legislation to introduce the changes will not be proposed until the next parliament, in a bid to take the sting out of the issue ahead of the election.
Burnham set out his stall in the Guardian this morning. He's talking about "big choices," "tough choices" – a bold policy that stands in the best labour tradition, alongside the creation of the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start.
Burnham also gave an interview to the Times today.
The Conservative health spokesperson Andrew Lansley says the government is in "utter retreat". He's predicting a "train crash" of a white paper because ministers have abandoned their plans for a compulsory levy to pay for social care in old age, which Tories dubbed the "death tax."
You'll remember the Tories' "death tax" poster and the spoof. Not forgetting this video on Labour's social care plans by a well known politician and former editor of the Weatherfield Recorder.
Sounds like the white paper will be unveiled around 1pm.
