Social care reforms in Wales stuck over funding, expert says
Reform of social care in Wales is stuck because ministers "don't want to make decisions about money", according to an expert.Prof Gerry Holtham wrote a report seven years ago which said social care for older people could be funded by raising income tax in Wales.Care home owners have said a national care service would erase inequalities in funding between councils.The Welsh government said it was already working on creating a national scheme, but that a funding solution had yet to be found.
Costs for social care are currently met either by a resident or their local authority.Ministers have said they want to get rid of this system, and set up another like the NHS which would be free at the point of need - but how would it be financed?
Mr Holtham's report in 2018 put forward a plan which would see people in Wales pay between 1-3% extra in income tax, depending on age, to fund social care here.But he said not much had happened since because politicians were too afraid to grasp the nettle."They don't want to make the decisions about money," he told BBC Politics Wales on Sunday."At the moment, there's a sort of phobia that democratic politicians have about raising taxes."If you tell the public 'look, we're going to have to pay this tax or this present situation will continue or deteriorate', I'm not so sure the public wouldn't agree to that."But I think you've got to have the nerve to have that conversation."
Timeline
June 2018: Holtham report becomes the latest in a long line of inquiries and commissions designed to prompt action on the issueFebruary 2020: Welsh ministers say they are looking at increasing income tax to pay for careApril 2021: Just before the last Senedd election, that plan was ruled out by LabourSeptember 2022: The Welsh government says it wants to set up a national care service, but that it would take about 10 years
Scotland and England have had similar issues with getting a national care service off the ground.The Scottish government dumped its plans in January because of a lack of support and questions about how it would be paid for.The UK government has set up a commission to start looking into funding for a national care service in England but it will not report back before 2028.Bridgend councillor Jane Gebbie, who also represents Wales' 22 councils on social care via the Welsh Local Government Association, said change could not come soon enough.She also said Wales could get a national care service much sooner if funding was resolved."Government know that the demand on our services is increasing," she said."There's pay disparities between health boards and local government."That's another wicked issue that they are going to have to resolve before we can have any sort of national care service."
Mario Kreft, chairman of Care Forum Wales, the umbrella group which speaks for the sector, wants to see different care charges levied across Welsh councils equalised so that everyone would pay the same, getting rid of a so-called "postcode lottery" in care.He has welcomed the plan for a national service, but questioned how long it should take."We've seen so many of these initiatives, royal commissions and so forth about social care, but it always seems to get to the point of being 'knock it into the long grass, too expensive', it's a problem that's too hard to handle."The Welsh government said it had already launched its National Office for Care and Support to help deliver the first stage of its 10-year plan to create a national care service for Wales."Our vision for a national care service in Wales would see a system that provides excellent quality care, supports attractive and rewarding work, and is closely integrated with the NHS and the broader public sector," a spokesperson said."Ambitious plans such as these need to sit within the context of a sustainable funding solution which supports our social care sector and enables it to thrive."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: As MSPs head for the beaches, a question... Would we REALLY be any worse off if they just didn't come back?
Imagine it is May 2021, a few weeks on from the Scottish parliament election, the sixth such poll held since devolution began. Only this time it's different. This time, Holyrood doesn't reconvene. No presiding officer is elected, no oaths taken, no committee conveners appointed. The parliament lies empty. It goes on like this for weeks, then months, until it becomes apparent that MSPs will never show up. The reason for their absence is unimportant. Maybe they've secured more gainful employment as a travelling circus, a major career change insofar as it would involve travelling. In every other way, however, there is continuity. Schools stay open, the NHS groans on, police still investigate your tweets, and councils empty your 15 wheelie bins sporadically while charging rates that would force the Emir of Qatar into a payment plan. All remains as before, budgets are allocated to services, but the 2021-26 parliament never sits and never passes legislation. Question: can you think of a single way in which you would have been worse off under this scenario? I ask because MSPs have just packed up their offices for summer recess, the last before the forthcoming Scottish parliament election, which must be held by the first week of May 2026. But as the politicians root around for their buckets and spades, I've been digging through the record of this parliamentary year and indeed the entire session, which is what prompted my little thought experiment. Because this parliament is surely the most insubstantial and inconsequential since the dawn of devolution. A do-nothing assembly that, on the occasions when it rouses itself to action, confirms the wisdom of its original instinct. It is this parliament which brought forward the final draft of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, rammed through Holyrood in a marathon run of late-night sittings shortly before Christmas 2022. Women's rights campaigners and legal scholars cautioned that its plans for self-identified gender changes would fall foul of Britain-wide equalities legislation, not least when it came to single-sex spaces. Parliament would not listen and then received the ultimate slap-down when Scottish Secretary Alister Jack made history and became the first holder of his office to block a Holyrood bill. The Scottish parliament fumed but the Court of Session sided with Mr Jack. MSPs had no cause for pique. Most showed themselves to be singularly incurious when it came to gender legislation, satisfied to regurgitate the dubious talking points of taxpayer-funded lobby groups rather than doing their jobs as legislators. Pursuing self-ID was a Nicola Sturgeon pet project, but it was also necessitated by her reckless decision to bring the Greens into government, handing ministerial power to an anti-capitalist doomsday cult that hitches its yurt to every policy fad on the go. This included the deposit return scheme, a thoroughly reasonable notion in theory, until Lorna Slater got her hands on it and drove it into the ground, alienating small businesses along the way. And in return for the votes of these ego-warriors, sensible, long-standing Scottish Government positions had to be jettisoned. An undertaking to fully dual the A96, a notorious accident blackspot, was diluted down to the weakest water. Despite the inclusion of an environmentalist party in Scotland's government, St Andrew's House missed target after target in its loudly proclaimed quest to cut emissions. Eventually, Holyrood scrapped annual and interim targets altogether. Failure has been a hallmark of this parliament. Take the PISA report confirming that performance in maths, science and reading continues to slump and Scottish schoolchildren lag behind their English counterparts in all three. Take the attainment gap, the closure of which Sturgeon asked to be judged on. It has widened, but that cannot be pinned on the former First Minister alone. It was the duty of parliament to hold her to account, but this parliament could not rise to its obligations. In this session, Holyrood has seen three First Ministers (so far) and neither Sturgeon, nor Humza Yousaf, nor John Swinney could be said to have feared parliament very often. All three warrant a share of the blame for the post-Covid NHS recovery that never materialised. For the habitually missed emergency care and cancer treatment waiting times. For the shame of elderly people forced to part with their life savings to pay for hip and cataract operations. Holyrood, the guardian of the people's interests, has attached no meaningful political price to this dire record. The same can be said of the Ferguson Marine fiasco, a slow-motion catastrophe that a more diligent and effective parliament could have stopped in its tracks. Yet as with so many of the topics at issue, MSPs, and we're talking specifically about Nationalist MSPs, chose to put party before country and keep their mouths shut. They saw their remit as that of parliamentary clapometers, there to make noise but not trouble. Taxpayers, especially those who rely on islands transport, bore the brunt of their cowardly partisanship. That word right there – 'partisan' – might just be a one-word summation of Holyrood's problem. Too many of its members regard themselves as components of a political bloc instead of elected representatives tasked with challenging, scrutinising and checking executive power. Recall how Nationalist MSPs rallied round Michael Matheson after he tried to bill the taxpayer for his holiday iPad use. A more basic test of fidelity, whether it is owed to parliament or exclusively to party, there could not be. And dozens of MSPs failed it. Holyrood is a parliament in which parliamentarians are in the minority. There is very little reason to expect things will improve in the eight months that remain when MSPs return from summer recess. This session will end with as much distinction as it has conducted itself thus far, and of what comes next we can only guess. Donald Dewar promised so much of Holyrood but even if he had been more circumspect, what we've got could only be a source of acrid disappointment. Who can say if things would be better had devolution never happened, but it's hard to imagine they could be any worse. This column began with a thought experiment, and it ends with another. Imagine you were given the opportunity to return to September 11, 1997, the day of the Scottish parliament referendum, retaining full knowledge of what has happened in the quarter century since Scots voted for legislative devolution. You head to your polling station, go into the booth, and poise your pencil over the paper. This time around, you know what's coming. The paucity of ambition, the dearth of delivery, the inevitability of failure. Much will not get better, some things will get worse, and the poor and vulnerable will pay the price. There will be mediocrity, ineptitude and cliquishness. The thinly veiled resentment towards its own people of a provincial elite that yearns only for the approval of international elites. A culture of secrecy, an aversion to scrutiny, and a closed-ranks hostility to anyone who speaks out of turn. This will be a parliament in which truth and conscience are in constant submission to party and power. The ballot before you asks you to choose between two options: 'I agree that there should be a Scottish parliament' or 'I do not agree that there should be a Scottish parliament'.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Welfare state is being treated not as a shared good, but as a burden
Supporters are told to welcome these as signs of pragmatism, but they reveal only a fake-it-till-you-make-it government clinging to the same austerity logic that's gutted public services for more than a decade. There's no strategy of principled adaptation, just damage control masquerading as radical policy-overhaul. READ MORE: Wes Streeting forced to admit Labour wants fewer people claiming PIP Like cynical venture capitalists who asset-strip football clubs, this government treats the welfare state not as a shared good but as a historical burden. Public support systems are remodelled with fewer seats, less atmosphere, and none of the legacy. Cuts are proposed, resisted, and delayed, but always within the logic of managed decline. First they tried to demolish the Kop end stand, now they promise only future fans will be excluded. Proclaiming progress, the luscious playing surface is narrowed and replaced with astroturf. Starmer and his front bench echo the language of 'toughness' while attacking the right to protest and doubling down on hostile-environment policies. Protesters are kettled, marches are banned, and dissent is criminalised by degrees. All this while far-right groups openly organise to infiltrate and co-opt Reform UK, talking of 'seizing control' and reshaping elections by 2030. READ MORE: Scottish Labour MP not 'proud' of Keir Starmer's first year in charge These are not fringe figures. They're part of a co-ordinated ecosystem of antisemitism, Islamophobia, authoritarianism and conspiracism – emboldened by silence and triangulation. Instead of calling it out, however, Labour's leadership seems content to play the same game: pinned in the six-yard box, offering managerial discipline while the far right runs rings around them and takes audacious pot-shots. Picture ex-Scotland manager Craig Levein's infamous 6-4-0 formation against the Czech Republic, but fielding only newly drafted players who might be loyal, but have no experience in big games. Those of us pushed to the margins – disabled people, migrants, Muslims, and working-class communities – know what happens when the centre tries to outflank the right. Rights are lost and protections evaporate. We vanish from the headlines, except when someone from a marginalised group sells their soul for a front-bench post to prop up the attack on their own team. More of us end up in poverty, detention, or despair. READ MORE: Home Office staff concerned over 'absurd ban on Palestine Action' Meanwhile, Number 10 parades like champions of Europe, running victory laps over a non-league economy. The fans are left with crumbling public services – akin to Manchester United fans getting drenched beneath Old Trafford's increasingly dilapidated roof. And though our elected manager and board point to victories of old, it's clear they're preparing to flog the stadium that is the UK to the highest bidder, while calling it progress. There's still time to fight this decline, but only if leaders stop hiding behind spreadsheets and rediscover the courage to name what we're up against: a political slide toward exclusion, authoritarianism, and resentment – selling the strongest players in the name of a squad rebuild. The public knows the difference between real change and stage-managed retreat. Delivering anything less than what's needed means not just losing the match, but the risk of relegation and surrendering the values on which the club's success was genuinely built. Ron Lumiere via email FOLLOWING Laura Webster's Saturday article on about Labour founding the welfare state, which has become a standard response by Labour hacks to every scenario: the Labour welfare state is a myth. The welfare state was agreed, with minor differences, by the wartime coalition. Bismarck had a welfare state in the 1870s and he was no socialist either; he wanted a race of supermen. The Brits had to acknowledge that the German soldier was fitter, taller and better educated, like the Channel Islands' children after German occupation. READ MORE: We investigate the state of the welfare state – read our new series England did not achieve public education till the 1870s, due to opposition by the controlling Church of England. The Church of Scotland had no wish to control public education in Scotland, which has been free since the reformation. Incidentally, Catholic education legislation was introduced at the turn of the last century by a Liberal government, not because they were sympathetic to Catholicism, but because the wanted to create divisions in Scotland. Incidentally, there are no 'Prodistent' schools in Scotland, merely non-denominational schools where Catholic and other-denomination pupils and teachers are more common than most people realise. It was a Liberal minister in World War One, Winston Churchill, who introduced free milk, because of the poorer state of the British working class compared to German wartime recruits. The architect of the welfare state was the Liberal Lord Beveridge. Lords Wilson and Callaghan introduced further austerity and pay freezes etc. Donald Anderson Glasgow IF Westminster taxed the rich cheats who threw money at Brexit so they could avoid the new EU laws on tax havens, they would bring in way more cash than they will get from hitting the poor and disabled. They could close the loopholes the government deliberately creates and make everyone pay their tax. Loopholes are actually government-created corruption. Labour could recover if they taxed the rich – as long as Israel doesn't mind, of course. Bill Robertson via email
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Can you mix hay fever tablets with medication and alcohol?
Peter Thnoia, superintendent pharmacist at NHS-registered online pharmacy PillTime, is urging the public to double-check medication ingredients. He warns people taking sleeping tablets or tranquillisers, such as diazepam or zopiclone, face a "heightened risk of developing breathing difficulties" when these drugs are mixed with certain allergy treatments. Can you take hay fever tablets with other medications? While the NHS advises that it's generally okay to take hay fever tablets with other medications, it's always crucial to check for potential interactions and side effects. It's also wise to consult with a pharmacist or GP before taking hay fever tablets alongside other medications. Mr Thnoia, from PillTime, said: 'Hay fever is hitting the country hard, but taking these sedating-style tablets is a no-go if you're already taking medication to help you get to sleep. 'Not only will they both combine to sedate you, but it can impact breathing, and make you short of breath. 'It can also lead to dizziness and in extreme cases people could even fall unconscious.' The concern centres around first-generation antihistamines – the older type of hay fever medication commonly sold under brand names such as Piriton and Benadryl. These drugs are known for causing drowsiness, which can become dangerous when combined with other sedatives. How do I know which hay fever tablets to take? Non-drowsy antihistamines, such as loratadine, cetirizine, and fexofenadine, are widely available and generally safe to take alongside sleep aids or tranquillisers. Mr Thnoia continued: 'These are becoming increasingly common on shelves and are less likely to cross the blood-brain barrier, so shouldn't cause the same sedative effects.' Even SSRIs, the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants - such as sertraline - may carry similar risks, particularly when combined with older-generation antihistamines. Can you drink alcohol while taking hay fever tablets? One of the most commonly mixed substances with antihistamines that isn't a medicine at all – but can have the same dangerous effect when combined – is alcohol. Recommended reading: And it's easy to forget while having a good time in the sun that you've had both in the same day. Mr Thnoia added: 'Alcohol significantly amplifies the sedative effect of first-generation hay fever tablets, which can result in severe impairment and lead to unconsciousness or serious accidents. 'Even non-drowsy antihistamines can occasionally react with alcohol, depending on individual sensitivity, so it's best to avoid alcohol altogether if you're thinking of allergy medication.'
