This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/11/dilnot-regrets-social-care-cap

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Dilnot 'regrets' decision to set social care cap at £75,000 Dilnot 'regrets' decision to set social care cap at £75,000
(7 months later)
The author of the independent report on funding social care has said he regrets the government's decision to set the cap for bills at £75,000, but insists the move will at least mean pensioners need no longer be "terrified of the consequences of needing care".The author of the independent report on funding social care has said he regrets the government's decision to set the cap for bills at £75,000, but insists the move will at least mean pensioners need no longer be "terrified of the consequences of needing care".
The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is expected to announce on Monday the cap on the cost of social care, funded by freezing inheritance tax, as the government moves to end what he termed the "scandal" of people being forced to sell their homes to fund care. However, the £75,000 cap is more than double the £35,000 recommended by the independent Dilnot commission.The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is expected to announce on Monday the cap on the cost of social care, funded by freezing inheritance tax, as the government moves to end what he termed the "scandal" of people being forced to sell their homes to fund care. However, the £75,000 cap is more than double the £35,000 recommended by the independent Dilnot commission.
Andrew Dilnot, the economist leading the government-commissioned review, said he understood the economic rationale. "We said [the cap] should be between £25,000 and £50,000 in 2010-11 prices," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.Andrew Dilnot, the economist leading the government-commissioned review, said he understood the economic rationale. "We said [the cap] should be between £25,000 and £50,000 in 2010-11 prices," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"The cap that is being proposed is £75,000 we think in 2017 prices. That's the equivalent of £61,000 in our terms, so it is higher than we would have wanted – £11,000 higher than the top end of our range, and I regret that, but I recognise the public finances are in a pretty tricky state. It doesn't seem to me that it is so different from what we wanted as to radically transform the basis of the system.""The cap that is being proposed is £75,000 we think in 2017 prices. That's the equivalent of £61,000 in our terms, so it is higher than we would have wanted – £11,000 higher than the top end of our range, and I regret that, but I recognise the public finances are in a pretty tricky state. It doesn't seem to me that it is so different from what we wanted as to radically transform the basis of the system."
Dilnot said care costs should be "bound up" in the way people plan for old age, adding that pensions could be increased to take into account care needs while inheritances could be reduced.Dilnot said care costs should be "bound up" in the way people plan for old age, adding that pensions could be increased to take into account care needs while inheritances could be reduced.
"At the moment, many people find themselves hoarding their quite meagre wealth because they are so worried about the worst case," he said. "One of my big hopes for this system is that there will be lower inheritances in future because people, knowing what the worst case is, will now be able to start spending their money on their own lives rather than keeping it just in case they need lots of care.""At the moment, many people find themselves hoarding their quite meagre wealth because they are so worried about the worst case," he said. "One of my big hopes for this system is that there will be lower inheritances in future because people, knowing what the worst case is, will now be able to start spending their money on their own lives rather than keeping it just in case they need lots of care."
Dot Gibson, general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, said the government had failed to reassure people that their homes would not be at risk. "People are still going to lose their homes to pay for this," she told the programme. "£75,000 is a hugely high cap."Dot Gibson, general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, said the government had failed to reassure people that their homes would not be at risk. "People are still going to lose their homes to pay for this," she told the programme. "£75,000 is a hugely high cap."
She urged the government to think again about introducing "a national care system paid through general taxation", which "would be free at the point of delivery".She urged the government to think again about introducing "a national care system paid through general taxation", which "would be free at the point of delivery".
Dilnot denied suggestions that he had not been allowed to consider such a system, adding that other countries that had adopted similar systems were forced to abandon them because of economic pressures.Dilnot denied suggestions that he had not been allowed to consider such a system, adding that other countries that had adopted similar systems were forced to abandon them because of economic pressures.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.