Member says commissioners will be ‘disgusted’ if shakeup in care funding – including a cap of £35,000 – is not put into action Members of the Dilnot commission will be “disgusted” if the government shelves their recommendations for a shakeup of the system of care funding, a commission member warned as the plans were published. Dame Jo Williams, one of three members of the commission, said: “It’s time for action. It seems to us that people have already waited for change far too long and want more than talk now.” The report is designed to alleviate people’s fears of losing their savings and homes. Williams said, if ministers kicked it into the long grass, the commission would certainly be disappointed. “But ‘disappointment’ is not an adequate word; ‘disgusted’ comes to mind. But ‘disgusted of the Dilnot commission’, we hope not to be,” she said. The commission’s report calls, as widely expected, for a cap of £35,000 on the amount an individual would have to pay on their own care costs during their lifetime. Above that level, the state would pay a standard rate for care, regardless of the individual’s wealth. People would still be liable for costs of accommodation and food in a care home, but this would be capped at £10,000 a year. In addition, the commission is calling for a big increase in the threshold of savings and assets above which the state offers no help with care costs. The limit should rise from £23,250 to £100,000, it says. Taken together, these two central recommendations of the report would ensure that no individual would have to spend more than 30% of their wealth on care. At present, many people are at risk of losing 90% of their savings and assets. Andrew Dilnot, the economist who led the commission, said the existing funding system was confusing, unfair and unsustainable. The proposals for change would cost the government an initial £1.7bn a year – 0.25% of total public spending – which was “a price well worth paying”. Although the commission wished to see its proposals implemented “with pace”, Dilnot said, it did not expect immediate acceptance by ministers and would be content if a white paper appeared before next Easter with a view to implementation in 2014. Downing Street rejected suggestions that the commission’s report had been “dead on arrival” and would now simply be shelved by ministers. “The prime minister welcomes the report,” a No 10 spokeswoman said. “This whole area is complex, as well as multifaceted. Certainly, the whole funding issue is not something that can be looked at in isolation. “We have always said there is a price tag, but we are not going to back away from the issue.” The Department of Health said it had approached shadow health secretary John Healey’s office last week “in order to initiate a conversation between all three parties on social care funding reform”. The recommendations were largely welcomed by charities and welfare groups. Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK, the biggest older people’s charity, said the report set out “a clear blueprint” for sustainable reform. Production of a white paper by next spring was ambitious but achievable, Mitchell said. But she warned: “Delay beyond Easter would be indefensible.” Mark Goldring, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: “Now is the time for monumental change and it is vital that the government does not bury social care reform.” Long-term care Health Social care Health policy Public services policy Paying for long-term care Family finances David Brindle guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Member says commissioners will be ‘disgusted’ if shakeup in care funding – including a cap of £35,000 – is not put into action Members of the Dilnot commission will be “disgusted” if the government shelves their recommendations for a shakeup of the system of care funding, a commission member warned as the plans were published. Dame Jo Williams, one of three members of the commission, said: “It’s time for action. It seems to us that people have already waited for change far too long and want more than talk now.” The report is designed to alleviate people’s fears of losing their savings and homes. Williams said, if ministers kicked it into the long grass, the commission would certainly be disappointed. “But ‘disappointment’ is not an adequate word; ‘disgusted’ comes to mind. But ‘disgusted of the Dilnot commission’, we hope not to be,” she said. The commission’s report calls, as widely expected, for a cap of £35,000 on the amount an individual would have to pay on their own care costs during their lifetime. Above that level, the state would pay a standard rate for care, regardless of the individual’s wealth. People would still be liable for costs of accommodation and food in a care home, but this would be capped at £10,000 a year. In addition, the commission is calling for a big increase in the threshold of savings and assets above which the state offers no help with care costs. The limit should rise from £23,250 to £100,000, it says. Taken together, these two central recommendations of the report would ensure that no individual would have to spend more than 30% of their wealth on care. At present, many people are at risk of losing 90% of their savings and assets. Andrew Dilnot, the economist who led the commission, said the existing funding system was confusing, unfair and unsustainable. The proposals for change would cost the government an initial £1.7bn a year – 0.25% of total public spending – which was “a price well worth paying”. Although the commission wished to see its proposals implemented “with pace”, Dilnot said, it did not expect immediate acceptance by ministers and would be content if a white paper appeared before next Easter with a view to implementation in 2014. Downing Street rejected suggestions that the commission’s report had been “dead on arrival” and would now simply be shelved by ministers. “The prime minister welcomes the report,” a No 10 spokeswoman said. “This whole area is complex, as well as multifaceted. Certainly, the whole funding issue is not something that can be looked at in isolation. “We have always said there is a price tag, but we are not going to back away from the issue.” The Department of Health said it had approached shadow health secretary John Healey’s office last week “in order to initiate a conversation between all three parties on social care funding reform”. The recommendations were largely welcomed by charities and welfare groups. Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK, the biggest older people’s charity, said the report set out “a clear blueprint” for sustainable reform. Production of a white paper by next spring was ambitious but achievable, Mitchell said. But she warned: “Delay beyond Easter would be indefensible.” Mark Goldring, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: “Now is the time for monumental change and it is vital that the government does not bury social care reform.” Long-term care Health Social care Health policy Public services policy Paying for long-term care Family finances David Brindle guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Member says commissioners will be ‘disgusted’ if shakeup in care funding – including a cap of £35,000 – is not put into action Members of the Dilnot commission will be “disgusted” if the government shelves their recommendations for a shakeup of the system of care funding, a commission member warned as the plans were published. Dame Jo Williams, one of three members of the commission, said: “It’s time for action. It seems to us that people have already waited for change far too long and want more than talk now.” The report is designed to alleviate people’s fears of losing their savings and homes. Williams said, if ministers kicked it into the long grass, the commission would certainly be disappointed. “But ‘disappointment’ is not an adequate word; ‘disgusted’ comes to mind. But ‘disgusted of the Dilnot commission’, we hope not to be,” she said. The commission’s report calls, as widely expected, for a cap of £35,000 on the amount an individual would have to pay on their own care costs during their lifetime. Above that level, the state would pay a standard rate for care, regardless of the individual’s wealth. People would still be liable for costs of accommodation and food in a care home, but this would be capped at £10,000 a year. In addition, the commission is calling for a big increase in the threshold of savings and assets above which the state offers no help with care costs. The limit should rise from £23,250 to £100,000, it says. Taken together, these two central recommendations of the report would ensure that no individual would have to spend more than 30% of their wealth on care. At present, many people are at risk of losing 90% of their savings and assets. Andrew Dilnot, the economist who led the commission, said the existing funding system was confusing, unfair and unsustainable. The proposals for change would cost the government an initial £1.7bn a year – 0.25% of total public spending – which was “a price well worth paying”. Although the commission wished to see its proposals implemented “with pace”, Dilnot said, it did not expect immediate acceptance by ministers and would be content if a white paper appeared before next Easter with a view to implementation in 2014. Downing Street rejected suggestions that the commission’s report had been “dead on arrival” and would now simply be shelved by ministers. “The prime minister welcomes the report,” a No 10 spokeswoman said. “This whole area is complex, as well as multifaceted. Certainly, the whole funding issue is not something that can be looked at in isolation. “We have always said there is a price tag, but we are not going to back away from the issue.” The Department of Health said it had approached shadow health secretary John Healey’s office last week “in order to initiate a conversation between all three parties on social care funding reform”. The recommendations were largely welcomed by charities and welfare groups. Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK, the biggest older people’s charity, said the report set out “a clear blueprint” for sustainable reform. Production of a white paper by next spring was ambitious but achievable, Mitchell said. But she warned: “Delay beyond Easter would be indefensible.” Mark Goldring, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: “Now is the time for monumental change and it is vital that the government does not bury social care reform.” Long-term care Health Social care Health policy Public services policy Paying for long-term care Family finances David Brindle guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
“Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winsted is going on tour to fund Planned Parenthood, and Lucas Kavner of the Huffington Post insisted that this is somehow not leftist: While her comedy has always been inherently political – and she's not backing down from her own personal affiliations – this tour is not aimed at those on the right or left. It's merely to raise awareness and support for an organization that has been an essential part of her life. Earth to Lucas Kavner: did you watch some of her Minneapolis show, posted ahem, on your own website ? It took about 15 seconds for her to announce that saying Michele Bachmann performed well among the Republican contenders is “like being the smartest Kardashian.” She also added comic gems that only a secular leftist would love, like “I think she's hogging too much of God's time, which is why everything is so f—ed.” And “I don't understand why we don't treat Michele Bachmann with the same diligence as other nut allergies.” Winstead was the “HuffPost Greatest Person of the Day” for her charity tour. She hardly gets to lecture Bachmann on having a grasp of the facts, since she somehow thinks that Planned Parenthood has suffered “decades of depletion of resources,” which hardly reflects their financial report:
Continue reading …“Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winsted is going on tour to fund Planned Parenthood, and Lucas Kavner of the Huffington Post insisted that this is somehow not leftist: While her comedy has always been inherently political – and she's not backing down from her own personal affiliations – this tour is not aimed at those on the right or left. It's merely to raise awareness and support for an organization that has been an essential part of her life. Earth to Lucas Kavner: did you watch some of her Minneapolis show, posted ahem, on your own website ? It took about 15 seconds for her to announce that saying Michele Bachmann performed well among the Republican contenders is “like being the smartest Kardashian.” She also added comic gems that only a secular leftist would love, like “I think she's hogging too much of God's time, which is why everything is so f—ed.” And “I don't understand why we don't treat Michele Bachmann with the same diligence as other nut allergies.” Winstead was the “HuffPost Greatest Person of the Day” for her charity tour. She hardly gets to lecture Bachmann on having a grasp of the facts, since she somehow thinks that Planned Parenthood has suffered “decades of depletion of resources,” which hardly reflects their financial report:
Continue reading …
Reduction in maintenance bill for royal residences helps to reduce monarch’s annual costs The Queen cost the taxpayer £32.1m in the last year – a drop of more than 5%. Her keeper of the privy purse, Sir Alan Reid , said that it was partly achieved by a pay freeze across all the royal staff, which will be continued this year, and by deferring spending on property maintenance – but warned that it will be difficult to cut spending any further. The Queen’s accounts – released as the attention of royal watchers is on the positive publicity being generated by her grandson and his new wife on their Canadian tour – show that spending has been cut by 19% in real terms over the past five years. They contrast strikingly with the accounts released last week for the Prince of Wales , which show that his income increased by 4% or £1m including money from the taxpayer, and his spending particularly on overseas travel also increased. The Queen’s travel spending was also significantly higher – reflecting many overseas events including her historic first state visit to Ireland – up from £3.9m to £6m, but her income from the civil list was down from £14.2m to £13.7m, and grants for property maintenance were down from £15.4m to £11.9m. In a statement Sir Alan said: “The Queen is very keen that the royal household should continue to reduce its expenditure in line with public expenditure reductions.” “The decrease in expenditure is due mainly to increased income generation, the deferral of property maintenance expenditure and the implementation of a pay freeze. This pay freeze will continue onto this year. However he warned the palace can not continue cutting at the same rate: “Over the past five years The Queen’s official expenditure has reduced by 19% in real terms and while the royal household will continue to identify efficiencies it will be very difficult for overall expenditure to reduce very much further without impacting on the royal household’s activities in support of the Queen and the long-term health of the estate.” Legislation is currently before parliament to change funding the Queen’s official spending to a new system called the sovereign grant, the biggest shakeup since the creation of the civil list – when the crown surrendered revenues from estates and assets in return for an annual grant – in the mid 18th century. Announcing the change in October, the chancellor, George Osborne, announced that the taxpayer’s funding of the Queen would remain frozen for a further year, and that royal spending would be expected to reduce by 14% by 2012-13. The Queen Monarchy Maev Kennedy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Reduction in maintenance bill for royal residences helps to reduce monarch’s annual costs The Queen cost the taxpayer £32.1m in the last year – a drop of more than 5%. Her keeper of the privy purse, Sir Alan Reid , said that it was partly achieved by a pay freeze across all the royal staff, which will be continued this year, and by deferring spending on property maintenance – but warned that it will be difficult to cut spending any further. The Queen’s accounts – released as the attention of royal watchers is on the positive publicity being generated by her grandson and his new wife on their Canadian tour – show that spending has been cut by 19% in real terms over the past five years. They contrast strikingly with the accounts released last week for the Prince of Wales , which show that his income increased by 4% or £1m including money from the taxpayer, and his spending particularly on overseas travel also increased. The Queen’s travel spending was also significantly higher – reflecting many overseas events including her historic first state visit to Ireland – up from £3.9m to £6m, but her income from the civil list was down from £14.2m to £13.7m, and grants for property maintenance were down from £15.4m to £11.9m. In a statement Sir Alan said: “The Queen is very keen that the royal household should continue to reduce its expenditure in line with public expenditure reductions.” “The decrease in expenditure is due mainly to increased income generation, the deferral of property maintenance expenditure and the implementation of a pay freeze. This pay freeze will continue onto this year. However he warned the palace can not continue cutting at the same rate: “Over the past five years The Queen’s official expenditure has reduced by 19% in real terms and while the royal household will continue to identify efficiencies it will be very difficult for overall expenditure to reduce very much further without impacting on the royal household’s activities in support of the Queen and the long-term health of the estate.” Legislation is currently before parliament to change funding the Queen’s official spending to a new system called the sovereign grant, the biggest shakeup since the creation of the civil list – when the crown surrendered revenues from estates and assets in return for an annual grant – in the mid 18th century. Announcing the change in October, the chancellor, George Osborne, announced that the taxpayer’s funding of the Queen would remain frozen for a further year, and that royal spending would be expected to reduce by 14% by 2012-13. The Queen Monarchy Maev Kennedy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, says reforms ‘run risk of compromising safety of citizens for reasons of expediency’ One of Britain’s top police officers has warned that the government’s police reform programme, combined with spending cuts, risks compromising public safety. Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), warned that if the introduction of elected police commissioners, the creation of a national crime agency and other changes were mismanaged they risked undermining the historic British tradition of policing. Orde told the Acpo summer conference meeting in Harrogate, North Yorkshire on Monday that the “service of last resort” faced a period of “changes to accountability, changes to central structures and changes to pay and conditions, which, if mismanaged, could threaten the impartial model of policing that has existed for 180 years and is revered around the world”. He said: “We understand the government’s determination to deliver a substantial programme of reforms across the public sector, but we cannot afford to get policing wrong and, unless greater clarity emerges in the very near future, I fear we run the risk of compromising the safety of citizens for reasons of expediency.” He said the public sector was facing its most challenging times in living memory: “In short, we have a change programme that, at one end, will produce some of the most radical changes to police governance since 1829 and, at the other, will without question reduce police and staff numbers and pay.” Orde earlier told the BBC that concerns centred on the “loose ends where we lack clarity”. He explained that at the same time that police pay reforms were being negotiated, the national police improvement agency, which delivers all the IT and police training, was being dismantled and a national crime agency was being proposed but not even draft legislation had yet been produced. “So bring that all together and add a new accountability structure currently making its way through the House of Lords and what you see is a very confused policing landscape that needs to be cleared up before we can move on.” The home secretary, Theresa May, is due to address the Acpo conference later and is expected to defend the government’s police reform programme and drive to find savings in the police service. The £11bn annual Whitehall grant to police forces is due to be cut by 20% by 2014-15. However, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said May would be deeply unwise not to heed such a serious warning from one of Britain’s top police officers. She said: “David Cameron and Theresa May are taking big risks on law and order. Hugh Orde is right to point out that the home secretary is reducing police numbers and police powers but increasing the risk of politicisation. “This endangers the centuries-old tradition of impartiality as well as the effectiveness of the police and it is communities that will pay the price.” Police Public services policy Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, says reforms ‘run risk of compromising safety of citizens for reasons of expediency’ One of Britain’s top police officers has warned that the government’s police reform programme, combined with spending cuts, risks compromising public safety. Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), warned that if the introduction of elected police commissioners, the creation of a national crime agency and other changes were mismanaged they risked undermining the historic British tradition of policing. Orde told the Acpo summer conference meeting in Harrogate, North Yorkshire on Monday that the “service of last resort” faced a period of “changes to accountability, changes to central structures and changes to pay and conditions, which, if mismanaged, could threaten the impartial model of policing that has existed for 180 years and is revered around the world”. He said: “We understand the government’s determination to deliver a substantial programme of reforms across the public sector, but we cannot afford to get policing wrong and, unless greater clarity emerges in the very near future, I fear we run the risk of compromising the safety of citizens for reasons of expediency.” He said the public sector was facing its most challenging times in living memory: “In short, we have a change programme that, at one end, will produce some of the most radical changes to police governance since 1829 and, at the other, will without question reduce police and staff numbers and pay.” Orde earlier told the BBC that concerns centred on the “loose ends where we lack clarity”. He explained that at the same time that police pay reforms were being negotiated, the national police improvement agency, which delivers all the IT and police training, was being dismantled and a national crime agency was being proposed but not even draft legislation had yet been produced. “So bring that all together and add a new accountability structure currently making its way through the House of Lords and what you see is a very confused policing landscape that needs to be cleared up before we can move on.” The home secretary, Theresa May, is due to address the Acpo conference later and is expected to defend the government’s police reform programme and drive to find savings in the police service. The £11bn annual Whitehall grant to police forces is due to be cut by 20% by 2014-15. However, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said May would be deeply unwise not to heed such a serious warning from one of Britain’s top police officers. She said: “David Cameron and Theresa May are taking big risks on law and order. Hugh Orde is right to point out that the home secretary is reducing police numbers and police powers but increasing the risk of politicisation. “This endangers the centuries-old tradition of impartiality as well as the effectiveness of the police and it is communities that will pay the price.” Police Public services policy Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Blast at EDF’s Tricastin power station in Drôme comes days after nuclear authorities found 32 safety concerns at plant An explosion sparked a fire at a French nuclear power station on Saturday just two days after the authorities found 32 safety concerns at the plant. The blaze at the Tricastin plant in Drôme in the Rhône valley sent a thick cloud of black smoke into the sky. A mistral wind sent it south over a nearby motorway on one of the busiest travel days of the year as the French left for their summer holidays. EDF, which runs the power station, said the incident had happened in an electric transformer situated in the non-nuclear part of the plant and had not resulted in any radiation leak or any other contamination. A statement issued by the energy giant raised more concerns as it omitted to mention the explosion – only a fire – and did not give the cause of the blaze. “This event happened in the non-nuclear part of the installation and had no radiological consequence on the environment and the population. The fire brigade was immediately called and the fire was rapidly brought under control. Nobody was hurt,” it said. It added that the plant’s number one reactor was not in operation at the time of the fire having been “closed for it’s annual maintenance”. Police confirmed there was no environmental contamination. On Thursday France’s nuclear safety authority the Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (ASN) demanded 32 safety measures at the Tricastin number one reactor, a 900 MW water pressurised reactor built in 1974 and put into operation in 1980. In 2007 an ASN report had concluded: “the site must make improvements in management and training” and criticised the plant’s procedure for dealing with fires as “taking too long”. The following year uranium leaked from the number two reactor at Tricastin during a cleaning operation and contaminated local rivers. Swimming and fishing were banned as a precaution. Although one of the oldest reactors in use in France, the ASN agreed last year that its working life could be extended for another decade. The safety measures revealed last week include greater protection against fire, flooding and earthquakes including improvements to the methods of cooling of the nuclear fuel rods in order to lessen the risk of an explosion of hydrogen at the heart of the reactor. The ASN said the faults in the reactor were “known and under surveillance” and ordered that the new safety measures should be completed before December 2014. A week ago the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, bucked the anti-nuclear trend sweeping Europe since the Fukushima disaster by pledging €1bn of investment in atomic power as well as “substantial resources” to strengthen research into nuclear safety. France has 58 nuclear reactors, 34 of which are reactors of the type at Tricastin and have an average age of 28 years. About 74% of the country’s electricity comes from nuclear sources and it is the world’s largest net exporter of nuclear energy. Sarkozy said France was known to be “considerably ahead” of other countries in terms of atomic power technology and safety. “Our power stations are more expensive because they are safer,” he said last week. After the Fukushima nuclear accidents in March, caused by a combination of earthquake and tsunami, the French prime minister, François Fillon, asked the ASN to carry out an “open and transparent” audit of the country’s nuclear installations, examining the risks of flood and earthquake damage, loss of power and cooling, and emergency accident procedure, to examine if any improvements could be made. Its conclusions are expected in September. Corinne Morel-Darleux, local member of the Parti de Gauche (Left party) said: “It was not a nuclear accident but it’s an incident that was seen and raises questions about the security of this plant.” France Nuclear power Energy EDF Energy Europe Kim Willsher guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …