Yesterday we launched the Constitution for Social Care, which was a success.   For one thing, it was the first time that Phil Hope MP, Minister of State for Care Services, Stephen O'Brien MP, Conservative Shadow Minister for Health and Greg Mulholland MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Minister for Health, sat on the same panel.  Demos' Constitution lays out a clear set of principles which define what the public should expect from social care services, and what we might be expected to contribute in return. That such a document is overdue in social care was proven by the consensus enjoyed by the entire panel on its timeliness and necessity.

Although the constitution was praised, there were varying ideological views on funding models, eligibility thresholds and what ethical pact there ought to be between service-users (current and future ones) with the rest of society.  In fact, these gave way to fierce debate highlighting different political views—and the three ministers couldn’t resist a bit of mudslinging.

Greg Mulholland, for example, would like to see greater synergies between the NHS and the social care system.  He wondered whether Demos’ Constitution for Social Care cannot be joined up with the recent NHS one, thus echoing many people’s view that social care and healthcare must be more joined up. 

Phil Hope defended Labour’s track record by reminding the audience of the advancements made in social care in recent years.  However, he recognized the imperfect system, hence the government’s pledge to overhaul the entire care structure.  He praised the constitution saying the clarity it lays out for service users is of paramount importance. 

Stephen O’Brien, recognised the value in having a clear set of principles for everyone to know what social care is for, although argued that, while we all agree on such principles, how to fund it is where the problems start: setting out a constitution without saying how much it costs, he suggested “was like putting the cart before the horse”. He argued that the true difficulty is how to change people’s behaviour so they can save responsibility, especially after the age of 50.   

The Q&A session tested the politicians’ commitment to providing a basic level of universal services for support (advocated by our constitution) and service users questioned the MPs on the future moral settlement between them and the state.  The audience clearly recognised that while money is not unlimited, social care is not given the relevant priority vis-à-vis other public services, and the fact that it is means and needs tested is more of an historical accident than based on any sound principles.

One member of the audience asked the panel if there were any reason to deny the Constitution for Social Care statutory rights.  No one rebutted, and the event concluded on this unanimously successful note.

New Comment