Housing and care for an aging population – the need for a national solution

A trial project in London highlights that, as people live longer, the challenge to meet housing and care needs for an aging population is greater than ever.

There is a growing recognition that it is impossible to think strategically about an effective health service, or about how we should provide social care, without thinking about housing.

By David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation

19 January 2012

I have given evidence to select committees many times before. But this was the first time I appeared in front of the House of Commons Health Select Committee - and it felt like a breakthrough.

A breakthrough because it demonstrated a growing recognition that it is impossible to think strategically about an effective health service, or about how we should provide social care, without thinking about housing.

Then, earlier this week, I read an announcement by Grant Shapps that mentioned a trial project in the London Borough of Redbridge. It’s designed to encourage older owner-occupiers to move from their large homes to a smaller rented home, while still retaining ownership of their property.

The council would then rent out the larger property to a family in need – helping ease their strained waiting lists – with the rental income returning to the owner. Ideally, the money received covers more than the smaller home’s rent, generating some much-needed extra cash for the older tenant without them having to relinquish ownership of their home.

This looks like a virtuous circle where everyone benefits. It’s exactly the kind of lateral thinking needed to meet the challenges of housing and care for an aging population – which was the main theme of my discussion with the select committee.

And it’s quite a challenge. One of the great social policy successes of the last 50 years is that people are living much longer. The downside is that we haven’t found a stable way of paying for the care that an increasing number of frail older people will need in their homes.

Jane Ashcroft, chief executive of Anchor, pointed out in Inside Housing recently, social care is inextricably linked to housing.

This is a national priority, and one of the few areas where it is essential that politicians of all parties set a goal of coming to a clear agreement not subject to naked politics.

Before the last election, a high-quality, cross-party debate of this kind was taking place until a perfectly rational suggestion was made: that one possible means of paying for care was through inheritance tax.

You’ll remember the consequences. The papers screamed: ‘Death Taxes’ – along with some politicians. The discussions then collapsed. It was a disgraceful display of the very worst kind of petty politics.

We cannot allow that to happen again.

The Dilnot Report proposes to cap the individual’s overall contribution to the cost of any care they would need, thereby creating a realistic chance of a sensible insurance offer.

It may not be perfect, but it’s a huge step in the right direction. Building on this report is now critical. We have to find a rational and sustainable way of paying for care. Interesting initiatives like the one in Redbridge have a part to play.

But they won’t solve the problem. We need a clear, nationally agreed focus on paying for the future care of us all. Time for our politicians to demonstrate they have the vision to deliver.