Long-term elderly care needs a sustainably-funded solution

THE scene is set for what is lining up to be the most divisive debate of this Assembly's term.

Plans led by the Housing Department to redevelop the ageing Longue Rue House and Maison Maritaine in a £35m. project were rocked just weeks ago as the majority of the co-sponsoring department, Health and Social Services, turned dramatically.

It left Housing minister Dave Jones fuming.

After several emergency meetings were called, talk surfaced behind the scenes of increasing pressure to pull the report.

His department is standing firm against the criticism that there is not enough information about how the new extra-care homes will be funded going forward - and the potential impact on social security payments.

Treasury is also sticking by its guns after it also backed the report - while it was concerned about the funding arrangements, it thought it was crucial to do the work.

HSSD member Andy Le Lievre will lead the charge for those who want more information on the table - backed by at least three other board members, Social Security members and the Scrutiny Committee, the latter being the first to go public with anxieties about what members saw as a lack of information.

Deputy Jones has spoken about the report, which has been worked on by experts for years, being torpedoed - and that is before the debate even gets to the chamber.

There is a question of trust here, both of Housing and its professionals, as well as Treasury, the holders of the purse strings, and the Guernsey Housing Association, which is lined up to manage the project.

Indeed, it is the first major challenge to Treasury's authority since it lost its borrowing plans much earlier this term.

Since then, it has been pretty much plain sailing, neutral budgets and a message of cost-cutting that is beginning to take hold, but several backbenchers seem to have moved from being the acolytes of Treasury minister Charles Parkinson they once were.

The affair has also brought into the spotlight the whole notion of joined-up government and good governance.

How did things get so far, to the point where the report was signed off by a department in which the majority did not support it?

This makes it seem very much like a political uprising rather than one that stemmed from the civil service.

The report also passed through the Policy Council, which has brushed off any suggestions it did not do a thorough job in scrutinising what was on the table.

A spokesman said it fully scrutinised all reports submitted by departments before deciding whether to support the proposals or make comment.

It could ask departments to review or reconsider aspects of a report.

'The process of review involves compilation of a report for ministers by senior policy staff within the Policy Council which among other things examines the extent to which new proposals relate to strategic objectives as set out in the States Strategic Plan, compliance with financial rules etc. More recently, this has included an assessment of compliance with the six principles of good governance. These commentaries are then considered alongside the original report by ministers when they meet around the Policy Council table.'

Often a department's chief officer or a specialist will be present,

'The Extra Care Housing report was no exception and was subject to this process in full,' the spokesman said.

This whole saga has shown that department loyalties are easy to shed because of Guernsey's consensus form of government.

But deputies are right to be concerned if they feel they do not have the information required to make an informed, evidence-based decision.

It was not long ago that we were hearing about poor decision-making in the States because there was little understanding of revenue implications of major projects being passed.

But Housing can counter that it still has to make a detailed business case to Treasury on the project before the diggers are brought in.

Unfortunately, the decision late last week to release detailed costing on what it would take to hold off and instead repair the care homes to keep them going until 2017 - up to £1.26m. - only strengthens the arm of those who felt not enough information was in the original report.

This is three years longer than it planned, although the delay caused by the sursis may not be that long.

Housing's extra-care housing project will cater for 99 existing residents to begin with and up to 15 people with learning disabilities.

But there is a bigger picture being worked on in the background in HSSD's and Housing's older people strategy, a report which in an ideal world would be before members at Wednesday's meeting so it can be seen if any more similar extra-care housing developments are needed and how it fits in with trends to keep people in their own homes.

The dilemma of how to fund care for the elderly is only going to get more acute, as the latest demographic figures show a marked trend for an ageing population. Currently, 100 people of working age support 48 people who are economically dependent (either over 65 or under 15). By 2020, 100 people of working age will need to support 58 and by 2070 it is 85, an almost frightening statistic because the number of under-15s remains stable and then declines.

Whatever happens, a long-term, sustainably-funded solution is needed that goes beyond the immediate needs being addressed in the report before the States.