Home Alarms - Who Pays?

CHARGING - WRONG IN PRINCIPLE

"If they can pay, they should pay".
That approach, described as 'fair charging' by the council's press team, is an easy one liner with instant appeal.

It might make sense where the customer can reasonably choose - take it or leave it. But that's not the case here.

• The council's own care professionals recommend the service only if it's really needed - i.e. there's a real risk and no better way to reduce it.
• The 'Life Line' service is not one that any of us want to be in need of. It isn't a luxury or a lifestyle choice.
• The principle should be the same as we apply to the health service - free at point of delivery.
• That same principle, of sharing and co-operation to meet peoples' needs, is a cornerstone of Green thinking

CHARGING - WRONG IN PRACTICE

• There is a significant chance that some of those in need, faced with the prospect of paying up front, will choose to reject the protection the system offers. That will increase risk - and, potentially, costs of care after delays in raising help.
• Some of the income from the proposed 'fair charging scheme' will immediately be swallowed up in administrative costs - first in the application of the means test, later in the process of collecting the money.

Other concerns

• We'd like to think that local community support could provide a far more effective way of minimising risk, and of course it often does, just as families often do. Perhaps there's room to expand that voluntary and local support network.
• Given the huge changes in telecomms in recent years... wireless networks, the spread of the mobile phone, the internet etc.... it's hard to believe that a conventional landline based phone system is still the only available way to summon help in an emergency.
• What on earth is the Labour group thinking about, suggesting such a selective charge ?