Decision details

Debates are one of the most frequent items of business on the Plenary agenda. Many types of debate are brought forward in Plenary, including:

• Opposition party debates on a topic of their choice;

Other than in the case of Government debates, the time allocated for all other types of debates and their frequency are determined by the Business Committee

The item started at: 17.27

Voting on the motion and amendments under this item was deferred until Voting Time.

A vote was taken on the motion without amendment:

NDM5204 Aled Roberts (North Wales)

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that for too long the funding system for long-term care in the UK has been inadequate, unfair and unsustainable and welcomes the UK Government’s plans for reform.

2. Recognises that the need to secure a sustainable system for paying for care in Wales has never been more urgent, noting with concern that:

a) more than eight out of ten people aged 65 or over will need some care and support in their later lives and that the number of people in Wales aged 65 and over is projected to double by 2035;

b) there are currently estimated to be over 17,000 people with dementia in Wales and this figure is predicted to rise by 31% over the next 20 years;

c) according to consumer research by the Association of British Insurers, one in three people believe that ‘care is free like the NHS’ and that there is no point in planning for future long term care costs;

d) one in ten families will be hit with care costs of £100,000 or more in their lifetime, as highlighted by the Dilnot Commission.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to outline the key principles that will underpin a new care funding system in Wales and to clarify the Barnett consequential that will result from the announcement on social care funding within the 2013 Spending Review.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to use the Dilnot Commission recommendations as a basis for implementing urgent reform of funding for social care in Wales, including to:

a) ensure that people are protected from the high costs of their social care;

b) introduce a capped cost scheme and extend the means testing threshold;

c) extend the deferred payment scheme to all those who are required to pay for residential care;

d) introduce a National Eligibility Framework to improve consistency of support;

e) ensure that those entering adulthood with an existing care and support need are eligible for free state support to meet their care needs;

f) improve the availability and accessibility of information and support for people to understand their options and prepare and plan for care costs.

For	Abstain	Against	Total
16	0	37	53

The motion without amendment was not agreed.

The following amendments were tabled:

Amendment 1 - William Graham (South Wales East)

Insert as new point 1, and re-number accordingly:

‘Acknowledges the failure of successive Assembly Governments to deliver equitable and affordable support for vulnerable people with social care needs.’

A vote was taken on Amendment 1:

For	Abstain	Against	Total
12	0	42	54

Amendment 1 was not agreed.

Amendment 2 - Jocelyn Davies (South Wales East)

In point 1, delete all after ‘unsustainable’.

A vote was taken on Amendment 2:

For	Abstain	Against	Total
10	0	44	54

Amendment 2 was not agreed.

Amendment 3 - Jocelyn Davies (South Wales East)

Delete point 4 and replace with:

‘Calls on the Welsh Government to:

a) Establish a fairer interim solution to charges in social care that reflects the needs of Wales within the current resources available.

b) Ensure that the Social Services and Well-being Bill makes adequate financial provision for the long term support of family and other informal carers.

c) Ensure that social care can be sustainably funded, and believes that securing a funding formula with the UK Government that reflects the needs of Wales will help provide the resources required to achieve this.’

A vote was taken on Amendment 3:

For	Abstain	Against	Total
10	0	44	54

Amendment 3 was not agreed.

As the Assembly has not agreed the motion without amendment, and has not agreed the amendments tabled to the motion, the motion is therefore NOT agreed.