For the first time in history , the UK has now more above 65s than below 15s and each year our longevity is increasing by 3 months. True ,not all will die disabled following prolonged suffering , but a substantial number will need ''care'' for longer-term physical/mental needs.

Currently such care, provided by the State is means-tested and many need to sell their property to pay for the care; the state provides when their ''savings'' drop below an agreed level.

It is being suggested that everyone should have an care-insurance policy and expected to 'save' for their old age.

The problem is , not many have any knowledge or understanding of the problems of infirmity and dependency. Unless caring for an older relative or friend themselves, most young and even middle-aged do not receive much exposure to the dependent elderly. Perhaps singing Carols in a local old peoples home at Christmas is all they do for the old.

The Charities usually are geared to the children and the younger section of the community; how much money would be raised if the BBC were to run a fund-raising campaign ''Grannies in Need'' in the autumn instead of ''Children in Need''!

A state run compulsory Care Insurance might be an 'intersting' idea but I doubt whether it will succeed. Not everyone will be able to afford it and this will be seen as an additional tax !! The ''care'' needs may include some 'medical/health' need as well ; how does one distinguish health from the 'social' needs - these are inextricably linked and inter-dependent!

And on top of that, the 'personal care budgeting' being also introduced , it will be a total mayhem ! Perhaps some sort of flexible 'mixed' plan might work where only certain selective 'social' care provisions would be covered by the insurance.

In summary , these proposals have far-reaching implications and will warrant good well-informed debates and discussions.