A debate due to take place at City Hall on Tuesday is one that should concern us all, whatever age we are and however fit and well we might be - at present.

It's part of a wider, national rethink of the way the elderly and vulnerable will be cared for in the future.

The plan to steer hundreds of "clients" of Social Services towards the voluntary sector has already been discussed at meetings of the full Council and of the Scrutiny committee at which it was opposed by, among others, Age Concern and representatives of older people's groups.

The Executive's decision to change the criteria was called in for further scrutiny and on Tuesday it will be discussed again by the Social Care Improvement Committee.

If the changes to the Fair Access to Care policy go ahead, hundreds of people will be ushered towards the voluntary sector instead of receiving care from the Council - which some think is an odd sort of "improvement".

These are people who are considered to have "moderate" needs (i.e. five or more physical or social needs, whatever that means). Those whose needs are "substantial" or "critical" will continue to get help from Social Services.

The Council's case is that it can't afford to look after everyone. So it's planning to raise the threshold.

That's fine if you look at these matters in purely economic terms. But it's people's feelings and fears that we're dealing with here. A need is a need.

If you're struggling to cope on your own so badly that you need to ask for help, you don't sit down and ponder on whether your situation might qualify as moderate or critical. You just ask. And you expect, after a lifetime of paying income tax and council tax, that help will be forthcoming.

As one councillor with serious concerns about this policy pointed out to me the other day: "If this change takes place we face the frightening prospect of being old and vulnerable and ringing social services to be told, Sorry, we can't help' and being given the name of a local church group who might be able to."

Not that she's knocking such groups. They do sterling work. But her concern is that many groups are struggling to find enough volunteers (some have closed).

At others the volunteers are themselves elderly. That, of course, is no disadvantage in itself. Many older people work tirelessly and ably and have a strong commitment. But such groups need a steady intake of younger people to compensate for what I hope it isn't too insensitive to refer to as natural wastage, and many of them aren't getting it. Also, all groups need continuity of funding if they are to commit themselves to such vital work.

The rising cost of having the elderly and vulnerable looked after properly by local authority professionals is a national issue. It should be solved nationally, by councils being allowed enough money to meet their obligations rather than by encouraging them to pass on some of their responsibilities to a fragile if willing voluntary sector.

And if that means raising taxes, particularly on the fat cats, and/or withdrawing from hugely expensive and unwinnable overseas wars, then so be it.

Wow factor of an old trouper

It's surely time to either call a halt to The X-Factor or rename it. So many of the contestants now seem to have a talent primarily for producing floods of tears that it would be better to call the show The Blub Factor and judge them on their ability to cry rather than to sing.

Actually, if they watched last Saturday's Parkinson show they would have had good reason to weep with despair over their own mediocrity. Liza Minnelli has been through a lot of troubles and isn't in the best of health.

Yet she when she performed a tender and rather strange Charles Aznavour song straight to camera she showed that her star quality is undiminished. That was the X-Factor in action, and none of the people I've seen so far on this series of the show can come within a thousand miles of it!

Fine player of spin

It's not hard to imagine the pressure which must have been put on Bloomsberg news agency journalist Carolin Lotter after she reported Cherie Blair's "That's a lie" aside during Gordon Brown's speech last week.

The Downing Street spin doctors are renowned for the savagery of their reaction when things don't go their way. They'll have been working flat out to rubbish her.

But she stuck to her guns and as I can't conceive of any reason why she should have made it up, I believe her. It's incidents like this that make journalists rather proud of the much-maligned profession in which we work.

Only by refusing to let truth bow to intimidation can we do our bit to protect our increasingly fragile democracy.

Fast-tracked home!

There's often much muttering to be heard about the unreliability of public transport. But here's an unsolicited pat on the back for the trains and buses which on one occasion at least worked perfectly.

The GNER train from King's Cross left bang on time and arrived in Leeds two hours later.

The connection to Shipley (an elderly, two-coach Morecambe train with standing room only) also departed and arrived promptly, and the bus for home pulled up at the stop a couple of minutes after we did.

The trip from London to our front door took us just two hours and 40 minutes, which I reckon is pretty good going by anyone's standards.