More than 200,000 frail elderly people will lose meals on wheels and other care at home in a savage round of cutbacks.
Only the most seriously sick and disabled will retain the right to free meals and help with washing, cleaning and shopping by next year.
Rising demand and costs are forcing social services to restrict home assistance, a Whitehall report reveals.
It provides strong evidence that the weakest and most vulnerable are likely to suffer first from spending cuts that will follow the Government's decision to plough vast amounts into saving failed banks and financial institutions.
Local councils have long found it easier to make savings by cutting services for the elderly rather than more widely visible targets, such as closing swimming pools.
They are also deeply reluctant to antagonise powerful public sector unions by reducing jobs or pay for their staff.
The restrictions mean that by next spring about 600,000 elderly will have lost the right to free home help since 2006.
About 1.5million people were given care at home by their local authority last year at a cost of about ?7billion - but the amount of money has been falling in recent years.
A Government green paper on care for the frail old this summer proposed taxes on retirees to meet the cost.
But it also made clear that nothing will happen for at least five years.
Critics believe depriving the elderly of help to live in their own homes brings rapid decline, followed by the need to move to a residential care home.
Those who are not considered sufficiently sick are routinely denied advice on how to buy in their own help. The Daily Mail's Dignity for the Elderly campaign has long highlighted the need for care at home.
Andrew Harrop, of charity Age Concern and Help the Aged, said: 'Getting support around the home is vital for many older people in terms of retaining independence and dignity.
'As our society ages and the need for care and support grows, policy makers must wake up to the fact that cutting budgets and withdrawing support from those who need it most is a national disgrace.'
A report for the Local Government Association, the umbrella body for councils, found that in 2006, 31 per cent of councils gave free home help to those with ' moderate' needs, while 63 per cent confined assistance to those whose problems were classed as 'substantial'.
This year the figures fell to 27 per cent and 73 per cent respectively, and by next spring only 14 per cent of authorities will give help at the moderate level, while 81 per cent will limit it to those with substantial needs.
A spokesman for the LGA said: 'There are a lot of people who need help but the money available is not keeping up with the rising population of the elderly.
'Essentially, more people are needing more care on less money.'
Shadow Health Minister Stephen O'Brien said: 'Labour's social care system is outdated and unfair.
'It is totally unacceptable for the Government to have done so little to help these vulnerable people during its 12 years in power.
'When will Labour be honest and upfront with the public and deliver the social care reform we so desperately need?'
Only the most seriously sick and disabled will retain the right to free meals and help with washing, cleaning and shopping by next year.
Rising demand and costs are forcing social services to restrict home assistance, a Whitehall report reveals.
It provides strong evidence that the weakest and most vulnerable are likely to suffer first from spending cuts that will follow the Government's decision to plough vast amounts into saving failed banks and financial institutions.
Local councils have long found it easier to make savings by cutting services for the elderly rather than more widely visible targets, such as closing swimming pools.
They are also deeply reluctant to antagonise powerful public sector unions by reducing jobs or pay for their staff.
The restrictions mean that by next spring about 600,000 elderly will have lost the right to free home help since 2006.
About 1.5million people were given care at home by their local authority last year at a cost of about ?7billion - but the amount of money has been falling in recent years.
A Government green paper on care for the frail old this summer proposed taxes on retirees to meet the cost.
But it also made clear that nothing will happen for at least five years.
Critics believe depriving the elderly of help to live in their own homes brings rapid decline, followed by the need to move to a residential care home.
Those who are not considered sufficiently sick are routinely denied advice on how to buy in their own help. The Daily Mail's Dignity for the Elderly campaign has long highlighted the need for care at home.
Andrew Harrop, of charity Age Concern and Help the Aged, said: 'Getting support around the home is vital for many older people in terms of retaining independence and dignity.
'As our society ages and the need for care and support grows, policy makers must wake up to the fact that cutting budgets and withdrawing support from those who need it most is a national disgrace.'
A report for the Local Government Association, the umbrella body for councils, found that in 2006, 31 per cent of councils gave free home help to those with ' moderate' needs, while 63 per cent confined assistance to those whose problems were classed as 'substantial'.
This year the figures fell to 27 per cent and 73 per cent respectively, and by next spring only 14 per cent of authorities will give help at the moderate level, while 81 per cent will limit it to those with substantial needs.
A spokesman for the LGA said: 'There are a lot of people who need help but the money available is not keeping up with the rising population of the elderly.
'Essentially, more people are needing more care on less money.'
Shadow Health Minister Stephen O'Brien said: 'Labour's social care system is outdated and unfair.
'It is totally unacceptable for the Government to have done so little to help these vulnerable people during its 12 years in power.
'When will Labour be honest and upfront with the public and deliver the social care reform we so desperately need?'
Comment