IF I live another 25 years or so I will be a nonagenarian.

Lots of other “baby boomers” born at the end of the Second World War will also be over 90 and caring for the less nimble and confused among us will be a major problem for the Government of the day.

In my dreams, I will still be churning out these columns, winning over-90s table tennis tournaments and pretending to be frail in order to con younger crown green bowlers out of deserved victories.

But I could just as easily end up needing full-time care in a home for the elderly.

Politicians are vaguely aware that something needs to be done to meet this impending crisis and last week saw the publication of an important report by Andrew Dilnot, a former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

His recommendations include a cap of £35,000 on lifetime individual liability for care costs and an assets threshold for cutting state support raised from £23,250 to £100,000.

Under this plan no one would have to pay more than 30 per cent of their savings and assets towards meeting their needs.

People would still be liable for the costs of accommodation and food in a care home, but this would be limited to £10,000 a year.

Such a system — which might make it possible for the insurance industry to develop an appropriate product — would allow elderly people and their relatives to avoid selling their homes to pay for care.

These proposals seem, on the surface, to be a better deal than the current system and they have been mostly welcomed by charities, welfare groups and care providers.

But the Government — dedicated to austerity — is uncomfortably aware that the proposals would add an initial £1.7 billion a year to spending, rising to £3.6 billion by 2025.

We will have to wait now until a White Paper is published before next Easter.

Although action is scheduled for 2014 or thereabouts, there is a suspicion in some circles that the whole thing will be deemed too expensive and be “kicked in to the long grass”.

Those of us who have a long-term interest in this debate hope that does not prove to be the case.

It is already evident that the elderly care system is creaking with fewer and fewer council-run homes and reductions in the help that can be offered to needy individuals.

All is not well in the private sector either as some of the large companies involved realise that “granny farming” is no longer as profitable as it once was.

Mr Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party, wants cross-party talks to open before the summer recess with David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

There can be no doubt that there is an urgent need for a consensus to be agreed — maybe based on aspects of the Dilnot Report.

One section calls for “better national standards” and although many care workers do a brilliant job, there is no getting away from the fact that pay not much better than the minimum wage does not help the image of a sector that looks set to struggle with demand.

It is a necessary and worthwhile occupation that perhaps needs a more formal professional structure with improved training opportunities and increased financial rewards.

I know it goes against current trends, but I would like to see councils given government cash to deal with a massive problem that is not likely to go away.

Whatever. I hope it is all sorted by the time I get really old.