IN the last couple of weeks a small cadre of MPs has been meeting behind the scenes in a bid to try and achieve something rarely seen in Westminster – a cross-party policy.

It's true that every now and again you get the parties agreeing on something in public, but even then it is only the most clear-cut subjects – terrorism for example – which everyone tends to agree is bad.

To actually see all the parties sitting round the table and agreeing not just on what is a problem, but how to tackle it, is an event that is akin to the sighting of a comet.

But nonetheless it is happening right now, and all over a subject that is possibly the least clear-cut and yet of such broad importance that it will effect each and every one of us – how to pay for the care of our elderly.

Census figures suggest that over the next five to ten years there will be tens of thousands in Nottingham alone reaching an age at which they may need help of some sort.

Across the whole country over the next 20 years, the number of UK citizens over the age of 85 is set to double.

By 2034, a predicted 23 per cent of the population will be 65 and over.

Under the current system anyone with assets of more than £23,250 has to pay for the entire cost of their own care in old age, while other people rely on funding provided through their local authority.

But the problem is that councils say they are struggling to cover the cost of subsidized care, and are increasingly narrowing the criteria for those they will help.

Meanwhile thousands of other people are being forced to sell homes to pay for their own stays in residential centres.

The really scary truth is that the current system is at breaking point and if we don't cough up billions of pounds in the next few decades there will be a major crisis.

If I were cynical I would suggest that the only thing uniting the parties into action on this occasion is not just the huge crisis that needs addressing over a long period, but that decisions needed to tackle it will be so costly and unpopular that no single party wants to take the blame.

Either way, they are now round the table.

I should point out that it is not the first time the parties have tried to sit down and find a solution.

They tried it back in 2010 but things went pear-shaped and the talks broke down when – shortly before the General Election – the Tories withdrew and accused Gordon Brown of planning a "death tax".

It was a political stunt of sorts to garner favour with an electorate that was looking for reasons not to vote Labour, but it also caused a huge amount of distrust on the Labour side of Tories offering talks.

"After what happened last time I'm amazed Andy will even sit down with them," said a Labour MP close to the shadow health secretary Andy Burnham, involved in both the 2010 and current discussions.

But putting differences aside Burnham is now engaged again in talks with Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, who is heading things up for the Coalition.

To get an independent steer on the whole issue a review was set up 18 months ago, to be carried out by the economist Andrew Dilnot.

Its report last summer recommended people should pay for their own care but that the cost for any individual should be capped at £35,000 with additional cost met by the state.

But the Government appears at the moment to be put off by that figure.

The cost of care for some individuals can be far more and ministers have indicated that Dilnot's recommendation may be too much of a burden on the state.

Rumours abound that they are preparing to set a cap but that it may be twice as high, around the £60,000 mark.

Exactly what is being discussed in the cross party talks meanwhile, is a closely guarded secret.

Even if they do agree, and the Government brings out a white paper on the issue this spring then there is still a lengthy legislative process to go through – this is one that they need to get on with and get on with fast.