Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Main parties revolt over free home care plan

  • 2 Comments

Dozens of senior councillors from all three parties have publicly complained that government plans to provide free home care are flawed and will force cuts to current services.

In a letter to The Times, the councillors say they support the principle of providing additional support to those with the most critical care needs but Gordon Brown’s proposed legislation “has major weaknesses and risks adding further strain to an existing system already under considerable financial pressure”.

It concludes: “It is also wrong to raise expectations among many of the most vulnerable in our society and their families that they may be in a position to benefit from these proposals when the reality may be significantly different.”

The letter’s leading signatory is David Finch, the Conservative chairman of social care at Essex county council, while the other 77 also have responsibility for social care. Five are Labour councillors.

Cllr Finch told The Times: “It’s not that the idea is not valid. It is that the way it is being implemented has not been thought through in any way. This is going to mean funds are diverted from needy adult social care services in order to finance this package.

“[The government] is providing the public with all sorts of goodies. It comes as no coincidence that a general election is just around the corner and then suddenly all these promises are appearing,” Cllr Finch added.

The annual cost of the bill is put at £670m. Of this total, £420m is to come from existing Department of Health budgets, with local authorities told that they must provide the remaining £250m from efficiency savings.

But, as LGC has reported, the proposals, unveiled by Mr Brown at the 2009 Labour Party conference, have already been criticised as underfunded by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services.

It suggested a minimum £330m shortfall between the government estimates and the real demands on the system - which councils would have to bear, more than doubling the projected £250m costs to local authorities.

The Association of South East Strategic Leaders and South East Councils Adult Social Care has predicted that the cost to authorities in that region alone would be £100m a year.

Care services minister Phil Hope told the Times it was “extremely disappointing” that councillors supported the principles of the bill, but would “quibble and complain and find reasons not to make it happen”.

“Care recipients in these council areas will be shocked that local authorities are apparently unable to find efficiencies to deliver this priority when significant funding is being provided by the government,” he said.

  • 2 Comments

Readers' comments (2)

  • Its time the Government faced up to the realities of funding this pre-Election sweetener. What do they have to say to those people who will experience service cuts in order to pay for this freebie, and why has it been introduced at the very time that a consultation over social care funding is underway?
    Phil Hope has some explaining to do!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Aren't we forgetting that the patients who can be nursed at home will be better off in their own environment and less stressed. I love working in hospitals but I absolutely detest being a patient, however good the service is. Patient centred care, empowering the patient and providing the best environment are fundamentals of nursing which can be achieved in many cases of home care. This is what the government needs to consider and achieve! Who do the government work for again? The same good people who fund the NHS methinks...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.