News

A seismic shift in the political landscape took place when chancellor Gordon Brown increased taxes with effect from next year to invest in public services.

Understandably, public sector workers were overjoyed. However, the headline figure soon lost its sparkle when local authority leaders revealed the money earmarked for social services was far short of their estimated spend over the next four years.

Brown may have boosted his Old Labour credentials and taken a courageous risk with this budget, but the now familiar double announcing of "new" money was very much New Labour.

The headline figure of £3.2bn includes £800m already pledged for next year, leaving local authorities with £2.4bn over three years - £550m short of what they estimate they will spend. The Local Government Association claims the additional employer national insurance contributions will wipe out the increase altogether in the first year.

Despite the shortfall, social services have received a much-needed financial boost. Hopefully this will result in innovative, needs-led services for vulnerable older people. But the government has placed hurdles in the way. New fines for "bed blocking" will be counterproductive, forcing councils to concentrate on moving older people out of hospital quickly even when the alternative is unsatisfactory.

The fines may undermine partnerships too. If the NHS is to improve it needs strong partnerships with social services. Fines for both councils and hospitals will work against this. Both will be minding their own backs to avoid penalties. In the middle is the older person in the hospital bed, whose choice and independence may be threatened, and whose voice may be ignored.

The new money can be used to increase care home fees and that is welcome, but the fines will start before capacity has grown in that sector or new initiatives have come on stream. They will siphon money away from where it is really needed. The government must delay the fines until the new money has had the chance to make an impact on services.

Marriage of convenience

The merger of the Social Services Inspectorate with the National Care Standards Commission is a sensible move, not least for the reasons given by the health secretary himself in announcing it last week. Bringing the two organisations together would, Alan Milburn said, clear up the "fragmentation and confusion" caused by the current arrangements. Some will have wondered why he didn't think of that before, considering that the NCSC is less than a month old.

Though we will have to wait up to two years to benefit from them, the twin virtues of the proposed Commission for Social Care Inspection will be a simplified, more integrated inspection process and greater independence from government. The SSI is an arm of the Department of Health, whereas the new body will be accountable to parliament and have its commissioners chosen by an independent commission. Inspections could look at what makes a good service, independently of the government view.

This independence must of course extend to the head of the new body. The chief inspector of the SSI combines the job with a major policy-making role in the DoH. If the new regime is to fulfil its promise, having a foot in both camps must become a thing of the past.