The government has said that the plans to fine councils for the delayed discharge of older people from hospital could be applied to mental health and community settings. Earlier this year parliament had voted to exclude mental health from the scope of the legislation.

But in answer to criticisms about delays occurring in the discharge of patients in community and mental health settings, the Treasury has said in a report that "there is nothing to prevent assessment and discharge notifications for acute care patients also being extended to cover other care settings".

The report maintains that there has been a reduction in the number and length of delays in hospitals over the past two years.

New legislation came into effect in shadow form in October to make hospitals notify social services departments about patients who may need social care on discharge.

From 5 January social services departments will be charged £100 a day - £120 in London and the south east - if they fail to arrange the required care packages within two days of notification. Bill Badham, development officer, National Youth Agency

"Improved co-ordination across services is a good thing. But are delayed discharge penalties popular with government because they benefit the individual, or because they sound tough? What's important here is the health and well-being of the person receiving care. This needs people power and practical resources and services committed to the individual's best interests, which is only possible when individuals themselves are able to participate in their own care planning."

Julia Ross, social services director, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
"Reimbursement can help focus attention and effort on whole systems working. However, what I'd really like to see now is acute hospitals focusing on unblocking beds filled with cardiac patients and others waiting for treatment, transfer, surgery or diagnostics before it's extended to other areas. Regretfully, some opportunities have also been missed where it might have made more sense for acute hospitals to invest in supporting social care discharges, rather than sit back and wait for reimbursements to kick in."

Martin Green, chief executive, Counsel and Care for the Elderly
"In principle I see no reason why the delayed discharge process should not be extended to cover a range of client groups. My problem with the delayed discharge legislation is not the notion of fining local authorities, but a concern that the process might lead to speedy and inappropriate discharge. What I would like to see is some aspect of the quality of the discharge process being part of the legislation and authorities being fined for a slow or poor quality discharge processes."

Bob Hudson, professor of partnership studies, Centre for Health Services Management, University of Birmingham
"Things are getting to a low ebb when the practicalities of joint working are determined by a dialogue between the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury! The fines regime is a bad idea in the case of discharge from acute hospital, and it remains a bad idea in relation to community mental health settings. Instead of imposing penalties, the government should adopt a performance management framework that rewards, rather than ignores, evidence of good local partnership working."

Felicity Collier, chief executive, Baaf Adoption and Fostering
"Of course it is good news if more patients have been discharged from hospital appropriately, on time and with proper support. But we must remember how vulnerable mental health patients are and careful analysis of reasons for delay for this client group must precede any moves to impose penalties. There is still much concern about the impact the fines will have and it is absolutely essential we are allowed time to assess their impact before extending them."