Boy George or George Gently?
When George Osborne announced to the House of Commons that social care would recieve an addtional average of £2bn year on year, I was sceptical to say the least. During the comprehensive spending review address he stated that;
“Some in local government have concerns about the financing of social care.
I can announce that grant funding for social care will be increased by an additional £1 billion by the fourth year of the Spending Review.
And a further £1 billion for social care will be provided through the NHS to support joint working with councils – so that elderly people do not continue to fall through the crack between two systems.
That’s a total of £2 billion additional funding for social care to protect the most vulnerable.”
In the lengthy Comprehensive Spending Review document, this statement or a variation of it to illustrate that figure was repeated 12 times. When government documents are hazy and fluffy, usually something is being hidden. Incidentally the word ‘fairness’ was used 25 times.
It was expressed in a table in the document (pg 44), in a manner designed to confuse the reader. Osborne’s statement does not jump out of the page.
| Table 2.3: Funds to Support Social Care | |||||
| £ billion | |||||
| 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |
| Additional funds in NHS RDEL | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 |
| PSS Grant being merged into LG RDEL | 1.3 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
To get a clearer picture of the balance between NHS and Local Government contributions, in table 2.3 you have to subtract the top line from the bottom. It is hardly a big issue, but it would be easier to express like this;
| Funds to Support Social Care | |||||
| £ billion | |||||
| 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |
| NHS funds | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 |
| Local Government grant | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
It becomes interesting when you consider Osborne forgot to mention three important points which will effect how this money is allocated.
Firstly, as we know, the NHS budget is ringfenced. Thus there is no reason to suggest that those funds will be redirected elsewhere. Secondly we know that local authorities budgets are being cut by 7.1% for four years – a total cut of 28%;
“For local government, the deficit we have inherited means an unavoidably challenging settlement.
There will be overall savings in funding to councils of 7.1% a year for four years.
But to help councils, we propose a massive devolution of financial control.”
Thirdly, this is significant because the grant to local government is part of their biggest controllable budget. Local authorities are making efficiency savings and job losses as we speak, most organisations in any sector that suffer 28% cuts cannot afford to protect any portion of a budget.
It may prove too tempting to move the funds around, and not use them for their intended purpose. You can then, say that it is questionable whether the majority of this £2bn yearly average increase in social care will actually be spent as has been suggested by Mr Osborne.
Indeed, I would go as far as saying that the £2bn figure might as well be plucked out of the air. That figure represents the maximum possible, if every penny was directed as suggested. How likely is that, when the public sector are making huge cutbacks? In his own words, he is stating “massive devolution of financial control.” The temptation might be too hard to resist.
Lastly, it is no secret that the UK population is ageing. Most of the “vulnerable people in society” tend to be of retirement age. Whilst any rise is good news, the ambiguity of how these has been packaged is not welcome. At the end of the Parliament it will be interesting to see how accurate the Chancellors promise has been…
defooo