The 2020 Public Services Trust Blog

There’s quite a storm brewing in certain circles over the government’s personal care at home bill.  I was at an event organised by the SMF’s James Lloyd this week, where a panel was convened to critically reflect on the bill, including perspectives from a local authority that will have to find the cash and capacity to provide the extra care, a measured (but damning) perspective from the Kings Fund, and a searing and direct critique from Lord Warner. 

Not many people stood up for the bill – and those who did argued in terms of awareness, of keeping social care at the top of the legislative agenda during an election campaign.  Their fear is that a new government would have other priorities, and a greater compulsion to make immediate cuts that would harm those in need of the greatest care. 

But it seems from my perspective that forcing through the bill would seriously undermine the pretty sophisticated debate that has evolved around last summer’s green paper.  The idea of fairly sharing responsibility for the implications demographic change is blown out of the water by the PCAH bill, which – according to the Kings Fund – would have a partially regressive impact, and undermines the idea of partnership between individuals, families and the state.  The question of how local authorities could swallow the extra costs of the proposals (which are currently mooted from efficiency savings) becomes a daunting one if new figures suggesting serious under-estimation are to be believed. 

Next week the 2020PST will be launching a series of working papers – one of which is a paper on social care.  I wrote it before the bill was announced, so it doesn’t offer a perspective on this mess, but as Im not sure how this short term legislation could be squared with the long term goals of the green paper, I’m quite glad I didn’t have to try…