Following an inspection by the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI), the County Council issued a press release (http://www.hants.gov.uk/press/2002/c943ssi.html) headed ‘Promising prospects’ for older people’s services in Hampshire
The praise for staff was welcome and well deserved. But the press release failed to mention page 14 of the inspectors’ report where it says:
Compared with other authorities in the group, Hampshire:
The department’s net budget for 2001/2 was £167.1 million, 4 per cent above the Standard Spending Assessment, Of this, £73 million was allocated to older people’s services, £26 million less than SSA.
So we spend a little more than the government recommends on Social Services in general, but a staggering £26 million less than is recommended for older people. And this shortfall hurts. To quote the report again:
Hampshire operated a strict rationing of services, using three levels of eligibility criteria which had been agreed with councillors. ...A leaflet detailing who could get help from the department said that services could only be provided for people who had the most severe problems. Only if resources allowed would help be offered to people with lower levels of need.
But the resources are under members’ control and we need an urgent debate on how they should be spent.
We spend £22 million more than recommended on adult services and £11 million more than recommended on children’s services, but only £73 million of the £98.9 million recommended for older people’s services.
We need to ask why we spend so little on older people’s services and we need to ask what we can do about it. We get less from the government than most Councils but that is only part of the problem. We have settled for a rationing system which serves only the very needy and leaves others unsupported. At the same time, we spend a lot on children and adults.
But we cannot have a debate until the facts are in the open and it is a great shame that the official press release made no mention of these issues.