Spastics Society (Correspondence) (Hansard, 7 March 1985)

§ Mr. John Patten

[pursuant to the reply, 15 February 1985, c. 319]: The letter of 22 January from the Voluntary Organisations Personal Social Services Group and my reply are as follows: Dear Mr. Fowler, RE: Special Programme Funding of Social Services The Voluntary Organisations Personal Social Services Group is a group of directors of major voluntary organisations involved in the provision of care and support for people who are crucially dependent on personal social services. In recent years our agencies have cooperated with government in a succession of 'special programmes' — for example the opportunities for volunteering scheme and the community programme of the Manpower Services Commission. A feature of these programmes has been the provision of special funds from central government, largely channelled through voluntary bodies such as our own. These schemes have been nicknamed 'funny money' programmes by the local authorities. Many of us have participated in these programmes, which have enabled much needed attention to be given to new priorities, experimental or innovative work. We are now concerned at the long term effects of the cuts to local government expenditure on services for our users, especially in the areas affected by large rate penalties, rate-capping and the abolition of the metropolitan authorities. We examine these programmes in this context. The belief has grown up that some see 'special programme' funding as sugaring the pill of the cuts, or worse, setting up alternative provision to local authority services. Our concern was increased by your speech at the conference of the Association of Directors of Social Services in Buxton in 1984. You appeared to see the future role of local authority social service departments as concerned less with direct service provision than with coordinating private or voluntary services provided by other agencies. Our view is that, even if the amounts of money were increased dramatically, these programmes could not and should not replace the existing range of services provided by the local authorities. Our welcome for these programmes is therefore qualified by the need for a clear understanding between all parties involved that they:—

i. are seen as supplementary to and not a replacement for the mainstream local authority services;
ii. are used primarily to enable the voluntary sector to concentrate on innovation, development, experimentation, and in the provision of wider informal services;
iii. are developed in such a way as to guarantee local authorities sufficient resources to act on the lessons and experience of these special programmes and to develop services accordingly;
iv. are recognised as short term in nature with all the limitations of such funding.

Voluntary organisations want a planned and close working partnership with local government. This may be a misunderstood concept but one thing it must not mean is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We hope you will note our serious concerns, and we look forward to hearing from you as to your policy for the future funding of the personal social services. Yours sincerely, on behalf of the following major national voluntary organisations.

Sir John Cox—Spastics Society
George Wilson—RADAR
Brian Rix—Royal MENCAP
Clive Jordan—BASSAC
Tim Cook—Family Service Unit
Carol Smart—National Council for One Parent Families
Valerie Lipman—Pensioners LINK
Elizabeth Filkin—NACAB
Paul Sornmerfeld—LVSC
Chris Heginbotham—MIND
R. Morley—Family Welfare Association
Bill Griffiths—NCVO

Dear Sir John, Thank you for the letter you and your colleagues in the Voluntary Organisations Personal Social Services Group sent Norman Fowler on 22 January about 'special programme' funding of social services. Essentially, I see services provided by voluntary organisations as adding to the range of services provided by local and health authorities rather than as a substitute for them. Central government funding of national voluntary organisations is intended both to strengthen the capacity of the voluntary sector to provide services and to give an opportunity to test whether a different mix of voluntary and statutory provision would make a better use of resources. As you point out, at local level central government funding schemes are primarily designed to achieve this by concentrating on innovative, developmental or experimental projects. If this approach is to make sense, it also follows that such central government support to a local project will by its nature be short term rather than permanent. However, I recognise the weight of the argument of the voluntary sector that an innovative local project will often need assurance of funding for two or three years if it is going to be able to establish its merits effectively. I have, for instance, taken this into account in the schemes being developed under the Helping the Community to Care programme, and in the proposals in the consultation paper which I published at the end of last year on the future of the Opportunities for Volunteering programme. You suggest that a guarantee is needed that local authorities will have sufficient resources to act on the lessons and experience of central government funded projects. As you will know, local authorities decide their own priorities between the various services they provide, and the Government takes account of demographic and similar pressures on the personal social services in the Rate Support Grant settlements. Where experience shows that a centrally funded project involving a voluntary organisation can provide cost effective services, we would expect local authorities to take account of this when deciding their pattern of services. I hope that you find this explanation helpful.