STEPHEN Bridge is wrong to think that social care is an NHS responsibility (Warrington Guardian, April 14), the prime provider has always been the local authority.

The point is somewhat academic though since taxes, whether national or local, have to pay for it.

It’s also wrong to say the Government has ‘instructed councils’ to make this additional charge, nothing could be further from the truth.

Since the Localism Act of 2011 the Government has been reducing central targets, inspections and red tape, freeing councils to decide their own priorities and provide the services they want unfettered by any central dictat.

But in 2013 the Government said that if councils wish to increase the community charge each year by more than two per cent they must have a local referendum.

Warrington, like many councils, decided it couldn’t trust the public to offer their opinion in a referendum so since 2013 it has kept the annual increases to under two per cent.

What has changed is that the Government has now allowed councils to increase the community charge by up to four per cent without triggering a referendum provided the increase above two per cent is ring fenced to pay for social care.

Stephen however does raise some very interesting points in his letter.

A couple of things particularly concern me. What is the definition of social care in this context? Is it precisely defined or can the council choose to define it however it wants? And is the council going to ensure the two per cent precept will be in addition to what it would normally have spent and already budgeted in its long term forecast which predates this change?

Or will it be using money previously budgeted for social care for non-social care spending?

I would like to know what safeguards, checks and balances are in place to ensure that the additional two per cent social care precept included in next year’s community charge will be in addition to the previous budget and spent solely on social care.

RICHARD BUTTREY Stockton Heath