AS a professional social work manager in a neighbouring authority to Lancashire County Council, my experience is that to close care homes on this scale is a high-risk strategy.

Money is saved as private care is typically cheaper to buy, crucially because of lower pay and a less skilled workforce. Quality of care is therefore often reduced -- and cannot be raised by twice-yearly independent inspections.

A ploy by many private homes is to firm informal cartels and drive up the cost of care by charging more by the use of Third Party Agreements, which have to be paid by relatives. This practice would not apply in local authority care.

A further reason for continuing to provide residential care is that private homes, particularly smaller ones (10-20 bed units) are especially vulnerable to low investment and rising environmental standards, which are being introduced nationally.

At any time, such homes may be closed, or be closed by inspection teams for non-commercial reasons. Spare capacity in the local authority sector is vital in being able to respond flexibly to such developments.

In principle, the local authority is right to reduce its market share in order to generate reinvestment opportunities. In practice, this should be done in a gradual and phased way to avoid the consequences I have referred to.

BARRIE SHARPLEY, Old Hall Square, Worsthorne, Burnley.