Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Care costs for elderly rise to £322m

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 August 2008
THE Scottish Government has been warned it may have to put many of its promises on hold to pay off the rapidly escalating costs of free personal care for the elderly.
The warning came as figures yesterday revealed funding free personal care has increased by 52 per cent in four years between 2003 and 2007, from £212 million to £322 million.

The cost in Edinburgh and Glasgow has doubled to £45 million and £80 mil
lion respectively.

The financial burden has fallen on councils and concerns have been raised that they will struggle to meet them.

The Conservatives' local government spokesman, David McLetchie said that the rises were precisely what he warned about when the policy was passed in Holyrood.

But he added that the policy, which was brought in by the former Labour/ Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive and supported by the SNP in opposition, now needs to be honoured before any other promises are introduced.

"This is exactly what might have been expected from a policy that was not properly costed and which just keeps on rising as more pensioners go on the pay roll and population gets older," he said.

"But it is now in place and it should now be honoured because it was a commitment. That means that ideas the SNP have about reducing class sizes and the like can only be introduced if they have the money to pay for it after honouring free personal care for the elderly."

The issue of paying for free personal care for the elderly has been a vexed one since the policy was introduced.

A recent report by Lord Sutherland warned that the cost will soar to £813 million by 2031 with the number of over-65s rising from 837,000 in 2006 to 1.36 million in 2031.

There has also been a row between the Scottish and UK governments over the £40 million attendance allowance for pensioners receiving care. This was withdrawn from Scotland by the UK government as a result of free personal care being introduced.

Lord Sutherland supported loud calls by the current Scottish Government and quieter lobbying by the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive for the money to be restored.

The Scottish Government has insisted that it is putting forward the money to support the increasing costs of free personal care.

A spokesman said: "The Scottish Government has already committed to providing £40 million in additional funding to local authorities from next year for care services for older people, in line with Lord Sutherland's recommendations.

"We are working in partnership with Cosla to take forward the recommendations in Lord Sutherland's report and our wider shared commitment to improve the delivery of care services for older people."

He said that spending on free personal and nursing care is recorded as part of local authorities' overall spending on care services for older people. Between 2005-6 and 2006-7 the overall expenditure on care services provided to older people in their own homes rose by £17.5 million or 6 per cent, reflecting growth in the older population.

He added: "Within this overall spend, the Statistical Publication shows that the proportion spent on free personal care has shown a significant rise of 21 per cent.

"Around half of this rise is directly attributed to one local authority, while the general trend confirms the continuing shift in the balance of care allowing more people to continue to live in their own homes."





The full article contains 581 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 August 2008 9:27 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Care for the Elderly
 
1

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 27/08/2008 00:35:12
Quieter lobbying by the previous Labour Led Scottish Executive?

Aye David, that quiet it couldn't be heard on the other side of Hadrians Wall!
2

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans 27/08/2008 07:45:37
It makes sense (social and economic) to keep the elderly in their own homes for as long as possible. And yes, only pay to do that when they genuinely need it.

Putting people into homes is cruel and callous if they are able to keep going in their own homes. As for grabbing their houses to pay for care, that is totally iniquitous.

3

Alberto.,

27/08/2008 08:51:40
This figure quoted for looking after the 'Elderly' - how does it compare with the cost of
'looking after our Politicians' - a different but very expensive 'looking after' cost, and, seemingly - need it of not, will simply claim all they can, because they have really looked after No.1 by making sure the rules are in their favour!!!
4

Alan B,

27/08/2008 09:11:39
Another piece of mismangement from labour.

Firstly the devolution settlement means scotland only gets a share of english spending so that now that scotland has introduced a policy that england does not have then scotland does not get a proportionate share of the money.

More importantly though, if you are introducing a policy like this (which i do think is the right thing to do), then it should have been costed properly. Labour have been particularly bad at announcing artificially low costs of a project to get it approved. Then the costs overrun significantly and predictably.

As such if they had calculated the figure more accurately then money could have been allocated to that when the scottish parliament was getting record increases in funding. What we have been left with is big cost increases/overruns in a project at a time when the scottish parliament has been given its lowest ever increase in funding. An increase only an increase in name as real inflation is higher than the 0.5% increase above annnounced inflation (cpi).
5

Alan B,

27/08/2008 09:14:52
#Rulesbutnotrulers

While you do come out with some nutty ideas most of the time I do agree with you here in principle. The retirement age should be raised to 70. Then the cake would not be spread so thinly. Public sector retirement should be brought into line with this aswell. Having more flexibility could mean people over 60 should have the option to go part-time and work a 3day week.
6

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 27/08/2008 10:16:46
Alastair Darling did all he could to spike this legislation at the time. As a direct result of his shilly-shallying around as a Treasury minister, the whole funding issue is a complete shambles with some people claiming allowances and still getting free personal care while others are denied both. There is little or no consistency in approach or application.

No wonder, as Chancellor, he is skilfully steering the country on to the rocks.
7

Linmal,

Livingston 27/08/2008 12:48:12
Free personal care? How can it be free? Someone has to pay for it and that someone is the Council Tax payer. I have no objections to people receiving this care but it is not free by any means - do you think £322m just magically appears out of thin air. And how many people have jumped on the bandwagon to provide this so-called "free" care? I wonder....
8

Miss H,

27/08/2008 14:28:57
2 Very true but people fit enough to be golfing and touring the world don't get free personal and nursing care. And they are not doing it on a state pension either!
9

Miss H,

27/08/2008 14:30:19
10 It is free at the point of need. Same principle that underlies the NHS. You could look at it this way - you are paying your tax and NI now so that someone will come round and wipe your bottom when you are no longer able to do it for yourself.
10

wattie>x 1,

PLYMOUTH 27/08/2008 15:12:39
Well, what does it matter what the cost?
One Yankee Trident Missile less would more than cover the decifit!
11

nolimits,

BC 27/08/2008 15:53:44
Excuse my ignorance, but 813 million divided by 1.36million is: 597.79 million per person. How the hell does one arrive at that figure? Even figuring in inflation etc. that seems a bit weird.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.