Spending on free care means savings are made elsewhere
The headline on front page your lead story proclaims that the cost of the policy has increased since 2003-4 (“Cost of flagship free care soars 70%”, The Herald, November 25).
The figure needs to be put into context. Free personal and nursing care is just one component of a care package; the non-means-tested component that, while costing a lot of money, has a bill significantly lower than the alternative. Also, a significant proportion of the cost would still have to be paid by councils, even if the policy had not been introduced. The policy accounts for only about 1% of the Scottish Government’s annual budget in real terms.
In the year before free personal and nursing care was introduced, local authorities in Scotland spent an estimated £65m a year on personal care services at home – around half the cost of providing free personal care for home care clients in the first year of the new policy. Although it is hard to quantify exactly how much money councils would pay today on personal care services at home if the policy did not exist, it would account for a significant proportion of the expenditure.
The policy has also enabled an increasing number of older people to remain living at home when, in the past, they would have moved into care homes. This has resulted in an increase in the cost of providing free personal and nursing care at home but has saved millions of pounds from the cost of providing places in care homes or hospital admission for these individuals.
The average care home place costs about £23,000 for each person a year in Scotland and is, in most cases, paid for by local authorities. For each older person the policy enables to continue living at home instead of being funded by their local authority in a care home, there is a saving of about £15,000 a year to the public purse.
The ageing Scottish population poses challenges for the future provision of care but we are confident in the commitment of the Scottish Government, the NHS, Cosla and others to meet those challenges head on to ensure the care system remains sustainable and delivers high quality care to older people.
David Manion,
Chief executive,
Age Concern and Help the Aged in Scotland,
Causewayside House,
160 Causewayside, Edinburgh.
Free personal care for the elderly has been a flagship policy since its inception in 2002. Many people have benefited. Notwithstanding the cost of the policy soaring by 70%, is it not time we took stock?
In an ideal world, it would be wonderful to give everyone the services they want when they want them. But we are in a recession, public funding is being cut and, at the same time, the number of frail elderly is rising. Something has to give.
Surely it is time to begin that debate and dialogue about what needs to change. When the price tag is £358m, the question has to be asked: what else could it buy for our communities?
In seeking to reshape the services for our elderly, our communities will, I believe, have a key role in supporting people to remain at home. It is important their views are sought.
Harriet L Dempster,
President,
Association of Directors of Social Work,
Rosebery House,
9 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh.
Scotland is full of people who are willing to volunteer to give basic help to older members of their communities so they can stay independent, healthy and happy in their own homes.
These volunteers should be distinguished from unpaid carers, who badly need more support.
Research shows that these so-called “low level” services are what older people really want and need, and can help prevent over-early entry into the formal care system, a prospect few older people relish.
If, as The Herald posits, support for care at home is falling because resources are directed at high-end care, utilising volunteers should be seen as an efficient way of meeting a need that will otherwise go unmet.
It is not a cheap way of replacing jobs. Volunteering in this way alsobuilds community spirit and resilience and creates warm, human relationships that go far beyond those of paid care worker and client. Such services must be in the mix for any future care system.
Andrew Jackson,
Media and Public Affairs Manager,
WRVS in Scotland,
Mansfield Traquair Centre,
15 Mansfield Place, Edinburgh.
Do prophetic words from Bush suggest clues to outcome of Iraq inquiry?
In his quite brilliant column, Ian Bell dissects all that is wrong with the Chilcot inquiry (“Watch Blair dodge the flak during the Iraq war inquiry”, The Herald November 25). Ian Bell’s problem, as always, is that he is too cerebral and too preoccupied with facts, as he forensically demonstrates.
That will never do when it comes to government, especially this one. Tony Blair is the embodiment of anti-fact. Blandness, sophistry and outright falsehood have long since been his principal weapons.
Ian Bell quotes the first page of Bob Woodward’s 2004 book, Plan of Attack. May I draw attention to the last page – indeed, the last paragraph? George W Bush is asked about history, to which he replies: “ ‘History,’ he said, shrugging,
taking his hands out of his pockets, extending his arms out and suggesting with his body language that it was far off. ‘We won’t know. We’ll all be dead’.”
I suspect Tony Blair and Lord Chilcot know the quote by heart.
Chris Walker
As the Chilcot inquiry into the war in Iraq gets under way, the people deserve the whole truth about a conflict fought in their name (“US view on Iraq ‘changed in wake of 9/11’ ”, The Herald, November 25).
This inquiry must be thorough, searching and transparent. It is welcome that Tony Blair will appear as a witness but Gordon Brown must also be held to account. The public will not tolerate a Downing Street stitch-up and Sir John Chilcot has to go the extra mile to unravel the truth and convince the public that the inquiry has real worth.
The Iraq war has been the single biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times. The UK was led to war on a lie about weapons of mass destruction and hundreds of our brave troops and countless civilians have paid the ultimate price for this deception. The Chilcot inquiry must dig deep and uncover those who hold responsibility.
Alex Orr
Descending into ‘extraordinary’ personal attack was akin to a pygmy starting a fight with a giant
Take a country of stunning beauty with wonderful historic sites, and the interest of the Scots in their past, and how could a televised History of Scotland not succeed? No wonder BBC Scotland can pride itself on its viewing figures. That entirely begs a crucial question: if the series will attract viewers, why should the viewers not be given something infinitely better than the dismally old-fashioned history served up?
I was delighted to be asked to be one of the advisory panel when this series was planned – the “godparents”. Unlike Professor Allan Macinnes, who managed one meeting, I stuck it out for two, before deciding that this was a godchild which I emphatically did not want.
This was a massive opportunity, hugely missed. Ron Ferguson (“Put on your baffies and prepare to be amazed”, The Herald, November 23) is absolutely right to contrast it with Diarmaid MacCulloch’s outstanding History of Christianity, at present on BBC4.
He might also have mentioned the Tudor series by David Starkey; like him or loathe him, his television history is brilliant because it is the product of the thinking and the interpretations of a highly gifted historian. Or Simon
Schama’s History of Britain. Or the magnificent American Civil War, which made full use of Shelby Foote.
This is not to say that only historians can produce good historical series. But this one descended into an unpleasant row between the distinguished historian Tom Devine and the series presenter Neil Oliver. This obscures the fact that Professor Devine’s critique in a Sunday newspaper was directed mainly towards the series, not the presenter. Perhaps he might have been wiser to scale down his comments on Mr Oliver, but these were little compared to Mr Oliver’s extraordinary outburst in response, in its level of personal abuse and its lurid attack on the “narrow range” of a historian famed for having done more than anyone to bring Scottish history – the Scottish history worth hearing and thinking about – so far out of the confines of Mr Oliver’s contemptuously dismissive “classroom”.
It also obscures the fact that, despite the spin by BBC Scotland, Mr Oliver’s role is presenter, not historian; none of the BBC’s version of Scottish history was written by him. He therefore risked making himself a pygmy who fought a giant on the giant’s territory. Actually, I enjoyed being interviewed by Neil Oliver in the past. I wish he had been given better material. And I regret that he used abuse as a way of trying to fight as equal to equal. Oh, let us rejoice in the state of the history of Scotland.
One great difference between the History of Scotland and effective historical series is that it lacks any sort of theme which would have allowed viewers to understand the development of Scotland. Mr Oliver opened the series by talking about looking at the myths of the past.
Would that the series had done that, for a country so exceptionally dependent on its myths; that is something of real interest. Instead, it made sporadic dives into individuals and events of the past, all of which were well enough known or too well known. No programme on the Reformation, that massively important process in shaping Scotland? Not when Mary Queen of Scots was on offer. It would be enormously beneficial to the study of Scotland’s past if that tedious woman, who spent 37 years of her life outside Scotland, muddling Scottish affairs, and only seven in Scotland, when she made a complete mess of them, was reduced to a postscript. Dear old Mary continues to crowd out infinitely more rewarding personalities and themes readily available in the history of Scotland.
“How long, o Lord, how long?,” asked Bernard Shaw’s St Joan. How long before the real fascination of Scottish history is allowed a public voice?
Jenny Wormald,
Honorary Fellow in Scottish History,
University of Edinburgh.
It was pleasing to read Ron Ferguson’s sensible comments about television history in general and some of the problems of the BBC1 History of Scotland series in particular. His insightful remarks can be contrasted with the deafening silence on these important issues from the scholarly community in Scotland.
I do, however, have one key reservation. Mr Ferguson perpetuates the myth about a spat involving Neil Oliver, the presenter of the series, and me. For my part, there is no substance to this assertion. I was commissioned to write a review of the BBC project by a Sunday newspaper. Before it was published, the newspaper asked for comment by the presenter.
Ignoring the analytical content of the review, his response degenerated into puerile abuse, name-calling and personal insult. At the very least, a nerve had been well and truly touched.
The result was that the original review was overlooked. It was by no means an entirely negative assessment and the criticisms made were of the structure, orientation, substance, balance andaccuracy of the series.
There was also an attempt, in light of the high cost and big profile of the project, to compare and contrast it with some of the wonderful TV history series of the past such as the American Civil War and the Great War. The critique had, in fact, little to say about a presenter who merely speaks a memorised text to camera which was written by others and performed within a structure devised by others.
It gives me no pleasure to say that my main conclusion in the review, which was that the series was a missed opportunity, has been confirmed as the individual programmes have been transmitted. Take, for instance, last Sunday’s episode on the 18th century. Very positively and to be strongly endorsed, there was a strong focus on Scotland’s long-forgotten role in the American slave economies. That would, indeed, have been an education for many viewers.
But the three central developments of the period which have had crucial effects in shaping the modern nation – the Enlightenment, industrialisation and the transatlantic diaspora – were touched upon only marginally or almost entirely ignored. The old-fashioned narrative approach does not suit these great themes; they cry out for questions and answers. What effect did they have at the time and today? Nobody viewing on Sunday evening would have been any the wiser.
T M Devine,
Head of the School of History, Classics
and Archaeology,
University of Edinburgh.
Pointless airport rail link
The Glasgow Airport Rail Link (Garl) project is marginal to Scotland as a whole (Letters, November 23 and 25). Anyone travelling from the north by rail will still hit the buffers at Queen Street Station in Glasgow, from where it would be easier to catch the coach to the airport than struggle with luggage to Central Station. For most families and the retired, who resent the price of rail fares, there is the option of the long-distance coach to Buchanan Bus Station or the more convenient car.
Seen through my eyes as a Dundonian, the only practicable method for reaching Glasgow or Edinburgh airports is by car or a very expensive taxi. When you are tired after an all-night flight, the last thing you want is further inconvenience.
If local rail use for Glaswegians is vital, why not lay on a free coach service from Paisley Gilmour Street to the airport? It would be much cheaper than constructing a white elephant on hire purchase to be paid off by future generations for the sake of local vanity.
The row disguises the real problem. Glasgow Airport is not an international hub: it is a regional feeder airport (as is Edinburgh). For most Scots, Amsterdam and Heathrow are unfortunate international necessities with all the inconvenience, wasted time and expense involved. There are no direct flights to the Middle East (bar Dubai) or Asia, now the promoters of world economic growth.
In the case of Glasgow Airport, it is visibly ailing. Overtaken by Edinburgh in passenger numbers and flights, and with too many charter flights to expensive European destinations, its prospects in the short term are bleak. Is it not time for both Glasgow and Edinburgh city councils to make common cause and approach the European Commission to secure reintroduction of the scheme to attract new routes of strategic value to industry and commerce, as well as the general population? The longer we fight over scraps, the more Amsterdam and Heathrow will benefit.
Gordon Wilson
Distasteful teasing
Much fun has been had at the expense of our new EU president’s name, Herman Van Rompuy. Does anyone else think this is distasteful and juvenile? At least the candidate from Belgium was not a war criminal.
Grace Kerr
