Letter: Caring for vulnerable should be priority

Long-term social care is a scary problem for most people in that it entails unlimited costs for which it is difficult to plan, leading to considerable distress at the point of need.

As with many of the professional middle class, I am only a generation away from the pits and heavy industry which curtailed the lives of my male relatives to around 60.

Though I rattle slightly with the number of pills I take, I have now outlived my ex-miner father by a decade and - much to my surprise - long-term care is starting to appear on my radar.

While I love him for trying, I do not believe Henry McLeish's free personal care policy is affordable in the long term and we need to explore alternative methods of funding.

I like the sound of Andrew Dilnot's idea of a huge social insurance policy with a large but affordable "excess" which means that, once I have paid it, the state will take over.

(Dr) John Cameron

Howard Place

St Andrews

Those who can pay already do pay. The free personal care allowance makes up about 20 per cent of my mother's home care fees. Her savings and the sale of her house are funding the rest.

I'm sure much of the general public, without direct experience of the situation, is unaware that the "free" element is such a small fraction of the total bill. I feel sad for my mother and angry that so few realise that even after nearly 10 years in care with Alzheimer's disease, she is still largely supporting itself.

R Carter

Haystoun Terrace

Peebles

Congratulations to Henry McLeish for standing up against Cosla's attack on the affordability of "free" personal care (Perspective, 5 July). Care of aged and vulnerable people has to be a priority in a civilised society and should be the last services to be cut.

Local authorities should look for cuts that do not affect front line services. Maybe downsizing or eliminating Cosla itself would be a starting point, as it appears its function now is to be a publicly-funded pressure group.

Michael N Crosby

Muiravonside

By Linlithgow

As a starting point for the reform of Scotland's public services, the Christie Commission (Perspective, 5 July) has much to commend it.

But the commission's recognition of the role the third sector can play in the delivery of public services must by supported by a realisation that many voluntary groups are being hit hard by public sector cuts.

The report faces up to the fact that there is a fast growing demand for public services, and that there is glaring inequality in our society.

It also highlights the importance of easing demand in the system through preventative actions and early intervention. The third sector has always been good at both.Voluntary organisations very often tackle issues before they become problems which can become a drain on the public purse.

However, in the face of tightening budgets, often caused by cuts in grants from local authorities, many are struggling to deliver the services on which many vulnerable people depend.

I am delighted the commission has concluded that all public service organisations should recognise the value that local groups can bring to service delivery.

But public sector grant funding to voluntary groups must be protected. Local authority finances are under pressure as never before, but cutting grants to third sector organisations are short-term measures for which we will all pay in the long term.

Mary Craig OBE

Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland

Gorgie Road

Edinburgh

For some reason your correspondent Ross Martin (Perspective, 5 July) misses the point. We should indeed be worried about the effects of financial cuts on public spending but we should not be overly concerned with cutting services. Services should be cut. Our "Social Democratic soup" is a major cause of our over-reliance on public services and on the poor state of the Scottish economy.

We should have public services that are universal but only for such functions as rubbish collection and schools and many others which are more cost effective if universal.

Other services such as welfare and social care and prescriptions should be available to all but only if and when required. Those who can afford to pay should pay.

We need to wean our country off dependency on handouts and start encouraging people to think and fend for themselves. No wonder we lack enterprise and initiative if at the first problem everyone expects big brother to jump to the rescue.

Peter Davies admirably shows the case for encouragement for some students, but, in many cases publicly funding a university education is a waste from the taxpayers and the students' point of view.

Our politicians are wasting too much time on useless discussion of independence and this is used as a diversion to avoid doing anything useful.

I do not wish my life to be run by others. I want to be able to decide for myself, so sort things out, and we can then go forward as part of a renewed Great Britain.

Ian Ross

Eden Lane

Edinburgh