Is Free Personal Care Working Against Borderers?

The Scottish Borders region is losing out on new residential care facilities because Scottish Borders Council social work bosses fear an invasion of elderly English people – taking advantage of the Scottish’s Executive’s much-vaunted free personal care regime – will put undue strain on local services and budgets. That is the view of Liberal Democrat councillor Jock Houston who this week supported a proposal from Trinity Medical Properties Ltd for a £6million nursing home, with 60 beds and employing 40 staff, in Kelso Road, Coldstream.

He claimed there was a local need for the facility and that concern over so-called care migrants from south of the border should not be used as an excuse for refusing consent to build. Despite his protest, SBC’s development committee voted 4-3 on Monday to reject the Trinity bid.

It is the second nursing home application rejected by the committee this year. In June, members voted 11-2 against Guardian Care Homes Ltd’s plans for another 60-bed unit at Duns Road, Coldstream.

“That was refused because the site was zoned for industrial use which is fair enough, but I can see no good reason for the latest decision,” said Mr Houston.

The committee had sought the views of both NHS Borders and SBC’s social work department. The former claimed the town’s GPs and nursing services were already running at full capacity and further pressure would require extra resources.

Social work asserted: “There is very limited local demand for (nursing home] places. New facilities and bed spaces could potentially attract incoming clients with consequent implications for council services and budgets.”

The inference is clear. English people buying property here in order to access free personal care would require to be at least part-funded from SBC’s social work budget, with a knock-on effect on other parts of the service.

Mr Houston sided with Coldstream councillor Jock Law who, although not a member of the committee, submitted a letter backing the Trinity proposal.

Mr Law said neither SBC nor NHS Borders could dictate where people chose to spend their retirements.

He took issue with the social work assessment, claiming that when nearby communities without care facilities were included, the Coldstream catchment had a population of around 5,000 and rising.

“Everyone, except social work, seems to agree that by 2010, between 5 per cent and 7 per cent of these people will need nursing care: and that gives a potential demand for places of 250-300,” said Mr Law.

Mr Houston commented: “The perceived threat of care migrants is colouring our judgement and denying local people local facilities. Who is to say people from other parts of the Borders will not use this facility? I accept there is a gap between the cost of the council delivering free personal care and the resources given to us by the Scottish Executive, but that should be addressed at a political level.

“Here is a company prepared to invest £6million and create much-needed new jobs and I understand there has been considerable interest from national care providers. They cannot all be wrong.”

The committee sided with the advice of SBC planning officials who recommended refusal because the site was outwith the town boundary and because “an overriding local need for the facility has not been demonstrated”.