Caring For Vulnerable People A Priority For Incoming Council

Both local and national politicians are pursuing a policy of caring for vulnerable people in their own homes whenever possible.

In Inverness this lies behind the controversial decision to sell off the Burnside and Ach an Eas homes for the elderly, with supporters of the plan arguing that the money required to upgrade the facilities would be better spent on community care.

 Children too are being provided with support to stay with their families. The aims are laudable but far from being a cheap option, as Highland Council’s social work department is finding as it struggles to contain a budget overspend. There is no doubt the policy would collapse were it not for unpaid carers — usually relatives — and charities which offer services at a fraction of what it would cost the council to provide. Which is why the problems faced by Crossroads Care in Inverness are so worrying.

Crossroads provides respite care and is often the difference between a person being able to remain at home and going into an expensive nursing home or other form of institutional care. The service can range from a few hours each week to enabling a partner to go shopping to a longer break so that a family can enjoy a holiday.

Its critical role is recognised by the council and NHS Highland, which are providing funding of £146,000 in the current year. But this falls well short of covering the full cost of Crossroads’s services, demand for which is increasing rapidly, leaving the charity with a £54,000 shortfall. Consequently it must cut 100 hours of care per week, starting this month.

The council’s response is to sympathise but plead poverty. We are all having to make economies, social work chairman Margaret Davidson insists.

But this is a difficult line to sustain just two weeks after the local authority found £600,000 to pay for building work at Eden Court Theatre, money which council chief executive Arthur McCourt explained was uncommitted, not drawn from existing budgets. Against this £50,000 to sustain a key policy and support some of the most vulnerable people in society seems small beer.

We argued at the time that the Eden Court decision should be postponed until after the elections on 3rd May so that the newly-constituted council could sit down and set its spending priorities. By not doing so the existing councillors, many of whom are stepping down, and Mr McCourt, who is also retiring, have left a poisoned chalice for their successors.

It is not, and should not be allowed to become, a debate about whether the Eden Court expansion or Crossroads Care is the more worthy cause. Each is vital and both should receive the resources they require.

What is at issue here is the ability of officers to find £600,000 of uncommitted cash for one project and then claim the cupboard is bare when a more prosaic cause faces a crisis. If Eden Court had required £654,000 instead of £600,000, would it have been forthcoming? We suspect the answer would have been yes.

On 4th May the newly-elected councillors must start demanding answers and ensure it is they, not the officials, who hold the purse strings.