Watchdog fears SNP ‘vastly understated’ cost of national care

THE costs of a national care service have been ‘significantly understated’ by the SNP Government.

Damning analysis by watchdog Audit Scotland is a new major blow to the plan, described by the party’s own MSPs as like using ‘a sledgehammer to crack a nut’.

It comes just days after Nationalist politicians lined up to condemn the financial case for the centralised social care service as a ‘monumental risk’.

Audit Scotland says the final cost of Nicola Sturgeon’s flagship care policy will far exceed the current estimates of between £620million and £1.25billion.

Miss Sturgeon has claimed the care reforms are ‘arguably the most significant public service reform since the creation of the National Health Service’.

But in a submission to the finance committee ahead of today’s evidence session, Audit Scotland said a vast array of costs have not been properly accounted for.

The independent watchdog said the Scottish Government has failed to provide cost predictions for the impact of different VAT rates, pension arrangements, capital investment and maintenance.

It also said there has been no thought given to the ‘significant’ costs for local authorities and health boards to transition to a nationwide, centralised system.

On the issue of VAT, Audit Scotland warns that national care boards – which also have not been costed – ‘will not be able to recover input VAT to the same extent as local government bodies’.

The report adds: ‘Such costs have the potential to add significantly to the overall costs reported and are not currently reflected in the assessed margin of uncertainty.’

SNP committee convener Kenny Gibson criticised the costing of the

‘A blank cheque from the public purse’

service and another Nationalist MSP, Michelle Thomson, revealed she had ‘no confidence whatsoever’ in the financial case set out by the Government, adding that it effectively wanted a ‘blank cheque’ from taxpayers. ‘I’m surprised by the lack of what I would regard as “fundamentals” in the financial memorandum,’ Miss Thomson said.

She said she was also sceptical the financial plan ‘represents any level of accuracy and therefore value for money whatsoever’.

Miss Thompson said: ‘What this is screaming out to me is “huge risks”. At the moment – from our financial scrutiny – I’m looking at a blank cheque from the public purse and I find that deeply worrying.’

Mr Gibson added: ‘It just seems to me to be a monumental risk to have a Bill of this nature with all the financial implications because there are a few service deliverers who are not up to scratch.’

The Scottish Government’s National Care Service development director Donna Bell insisted ‘all ministers were comfortable with the approach that has been taken’, when challenged about the pace, risks and cost of the policy.

But Miss Bell admitted there was still ‘much further work’ needed for the government to know the ‘true cost’ of the social care plans.

Challenged on the need for a nationwide approach rather than trying to improve parts of the social care system, she said: ‘The strong view from the consultation responses was a national care service to promote quality, fairness and consistency was the preferred approach. Ministers have got behind that.’