A row has erupted over the cost of elderly care

A report by the Fraser of Allander Institute says the Scottish Executive has under-estimated the care bill.

Nationalists claim the report casts serious doubt on the executive's ability to cost policies.

But Deputy Health Minister Rhona Brankin said estimates were based on all the evidence available at the time.

Economists at the Fraser of Allander Institute say a decision to press ahead with the free personal care policy in 2002 was based on flawed research.

Husband and wife team Jim and Margaret Cuthbert said that while the executive put the initial cost of the policy at �142m a year, the true figure is likely to be far more than that.

And by 2022, the cost could go up by another �130m because of "dubious" assumptions about improving health expectancy.

The economists were warning ministers back in November 2001 that their figures did not take account of the large numbers of disabled elderly in Scotland but to no avail Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

The rise in the initial costs is because of a series of mistakes in the research used by the "care development group" of experts who prepared the original costings, said the pair.

The Cuthberts have already claimed to identify under-estimates in the costs of providing free care for elderly people in residential and nursing homes.

Their latest findings, in the Quarterly Economic Commentary of Strathclyde University's Fraser of Allander Institute, concentrate on another aspect of the calculation - the cost of providing free personal care for those living in the community.

Anecdotal evidence

It is the latest question-mark to be raised over a policy forced through amid much controversy during Henry McLeish's administration.

Last year, former health minister Sam Galbraith, now in retirement, described free personal care as a "ticking time bomb" which benefited the middle classes and not the poor, who were already eligible.

The Cuthberts claim to have unearthed a mistake in the estimate of the number of disabled people over 65 in private households in Scotland.

While the care development group estimated the number at 142,000, the Cuthberts claim the correct figure should be "at least 350,000", at an extra cost of �50m a year.

They argue the mistake arose from a misunderstanding on the part of the original researchers over some statistical definitions.

This led on to other errors - one of which related to projections for future health expectancy.

"Recent anecdotal evidence from some local authorities suggests that part of this quality reduction is already manifesting itself by a switch of home care services away from domestic care towards more targeted personal care," said the report.

"In other words, free personal care may be being bought partly at the expense of an increasing number of the poorest elderly people having to do without domestic care which they previously received free, or having to pay for such care."

'Greatest achievement'

Christine Grahame, social justice spokeswoman for the Scottish National Party, said the report "raises very serious issues about the executive's competency to properly cost major policy areas".

She added: "The economists were warning ministers back in November 2001 that their figures did not take account of the large numbers of disabled elderly in Scotland, but to no avail."

Deputy Health Minister Rhona Brankin defended the policy but pledged to investigate the Cuthberts' findings.

She also described free personal care as "one of the greatest achievements of the Scottish Parliament".