Navigation
Improving Benefits for Everyone
When we launched the Big Care Debate in July, our plan was to start a nationwide discussion on the reform of adult care and support in England.
With well over 3,000 responses to this website alone, the consultation period is so far living up to its name. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed so far, and urge you to encourage others to do the same.
Among the responses, the issue of benefits is the one getting the most attention.
Many of the responses we have received are passionate in their defence of the current system, spelling out how a large number of people rely on Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance to maintain their quality of life. We have also heard from a lot of working age people who are worried that their DLA will be taken away from them.
As we say in Shaping the Future of Care Together, we think there is a case for bringing some disability benefits and the new social care system together into a single system.
We are considering the role of disability benefits in the context of the overall system of disability-related support, and see this as a potentially better way of providing support through the new National Care Service. Our Regulatory Impact Assessment describes how this could work.
The Big Care Debate is a consultation about options for long-term reform, and it is vital that everyone has the opportunity to contribute to this important public debate.
We will only make any changes to disability benefits if we know that by doing so we can better support the needs of older and disabled people.
Whatever changes are made, we want to ensure that people receiving any of the relevant benefits at the time of reform would continue to receive an equivalent level of support and protection, under a new and better care and support system.
Our aim is to create a National Care Service that is fair, simple and affordable for all – one that ensures that everyone in the country gets the care and support they need and that fits the way they choose to live their lives, not one that is dictated by others.
To achieve this, we must end the unfairness, inconsistency and complexity that people find in the care and support system as it currently exists.
We fully understand why the current disability benefits are popular. They provide a universal entitlement which does not depend on where a person lives. They provide a cash budget, which can be spent on the services someone wants, and people often use them to support lower-level needs that help them stay well for longer. These three aspects will all be important components of the new care and support system.
However, we also know that there are problems with the overall support available to older and disabled people through the current social care and disability benefits systems.
These two systems were developed separately, with the result that they are fragmented and can be difficult to understand, access and navigate.
People have to apply separately for disability benefits and social care, which can put some off applying for all the support they could be entitled to. They also face different needs assessment processes, adding confusion, and there can be some inconsistency and unfair outcomes because the criteria by which public funds are allocated are entirely different. Our vision is that we bring them together into one new system.
We believe that reform provides an opportunity to build on the strengths of both systems to produce a better system of overall support.
A false impression is being given about both AA and DLA as officials try to tell us these benefits are safe. This government has made life harder for so many needing these benefits - and being able to decide how to spend them is an individual's right. Why don't they remove their generous MPs expenses and put the money saved into this care? Oh - and these MPs could live in barrack like second homes, with minimal heating and little money for food. Are they telling people who get child benefit how to spend their money?
You are bringing disability benefits and social care into one new system, however DLA did not feature in your modelling in the Green Paper.
So are you taking the DLA away from us or not?
It seems rather unfair advertising if you do remodel the DLA after not mentioning it in the Green Paper.
In its present form DLA is brilliant for me, allowing me to have my independance.
Many thanks.
There is a great deal of fear going around which has left people afraid they may lose Attendence Allowance, DLA or even Carers Allowance.
Can a clear statement be made so that those in need and caring for sick loved ones, will know what is likely to happen in the future, and these benefits will not be taken away from people who depend on them.
The Party Conference would be a good place for this to happen.
It is so obvious- yet it has not entered the spirit of the body politic, that the UK is now part of Europe. The Government should act to play a FULL part in creating a pan European complex of care support. Yet; the British Government does not seem to understand.
Now so many people are retiring to the continent. The Government still treats many of these elderly citizens as something apart. The world is moving on but the UK Government is getting stranded in, so it would seem, mid Atlantic. There are extremely elderly pensioners now on the Continent who receive less help than exactly the same people within Britain. They are stranded because the UK Government ignores them as being of no importance. They served a worthy part in the social network when in paid work. They remain British Citizens One refers particularly to DLA, AA, and especially the WFP.
Read more on http://pensionersdebout.blogspot.com
What worries me about the " payments " made by the over 65 ie. pensioners is, if that is the scheme brought in, will they vanish into goverment coffers like many other so called "good ideas" by this goverment & is just another stealth tax. This goverment has got the country into so much debt that hitting the eldely seems an easy mark. £17 or £19 a week doesn't mean much to an MP, it wouldn't pay for one meal, but try telling that to a pensioner or anyone on benefits. How about MPs donating their dubious expenses to the care plan "I don't think so."
what a load of rubbish!how dare you even consider this 'green paper'.i am the parent of a severly disabled child,who has comlex disablities,without my dla he wouldn't have access to all the things he enjoys.what right do you have to take these away from him.leave the system alone and concentrate on other issues,such as fat cat salaries and the state you've put the country in!
I am in receipt of DLA and if it was withdrawn from me i would no longer have my mobility car,this alone provides me with a means to go out and about,without it i would be stuck permanently in doors.I am disabled through angina and arthritis and diabetes,i appreciate very much the help i am given through DLA and being able to pay for the help i require from the benefit payment to me.
"...The DLA did not feature in any of our modelling when we wrote the Green Paper. The Impact Assessment shows that we were looking at Attendance Allowance...."
Please state categorically that DLA will not be affected as the rest of your post entirely contradicts the quote above.
You say in your quote that DLA isn't in your remit yet every other sentence says it is your intention to combine all care and disability benefits into one system which thereby completely discriminates against every single disabled person trying to live an independant life making independant choices ... like the rest of society is allowed to.
If you want a better system of helping the elderly and disabled, why not stop giving huge fuel payments to pensioners already receiving three private pensions and those with huge incomes and capital who save it as spending and tipping money for their next 3 month caribbean cruise?
You really need to get your house in order before you attempt to ruin others, because the people won't stand for it.
It's not about DLA being 'popular'. It is about DLA working, however many hoops we have to go through to get it. Deal with the hoops better, allow us to make our own independant daily and VERY VARIABLE life choices ... like every other member of society is allowed to.
Why can't they give people a straight anwser ?, many disabled people depend entirly on these benefits to maintain their quality of life, I for one do. Most of my aids I have purchased myself because the NHS or goverment do not supply them. Its one rule for MP's and another for everyone else. What the goverment are planing to do with DLA and AA is a digrace and a definate vote loser and will only increase voter apathy, people are fed up with Mp's lining their own pockets at voters exspense. Why don't they stop giving DLA and AA to drug addicts and alcoholics their situation is self inflicted, most disabled people situations are a result of genetics or accidents and no fault of their own. It's time they listened to the voters we after all elected them!
The problem here is care in the community does not work, I have been released twice by hospital and received no care package for at least 16 days….it was only by the goodwill of others that I was able to survive.
If one was to look at meals on wheels the only contact some individuals had was with the delivery driver for 2 minutes a day….now here where I live we find pensioners being forced accept meals direct, 1 delivery weekly….contact time for some elderly now 2 minutes…..some of these individuals don’t have any family so their only social contact is with the delivery driver.
Most of the day services, not precluding Hospital car service, have now to be paid for….What is clear individuals will be greatly disadvantaged by any change that reduces income to pay for these basic contact services.
The problem is simple, intensions are honourable, and money will be allocated to Councils on a party political basis like the Councils standing spending assessment disparity. Those Councils struggling will manipulate budgets meaning a few years down the line all this money will be soaked up and services cut?
Is the Council prepared also to introduce free day care again! I doubt it….The reason AA & DLA care component was introduced was to allow financial help to meet the needs of individual care packages. The needs of individuals vary wildly, and I do not believe the Councils will be able to provide services to meet these personal needs…lets be honest Social Services can’t cope now and are constantly looking to tick boxes and terminate their involvement at the first available opportunity.
"Our aim is to create a National Care Service that is fair, simple and affordable" is the government's code for making cuts in DLA & AA. At the very least this government wants to take it away, because disability people are easy targets.
The government should look at themselves and make cuts in running themselves, MP's outrageous perks, quangos and the military procrument. The cuts in this institutions, departments and MP's perks will probably save £35 billion. Easy solution and it does not hurt anyone, only the fat cats such as MPs and quangos.
First of all, let us remind the Goverment that they were voted in by the People, to Represent the People and to Serve the People of this Country. Now, I will answer the above blog.
Quote: We will only make any changes to disability benefits if we know that by doing so we can better support the needs of older and disabled people. EndQuote.
How can a department "better the support" already given by loving members of the family who care for the disabled 24 hours 7 days a week? Is going Cap in Hand begging for help/care classed as a "better support"? How can a department know about ALL the needs of EVERY disabled person?
Quote: Whatever changes are made, we want to ensure that people receiving any of the relevant benefits at the time of reform would continue to receive an equivalent level of support and protection, under a new and better care and support system. EndQuote.
Is the minister trying to allege that EVERYBODY who needs care/help will receive it the same as they are getting it now? Will a fully disabled person get a 24/7 carer dedicated to that person if it is what is needed?
Quote: Our aim is to create a National Care Service that is fair, simple and affordable for all – one that ensures that everyone in the country gets the care and support they need and that fits the way they choose to live their lives, not one that is dictated by others. EndQuote.
Yet it is being dictated to us that we should not receive the Attandance Allowance, which, as it is costs the Goverment a pittance compared to having to employ extra staff. Why should a person, who has had to leave their employment to care after a disabled person not get a minute (cos the amount being paid for AA is really and actually minute) allowance?
Quote: To achieve this, we must end the unfairness, inconsistency and complexity that people find in the care and support system as it currently exists. EndQuote:
Join the departments. Make it one application/one decision if you want to make it complexity.
Quote: We fully understand why the current disability benefits are popular. They provide a universal entitlement which does not depend on where a person lives. They provide a cash budget, which can be spent on the services someone wants, and people often use them to support lower-level needs that help them stay well for longer.
These three aspects will all be important components of the new care and support system. EndQuote:
Yes, it is my life. I am entitled to my freedom and I do not want a stranger to tell me what I can do, what I can have and how to live my life. It is called the Freedom of Life and is in the ECHR.
Quote: However, we also know that there are problems with the overall support available to older and disabled people through the current social care and disability benefits systems.
These two systems were developed separately, with the result that they are fragmented and can be difficult to understand, access and navigate. EndQuote:
Join the departments together. Make it one application. One medical. One decision if there is a wish to make it less complex and easy to navigate. BUT leave the AA and DLA as they are so that disabled people can continue with their lives, as and how they wish to live their lives and to be cared for by their loved ones.
This whole green paper needs scrapping and starting again from scratch.
AA is as vital to people's ability to maintain any kind of (generally low-level) "quality of life" as both or either components of DLA are.
Bad show folks.
If the government is so concerned about saving "public money" it could start by looking closer to home! Yes, i mean that pesky MP's expenses hot potato.
It also needs to seriously address the costs of it's own legislation in several areas but most obviously the "War on Drugs"
You state "...people receiving any of the relevant benefits at the time of reform will continue to receive an EQUIVALENT level of support and protection..."
The problem comes with Local/National governments interpretation of "equivalent".
I fear for the future.
I cannot believe that there has been only one response here, in fact I have been told there have been more. This is why I am posting this in here and anywhere else where I am able to post it.
the phrase 'affordable for all' suggests that this is a cost cutting exercise and that those of us who are the most in need of financial support would end up being at a disadvantage.
It is now time for the millions of people who have a disability to get on the streets and practice civil disabediance since to do nothing would make us moral failures.
i have a very disabled husband, through no fault of his own; because we have some savings we get no financial support other than dla; so i have to work to pay bills and buy food but we have to pay for carers as well as i cannot do it all alone and go to work, im exhausted... it is very unfair that not only is my husbands life affected but mine is too so severly. There should be a free service for disabled people i only have moderate savings and we both worked hard to get thos not knwoing how it might penalise us when this disability struck him.
My experience of centralised social care, which will no doubt be privatised, is my poor mother, being woken from a morphine induced sleep at 7am because that was the only "time slot" available, and being given 20 minutes of totally useless care. Bedtime at 7pm was too early for her last bathroom visit and she missed her favourite TV. Attendance Allowance cheered her last years, paying for extra care and treats such as a National Trust card and days out with tea and cake as well as a bedroom TV. Would anyone with a heart take these away from an old lady who had worked hard all her life? This government wants to do just that. I too now have DLA and dread losing the independence it gives me. Please say NO to these proposals.
The government has gone back on so many promises regarding disability and incapacity benefits that it's now very difficult to believe that they intend to honour any promise made about DLA - many disabled people will remember a consultation process regarding incapacity benefit, during which promises were made to protect claimant exemption from job search by virtue of being in receipt of the higher rate of DLA, to retain the incapacity benefit system for current claimants, and also to ensure that the value of the benefits in the new ESA system would not be eroded. In fact all claimants, past and present are gradually being migrated to the new system, the higher rate DLA exemption from job search and medical testing has been scrapped and the new benefits are not only harder to claim, but people are in fact, much worse off than under the old IB system, so the governments promises of more money for those who are most disabled has never materialised. In addition the government has succeeded in bringing the most severely disabled claimants back into the compulsory jobsearch system - at least until they are assessed for their capability for jobsearch - making their already difficult lives even harder, because the work capability assessment has been 'reformed' so that there are only a few very narrow conditions which would qualify anyone for the support group and exemption from compulsory jobsearch. In fact DLA and AA have been in the government's sights since they took office - I remember a series of protests during which wheelchair users chained themselves to the railings in Downing Street, in retaliation to leaked plans to reform these benefits. I think the problem the politicians have with DLA and AA, is that they are cash payments direct to the individual. As such they are seen by most able bodied people as a payment for actually being disabled - they don't stop to think about how disabled people incur extra costs on a day to day basis, and it is plain fact that the very disabled people who incur these extra costs are among the poorest and most vulnerable section of society - which is why DLA and AA were formulated. For anyone still unsure of the reasons, the clue is in the name - disability LIVING allowance. I don't understand why the government was considering reform of these two allowances if their aim was, as they stated, to find a comprehensive system which delivers services to those most in need, in the most direct way, and provides the most independance for the person concerned. This is basically what AA and DLA do - the best system is already in place, so why change it ? I think the answer is simple. These two benefits have a universal method of assessment and entitlement, and are available regardless of income, and in addition to any other state benefit. It seems to me that this has always been the problem for politicians, and the latest attack on AA and DLA was just an underhand attempt at means testing. By devolving the budget for these benefits to local councils, who would then apply their own entitlement conditions, the government achieives it's aim of means testing them by back door methods, which means they can side step any criticism or backlash, by passing on the responsibility to local councils. I think it will only be a matter of time before disability beneftis come under scrutiny again, and no-one seems to care whether people are genuinely entitled or not. It seems to me that if the government genuinely wanted to increase help for the disabled, they should concentrate on finding a better way of rooting out the people who are cheating the system, instead of using the cheats as an excuse for cutting disability benefits across the board - and I don't mean the shameful tactics of the recent media campaign to brand us all as work shy scroungers, to further the cost cutting political agenda. The sick, elderly and disabled are an easy target for the government to claw back tax payers money wasted on banks who used it to pay their own bonuses, and greedy politicians who basically defrauded tax payers, and would still be doing so if they hadn't been caught with their fingers in the till - the same politicians who are now trying to tell us how best to spend our benefit payments, while telling the world they are trying to give us more independance. Margaret Gellatly is right to draw the comparison with MPs expenses and also with child benefit. No-one questions the right for families to claim child benefit, regardless of income, and family tax credits are available for families earning up to £50,000 per annum - this is in stark comparison to meagre maximum earning levels to qualify for income support and related benefits. Having a child is a conscious choice, living with a disability is not, and child benefit is paid to cope with the extra expenses that children incur. No-one questions it, so why should a benefit paid to the disabled for much the same reasons, be the source of so much controversy ? The measure of any society is how it cares for it's sick, elderly and disabled, and I think it's about time politicians started to think about these people in terms of real help instead of as an easy target to reduce the national debt, at least partly brought about by their own shameful waste.
I heartily agree with a lot of what has been said here. Whatever system we have it needs to be transparent and easy to access to benefit those people who are in most need. I have been trying to help my mother to get benefits to assist her with her personal care needs for almost 6 years! We are still awaiting the results of the latest claim and I remain optomistic. She has several Long Term Conditions and I am trying to get a care package in place that can be built on as her condition worsens; she has no idea of what is available, she is reliant on me finding out. She comes from a generation that thinks she should just cope alone!
I hope that any reforms will take note of the many people who are in need and are alone; and do not know their way around the benefits system.
So much for consultation then!
How can we be expected to trust Government or Ministers given the following?
Speaking at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton, the Prime Minister announced that from 2010 the NHS will work together with local authorities to provide better care and greater protection of people’s savings.
“The best starting point for our National Care Service is to help the elderly get the amenities to do what they most want – to receive care and to stay in their own homes as long as possible. And we can start straight away,” said Mr Brown. “For those with the highest needs we will now offer free personal care in their own homes.”
Mr Brown announced that:
New measures will provide free care at home for upwards of 350,000 people with the greatest care needs who currently pay for services.”
One of the continuing battles I have been fighting over the years is that the official "fairer" guidance lays down that the NHS must check to see if any part of care they provide can be classed as "social" so they can then pass the buck to Social Services (and us and/or the local authority to fund that part of our care).
This especially applies to what is known as "Continuing Care" i.e. what happens immediately after having been discharged as an in patient.
So clearly Gordon Brown has now decided to buy the votes of those who fear they may lose out if their parents use up their savings by them contributing towards the cost of care, but it will be the rest of us (i.e. younger disabled people) that will end up paying for it, especially under the current unfair charging for care arrangements that already claw back most of our DLA and AA funding even before this new Bill.
From listening to GB's interview with Sky News the next day though this is actually just about providing about £750 million free home care to those with dementia and/or similar severe illnesses from existing NHS and local authority budgets over the next two years.
If this extra "bribe" to those with savings (and/or those due to inherit such savings) that might otherwise be asked to contribute towards the cost of their care goes through this means there will inevitably be £750 million less in the post for NHS and LA support for the rest of us given no extra funding is attached to his “bribe”.
So now not only those with more income than others will get their care free (one’s “earnings” or that of partners are completely ignored for care charging), but so now will all those with substantial savings over and above the value of their own home who previously would have been expected to contribute towards its cost.
In the meantime those on disability benefits and/or income support will continue to have to contribute a very high percentage of our already meagre resources towards the cost of our care and/or possibly even have all or at least part of AA and eventually even DLA taken away as well.
The cynic in me simply hasn’t ever seen any other motive for differentiating between social care and medical care as always having been linked to being an easy way out of the universal pledge by all political parties to protect the "Free at the point of Delivery" status of the NHS though.
The whole basis of the "fairer" charging guidelines (and why it came out from the Dept of Health), of course, is that it allows some services provided by the NHS to be charged for by declaring them to be "social" care.
Interestingly though there is absolutely no reciprocal requirement for social services to identify and then not charge for that proportion of the care they fund as clearly being for medical care and/or to avoid our going in to hospital. Given many now only get services if not getting them means hospital is the likely result that seems rather inequitable to me.
An interesting snippet of news that may have a great bearing on all of this and on the whole health care / social care debate within the green paper though is the recent story in the Telegraph.
“Alzheimer's carers awarded £300,000 after NHS refuses to pay care costs.”
“Three families looking after relatives with Alzheimer's have been awarded more than £300,000 after the NHS refused to pay for their care costs.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6053141/Alzheimers-carers-awarded-300000-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-care-costs.html
So in this case the reality is that Gordon Brown is actually trying to claim credit for "giving" something away to voters the courts has already clearly said should have been free anyway. LMAO
But worse still even though the "claimed" plus side of this very unequal equation we are being sold in the green paper and his speach is now clearly a con we will all, none the less, still feel the negative impacts on us it will certainly have because of the current very unfair "fairer" charging system already in place for the rest of us.
As said, there is absolutely no reciprocal requirement for local authorities to assess if the care required by a disabled person, or any portion of it, should be considered as "health" care and so by definition should come under the NHS budget and more importantly be completely "Free at the point of delivery" rather than means-tested.
Will the Department of Health Guidelines on charging for care be revised in light of this new announcement and/or changes to the system as a result of the green paper, possibly along the lines outlined in my earlier submission in the Funding section of the Bill?
http://careandsupport.direct.gov.uk/greenpaper/execsum/funding-options/comment-page-1/#comment-870
And why was this aspect of the current system not covered in the Green Paper at all in any case?
Regards Peter aka "Sociable".
I have been reading lots of the comments about possibly doing away with DLA and AA and putting the savings into the general pool for care. Surely the answer is to look at combining DLA and AA with the personal budgets which are now beginning to become so much more common. We all want maximum independence as disability develops. Assessments in future could look at the baseline for AA (I am speaking mainly for older people) and offer more for those with greater needs. But a basic amount (higher than the current AA baseline) would be available to all; on a non means tested basis. Then one of the Green Paper options for funding additional needs could be implemented. In addition, preventitive measures, such as telecare and short term intensive rehabilitation after illness/hospital should be part of the free care for all.
i have been to the stakeholder event as an intersted person, as this will affect me,and a professonial who, will at some point have to answer questions.
I am a lot clearer about the issues, but still feel that its a little too late. The generation that we are caring for now has saved, and needs to be provded for, the "now " generation, the "yooung ones" may not even get there, because of their attitude. They will not accumulate savings, have a house, or be able to pay into insurance, we need a taxation scheme. This i know has been not used, but its the only way that the National Care Services will be born.
hi what is going to happen to the DLA, Carers, my wife needs her DLA as she has now sence of danger in life. my wife can look after us as a famaliy but can knot look after herself.
It will be interesting to hear what they have to say on this in Manchester this week. Transparency is the key. If the system is clear and fair we could all benifit.
Having just read through 'Improving Benefits for Everyone',(to quote from this) 'The Big Care Debate is a consultation about options for long-term reform.'
I am left with the an overwhelming impression that this is neither a debate OR a consultation.
The way this is worded leaves me feeling that what is being said is -'Here are some things we ARE going to do AND YOU don't get to decide. We've let you have your say, what more do you want?'
there is absolutely no reciprocal requirement for local authorities to assess if the care required by a disabled person
I don’t think you should give agencies such as the USPTO discretion on what data sets they can provide and prioritize, this in fact can impede transparency.
The government seems intent on saving money at the cost of peoples health and general well being. They will never learn.
I live on disablity, I get a low level £20 or so, a week on top of "dole" levels, I live in a bedsit and although I medicaly need to move out nobody is moving to help me, I have a seriouse personality disorder, there is no way an employer, any employer would have me. ( Even though I am not considered dangerouse ), plus now physical illness, through self neglect due to my mental illness, even the benifits office stoped my medical half way through last time.
But some "Private Emplyment Offfice", would take me on there books and spit me out when the money ran out, just for the cash, that is the world we live in.
People say we elect these MPs, yes we do but private companies pay the cost of running for election, through donations, declared = ok?.
As for those on health beifits taking to the streets, if most of us could do that we would not "need" to be on beifits. and the MPs know it.
You, David Behan, are incapable of making a statement regarding the one question we are asking.
I shall spell it out for you in simple terms that cannot be misinterpreted.
Can we have an assurance that those who want to remain independant and organise their own care will not have their DLA reduced, or any part of it removed under the auspices of care being provided by another party, without the consent of the DLA claiment?
Those who cannot organise their own care and support should be allowed to select services that they require and contribute towards those services from their DLA care allowance.
However many people already have systems in place that are economically sound, that contribute directly to local communities without the additional expenses that occur with local and national government organisations.
So bearing this in mind, and having read through some 3,000 comments, could you please answer the question;
Can we have an assurance that those who want to remain independant and organise their own care will not have their DLA reduced or any part of it removed without the consent of the DLA claiment?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Actually a simple yes or no is preferred, as ambiguous statements are usually met with derision, scorn and cynicism, none of which you deserve I'm sure.
Many thanks.
Further, and in addition to the question proposed above, can you state why you have failed to answer the following question?
"Peter Farrington says: 9 August 2009 at 12:51 pm
As an absolute priority specific confirmation and/or clarification that those of working age in receipt of DLA care (and mobility), both now and/or in the future, will continue to receive DLA Care as a universal un means tested benefit, as currently enshrined in the 1992 Act, will not be adversely affected by the proposals in this green paper in any way, not least to allay the inevitable fear and uncertainty this announcement has created for disabled people thoughout the UK."
A reply of yes or no would again suffice.
Many thanks.
At last you've got the DLV right by saying it will not be affected by the proposed legislation on care and support.
The arguments that appertain to DLV also apply to Attendance Allowance. To have that placed under the scrutiny of expensive local authoriy workers would be wrong and woud be a removal of the present benifits to AA recipients and thte extension of the public sector.
Wilf Austin
Two issues:
Local Government can't even look after pavements let alone vulnerable children - just try to get a disabled parking bay - accessible housing or even a dropped kerb and you'll see how pathetic they are - and this national government is thinking of placing our daily care needs in their hands - God help us!!!
And if it's a National scheme - has no-one in Parliament ever looked beyond their tax-payer's moat and seen what devastation and crime exist in most communities - wake-up - even ambulance drivers are being attacked - Agencies, not regular GP's now visit patients in their homes outside normal hours - how the heck do you expect to be able to get decent qualified staff to attend these areas where poverty. drunkenness & drugs rule? Social Staff are already leaving in droves or off sick - does this plan of visiting angels mean they'll be martial-arts trained - believe me they'll need to be if they're going to survive visits to some estates I know.
DLA means I can get someone in on my terms not theirs. It means I can take-on my mobility problems a £7,000 power-chair that fits my needs and not the financial budget constraints of anyone else. In short it means I live my life and not have to worry about anyone else's permission to do so. Before I got the award my life was hell now it's just pain that I have to beat and of course idiots who assume they know more about my needs and how to answer them than I do.
I am cared for by my Family. I do not want a stranger telling me what I can and cannot do! I don't want ''BIG Brother''
Why withdraw DLA from over 65s? I am perfectly able to manage my life and disability myself without some social worker telling me what I can and can't have under local council rules and regulations. It will become a postcode lottery, means tested and discriminate against vulnerable, elderly, disabled people.I manage my life and make my own decisions and am not a drain on resources.
Please reconsider.
I have attended a meeting organised by the Council, and one of the roadshows. It seems to me that the Government have considered only three options and are looking to members of the public to choose one of them. The questions posed are leading ones, and opportunities for further suggestions or ideas are not offered. The information given does not clarify the 3 options very well. For instance, how have the 'costs' for care been calculated? How can the Government expect people over retirement age (option 3), to pay an insurance that will cost huge amounts each month to raise the amounts quoted (which will rise with inflation). One more thing, the leaflets handed out at the roadshows are misleading as the 3rd option suggests that everyone pays into an insurance. The option quoted on the website expands this to read, 'everyone over retirement age who can afford it'.I think that the Government are hoping that most people will opt to use the funds from the sale of their home after their death, to pay the costs. And, of course, most people will be praying that they never need to use the services.
How are you supposed to live if your DLA is taken away, I am 76, have been on DLA for many years. I was retired on the grounds of ill health byt the Social Services Deoartment ! I lost my occupational pension. as my MS made it possible for me to only work part time when I was Diagnosed. I am therefore on the basic State Pension. My Husband is on the same, and he only has a very small occupational pension, as he was self employed for years. We just manage to run a small car, which is kept on the road by my DLA. We live in a small village with no bus service. There is a train service but I am unable to get over the step bridge to reach the platform.Please leave us some dignety in our old age, even if we are disabled we diserve that surely
We should take note of how the Australians and Germans cope, their countries are better managed than this place will ever be, if i were younger and had decent health i would emigrate as many British people are doing.
As it happens, like many other disabled people, i am very ill and without the help and independence my DLA gives me, i would be even more ill.
i am of working age and suffer from copd, heart related illness ie angina and more recently heart falure i have also suffered since a child with asthma, due to the long term use of the medication used to maintain these i am now beginning to suffer artheritis in my hands and joints. i have worked for the last 41 years have never claimed unemployment etc . i have paid my taxes and full employment stamp etc .due to my illness record over the last two years because of a worsening in my condition i am at risk of losing my job of 24years what i want to know is how can the goverment justify any cuts in pensions or benefits it is time we britishers stood up to social injustice of our recent goverments and say we will no longer tolerate this alos in addition to this i always thought that when you sighned a contract it was binding, how come that only the goverment are able to change the terms at the drop of a hat and there is no redress ie pensions working coditions etc
further to my submission my local goverment are trying to make savings of something like 80 million pounds over the next two tears and are cutting back some 450 jobs in the first year and more to follow in the second who will be left to carry out these assesments and provide the much needed support to these people . do the goverment really believe that thes benefits will be aportioned without prejudice and the services be provided of couse not. when things get tough the vulnerable are the first to suffer elderly get kicked out there homes so they can save money, staffing cuts to the same charges increase for those who are lucky enough to stay put provisions all round are already woefully lacking how can the goverment say this will be a fair system. what about clawing some of the money paid to keep youngg offenders and carrer criminals in the luxury they have become accustomed
Please note that we held an event in South Lakeland for people who were interested in joining this debate the notes from which I reproduce below. As with most public events there is overwhelming concern about the threat to disability benefits.
Thank you for taking the time to read the comments from us in the South Lakes.
The Big Response report from the consultation event organised by Age Concern South Lakeland and held at Castle Street Community Centre 5th October 2009.
Introduction
The consultation event was organised in response to the publishing of the green paper, “Shaping the Future of Care Together” This event is a follow up to “The Big Q” event held in June 2008 which sought to provide varied perspectives on all the issues to be contained in the Green Paper in the run up to publishing.
Attendance to the “Big Response” was by invitation to ensure that there was a reasonable balance of perspectives from all sectors. The groups included:
Service users and carer’s of service users.
Statutory organisations managers and practitioners.
County and district council representatives.
Third sector managers and practitioners.
Mr. Tim Farron Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
The attendance at the event was 56 people with 65% from the “service users and carer’s of service users” category. The consultation event was preceded by a meet and greet light lunch to put delegates at their ease as a large proportion was from the service user group. All delegates were provided with briefing papers prior to the event and papers were also available on the day.
The event in outline
Ms Sonia Mangan, Chief Officer of Age Concern South Lakeland opened the consultation by making introductions, explaining what it was hoped would be achieved by the consultation and summarising the running order for the event. This was followed by a brief presentation by Jenny Launder, nursing and residential care support officer for Age Concern South Lakeland.
Sonia then went on to give a presentation further explaining the contents of the green paper and the context for the consultation:
Impact of demographic changes:
Increased life expectancy: 77 for men and 82 for women – 11 years more than in 1948. There are now more people over 65 than under 18.
People are living longer with disabilities: life expectancy for people with Down’s syndrome has almost doubled in recent years.
More people with care needs: we anticipate 1.7 million more by 2026.
Economic impact: There are currently around four people of working age for every person retired. By 2059, this ratio will almost halve.
Social change: Our expectations of services are increasing.
Why does the system need to change?
Age Concern qualitative research.
Quality of care was the most pressing spontaneous issue, and was raised by all groups before the issue of who pays for care.
The current charging system is felt to be complicated and unfair, discriminating against those who have saved and the capital limits were felt to be far too low and personal expense allowance totally unrealistic.
Opinion Leader Research.
Social care is not a top of mind issue and is less of a spontaneous concern than the NHS, unless people are carer’s or have arranged care.
The current distribution of public spending is inequitable towards people on low and modest incomes.
King’s Fund said those with low/modest incomes who don’t qualify for formal support are hit the hardest.
Following the presentation Sonia presented six topics for discussion first by the three break out groups. The topics had been chosen to focus the group discussion as this is a very broad subject matter and time was limited.
Question 1 (30 minutes was allowed for this section.)
The green paper presents the development of a National Care Service that is fair, simple and affordable. In this new system there are six things you should be able to expect:
Prevention services
National Assessment
Joined up services
Information and Advice
Personalised Care and Support
Fair funding
Thinking about four of the six – is there anything missing?, do they go far enough and does it fit, enhance or change our experiences locally?
(See headline responses for question 1 from the three breakout groups in the feedback section)
After a short Q & A session Sonia went on to outline the topic for the second break out session. This session dealt with issues relating to funding the care system.
Question 2. (30 minutes allowed for this break out session.)
The Government are suggesting three options for funding care in the future:
1. Partnership.
2. Insurance.
3. Comprehensive.
What do you think of these options and which if any, do you prefer?
Should it be local government who decides how much people get or should it be national government?
(See headline responses for question 2 from the three breakout groups in the feedback section)
This last break out session was followed by a presentation of the headline feedback comments and Q & A’s. The consultation was closed by a speech from Mr. Tim Farron Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
First Session Headline Feedback.
The scribes for the three groups were asked to record “Headline” comments as well as noting all other input from delegates.
Group A
Prevention best provided for at community level, awareness of individuals there and chance to build community spirit for the future.
Joined-up services Overwhelming need for a single point of contact as a bridge between NHS and Social care.
Personalised care and support, currently the provision is homogenised there is a need for a system to match the individual and the provision.
Group B
Concerned about lack of provision for hard of hearing. Need people to understand.
One size does not fit all especially in rural communities. This includes care and choice. E.g. distance for carers to travel.
Information and advice – important to have a group like Age Concern to help people have knowledge of rights and assistance.
Every one is a individual
Group C
Flexibility and widening of prevention services.
Training for Care Staff and Career structure.
One Stop Shop for advice.
Accessibility of information out of hours and in remote areas.
Common Headline themes from 1st session.
The availability of reliable information and advice to provide support in navigating the complexity of services. Single point of contact and accessibility in rural communities.
Prevention services need to be provided in the community with more flexibility and scope.
Personal care and support needs to reflect the needs of the individual more accurately and take account of rural issues.
Second Session Headline Feedback.
Group A
Why shouldn’t we have a slow change and maintain the existing system running along side one with people paying throughout their working life.
Strong feeling that we could have a national care system like the NHS similarly funded.
Local verses national issues complex and unresolved.
Group B
Will National government set enough money aside to meet needs in Cumbria? We lose out because deprivation does not include rural problems.
Voluntary and obligatory contributions still come down to whether people have saved.
If disability benefits were to be removed, would this money be ring fenced for care?
Group C
Consider a comprehensive system fair for all and paid for by all. General feeling for mandatory system.
Nationally organised system.
Common Headline themes from 2nd session.
A nationally organised and funded care system paid for by all.
Local issued need to be considered in any system.
1st Session Detailed Notes
1st Session Detailed Notes from Group A
Three of the topics were covered:
1. Prevention
There is little in the way of statutory services at the level of prevention – Telecare really deals with more critical needs, further down the road from the early prevention level. Prevention services are difficult to define in a statutory system as individual needs are very different at the prevention level.
Prevention is as vital at a community level as it is a statutory concern. Low level support can be provided at local level through community spirit and awareness of others in the neighbourhood. Schemes that foster and develop this need to be encouraged and resourced.
It is important to institute and foster provision through community spirit not just for the current generation but for the future.
The Village Agent concept is already being applauded by people within the community who feel that having someone local and familiar as their first point of call is valuable – particularly because some people are reluctant to go to statutory bodies for help.
2. Joined up service
Points made:
The assessment procedure seems very hit and miss, varying according to the local authority involved. Cumbria and Lancashire were very different.
Interaction between NHS and direct payments organizers is currently unclear.
There is an overwhelming need for a single point of contact as a bridge between the NHS and social care. This was agreed by a substantial number of participants.
NHS and social services may talk to each other but they do not have the same remit – thus, for example, recommendations of an NHS Occupational Therapist (OT) are implemented by a community OT who may have to operate on what their service has the ability provide, not on what has been requested according to the patient’s needs.
There are big differences between the organizational cultures of Health and Social Services, and this is seen as a significant barrier to more effective joined-up thinking and services.
Following from this last point, another point was made about the false divisions having to be made with regard to assessing needs – ie: in having to label an older person’s needs as ‘a health need’ or a ‘social care need’. This is often a false distinction and is shown particularly well when it comes to the assessment processes for determining eligibility for NHS Continuing Care funding. (One participant, a son and carer, was giving very pertinent examples from his experience) Funding decisions are also assessed and determined by this same analysis – Health or Social Care?
So a person’s needs may be unrealistically broken down into elements around the Health or Social Care divide, and this hinders a ‘whole person’ approach to a person’s needs and funding of services to meet those needs.
3. Information and Advice
Points made:
A lot of praise for Age Concern SL’s services and way of working in connection with being similar to a ‘one stop shop’ and helping to steer a course for people through the maze of social care and welfare systems. (Village Agents initiative mentioned in connection with this point too)
Older people and their relatives (often already vulnerable and stressed) experience bewilderment and a feeling of being lost in the system. Have to deal with numerous ‘professionals’ from Health and Social Care and 3rd sector agencies, and very often do not receive enough clear information and guidance about who is responsible for what, what their rights are, how the funding system works and how decisions are made.
4. Personalised care and support
Points made:
Social workers would like to provide a better service but with the time and other constraints they cannot provide the service they have been trained to supply.
Financial constraints dictate the services in part. Social workers, no matter how well-trained, cannot provide the standard of service they have been trained to provide because of the constraints placed upon them. (This point came from a practitioner) and was widely supported in the group.
Provision is inflexible, homogenised – for example, half hour blocks of care; cover with one-size fits all approach in which personal care for physical needs is offered to clients whose needs arise from mental health issues.
Support at home from an NHS Continuing Care-funded service ‘package’ can be good and personalized but one participant found that, once the patient was moved to hospital, the patient and carer were not involved properly and so the care ceased to be personalized.
It was remarked that comments so far had focused on the negative rather than the positive aspects of current care provision that could be highlighted.
Though nursing and residential homes are inspected, the inspection does not always reveal the personal experience of carers and residents.
Individual budgets provide for personalization and should, in theory at least, improve things. The County Councillor in the group was insistent that there was already evidence of significant improvement.
Care is often needed hurriedly, at a crisis point where carers find they have no time to manage an individual budget as well as making other choices and decisions.
There is need for a really detailed care plan properly and comprehensively tailored to the individual, to provide for personalization. (This requires time and sensitivity, working closely with clients/service-users and carers as appropriate) One group participant shared his personal experience of having been one of the first to obtain a Direct Payment, and through a lot of personal hard work and persistence, had managed to create a good personalized 24 hour care service to meet his wife’s complex needs, living at home with him in the community.
1st Session Detailed Notes from Group B
Question 1
Joined up service, I and A, Personalised care and support.
Hard of hearing people need specific care. They need carers and officials to have an understanding of their problems.
They are often treated as being incapable of understanding because they cannot hear. Often dementia is assumed when it is not the case.
There is a lack of provision. Hard of hearing are the most cut off. Professionals need training. They need to look for the simple reasons e.g. batteries gone in hearing aid , rather than assume mental problems.
Prevention services were seen as very valuable. Discussions and talks were seen as beneficial.
Information and Advice, Age Concern and similar groups were seen as vital. Through these groups people were put on the right road and also knowledge empowered people. These groups helped because they were a focal point to contact and talk to, especially to talk to a person.
Some had good experience of social workers giving them information but others were not impressed. Social workers getting in touch by phone. This is no good if deaf and social worker was aware of this. Also on hospital visits clients are called by name but they cannot hear. In hospital professionals should be aware that often hearing impaired people need their batteries checking otherwise they can be left unable to hear and isolated.
Voluntary sector know what is needed locally. However some places have very good voluntary bodies whereas others are poorly served. This comment fits for I and A, prevention and National assessment and was brought up when discussing both questions. Some councils spend some of the money for care on voluntary bodies because they see the value.
Finally everyone is an individual and should be treated as one.
1St Session Detailed Notes from Group C
1. Prevention Services
Preventing problems will save money in the long run across the whole range of disability and older people – information and advice services essential – e.g. SLSB information on good lighting, and ACSL information on falls prevention.
Help from neighbours is a vital component of care – can there be remuneration for neighbours? If users control their own budgets, this money can be used for whatever they choose.
Need to upgrade and extend the “Handy Person Service”. It is very good and needs to be extended to cope with more demand. Rapid response, wider range of services – trees and gutter clearance, leaves in autumn. These workers are insured to do the work – neighbours are not.
2. Joined Up Services
GP is the first port of call for most people needing care, Very good with health issues, but not very good at dealing with practical issues.
Hard for Social Care and NHS to work together, and to join with the voluntary sector. There needs to be a will to overcome barriers on all sides.
Role of GP very important, but there are challenges in engaging GPs.
(Linda Mason – County manager Adult Social Care)
GPs generally first to diagnose Dementia. Those affected can live at home with carers calling in. Family has to bear the burden of the rest of the care. Joined Up services must extend to family carers. Dementia impacts on the whole family.
More education required re. Dementia both in the community and in residential/nursing homes. Neglect can occur due to lack of or poor training. Training in coping strategies needed on Eating, Stimulation etc for families and care workers.
We need a proper Career Structure for Care Workers with recognition for the work they do equivalent to Nursing Careers.
3. Information and Advice
It would be so helpful if a family could get information on everything in one place. Social Worker, Council Tax, Benefits and Allowances etc. County Council staff at the sharp end are first class – council departments are poorer at responding…(Carer)
The information needs to be accessible by phone and other means for people who cannot access it in person.
Personal care not considered a health need – historical reasons for this. Whilst lots of things need to remain separate, Personal Care does not.
We need to have flexible response to tasks. One solution does not fit all. Some older people may not need personal care, but they may need help with cleaning or other household tasks.
2nd Session Detailed Notes
2nd Session Detailed Notes from Group A
Local vs. National Funding
Points made:
Several points were made on the criteria used for deciding funding from central to local government:
Problems arise where central government reduces the amount for local services, forcing change.
The amount provided by the national government should be based on the number of people needing care in the specific locality.
Issues of rural nature of needs and appropriately designed services and adequate resource allocation which takes account of rural and geographical factors came up in discussion. (Already is some resource weighting from National Government in relation to rurality)
The sort of services and how to spend the money should be local/discretionary.
The money from central government should be ring-fenced for the “National Care Service”.
The budget holders are also making decisions – leading to the question of how much services are finance-led and this can lead to skewed assessments. There was a ‘buzz’ of almost complete agreement around the room when this point was made. True of both Health and Social Care decision-making processes despite the involvement of some ‘independent’ professionals.
Because there are differing needs in different areas of the country, the local government needs control of how money is spent. Some felt strongly that there was a need for local government flexibility in how they shape services to meet needs, (as there is at present to a great extent).
Following on from this point, the other side of the coin is that in increasing local flexibility, you gain more of a postcode lottery in terms of services, and standardization/universal coverage.
‘Universality’ was considered an important principle in this whole debate.
The balance between local and national control is complex and the group agreed that the question remained unresolved.
3 Funding options – Partnership/Insurance/Comprehensive
Points made:
Would it be possible to have all 3 options operating rather than selecting one of the three?
Do the options take account of the fact that individuals are very variable in terms of their incomes and assets?
Could there be a slow change with the existing scheme running alongside one where younger people begin paying throughout their working life. Phased old system to new system.
There is a problem suddenly asking people at 65 to pay an unpredicted sum, just when their income is decreasing.
Current older people have already paid tax throughout their lives and at a high level.
The same questions were asked when the NHS was introduced in the late 1940’s
Could there be a new NCS on a par with the NHS, both paid for through something like National Insurance Contributions, ring fenced. There was feeling that the new NCS needs to be given the same status as the NHS.
All agreed that ultimately, the only answer is to have a good NHS and a good NCS funded for all fairly, and paid for by general taxation paid for throughout a person’s life.
The predicted increase in the population of older people does allow for a time lag – the increase will take 10-15 years to arise. Also, with improved longevity and health, those retiring in the near future will take longer to reach the point where they require care.
Need a proper local/national balance as regards criteria for assessment and resource allocation.
The principle of universality across the whole country came up again in this discussion.
Additional points added by participants in the event, during the informal discussion time:
• Complaints Process: For Social Services/Adult Social Care and for the NHS are often very slow and very unsatisfactory in reaching a resolution.
• NHS Continuing Care Appeal processes in particular are not clear and transparent. People have to be extremely tenacious and in order to get anywhere. Without an advocate, this would be very difficult indeed for a person who was not highly educated and working in a field that gave them the experience and skills to cope.
• The Care Quality Commission are ineffective when it comes to serious complaints regarding quality of care in care homes (personal experience cited)
• Good quality care is hard to find in care homes in general, and serious concerns expressed regarding the level of training and appropriate quality of training and professionalism of care home owners and managers of care homes.
2nd Session Detailed Notes from Group B
National Assessment, Fair Funding.
Downside to National assessment would be the generalisation. Might not appreciate local issues for example carer’s are not given sufficient time to travel from one client to another and therefore do not have time to care for clients.
Carer’s vary and some are wonderful but others not as good.
One area is not the same as another and there are different problems for rural life compared to city life.
One size does not fit all and control and choice is too generic. Choice might not be available.
Will National government set enough money aside to meet the needs in Cumbria? At the moment Cumbria spends more money on care but receives less because deprivation does not include rural factors.
This was disputed by a councillor but it was considered as a factor in the Voluntary sector.
People do come to Cumbria to retire which gives Cumbria a problem for care funding.
People are asked for a top up if private home charges more than Council will pay. How will this be sorted?
Voluntary and Obligatory contributions still come down to whether people have saved. Those who spend their money will get helped fully but those who have gathered assets will be penalised. The comprehensive model again would penalise people on modest income. This is unfair.
National system more likely to be based on numbers and not quality.
Regular contributions in the long term. This could mean young people finish paying off their debt from University and then have to start paying for their care in old age.
Everyone accepts that they have to have money to pay for their funeral, why not put money aside for their care?
No logic to a third or a quarter. How does it add up? Where is the detail?
If in rented accommodation what will happen? No fixed assets. Also if obligatory how will people pay if they have no money?
Universal benefits verse means tested benefits. If AA and DLA are removed will it be ringed fenced for care? The consensus was no. However there was an opinion that AA and DLA is not always spent on care.
Why does social care not attract same consideration as education NHS etc? It has a much lower priority.
Final comment was that the government spends a fraction of the money on social care that it has spent on the banks.
2nd Session Detailed Notes from Group C
Group felt that the funding needs to be National.
“Cumbria County Council has no money”
National funding would ensure that there is no postcode lottery – geographically the same provision everywhere.
Nursing care is centrally funded by the NHS. Could this be extended to include Personal Care?
Any system needs to be simple and abuse-proof.
Option 4 (Comprehensive) would mean that no-one will fall through the net, but it will be expensive for some with lower incomes.
Debt levels for younger people are already very high – this will be an additional burden.
“It is better be taxed than pay at the end of your working life.”
Will this lead to genetic testing?
Engagement of all ages in this discussion is important.
If the scheme were voluntary, would the take-up rate be high enough to pay for all?
Voluntary work caring for older people could be done by younger people. Look at alternative ways of providing care to lower the cost of premiums. This would create more understanding between age groups.
Danger of people feeling they want to get their money’s worth. I’ve paid in to the system for years, so I am going to take advantage of the care. May be detrimental to family life.
Should it be paid for through Taxation, like the National Insurance contributions?
Should the money be ring fenced – Feeling of the group is YES.
Should government spending be re-thought – make care a priority over Defence?
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS:
Question 1 – Comprehensive System.
Question 2 – Funding in the hands of National Government.
General notes on the event.
From the various discussions with delegates on the day and general observation made the event can be judged to have been a very worthwhile exercise. Both from providing a wide range of opinions from varying perspectives but also by empowering our service user group by making them feel part of this very important debate. It was very apparent that there are some strong opinions and views on all aspects of this debate from all participating delegates. It was also useful to see the differences in priorities given to the key issues by the various delegates.
The detailed notes contained in the section above are reported as recorded on the day, every effort was made by the scribes to record as accurately as possible.
Reported and collated by the officers of Age Concern South Lakeland. 24th October 2009.
Studying this Green Paper as a Pensioner I strongly feel that this is not a consultaion. I like many others cannot understand why this cannot be financed by the Tax system - whichever way it is paid for everyone is going to have to pay more in one way or another. To suggest that the State could create its own insurance scheme! I have paid into the State insurance and Tax scheme all my life and now they want more - why should anyone trust a new scheme. I still want to know when this Care and Support takes place - at the moment you have to have Critical or Substantial needs to get anything? Quite frankly, the money spent on this so called consultation could be better spent on Care.
I believe that if all the people who got their benefits they are entitled to would cause meyham in the current position the economy is in. I am no expert but could we continue as being a strong economy where wealth remains in the UK as it does today with constant tax rises, money which will not even be enough to help everyone like benefits as such? Everyone wants more money, but whether its getting to the people who need it is a debate itself.
As a disabled person of over 30 years,at my age of 64 now I receive a very low pension from the government as well as my DLA.If I had enjoyed good health in my life,I would have had a better pension,but as I was unable to work,I couldn`t build a better pension. so I need my dla to buy all that is needed for my disabilities. I deplore the thought of the green paper taking my choice away,totally and completely wrong.The disabled are an easy target for obvious reasons
you call this a consultation but in reality you havent listened to any one but the sound of your own voice i for 1 will be selling my house to my son for the extortionate price of £1 long before i retire shame on you labour you got the country into the mess but steal money from the disabled to get you out
Now 65, I have been disabled since my early 30s and so have seen many changes in disability policies and heard more, on the whole unfulfilled, government promises than I care to remember!!! What used to be 'housewife’s non contributory disability allowance' became first AA, then DLA - all changes which, according to the vehement, often repeated, assurances by the relevant government, were introduced only to improve the lives of disabled people and had (of course!!!) nothing to do with saving money, reducing waste, preventing fraud or whatever else was the most pressing political agenda at the time.
In reality, DLA did introduce many stringent and complex eligibility criteria and those receiving it have to prove their entitlement over and over again, even when it is patently obvious that a disability is permanent and unlikely to improve. Nevertheless, DLA is the only benefit that is based on individual need alone and because the rules state that entitlement remains unless their needs change, recipients relied on it and adjusted their budgets accordingly.
To describe DLA/AA as 'popular' is so completely and utterly wide of the mark that it borders on insult and simply proves how out of touch you, Mr. Behan, are with the reality of living with a disability. Unlike music, people, films or books, DLA isn't just something we 'like' or a pleasurable 'extra', it is an absolutely essential life line, which helps individuals meet the costs of their disability which are, unfortunately, not confined to care costs but include anything from bandages to taxis to wheelchairs.
According to your proposals, incorporating DLA/AA into 'the national care budget' will 'ensure more effective use of taxpayers money' and 'save costs', which as we all know is the real reason for this exercise. I have no idea what evidence these assumptions are based on, but I do know that even if you stripped all DLA recipients of their benefit, the amount gained would at best be a miniscule drop in the ocean of care costs the country faces and could never ever justify the misery and hardship the loss of this benefit would cause to affected individuals.
You have assured all those under 65 that their DLA remains safe - would you please be kind enough to explain to me how the needs caused by my lifelong disability suddenly change on my 65th birthday and why they might be treated differently than those I had the day before??
In your above statement you also assure us that all those stripped of their benefit will instead receive an 'equivalent level of provision and care'.
How on earth do you propose to keep such a promise??? Unless you know the meaning and value of DLA for each individual, how would you assess an 'equivalent level'? If individuals want to make their own care and provision arrangements without government help, how would you provide them with an equivalent?? As these comments show, much of the distress at losing DLA has to do with 'living in dignity' 'the ability to make choices', 'maintaining independence', freedom of (government) interference and the like. Since these are intangible life values that can't just be 'packaged up' into a 'level of care and provision', your above promise is meaningless to anyone who uses their DLA according to their needs and doesn't want to be 'incorporated' into whatever the government thinks or believes they SHOULD need.
Finally, the uncertainty about these benefits is causing substantial distress and anxiety for all disabled people and I therefore join previous writers in their request to put us all out of our misery:
Will any current recipients of whatever age lose their DLA/AA???
Like the others I'm not interested in fancy language, prevarication or rationalisation - a straight answer would do nicely and would certainly a political novelty!!!