About Us We cannot guarantee |
News
What's new in Direct Payments and Social Care?
Half a million disabled people will lose out on benefits through the government's reform to disability living allowance
Proposals to replace DLA for people of working-age with a new personal independence payment (PIP) will result in 500,000 fewer people receiving the benefit by 2015-16. The figure was included in a consultation document on the assessment criteria and eligibility thresholds for PIP, and comes despite a number of government concessions on the much-criticised reform, including:-
· Dropping plans to double the qualifying period for the
benefit after the onset of disability from three to six months.
· Dropping plans to remove mobility payments from 80,000 state-funded
care home residents.
· Revising the original assessment criteria following criticisms that
the threshold for the benefit was too low.
The government's plans threatened the ability of many disabled people to live independently, warned David Congdon, head of campaigns and policy at Mencap. "It seems that those disabled people with lower level needs, but who nevertheless face extra costs associated with their disability, will lose out," he said. "For example, a person with a learning disability who lives independently but who needs some level of help each week with things like cooking, shopping and sorting their household bills, may no longer be eligible for the benefit." He added: "Disabled people, many of whom already live on the brink of poverty, should not be forced to cover the significant additional costs of their disability on their own."
Like DLA, PIP would be split into two components: a daily living part, equivalent to the care component of DLA, and reflecting people's needs for assistance in supporting themselves; and a mobility component to support people to get around. There would be two rates for each component- a standard and enhanced rate - in contrast to DLA, which has three care rates (lower, middle and higher).
Under the proposed assessment, disabled people would be assessed
on their ability to carry out nine daily living activities, including preparing
food and drink, bathing and grooming, communicating and engaging socially, and
two mobility activities: moving around and planning and following a journey.
Points would be awarded according to people's abilities to carry out tasks,
with account taken of how far they need prompting, support or aids to do so.
Courtesy of Community Care
Responsible Reform – A report on the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance.
This report was entirely written, researched, funded and supported by sick and disabled people, their friends and carers. Thousands more supported it through social media. Click here to download.
Independent Living Fund update
The Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller MP): The Independent Living Fund (ILF) operates as an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body of the Department for Work and Pensions and provides discretionary cash payments to disabled people to support independent living.
A written ministerial statement was laid in the house of commons today, which can be viewed at the following link: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/8.DWP-IndependentLiving.pdf The statement reiterates that the Government is committed to consultation about the support of ILF users beyond this parliament. It explains that consultation will now take place next spring, within the context of the future of the wider care and support system.
Click here to read why the closure of the fund will cost the Government billions.
Time-limited Contributory Employment and Support Allowance
Time-limited Contributory Employment and Support Allowance is
being restricted to one year for those in the Work-Related Activity Group -
see http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf
Solicitors Irwin Mitchell are keen to find someone entitled
to legal aid to try to challenge this appalling EIA. We ideally need someone
who has already been placed in WRAG group to make this legal challenge..
Do you live in the north-west and fall into this category, or are at risk of it in the future? (The solicitor has said they can do a home visit if necessary.) Contact Linda on 01926 842253 / 0771 492 7533
New evidence of corporate giant’s
influence on welfare reform
New evidence suggests that an insurance giant that could make huge financial
gains from government reform of incapacity benefit played a much larger part
in influencing those reforms than it previously admitted. Last month, Unum,
the UK’s largest provider of “income protection insurance”
(IPI), denied that it had attempted to influence government policy on welfare
reform.
Campaigners believe that tougher welfare rules – particularly those replacing incapacity benefit (IB) with the new employment and support allowance (ESA) – could persuade more people to take out IPI, and so boost Unum’s profits. Unum has denied that it stands to gain from the reforms, even though it launched a major media campaign this year just as the coalition government began a three-year programme to reassess about 1.5 million existing IB claimants through a new, stricter test, the work capability assessment (WCA). But now a detailed memo has emerged, which was submitted to the Commons work and pensions committee in 2002 and was written by Joanne Hindle, Unum’s corporate services director.
In the memo, Unum calls for fundamental reform of the welfare system, while it says the government “must ensure both that work always pays more than benefits, and more importantly that it is clearly seen to do so”. The memo includes proposals with a strong resemblance to reforms introduced several years later by the Labour government, when it replaced IB with ESA. The Unum memo suggests retaining a form of IB for those “genuinely incapable of undertaking any work whatsoever”, as Labour did with the ESA support group. And it suggests a new benefit for those with “limited capacity to work”, who would be “properly supported in their search for and transition into work”, a suggestion which mirrors the ESA work-related activity group introduced by Labour.
The memo also says Unum was “actively engaged” with the government on sharing best practice on returning disabled people to work, while its executives had “met with [government] officials to help better understand the nature of the IB casebook, and to discuss how our commercial experience and expertise might be more widely applied”. Hindle stresses in her memo that the company – then known as UnumProvident – “is confident that its policies and approach to [IPI] claim management and rehabilitation can be replicated more widely for those on IB” and would “particularly welcome the opportunity to put them into practice”.
The subsequent reform of IB was hugely controversial, with widespread anger among disabled people at the severity and inflexibility of the WCA, and the number of claimants subsequently found “fit for work”. The anger has grown over the last 18 months under the Conservative-led government, with claims that its reforms – which are even harsher than those introduced by Labour – are merely a cover for cuts to welfare spending and are plunging tens of thousands of disabled people further into poverty and distress.
The disabled activist who has done most to raise concerns about Unum’s influence is Mo Stewart, a retired healthcare professional and veteran of the Women’s Royal Air Force, who has been researching Unum for nearly a year. She said it was “incomprehensible that Unum have denied benefiting from the ongoing radical welfare reforms when the wording of some of the reforms closely mirror” comments in the memo submitted by the company.
She said: “The recent mass marketing of Unum IPI, combined with the excessive publicity about the ongoing destructive welfare reforms, is no doubt reminding the able-bodied ‘squeezed middle’ population to be prepared in case of unexpected serious health or disability difficulties which, inevitably, will lead many to invest in IPI from this American corporate giant.”
Further information has emerged this week suggesting that Unum
had influence within the Department for Work and Pensions as the government
was drawing up its proposals for IB reform. Last month, Unum admitted that two
of its executives – a doctor and an occupational therapist – were
involved in “technical working groups” set up by the government
in 2006. The working groups were asked to review the assessment that was being
used at the time to test disabled people’s eligibility for IB.
Unum told Disability News Service (DNS) that the working groups met just once
and that the company had “no further influence” on the design of
the test’s eventual replacement, the WCA. But a response by the Department
for Work and Pensions to a Freedom of Information Act request from DNS suggests
that the Unum officials were present at three meetings of one working group
and at least five of the other.
This week, Unum repeated its denial that it had influenced the welfare reforms of the Labour and coalition governments. John Letizia, Unum’s head of public affairs, said in a statement: “While Unum, like the vast majority of Britons, believes a review of the current welfare system is necessary, we are not working to influence the government to reduce welfare benefits as you seem to be suggesting. Rather, given our expertise in income protection and vocational rehabilitation, we have been one of a number of entities from industry, trade unions and health invited from time to time to participate on committees and provide input to government. Our primary interest is in promoting the role the private sector can usefully play not only in helping people to protect themselves should illness or injury occur, but also to achieve a successful return to work where possible.
“Income protection does not replace state benefit, but it
is a vital protection for the ‘squeezed middle’ who would not be
able to maintain their current lifestyle should something unexpected occur.
This would also provide significant direct and indirect benefit to the state.
At no time have we influenced the government on the design of the reforms to
the welfare state or on the level of benefits that claimants receive. Additionally,
as you know, it is ultimately the government and not Unum or any other third
party that makes decisions about policy matters.”
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
Petitions
A petition has been launched to force the Government to stop and re-examine the impact of benefit cuts on disabled people. An e-mail petition that generates 100,000 signatures means that the concerns will be debated in Parliament. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20968
Are you one of the 600.000+ who will lose the lower rate of DLA when PIP is introduced? There will only be two levels instead of three. If this affects you please go to http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-second-draft-assessment-regulations.pdf and sign the petition.
Using the Law to fight the Cuts
A new guide has been produced to help disabled people and our allies to fight the cuts using the Law, written by Irwin Mitchell solicitors for Disability Equality NW. Click here to download it. Irwin Mitchell have also produced a resource to help you get the support you need, which can be downloaded here.
Health and Social Care Bill explained
A series of factsheets on the Health and Social Care Bill have been produced
which explain particular topics contained in the Bill, including its key themes.
They include case studies of the policy in action and frequently asked questions.
http://healthandcare.dh.gov.uk/factsheets/
People with continuing healthcare needs will have the right to request a personal health budget by April 2014, health secretary Andrew Lansley has told the Conservative Party conference.
The move would help personalise the NHS and further integrate health and social care, said Lansley. However, health commissioners would have the right to refuse requests. About 53,000 people receive continuing care at a cost of £2bn a year to the NHS in England; it is given to people whose need for long-term care is primarily the result of a health condition.
Personal health budgets, under which people with long-term conditions are allocated money to fund their healthcare, are due to be rolled out from October 2012 after the current pilot phase. In the past, people have lost their right to direct payments after becoming eligible for continuing care because of the bar on the NHS making cash payments. This should come to an end for many under the policy put forward today by Lansley.
"This is a solution that must come as part of a cultural shift for doctors, healthcare professionals, providers and patients which sees the patient as an equal partner in decisions about their care," said Lansley.
The NHS Confederation welcomed the move but said the "cultural and practical barriers" to implementing personal health budgets had to be addressed. "We need to address the fears of clinicians that it may be unethical to allow people to choose treatments and services with no evidence base yet these are exactly the things many patients want," said chief executive Mike Farrar.
Help the Hospices and Alzheimer's Society stressed the need for support services to be in place to help people manage personal health budgets to avoid over-burdening families. “Managing a personal budget can be complex and time consuming, with patients and carers often having to research, negotiate and manage a variety of service providers," said Jonathan Ellis, director of policy at Help the Hospices. "For personal health budgets to work, support services need to be in place to help people, for whom time may be precious, to navigate the system and make sure they have access to the best possible care and support at the end of life.”
Reassessments of users subject to care cuts
were 'tokenistic'
Service users subject to cuts say reassessments of their needs were a "rubberstamping
exercise", says a report on a council that has raised eligibility thresholds.
Users said that reassessments took place after decisions had already been made.
They were also poorly handled, functional and conducted by an unfamiliar care
manager, and took no account of a person's changing circumstances, said the
report by Poole Local Involvement Network (Link).
The study, commissioend by Poole Council, looked at the impact six months on of the authority's decision to raise thresholds from moderate to substantial and increase charges for care services last October. It was based on interviews with 24 people affected by the changes, which are expected to save £870,000 in a full year. It found a lack of support was offered to those whose service had been removed. Many of those interviewed lacked the required personal resources to use information provided by the council to find alternative support. Letters outlining the changes were variously described as confusing and impersonal.
Among those interviewed, 10 people had high negative impacts with the risk that these will present to the council with increased care needs; three had small negative impacts and which may worsen over time; 10 had no adverse reaction to the changes and one had a positive impact.
It identified a particular risk of social isolation among those who could no longer attend day centres because of a lack of confidence, personal motivation and family support. "The impact of no longer using the day centre service was consistently significant. Most showed real vulnerability and even fear of what may become of them, " the report said.
Louise Bate, of Poole LINk, said: "Our research report suggests that people affected by these service changes could come back to the council with increased care needs, if they aren't offered more support. "Almost two-thirds of survey respondents are now doing nothing on the days that they used to attend a day centre. There is a real risk of increasing isolation if people aren't supported to find alternatives." The Link called on the council to commission a third sector organisation to provide advocacy support and to provide alternative early detection services to avoid issues escalating into a crisis.
Peter Adams, the council's cabinet member for adult social care, said the council will contact 75 people no longer receiving services to discuss their experiences and provide further information and advice if required, and would work more closely with the community sector and see how it could better meet local needs.
Courtesy of Community Care
Employees to pay to bring tribunals
In his Conservative Party conference speech, George Osborne has
confirmed that for the first time ever, a fee for taking a case to a tribunal
will be introduced.
Litigants will only get the fee back if they win. Osborne did not specify amounts
in his speech but it is understood that workers will face a £150 to £250
charge to make any employment tribunal application and a further £1,000
for starting a hearing.
Osborne said: “We respect the right of those who have spent their whole
lives building a small business not to see that achievement destroyed by a vexatious
appeal to an employment tribunal.” He added: “We’re ending
the one-way bet against small business.”
Jim Lister, Head of Employment at Pannone, commented on the move: “This
will be popular with employers, many of whom will have faced spurious claims,
but it is important to remember that the very people an employment tribunal
is supposed to help are those that have just lost their job, so will be least
able to issue a claim. The move is bound to deny access to justice for some
people with meritorious claims.”
Unfair dismissal rule changes officially confirmed
Changes to unfair dismissal rules have been confirmed by Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne.The decision will see the qualification period for the right to claim unfair dismissal extended from one to two years.
While these changes may impact negatively on many disabled people, there will still be advantages for PA employers as abusive PAs often use employment law as a further weapon.
Courtesy of Community Care
Access to Work clients 'threatened'
Disabled people who rely on a key employment support scheme to stay in work
are being given just a week to confirm they still need their funding, or face
having it withdrawn. The Department for Work and Pensions has sent "hostile"
and "threatening" letters across the country to disabled people receiving
support from the Access to Work (AtW) scheme, telling them they must undergo
an immediate "review" of their funding.
The letters warn recipients that they have just 10 days - from the date the letter was written - to notify AtW that they still need support, or it will be taken away. The letters provide yet more evidence of a government clampdown on AtW, which provides funding for adaptations, equipment and ongoing support at work.
During the review, AtW recipients are being asked whether the assistance provided by support workers or personal assistants (PAs) could instead be carried out by "family and friends". AtW staff are also demanding PAs' telephone numbers so they can carry out anti-fraud spot checks.
The letters have horrified disabled AtW claimants, many of whom have relied on the scheme for years to pay for the support they need to stay in work. Rachel Purtell, from Exeter, who has received AtW funding for more than 10 years, said she was "really angry" when she received one of the "hostile" and "threatening" letters last month.
She said: "It is just outrageous. The government says it wants all these disabled people off benefits and into work, but then introduces policies that will rip the heart out of the support system." She said she could not carry out her job, working four days a week, without support from AtW. She added: "This new review system is draconian, insulting and counter-productive. It will not ensure people are getting the right support, but will simply add to the pressure and stress for working disabled people and therefore increase the likelihood of us going on to 'out of work' o 'unable to work' benefits. "It demonises yet another group of people that need support at a time when the very same government says it wants more disabled people in work. It is utterly incoherent as a policy."
DWP spokesman said: "We are following the usual process of sending out letters to people to undertake a yearly review of their application, to ensure that they still need the support provided and that the help they are receiving still meets their need." He added: "We have a duty to ensure that people are made aware that if they do not contact us, then we may not be able to continue the AtW support." But he declined to comment on whether the 10-day deadline was appropriate.
Government figures released last month showed a dramatic slump in the number of "new customers" helped by AtW, from 16,520 to 13,240 in 2010-11.
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
Links
If you are an ILF recipient have your say about its future! This press release
calls for the Government to clarify its plans for the ILF, and criticises a
lack of consultation on the decision to close the ILF to new applications -
http://bit.ly/pMMWrT
Disabled people treated worse than prisoners
Disabled people throughout the UK have expressed our deep unrest
about the implications for disabled people, throughout the United Kingdom, of
the UK Supreme Court decision in the case of Ms Elaine McDonald (the retired
Scottish Ballet dancer) v Kensington & Chelsea Council.
The local authority had re-assessed Ms McDonald's care needs in a blatant attempt
to save money. Her impairment was such that she required frequent visits to
the toilet throughout the night. She did this through using a commode with the
assistance of a personal care assistant paid for by the local authority.
In re-assessing her, the Council decided that, instead of being assisted to
her commode, she could wear incontinence pads overnight. Though needing to go
to the toilet, Ms McDonald was not incontinent; and she asserted that this amounted
to cruel and inhumane treatment that robbed her of her dignity and thus breached
her rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It should be noted that their Lord Justices had previously decided
that prisoners in Scotland had been robbed of their human rights by being required
to do the toilet in front of other prisoners and then slop out the next morning.
Yet they chose to set aside Ms McDonald's immense distress and emotional horror
at being required to lie in her own faeces and urine for up to ten hours at
a time and substituted their own view that being put in incontinence pads preserved
her dignity and privacy, rather than being assisted to the toilet!
We cannot understand, why the UK Supreme Court upheld the original High Court
decision that it was "open" to the Council to meet Ms McDonald's needs
in a more economical manner through the provision of incontinence pads; yet
no such economic justification was given to the 'slopping out' issue of the
prisoners, which led to the Scottish Government having to pay out millions,
not just in compensation, but to provide just such night-time toilet provision.
Surely there should be no difference between the value of human rights for either
prisoners or disabled people? If that is truly the case then the cost implications
should also be the same. As Lady Hale pointed out in her dissenting opinion,
a local authority could, on the authority of this decision, not only take away
night-time support to assist elderly and disabled people in going to the toilet
but could also withdraw day support for toilet needs. In fact, we are just hearing
that some local authorities are beginning to do this.
Those "bean counters" in local authorities and within government must
be rubbing their hands in glee, for they have now been given a clear green light
to reduce services to inhumane levels with no thought given to the human rights
of disabled people. Organisations throughout the UK, both for and of disabled
people, must do something to awaken society and its politicians to this travesty
of justice; shaming these lordships into bringing the Supreme Court into such
total disrepute.
How we do this, I'm open to suggestions; but possible suggestions could include
an open letter within the Sunday press, signed by as many organisations as possible;
a seminar on the issue, involving both legal pundits and disabled activists
/ disability studies researchers; campaigns / public debates; lobbying politicians;
let's even try the impossible and get the BBC or ITV to become interested in
issues around the human rights of disabled people, such as this.
At a time of austerity and constricting public services, this legal judgement
could lead to a massive decrease in disabled people's quality of life and equality
of life opportunities. Disabled people will experience a continual decline in
the quality and quantity of support provided by the community to exercise their
citizenship and family responsibilities; alongside the depraved denial of their
dignity and citizenship
Disabled people are being urged to engage within the debate; and if you have the resources, organise letters, meetings, debates and lobbies; encouraging others to rectify such legal folly. A number of people in Scotland have already put our names to a letter which appeared in the Scotsman: see: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters/Letter-Court-puts-prisoners-before.6797791.jp
More:
Disabled People Against Cuts believes the Supreme Court’s majority decision to reject Elaine McDonald’s appeal to keep her overnight personal assistants to help her with regular personal care tasks is a major setback for disabled people of all ages and their families.
This judgment will give a green light to local authorities across England and Wales to reassess care packages to find the cheapest way to meet needs, and allow them to impose solutions that may be against the wishes of disabled people.
By rejecting legal arguments concerning the human rights and disability discrimination acts that favour Elaine’s appeal, the Supreme Court will shatter disabled people’s confidence in the ability of the legal system to protect their rights.
In part of the judgment, Elaine is characterised as being difficult and rigid in her approach to alternatives presented by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea such as a live-in volunteer or sheltered accommodation.
The irony is that if an application to the Independent Living Fund (ILF) in 2007 had succeeded Elaine would have been given the resources to fund the overnight care she needs. This case would never have come to court if Elaine’s council had done its job properly.
While the Supreme Court gives a lot of weight to statements presented by her council that other disabled people who are not incontinent accept the use of pads or sheets to avoid the need for overnight care, they do not question the voracity of some of the council’s evidence, particularly where inaccurate information has been presented.
In the Court of Appeal judgment, it states in paragraph 13: ‘As it emerged, however, the ILF application failed, inter alia because Ms McDonald, on turning 65, ceased to be eligible for funding from it.’ Yet an independent review of the Independent Living Fund published in January 2007 by the respected academics Melanie Henwood and Bob Hudson confirms on page 5 that applicants had to ‘Be at least 16 years of age and under 66’. In fact at the time when Elaine left hospital in March 2007 when an application to the ILF had a strict deadline of three months she was 63, about to turn 64.
It saddens us that English and Welsh law that is so detrimental to the interests of disabled people is developed by expert legal minds that do not have a full grasp of the detailed issues before them.
View from the ground
Doug Palley offers his own perspective on living in residential care:
Living in a residential home, it’s sometimes difficult to work out quite what “role” I take, particularly in other people’s eyes. There are various technical difficulties with living in a building registered as a “business”. For example, the Council won’t collect bulky rubbish, and I have previously had difficulty getting some things supplied or delivered (e.g. broadband) as they only supply “residential properties”. The fact that I live here doesn’t always work in a “computer says no” situation.
Perhaps more worrying is the assumptions others make about me because I live in a residential care home. Both the home and I have contacted various organisations to tell them that I deal with my own affairs and have my own phone line – but still, I have yet to persuade the NHS wheelchair repair people and the District Nurses to speak to me direct! They phone the home, assuming the Home run all my affairs.
Some trades people assume it’s OK to turn up at their convenience and without notice; over the years, particular failures of this type have been perpetrated by lift service people (cutting it off at no notice) and hoist repair people amongst others. (Though I’m also cognisant that this happens elsewhere!) They seem to assume that as the home is “manned” 24 hours a day it doesn’t matter when they turn up.
Then there was the time the home registered everybody –
including me – for a postal vote without asking the residents. I’d
rather go to the polling station.
“Charitising” fee-paying residents
Whilst frustrating and inconvenient, the above are simply a symptom of a worse disease: assumptions made about people living in homes. I find it most vexing. It’s one level on from the assumptions all disabled people face. I also have to continually fight internalising these assumptions.
Like many homes, particularly homes for “younger” adults (under 65), the one I’m in claims to encourage personalisation, independence and normalisation; to work against segregation and preconceived ideas about disabled people.
So why is it that there’s a fayre advertised at the home for Saturday, to raise money for a new minibus.? There are huge signs around the town advertising it to all and sundry for the public to come. To me, this fair is about as welcome and appropriate as the proverbial fart in a spacesuit.
I object to the public being invited into my home, my personal space. A few years ago at the fair, I decided to go to bed for the afternoon; but random public opened my bedroom door and wandered in!
I also object to the perception of me and other residents as charity
cases. I know my fees are over £1,000 per week to live here. On top of
that, we pay 60p per mile for transport in the minibus with a volunteer driver.
And that’s just the beginning of my financial objections in this area;
let alone the more moral and personal objections.
Sod off, Father Christmas!
It’s nearly as bad as some bloke in a red uniform coming over on Christmas Day, dancing in our living room and giving out shortbread as his self-serving patronising gift to the Tiny Tims. If I’m at home, I hide in my bedroom until he’s gone. It’s not pretty; a 33 year old bloke hiding in his bedroom to avoid Father Christmas.
That’s organised by the well-meaning but misdirected local
Lions group. The rest of the year, when we need people to assist residents to
get out and about, we don’t see them. It’s pretty stuffed up really.
We Live Here
Next time there’s a debate about what to call us – service users, customers, charity recipients – how about normalising us and calling us residents? You never know it might just start to sink in.
Though I doubt it.
NB: one of its recommendations is INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION, something our government is endeavouring to stop!
About 15% of the world's population lives with some form of disability, of whom
2-4% experience significant difficulties in functioning. The global disability
prevalence is higher than previous WHO estimates, which date from the 1970s
and suggested a figure of around 10%. This global estimate for disability is
on the rise due to population ageing and the rapid spread of chronic diseases,
as well as improvements in the methodologies used to measure disability.
The first ever WHO/World Bank World report on disability reviews evidence about the situation of people with disabilities around the world. Following chapters on understanding disability and measuring disability, the report contains topic-specific chapters on health; rehabilitation; assistance and support; enabling environments; education; and employment. Within each chapter, there is a discussion of the barriers confronted, and case studies showing how countries have succeeded in addressing these by promoting good practice. In its final chapter, the report offers nine concrete recommendations for policy and practice which if put in place could lead to real improvements in the lives of people with disability.
World Report on Disability: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789240685215_eng.pdf
Easy Read Version: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/easyread.pdf
Biggest shake-up in adult care law in 60 years proposed
Vern Pitt (courtesy of Community Care)
The government has signalled the biggest reform of adult care law in 60 years after a three-year review proposed sweeping changes to adult safeguarding and carers' rights, and the extension of direct payments to residential care.
The Law Commission's proposals to simplify and modernise the law on adult care, published today, will inform government legislation next year. Although ministers have yet to say which recommendations they will accept, care services minister Paul Burstow said: "This report provides foundation for the most significant single reform of social care law in 60 years."
Among the commission's recommendations are:
• A set of statutory principles setting out the purpose
of adult social care.
• The introduction of direct payments for residential care.
• A statutory basis for adult safeguarding boards.
• A duty on councils to investigate adult safeguarding cases.
• A duty on councils to assess carers without them having to request an
assessment.
• A duty on councils to produce a care and support plan for all eligible
users and carers, including self-funders.
• Separate care laws for England and Wales.
"Today signals a significant step in moving us closer to a clearer and more coherent framework for adult social care," said law commissioner Frances Patterson. "Our recommendations will bring much-needed clarity and accessibility to this important area of the law, and have a major, beneficial impact on the lives of many of our most vulnerable citizens."
The government is set to consider the commission's recommendations alongside those of the Dilnot Commission on long-term care funding, which will report in July.
Abolishing councils' legal duties to provide social care would breach human rights law, a lawyer has warned after the government floated the idea.
The Department for Communities and Local Government is reviewing government duties placed on local authorities, including all those relating to adults and children's social care.
However, Ed Mitchell, editor of Social Care Law Today and Community Care columnist, warned: "Unless the UK withdraws from the European Convention on Human Rights, the adult social care system cannot be turned into an entirely discretionary arrangement."
"Court decisions have made it clear that under the European Convention on Human Rights certain people, particularly disabled individuals, have to be helped," he said.
Mitchell said that if councils were left free to decide who was eligible for social care there was a real danger that those people whose rights to assistance were protected under the convention would not be identified.
Abolishing the duties could also breach the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, said Stephen Broach, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, which specialises in human rights.
The signatories to the convention, including the UK, agree to uphold disabled people's rights to participate fully in society and to safeguard disabled people in situations of risk, among others. "There's a requirement that the maximum available resources should be spent on guaranteeing those rights," he said.
The proposals have met with condemnation from Labour MPs and the social care sector.
Emily Holzhausen, director of policy at Carers UK, said carers would be shocked the government was considering abolishing rights that they had fought for years to gain. "I'm concerned because this is a very open consultation and people could comment on some duties that they are not so familiar with," she said.
None of the adult social care duties included on the list could be removed without endangering the safety of service users, according to Stephen Lowe, policy adviser at Age UK. "It's imperative there remains an individual entitlement to social care for many people; it's the system of last resort," he said.
Social worker and blogger Fighting Monsters said she gasped when she saw the extent of the list of duties under review. "I can see some of these being removed from local authorities so that private companies can step into the gap," she said. "The government want to strip local authorities bare and have already taken many steps in that direction.We need our voices to be heard in this consultation," she added.
Courtesy of Community Care
The Campaign For A Fair Society
If you are worried about coalition government cuts to services for disabled
people, we invite you to join The Campaign For A Fair Society.
Launched on 8 February with the publication of a full-page advert in The Times,
we hope that in the coming days and weeks many thousands of you will join the
campaign.
In the government’s comprehensive spending review, announced on October
20 last year, Chancellor George Osborne insisted that those with the "broadest
shoulders should bear the greatest burden." In fact, the government is
implementing cuts that will impact on some of the most vulnerable people in
society, including people with learning disabilities and disabled children.
Cuts include:
Reductions in local authority budgets of up to 25%, which lead to similar reductions
in funding to all local authority funded care and support services.
The closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) and the loss of funding, which
will affect 21,000 of the most severely disabled people in the country, and
may prevent many from continuing to live independently in the community.
Changes to Support for Mortgage Interest benefit effectively rule out shared
home ownership for disabled people.
A threat to the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for
people in residential care, which helps meet some of the cost of things such
as electric wheelchairs, mobility aids and taxis where there is no accessible
public transport. Without it many people could be isolated at home.
The campaign argues that cuts to benefits and services are counter-productive
and unfair:
· Counter-productive, because there is evidence that, when people have
the support to lead fulfilling lives, their needs become less severe and the
cost of supporting them actually reduces over time.
· Unfair, because they will prevent disabled people enjoying many of
the things most of us take for granted: our own home, loving relationships,
work, an income.
The campaign is not just about protest, but also about making a positive contribution.
It proposes seven principles to guide decisions about policy and funding, and
seeks to engage policy makers in dialogue.
To join The Campaign For A Fair Society, and find out more about the principles
it promotes, visit www.campaignforafairsociety.com
Please help spread the word by circulating this email to your friends, family
and colleagues.
The Campaign For A Fair Society Is Supported By:
Advance Housing and Support, Altrum, Alzheimer Scotland, Ambrey Associates,
Baroness Jane Campbell, Centre for Inclusive Futures, The Centre for Welfare
Reform, Choice Support, Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland,
Generate Opportunities Ltd, ibk initiatives, Jackie Downer MBE, Enough Is Enough,
The Foundation for Families, Professor the Baroness Hollins, Housing Options,
Learning Disability Alliance Scotland, LivesthroughFriends, Lives Unlimited,
Personalisation Forum Group, Professor Jim Mansell, Tizard Centre, Paradigm,
Peaks and Dales Advocacy, People First (Scotland), Wendy Perez, See Me As Me,
Progress Care Housing Association (member of the Progress Housing Group), Bob
Tindall, United Response, Self Direct, Skills for People, Values Into Action
Scotland, Jan Walmsley Associates.
What makes a PA relationship work?
A new report looks in detail at the support disabled people need and the training that PAs need in order to make the PA relationship work. The report results from two years of research, and was led and informed by disabled people. 'A successful working relationship: What factors disabled people feel are important in their relationships with their Personal Assistants (PA’s)/Carers/Support Workers' by Reshma Patel can be downloaded here.
Dismissing PAs could leave users liable for large payouts
Vern Pitt writes: Service users who lose financial support from councils may be liable to substantial redundancy payments if they dismiss their personal assistants, an insurance company has warned. Fish Insurance, which covers thousands of direct payments recipients against their employment costs, reported that monthly enquiries about redundancy had jumped by 74% between July and September this year.
"We're now handling about 150 enquiries a month relating to redundancy or restructuring employment terms, which might lead to redundancy," said Fish chief executive Elissa Foster.
"Our dialogue with the local authorities and support groups has painted a similar picture, with their worries heightened by concerns over who is ultimately liable in law to settle statutory redundancy payments."
Government launches new vision for adult social care
The Government has published A Vision for Adult Social Care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens. Alongside the Social Care Vision, the Department has launched a consultation on Transparency in outcomes: a framework for adult social care - a new strategic approach to quality and outcomes in adult social care.
The vision sets the context for the future development of social care services. It is the first step, followed by the Law Commission’s work on reforming the legal framework next spring and the Commission on Funding of Care and Support next summer, towards the White Paper on care and support at the end of 2011. This will set out plans to establish a modern and financially sustainable framework for care and support, and the requirements for new legislation.
Baroness Jane Campbell challenges Government disability policy
Dave Lupton writes: Last week Jane Campbell told the House of Lords in no uncertain terms just what she thought about the ConDem's programme of 'Fair Cuts' and its impact upon Disabled people. This speech, apart from causing them a great deal of embarrassment and a lot of work trying to find an excuse other than their pathetic cries that this is really a local authority issue, looks as though it may cause the Government to make some kind of reassessment; in effect a U-turn. No mean feat in itself.
But not content with that, she went on to directly confront other senior government ministers the week preceding the speech - Kenneth Clarke, and Lord McNally when she was taking evidence as a member of The Joint (Select) Committee and Maria Miller in Her Regular One-To-Ones. She is also due to see Eric Pickles and Treasury ministers on the same subject over the coming weeks about the inhumanity of some of these cuts, in particular the Mobility Allowance issue. Where would we get that kind of immediate access to the decision-makers so quickly I wonder?
Seriously flawed
Jane's argument is that the Government's proposal is seriously flawed. In her speech to the House of Lords she gave four main reasons to support this view.
1. These cuts will have negative and costly effects on disabled
people’s health and well-being, their ability to develop social and community
networks, and their capacity to move on from residential living.
2. It conflicts with the government’s policies for personalisation, independent
living and encouraging Disabled people to gain or retain employment.
3. It is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of modern residential care
and the potential of the people living there.
4. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People.
She reminded the House that the Government's own figures regarding DLA estimates
that this cut alone will affect 58,000 Disabled young people and working age
adults and that over two-thirds of the care home resident’s income will
be taken away.This makes Britain’s most severely disabled people the group
who lose most from the cuts.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Jane was heard to ask the Ministers: "Some politicians are accepting a 5% cut but would they accept a 45% or 69% cut to the money that buys them their personal freedoms?!"
I've managed to get hold of a copy of Jane's speech to the House of Lords and have summarised just a few of the points she made. She said:
"I am sure we all agree that people living in care homes are full citizens. We should therefore expect and want them to exercise their human and civil rights, and contribute to civil society like everyone else ...
“Residential care homes are not intended to be prisons or to hide people away or deny them opportunities the rest of us take for granted – independence and choice, access to public life, education, and for those who can – the possibility of work.
" ... I do not accept that the national finances are such that we should now deny people living in care homes the same rights as other members of our society.”
Impact Assessment
Jane also raised the concern that this cut in spending was not subject to a disability equality and human rights impact assessment; or discussed with those Disabled people who have had years of experience of advising governments on disability matters, or indeed, why the treasury failed to run it by its own expert department - the Office for Disability Issues (ODI).
She asked: "Could the Minister please explain why this budgetary cut was not subject to any form of analysis?"
Employment and Support Allowance
Jane also took the Government to task on the issue of ending the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) after one year and for targeting this allowance for a £2 billion cut. She confronted them with their claim that a high percentage of fraud was evident amongst people who claimed ESA and argued that the tough requirement to access ESA means that fraud is highly unlikely and that there is no evidence to support that this is the case to date. Jane ended her speech with the following words:
"Disabled people have campaigned for the last 30 years to be treated as equal citizens. The CSR proposes cuts that will hit disabled people, (already some of the poorest in society), disproportionately hard and undermine their independence. That doesn’t fit well with the government talk of a 'fair' and 'Big' society.
"The “Big fair Society” can only be achieved, if support structures are there to enable disabled people to play their part. Otherwise we go back to a time, when most disabled people were caught in a culture of dependency with no alternative but to beg for charity and be grateful for what they received. This, my Lords fills me with dread."
I've known Jane for quite a few years now and can remember her during earlier days of protest, waving her placard along with the rest of us on Westminster Bridge and chanting "rights not charity!". It's good to see that by accepting the ermine, she hasn't lost any of her grass roots feelings and is playing the part of a very effective political agitator within the system.
Government proposals for Universal Credit
ignore the realities of disabled people’s lives
Inclusion London's new policy information paper explains key problems with the
government’s proposals for Universal Credit.
The Coalition Government has published proposals to change the structure of
benefit payments: to remove most existing welfare benefits and replace them
with a single benefit, which it is calling ‘Universal Credit’. The
White Paper can be found at the following site: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/universal-credit/
We explain how the proposals ignore the complexity of disabled people’s
lives. They will be accompanied by harsher sanctions and tighter conditions.
Decisions will be less transparent and less easy to challenge. While we agree
that the existing benefit system is extremely complex, that reflects the complexity
of disabled people’s lives to some extent. We do not think the government’s
proposals, including punitive sanctions and cuts in the level and eligibility
for benefits, are the way to tackle complexity.
The proposal is part and parcel of cutting spending on benefits, tax credits
and public services. The White Paper itself sees Universal Credit as building
on the cuts to benefits introduced already since May. We do not believe such
changes will make the welfare benefit system fairer, as the White Paper claims.
They will increase poverty while doing nothing to tackle the disadvantage and
discrimination disabled people face. Disabled people will lose benefits just
at the time that services and jobs are being cut.
The proposals set out since this government took office include restricting
eligibility to disability benefits, tightening up the conditions that accompany
them, lowering the real value of the benefit and the money disabled people will
receive, cutting the numbers of people receiving benefit (DLA recipients are
to be cut by 20 per cent) and removing certain benefits altogether (such as
the mobility component of DLA for people living in care homes) and proposals
to remove Legal Aid (including for challenges to welfare benefit decisions).
The White Paper says that a Welfare Reform Bill will be introduced in the New
Year to take forward these proposals. It advises people how to get in touch
with MPs to express their views.
You can also download the document from Inclusion London's website: http://www.inclusionlondon.co.uk/Policy
News from the Office of Disabilities
(ODI)
Government responds to Right to Control Trailblazer regulations consultation
On 12 October, the government responded to the consultation on the Right to Control Trailblazer regulations. The government's response and the regulations themselves are available for download from the Right to Control section.
Network of Networks goes live
ODI, in collaboration with Equality 2025 and twelve civil society disabled people's organisations, has established a Network of Networks to enable two way communications between disabled people and government.
The network is currently consulting on two policy areas: independent living and implementation of the UN Convention. The consultation responses will help inform the Independent Living Strategy Group's annual report, as well as the government's response in UN Convention's 2011 report.
At the end of the pilot period in March 2011, the Network of Networks will provide an independent consultation service.
The Network is a response to the Independent Living Strategy and subsequent consultation. Look out for more news on the Network on our Independent Living section.
 |
Being the Boss founder Anne Pridmore
protests against the cuts. |
Disabled People Hit By £9bn of Welfare Cuts
New research by Demos, funded by Scope and the Barrow
Cadbury Trust, shows disabled people will be caught in the cross-fire of Government
cuts:
• Families with disabled children to lose over £3,000 each by 2015
• Couples where one partner acts as a carer to their disabled partner
will lose more than £3,000 as a couple each by 2015
• Individuals moved from Incapacity Benefit to Job Seekers Allowance will
lose nearly £9,000 each by 2015
The Government’s proposed welfare reforms will see 3.5 million disabled
people lose over £9.2 billion of critical support by 2015 pushing them
further into poverty and closer to the fringes of society. Plans to move disabled
people onto Job Seekers Allowance will account for half (£4.87 billion)
of these losses.
The report, Destination Unknown, also questions Government claims that the proposals
will result in more disabled people moving into work, arguing that, in fact,
they are likely to result in more disabled people ending up trapped in long-term
unemployment and a low pay no pay cycle – ultimately costing the tax-payer
far more.
The £9 billion of cuts will affect every aspect of the day-to-day support
disabled people rely on to live - including housing, living costs and social
care support. Examples of this are, by 2015:
• 170,830 families where both parents care for a disabled child will lose
£520 million
• 516,450 disabled adults whose partner is a full time carer will lose
£1.258 billion
• 98,170 single disabled people will lose £127 million
• 114,066 disabled people moved from incapacity benefit (and ESA) to Job
Seekers allowance will lose £994 million
Recommendations from Destination Unknown include:
1. Capitalise Housing Benefit to help more disabled people own their own home.
Some disabled people will spend a lifetime on Housing Benefit (or indeed, the
housing component of a future Universal Credit) and have no opportunity to build
assets. Allowing them to take a lump sum of housing benefit will enable them
to purchase a house.
2. Reform the Work Capability Assessment to assess a range of capabilities.
A personalised test that identifies the physical, psychological, social and
practical barriers to employment is needed to broaden the focus away from just
medical difficulties.
3. Establish a ‘Work-Ready’ group as part of ESA and a future disability
component of a Universal Credit for the majority of reassessed Incapacity Benefit
claimants found fit to work, rather than moving them on to Job Seekers Allowance.
The Work Ready group would claim the same level of benefit as JSA, but would
not be subject to the same conditionality and penalty regime to recognise the
practical difficulties facing many disabled people.
4. Make ‘Work Able’ and ‘Work Ready’ out of work claimants
automatically eligible for the Work Choice support scheme and Access to Work.
Access to Work is proven to be highly successful and for every £1 spent,
returns £1.48 in tax and National Insurance contributions of employed
disabled people, but relies on people knowing to apply for it. Both should be
automatically provided.
Kitty Ussher, Director of Demos said:
“There are good ways to reform welfare, but this is not
one of them. The emerging evidence from recent years is that the only way to
get those furthest from the labour market back into work is through individual
client-led support.
“Cutting the welfare bill is attractive to government in the current climate,
but without better support for individuals it threatens to just exclude people
further, rather than transforming their lives for the better. We call on policy-makers
to focus more on what works, or the ultimate prize of giving more people control
over their lives by having the chance to earn a living will be lost.”
Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of disability charity Scope continued:
"These alarming figures prove just how severely disabled
people will be hit by proposed cuts. With such dramatic losses on the horizon,
how will the Government be able to ‘protect’ the people who need
support the most? Benefits are not optional extras - they are vital lifelines
to help disabled people participate in our society. Without them hundreds-of-thousands
of disabled people will be forced into a cycle of long-term unemployment, poverty
and social exclusion. That is not only bad for disabled people but also bad
for the public purse.
"Disabled people must not be pushed even further backwards in our society
by the pursuit of deficit reduction. The Government must take stock and conduct
a full impact assessment on the consequences of stripping critical support from
disabled people and their families."
Sara Llewellin, Chief Executive of the Barrow Cadbury Trust added:
"This is extremely worrying evidence that the Government
will break its promise to ensure cuts are progressive and fair. If cuts are
allowed to hit the most vulnerable the hardest the consequences will be felt
for decades to come. We must hold the Government to account over its promises
and that means it must rapidly and radically rethink this slash and burn approach
to welfare benefits.”
Scope and the Barrow Cadbury Trust today urge the Government to take all the
steps necessary to ensure they fully realise the true impact these cuts will
have on the lives of millions of disabled people by carrying out a full and
detailed impact assessment. This needs to take into consideration the realities
of everyday life and demonstrate how the Government will ensure disabled people
do not end up pushed further into poverty.
The full report Destination Unknown can be downloaded
from www.demos.co.uk or requested in advance
from beatrice.burks@demos.co.uk
Join in Anne’s rant on Social Care by following this link : http://caninep1.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php NB: If you are not already a member of Word Press, then you need to join first. It's quick and easy at http://wordpress.org/
