Member News
18th February 2011
The government must handle the planned reforms to disability living allowance (DLA) with care, says Su Sayer, chief executive of United Response.
Today is the last official day of the government's public consultation on the controversial move to scrap the disability living allowance (DLA) and replace it with a new personal independence payment (PIP). The DLA was specifically designed to contribute to the extra costs faced by disabled people, and has helped many thousands out of poverty and social isolation. Any reforms to DLA must therefore be handled with great care.
Indeed, people with disabilities and their supporters have spent the last two months mounting a passionate public campaign against those elements of the new proposals that seem to impact unfairly on people with disabilities. Today they will be providing the hard evidence that backs up their claims.
There is hope that these efforts will not go to waste. It was revealed yesterday that the imposition of the cut has been delayed for five months, which allows more time for consultation evidence to be examined. Additionally, in a Guardian interview earlier this week, Maria Miller, the minister who has had the difficult task of championing these changes, publicly stated that the reforms are at a preliminary stage and that they may change if evidence is provided that the "policy change in practice rather than in theory" would be damaging. This is encouraging, for there is much evidence to suggest exactly that.
The most glaring example is the proposal to remove the mobility component of the DLA from 80,000 people who live in residential care. These mobility funds are for most people the only way they can afford to get out and about in the local community, attend important medical appointments and visit friends and family. Taking these rights and opportunities away does not reflect the government's own belief in fairness. Nor will subjecting people with mental health difficulties to arduous and continuous re-assessments that may deteriorate their condition.
There are some positive ideas outlined in the reforms. We support simplification of the benefit and any reduction in bureaucracy, particularly for people with learning disabilities who often find jargon and small print difficult. But these positive steps will not be remembered if the final reform doesn't remove those aspects which will severely compromise the quality of life for thousands of people with disabilities. When it was formed, the coalition government announced that its core values were "freedom, fairness and responsibility": we hope these values will remain paramount as these reforms are considered.
Article Comments
I disagree that the removal of the disability component from people in care homes is the most glaring example. It is simply the one that has received the most publicity.
The statement ignores the fact that paragraph 27 of the proposals says that any individual who can 'get around in a wheelchair' will be considered mobile in the same way as a person with a prosthetic is currently considered to be.
As you should be aware, under the current rules, an individual who can 'walk' using a prosthetic limb, does not get the mobility component.
The only conclusion that I can arrive at from that is that virtually no one who uses a wheelchair is intended to get the mobility component of PIP
As if that were not enough;
Under Part 4 of The Welfare Reform Bill, no one of pensionable age will qualify for PIP at all. There is no mention that they might receive anything to replace it, not even the Attendance Allowance. There are many who were awarded the DLA, including the mobility component, when they were younger. What happens to them? Even if they do qualify for Attendance Allowance, that does not include a mobility component.
My wife is one of those who can 'get around' in a wheelchair and she can still drive a car. She is also over 65. She is far from being an isolated case. She and all the others who live in their own homes and depend on their motability cars to go anywhere will also lose them, just like those in care homes.
They will be confined to their homes in exactly the same way. All the arguments that apply to those in care homes apply equally to them.
The people in care homes are just the tip of a very big iceberg when it comes to removing the mobility component,
john Thomas
26th Feb 2011 at 9:41 pm
People with severe and enduring mental illness do not appear to be included. Schizophrenia is an illness and not a crime which is often referred to in the media as such. It is a difficult illness to diagnose as it is a fluctuating illness and not always apparent at a short interview. It is very disabling, and very tiring, The confidentiality which abounds in the professionals renders it difficult for the family or other carer to get the information required to enable them to care for the patient. Much understanding is required. It is also difficult for the patient to get suitable and regular work, especially in the present recession. There is little done in the way of rehabilitation, or in assisting to bring understanding to the patient and carers about how the illness affects them.
Alix Cull
22nd Feb 2011 at 5:31 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.