Dear Poppyknot and all
see Poopyknot's address for writing to Baroness Campbell. I have done so. She is superb and a very strong campaigner. See the following which was sent to me:
Copy of the extract from Baroness Campbell?s statement in the House of Lords on Monday 1 November 2010:
A government proposal (under the heading, ?Welfare Reform?) is to ?remove the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for people in residential care, where such costs are already met from public funds, saving £135m by 2014-15.?
In order to claim DLA, you must be under 65 at the time of the claim. The government estimates this cut will affect 58,000 disabled young people and working age adults.
My Lords, the proposal is seriously flawed for 4 reasons:
- It 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
- It conflicts with the government's policies for personalisation, independent living and encouraging disabled people to gain or retain employment
- It is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of modern residential care and the potential of the people living there.
- It is incompatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People.
My Lords, 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 places 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. My Lords, residential care homes are not intended to be prisons. We all enjoy activities outside our homes. It should be no different for those living in residential care homes.
Since the CSR announcement on this DLA saving, disability organisations have been receiving alarmed calls from people, desperate at the prospect of losing this entitlement to hard-won independence. Last week RADAR heard from Patricia King. Her son and daughter-in-law are both disabled and live in residential care. Without the mobility component, they will no longer be able to visit the doctor, dentist, bank, church, library, shops, let alone relatives and friends. The proposed changes will remove over 45% of her son's total allowances and over 69% of his wife's. Neither the local authority nor the care home, are in a financial position to offer free transport as part of their service to the residents. Patricia King, rightly in my view, calls this a cruel cut. She says, '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?'
The DWP argues that ?the measure would bring care home residents into line with hospital in-patients, who lose access to the benefit on the same basis?. But the comparison is false. People of working age living in care homes are not in the same position as patients in hospital. Residential care is their home and the base from which they engage in education, training, work, leisure, travel, family and social contact. For many it is a stepping stone to living independently in the community.
Your Lordships know that care home residents must surrender almost all of their income to support the cost of their care. They are allowed to retain only about £22 a week for personal expenses. So a basic mobility scooter costing about £1,500 is out of reach without the DLA Mobility Component of £49.85 a week. Removing that component takes away over two-thirds of the care home resident's income. It makes Britain's most severely disabled people the group who lose most from the CSR - it literally removes their mobility! Would this House consider, even for a moment, denying me my electric wheelchair or the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, his scooter? I am sure my Noble Lords would be outraged and defend our right to contribute to the work of the House. I do not accept that the national finances are such that we should now deny people living in care homes the same rights.
To be clear, the DLA mobility component helps residents:
o to maintain contact with families and friends,
o to access volunteering,
o to participate in leisure and fitness activities, and
o to be active members of their local community.
Such activities promote physical and mental health and wellbeing. They help to sustain one's sense of identity, and prevent the loss of confidence and low morale often associated with depression. The proposed modest savings in DLA are likely to be outweighed by increased demands on the NHS, and costs linked to preventing severely disabled people joining the labour market or moving on to living independently. It makes neither moral nor financial sense.
My Lords, I am deeply concerned that this cut in spending was not subject to a disability equality and human rights impact assessment; or discussed with those of us 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). Could the Minister please explain why this budgetary cut was not subject to any form of analysis?