I received the article below from Steve Donnison, of the campaigning web site Benefits and Work, it is self explanatory and highlights the doubly dealing of Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Health, when it comes to Benefits for the disabled. For those who are unaware of it, both New Labour and the Tories if they have their way, intend to abolish Attendance Allowance (AA) and in all probability Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and turn over to local councils all funding for disabled people.
Activists have for some time been lobbying the charities who work with the disabled to oppose the abolition of these vitally important benefits. Which play a major role in allowing disabled people to live a life which is not permanently mired in the poverty zone; and the depths of despair as to where the next shilling is coming from. Do not be mistaken here, these benefits are comparatively small, but for example DLA does give many disabled people the mobility to get around and live a reasonably active life.
Whilst Burnham will not budge on AA, he has said he has no plans to abolish DLA for the under 65's and there's the rub and the New Labour sleight of hand. For many of the charities have brought into this and are totally ignoring the fact the over 65's will no longer receive this benefit. When you take into account many of those who claim DLA are over 65, as you would expect as old age clocks in, his guarantee not to abolish the benefit is for some, worthless in the extreme.
As Steve Donnison points out, with a green paper in the works it is imperative the major charities keep the pressure on the Government, not as some have begun to do, accept Burnham's weasel words at face value and take the peddle of the gas.
Please read Steve's piece, and as he ask's, contact your MP and any charities you have had contact with and finally if you have not already done so, sigh this petition.
MH
-----------------------------------------------------
It’s a start, but nowhere near enough.
Health secretary Andy Burnham has said that he has ‘heard the concerns and worries about disability living allowance’. As a result, he has announced that:
“I can state categorically that we have now ruled out any suggestion that DLA for under-65s will be brought into the new National Care Service.”
Good news indeed . . . for some . . . for the moment.
But definitely not for the one and a half million people who depend on AA.
Nor for the for the three quarters of a million people aged 65 and over who receive DLA.
Not even for the 400,000 DLA claimants currently aged between 60 and 64, many of whom will have reached the age of 65 by the time labour’s proposed National Care Service is introduced.
Because, of course, DLA is not just paid to people under 65. You have to make your claim before you are 65, but you can then go on claiming indefinitely if your needs do not change.
Unfortunately, many organisations who should know better seem to have forgotten that – perhaps just as the government hoped.
Because Mr Burnham made no secret about why he made this announcement: he wants to shut people up. He said in his speech, given at a conference in Harrogate on 22nd October and also published on the Big Care Debate website:
"One avenue I do want to close down, however, is the debate and controversy over Disability Living Allowance.”"
In that ambition, he seems to have succeeded, at least so far as some disability charities are concerned.
Immediately following Burnham’s speech, Disability Alliance sent out a press release stating that:
“. . . the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) benefit will not be affected by Government plans to merge some benefits with social care funding . . . Andy Burnham's announcement will reassure disabled people that DLA is safe – for now at least.”
The Disability Charities Consortium told the media:
"This represents a real victory for disabled people who felt very strongly that the DLA should be retained and made their collective voice heard on this issue. "
Macmillan Cancer Support also issued a press release saying that:
"“Whilst we are pleased the Government has said Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will not be used to meet the shortfall in social care funding, we remain deeply concerned that Attendance Allowance (AA) is still under threat."”
But that isn’t what Andy Burnham said at all. He said DLA for under 65’s is not being considered.
This was echoed by Yvette Cooper, the DWP secretary of state who told a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on ME on 21st October that DLA for people of ‘working age’ is not under review.
It was also made clear by Burnham that there will be no transitional protection of existing awards for current claimants. Instead, ‘an equivalent 'level of support' will be provided by your local authority.
Burnham’s announcement seems to have had the desired effect, however – the ‘debate and controversy’ over DLA appears to be over as far as some disability charities are concerned. Yet, in a little over two weeks time the deadline for submissions on the green paper ends.
It’s vital that the case for saving DLA for all claimants is still made. Only now there is a real worry that not only have the disability charities relaxed, but also that Burnham will claim that because 3,000 submissions to the Big Care Debate were made before his announcement that DLA for under 65s is safe, they should mostly be discounted.
If you don’t want the government to get away with closing down ‘the debate and controversy over Disability Living Allowance’ there are things you can do.
Contact disability groups you have a connection with and warn them that they still need to respond to the green paper in relation to both DLA and AA.
Respond to the Care Green paper yourself, again if necessary, making it clear that you are aware that DLA for under 65s is not under consideration and giving your views on axing AA and DLA for people aged 65 and over.
http://careandsupport.direct.
Email: careandsupport@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Rouse people to sign the No 10 petition, which is gathering real momentum again: it now has over 19,000 signatures and is at number 8 out of over four and a half thousand petitions on the site. Not bad going for a petition that has been running for less than two months.
http://petitions.number10.gov.
Tell your MP what you think or, better still, go and visit them and tell them face-to-face.
One final thought. The revelation that the government is considering slashing the income of 2.5 million older disabled claimants was made by Andy Burnham in a keynote speech last week.
The subject of that speech?
Outlawing ageism in the NHS.
Good luck,
Steve Donnison
------------------------------------
Tony Greenstein has a post about this here.
Posts
5 comments:
Thanks for highlighting this.
You can also follow this link and see many replies received plus comments that have been added.We have been working alongside Steve D and others in raising these issues.
http://carerwatch.com/cuts/ several pages to read
The present govt, and any future ones, must not be allowed to take these proposals further.
Many of those in receipt of Attendance Allowance do not want the involvment of social services,they want to maintain their independency,the very thing that the govt say they should have.
Remove AA and for many elderly you remove their control, their choice.
With local authorities tightening care criteria there would be no guarantee that adequate cover would be given, so in effect the govt would be storing up even more trouble for the years ahead.
Many in receipt of AA have family members caring for them.They provide a minimum of 35 hours care for the pittance that Carers Allowance is.No way could local authorites come close to matching that or come anywhere close to it.
Paying in to an insurance scheme does not guarantee a payout.Who to say a person will even need it.You also have the issue surrounding continuing care costs, which are currently met by local PCTs. Too many questions and not enough answers just now, too many grey areas.
The main thing is to not look at just the issue surrounding paying for future care and how it would affect the disability benefits but also read it alongside the Welfare reform Bill. This is all about both main parties starting to streamline all the benefits, so that eventually most will claim only ESA or JSA and then ultimately a single working age benefit.
Reform is most definitely needed but not at the cost of those most vulnerable, whom in many cases cannot speak up for themselves.
If I can add one last note. Both papers have actually ignored the strong foundation family carers are. With increased support both financially and practical measures, respite care made available, more families in the future would be ensuring their loved ones maybe lived with them longer.
The battle is by no means over.....
Thanks for your link, you make some excellent points.
Especially your point about many disabled people not wanting to get involved, unless it is absolutely necessary with social services. By saying this I am in no way belittling the good work of many social workers, etc, who work in that field.
My own Dad who has now sadly died fell into this category, his reasoning was two fold, before he became ill and frail he had taken responsibility for his life since he was a young boy. He also feared if he let such people in the door he might be taken off without his consent and placed in what he called in a disparaging manner 'a home.'
Fortunately almost to the end of his life, due to family support and the benefits in question, he was able to have a reasonable quality of life. Yes, as you say there are changes needed in the system of care etc, but taking away the benefits of those who are already living independently in their own home is NOT the way to go about it.
Keep up the good work.
Hi Mick,
Like with any job there are good/bad workers - social workers just one example, dare I use MPs as another ...*wink*.
Sorry to hear about your dad and I understand perfectly about his fears of 'being taken away'.
For most families care starts in the home and that is what future plans should build on. All of the £millions profit made by private companies is a disgrace - money that should be ploughed back in to the system so even more elderly can access care and not just those with critical/substantial needs.
I have just read an article online which will be in the papers tomorrow about the issue of MPs employing family members. One has said their family member is the best person for the job.
However, under care packages that are assessed and then put in force, someone that is elderly/disabled, is NOT allowed to employ a family member living in the same household, unless under extreme circumstances or say language communication difficulties.The final decision rests with soc services.
Sorry for the rant Mick
Carerwatch,
No need to apologise for 'a rant,' as in my experience 9/10 times they are heart felt and all the better for that. I found your last two sentences very powerful and worthy of a letter to the press.
Hi Mick,
The fairytale gets better.If you get time read the articles on this link..
http://carerwatch.com/cuts/?p=117#comments
Post a Comment