Category: News and Views
Claimants have just 100 days to prevent their DLA and AA being abolished.
A government green paper has revealed proposals to stop paying 'disability benefits, for example, attendance allowance'' and hand the cash over to social services instead.
Under the plan, current claimants would have their disability benefits converted to a 'personal budget' administered by local authorities and used to pay for services - not to spend as they wish.
Once the green paper consultation period ends in 100 days time, if an almighty row has not been raised, it is likely that both major political parties will see the lack of outrage as a green light to end both DLA and AA.
We're looking for a minimum of 1,000 claimants, carers and support workers to join our campaign to save these benefits from being abolished.
Find out how you can take part from this link:
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/disability-living-allowance-(dla)/dla-aa-cuts
We know that many people will take false comfort from the fact that, unlike AA, DLA is not specifically named as being for the axe. But if the government was planning only to abolish AA it is extremely unlikely that they would refer constantly throughout the green paper to 'disability benefits', a term which includes not just AA but also DLA.
Others will dismiss this as just another idle discussion document and our concerns as scare mongering.
But it's much more than that.
36 meetings have already been organised around the country for people working in government and the caring professions to meet to be told about the setting up of a new National Care Service which would oversee the system. In addition, a stakeholders panel of more than 50 voluntary sector organisations, trades unions and academics has been established to offer advice to the government.
Some organisations and individuals, such as RNIB and welfare rights worker Neil Bateman writing for Community Care magazine, have already voiced their alarm.
But not every disability organisation is opposed to the proposals and some even agree with them.
In a press release, Disability Alliance has welcomed the publication of the green paper and said that it 'looks forward to working alongside Government and all the other stakeholders in bringing these plans into fruition.' They have even said that they agree that there is a case for 'integrating disability benefits such as attendance allowance' into the new system.
One thing everyone does seem to agree on is that huge cuts in public spending will have to take place in the next few years as a result of the credit crunch and global recession.
Political parties are desperately looking for the softest targets to be the victims of these cuts. Dismissing the green paper's proposals as hot air and not worth worrying about could be the costliest mistake you ever make.
Find out more about the proposed abolition of DLA and AA and how you can join our campaign to fight back:
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/disability-living-allowance-(dla)/dla-aa-cuts
this smacks of the labour govt taking from the worst off. as it stands, our disability laws in the UK are a travasty, compultion bearing down on the disabled person to find work is greater than that on the employer to make the most rudumentary changes to their practisces to make employment of disabled people a possibility, and if we go down this route, disabled people who live in this fucked up country are gonna be in a worst position than immigrants who come here illegally. this proposal is dreadful. the nanny state at its worst. thanks for posting. i have posted this to email lists.
and in the FAQ on that site, they said that the care component would be put into a nindevidual budget. Now how would that affect blind people. we don't need spacific care as such and the individual budget would proscribe what we could spend the care component on. so it takes indipendance away from blind people, who have never been served well by the british benifits system in the past, so no change there as regards access to needed cash. in the UK blind people, in my view, are punished for being blind, they have no meaningful help into employment, no ready access to benifits without serious recourse to testss and such, unlike wheelchair users who get a far better deal, as refrenced by the recent fight for higher rate mobility component for blind people, which is due to be paid to the most seriously affected blind, no vision at all, or light and dark perception from 2011. for which we'll have to go for tests. Now the ESA? that's another issue entirely. the Govt believes that blind people are on an even footing with sighted employees now. that's rubbish. employers see blind person first, employee second, and that's the plain truth of it. i have sighned this potition. I am not saying blind people should live on benifits for life, but they should have accesss to fair work, and there is not that today. i can't even get work experience without a lot of hassle from those who would rather i just shut up and be content with living the benifits lifestyle, and will use health and safety concerns to deny blind people work. the benifits system is unequal in so many ways, yes wheelchair users need care, of course they do, but blind people need help also. if this new proposal goes through, it will be the worse for those who's only disability, surprisingly, is that they have no use of their eyes. the way this is set up, they will have no use of their lives either. i, for one, am very depressed at this turn of events. this govt hit the most vulnrable, the disabled, and the most volnrable amongst those, the blind persons, who have a disability noone understands, but everyone fears. you only have to look at popular culture to determine that one.
to clarify, wheelchair users get high rate mobility as a right, which is access to a tax payer funded car which they have to change every three years, this is paid for, taxed, and mot-ed and all they ahve to do is put petrol in it. they get big benifits on top of this, and this is purely because they are seen as imobile. hmm, put a blind person in a strange city and see if they cope. they wouldn't. this is the argument used to win the higher rate mobility component.
Not so long ago, I attended a council meeting which was looking at empowering disabled people, by giving them control of their care budgets, instead of the council deciding how it is spent. They would be given as much help as they need to manage the money, but they could spend it as they choose. They can go to the cinema, bowling, or even McDonalds with their social worker.
It would also be used to help people who are isolated and currently not receiving any social care services. There are visually impaired people who will benefit from that. Some visually impaired people struggle to get out, but wouldlove to go swimming, or horse riding for example. The new changes will make that possible, with the assistance of a social worker.
I don't think DLA will be scrapped, unless it is replaced with another benefit that is as or more benefitial than DLA. What may change is how the care component is used, but if that happens, the aim will be to give disabled people more choice and control over what they do. I think disabled people will be able to have complete control over how they use their money if they want to, without social workers having any involvement in their lives. It is up to each disabled individual how much they wish to be helped by social services. There are only a certain amount of social workers in each area, so I'm sure local authorities will want to encourage people who can care for themselves to do so.
the Benefits and Work website referred to by the OP says: At a time when most politicians seem proud to treat sick and disabled claimants with harshness and suspicion, independent and accurate information about how to claim and keep your benefits is vitally important.
It seems that they like to provoke anxiety and build on/take advantage of it. There are too many organisations with this attitude. They are unhelpful and unreasonable, they don't explain things clearly and impartially to people; consequently their disabled followers don't have a propper understanding of the issues, and they alienate their disabled followers by encouraging them to be suspicious and fearful of able-bodied people and those who actually want to help them. As a result, it is very difficult for national and local government to engage with disabled people so improvements to services can be made.
Hmm extreme scepticism over this Senior... How many blind people actually have a social worker? When did they last see them? Does anyone really believe that a social worker would take you swimming? Horse riding? To a football match? To the pub? Certainly I doubt they'd ever come to the pub with you. All local government do is put you on a waiting list and complain about how much paper work they have to do. So is some of our money going to be used to employ extra people for the likes of the above as well? Yeh right.....
Yes they are moving in that direction. However, there is a debate to be had as to whether local government should be recruiting people to take disabled people swimming, horse riding or to the king of burgers. The problem with this approach is that it is personalised, so those who take advantage are only with the same social worker. If you're depending on that same social worker every day you wish to step outside your home, that can't be as good as being with other people, whether they are friends, or local people who have the same disability as you.
My personal view is that activities should be provided by user-led voluntary organisations, with financial assistance from local government and other funders.
That being said, there are people who are completely isolated. The local voluntary sector is completely useless because of the decision makers therein and to a lesser extent because of lack of funding. It is better that they get a service from local government, that enables them to go to places they wouldn't otherwise be able to go, than it would be to leave them in isolation. I have scrutonised the forms the service users will have to complete, and I can assure you that people will be able to choose how their money is spent. If they wish for their money to go in their account so they have complete control, it will go in their account.
This service will be of particular benefit to those who have poor maths skills, and who don't have a great social life.
There are bigger problems affecting disabled people, such as backward attitudes and I don't mean somebody asking somebody else a question that they would have asked you if only you could see or not providing your preferred equipment; no, I mean proper nasty unprovoked and unfair unchallenged discrimination that can cause serious emotional injury but go completely unpunished. That's a lot worse than somebody taking you to the cinema isn't it?
if we had the choice, I'd be fine with that, but it certainly hasnt' been put across that way.
I think the massive flaw with this is that it will end up like a postcode lottery, where what you are entitled to will end up depending on where you live.
I also think that there are a lot more vulnerable people at risk from this, such as those with severe disabilities. Reality is that most blind people do have the ability to get out there and lead independent lives, isolation cannot be blamed on the disability.
Also, while the idea of going swimming with one's social worker is all very well, social services are overstretched enough as it is without having the time or the resources to be able to take their clients swimming!
what a social worker can and can't do is very regulated, and i don't think swimming is something they can do with clients at present.
and nore should it be. lol the day i need a bloody escort is the day when i'm dead an berried. i should think local government would have something far more important to do than to handhold a bunch of blind people who if they could be bothered to do something, could do.
The extent to which visually impaired people are isolated and independent varies from person to person. A one-size-fits-all approach would be totally inadequate. Those who want all the money to go straight into their bank accounts should choose that option. Those who would like somebody to take them out should work with the service provider on a budget that will make that possible. Service users won't be paying for the social workers. They will only be paying for the activity. So if the social worker just takes them walking through Ravensthorpe between 2:15 and 3:45 PM, that will not cost anything.
I think Sugarbaby's postcode lottery point is a good one. I believe that people should expect the same level of service where ever they live. It is worth pointing out that some people live in areas where transport links are not as good as where I live. This makes it more difficult and possibly expensive for them to travel independently. That is why the budget shouldn't include travel costs and I hope it doesn't. That may vary from area to area though. I will do my best to make sure it doesn't include travel costs in my area if there is a chance that it could include travel costs, as to include these costs would result in the service not benefitting those it is intended to benefit.
Another problem is that some disabled people like to do everything. If you give them a choice EG: going to the cinema, going bowling, going somewhere to eat, they'll choose the lot. Social workers need to know how to present the choices in a way that results in the service users being able to do as much as they want to without going over-budget.
To answer the point about resources, new social workers will be recruited or transferred where appropriate.
Sugar, who has put this information across to you other than the scaremongering website? As I said in a previous post, some advocates take every opportunity to provoke fear, mistrust and opposition. Those people need pushing out of the third sector, so all information of this kind is presented in a clearer totally impartial and user-friendly manner. I believe disabled people and other members of the public should be able to speak for themselves, and that politicians should listen to people instead of organisations.
I know for a fact that social workers can take people swimming.
For the record, it is my intention to be in full control of any money that is allocated to me. I believe that the voluntary sector should provide social and recreational activities to a group of people. I don't like the idea of 1-to-1 activities with the same social worker.
The main concern I have focused on when scrutonising the service is the complaints process. People who wish to complain about the service they receive need to feel comfortable doing so, and assured that they won't be intimidated or suffer any hostility or retalliation in response to the complaints they make.
Admittedly, I found out about this online. But whether it is scare mongering or not, I'm willing to take that chance.
I think that the possibility is that people will have to do things with one person and the service user will not know how to complain. How many times in your life have you been made aware of a complaints proceedure, correct or otherwise? I'd like to hazzard a guess at not many...
Of course travel costs will come out of the budget. Where else do you think the money will come from to pay them? We don't get our travel costs paid now, why do you expect that to ever be any different?
If the social worker is taking you places the social worker should have a car and the usual expenses procedures should be used. It shouldn't come out of your budget and I wasn't under the impression that it would.
Organisations aren't good at making people aware of how to complain. Some are very obstructive.
I believe there will be a number people can ring to complain about the service in my area. I can't speak for other areas as I have only met with people from my local authority about this.
Before, people were simply sent to daycare. They may not want to be in daycare. They may want to do other things with their time. Now, they will be able to. People are being given more choice than they've ever had. Where I live, a scrutony pannel is being set up and it will have the power to scrutonise this new service from the point of view of visually impaired people. I don't volunteer for organisations that deal with other disabilities, so I don't know if similar pannels are being set up for those disabilities.
I can tell you though, that the most obstructive people are the people representing voluntary sector organisations. The panel I've described above isn't functioning because voluntary sector organisations are fighting for power. They are putting themselves before the people they are supposed to serve.
The intended structure of the panel is as follows. 4 visually impaired people (1 blind, 1 partially sighted, 1 ethnic minority), 2 voluntary sector reps (representing the entire sector not their organisations), a social worker, and healthcare representatives.
This structure means that all angles relating to service provision for visually impaired people are represented. The only problem is that there are 6 voluntary sector organisations, and some people believe that each organisation should be represented individually on the panel. As a consequence, services for visually impaired people and the important adjustments are currently not being discussed in the necessary detail.
I imagine there are similar problems in some areas. Others don't even have any big enough properly functioning voluntary sector organisations.
In my previous post I said:
If the social worker is taking you places the social worker should have a car and the usual expenses procedures should be used. It shouldn't come out of your budget and I wasn't under the impression that it would.
I am led to believe that councils are already investing in services that give people the opportunity, with the assistance of a proffessional carer (not necessarily a social worker) to do things they wouldn't otherwise be able to do such as go shopping, go to the cinema, etc.
Another thing to point out if I haven't already (I don't think I have), is that service users may be able to nominate somebody who is independent of the council to help them do things, such as a relative.
I don't get a lot for dla anyway, so wouldn't really care much if it did get abolished, but I know a few people would be worse off for example those with actual disabilities rather than just being blind. Sorry for not listening properly, but does the change just apply to us blind people or to all "disabled" people?
It applies to all disabled people who want it. Those who want to manage their own money will be able to, but those who find money difficult to manage, or those who would like somebody to take them places would have to budget using the money.
The person I want an update from is on anual leave which doesn't end until Wednesday but once she returns I'll be able to find out more.
I was told today that one of my friends had an e-mail to say that DLA is now not being stopped. Don't know what's happening now. Does anyone else know?
DLA wasn't being stopped in the first place. If anything, it was going to increase. The issue wasn't the benefit, but how certain components of it will be used.
Today I have received the information I attempted to obtain regarding personal budgets.
Personal budgets are not a substitute for DLA or incapacity benefit. These benefits will not be affected by the personal budget, because unlike the other benefits, the personal budget isn't income.
Personal budgets are intended to be spent on specific services to do with a person's care. For example, a person could use their personal budget to go shopping or to the cinema with a social worker (I'm not sure what their official title will be). You could go with your mum to these places using the same money.
You can either receive services, or receive a direct payment, but soon it will be possible to do a combination of both. Unlike other payments, this payment will be monitored so it is used for the purposes agreed during your person-led assessment. You can also review your budget and make alterations to it.