 |
|
about da 
advisers benefits coalition on charging contact da disability benefits consortium home links membership policy and campaigns search shop site map support da tax credits what's new
Kate Nash, Chair of the Board of Trustees began by describing the climate in which our conference takes place. It isone where Britain is still in a recession, as well as being involved in a war in Afghanistan in which people have a new experience of disability. We have welfare and social care reform and an equality bill, all of which are being discussed (or legislated) under the shadow of an impending election. She affirmed that Disability Alliance is keen to work with whichever party is elected.
She then highlighted some of the problems which disabled people still faced. Disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as other citizens. A recent survey by Leonard Cheshire revealed that 39% of disabled people are in work, which means that there are a lot that aren't. The same report also says that 63% are in fuel poverty (31% unable to heat their homes at times in the last 12 months). There is much work still to be done to improve the situation for disabled people.
Kate then introduced Jonathan Shaw, Mark Harper and Baroness Thomas. Each gave a brief presentation then, as a panel, answered questions from the floor.
Jonathan Shaw MP, Minister for Disabled People, Department for Work and Pensions opened by saying that 10 million voters have some sort of disability and that it is therefore important that disability issues are debated.
Next year will be the 40th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person's Act (CSDPA), which was groundbreaking both in this country and as an example of good legislation to the world. Since then there has been a continuing movement to improve the lives of disabled people. He personally was a social work student when the Community Care Act came into force.
The CSDPA was concerned with services but in terms of rights there has also been the Disability Discrimination Act. Recently the Government has introduced further legislation in the form of the Equality Bill.
In January 2005 the Government published Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, a 20-year strategy for supporting disabled people. The Government is working towards the aims of that report and making steady progress. But looking back over the last 40 years what sort of "score card" would we be given for our efforts to improve the situation for disabled people?
There has been a 10% improvement in employment helped in part by the availability of Access to Work. There has also been more support for those in education provided by the Disabled Students Allowance and the Educational Maintenance Allowance.
There is still much to be done in relation to work for disabled people, particularly for those with learning disabilities.
One of central tenets of the Welfare Reform Bill is the right to control. During Jonathan's time as a social worker disabled people were passive recipients of local authority services, a situation which still operates in some measure now.
The right to control and personalised payments are all about shifting the power into the hands of disabled people. As we move to 2020 he envisages a situation in the future where disabled people occupy positions closer to the decision making and commissioning power base.
In order for legislation to succeed it is important that there is good advocacy and support available. Next year the Government will be launching the trailblazer pilots for the right to control, bringing together a variety of funding streams. There has been a great deal of interest from local authorities.
The right to control sits alongside the debate regarding care and support. It is essential that all three of these are discussed to decide how they will be handled in future. There is also a need to change attitudes.
Mark Harper MP, Conservative Shadow Minister for Disabled People began with reference to the recession and the number of young people unemployed as well as the 2.6 million who are on incapacity benefits. The numbers on these benefits and employment and support allowance is now higher than when the Government first came to power.
The Conservatives published a work programme at their last conference which is intended to cover everyone using the private and voluntary sectors to get people back into work.
The Government is moving in the same direction but the difference in the Conservative plan, he states is much simpler. The idea is that there be a single programme which is tailored to meet the individual's needs. Crucially payment to agencies employed will depend on results, chiefly results which result in a sustainable job which lasts at least a year.
Those with severe disabilities will need more help and there will be additional financial incentives paid for this help. The intention is that the savings made from getting people back into work will be reinvested into these programmes.
The Government's Invest to Save pilots (trailblazers) which start in 2011 are not considered by the Conservatives to be so ambitious. They will only cover 10-15 of those on incapacity benefits or employment and support allowance.
With reference to social care the Conservatives are also moving in the same direction as the Government but again claim to be more ambitious. Of key importance is the support given to those of working age as this is crucial to getting them back into work.
The Conservatives are committed to improving the social care system but not on the backs of those on disability benefits, especially those on AA or DLA who are over 65. They are opposed to these benefits being taken away and will campaign against the current Government attempting to do this. They will not introduce such a scheme if elected.
Baroness Thomas, Lib Dem Shadow Work and Pensions Spokesperson spoke from the perspective of someone who is disabled and who is herself in receipt of DLA.
The proposals, in the Social Care Green Paper, to use DLA and AA were met with horror and fear by those who were on them. Many thought that these benefits were going to be scrapped immediately.
There is a problem with the "three legged stool" of the benefits, health and social care systems. The first two are national, the third is local - all with different definitions of needs. There is a mistrust of any future support provided by local authorities which might be patchy.
DLA has a different purpose from social care, being for the additional costs of being disabled, such as to pay for extra heating. The Liberals believe that all severely disabled people and the terminally ill should have the same winter fuel payments as pensioners.
Social care has been underfunded for years. A national care service is to be welcomed. So far nobody has mentioned the Personal Care At Home Bill which will offer free personal care at home for those with the highest needs. This is also welcome but it is odd that it has been introduced whilst the whole care and support system is being widely consulted on. The Government has also received a "roasting" because it is considered an irresponsible spending commitment by some of their own peers.
None of the funding in the Social Care Green paper is simple so these will need wide debate. We will also need consensus of all parties to ensure continuity. There is not time for any further legislation in this area so the Personal Care At Home Bill will have to stand proxy for any wider reform.
She referred to and praised the recommendations made regarding personal care Hampshire County Council's Report Getting Personal : a fair deal for better care and support, which was published in 2008.
Leaving aside the Social Care Green paper Baroness Thomas touched on two other subjects.
The first was her concern about the number of disabled people failing the employment and support allowance (ESA) medical tests who are forced onto the harsher jobseekers' allowance (JSA) regime. The Government must ensure that those with serious health problems are either placed in the support group or given more time to prepare for work. She has spoken to a provider who was in despair about how the system is geared towards giving people just six months to get back into work when many of their clients have multiple barriers to finding employment.
One success story is the access to work scheme. An improvement would be to ensure that recipients know they have the funding before a job offer is made to make their CV more attractive to prospective employers. The scheme should also be clearly available to disabled local councillors.
Finally she praised the effect of the Disability Discrimination Act but stated that the problems were still there in relation to transport, accommodation, leisure and toilet facilities.
She finished by complementing the campaigning work done by Disability Alliance.
Q1. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of people being moved from ESA to JSA whilst at the same time being ill prepared for work. How is the Government planning to address this problem and also what would the Conservatives plan to do?
A1. [Jonathan Shaw]
ESA is a year old. The design of the work capability assessment was worked in partnership with a number of organisations. One of the concerns was about the problems for those with mental health problems and the new test asks more questions related to this than does the old personal capability assessment test.
We also promised an internal review after the first year. This will be published next month. As part of the legislation we have also promised external reviews every year for the first five years. There will be a need for flexibility of support for those taken off ESA who no longer have access to Pathways to work Schemes.
A1. [Mark Harper]
The Conservatives will be interested if the review shows that people are losing support as a result of being taken off ESA, especially those with mental health problems. There is no gain to taking them off benefit if there is no adequate support into work.
The Conservative work programme would ensure that someone would be referred to a provider, regardless of the benefit, to ensure they had adequate support.
Q2. With reference to the Conservative work programme, will access to work be ring fenced from other back to work funding schemes.
A2. [Mark Harper]
Funding will come from a variety of new deal programmes and train to gain. We like access to work and support the right to control measures in the Welfare Reform Act. We want access to work and care budgets to be wrapped in together so that this funding is available as an employment incentive before someone has a job.
Q3. Why can't people decide whether they are ready for work. The questioner also criticised the ESA assessment where claimants with mental health problems pass the test but only on appeal. Also why is there no admission that there are those who are not ready for work?
A3. [Baroness Thomas]
There are people who are not capable for work. This has become unfashionable to say. The problem is that the country has turned against anyone on benefits. This has been made worse by the media. - the tabloid press. It also doesn't help if the work capability assessment is not doing what it set out to do.
It is difficult to know how to change people's attitudes. Perhaps if people are more open about their problems.
A3. [Mark Harper]
Under ESA there is a support group for those unable to work. If we can get those who can into work then we may be able to be more generous to those who cannot work.
With regard to appeals - this indicates that the system is not doing its job in the first place.
With regard to mental health - there is quite a lot of evidence that work is good for people with mental health problems.
With regard to the media he cited the good example of the way politicians handled the suggestion that Gordon Brown was taking anti-depressants. Mark wants to repeal the law that removes MPs from office who are sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
A3. [Jonathan Shaw]
Around 5% of those on ESA are in the support group. On appeals - in around 69% of appeals on ESA the original decision is upheld in contrast to the old incapacity benefit system where 60% were successful. Jonathan also cited the success of the Rochdale employment partnerships as an example of positive working.
In future need to see more alignment between medical and employment services (employment specialists embedded within medical service and social care teams).
The Government is piloting schemes which make more flexible use of access to work.
Q4. There are problems of accessing ESA. The 0800 number is expensive if you are using a mobile phone. Filling forms over the phone takes a long time. Also the forms are complicated. Those attending a medical who have mental health problems or a learning disability will fail unless they have support.
The questionnaire is too complicated for these groups and should be simplified.
The number of appeal failures may also be due insufficient representation.
A4. [Jonathan Shaw]
There is always the competing demand between getting sufficient information, simplicity and guarding against fraud. People are encouraged to bring along companions with them for support. With regard to telephone numbers we tell Jobcentre Plus staff to ring people back (this was disputed by the questioner). We are employing more Jobcentre Plus staff to alleviate pressure.
A4. [Baroness Thomas]
Face to face assistance is supposedly provided for those having difficulty with forms but in practice this is not done.
A4. [Mark Harper]
There is a balance. If system is too simple it may be abused. There is clearly a gap in some areas between the support intended to be available and the actuality.
Q5. If you ask disabled people how they spend their AA they will say various things - taxis, shopping, help with gardening. This helps independent living. Disability Alliance in its response to the Social Care Green Paper noted a unanimous rejection of using AA for social care. AA is not subject to a limited budget and is not means tested.
What RNIB would like to see is the Government to look at alternative sources of funding utilising or restructuring the various taxation streams. What are the chances of this?
What is the Lib Dem position with regard to AA?
A5. [Jonathan Shaw]
We have stated that we intend to have a broad debate then arrive at a consensual position. Not doing anything will mean that existing system, with its faults, will continue. So in the Green Paper we asked difficult questions.
I wish that people and organisations would give a little more effort into seeing the possibilities of bringing in AA into the social care arrangement and what effect that would have on a large group of people instead of setting their face against it.
In terms of general taxation we are raising taxes next year for the wealthiest people but in terms of saying go back and look at taxation I think RNIB could do a bit better than that.
This is a green paper where we will ask the difficult questions, consider comments and suggestions then come forward with recommendations.
A5. [Baroness Thomas]
I am quite sure we would say that DLA/AA should not be rolled into the care package but cannot say yet exactly what the Lib Dem line would be.
A5. [Mark Harper]
People over 65 who are on AA/DLA use the money as they see fit. There are problems for personal care where the money is added to a social care budget.
In the best scenario you get the same amount back after an assessment, with a bit taken off for admin costs. In the worst case scenario it goes into the system and you get nothing back.
All of the five funding proposals, except for option one, assume benefits go into the pot. Transitional protection does not mean existing recipients will keep AA/DLA it means they will get an equivalent level of services. This is all moving in the opposite direction to the personalisation approach.
With reference to the Personal Care At Home Bill there is no money to fund this. The Bill has been criticised by Labour peers.
Q6. What does an equivalent level of support mean? Is it an equivalent level of financial support? Would the Government accept the general consensus if people want AA to be retained?
A6. [Jonathan Shaw]
The process of consultation has to conclude first. Other parties are not saying how this care should be funded. Taking account of AA could provide a system which will see us into the future. These are difficult questions but do we want the existing unsatisfactory system to carry on into the future? I hope that after the debate we will conclude on consensus.
A6. [Mark Harper]
We don't agree that the system should stay as it is and support a National Care Service.
Also we have to spend the money we use, whatever the source, better. Current spending does not deliver good outcomes.
On the consensus point. Consensus does not mean everyone agreeing with what the Government wants to do. Consensus means sitting down and discussing things.
Q7. Have the Conservatives got more detail on the modelling for their proposal of £8000 to cover care costs?
A7. [Mark Harper]
This is predicated on how many people go into care and the amount of time they spend there. The modelling suggested that under an insurance system this would be adequate. It is not possible to fund free personal care from the taxpayer. Scotland made a promise to fund free personal care but cannot deliver this.
Q8. How much funding does DWP provide to ensure that disabled people have access to independent advice? How does this compare with 5 years ago and what about the future?
A8. [Jonathan Shaw]
I don't have the figures available but we have made grants available via the Department of Health and the DWP to assist user led organisations. For a system to be equitable people need good advocacy and support. I've seen good models of this working around the country but it is patchy. The trailblazers are important to develop effective models.
During the recent care and support and broader welfare debates Disability Alliance has come under some criticism for being too close to Government.
We make no apology for working as closely as we can with Government and hope that people recognise that when we are working with Government we have the best interests of tackling disability poverty. That's our objective.
We receive no DWP funding. We do have HMRC funding.
We work to improve the policies of any and all political parties. We believe that it is more important than ever that our voices are heard in the run up to the general election.
On the current reform programme we have major reservations about several things, many of which have been touched on.
We have concerns about the ESA assessment. Many people are unable to access personalised support and higher levels of benefit. We are working with the DWP to see how Pathways to Work can be extended.
In social care the main issue is the integration of AA/DLA into local authority budgets. We are very worried about the effect of this on recipients.
A third of disabled pensioners not receiving a disability benefit are living in poverty. We believe that AA is not just about social care but about addressing the additional costs of living disabled people experience. We support the retention of AA as a national non means tested benefit.
We are developing a disability manifesto and want all parties to arrive at a shared consensus of ideas to take into the 2010 general election. The Government has paid a lot attention to child poverty and pensioner poverty but the research suggests that disabled people more routinely experience poverty across the life course. Disabled people are still twice as likely to live in poverty.
Watch our website for the manifesto launch. We will be very interested in hearing your ideas.
Natasha presented an amusing and empowering selection from her autobiographical stage play Rolling with Laughter (www.rollingwithlaughter.com), which documents her life coping with disability.
You can view her showreel on YouTube.
The work shop was run by Catherine Davies from the Department of Health and Dave Burke from the DWP. Its aim was to discuss how the Government will be turning ideas and concerns about care reform into a White Paper with more concrete plans for change.
Kathryn made a presentation about the response to the Social Care Green Paper.
She said that there was a high response. This will be more fully analysed by Mori but generally people were supportive of the vision but wanted more breakdown on the funding streams. There was support for all three funding options as well as the taxation option. There were also concerns about using benefits as part of the funding.
Views on national vs local system were equally divided, with strong views on both sides.
The White Paper is scheduled to appear in early 2010. The new system is designed to be implemented in 2014.
Views expressed in the workshop included:
 |
