Comment: DLA confusion is not helping anyone

Monday, 11 April 2011 9:00 AM

The government needs to clarify the changes to the mobility allowance.

By Jane Alltimes

There continues to be confusion around the removal of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from people in residential care following the Budget, and the debate rumbles on. This has not been helped by the government's continuing shift in rationale on this issue - to date, they have offered eight different justifications for its proposed removal. Not only this, but they have changed the predicted numbers of people affected from 55,000 to 80,000, delayed implementation from October 2012 to March 2013, and included an additional year of predicted savings for the Budget in contrast to the earlier spending review.

Most recently, the prime minister stated in response to a question from Ed Miliband, that the government "are not" removing the mobility component of DLA from care home residents. Technically, the prime minister is right as the welfare reform bill actually abolishes DLA and replaces it with the new personal independence payment (PIP). Like DLA, this new benefit will include a mobility component to help meet the additional needs of disabled people in relation to getting about. However, clause 83 of the same bill proposes the removal of the mobility component from care home residents as part of PIP. An additional layer of confusion is the complete lack of detail about eligibility for PIP. Some people are likely to lose out. We just don't know for sure who they'll be.

What is clear is that the welfare reform bill in its current form does make provision to remove PIP mobility from people living in residential care. While implementation has been delayed by six months and the government has committed to a review of the situation, the reality is that the projected savings as per the Budget are based on all people in state-funded residential care losing their PIP mobility. The government aims to recoup around £470 million by 2015/16 as a consequence of this policy.

It is absolutely essential that the government's commitment to review the mobility needs of disabled people in residential care does not distract from the fact that the legislative measure that would enable the removal of the mobility component remains in the bill. It is also essential that we get clarity about what this review will look like. The impact assessment published alongside the welfare reform bill states that "the Department will review the support given by DLA against the responsibilities of care homes", but all indications from the Department for Work and Pensions have been that this is not a formal review and there are no public terms of reference, opportunities for people to contribute or date when the review will conclude. On the other hand, the prime minister suggested that Ed Miliband "take part" in the review during PMQs. This lack of clarity has led to the recently tabled early day motion (1705) which is calling on the government to listen to the views of disabled people and clarify details of the review.

The government has stated that there are issues of 'overlap' and 'confusion' in relation to the provision of personal mobility costs. If anything, the confusion has grown from the inconsistencies in the government's numerous arguments for the proposal. Two reports by a coalition of disability charities and care home providers, endorsed by the Association of Directors of Social Services, clearly outline how DLA mobility is used by disabled people, giving them choice and control about what works best for them - and further showing that mobility needs are not being met elsewhere. There is absolute consensus from these organisations that removal of the mobility component from those living in residential care will have a devastating impact on the 80,000 disabled people it will affect. We need clarification on this issue and we need it quickly.

Jane Alltimes is senior campaigns and policy officer at Mencap.

The opinions in politics.co.uk's Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.

Tags:
• comment