Leonard Cheshire Should Be Ashamed

In October, I attended a debate at the National Children And Adult Services Conference run by Leonard Cheshire Disability. The title of the debate was ‘Care Homes for Disabled People – Yesterday’s Solution?’.

I was obviously arguing that residential care was an outdated model for Disabled People in 2009, however Leonard Cheshire Disability were arguing that Disabled People should have options and choices, and residential care should be one of the options.

Some readers may be sympathetic to Leonard Cheshire Disability’s position however you might change your mind after reading Peter Beresford’s recent blog article in the Guardian.

As Peter points out, despite lots of positive media campaigns and progressive language this leopard still has not managed to change its spots.  

Challenging Charges For Social Care Services

Thanks to NCIL for passing on this information.

 

The Coalition on Charging is a group of organisations chaired by the National Centre for Independent Living (NCIL). The coalition was established to campaign against the current system of charging for community care services.

 

The Coalition members include: NCIL, Age Concern, Scope, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Disability Alliance, Alzheimer’s Society, People First, Mind, Radar, the Alliance for Inclusive Education, Counsel and Care, United Kingdom Disabled Peoples Council (UKDPC), Action for Blind People, Royal National Institute for the Deaf, Arthritis Care, British Polio Fellowship, Carers UK, Equalities, Help the Aged, the Parkinson’s Disease Society, Mencap.

 

The Coalition is writing an up to date report, highlighting the current situation with charging for care, to ensure that the issue is on the government’s agenda when looking at the future of social care.

 

Our survey:

 

As part of the report we want to include feedback from people who are affected by charging. We have developed a survey that will be used to help the Coalition on Charging produce good information.

 

The report is aimed at the Department of Health and Government. A Government consultation (‘green’) paper on reform is due out sometime in 2008.  The Government has said that it ‘believes that there are real opportunities for reform within a system that shares the cost between the individual and the state’.

 

However, in our view, it is very important that they look at the effects on people of the current charging system and hear the views of people who are currently being charged for their support.

 

In order that we can include your views please can you respond to this survey by May 1 2008.

 

Please fill in the question on personal details. It is important for us to know your age as adult services are often provided for ‘adults’ and ‘older people’. We will not pass on any personal information and will make all responses anonymous in the report.

 

The Coalition has one set of survey questions for individual people who need support and their carers. There is a separate set of survey questions for organisations representing people who need support and representing carers. Please fill in the right survey.

 

You can download them here:

 

charging-survey-for-individuals

 

charging-survey-for-organisations

 

If you are involved in a forum or network, if you were able to discuss this issue that would be very useful.

 

The survey is for all adults in England who use (or have used) local authority social services for support in their own home. This includes people who use (or have used) direct payments. It does not include people who use residential care services.

 

This survey is aimed at all disabled and older people who use community care services.

 

We apologise for the short amount of time given to return the survey but we hope you will be able to give us your views.

 

Please send your completed survey by May 1 2008 to NCIL,  Fourth Floor, Hampton House, 20 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TJ or to policy@ncil.org.uk or fax to 0207 587 1663

 

 

Southampton Delivers Charging Blow to Direct Payments Users

Over two years ago, despite protests from SCIL and the majority of Direct Payments users in Southampton, Southampton City Council decided to introduce charging for Direct Payments users. For a number of reasons, the policy has not been implemented…until now.

This week, all Direct Payments users will receive a letter asking them to complete a form about their individual circumstances. Based on this information, Southampton City Council will then assess whether the user will pay a charge for Direct Payments.

SCIL completely oppose the introduction of charging and believe that it is fundamentally wrong for people to have to pay towards having their human rights met.

SCIL also believes that the amount of revenue actually raised by such policies is a lot less than many authorities claim once you take into account the costs of financially assessing users and administering the charges. We also question whether trying to collect accurate information from users without actually visiting them is going to be possible, particularly when disability related expenditure needs to be considered.

Indeed the Fairer Charging guidance issued by the Department of Health states ‘The process should not be primarily paper-based, or carried out by post, as a full list of possible items without explanation could be confusing for users. The process should be flexible enough to deal with differences in the needs of individual users. Users will very often need personal help and advice on how to claim. Assessments involving disability-related expenditure should, therefore, normally be carried out by personal interview in the user’s own home.’

SCIL has already had many concerned users contact us and we have therefore decided to hold an ‘open day’ where users can visit SCIL and receive help to complete the form. We will also be providing users with information on disability related expenses although this in no way absolves the local authority from their responsibility to provide face to face financial assessments to users.

The ‘open day’ will be on Friday April 11 2008 between 10am and 4pm. Direct Payments Support Workers will be on hand to give information, advice and support throughout the day. Obviously, we will also be visiting people at home if they are unable to get to SCIL, although Southampton City Council has set very tight deadlines for getting the forms completed. Please ring 023 8033 0982 or email directpayments@southamptoncil.co.uk for more information.

Below is an advice sheet produced by HCODP about preparing for a financial assessment. Please feel free to download it if you think it might be useful.   

Advice Sheet on Financial Assessments  

Harrow Council Ignored Rights of Disabled People

Just before Christmas, a key case about Disability rights and changes in eligibility criteria was decided in the High Court. The judge found a local council had acted unlawfully when introducing its new policy because it had breached its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act.

The case, brought by the Public Law Project (PLP) on behalf of three service-users in Harrow, was a challenge to Harrow Council’s decision in July this year to restrict the support services it currently provides to people with critical needs only, withdrawing support from those who had substantial needs.The latter category includes those whose independence is at substantial risk if their needs are not addressed, including those who have only partial choice and control over their immediate environment, an inability to carry out the majority of personal care or domestic routines or an inability to maintain the majority of social support systems and relationships.

Local groups had grave concerns that such a restriction in services would leave hundreds of Disabled and Older people without essential support.

In the High Court, Judge David Mackie QC held that the decision to introduce the new policy was unlawful as the Council had failed to meet its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act. He described how the Council had failed to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and to promote equality of opportunity: “there is no evidence that this legal duty and its implications were drawn to the attention of decision-takers”.

The Council will now have to reconsider the issue ensuring that they meet this fundamental duty and protect the rights of disabled people when deciding whether to go ahead with the new policy or not.

The full court judgement can be read at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3064.html

Hampshire’s Consultation on Direct Payments

As previously reported, Hampshire Adult Services with the support of Children’s Services is undertaking a review of Direct Payments. Hampshire state the the purpose of the review is to ‘make it easier for people to obtain and use Direct Payments, while at the same time making sure that Hampshire County Council meets its duty of care for individuals and its legal obligation to account for the way in which public money (Direct Payments) is used.’

Hampshire believe that the proposed changes presented in the consultation document are the best way of improving Direct Payments.These proposed changes relate to Self Assessment, Direct Payments Risk Assessment, Support Agency Role and Outcome based care planning. 

The full consultation document and questionnaire can be found here. 

Following a number of concerns raised by SCIL, HCIL and Carers Together regarding the accessibility of the document and questionnaire, Hampshire have organised 3 workshops around Hampshire for users to give their views.

According to the website, ‘The workshops will provide people with information about the proposals and an opportunity to discuss them in small working groups. The information will be explained and people will be able to ask questions so that that can get a clear understanding of the proposals. People will also have time to talk about their personal views during small group sessions and be able to put these forward via the group or by completing the questionnaire.’

The workshops are from 10am to 1pm on the following days:

Tuesday 16 October at Horndean Centre (Horndean Technology College)

Wednesday 17 October at The Maltings Centre – Centennial Room in Alton

Friday 18 October at Wells Place Centre in Eastleigh

Places are limited to 60 people per venue so you must book in advance by emailing the Adult Services Department or contacting the Direct Payments telephone helpline 01962 833039 

HCIL and HCODP are also hoping to host a joint meeting regarding the consultation in early November – details to be confirmed.

The consultation runs until Friday 14 December.

Improving Hampshire’s Direct Payments Scheme?

Hampshire Centre for Independent Living have already received concerns from Direct Payments users after a report entitled ‘Improving Hampshire’s Direct Payments Scheme’ was submitted to Hampshire County Council’s cabinet meeting on 23 July.

This report outlined some of the areas that would be covered in a consultation document due to be released this autumn. It may appear premature for people to raise concerns before the consultation document is even released however it is interesting which issues have been focussed on, in the report to cabinet. 

Firstly, Hampshire are consulting on whether users should be financially assessed over the phone rather than in person, and whether this should occur at the user’s initial contact with Adult or Children Services. 

Secondly, Hampshire wish to introduce a ‘Direct Payments Risk Assessment’. This will record and combine information on the size of the Direct Payment, the user’s perceived ability to manage their Direct Payment and other evidence that will enable a profile to be built up and understand whether the user is using their Direct Payments appropriately.

Thirdly, they will be consulting on tightening up the controls and governance of the assistance available to users from Support Worker Organisations such as Enham and SCIL.

Fourthly, Hampshire are proposing to introduce ‘outcome planning’ to ensure that all users agree their desired outcomes before agreeing to receive Direct Payments.

All these proposals seem to be heading in a particular direction and it will be interesting to read the consultation document in full when it is released in Autumn 2007.  

Our Lives, Our Choices National Rally

Our Lives, Our Choices is the campaign for the right to independent living. The campaign is being supported by many organisations such as NCIL, as well as trade unions, MPs and Peers. As part of the campaign, a National Rally is being held on 18 June between 12 and 2pm at 10 Downing Street in London.  

At the rally, stories of Disabled People who are struggling to live independently will be presented to the Prime Minister. Disabled People will be demanding legislation that guarantees their right to the support they need to live free and equal lives. 

The Disabled People’s (Independent Living) Bill is a private member’s bill sponsored by Lord Ashley of Stoke and Roger Berry MP. If passed, the Bill would give Disabled and Older People clear legal rights to the services and support needed to control their own lives and participate in society.  

Even if you cannot come to the rally, you can still support the campaign. You can request a ‘Our Lives, Our Choices’ campaign pack which will tell you everything you need to know about the Independent Living Bill. It also contains model letters that you can send to your MPs and local authority and tips on how to get the local media to talk about the campaign.

For more information email policy@ncil.org.uk or look on the website www.ncil.org.uk

One Day They Will Come For You

Thanks to Hampshire Centre for Independent Living for this article giving a short history of means tested charging for social care services…… 

Back in 1990 my friend Mark, Chairman of the local Coalition of Disabled People, started a campaign to resist the introduction of means tested charging for services to older people.  Many of us though sympathetic to the organisation only half-heartedly supported this campaign. ’It is only old people in nursing homes’ we thought. Mark was adamant that even though this did not affect most of us, nonetheless it had to be opposed because it was wrong to discriminate in such a manner. Besides, he said, one day the policy might come to include us. 

In our ignorance we thought the proposals sounded reasonable.  After all we secretly reasoned. these were elderly people now in ‘care’, probably beyond active life.  Surely it was reasonable to ask them to contribute to the cost of their well being?  The sums were not punitive, mere pocket money.  Research amongst them had found support even though the researchers admitted that many were incapable of understanding the questions let alone giving a reasoned answer. 

The subsequent history is simple. Mark led the coalition in challenging the local authority.  The first measure was to ask for wider consultation amongst the disability community.  The local government commissioned further research which they said again gave majority support for their proposals.  Indeed the local authority did this exercise twice, each time conducting the ‘survey’, each time compiling the results, each time gaining the answer they wanted. 

The local authority ‘survey’ was loaded.  Mark and the coalition were convinced that ‘turkeys do not vote for Christmas’.  They never have and they never will.  Local politicians know that given a choice voters support parties who reduce taxes.  Is it really likely that disabled people are going to say they want to pay for services?  That they are happy to pay a ‘disability tax’? Ah but the authority asked cunning questions:

Do you think we should help as many people as we can? Yes/No 

Do you agree that those who can afford to should contribute towards the cost of their service? Yes/No 

Yes of course we should help as many people as we can.

Yes of course rich people should contribute towards the cost of their service.

Never mind the research, Mark was right, the means testing and charging policy for social care services was wrong in principle.  It was wrong because it is discriminatory.  Furthermore Mark has been proved right in saying that this policy would one day affect us all.

Another reason why people thought the practice acceptable was that the sums involved were of pocket money proportions.  A tickle rather than a fatal stabbing.  But Mark was wise and saw that the introduction of this policy was the thin edge of a wedge At the time none of us had personal experience of being charged for social services. 

We did not know about the financial assessment process.  A violation, a degrading and humiliating experience, a laying bare of ones life, an enforced exposing of all ones personal income and expenditure to a previously unknown apparatchik who records every detail ‘for the office’ and decides whether or not we are judged able to contribute to the cost of our care.  The threshold being the national ‘subsistence level plus 25%’, any monies above this must be used to buy your own care or pay the local authority ‘charge’ per hour.

Turn to 2006. At regular intervals over the intervening years the means testing and charging policy has been reviewed and each time history is repeated, the result has been to broaden the scope and depth of the practice.  First it was just elderly people in nursing homes and only pocket money, now it affects all disabled people, all people using services and the sums can be anything up to £385 per week. 

So what is the point of this history? Simple.  The policy was introduced in a reasonable manner.  It appeared harmless, only affecting one small group, old people in the nursing homes.  The sums involved were of pocket money proportions.  It all seemed harmless, tolerable, acceptable.  And besides all that it did not include us. Over time the scope and depth of the policy has deepened and widened such that at the end of 16 years all disabled people are significantly affected.  What we thought was nothing to do with us now bites us all and bites hard.

That is the background.  That is the history.  Those are the facts.   Anybody anywhere in Europe who believes that the means tested charging policy is acceptable as long as the practice is ‘fair and reasonable’ needs to look to England and see that not only is the policy discriminatory, its application is punitive and far from fair and reasonable.  It is a hidden tax on impairment, a cancer secretly eating its way through our society and ‘no one’ speaks out against it until it bites them. 

‘Ask not for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee’  (John Donne)

Top Blog Articles of 2006

As we say goodbye to 2006, and beckon in the new year, I thought it was an apt time to reveal the most viewed articles on the SCIL blog for 2006. 

1. Anti Discrimination Laws in the Workplace
2. We don’t do that sort of thing…do we?
3. We Know Inclusion Works
4. I’m with Stupid (but I’m not Laughing)
5. Active Euthanasia for Disabled Babies Being Considered
6. Welcome to the SCIL Blog
7. Is Disability the new Reality TV Gimmick?
8. Shock as Hampshire Split Direct Payments Contract

Hopefully, there will be lots more interesting articles on the SCIL blog in the coming year so stayed tuned. Happy New Year from all at SCIL. 

Repeal Community Care Charging This Christmas

The Radio 4 “Today” programme is running a ‘Christmas Repeal’ where they are asking listeners to write in or email suggestions of any laws that listeners feel should be repealed. A panel of politicians and legislation experts will shortlist six suggestions which will then be put to the public vote.

Jim Elder Woodward, Director of Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living, suggests that there should be an end to community care charging and suggests that if enough people draw the panel’s attention to the unfair policy, it may be put on the short list and then it will be featured on the ‘Today’ programme.  

The legislation that needs to be repealed is section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 which states authorities may make reasonable charges for domiciliary services. 

It is important to note that this legislation in no way insists that local authorities charge for these services, however all local authorities do now charge for at least some domiciliary services. The effect of this is that thousands of disabled people and older people are being charged simply because they may need support with basic living tasks, such as dressing and washing. 

Following many complaints regarding the variety and complexity of charging policies being adopted by local authorities, the Department of Health issued statutory guidance in 2003 called ‘Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services: Guidance for Councils with Social Services Responsibilities’ 

This guidance was meant to ensure that if local authorities chose to charge, that it was done in a fair and equitable way, however this guidance has only encouraged more local authorities to introduce or extend charging, using the ‘equity’ argument.

Local authorities tend to argue that the amount of funding they receive from central government is calculated on the assumption that they will receive revenue from charging, so they have to continue charging. Central government argue that it is up to local authorities whether they charge, so there is nothing they can do. Whilst central and local government blame each other, it is Disabled People who pay the highest price for this immoral legislation.

So, this Christmas, instead of sticking some change in a charity tin, lend your support to our campaign to get community care charging repealed by adding your voice to the ‘Christmas Repeal’.