Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
The Low Review
check out the Low Review website @ http://lowreview.org.uk/
Chaired by Lord Low of Dalston and supported by a steering group of experts in the field, the Low Review was set up in July 2011 to provide a public review to complement the Government’s own internal review into the removal of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment from disabled people living in residential care. The review will make recommendations on the funding and responsibility for personal mobility in state funded residential care.
Following publication of the Low Review call for evidence, the steering group became aware of the need for input from residential schools and colleges providing education to young disabled people aged 16 or over. This addendum is in response to this need.
The original and full copy of the call for evidence and full information about the review can be found at: http://www.lowreview.org.uk
ADDENDUM – Residential school / college call for evidence
The final report of the Low Review (attached) is published today. Lord Low of Dalston calls on the Government to protect mobility payments for disabled people living in residential care, in his independent review, which will be launched later on today in Parliament.
The review received overwhelming evidence that the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) - or its successor, Personal Independence Payment (PIP) - should be retained for people living in residential care. The report is clear that its removal would lead to a loss of independence for disabled people. Lord Low says: “If payment of the mobility component to people living in residential care ends, this will be a serious step backwards for disability rights.”
Amongst the findings and recommendations are:
• The report found no evidence of overlap in the support offered by the mobility component of DLA and that offered by local authorities and providers.
• As PIP is introduced, disabled people living in state-funded residential care should be eligible to receive the mobility component on the same basis as disabled people receiving care in their own home.
• Individuals living in residential care to directly manage their Personal Independence Payment mobility component.
• Motability should initiate a review into how the role it plays in supporting disabled people’s independence could be further improved.
• The Department of Health and Care Quality Commission should take action to provide greater clarity and guidance to local authorities and care home providers regarding their responsibilities for funding mobility needs and the role played by DLA mobility.
For further information, go to the website http://lowreview.org.uk
File Attachments
- Low_Review_FINAL[1].pdf (File Size: 620KB - Downloads: 773)
The government has today confirmed that those living in residential care will continue to have their additional mobility needs met through disability living allowance (DLA) and the personal independence payment (PIP).
see today’s rightsnet news @
Government confirms care home residents to retain mobility component entitlement
Great piece of campaigning work by Mencap and Leonard Cheshire Disability on this issue, as well as Lord Low.
Interesting piece in the Guardian on the campaign run by Mencap and LCD in relation to the Low Review and the decision to not remove DLA Mobility from residential care home residents.
Simon Shaw, parliamentary manager at Sense, says: “We thought, someone, somewhere in government has jumped on what they think is an opportunity here.”
Jane Alltimes says that the public affairs teams’ priorities were to dismantle the arguments by explaining how disabled people used the benefit, then to win cross-party and public support to get the decision reversed.
Lobbying was backed by public awareness activities such as a petition, an email action campaign to MPs, a demonstration outside parliament and a media campaign that resulted in coverage on BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours.
“We were having to counter a moveable feast of arguments, so we realised quickly we would have to find a way to sort facts from fiction,” says Alltimes.
Shaw says the government’s apparent lack of clarity over its rationale was both hindrance and a help: “It was challenging because various myths were being propagated by parliamentarians at different times – they weren’t all dropped in one go.
“We hoped they would admit their mistake, but they just kept going. But on the other hand, the more they did that, the more it gave us confidence because it became clear they didn’t have a clear idea of the situation.”
How charities worked together to win a government U-turn