15/11/2011

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’ when Personal Independence Payment is introduced, is the first recommendation in the ‘Independence, Choice and Control’ DLA and personal mobility in state-funded residential care’ report.

The Government has proposed the removal of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA)/Personal Independence Payment (PIP) from people living in state-funded residential care as part of the Welfare Benefit Reform Bill 2010-11. To justify the proposal the Government claims that there has been that there an overlap between local authority funding and DLA mobility, and that personal mobility is the responsibility of providers of residential care.

Disabled peer, Lord Colin Low, was commissioned by Mencap and Leonard Cheshire to undertake an independent public review of personal mobility in residential care, including the role played by DLA mobility, local authorities and providers in meeting mobility needs.

The review produced an independent report focusing on:

• How the mobility component of DLA is being used by care home residents and the impact of the loss of this benefit;
• funding arrangements for meeting personal mobility needs between local authorities and care home providers;
• responsibilities of care home providers in relation to the mobility needs of residents.

Findings based on over 800 submissions from individual, local authorities and providers and six oral evidence sessions showed that DLA mobility is ‘key to meeting the personal mobility needs of care home residents’ also that, ‘DLA offers personalised support and provides the individual with choice and control over how their mobility needs are met’.

Amongst the Review’s conclusions was that there was ‘no evidence of overlap in the support offered by the mobility component of DLA and that offered by local authorities and providers’ also that ending the payment would deny people control over their own lives.

The review made seven recommendations which in brief included:

• The Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide to be revised to make clear that the mobility component is to be completely disregarded by local authorities, both in means testing and in establishing how to meet assessed needs.
• All local authorities’ attention to drawn to the revised Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide, emphasising the requirement for local authorities to meet all assessed mobility needs.
• Contracts between local authorities and care home providers should clearly specify any funding arrangements in relation to the provision of mobility support required in meeting assessed needs. Care Quality Commission inspections should review provider contracts with local authorities and report on whether these clearly specify all assessed mobility needs and the providers’ responsibility in meeting these.

The Low Review has caused controversy because disabled people were not informed about the review in its initial stages and were not part of the steering group. Also the independence of the review has been called into question because Mencap and Leonard Cheshire who funded and organised the review provide residential services for disabled people.

The Low Reviews report is available at: http://lowreview.org.uk/