DLA consultation: responses to the government response
Post categories: Current Affairs
| 15:04 UK time, Tuesday, 5 April 2011
The government , yesterday.
It's quite a long document so, if you like this kind of minutiae, I'd go and make a flask of coffee before reading it. And don't start after 9pm because, if you're like me, you'll wake up at 2am on the sofa with your laptop on the floor like I did last night when I attempted it.
• The Broken of Britain declare the response a , saying: "It is grossly unjust that the consultation itself closed after the Welfare Reform Bill was published, so that the consultation played no part in shaping the Bill, but it is probably not illegal."
• Every Disabled Child Matters (EDCM) . They say: "[EDCM] welcomes the clear message that the Government has given that reforms to DLA will
not be extended to under 16s without public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny."
• The government also indicated in recent weeks that the proposed removal of the mobility component of DLA for those in residential care is also to be delayed after concern was fed back to them. Government believed that these mobility needs were already being met through another funding stream from local councils, though many groups and individuals say council run transport services are not adequate and something of a postcode lottery.
It seems from yesterday's document that the DLA mobility money may stay but other streams could be cut instead to avoid expense overlap. We'll find out by 2013.
Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is set to be replaced by Personal Independence Payments (PIP) in the next two years.
Have you read the response document yet? Tell us what you think in the comments, below.
Comment number 1.
At 5th Apr 2011, hindle-a wrote:The Government's response -a barely literate unintelligible series of lies and distortions-cherry picking statements to prove evidence for already decided intentions,disrespectful and proof of shambolic nature of the so-called consultation to finsh two days after publication in the Welfare Reform Bill-all opposing views are either ignored or hidden away as "up for review"-there is no overlap concerning DLA mobility for people in residential homes-the revised envisaged savings mysteriously increased after they announced the supposed "listening to concerns"-no coincidence that stories appeared in the media (also no coincidence rollout of IB/ESA testing on the same day)
deliberately conflating/confusing DLA and IB/ESA- designed to hide intentions and befuddle in the peoples'minds-a cynical,misanthropic act the Government relies on the population to have the same attributes-shameful.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 5th Apr 2011, Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:I've emailed my MP about this, with a wide range of points of problems and questions about the response. I asked him to pass it on to the committee considering the Welfare Reform Bill, and also asked, if he passes it on to Maria Miller for reponse again, that I don't need the content of her previous statements or the consultation response regurgitated, because I've already read them.
There are other problems I didn't mention, as they seem churlish to mention to one's constituency MP, but the consultation response itself mostly seems to consist of regurgitation of previous statements as well. I also agree with the apparent cherry-picking of responses and ignoring of arguments. They even seem to fail to respond to some arguments and concerns that they do acknowledge in the summary of responses.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 6th Apr 2011, AndyfromCornwall wrote:I can't understand why nothing has been said publically about the wide discrepancy between the numbers of DLA claimants given at the beginning of this Parliament and the statement in Hansard from more than a decade ago that was quoted by Meridi. There's clearly something wrong because the figures don't add up. If they can't even get the numbers right how on earth can they come to the right conclusion, except by accident? Fundamentally there has not been the huge increase in the numbers that the current Government claims.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 6th Apr 2011, hindle-a wrote:Cornishandy-the Government relies on the fact that most people do not know that a large number of DLA recipients are pensioners whom remain entitled on reaching pensionable age-a major reason why the numbers have unsurprisingly increased-it also quotes numbers selectively sometimes including non-working age receivers sometimes not dependent on their intentions .
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 6th Apr 2011, DeusExMacintosh wrote:Oh it's rubbish all right. I read through the whole thing and it's spin worthy of Alastair Campbell quoting only those who agree with the government's pre-chosen position and only grudgingly mentioning even substantial dissent.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 29th Apr 2011, Westminster Naked wrote:Find out what we think about the government's plans for welfare reform and changes to DLA here
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)