In the court case taken by five disabled people against the proposed closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) , and supported by a campaign led by DPAC and Inclusion London certain documents were used. These documents are mainly correspondence between civil servants at the Government’s Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) and the minister for disabled people: Esther McVey.
These documents were released and declassified after the court case because they had been mentioned in the case. This is a summary of those documents.
Early analysis of responses to the consultation on ILF Closure (undated)
This document gives a breakdown of responses and several points for McVey to take into account. First, the consultation asked:
| Question 1Do you agree with the Government’s proposal that the care and support needs of current ILF users should be met within the mainstream care and support system, with funding devolved to local government in England and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales?[1] This would mean the closure of the ILF in 2015. |
| Question 2What are the key challenges that ILF users would face in moving from joint ILF/Local Authority to sole Local Authority funding of their care and support needs? How can any impacts be mitigated? |
| Question 3What impact would the closure of the ILF have on Local Authorities and the provision of care and support services more widely? How could any impacts be mitigated? |
As we see never were questions asked on extending the ILF or keeping it open. In fact question 1 is what is called a ‘leading question’
In the documents DWP tell McVey:
‘As we expected with the current challenges facing the care and support system, the majority of ILF users are opposed to closure of the fund, with many doing so on the basis that there could be no guarantee that their current level of funding would be protected in the future’
and….
‘A range of smaller national and local disability groups expressed similar concerns with our proposal. Some have been able to support the closures in principle but usually conditional on current user awards being protected as part of ring-fenced funding. The most vocal group has been the relatively new Disabled People against Cuts, DPAC. This group has taken a very strong critical position on a range of DWP policies’.
Yes we have and both Miller (our old mister for disabled people) and McVey refused to meet us and ILF users several times-in fact they didn’t even bother to respond to these requests!
We were very surprised to see this section advising McVey:
‘The consultation exercise has been immensely useful and we have been satisfied that we have listened to a collection of views that is representative of all those individuals or organisations that have an interest in or may be impacted by closure and devolution and have considered whether to modify the preferred position set out in the consultation in light of those views’ (emphasis added)
Amazing! Because if most said : keep it open, and if most said people would lose support or enter institutions, including responses from local authorities: what exactly did they listen to?
The documents recognize that ILF users will see a drop in support with some not being eligible for support at all
‘We do recognise that upon reassessment by LA’s most users are likely to see some reduction in the current funding levels, and there are a group of users with low care needs that may not be eligible for local authority support under current needs thresholds in most LA’s.’
The cost of closure will be £39 million! One document states that some of this has been achieved by the savings from closing ILF to new users in 2010. But closure cannot be publically defined as value for money-indeed!
‘The transfer costs mean that this proposal will cost rather than save money and therefore it cannot be defined as value for money. However the transfer costs are fully affordable’.
Not to ILF users they aren’t!
And wouldn’t £39 million, plus transfer cost be better put into ILF? Of course that’s not what they want to do, in spite of a consultation exercise where the majority appeared to say a resounding NO to closure.
Why did the DWP think it would Easy to Close the ILF?
One of the reasons given that the DWP found it so easy to close the ILF to new users in 2010 was the lack of any objections from the ‘big disability organisations’ which DWP call ‘Major Departmental Stakeholder Responses’ whatever that is.
In terms of the announcement of proposed closure in 2015 it was noted that none of these ‘stakeholders’ had requested a meeting with ministers from Westminster. Basically most had kept quiet, and hadn’t seen the closure of ILF as any big deal. Great support guys!
On this basis the DWP tell McVey in another document around the potential announcement of the closure in 2015
‘on the basis of attention shown so far, we do not think this will receive significant attention on its own…’
Guess they forgot about that vocal group DPAC and Deaf and Disabled Peoples’ Organisation: Inclusion London, because the closure of the ILF has now received significant attention in the UK and in Europe, at European Parliamentary level through MEPs and at UN level and we’ll make sure this continues.
Neither DPAC nor Inclusion London has the millions for campaigning that the big disability charities have, nor dedicated media, press and campaign teams. But we do have passion, and we do care about what happens to us all as disabled people, and we care what happens to independent living. ILF users taking the case and supporting the case have appeared on TV, on radio and in newspapers to get the message across that ILF is important and this will continue too.
Any journalists that want to know more or run stories can contact: mail@dpac.uk.net
So what did these so called ‘stakeholders’ say in response to the consultation? According to the DWP, there was not enough resistance at all.
In the early analysis document those who the DWP define as key stakeholders are broken down and their responses analysed. Below is what DWP said of their ‘Major Departmental Stakeholder Responses’ in the exact words of the DWP to McVey
Carers UK-Weakly Disagree
-User packages would be reduced placing extra demand on unpaid care
Disability Rights UK-Concerned
-Lack of choice and flexibility under Local Authorities (Las)
-User packages will be reduced
-Poor perception and past support of Las
-Difficult for ILF users to transition easily
Disability Wales- Strongly Disagree
-users packages would be reduced which could make it impossible to support ILF users in a family environment
-since the 2010 closure of the fund to applicants disabled people have had to start entering residential care.
-believes the government is targeting the disabled for cuts
-LAs could not cope with the additional workload
-Lack of choice, flexibility and dignity for ILF users under LAs
-Do not believe transitional protection will be offered
Inclusion Scotland-Strongly Disagree
-The proposal would create a postcode lottery of support
-User packages would be reduced
-LA support is budget led rather than needs led
-ILF expertise would be lost
-Lack of choice and flexibility under LAs
MENCAP-Pragmatic Agreement
-If reforms go ahead they should be about finding a better system, not cutting costs
-Funding should be allocated to LAs as a separate ring fenced funding stream based on current ILF regional spending patterns in which current users enjoy time-limited protection
-need for Government to provide advice and information to all parties
MS Society- Concerned Agreement
-Consolidation of funding streams would simplify the care system
-The proposal should not be enacted until the impact of current welfare reform is understood
-Lack of choice, flexibility and dignity for ILF users under LAs needs to be addressed
-LAs need as far as possible, to replicate the personalised expertise of ILF
-Representative groups need to be closely involved in the transition design
RNIB-Weak Concern
-Concerned that closure might lead to a breach of article 19 on UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
-Representative groups must be closely involved in transition design
-Current levels of support must be maintained
SCOPE-Concerned Weak Agreement
-Consolidation of funding streams would simplify the care system
-The proposal should not be enacted during current funding constraints
-The mainstream care and support system needs more experience and commitment to independent living to be able to undertake the responsibilities of the ILF
Spinal Injuries Association-Disagree
-Funding is likely to disappear into wider LA budgets on transfer
-ILF is more efficient than LAs
‘Rights not Charity’ seems very apt as the major charities for disabled people appeared to agree with the closure, after all more institutionalisation of disabled people might benefit them mightn’t it? Disability Rights UK (DRUK) a so called user-led organisation incorporating, but clearly forgetting the principles of National Centre for Independent Living, did not offer more than ‘concern’. The Spinal Injuries Association ‘disagreed’ but what this needed was for all to come out and say ‘Strongly Disagree’ as Disability Wales and Inclusion Scotland did.
Remember that when the charities ask you for money, remember that when those groups that didn’t come out fully against the closure of the ILF say they are on the side of disabled people or are working for disabled people: we believe they can no longer justify either of those statements.
The DWP told McVey that ‘stakeholders’ (SCOPE, DRUK etc)
‘..have traditionally found it hard to defend the ILF model of funding care..’
‘none of the largest national disability organisations requested ministerial meetings and many did not submit responses to the consultation. While we have had an increasing number of letters from MPs on users’ behalf, the proposal to close the fund has received almost no attention in the mainstream media’ (correspondence to McVey 7th November 2012)
We will work through more of the documents looking at issues on transition, and the DWP’s media strategy which is unsurprisingly at odds with any issues raised by disabled people-you know the stuff Closure of ILF will give ‘choice and control’ , ‘committed to supporting disabled people’ blah, blah, blah.
The big difference here is that it is clear from the documents that the DWP are perfectly aware that ILF users will lose funding and that their needs won’t be adequately met through the local authority system.
Cuts versus Reform
Finally, the DWP were keen to try and put the message out that the closure of the ILF was not about ‘cuts’ but about ‘reform’ –what’s the difference? They do appear to believe that if they say reform we all think this is a good thing, rather than identifying that everything that comes under the heading of reform is actually another cut.
The documents cannot be clearer: this is a cut
A cut to the dignity, life chances and lives of disabled people-not just those who are currently supported to lead independent lives through ILF , but also those who would have qualified before closure to new applicants in 2010 and all who could benefit from the ILF system in the future
Support ILF users now; support a better future-say no to the closure of the ILF!
[1] Funding for ILF users in Northern Ireland is currently the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development, not the Department for Work and Pensions.
