IV. PURPOSE
OF DLA
17. The Committee has received considerable evidence
on the operation of DLA and its gateways. We are extremely concerned
that, in its present form, the benefit is unstable and unpredictable
to both administrators and claimants alike. We were concerned
to hear from Ms Ursula Brennan, Policy Director with Special Responsibility
for Disability, Sickness and Carer Benefits, Department of Social
Security, that :
"We have a problem in getting the awards right
in the first place and we have a problem with awards becoming
incorrect as time goes by."[25]
We recommend an urgent review of all aspects of
DLA.
18. The evidence suggests that DLA is a benefit which
neither claimants nor Adjudication Officers fully understand.
Baroness Hollis told us that:
"Disabled people do not always understand what
DLA is for. In a very crude and simple way they often believe
it is a compensation for their disability. 'If I have this level
of disability, I ought to have this level of money'. Whereas what
DLA is about is not actually a compensation for their disability,
it is not even a straight medical read across from their disability
to their money, it is about a meeting of the costs for which care
and mobility serves as a proxy to enable them to manage their
disability".[26]
19. Since 1992 the purpose of DLA has been unclear.
Access to the higher rates of the care component was via similar
conditions to that applying to the former AA, with the result
that some local authorities assumed that DLA care was a payment
specifically for care and so therefore was entirely available
to meet charges for community care services. Only recently has
the DSS clarified that DLA is a payment towards all the additional
costs of disability which may or may not include care.[27]
20. Ms Ursula Brennan confirmed that the original
intention of DLA
"was that the care and mobility tests were good
ways of targeting on the most commonly occurring of the most expensive
disability related costs. Rather than try and set up a system
in which we tried to gather a lot of information about a lot of
disability needs and a lot of costs, our survey evidence showed
us that the care tests and the mobility tests were quite good
proxies to use as gateways in order to get at people who had a
variety of problems and a variety of needs."[28]
Baroness Hollis also told us that DLA is not a compensation
for disability, but concerns the needs that flow from that disability
and the costs incurred in managing those needs:
"It may be that somebody who is blind who is
getting, say, a mobility element may choose to spend that money
on an expensive piece of IT equipment to enable them to do a job
of work or to have an extension if they have a mobility problem,
to have an extension and use their DLA to pay for the interest
on the mortgage for an extension to their home and thus be able
to live on the ground floor. In that sense DLA is a proxy for
enabling disabled people to cope with the cost of their disability.
Given that, it is not surprising that two people with the same
disability nominally may have very different care needs and may
therefore have very different DLA awards."[29]
The costs of disability
21. Additional costs resulting from disability
are broader than care and mobility. They can include specific
expenses relating to the impairment (such as non-prescription
medicines, wheelchairs, incontinence pads), as well as additional
spending on basic essentials (such as extra laundry or higher
heating bills). Mrs Lesley Burton gave oral evidence to the Committee
on the several different ways in which life was expensive for
people with physical disabilities.[30]
The use of aids and equipment
22. Needs for attention or supervision may be
reduced or removed by practical solutions, such as someone who
needs to use the toilet because of difficulty climbing stairs
may be able to use a commode downstairs unaided.[31]
Although items may be available to the claimant, the Adjudication
Officer must also decide whether it is reasonable and practicable
for that disabled person to obtain and use them. In the DSS awards
study, DLAAB recorded that in 50 per cent of DLA cases, aids/adaptations
which could have potentially reduced the claimant's needs were
not being used, especially where people were receiving lower rate
care and higher rate mobility awards.[32]
In their own report, DLAAB suggested some of the benefit might
be earmarked specifically for purchase/lease of equipment to minimise
help from other people.[33]
Aids and equipment are important in assisting independence. This
provision appears to be of more relevance to a benefit for care,
rather than for the additional costs of disability,
which the existence of aids or equipment may not necessarily obviate
(and may even increase, such as running costs). We recommend
that the Government and the Disability Benefits Forum should evaluate
the role for the provision of aids and equipment in relation to
DLA.
Independent living and DLA
23. A slightly different view on the purpose
of DLA was put to us by Richard Wood, on behalf of the British
Council of Disabled People (part of the Disability Benefits Consortium),
who told us that:
"It is paid to give disabled people dignity,
to allow us to live independently in the community, to allow us
to be independent of other people, to make our own choices about
how we choose to buy our care in, whom we would wish to pay to
do that, which goods and services we need to be able to purchase
to support that independence."[34]
DLA can be spent in any way the individual chooses;
in this respect, it has been argued that DLA promotes independence
and self-reliance, as without such cash help disabled people could
be forced into residential care or become dependent on families
or the local authority.[35]
The care needs of severely disabled people can also be met by
the Independent Living Fund (ILF). We recommend that the Government
should consider the respective roles of the ILF and community
care services in discussing DLA reform.
Taxation of DLA
24. The issue of taxing DLA remained unresolved
in the Welfare Reform Green Paper. According to the disability
organisations, taxation would negate the role of DLA as an extra
costs benefit.[36] The
Minister stated that there were two opposing views on taxation:
"One is that DLA is producing a level playing
field between those who have a disability and those who do not.
In part it cannot do it entirely but it makes a contribution to
a more level playing field at every income level irrespective
of whether you are on £60 a week or £600 a week. The
other argument is if you are dealing with financial resources
and a growing number of elderly people who form the majority of
disabled people then there is also a second consideration of whether
you should target what help you have on those who are most severely
disabled and those in financial need. That is the conflicting
argument. Means testing has been ruled out and I am delighted
that it has been ruled out. Taxation has not been ruled out, not
that it has been ruled in either, but there is an honourable debate
still to be had on that subject. At the end of the day I cannot
take you any further than saying obviously this is a matter for
the Chancellor".[37]
In our view, taxation of DLA should be considered
only in the context of a full review of the purpose and level
of the benefit.
25 Q 227. Back
26
Q 355. Back
27
As referenced in Disability-related costs and charges for community
care, Ann Kestenbaum, Disablement Income Group 1997, page
12. Back
28
Q 269. Back
29
Q 355. Back
30
Q 162. Back
31
Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance, Adjudication
Officers Guide Volume 11 Part 77, Central Adjudication Services,
1996. Back
32
A study of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance
awards, DSS In-house Report No.41, 1998. Back
33
Ev.p.5 para 4.6. Back
34
Q 98. Back
35
Ev.p.26 para 2.6. Back
36
Q 148. Back
37
Q 363. Back
| 
