Spending Review - John C. Kirk — LiveJournal
Nov. 5th, 2010
02:07 am - Spending Review
I have just written to my MP using the WriteToThem website, regarding the government's spending review. Basically, they are planning to cut funding for disabled people in residential homes, which would effectively leave these people trapped indoors; susannahf has written about this here and here.
Dear Mr Ottaway,
I am writing regarding the Government's Spending Review 2010. I agree that we should reduce our budget deficit, and I would like us to eliminate it altogether so that we can actually reduce the national debt. I understand that this will necessitate cutting our expenditure in certain areas, so some people will be worse off than before. In particular, I strongly support the changes in housing benefit legislation, i.e. increasing the age threshold for the Shared Room Rate and reducing the Local Housing Allowance to the 30th percentile: people who are unemployed shouldn't have a better lifestyle than taxpayers can afford.
However, I disagree with the changes to the Disability Living Allowance, specifically the removal of the mobility component for claimants in residential care. According to the Directgov website, the mobility component applies to people who are at risk of endangering their life by making the effort to walk! I am more than happy for my taxes to help those people, since they genuinely deserve it. For instance, motorised wheelchairs aren't cheap and they don't fit into normal cars, so if someone is going to the railway station then they need a black cab (taxi) rather than a minicab. However, it would be inhumane to confine these people to one building for the rest of their lives; they would effectively be prisoners, even though they've committed no crimes. According to page 70 of the spending review, "such costs are already met from public funds", but I don't believe that this is the case; the funding for residential homes is spent on nursing care etc.
Please could you oppose this cut when it is raised in Parliament.