News

Maria Eagle, who is the minister responsible for disabled people, carers benefits and attendance allowances, is to take part in this discussion forum.

Before being appointed to her present role as junior minister in the department of work and pensions, Eagle was parliamentary private secretary to former health minister John Hutton. In her current role she is also in charge of pensions policy.

If you would like to ask the minister a question relating to her specialist areas please send it to us (one question per person please) by clicking here before 31 January. All the questions and her responses will be posted here on Monday 11 February.

There is a second opportunity to Have your say this week focusing on how new technology can help older people retain their independence.

Do you have any experience of using aids or have a question about a particular gadget? We would like to receive your views and questions, which Dr Frank Miskelly, consultant physician at Charing Cross Hospital, will respond to.

Have your say by clicking here and sending us your question before 30 January. A report with the answers from Dr Miskelly will appear on the website on 5 February.

(see below for report on rough sleepers debate)

These are the responses we received to last week's debate on the learning difficulties white paper Valuing People:

"The white paper is a step in the right direction. Whether resources are universally available to implement it is another matter. For me, it does not go far enough in one key area. It emphasises the importance of employment opportunities, but does not properly address the benefits trap and disincentives to work. Post-publication attempts have also been unconvincing.

Elsewhere, in the wider public service debate, the government says it is trying to eradicate so-called 'postcode lotteries', but Valuing People does not posit the setting up of a national framework for supported employment, thereby making it difficult to compare and monitor these for quality and outcomes against each other, where these services even exist.

My only other comment is that my reading of Valuing People with 'user and carer' being mentioned in the same breath as incompatible. These need separating out, rather than pretending users and carers always have the same agenda."

Stephen Porter

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

"There seems to be a variety of responses to 'Valuing People' - where local authorities were already working in partnership with health and good communication was part of everyday practice, the objectives of Valuing People have been embraced. Partnerships with providers, people who use services and families are robust and effective.

To the other extreme, some authorities have struggled for years with financial issues. They have very difficult and tenuous relationships with health, still consider consultation and involvement as an 'add on' and are struggling with getting the LD board off the ground.

As an example: I was provided with information last week from a local authority in South Yorkshire that it had to make cuts to disability services for the new financial year. This is in an authority where many providers are operating in a deficit position and cannot work with social services to move services on due to limitations of the local authority's standing orders. This is going to cause many providers great concern when faced with the implications of the National Care Standards Commission .Where commissioning and care management functions are not co-ordinated it becomes a complete nightmare for providers, but ultimately the victims are people with a learning disability .

I strongly believe that the ability to implement the policies and guidance of Valuing People is still heavily contingent upon the competence and personalities of lead players in local authorities/health authorities. There needs to be confidence in the Valuing People implementation team that they will undertake close reviews and track the progression of an authority, and that this progression is celebrated or that where an authority is failing quick action should be taken."

Anonymous

"I am employed as a specialist practitioner in a learning disability service. At present our service is attempting to join up with social services to work as a confederation following government guidelines on health partnerships.

This has been stopped because the pensions services cannot work out, or should I say cannot use their so-called intellect, to bring both the health and social services together. We are now being forced to go with a mental health trust. Once again learning disability services will become the cinderella service.

I thought we had move correctly from mental health in the early seventies. To make Valuing People work we have to have a more joined up service. Not one that is ruled by the unions like Unison because they will loose their area members.

People are trying under difficult circumstances to make it work. It is getting lost from the health service side because of all the changes with trusts, regional changes and area health authorities going. There is nobody shouting up or listening. Yes, the financial part is important when your service is being used to prop up other services. Government have said go out and do, but have not put the finishing touches as usual. It sounds good on paper but we also need the legislation to be followed through."

Anonymous

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the responses we received to the debate on rough sleepers and the government's claim that the number has reduced by two thirds:

"I was involved in the street count in central London in December 2001, and can confirm that numbers out that night were significantly lower than we have seen before. I don't think manipulation of the figures would account for the visible changes I saw, although I am concerned that not all the moves inside will last permanently.

I think the focus on the single night counts is a bit misleading, because these are only a snapshot of the most visible part of the rough sleeping population. No-one is suggesting that these counts provide the total picture - but they have proved to be a useful indication of the wider problem. There is a great deal of more detailed information available to the rough sleepers unit which shows how many people have been worked with overall by the "CAT" outreach teams, and how many people have been helped off the streets and into accommodation.

Those figures show that the RSU strategy has done a lot of good, but has yet to solve the root causes of why people become homeless and why so many people come in and out of homelessness, never achieving stability or independence.

The bigger prevention issues are the real challenge which the government is beginning to address through the Homelessness Bill and the new homelessness division within DTLR. Continued debate about the validity of street count figures is taking attention away from the most important issues, which are how solutions to rough sleeping can be made sustainable and how we can prevent homelessness in the first place."

Mark Baigent

Policy development manager, housing and social services, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

"As a designated rough sleeper area, we did feel under pressure earlier last year to find no rough sleepers, but actually when it came to the count, the RSU representative was keen to be accurate and to find anybody who was sleeping rough.

In York at least, the RSU funding has made a huge difference to what we can do for rough sleepers, including their funding of a night hostel to add to our existing hostel. Our concern is that the headline reduction by 2/3rds will be seen as no further need for funding. In reality, most people are no longer having to sleep on the street, but are still not able to live successfully in a tenancy. Therefore funding of shelter beds needs to be continued, but funding to resettle customers into independent living needs to be increased and concentrated on. Otherwise we achieve keeping people off the streets but can't move them on. In time, of course, with no throughput to independence, the shelter beds become blocked and we are back to having people sleeping on the streets.

The lack of firm funding decisions is already putting existing services at risk and we would encourage the RSU to make future funding clear as early as possible before services have to close for lack of committed funding."

Lesley Healey

Head of advice and housing assessments, York council

"I do not think it is true that the number of rough sleepers in London has reduced as much as the RSU are claiming."

Liz Bruce

"If the government's 'rough sleepers initiative' has been such a success why are there still so many rough sleepers in London, alone? I live and work in London, I also work in social services and see that the problem of rough sleepers has not diminished as the government claim. Everywhere I go in London there are people bedding down for the night in shop doorways or on park benches. I find it disgusting!

The government spends all its energy and tax payers money on interfering with how other countries should live, and decides on what's civilised and what's not! I believe that every human being has a right to the basic protection of a roof, floor and four walls. Quite frankly I think Tony Blair needs to spend more time in the community and see how the other half lives!! The gap between the rich and poor is no more evident than the difference between north and south Kensington.

As a student of government policy I have researched into the issues of homelessness and what responsibility the government has, it has been clearly evident that central government is placing more and more pressure on other organisations to intervene, such as the Church, voluntary organisations and the private sector. London social housing is predominately monopolised by housing associations who are often so disorganised!!

Central government has a responsibility to ensure all human beings living on this land receive the opportunity to housing. It is a basic human right, such as right to food and water!!"

Rachel Bolton