аЯрЁБс>ўџ 9;ўџџџ8џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС7 јП„bjbjUU .(7|7|a"џџџџџџl  $$$8ŽŽŽŽ š8Œ8КККааааа       $Ф фx1$ааааа1$$ааFаd$а$а а z” П$$ аЎ ЄПk2­Ч8VŽ4:з \0Œп,\nЌ\ 88$$$$й“Boyd Loophole” Strengthens Scotland’s Case in Attendance Allowance Dispute. Margaret Cuthbert Jim Cuthbert June 2007. One of Alex Salmond’s first acts as First Minister was to announce that he was re-opening the question of the Department of Works and Pensions refusal to transfer to Scotland a sum equal to the Attendance Allowance previously received by self-funders in care homes, who are now receiving free personal care. DWP and the Treasury had justified their refusal to transfer these funds on the basis of DWP rules. However, research we have undertaken has identified a clear precedent, where DWP chose to breach this very same rule. As we show here, the existence of this precedent completely shifts the ground for the forthcoming discussion with the DWP and the Treasury: it also raises fundamental constitutional issues regarding relationships between the different governments of the UK. Attendance Allowance is a benefit paid by the DWP for those who need help with personal care. As a social security benefit, attendance allowance is, in England, Scotland and Wales, one of the reserved responsibilities of the DWP: (though interestingly, in Northern Ireland, responsibility for social security is devolved). Responsibility for care for the elderly in Scotland is a devolved issue: and in 2002, following the recommendations in the Sutherland Report, the Scottish Executive used its devolved powers to introduce free personal care in Scotland. As a result, self-funders in care homes, who had previously received attendance allowance, ceased to be eligible for it when they became eligible for free personal care. The Scottish Executive had initially assumed that it would receive from DWP an amount equivalent to the attendance allowance foregone: and that, as a result, some Ѓ23 million would become available to help fund the new policy. However, following discussions with the DWP and the Treasury, the Scottish Executive informed local authorities that “DWP rules are clear that when an individual starts to receive funding from a public source, Attendance Allowance will cease to be payable four weeks thereafter. If therefore a "self funder" wishes to take up the arrangements for free personal care on 1 July, their entitlement to Attendance Allowance will cease with effect from 28 July.” In the light of this “rule”, DWP refused to transfer the Attendance Allowance funding to the Executive: and the then Executive concluded that there was no practical benefit in taking the issue further. We have uncovered an example, called the “Boyd Loophole”, where DWP clearly breached the very same rule which they used to refuse the Scottish Executive request. As part of its response to the Sutherland report, in 2003 the UK government transferred administration of the Residential Allowance, paid to residents of private and voluntary care homes, from the DWP to local authorities. This change produced a difficulty for the handling of the group of people known to DWP as “Boyd loophole” cases. Boyd loophole cases were defined as those people who funded their own care through receipt of a range of social security benefits, sometimes topped up by relatives. With the abolition of the residential allowance, these Boyd loophole cases would no longer have sufficient DWP support to be able to maintain themselves in care homes and would have to be taken over by local authorities. It is estimated that there were about 4,550 Boyd cases, a majority of whom were aged 60 or over (about 75%). Transfers were made from the DWP to local authorities in England and Wales and to the Scottish Executive in Scotland to cover the costs to local authorities of taking on these cases. It is clear from the official documentation describing these transfers that the amount transferred included an explicit amount for the Attendance Allowance and other DWP disability benefits which the Boyd Loophole cases would no longer be eligible for as they would now be supported by another public body (local authorities). The DWP’s handling of the Boyd Loophole group is therefore completely inconsistent with the “rule” used by DWP to justify its refusal to transfer attendance allowance to the Scottish Executive in the case of free personal care. The Boyd loophole precedent has a number of serious implications. First of all, it raises the question of why the previous Scottish Executive administration made no use of this case, when it allowed its claim for transfer of Attendance Allowance funding to be so tamely dismissed. The Executive should have been fully aware of the Boyd Loophole case, since it was being resolved at the same time as the Executive claim: and resulted in the transfer of some funds to the Executive. Secondly, now that the Boyd Loophole precedent is known, it means that, when the new Scottish Executive reopen their claim, they can no longer be fobbed off by the application of a supposed DWP rule- when it turns out that DWP can itself choose whether the rule applies or not. Instead, the Executive request will now require to be dealt with on the basis of a serious consideration of the merits of the case: and clearly, any impartial consideration of the facts would be likely to lead to payment of attendance allowance transfer to Scotland, with accumulated arrears But this raises a third issue: namely, who should make the ultimate decision. To leave the decision with DWP would be unsatisfactory: it would be judge and jury in its own case. Alex Salmond has suggested convening the Joint Ministerial Committee on devolution: this body is meant to resolve disputes between the different governments of the UK, but it has in practice rarely met. It is, however, difficult to see how such a body could provide a way of reaching satisfactory resolution in cases where the interests of the different parties are fundamentally opposed: and indeed, according to media reports, the Committee has never attempted to resolve a dispute. Another difficulty with the Joint Ministerial Committee is that its proceedings are confidential: so justice will certainly not be seen to be done, whatever the outcome. One final outcome is therefore likely to be that the requirement is highlighted for a more satisfactory method of resolving disputes between the different governments of the UK: such a method would have to be seen to be fair, impartial and open. How this can be achieved, without a move towards a more formally federal structure, is not at all clear.  CONSULTATION DOCUMENT ON RESIDENTIAL ALLOWANCE TRANSFER (RA)  HYPERLINK "http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4006794" http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4006794 ЕZžabc Ё€„јёёндЯУдМд 0JmH sH jUmH sH mH sH jUmH sH '5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJphџ j0JU B*aJphM_lwx‰Šи й ЛžŸст‚МНџ_`a ‚§јјјѓёѓѓѓѓёёёёёёёёёёёёёшццdвЄЄ$a$$a$aƒ§§‚ƒ„§ћ,1hА‚. АЦA!А"А# $ %ААФАФ ФDаЩъyљКЮŒ‚ЊKЉ hhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4006794рЩъyљКЮŒ‚ЊKЉ аhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4006794 i8@ёџ8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH Z@"Z Heading 2 Є–ЄK@&'5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJph<A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph Font*>@ђ* Title$a$5\,B@, Body Text$a$6@6 Footnote TextCJaJ8&@Ђ!8 Footnote ReferenceH*>U@Ђ1> Hyperlink>*B*OJQJ^Jo(ph]oŠ„!$„ ( џџџџM_lwx‰Šи й Л žŸст‚МНџ_`a ‚…˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€@0€€˜@0€€˜@0€€ 0„‚„ƒ?Ж$Xџ€DK„krЪбqwОУt{a…L< F “ — Сцa…3333vЄЄ-/”ЊЎЎ((ЕЕй к а а ž4`…џџMargaret CuthberteC:\Documents and Settings\Margaret\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Document2.asdMargaret Cuthbert1D:\my documents1\FPC March 06\Scotsman 110607.docMargaret CuthbertkC:\Documents and Settings\Margaret\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Scotsman 110607.asdMargaret Cuthbert1D:\my documents1\FPC March 06\Scotsman 110607.docMargaret CuthbertkC:\Documents and Settings\Margaret\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Scotsman 110607.asdMargaret CuthbertkC:\Documents and Settings\Margaret\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Scotsman 110607.asdMargaret CuthbertkC:\Documents and Settings\Margaret\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Scotsman 110607.asdMargaret CuthbertkC:\Documents and Settings\Margaret\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Scotsman 110607.asdMargaret Cuthbert1D:\my documents1\FPC March 06\Scotsman 110607.docЫ)g`˜ &‰џџџџџџџџџ„а„˜ўЦа^„а`„˜ўo(.€„ „˜ўЦ ^„ `„˜ў.‚„p„LџЦp^„p`„Lџ.€„@ „˜ўЦ@ ^„@ `„˜ў.€„„˜ўЦ^„`„˜ў.‚„р„LџЦр^„р`„Lџ.€„А„˜ўЦА^„А`„˜ў.€„€„˜ўЦ€^„€`„˜ў.‚„P„LџЦP^„P`„Lџ.Ы)g`џџџџџџџџ         џ@€LL№wWL„А@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial7& ‡ ŸVerdanaI&€ џџџџџџџщ?џ?Arial Unicode MS"qˆ№аh„cЖFleЖFPg Z3o ^!№ ДД20dЂ2ƒQ№џџTitleMargaret CuthbertMargaret Cuthbertўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0€˜ЈДамшј   < H T`hpxфTitlefitlMargaret CuthbertdargargNormaltMargaret Cuthbertd3rgMicrosoft Word 9.0@р- @рЁ$ђЌЧ@Јƒg2­ЧgўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎDеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ4№ hp€ˆ˜  ЈАИ Р вфselfwZ   Title TitleP 8@ _PID_HLINKSфA%Uhhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4006794 ўџџџўџџџ !"#$%&'ўџџџ)*+,-./ўџџџ1234567ўџџџ§џџџ:ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF@цЮk2­Ч<€Data џџџџџџџџџџџџ1Tableџџџџџџџџ\WordDocumentџџџџ.(SummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџџџџџ(DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџ0CompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџ@цЮk2­Ч@цЮk2­Чўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq