Well, this is the problem (if that is the case). The money needs to be ring-fenced, and this can be done fairly simply.

Thank you for clarifying that Halima. I wouldn’t know how to do that. I wonder if any of our readers experience problems.

I do believe, though I stand to be corrected, that is the way it is currently run but as the money isn’t necessarily ring-fenced it tends to get used up by the priorities that local authorities set themselves.

I think we’re meant to have options for more user-friendly viewing, the BBC site is a good example. If you look at the top there are options for viewing, However, I imagine it costs so not sure what the resource implications would be.

But which is it Rumbold? Localism or localism till we don’t like what that might entail? To be clear, I’m not getting at you. There is, of course, an entirely good argument that there should be a single centralised body that takes disability provision out of the hands of local authorities.

I would say let the local authorities manage the scheme, but have the money come from central government. That way there is no disincentive for local authorities when considering such applications.

David Jones:

Sorry, how does this website not meet ‘elementary accessibility guidelines’?

Thanks Sarah.

This is where things get tough. My instinct is that there should be portability. But if provision for disability is to be localised and so on, that necessarily means differences. Localisation does run the risk of essentially promoting inequality.

Sure, the process is probably too convoluted. Looking at the link, there appears to be an expectation that the courts will be involved – that alone should point to a system that is far too complicated for its own good.

Should one localised authority be obligated to follow another one when a person decides to move? Now, of course, the disabled person probably doesn't care for such nicity – a point I take.

But which is it Rumbold? Localism or localism till we don't like what that might entail? To be clear, I'm not getting at you. There is, of course, an entirely good argument that there should be a single centralised body that takes disability provision out of the hands of local authorities.

But the link you provide is, at heart, another, 'something must be done,' article. That is it a good case doesn't change that.

However there is also the additional issue that support available differs from location to location; the ol' postcode lottery of provision. Which also means that the convoluted process, though no less convoluted, may certainly end in different results; not all as suitable to the prevailing needs.

Far too many agencies are involved in producing a single care package which complicates the provision even further.