Attendance Allowance should not stop at the hospital door

My grandfather, or as I affectionately call him, Bampa, is currently in the hospital awaiting urgent heart treatment.

It’s frightening enough on its own. The hospital is 40 minutes away, so I’m relying on phone calls during the day to keep up to date on my bampa, get on with my work day, and keep my family members updated on what the hospital tells me; suffice it to say, it’s a lot.

And then, recently, my mum had a letter. My mum has been told that, due to how long my bampa has been in the hospital, if he is still there by Sunday, 26 April, his Attendance Allowance will stop.

Now, we’re not expecting him to be in there that long, and he should (we hope) be home by the end of the week. But what kind of state treats its citizens like this? A man who has worked his entire life, never complained about the cards he was dealt in life, having lost his wife only a few months ago, is now in the hospital, and the response from the state is, “Yeah, sorry about that, but if you’re there any longer, we’ll punish you.”

It’s one of those moments when the welfare state shows you why, once again, it is not fit for purpose. What should be a humane system built around the realities of illness, frailty and care is just an administrative machine that is constantly scanning for the point at which it decides support no longer counts.

Attendance Allowance is designed to support older people with the extra costs of disability and ill health. It can range from £76.70 to £114.60 per week. But if someone has the misfortune of being ill and being in hospital for 28 days, their support is suspended, and only resumes when they’re back home.

While this makes sense to Whitehall, considering they fund the hospital stay and therefore the benefit is not needed, life is not lived on a spreadsheet.

Extra pressures do not disappear when someone is in the hospital. Families need to travel, buy essentials for the person in the hospital, spend money on food, parking and transport, manage calls and paperwork, chase updates, prepare for discharge, and carry the emotional and practical stresses of caring. Depending on the treatment, the person coming home from the hospital will need more support than before, not less.

This is what makes the rule on Attendance Allowance so cruel. It operates on a fantasy version of illness, one in which the hospital somehow automatically removes the burdens of care, rather than intensifying them.

The impact on Attendance Allowance has a knock-on effect on the carer’s allowance, too. If the Attendance Allowance stops, the linked Carer’s Allowance also stops, triggering a second financial impact on the same family. This is a direct penalty on ill health and care itself, delivered by a system supposedly in place to support both.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. This Labour government has just announced a review of more than 200,000 Carer’s Allowance overpayment cases, with roughly 25,000 carers potentially having their debts reduced, cancelled, or refunded due to confusing DWP guidance from 2015 to 2025. This tells us that there aren’t isolated incidents, but failures of a system that has so far approached care with suspicion, rigidity, and bureaucratic distance. 

Liberal Democrats have been vocal in our support of carers and the work they do, and now, our MPs must say even louder and clearer to the government: stop punishing elderly people and their carers for being ill. 

A decent society does not tell them that now they’re facing illness, uncertainty and fear, the state will take support away. 

It says that when life becomes more fragile, support becomes more certain.

That is the test of a humane welfare state. On this, ours is failing.

* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

3 Comments

  • Universal Basic Income. Just saying….

  • Richard Cripps 16th Apr '26 - 7:31pm

    This illustrates the problems of a fragmented health and social care system, which suffers because of the plethora of business models and providers which pervade it. We have the NHS – funded from taxpayers but free at the point of delivery, managed by a variety of trusts, so postcode lottery. On top of that, some trusts are dealing with debts incurred by private/public partnerships. Then we have social care, funded by council tax payers but also means tested so not free at the point of delivery. The providers of social care are a mixture of private (for profit) companies, charities (not for profit) and local authorities. Except, where the NHS contributes – “continuing care” – when the care is free at the point of delivery. (The criteria for getting this is VERY limited). Then there is Hospice care – again a postcode lottery of charity funding and, sometimes, government funding. Meanwhile, the benefits system is a mixture of means-tested and non-means tested provision funded through the NI and tax system run by another government department. Then there’s the GP contracts. And dont get me started on Carers Allowance! It’s an inefficient mess, IMHO.

  • Very sorry to hear what Jack and his family are going through. It does seem absurd for Attendance Allowance to stop during a spell in hospital. It is kind of Jack to share this experience with us at such a difficult time.

    However, it is entirely right that those in non self-funding residential care long-term care should have their Attendance Allowance stopped as is currently the case. In thirty years of work for many agencies, beginning with Age Concern in 1996 (when Attendance Allowance was already 25 years old) I regret to say that I believe this is one of the most inefficient benefits in the system. I believe it to be widely overclaimed at the lower rate and yet significantly underclaimed at the higher rate by the most vulnerable.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • George Thomas
    Have just come from the latest post discussing Welsh Lib Dems struggles to a post regarding better transport. Does this mean support for retrospective funding f...
  • Tristan Ward
    “Let’s start by arguing that the economic benefits of the Single Market far exceed having to accept freedom of movement into the UK, and take it from there....
  • Chloe
    'Needless to say the poorest in British society paid the price for this' I remember canvassing , the poorer the area the less interested they were. Membership ...
  • GWYN WILLIAMS
    A balanced and fair assessment of the Senedd campaign. Unlike in Scotland, Wales has not as yet polarised into for and against Independence camps. The Welsh Lib...
  • Jana
    The logic of this article is that we should be rejoining the Single Market. That is different from signing up to complete political Union by joining the EU. ...