CHARITIES have welcomed a dramatic Hampshire County Council U-turn on its policy to cut back on home help for frail elderly and disabled people.

The Conservative-controlled council has dropped a controversial proposal to make all but the most needy ineligible for home help, such as cleaning, washing, dressing and respite care.

Leader of the council, Ken Thornber, made the surprise announcement on Monday, reversing a policy decision to strip thousands of older people and adults with severe learning or physical disabilities of the home services needed to help them live independent lives.

Services are currently provided to 9,300 vulnerable adults in "substantial need" who are largely unable to care for themselves and 4,800 in "critical need," whose life is threatened.

The council began a public consultation exercise last September on raising the eligibility criteria so only those in critical need get help in future - drastically cutting the numbers receiving services.

Council chiefs said they had to act because of growing numbers of older people who need extra care and increasing costs of services. The adult social services department ran up £11m debts last year.

Explaining the change of heart, Mr Thornber said he had visited North Hampshire Hospital in Basingstoke and accompanied social workers to the homes of vulnerable adults in Andover.

Mr Thornber said: "I wanted to find out at first hand how this change could affect those who need and use our services."

He went on: "We need to ensure that we are focusing on those in the very greatest need and while there is no doubt that tough measures will have to be brought in, to guarantee that we can continue to provide relevant care to the most vulnerable people across Hampshire, I am no longer convinced that changing the band of eligibility criteria to "critical" is the way forward for this county.

"While there has been widespread agreement that we should be spending our resources on those most in need or at risk, the advantages of moving to critical only are far outweighed by the disadvantages."

The change follows extensive lobbying from charities such as Mencap, Age Concern, Help the Aged and the Alzheimer's Society.

They said tightening eligibility criteria might ease the immediate cash crisis but it was short-sighted and would store up problems for the future.

It would hit the vital help that enables elderly and disabled people to live at home and lead to bigger crippling care home bills.

A big cheer greeted the announcement of the policy U-turn at the Age Concern annual general meeting at Winchester Great Hall on Tuesday.

President of Age Concern Hampshire, Lawrie McMenemy, said: "It's excellent news. I've always been an admirer of Ken Thornber as a leader. Top marks for him."

Dr Alan Fowler, chairman of Winchester Alzheimer's Society, also welcomed the policy reversal, but warned services were still being increasingly rationed.

He said: "There is a shortage, particularly of day care and respite care. As a charity, we are stretched to the limits plugging the gaps left by the statutory services.

"We have wives of 70-plus up to 90 with arthritis and diabetes caring for husbands with dementia. It would put an enormous strain on them not to get a break from a care attendant coming in once or twice a day to help get their husband up or put him to bed. It would be appalling situation."

Councillor Patricia Banks, executive member for adult services, who announced the change to the AGM, said: "It does not help the financial situation but the evidence I was getting was that any possible savings were not worth the agony that it was going to cause the carers and service users."

The council now plans to cut short the 12-week consultation period which was not due to end until November.

The questionnaire had been widely criticised as fatally flawed as people were not actually asked the vital question, did they support withdrawing services from people with substantial needs.

Instead, they were asked if the budget should be spent on those in most need.

Charities said this was misleading. Vulnerable adults, including those with learning disabilities, could have supported a policy change which cut their care.