Atoc said the number of journeys made by passengers with a Disabled Person’s Railcard had more than trebled in the past 15 years to 3.5 million a year.

It claimed the rise could be attributed to the discount card and improvements made by train companies.

But campaign groups said more needed to be done to help disabled travellers.

The Disabled Person’s Card – held by 130,000 people in the UK – reduces the price of most tickets by a third.

Atoc said there had been “significant improvements in facilities and services” on trains and at stations.

They included interactive maps of all 2,500 stations in the UK; passengers being able to book assistance if they bought tickets and reserved seats in advance; and improvements to trains, such as removing slamming doors.

David Sindall, Atoc’s head of disability and inclusion, said: “Accessible public transport plays a key role in allowing disabled people to lead an independent life, so it’s good news that more and more people are taking advantage of the railcard.”

He said “huge progress” had been made in improving rail services for disabled people over the past 30 years but added that train companies were “committed to responding to passengers’ needs and will continue to work closely with disability charities and support groups to improve services even further”.

Charity Leonard Cheshire Disability said “simple and inexpensive changes” could be made, such as working more with disabled people, to ensure more people could travel by train.

“This would not only open up the customer base, but also help to create UK train services that everyone can use,” the charity said.

The charity’s Hannah Hollingworth said: “We hear stories from disabled people of being stepped over in train carriages, trapped in toilets, and having to wait a long time for assistance.”

Campaign group Passenger Focus carried out research into support for disabled passengers, particularly looking at help in reserving seats.

Director David Sidebottom said they found a “mixed bag of service for passengers needing assistance” and more needed to be done to improve the system.

“We found there had been some improvements between 2008 and 2010 but there was still inconsistencies in delivering the service.”

The Age UK report said £7.3bn was being budgeted this year – the same as in 2011 – but it represented a drop of 4.5% once inflation was taken into account.

The charity said the squeeze meant thousands were missing out on care.

But ministers said there should be enough money available to avoid cuts.

The report, based on official data plus Age UK’s own research, comes amid mounting concern about the state of social care, which includes help in the home with activities such as washing and dressing as well as residential care places.

Ministers have promised to publish plans in the spring to reform the system to ensure it is sustainable in the long term.

But following the Spending Review in 2010, they said extra funds would be made available for social care – including money from the NHS budget – to help councils out.

This is because of the wider cuts to local government funding – over the next four years its budget from central government will be reduced by a quarter, leading to cuts in everything from leisure centres to libraries, which are being seen across the country.

The Age UK report argues that despite the extra money social care has not been able to escape unscathed from the cuts programme.

The analysis shows that councils are reducing spending by 4.5% – £341m in monetary terms.

But the report said that if rising demand from the ageing population were taken into account, the drop would be closer to £500m.

And the charity predicted the situation would get even worse in the coming years.

The report said the squeeze on spending had led councils to restrict access to services as well as increasing the fees they charged – only the poorest got their care completely free.

Age UK believes there are 2m people in England with care needs, 800,000 of whom are not getting any formal support.

Michelle Mitchell, charity director of Age UK, said: “Behind these figures are real older people struggling to cope without the support they need, compromising their dignity and safety on a daily basis.

“Social care is not a nice-to-have extra – it is the support that helps older people get out of bed, feed themselves, have a wash and live a life that is more than just an existence.”

Care services minister Paul Burstow said: “We believe councils have enough to maintain the current levels of access and eligibility but they will need to work hard and smart, and invest in things like telecare and re-ablement [helping people regain skills] to free up more money for front-line services.”

But he said he recognised the system needed improving for the future and that was why a White Paper would be published in the spring.

David Rogers, of the Local Government Association, said councils were doing the best they could.

“These figures highlight what we already know – there isn’t enough money in the system and without fundamental reform the situation is only going to get worse.”

Shadow care services minister Liz Kendall said: “This report provides yet more evidence that there is a growing crisis in care for older people.”

Keeping the brain active and stimulated has been found to have a dramatic effect on reducing the build-up of harmful proteins in the brain.

These destructive fibres, known as beta-amyloid, clump together in plaques, killing off nerves and leading to the symptoms of memory loss and confusion typical of Alzheimer’s.

The condition is incurable but experts believe the key to tackling it – and even stopping it completely – lies in early detection, treating people before the plaques even form.

While previous research has suggested that mentally stimulating activities may help stave off Alzheimer’s, the latest study identifies the biological mechanisms at work and heralds a new way of thinking about how keeping the mind active affects the brain.

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, found that brain scans on people with no symptoms of Alzheimer’s who had engaged in stimulating activities all their lives revealed they had fewer deposits of beta-amyloid.

Lead investigator Dr William Jagust said: “These findings point to a new way of thinking about how cognitive engagement throughout life affects the brain.

“Rather than simply providing resistance to Alzheimer’s, brain-stimulating activities may affect a primary pathological process in the disease. This suggests that cognitive therapies could have significant disease-modifying treatment benefits if applied early enough, before symptoms appear.”

Susan Landau, research scientist at the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and the Berkeley Lab, who led the research which is published in the journal Archives of Neurology, added: “Amyloid probably starts accumulating many years before symptoms appear.

“The time for intervention may be much sooner, which is why we’re trying to identify whether lifestyle factors might be related to the earliest possible changes.”

Researchers asked 65 healthy, normal adults aged 60 and over to rate how frequently since the age of six they did mentally engaging activities such as reading books or newspapers, and writing letters or email.

Their memories and other brain functions were assessed and their brain scans were compared with those of 10 Alzheimer’s patients and 11 healthy people in their 20s. A significant link was found between higher levels of cognitive activity over a lifetime and lower levels of beta-amyloid.

Dr Simon Ridley, of Alzheimer’s ResearchUK, said: “The authors of this small study suggest there may be benefits to keeping an active mind throughout life. While the study found an association between cognitive activity and levels of amyloid protein in healthy volunteers, we cannot conclude one directly causes the other.”

Dr Anne Corbett, research manager at the Alzheimer’s Society, said: “This is an interesting initial finding. The research involved only a very small number of people and we do not know if they went on to develop dementia. However, we would encourage anyone who enjoys reading, writing and playing games to keep it up.”

Research last year revealed that doing a daily crossword or sudoku puzzle, could halt the advance of dementia as effectively as some drugs.

At least 820,000 people in the UK have a form of dementia with more than half having Alzheimer’s.

Lib Dem, Labour and crossbench peers backed a bishop’s amendment by 252 to 237 that child benefit should not be included in the cap.

Critics argued that imposing the same cap on all families, regardless of size, would penalise children.

The government said it was “very disappointed” and the vote “clearly flies in the face of public opinion”.

Earlier the government defeated another amendment proposed by Labour to exempt people considered at risk of homelessness from the cap.

The annual cap would come into force for working age families inEngland,ScotlandandWalesfrom 2013.

The government was defeated three times on votes on other parts of its flagship Welfare Reform Bill two weeks ago.

But Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has said any defeats will be overturned when the legislation returns to the Commons.

The amendment on child benefit was put down by Bishop of Ripon andLeeds, the Rt Rev John Packer.

He said child benefit was “a universal benefit” and it was “wrong to see it as being a welfare benefit”.

“It’s a benefit which is there for all children, for the bringing up of all children and to say that the only people who cannot have child benefit are those whose welfare benefits have been capped seems to me to be a quite extraordinary argument.”

He said the cap “failed to differentiate between households with children and those without” and child benefit was “the most appropriate way to right this unfairness”.

But Mr Duncan Smith said excluding child benefit would make the cap “pointless” – as it would raise the amount families could receive to an average of about £50,000 a year.

He said he wanted to be “fair” to taxpayers on low wages, who were supporting families in homes they themselves could not afford.

Enver Solomon, policy director at The Children’s Society, said it was “delighted” with the results of the vote, arguing it was “totally unfair that a small family with a household income of £80,000 a year receive it, yet a large family with a benefit income of £26,000 are excluded”.

“The government must not ignore the fact that the Lords have spoken out to defend the plight of some of the country’s most disadvantaged children,” he said.

The Centre for Social Justice, a think tank set up by Mr Duncan Smith in 2004, said the result was “peculiarly out of line with public opinion”.

Executive director Gavin Poole said: “Opponents in the House of Lords have missed a crucial opportunity to support the benefit cap, a policy which would bring about positive welfare reform.”

Labour said its peers would support the bishop’s amendment after their own was rejected by 250 votes to 222.

The Labour amendment would have exempted people who would be considered “threatened with homelessness” under the cap – and obliged to be rehoused by their local council.

In the Commons, Mr Duncan Smith accused the Opposition of saying they were in favour of a cap on benefits – while tabling a “wrecking amendment”.

“They can’t weasle their way out of it and say they are in favour on the one hand and against on the other,” he said.

Labour says it supports the cap, but as it stands it could end up costing the taxpayer more if 20,000 families have to be rehoused.

The cap would be £500 a week – equivalent to the average wage earned by working households after tax – for families and £350 a week for single adults without children.

On Monday the government revised up its estimate of how many households would be affected – from 50,000 to 67,000, although the amount of money they would lose was revised down from £93-a-week to £83-a-week. More than half of those affected live inLondon.

There have been suggestions that some “transitional arrangements” could be introduced for families affected by the cap.

Mr Duncan Smith said most of those affected were people who had never worked – and had no incentive to do so because they were living in expensive properties which they would have to move out of if they lost their housing benefit entitlement.

He has rejected suggestions children could be pushed into poverty by the cap or that some families would be left homeless.

Former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown said he would vote against the plans unless there were measures to cushion the impact on those affected.

And former Lib Dem chief whip Lord Kirkwood argued that a cap allowed ministers arbitrarily to “over-ride” people’s rightful benefit entitlements and insisted: “I don’t think it’s safe to grant ministers these powers.”

The changes would affectEngland,Wales and Scotland.Northern Ireland has its own social security legislation, but it is expected that what is approved atWestminsterwould be introduced there too.

Blackfriars Befriending can provide a trained volunteer who will come around have a chat, share a cup of tea and provide help and support.

The befrienders can also help you get out and about and provide information about local groups, services, transport and activities in your area.

If you know of someone who would like to find out about the befriending service please contact Sophia on 020 7928 9521 or sophia.appleby@blackfriars-settlement.org.uk

The Disabled Facilities Grant is worth a total of £200 million this year, and is awarded to pay for adaptations such as grab rails, accessible bathroom or kitchen facilities, wheelchair ramps, etc. The extra funds were announced by Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, as part of a £51 million programme to support independent living.

He said: “As we get older the last thing we want is for our properties to become our prisons. That’s why today I’m offering a new deal for older people, backed with millions of pounds of Government cash, to ensure elderly residents get the support they need to live independently and comfortably in their own homes for as long as they can, with particular support for those leaving hospital.”

By providing extra funds for Home Improvement Agencies, they want to help ensure that people can access reliable tradespeople to carry out necessary alterations and installations, rather than risk being ripped off by ‘rogue traders’. If you would like to find your local Home Improvement Agency, you can do so on the Foundations website

Local councils will also be obliged to ensure suitable numbers of accessible properties are included in their future housing plans as part of the government’s proposals.

But, as the Department of Health (DH) delighted in pointing out once it had studied the detail of the BMA’s poll, just 7.2% of its membership are ready to actually strike – a miniscule figure by comparison. And only 30.1% believe the coalition’s proposed changes to the NHS pension scheme to be so iniquitous that they should be rejected altogether. And of course the turnout for the BMA’s survey was just 36%, raising obvious questions about how representative it is.

No government ever relishes confrontation with doctors, the most trusted profession. But the DH clearly feels that not just right, but also public opinion, is on its side. It points out: “Doctors and consultants who are among the highest earners in the NHS have benefited hugely from the current final salary scheme arrangements compared to other staff groups. Under the current scheme, a typical consultant retiring at age 60 will receive a pension of over £48,000 a year for life. In addition they will receive a tax free lump sum of around £143,000 – this equates to a pension pot of over £1.7m in the private sector.” Such arrangements are now “unsustainable”, it adds, gambling that defending such lucrative rewards will prove difficult for a well-paid profession, despite the public’s general admiration of doctors’ qualities.

Doctors’ leaders are used to getting their own way when they flex their muscles, whoever is in power. But Labour ignored the profession’s protests to impose patient-friendly longer GP surgery opening times, while Andrew Lansley’s decision to pay almost no heed at all of the BMA’s opposition to his health and social care bill should have ended any lingering BMA belief that it enjoys automatic influence. It is hard to predict where this developing impasse over pensions will end. With a coalition climbdown, or at least sufficient further concessions to persuade medics to back down? Unlikely. Or with the first industrial action by doctors since 1975, when junior doctors took action over their contracts? That now seems unavoidable.

Meldrum says the pension shakeup is “the final straw” for doctors who are about to enter the fourth year of a pay freeze and, in England, are having to contend with a £20bn NHS savings drive and an unpopular restructuring of the system which few think is necessary. Doctors are angry, he says, as they will be “hit hard” because “the amount deducted from their pay for their pensions will go up this April, with further rises in 2013 and 2014″.

“Those at the start of their careers face the prospect of paying over £200,000 in additional lifetime contributions. The normal pension age would increase, with many having to work to the age of 68 before being able to draw a full pension. And the current final salary scheme would be replaced with a new career average scheme, which would leave most doctors with worse overall benefits,” he says. A scheme revised as recently as 2008 should be left well alone, Meldrum adds.

Doctors have a mixed record on getting what they want on the rare occasions they get worked up enough to consider industrial action. In 1990, when Ken Clarke was health secretary, there was much disgruntlement at a proposed new GP contract. But the BMA Council decided not to hold a ballot. In 1975 there was industrial action, by junior doctors angry at their new contracts; agreement on a new deal was reached a month later after ministers decided to resume negotiations. The year before, Barbara Castle tried to stop consultants in the NHS from undertaking private work on top. So consultants took action between January and April that year, suspending goodwill activities and sticking to the letter of their contracts – much medical work relies on doctors performing extra-contractual tasks – which ultimately led to peace breaking out and a deal.

However, the two major health unions which did not ballot their members before the pensions day of action last November – the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing – are now both, very reluctantly, set to do that some time soon. Both say that all the talking so far with ministers and officials has got them nowhere, and that in effect they are being pushed into balloting on industrial action. Nurses have never taken strike action, but that is a growing possibility. That cautious organisations such as the BMA and RCN are now being pushed into the same camp as the more predictable anti-pensions Unison and Unite unions will test doctors’ and nurses’ unity, but could ultimately pose a tougher test for ministers.

The two charities have been in detailed negotiations for the past 18 months and, subject to the remaining formal and regulatory steps, the new charity will be operational from 1 April 2012, with a public launch in the summer.

Crossroads Care and The Princess Royal Trust for Carers have a strong history of working together, with a number of jointly funded posts and a range of successful fundraising and policy campaigns.

The new charity, which is yet to be named, will build on the experience and expertise of its two founder charities to work towards its vision of a world where the role and contribution of unpaid carers is recognised and they have access to the quality support and services they need to live their own lives.

Andrew Cozens, former Vice-Chair at The Princess Royal Trust for Carers, has been appointed as Chair of the new charity. Mark Currie joins the board as Treasurer, a role he has been carrying out at Crossroads Care for the past two years. Recruitment of a Chief Executive for the new charity is now underway.

Her Royal Highness, The Princess Royal, has agreed to be President of the new charity, a role she has held at The Trust since it formed in 1991.

Commenting on the announcement, Andrew Cozens said: “We are delighted that The Princess Royal will be President of the new charity, which continues her long support for carers.

“Both of the founder charities place carers and carers support at their heart and this will be at the core of the new organisation. The work undertaken by Crossroads Care and The Princess Royal Trust for Carers is complementary and they have a well known and respected track record of working together.

“While both are doing great work independently in supporting carers, it became apparent that so much more could be achieved, both now and in the future, if the two came together to create a new charity.

“Doing so will give us a single, stronger voice with which to raise greater awareness of the issues that carers face, as well as the money needed to sustain existing, and develop new, services for carers.”

Both charities’ networks will continue to provide support to carers under their local brands, and are not expected to merge locally as a result of the national merger.

We would like to interview anyone from the LGBT community who is in receipt of a Personal Budget, who has applied, or who is eligible for one. We would not need to film or identify anyone if they do not so wish. We are also looking for people to work with us on ideas for the film, outreach, art work for animation, helping with interviews for the film, producing the film, editing and more!

The film will be shown next year at The Tate Modern, and we plan for it to be show cased at Southwark LGBT History Month 2012.

If you wish to find out more call CoolTan on 020 7701 2696

The Prime Minister’s  been saying a lot on domestic policy recently. I wonder if he was saving it all up over the Christmas break, making notes in between his turkey and plum duff. He’s been wading in on a few issues which he normally leaves to others, which have  hit a bit close to home on the caring front.

Over the weekend he made what was apparently an off the cuff quip about Tourette’s syndrome. Maybe some people found it funny, but I bet people with Tourette’s and their families didn’t. Most people with a disability will tell you about the names they’ve been called  or the humiliation they’ve had to put up with, just because they look different, need different things, talk differently, behave differently. Making fun of someone’s disability  to score a couple of laughs just isn’t on, and if you’re the Prime Minister, frankly, you should know better. Zero points, Mr Cameron, for disability awareness.

And  last weekend he was on about health and social care and how they need to be more joined up. He wants to make it a priority, as care in England  is too fragmented .

I’m delighted he’s taking an interest. We desperately need our political leadership to social care right at the top of the list as a major priority to be addressed. He’s absolutely right that the artificial boundaries between health and social care make no sense and act as a barrier. I can’t tell you the number of times I speak to carers who are stuck in the middle, making never ending phone calls to different departments trying to put together all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. It’s no wonder carers don’t access support for themselves- by the time they’ve got the essentials in place for the person they care for, they’re exhausted, just can’t face it, or think there’s no blooming point.

But it is a bit odd, all the same. We’ve been talking about joined up care for as long as I can remember. We have pooled budgets which are supposed to mean health and social services plan  together. We have jointly agreed care plans and in some places care trusts which bring all the services together. And whilst there are successes,  they’re there because the local leadership pushes it and people on the ground are fully, root and branch, committed to making it work. In many places it’s still very much  a case of the right hand having no clue what the left hand is doing.

At the same time, the Health and Social Care Bill drives policy in the opposite direction – removing more and more central direction, and removing the need to have the same boundaries for health and care authorities. We lobbied hard on this, including talking to the PM about it directly,  because  where families need to work with multiple services – for example,  adults and children services, health trusts, education services, all at the same time –  creating extra confusion doesn’t  help and people who are the most disadvantaged get missed.  The reorganisation which health services will have to go through following the Health and Social Care Bill is going to make things a lot worse at least in the short term. I’m worried about how we will make sure everyone gets what they need whilst the NHS is trying to figure out who’s in charge and who works for who.

It’s fantastic that the PM  has spoken about the importance of social care, and of integration. If we can find ways of achieving better joined up working, let’s do it. But I’m worried that his comments suggest that if we all try a bit harder to work together then the social care system might turn out not to be quite so broke and therefore not need fixing, meaning we can shelve the difficult decisions for another day. No matter how much integration there is, social care in England needs reform and needs more funding. Let’s keep our focus there.