Hundreds have opposed controversial cost-cutting measures which would see more than 1,400 disabled people in Norfolk pay more for their care.

Conservative-controlled Norfolk County Council agreed earlier this year to make £42m of cuts and savings, including a proposal to save £1.1m a year by reducing the minimum income guarantee (MIG).

The MIG specifies the income disabled people aged 18 to 64 can keep for everyday expenses, after the cost of council-arranged home care is taken into account.

Reducing it means more than 1,400 disabled people would pay more for their care.

Some would have to pay towards care costs for the first time and others between £10 and £50 more a week.

The authority consulted on two options.

One was to reduce the minimum income guarantee for people aged 18 to 64 from £187.13 to £171.75 a week.

The other is to reduce from £187.13 to £171.75 for people aged 25 to 64 and to £150.20 for those aged 18 to 24.

Since that consultation, the MIG levels have had an inflation-linked rise.

Norfolk County Council's change would affect disabled peopleNorfolk County Council's change would affect disabled people (Image: Mike Page)

Disabled people, their parents and their carers were angry the council did not consult over no changes - branding the process 'rigged'.

Of the 546 who responded, 59pc disagreed with option one and 66pc disagreed with option two.

The final decision rests with the council's cabinet, which will meet next month, but before that, County Hall's scrutiny committee will consider a report by officers.

In that report, officers acknowledge the "detrimental" effect, but say, if the cabinet were to decide not to make the change, other savings would have to be found.

A previous attempt by the council to change the MIG led to the council losing a legal challenge.

Dan Roper, chair of Norfolk County Council's scrutiny committeeDan Roper, chair of Norfolk County Council's scrutiny committee (Image: Dan Roper)

Liberal Democrat councillor Dan Roper, chair of the council's scrutiny committee, said: "This is a massively important issue for those directly affected by the proposals and those involved in their care and support.

"We should take the time to examine the evidence and hear from those people with lived experience, both through the results of the consultation and during the meeting."