Welfare Reform Bill

Would my noble friend like to comment further? He has very helpfully described the situation as it is. The noble Baroness who spoke about the flimsiness of the line between lower-rate and middle-rate DLA and what happens on appeal is absolutely right, particularly when dealing with fluctuating conditions or things such as HD. On those occasions, it is not always easy to carry out an assessment, remembering that DLA is not about the medical dimensions of a particular disability or sickness but about the implication for care needs. That is what determines what rate of DLA one is on. Having said that, as my noble friend knows, because it is very difficult to find childcare in that situation, the childcare tax credit had to be changed by the Government to allow it to take place in the child’s own home, which is not what the Government originally planned. Frankly, because the line between lower-rate DLA and the rest is so flimsy and subjective and has no real connection to the degree of stress on the lone parent and her capacity to cope, I do not think that it would hold up in what I call the court of public opinion. Therefore, I strongly urge my noble friend not to reject the amendment but to take it away. It would be perfectly reasonable—and I would support him on this—for all lone parents, including those with a disabled child, on whatever rate of DLA to come in for six-monthly work-focused interviews. That would be absolutely right because—who knows?—as that child matured, his disability, if it were a behavioural disorder, might reduce and the lone parent might want to re-enter work and stay attached to the labour market in the gentlest way possible. I see no problem with that continuing, but I suggest that it is not acceptable to make work-related activity for a lone parent with a child, even on the lowest rate of DLA, mandatory. Where that lone parent volunteers and wishes to do that work rather than take part under the New Deal, that is fine. I urge my noble friend not to reject the amendment at this point but to take it away and reflect on it to see whether he is able to come forward on Report with something that addresses the concerns that have been expressed. There should not be flexibility for a personal adviser to second-guess a doctor or a medical judgment for DLA; the lone parent should be given the right to determine what she does while the child is under the age of seven. It is entirely reasonable to keep the interviews going to see whether her circumstances change, but one should not add to the pressures and strains because, I suggest to my noble friend, that would not hold up in any test of public decency on this issue. Again, I suggest that he takes the amendment away.