Welfare Reform Bill

At the outset, I must correct what I said last Monday about the disability living allowance. In doing so, I again declare my interest. There are two components to the DLA: mobility and care. The care component has three levels, but the mobility component has just two: a higher level and a lower level. I think I said that it had three. At present a child must be more than three years old for a claim for the lower rate of mobility allowance to be made, and five years old for the higher rate. Severely disabled children under three who use heavy equipment, for example to help with their breathing, are thus being discriminated against. Vulnerable families are being denied vital support just because their disabled child is under three. If families do not receive any mobility component of the DLA, they are also not eligible for the Motability scheme—again, I declare an interest—which enables disabled people to obtain a car, powered wheelchair or scooter by using their government-funded mobility allowances. This problem was brought to my attention particularly by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign—I declare an interest as a vice-president—which relates the case of Aaron, a boy from Oldham who is 19 months-old and was born with a debilitating muscle disorder. He cannot walk, sit up straight or breathe unaided, and relies on a special buggy that is equipped with a ventilator to keep him alive. Children with this kind of disorder might live for at least 10 years or more. Aaron ideally needs a specially adapted vehicle big enough for the buggy to fit into. His parents applied for mobility allowance to help them pay for one but the DWP told them that they were not eligible until he was three. His mother said: "We have a blue badge for him but we aren’t allowed mobility allowance. Without that we can’t afford the £10,000 it would cost for an adapted vehicle. I am my son’s full-time carer. My husband was made redundant last year and is looking for work. As a result Aaron is going to be housebound. We can’t take him shopping or even to the park or to see his granddad who is seriously ill. I can’t understand why they won’t help. They say the law is the law and that children under three can be carried. It’s impossible to carry my son and his equipment. It feels like he’s being discriminated against because of his age and disability". The Minister will say that the Family Fund might help provide this equipment, but why should a family in this situation be forced to rely on a charity, admirable though it is? The amendment is necessary because families with disabled children are more likely to live in poverty than families with non-disabled children. It costs three times as much to bring up a disabled child compared with other children, and childcare costs for disabled children are up to five times as much. Families with disabled children are both 50 per cent more likely to be in debt than other families, and 50 per cent less likely to be able to afford essentials such as new clothes or things like school outings. The campaign to give blind people higher rate mobility DLA was successful—hooray for that. I urge the Government to look favourably on this very small group of severely disabled children and to allow them to have the lower rate of mobility allowance claimed for them. I beg to move.