Welfare Reform Bill

My own pathway to work today has been rather lengthy, but I seize it with alacrity. This is the only point at which we will be debating Clause 12, which extends the mobility component to blind people. I notice in the Explanatory Note that it does not change the arrangements for blind/deaf people. I met such a person yesterday at the Lincolnshire Show. He was there as a pillion rider on a trick buggy that was leaping over vans, cars and various other things. That shows the degree of imagination that is needed when dealing with people and the way in which people with even the most substantial handicaps can be helped into occupational employment. I could communicate with this very courageous young person only through his care worker tapping on the palms of his hands. It is very humiliating, as I am sure noble Lords will understand. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for raising this topic in her amendment, which seeks to extend the entitlement to receive the mobility component of the DLA to certain categories of children under three. Those categories she has listed expand the existing categories in Section 73 of the 1992 Act, which states in subsection (1) that, ""a person shall be entitled to the mobility component of a disability living allowance for any period in which he is over the age of 5 and throughout which … he is suffering from physical disablement such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so"." I would have thought that at least two of the categories at proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) could be covered by that existing criterion. The noble Baroness clearly believes that very disabled children are currently falling outside the protection of the 1992 Act. I confess that I was not hitherto aware of the problem and so I am not in a position to offer much further comment. However, other noble Lords and I would be in a more informed position if the Minister could provide us with figures on the number of children who might fall into these categories. By setting the age in her amendment at three years-old the noble Baroness has brought into play payments at the higher rate. However, the age level set me wondering and I asked the noble Baroness to consider whether the criteria in her amendment are realistic. Would a child under three be likely to be using motorised buggies or wheelchairs, for example? I would have thought that unlikely. Severely disabled children would surely be more than usually dependent upon their parents’ support. The point she is making is that parents of very disabled children who are not in the categories covered in the 1992 Act might need additional support. This would cost the Government money but, as it would apply to only a small number of children, can the Minister tell us how much? If he intends to resist the amendment, I look forward to an explanation. He may say that the amendment is not necessary because this small category of disabled children is already covered under existing legislation, as I have suggested it might be, but, along with other noble Lords, I shall look carefully to see whether that assurance satisfies the noble Baroness, who apparently has identified a hole in the net.