Welfare Reform Bill

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to resist this amendment, although the Government are not unsympathetic to the arguments put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to Clause 12. I am pleased to see that we were able to make that development in the Commons. In fact, we did it twice and my noble friend will shortly be deleting the second of those. We understand the situation that the parents of children dependent on therapeutic technologies and equipment can face, especially where the equipment is heavy and difficult to transport. The noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Thomas, gave some practical examples of that. I should clarify the intention behind the amendment because, as it is drafted, it has the effect of extending the lower rate mobility component of the DLA to children under the age of three. I understand the intention is to extend the higher rate mobility component and with it access to the Motability scheme to children under the age of three. As noble Lords will be aware, the higher-rate mobility component of DLA is, quite rightly, assessed by an inability, or virtual inability, to walk when out of doors. When deciding entitlement to the component, decision-makers have to take account of a variety of factors such as the distance someone can walk, the speed of their walking, the manner of their walking, whether walking brings on severe discomfort and whether the very act of walking could be detrimental to their health. These are the statutory requirements intended to inform a reasonable view of someone’s walking ability. With reference to young children, I think that we can all agree that the great majority of non-disabled children will be walking by their third birthday, and most of them will have been walking much earlier than that. But very few of them will have been walking considerable distances. The majority will have required, and may continue to require, significant help from their parents and a reliance on prams, buggies or other bulky or awkward equipment that parents regularly carry with them. However, we recognise that therapeutic equipment used to support some disabled children can, in certain instances, prove to be bulky, heavy or awkward to carry or transport. We understand that this can place a great strain on the time, resources and finances of parents and siblings. It is for these sorts of reasons that we already make sure that financial help is available to parents of children dependent on the equipment referenced in the amendment. For instance, there exists a range of measures, over and above the mobility component of DLA, designed to help families with disabled young children. The disability-related premiums in the income-related benefits and the additional elements for disabled children in tax credits are but two of the statutory provisions. However, extra statutory schemes such as the Family Fund, to which the noble Baroness anticipated I would make reference, can also provide help for less well-off families with disabled children. The fund can help with travelling costs and can extend to the purchase of vehicles in exceptional cases, although all decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis. Of course, in this difficult financial climate, we need to consider carefully the potential cost of any such change; the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked me specifically about this. This amendment would, of course, result in additional costs, but these are difficult to estimate. Our broad estimates put the cost at around £15 million per year. This would obviously be a significant increase in what is, unfortunately, a difficult economic situation, and is simply not affordable in the current context. On numbers, our estimates, which were quite difficult to compile, suggest that there could be around 5,000 children under the age of three who could potentially benefit from the impact of the amendment. In summary, I am not dismissing the broad aim of the amendment. As I said earlier, we are sympathetic to the aim, which we take to be delivering greater help to the parents of severely disabled children who depend on certain therapeutic technologies or equipment to get them around out of doors. But, for the reasons outlined earlier, we believe that this amendment is not the best way of advancing that aim. With a degree of regret, I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.