Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 32 in this group, which seeks to add children on the middle-rate care component of DLA to those receiving the higher disability addition. In tabling his amendment, trumping mine, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, had first go at the subject and explained a little about how the disability additions work. Therefore, I have been able to cut out half of my speech, which is probably an extremely good thing. I understand why the Government are keen to get rid of different disability regimes and want to align to disability additions for adults and children, so that they are targeted more on those in the support group of ESA. However, in doing so they will leave many families with disabled children much poorer. The rationale is for simplification and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to smooth the transition from childhood to adulthood when the child is 16. Therefore, universal credit will have just two disability additions—a higher one and a lower one. As we have heard, for adults to qualify for the higher disability addition in universal credit, they must be in the support group of ESA. For children to qualify for the higher disability addition in UC, they have either to be severely visually impaired or receive the highest rate of the DLA care component, which means that they need not only frequent care or continual supervision by day but prolonged or repeated care during the night. They will also qualify if they have a terminal illness. As the noble Lord said—it is worth repeating—the higher disability addition is worth £77. However, if a disabled child does not need continual supervision at night, the family receives only £25.95 a week. To highlight the arbitrary nature of how the disability additions will work in practice, I point out that children who are registered blind will be entitled to £77 a week, while children with Down’s syndrome will receive £26 a week, for example. Disabled adults, on the other hand, may qualify for the lower disability addition if they are in the work-related activity group of ESA or even in low-paid work, which would give them an extra £26.75 a week. This lower addition also entitles them to an earnings disregard of £40 in universal credit, which is worth £26 to them and gives them in total an extra £53 a week. This is in stark contrast to the £25.95 that disabled children’s families may receive. Thus, the families of disabled children may lose a great deal of money, perhaps as much as £1,400 a year, which is surely the last thing that anybody wants. Is it really right, for the sake of simplification and smoothing the transition from childhood to adulthood, for poor families to be made even poorer? As we have heard, it is well known that families with disabled children are disproportionately likely to live in poverty, due to unavoidable additional costs such as heating and utility bills being higher and additional laundry costs. The Children’s Society reckons that as many as 40 per cent of disabled children live in poverty. This new policy is set to make things worse. The most troubling extra cost at the moment is sky-high energy costs. Heating a home to the warmth needed for many disabled children is getting more and more expensive. A mother and son, both with myotonic dystrophy, said last year that the cost of keeping their house warm was really high. Their last gas bill was £1,505 and they are now struggling to raise £148 every month to pay for it. Another family had to have an electric shower removed because of the cost. High energy costs are not the only extra expenses. Homes may need specialist safety measures. Disabled children may need special toys, sensory equipment, a certain diet and many other items. Other costs that families with children who are not necessarily on the highest DLA care component have to meet may include suitable specialist powered wheelchairs, which are estimated by the Joseph Patrick Trust to cost around £17,500. This means that families often have to finance or part-finance this essential equipment themselves. Another piece of equipment that is often not funded by the NHS is a cough assist machine, which costs approximately £5,000. Many people think that the cost of such specialised pieces of equipment is automatically met by the state but this is absolutely not the case. Transport is another important area that is just as expensive for families whose disabled child receives only the middle-rate care component, rather than the higher rate. Often only taxis are available, and specially adapted taxis are much more expensive than normal cars. There is another point that is mentioned only by the specialist lobby groups. This policy will particularly severely affect families where there is a genetic likelihood of children inheriting a particular disease. In these families there is often more than one disabled child. Amendment 32 would include children who receive the middle-rate care component of DLA in the higher addition group. There is, in truth, often not much difference between the two groups. This is recognised elsewhere in the benefits system, where the higher and middle-rate care components are always considered together. Amendment 33 would simply provide the same financial awards in UC as in the current system. I turn briefly to Amendment 50, which would restore the position whereby severe disability premium is paid to disabled people living alone who are entitled to DLA care at the middle or highest rate, claim a means-tested benefit and have no one claiming carer’s allowance but providing care. It is currently worth £53.65 per week and is both an in and out-of-work benefit. Disabled people living alone face a wide range of extra costs, as I know. It is particularly relevant to young carers, who are not eligible to apply for carer’s allowance. I wonder what the result was of the discussion that the Minister, Chris Grayling, said that he would have on this very subject with the Minister for Disabled People, Maria Miller. Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Those who currently receive the severe disability premium and are not in the support group of ESA are particularly hard hit. There are, by definition, a relatively small number of people who receive this benefit. I urge the Government to consider their position.