Welfare Reform Bill

In practice, the difference between what we are proposing and the child tax credit rate is not very large. We are not talking about a high difference as we move up. I am not making a commitment to go straight to the proposed rate immediately, but we are not talking about large figures here. Turning to the specific amendments, Amendment 30C would limit the flexibility that we seek under Clause 10 to determine the criteria and amounts payable in respect of a disabled child. We have made clear our commitment to providing additional amounts to disabled children, so I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendment is not needed. Amendment 31A would specify an additional element for a severely disabled child. We have already stated in the policy briefing note that there will be a higher amount for the most severely disabled children, and I have reiterated that commitment today, so that amendment is also unnecessary. Amendment 32 would entail a cost of about £250 million a year and mean that we could not afford to pay the increased amount—the illustrative £77 a week—for severely disabled children and adults. If we widened eligibility, we would have to reduce the amount for severely disabled adults and children by around £10 a week for it to be affordable. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about the relationship between additions and disregards. The purpose of the disregards is to make work pay for the household. If the parent of a disabled child is working, they will qualify for a disregard at the appropriate rate for a couple or a lone parent. Our latest assumptions about earnings disregards mean that families with children would always have a disregard at least as high as the disability disregard. Amendments 33 and 33A would mean retaining the existing system for disabled child rates and so would not allow us to achieve simplification and alignment, about which I spoke earlier. I strongly urge noble Lords to agree that our approach to simplify and align the extra payment for disabled children with the extra payments for a disabled adult is the right one. Turning to Amendment 49A, the definition we have used in Clause 12 is drawn from carers allowance legislation. I assure the noble Lord that eligibility for the carer element covers situations where the disabled person is a child, as the carers allowance does now, and that we intend the meaning of ““severely disabled people”” to reflect eligibility for the highest rates of the DLA care component, so we feel that the amendment is unnecessary. Amendment 50 would add a further element to the calculation of universal credit for this group of severely disabled person. That is similar to the definition of the severe disability premium in the current system. I have explained that simplification is one of the key aims. There have always been significant questions about the rationale for the severe disability premium and significant problems with its administration. Further, it does not make sense to continue with a situation where some additions for adults are awarded on the basis of the work capability assessment and others are passported from the DLA. We believe that it is right to target additional support for severely disabled people on universal credit on cases where the work capability assessment establishes that there is limited capability for work or work-related activity. Severely disabled people have the least opportunity to work. It is, after all, a work-related benefit. Noble Lords have also raised the impact on young carers of abolishing the disability premium. The severe disability premium was never intended as a support for young carers and would not be paid in circumstances where a non-dependent, such as an older brother or sister, was living in a household. We are sympathetic to young carers. In the other place, Ministers gave a commitment to look at the specific position of young carers. However, consistent with the carers strategy published last November, we believe that support for young carers should focus on achieving their educational and employment potential, having the same opportunities as other young people, without assuming that they should always be a carer. The amendment would return us to the complexity of the existing system. To respond specifically to my noble friends Lady Thomas and Lady Tyler, it is the role of local authorities and social services to support young people with caring responsibilities to achieve their potential, and £2.2 billion of funding is provided each year to support vulnerable children and their families. An extra £1.5 million has been made available to support young carers.