Working Families response to Disability Living Allowance Reform

Working Families response to the consultation on

Disability Living Allowance Reform.

Working Families is the UK’s leading work life balance charity.  We provide a free legal helpline for parents and carers who need help and advice on employment rights.  We also support a network of 2000 parents of disabled children who work or wish to work and hear first hand accounts of the difficulties they face in accessing the support they need.  Our response is particularly concerned with the changes as they affect disabled children.

We welcome the commitment to maintaining a non-means tested disability benefit to support disabled people.   We also welcome the refocus on what an individual can do, rather than what they cannot.  It is distressing for parents to have to focus on their child’s lack of ability during assessment.   Until further details of the Universal Credit are set out, it is difficult to see how the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will interact with other benefits but we are pleased that it will remain outside of Universal Credit.   Changes to DLA may also impact on Carer’s Allowance and we await further details on the Government’s proposals.

For families with disabled children, there will be an additional challenge to ensure that work always pays through Universal Credit.  It costs three times as much to care for a disabled as a non disabled child, yet the amount currently awarded for childcare costs through Working Tax Credit does not take this into account.  The extra need for childcare costs emerge precisely because of the child’s impairment or health condition.  Disabled children may need to be cared for on a one-to-one basis, they may need extra equipment, or highly skilled carers:  all of these bring additional costs.  We hope that the additional costs of caring for a disabled child will be fully recognised in the childcare element of the Universal Credit.

We are pleased to see an emphasis on simplification and agree that the claim form is long and complex.   We would welcome clear statements about the purpose of the new benefit and reassurance about its continuation whether the claimant is in or out of work.  We support the reduction to two rates per component but are concerned that the savings proposed by this reform may mean many families currently in receipt of DLA will receive nothing in the new system.

We are concerned by two key issues set out in the consultation document.  First, the fact that an individual will need to have qualified for PIP for six months before an award can be made.  This means that families will not have the immediate support that they need.  The very process of diagnosing a child’s disability can already take months and to add an additional six months (instead of the three months now) will cause families hardship.  We recommend that PIP is payable as soon as a child’s disability is confirmed, and backdated to the start of the diagnostic process.

Second, we are concerned about the assessment process for disabled children.  We would support the retention of a list of automatic entitlements as moving to a process where every single claim must be individually assessed will be time consuming, costly and stressful for the families involved.  Disabled children are already assessed regularly and if PIP involves more assessments this may mean extra cost as well as distress for families.   Making eligibility for PIP dependent on the age of the child may make budgeting more difficult for families with a disabled child.

We are concerned by reports that the recently introduced assessment for Employment Support Allowance have been poorly administered and that tests are not fit for purpose.  Lessons should be learned before a new system is introduced for PIP. 

We are concerned by the suggestion in the consultation document that a child’s support needs at school may be taken into account in assessing entitlement to PIP.  The child’s support needs at school are assessed in order for them to access education. PIP is to provide help with the extra costs of mobility and daily living.  Just as it would be wrong to take PIP into account in assessing reasonable adjustments in the workplace, so it would be wrong to take PIP into account in determining the financial and other support a child needs to access education.

Finally, we do not agree with the proposal to remove the mobility component of DLA from children in residential accommodation or schools announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.  Removing children’s mobility allowance will restrict their ability to live independent lives: they will be dependent instead on the residential setting to provide transport.  Spending time with friends and family outside of school will be very difficult without financial assistance with the high costs of transport.  This proposal will reduce disabled children’s chances to lead an ordinary family life.

Working Families

January 2011