DWP child DLA, USA News: The Department for Work and Pensions Child Disability Living Allowance claimants have been issued a reassuring update over the future of their benefits following a damning report calling for cuts that met with furious opposition.
Jean-André Prager, a member of the Timms Review steering group, co-authored a report calling for cuts to child DLA for mental health, learning difficulties and neurodevelopmental conditions. The report, published by the Policy Exchange thinktank, was met with fierce opposition from Disability Action Haringey (DAH), whose chief executive is another member of the Timms Review steering group, Phil Stevens.
Report Arguments and Counterarguments
The report argues that removing financial support does not remove a child’s disability, long-term health condition, additional care and supervision requirements, transport needs, or the disabling barriers they encounter. It notes that costs may instead move onto families, education, health services, social care, local authorities, appeals and tribunals, or voluntary and community organisations.
Additionally, the text states that additional caring responsibilities can restrict a parent carer’s capacity for paid employment and therefore have direct financial consequences for the household. Disabled children should not be required to surrender individual financial security in order to fund public services that should already be accessible to them, and reform should start with evidence about children’s needs rather than a predetermined savings figure.
The Timms Review Context
The Timms Review is exploring changes to disability and incapacity benefits, with Labour Party cabinet member Sir Stephen Timms leading it. The report notes that child DWP DLA cannot sensibly be considered in isolation from the wider social welfare budget. Policy Exchange placed considerable emphasis on the growth of Child DLA expenditure, which currently costs about £5.3 billion a year, and presented restriction of eligibility as an opportunity to reduce expenditure and redirect resources towards services.
However, the text stresses that the fiscal case must be tested proportionately against overall social security spending and the wider expenditure associated with disability and ill health. Growth in one component of the social welfare system does not establish that expenditure is excessive, that current awards are inappropriate, or that disabled children should carry a disproportionate share of a wider fiscal savings programme.
