| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'in accordance with the provisions of section [early withdrawal, etc.,for disabled children] or as otherwise'.
Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 44 [Clause 3], leave out 'as' and insert
'in accordance with the provisions of section [early withdrawal in case of terminal illness] or as otherwise'.
Amendment No. 58, in page 3, line 17 [Clause 4], at end insert
'except under provisions made by regulations to allow for the assignment of the child trust fund investments of terminally ill children.'.
Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 36 [Clause 12], leave out 'amount' and insert 'amounts'.
Amendment No. 16, in page 6, line 39 [Clause 12], at end insert—
'(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) shall prescribe—
(a) a standard maximum amount, and
(b) a higher maximum amount in respect of child trust fund accounts held by children to whom section [early withdrawal, etc., for disabled children] applies, which shall be expressed as a multiple of the standard maximum amount.'.
Amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 39 [Clause 20], after '3(4)(d)', insert
'or by section [early withdrawal, etc., for disabled children]'.
Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 39 [Clause 20], after '3(4)(d)', insert
'or by section [early withdrawal in case of terminal illness]'.
Amendment No. 25, in page 13, line 13 [Clause 22], at end insert—
'(4A) A person who is required by the Inland Revenue to provide information under regulations under section [early withdrawal, etc., for disabled children] may appeal against the decision to impose the requirement.'.
Mr. Cameron: I wish to speak to new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 15 and 16. As hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall, they involve two proposals. I believe that they are fundamentally linked, and I know that the Minister agrees with me. She was generous about the proposals in Committee and promised to consider them carefully and introduce them through regulations if she could. I hope that she will continue to back them today and in the future, because they provide a real chance to help families with disabled children.
The two proposals are as follows. The first, in amendment No. 16, would increase the amount that families and others could put into baby bonds in the case of a disabled child. The second, in new clause 1, would allow families to dip into the baby bond in specific and limited circumstances before the child reached the age of 18.
Before I start the argument in favour of the proposals, I should declare an interest beyond that which is in the register. My wife and I are fortunate to have a new baby, Nancy, who is just two weeks and one day old. I cannot say that she has already told me how much she is looking forward to her baby bond, but I am sure that she would if she could. I hope that the House will be patient with me today because we are still at that sleepless nights stage. Although one occasionally feels that one is going to nod off during someone else's speech, it is uncommon to nod off during one's own. Today, that is just possible. Nancy is clearly a very canny baby. She was meant to arrive after the Hutton inquiry, on which I was involved in helping the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly she knew something that I did not: that the report was not worth waiting for. I should have started my paternity leave straight away.
More relevantly to the debate, my wife and I also have a 22-month-old son, Ivan, who is severely disabled with epilepsy, cerebral palsy and a range of complications. He is unlikely ever to walk or talk and needs constant care. That has stimulated my interest in disability, an interest that has been backed up by people who have come to my surgeries in west Oxfordshire to bring their stories and experiences of bringing up disabled children, with all the difficulties, challenges and costs that that involves.
The first proposal would lift the cap on the amount that parents could put into a baby bond in the case of a disabled child. Amendment No. 16 refers to a "multiple" of the £1,200 limit proposed for all baby bonds. I hope that that multiple, which will be considered in regulations, will be generous. I cannot believe that there is much room for anyone to use child trust funds as a route of tax avoidance, so we should be as generous as possible with the multiple that people can put in.
Why do I think that it is a good idea to de-limit the amount that people can put into child trust funds? First, the scheme would be very simple. We know who the
disabled are: we have disability living allowance and a list of disabled children. Barnardo's refers in its report, "Still Missing Out?", to a figure of 360,000 disabled children. The scheme would be a simple way of allowing parents and communities to help those children. It would not be very expensive for the Treasury and Inland Revenue because the funds do not provide a tax break for the donor who puts money in. They provide a small tax break for the recipient, because under the child trust fund scheme, no income tax is paid on the interest accrued by the fund.The accounts would be incredibly easy to use. Child trust funds will be set up in any event for every child—Nancy, fortunately, is included—over the next few years, so friends, family and others who want to help but do not know how, could easily do so in future by putting money into the fund. Above all, the argument for de-limiting the amount that one could put in for disabled children is that it would be effective. Disability brings huge costs, and at the age of 18, the transition from childhood to adulthood is particularly expensive. In "Still missing out?" Barnado's says that the transition from childhood to adulthood is a difficult time for all teenagers, but can be particularly fraught for disabled young adults, both in terms of accessing appropriate adult services and in dealing with their fears and anxieties at a key life stage. The Minister made some good arguments in Committee and on Second Reading about the case for 18-year-olds having an asset or capital, and the argument for disabled children is, in my view, stronger still.
2 pm
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon) (LD): I am sure that the House agrees with the hon. Gentleman that we want to do all that we can to help disabled children, and we respect his first-hand knowledge of the subject. Does he accept that it is odd to make a specific concession for disabled children whose parents have a lot of spare cash to put into accounts? Do we not want to support all disabled children, and is the social security system not a better way of doing so than the tax and baby bond system?
Mr. Cameron: The break would not just be for the middle classes and the better-off. Every child in the country will have a child trust fund, and it will be open to anybody to contribute to those funds. As I have said, in the case of disabled children, friends, family and the larger community want to help, and my proposal would create a clear way in which to do so. As for the least well-off, there is a genuine opportunity for the Government to contribute. The Government have already said that, in the case of children of parents who are on income support, they will put as twice as much into their child trust funds. In the case of disabled children, there is a similar opportunity for the Government, social services or anybody else to help in a specific way. I shall deal later with the role of social services, which clearly have the lead responsibility in helping families to look after disabled children.
My proposals recognise the fact that there is an awful lot that families want to do, and indeed do, themselves. Nine out of 10 disabled children are looked after at home, and their families already do an immense amount. My modest proposals would simply make that
easier for them . There has been a warm welcome for my de-limiting amendment from the disability charities. I received a useful note from Mencap, Barnado's and the Disability Rights Commission among others, which said:
- "We strongly endorse the proposed amendment, which will enable family and friends to contribute more into the Trust Fund when a child is disabled."
- "disabled young people will face greater costs at transition: the Child Trust Fund could play an important role in giving them the best opportunities as they move to adult life."
As I told the hon. Gentleman, the amendment would not benefit only the better-off. It offers a good opportunity for other people who want to contribute and it is open to the Government to top funds up if appropriate. There was a slight misunderstanding about contributions from the wider community on the part of the disability charities, who said in their note:
- "If this was to be the case, then there would be issues around accountability and, indeed, as to the desirability of charitable status being sought for the Trust Fund."
I accept that new clause 1 is more controversial, but it is even more important. I shall explain what it does and why it is right, before looking at potential objections. Very simply, it allows a family with a disabled child to dip into the fund before the child reaches the age of 18. However, it sets out clearly—my thanks to the Clerks, who helped me to draft it—that that can be done only for certain purposes. It explains that the Inland Revenue must be informed by the account provider when it is dipped into, and specifies that the child must be consulted whenever possible. The purposes for which people can dip into the fund are set out in the new clause, and include
- "the purchase or hire of equipment . . . payment for nursing, night or child care . . . payment for respite care or temporary residential care; and . . . payment for specialist medical or palliative service".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |