| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Nov 2008 : Column 60WH—continued
What happened, then, if they wanted to take Seren somewhere and stay overnight or over several nights? What was needed then? Of course, all the things I have mentioned for a day trip were needed, but with the addition of Seren’s Jenx standing frame, which she needed because otherwise, as she could not walk or stand, the ball and socket joint in her hips would not develop normally. The standing frame helped compensate for this, again hopefully reducing the likelihood of the need for restorative surgery or other treatment later in life. She needed her R82 Panda hi/lo chair, which was basically her feeding and social interaction chair; it was a sort of waistcoat design that provided total support of the torso but freed the arms to reduce tension. That piece of equipment, on its own, also completely filled the boot of the Golf. Seren could not at that time take all her food by mouth. She received food overnight through a pump feeding system that involved a stand and pump. That needed to be taken along, as did the foods and medicines that she required.
On a longer stay away, Alison and Andrew would want to take Seren’s special toys—bead curtains, for instance—which are designed to aid the development of children with severe learning difficulties. They would have liked to be able to take Seren’s other more comfortable Tumbleform chair, made from foam sponge and in which she could spend up to half an hour without harm being done. They would want Seren’s wedge and Dreama sleep system, which kept her legs separated when she was sleeping, which was also important for her future development.
It was impossible for the Owen family to travel in one car on a visit overnight, or for longer, at least without leaving beneficial pieces of equipment behind. Fortunately, Alison managed to run another small car, so although they could not travel as a family they had the means to get themselves and all Seren’s stuff from A to B. But, again, they asked the question, “How do families manage who do not have access to a second vehicle?” I suspect that they are trapped in their own homes, to a very large extent.
To add to the difficulties for Seren’s family, she had just had Botox injections to loosen her hips and she was supposed to spend time in a plaster cast, so transporting her in a normal family car was again made that bit more difficult. The Owens had identified the vehicle that would have made their lives so much more easily managed: a specially adapted large people mover with any lip on the boot removed and a ramp or lift on the back so that Seren could be wheeled straight in. Of course, from their own incomes they just could not afford this. If the mobility component of disability living allowance and, therefore, access to a Motability deal were available to under threes, they could have had that from the time they first needed it. Alison and Andrew, through a combination of determination, superb logistical planning and buckets full of love, made sure that they provided Seren with everything that could help her, including getting her out and around. Seren reached the age of three in April 2005 and they were able to use Motability to get the transport that she needed.
During a street surgery in their village this summer, I met the Owen family, now extended again. They were just returning from a holiday in the vehicle that makes life so much easier for them. Seeing Seren again and noting how successful those heavy therapeutic devices
had been made me think again that these people should have had that vehicle from the day they first needed it, and it made me determined to try again to persuade the Government to, at least, reconsider their approach to the needs of disabled children under three.
I have collected other testimony from affected parents, not just in my constituency but across the country.
John Barrett (Edinburgh, West) (LD): I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. This is a tragic situation for parents throughout the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is successful in what he is pushing for. I emphasise that the case that he is describing is repeated throughout the country. The Liberal Democrats would be glad to give any support that they can to push the Government to be flexible about the age three limit.
Mr. Caton: I appreciate that. I am sure that that is true.
I give some testimony from other parents who are affected, some in quite different situations to those of Seren’s parents. Apart from failing to keep up with the sort of therapeutic technology that Seren needed, the three-years rule also fails to recognise that some disabled children under three have powered wheelchairs. Many ordinary family cars cannot take such wheelchairs or, even if they can, it is difficult to get them into the vehicle. Mrs. S’s daughter, who falls into this category, says:
“The allowance should take into consideration what the child needs—not how old they are.”
Mrs. DP has a disabled child and believes that the independence provided by her powered wheelchair
“has been so good for her self esteem and quality of life”.
Unfortunately, this cannot be transported in the family car. Another parent said,
“If your child is disabled, it’s not about their age it’s about them and what they need.”
I have been told about a one-year-old girl with spina bifida, hydrocephalus and cleft pallet, who is being tube-fed into her jejunum and is oxygen-dependent. The family relies on taxis to transport all her equipment on the frequent hospital visits that they have to make.
I have been provided with numerous other examples, but the picture is the same. What was true for Seren before she reached the age of three is true for a number of other very young disabled children. There is a need here that we are failing to meet and it is time we started thinking about how we can meet it.
1.39 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on securing this important debate and setting out his case so eloquently. I send my regards to Alison and Andrew, Seren and the other additions to the Owen family, whom he did not name. I also congratulate him on his Adjournment debate on the subject in 2004, which I believe was instrumental, or at least a catalyst, in lowering the age from five to three.
My hon. Friend, as an expert in these matters, will know that disability living allowance is the principal benefit available to severely disabled people who acquire their disability early or relatively early in life and who have had restricted opportunities to work, earn and
save, unlike those who become disabled in later life. It is not a compensatory benefit, but it is intended to provide a measure of financial assistance to help disabled people meet the diverse range of additional costs that arise from disability. The benefit is not based on someone having a particular disability or medical condition. Although it is important to know what someone’s disability is, the key to entitlement is what effect the disability has on a disabled person’s requirement for personal care or supervision and/or whether they have mobility difficulties.
Disability living allowance is made up of two components: a care component paid at one of three rates and a mobility component paid at one of two rates. Broadly speaking, the care component is awarded on the basis that an individual requires personal care or supervision because they have a physical and/or mental disability, and the rate at which it is paid increases with need. The mobility component is not awarded on a sliding scale of need. Its two separate rates recognise the two key features that can restrict people’s mobility out of doors. For the higher rate, that means physical inability or near inability to make progress on foot, and for the lower rate, it means a requirement to have someone to provide guidance or supervision when out of doors on unfamiliar routes because of a physical or mental disability.
That, briefly, is the basis for entitlement, but entitlement to either component does not mean that the recipient is compelled to spend their benefit on care or mobility-related extra costs. For example, someone in receipt of the care component could, if they wished, spend their benefit on other disability-related expenses, such as additional heating or washing. DLA puts the disabled person in control and lets them decide how to spend their benefit according to their own unique priorities. My hon. Friend will know that nearly 3 million people receive the allowance, including more than 300,000 children, and the numbers continue to grow year on year.
On the specific issue of the higher rate mobility component, I am not—he will be tired of hearing this—unsympathetic to the arguments that my hon. Friend put forward, but the higher rate mobility component is determined, rightly, by the inability or virtual inability to walk when out of doors. When deciding entitlement to that component, decision makers must consider how far the person can walk, the speed of their walking, the manner of their walking, whether walking brings on severe discomfort and whether the act of walking could be detrimental to their health.
Those are the statutory requirements, which are intended to achieve a reasonable view of someone’s walking ability. I know that my hon. Friend is not challenging those criteria and that his argument is simply that a different set of criteria should be invoked for the under-threes, given the impact of the child’s needs, including for heavy therapeutic machinery to assist them. I am not saying that outlining the current criteria smashes entirely his argument that there should be an extra component for under-threes, and I will return to that point.
Mr. Caton:
I mentioned the campaign by the Royal National Institute of Blind People in which blind people are seeking a higher mobility rate. We have heard Ministers
give that campaign sympathetic responses. If that can happen for blind people, the walking criterion has gone anyway. Surely that gives us the opportunity to consider the rights of very young severely disabled children.
Mr. McNulty: I will come on to the RNIB campaign. At the moment, at least, it is not something that we plan to deal with in a positive fashion. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point about the criteria and the wider point made by him and others that the needs of the individual should predominate over administrative and bureaucratic criteria. I accept that; it is a perfectly reasonable point of view.
With reference to young children, I think that we can all agree that the great majority of non-disabled children can walk by their third birthday, and many much earlier than that, but that very few can walk considerable distances. Most still require significant help from their parents and rely absolutely on prams, buggies and so on. However, hugely significant scientific and medical advances over recent years have enabled more children who might, sadly, have died to have a good quality of life up to three and beyond. They are not confined to long-term residential care or worse but can, through a variety of technical innovations, live extended and fulfilling lives at home. That is something that we all celebrate. I take my hon. Friend’s point that sometimes the equipment used to support such children can prove bulky, heavy or awkward and place a great strain not only on parents’ and siblings’ time, resources and finances but on their quality of life, as he eloquently explained, and on normality of life, which I am sure is what they strive to achieve.
A range of measures already exists over and above the care component of disability living allowance to help families with young disabled children. The disability-related premiums in the income-related benefits and the additional elements for disabled children in tax credits are two such statutory provisions. Extra statutory schemes such as the family fund can also provide help for poorer families who find themselves in situations such as those described earlier. The fund can help with travelling costs and can extend to the purchase of vehicles in exceptional cases, although all decisions are taken, rightly, on a case-by-case basis. As I have said, just over 306,000 children are in receipt of DLA, 42,000 of whom are under the age of five. They represent the Caton gap, if I may call it that, in terms of the reduction from five to three.
Mr. Caton: I cannot take credit for that, I am afraid, although the Government can. The reduction from five to three happened before my debate. However, I thank the Minister for trying to attribute it to me.
Mr. McNulty: I will carry on attributing it to my hon. Friend. He was there in spirit, if not in actuality.
We keep matters under constant review. I would be grateful, as would the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw)—he would normally respond to such a debate, but he has the great delight of appearing today before the Joint Committee on Human Rights—if my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and others submitted to us the examples that they gave and more. I shall
endeavour, as my parliamentary colleague did in 2004, to get officials to reconsider not just the higher mobility component of DLA but the broader context of the benefits and statutory programmes that might have assisted my hon. Friend’s constituents Alison and Andrew when Seren was under three.
When Ministers say that they will keep something under review, that sometimes implies, “I’ve given you half a bone; now go away, please.” I actually mean it in this case. The cases that my hon. Friend has cited are significant, sensitive and serious. The matter is worth revisiting, and a responsible Government should do so regularly, but he will forgive me if I consider it in detail as well as in the round along with other options. I think that the answer will involve more than just flicking the switch for under-threes in terms of the higher component of DLA, but there might be some way to look across the piece at the statutory provision and see whether we can get much-needed equipment for people like Seren and her family, whom I use as a proxy, as Seren is now over three. I will ensure that I give my hon. Friend a full response at the earliest opportunity after we have gone into that much more detail.
John Barrett: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. McNulty:
Just about, but you will forgive me, Mr. Key, for saying, because I am a bit of a stickler for
these things, that in Adjournment debates here or in the Chamber, it is customary, to my mind—it might be old-fashioned—for anyone other than the person who introduces the debate to at least let the Minister know that they want to intervene. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to do so, but I said that because I am a bit of a stickler and an old fuddy-duddy.
John Barrett: I apologise to you, Mr. Key, and to the Minister for not asking about intervening. I want to be supportive in the debate. I should like to forward examples from my constituency to the Minister so that he can look at the position around the country. As was eloquently stated, the problem is suffered by many families and young children up and down the country.
Mr. McNulty: I accept that, which is why I tried to frame the debate in the spirit that I did. We should always keep such things under review. I would value that evidence, because it can inform the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, and me, once officials have looked at the matter again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower for raising the issue. In the broadest sense—it is not only about DLA and the higher mobility component—it should be incumbent on the Government and the Department for Work and Pensions to consider and take his comments very seriously.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o’clock.
| Index | Home Page |