Jean-André Prager, a member of the Timms review steering group, is the leading author of a new report calling for extreme cuts to child DLA for mental health, learning difficulties and neurodevelopmental conditions.

The authors want to see up to 70% fewer awards for these conditions and the amount of money paid for successful claims reduced, with criteria revised every three years to keep awards down. They also question whether a “cash disability benefit is the right form of support” for children with these conditions.

The report “Child Disability Living Allowance. A Policy Exchange Research Note” was published on 2 October by the right-leaning Policy Exchange think tank, with Prager as its lead author.

Prager is a former Downing Street special adviser covering DWP under prime ministers May, Johnson and Sunak.  As well as working for Policy Exchange, he is also a director at Flint Global, which advises businesses on policy, politics and regulation and whose chief executive is former Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions James Purnell..

Prager is one of the 12 Timms review steering group members, appointed by Timms and his two co-chairs. The co-chairs themselves were selected by the DWP and no open selection process for their appointment has ever been published.

The Policy Exchange report notes the rise in DLA claims for children whose main disabling conditions, as recorded by the DWP using its outdated DLA categories, are:

behavioural disorder (this includes eating disorders, conduct disorders and other childhood psychiatric disorders);

hyperkinetic syndrome (primarily ADHD);

learning difficulties (broader than the modern definition and including autism and Down’s syndrome).

You can read more about the DWP’s main DLA disabling conditions here.

The report recommends changing the eligibility criteria for the three conditions, both for new claims and reassessments, in order to ensure a reduction of either fifty, sixty or seventy percent in the number of awards.

A 70% reduction in awards, the authors claim, would save £11.9bn in its first four years, with one third of the savings recommended to be used to improve child mental health provision and two thirds used to reduce the national deficit.

The authors also suggest that the award criteria for these conditions should be reviewed every three years to make sure that numbers don’t increase.

In addition, the report suggests that the revised criteria should ensure that fewer children with these conditions get the higher rates of each component.

Just as concerningly, for current PIP claimants, the report points strongly towards a costs-based system for DLA awards with a clear implication that, for learning difficulties, mental health and neurodevelopment issues, cash awards may not be appropriate.

The report notes that:

“The assessment does not ask a parent or carer to itemise the extra cost for the child, but rather the form uses proxies to try and determine costs. These proxies include additional care, attention, prompting and assistance.”

It goes on to suggest that this “means that what the assessment measures and what the benefit is intended to compensate for are not necessarily the same thing.”

Later the report adds that “The relationship between the proxy and the financial cost will be stronger in some cases than others.” It uses the examples of children who need tube feeding, oxygen or substantial mobility assistance as conditions that will generate “readily identifiable additional expenditure”.

On the other hand “where the principal additional need takes the form of prompting, behavioural management, supervision or motivation, the burden may fall primarily in the form of parental time, vigilance and complexity rather than direct expenditure.”

The authors ask, with the conclusion being implicit in the question “whether these proxies continue to provide the most appropriate way of identifying those children for whom a cash disability benefit is the right form of support.”

Prager was a Downing Street special adviser covering DWP in 2024, when Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government published their infamous Modernising Support for Independent Living Green Paper, which called for a disability-costs based PIP system with some cash payments being replaced by vouchers, equipment or services.

Prager is one of only two Timms steering group members whose primary professional interest is welfare benefits. The other is Professor Ben Geiger who, was seconded to the DWP in 2015-16 and is on record as telling the Timms work and pensions committee four years ago that the DWP should “have a look at the extra costs that people face and how those match up to the assessment.  Then it needs a testing and piloting strand to see what other forms of assessments could be done.”

It seems very possible the only two welfare experts on the steering group will have considerable influence over the deliberations and final conclusions of the Timms review steering group, which  now seems very likely to recommend a costs-based assessment system.

You can download a copy of “Child Disability Living Allowance. A Policy Exchange Research Note” here.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    The ‘mental health’, ie neurodivergence or otherwise, of a child represents a direct cost to parents in that a family of siblings, one of whom is neurodivergent, may well be unable to be left at home alone safely during the summer holidays. This cost was recognised by the award of DLA+Carer’s Allowance, but it is not quantifiable in terms of cost to the neurodivergent child.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Wendy Woo Thanks @Wendy Woo. Tough times though they were, I was able to bring up my two children, as a single parent after their father died, in part time self employment with far less conditionality than young parents face now.

      I have always suffered several debilitating conditions, but it was only after my children grew up that I even thought to claim incapacity and disability benefits, because things had been structured so families were better supported.

      I weep to see families struggling with impossible demands and sanctions these days.
      It makes for so much conflict and unrest.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @cloudcuckoo cloudcuckoo     You have phrased this so beautifully and succinctly, and I agree with every word you have written - you should put this in a letter and circulate it to as many MPs as you can.

      I feel privileged to have brought up my children during the time when former Chancellor and Prime Minister Gordon Brown offered extra support in the form of Tax Credits, DLA and Carer's Allowance to families with disabled children.  This enabled us to keep running our small business as well as looking after our children and my elderly father.  When Gordon Brown visited our town, a friend of mine, who had two children with disabilities, threw her arms around him in gratitude!  I can't see that ever happening to a Prime Minister in future.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Ginny52 It's not necessary to quantify the cost to the child.

      Children, whatever their state of health, are a cost to their parents, who should be financially supported, and to whom extra expert and medical input should be available as needed.

      Raising one's own family should be recognised as an occupation, as should caring for the older generation of the family.

      I'm not saying everyone should accept the caring role if they prefer to pay professionals and their income supports that, but the choice has been removed from lower earners where both parents are forced to have full time paid employment.

      Even where children have no special needs it is expected they will be supervised by professionals or somehow bring themselves up.

      Foster parents are paid, and even adoptive parents receive extra support, yet biological parents receive at best standard state benefits.

      Governments should be looking at the cost of living on a much greater and more radical scale to stop the horrendous stress on young families, especially where there is disability, and on those who are trying to care for the older generation.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    The report is utter nonsense. It justifies itself based on saying that Disability Living Allowance Care Component was never intended to based on care.
    That :
    Low rate care for those that need help at times during the day.
    Middle rate care for those that need frequent help or constant supervision during the day. supervision at night
    High rate care for those that need help or supervision throughout both day and night.
    Have all been changed from the above original intent which is obviously not intended to be awarded based on care. And was obviously intended to be based on defined extra costs of disability like equipment, special food, etcetera.

    They might get away with lying about the original intent of Personal Independence Payment Daily Living Component. But how stupid do they think people are to try and use the same justification for Disability Living Allowance Care Component.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @JBob1234 JBbob1234

      Thanks.

      Right, yes, that's how I read it. The clue is in the word 'care', right, in each of the dla tiers?!

      They're trying to bend it round to equate to pip being for the extra costs of disability - a vague intention which can be manipulated.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @robbie I was trying to say the basic premise of the report, that DLA currently being award based on care needs is not in accordance to DLA's original aim of being intended to be for extra costs of disability, is not only false it is blatant ridiculous nonsense. As DLA was from it's original design intended to be awarded based on care needs. Hence the care component and different eligibility criteria based on care needs for the different levels of care component. Awarding DLA based on care needs is perfectly in accordance with the intended purpose of DLA. Changing the system to only awarding based on defined extra costs of disability like equipment, special foods, etcetera. Is not. It would in no way be making DLA in accordance to it's original purpose.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @JBob1234 JBbob1234

      I'm confused. When you say the three tier care rates have

      'all been changed from the above original intent which is obviously not intended to be awarded based on care. And was obviously intended to be based on defined extra costs of disability',

      are you saying the above original intent 'was never intended to based on care'? (be based on care, maybe)?

      The three tier dla rates all mention care, so that looks as if they were awarded on a perceived need for care, for which there was an associated cost, rather than awards being given for defined costs for specific items.

      I can't work out the point you are trying to make here.

      Do you think the report is saying dla was originally not intended to be based on care but on defined costs?

      Or does the report claim dla was originally awarded for care?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    What is it with these people who want to divide up disability and gatekeep who gets what support 
    Mental health, neurodivergence, learning disabilities are absolutely valid conditions and those who need DLA or PIP will have significant difficulty. How dare she suggest that because they can’t quantify cost of a condition that perhaps isnt physical, doesn’t delete the actual need they have. 
    The fact she had a part in the vouchers green paper and is on this steering group, clearly is a conflict of interest and extremely concerning especially for people with these conditions. 
    Hints at changing PIP to cost based or to non cash support, then deciding these groups of conditions don’t need financial support is very worrying. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Catherine If they can’t quantify the cost of a condition that perhaps isnt physical they should make a cash award.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    "Just as concerningly, for current PIP claimants, the report points strongly towards a costs-based system for DLA awards with a clear implication that, for learning difficulties, mental health and neurodevelopment issues, cash awards may not be appropriate."
    ...
    "where the principal additional need takes the form of prompting, behavioural management, supervision or motivation, the burden may fall primarily in the form of parental time, vigilance and complexity rather than direct expenditure."

    But in the UK a parent cannot just be on benefits looking after their child unless that child is disabled. If the child is not disabled the parent has conditionality and is expected to get a job. And the same applies to family members or friends providing care for a disabled adult. So the government needs some way of determining who gets to not work and spend their time providing care.

    And without DLA or PIP and Disability Premiums and Carer's Allowance or Care Premium many households are not going to be able to afford to survive with the carer not working, and in the case of disabled adults the disabled person not working. So if support is removed or reduced they will end up with more people in supported housing, care homes, nursing homes, long stay inpatients in hospitals. Which will cost far more money. So the government needs some way of determining which households need financial support for providing care.

    DLA and PIP and disability premiums and carer benefits were created to save the state money by enabling care in the community at home by unpaid family and friends. Because the alternative is far more expensive.

    And to add insult to injury Burnham's plan for a social care service like the NHS free at the point of use, will unlike the NHS be only for those aged 65+.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Idonia None of this is thought through.
      If you have two children, one of whom could safely (ish) be left alone and another who is likely to burn the house down, having to go to work or letting them starve will be a tragedy waiting to happen 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @cloudcuckoo "It used to be called mother, sometimes father, before housing got so expensive everyone had to have a job"

      Exactly.

      If a neurodivergent child or a child with mental distress needs 24 hour, round-the-clock care and supervision to prevent them from harming themselves or others, or to prevent them from absconding, or to prevent them from doing potentially dangerous things without realising that they are dangerous, then that is time that the parent-carer of said child cannot be available for work.

      Reducing benefit amounts for disabled children with some conditions while retaining a higher amount for disabled children with other conditions, means that the children receiving less benefit also receive less care, as the parent-carer then needs to find a way of making up the lost income from benefits.

      This means that children who are a danger to themselves or others, are then going to be at even more risk of harm.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @JBob1234

      For children, 'the government needs some way of determining who gets to not work and spend their time providing care'.

      It used to be called mother, sometimes father, before housing got so expensive everyone had to have a job, because caring's not a job; bringing up children's not a job; running a home, cooking, cleaning, shopping, laundry- they're not jobs.

      Childcare is a job, if you're caring for someone else's children; social care is a job if it's someone else's relatives you look after; running a home, cooking, cleaning, shopping, laundry- they're jobs, if you do them for someone else's family or for customers, clients, a business.

      Families should be able to afford to care for their own. The lack of remuneration and status accorded to family carers has been the main driver of this social catastrophe. How we value our children, elderly, sick and disabled is manifest in how little we pay for their care. There is no credit given for what children can contribute, and what others in that list might already have given.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    Wish they'd that particular member off completely his disgraceful opinions are if no benefit or help to anyone despite what he might think. Definitely sounds like a right winger to me wonder how far down that path he is.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    These reactionaries want to destroy the welfare state. It's outrageous that such overtly political figures could get appointed to the review committee. These proposed measures will  deepen child poverty in this country which is already at scandalous levels. They seem highly discriminatory and if implemented should be challenged under human rights law. That proposals such as these are coming from a review under a so called 'Labour' government just goes to show that Labour is just as bad as the Tories and Reform.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Mandy Well obviously that's not right, if true.
      I guess I may well be proved wrong, but hope not!

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Mandy I am a disabled person and contacted Timms as the minister for disabled people.  He asked me to send my email to him at the DWP rather than parliament.  I did so and he could not even be bothered to reply.  He obviously thinks disabled people are a waste of time.  Not good for a disabled persons minister.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @DJMH15 You mean the same Timms guy who when at a meeting with disabled people, a lady collapsed on the floor as a result of overwhelming stress. Timms walked around her and left the room. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @DJMH15 I think the majority of us gets the heebie-jeebies vibe from Timms.

      ‘Nice eyes and looks kind’! - each to their own 

      Got bad vibes from him from the start and not surprised that he’s most likely a few weeks away from total betrayal of disabled claimants
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @bronc I have decided to cut Stephen Timms some slack, on the basis that he has nice eyes and looks quite kind.  Quite a job he has taken on, hard to see how he will be heralded by anyone really, for what has been a year of his life.  Anyway, we shall see.  I think he seems to be addressing concerns as they arise, having read a recent article where he quite firmly puts to bed the idea that vouchers will replace cash (disability news service)...at least, that is how I read it.  Whatever happens, nothing will be changing immediately, according to GPT... three years minimum.  (Though could be an AI hallucination/smi). Time to prepare a bit, tins, jumpers, and coincides with drive to get us war ready... 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    "the burden may fall primarily in the form of parental time, vigilance and complexity rather than direct expenditure"

    Just the direct loss of income resulting from the dedication of that extra parental time and vigilance.

    But yes, be my guest, supply my family with the service that can cover 24/7 cheaper than a miserable cash contribution to loss of earnings, then I can go to work.

    Can't wait. 

PIP & The WCA Are Changing- Get The Latest News

Stay updated with our free, fortnightly newsletter.

Over 140,000 claimant and professional subscribers.

 
iContact
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.