A rift has opened between two Timms Review steering group members over suggestions that disability living allowance (DLA) for children should be radically cut.
Last month we revealed that Jean-André Prager, a member of the Timms Review steering group, was the co-author of a report calling for extreme cuts to child DLA for mental health, learning difficulties and neurodevelopmental conditions. The report was published by his employer, the right-wing Policy Exchange thinktank.
Last week, however, Disability Action Haringey (DAH) published a rebuttal to that report. Phil Stevens, DAH’s chief executive is also a Timms Review steering group member and, according to Disability News Service, co-wrote the response to Prager’s report.
The DAH document 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. Costs may instead move onto families, education, health services, social care, local authorities, appeals and tribunals, or voluntary and community organisations.”
It goes on to point out that “Additional caring responsibilities can restrict a parent carer’s capacity for paid employment and therefore have direct financial consequences for the household.”
And its conclusion is that “Disabled children should not be required to surrender individual financial security in order to fund public services that should already be accessible to them. Reform should start with evidence about children’s needs and the barriers they face, not with a predetermined savings figure and an eligibility system designed to deliver it.”
Although the Timms Review concerns PIP rather than child DLA, the disagreement raises questions about its members’ wider approach to disability benefits.
Which view commands more support on the Timms Review steering group: drastic cuts to disability benefits or financial security for disabled people?
