HC Deb 21 May 1996 vol 278 cc81-2
1. Mr. Mudie

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration has been given to extending the mobility component of the disability living allowance to children aged under five years suffering from defined illnesses. [28803]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell)

Entitlement to disability living allowance is not defined by a specific illness or disability, but is based on the effects of a disability on an individual's care and mobility needs. There is no age limit for the care component because we accept that the care needs of disabled children may be significantly greater than those of able-bodied children. However, there is generally not such a great difference in the help needed for mobility between children under five with disabilities and those without.

Mr. Mudie

Is the Minister aware that the seemingly sensible starting point for the mobility component of five years of age is of great inconvenience to parents with children below that age who have certain restrictive illnesses? Will he give some thought to that starting point, and consider parents without private transport who experience the sheer trauma of taking ill children and, often, burdensome medical equipment, on public transport?

Mr. Mitchell

The hon. Gentleman raises a particularly difficult child policy matter. I am aware that he has written to me about the case of his young constituent, Jacob. I want to make two points in response. First, the mobility component is intended specifically to help people become independently mobile, and the starting point of five years of age—the age when a child starts school— strikes a reasonable balance. Secondly, in respect of the case that he has raised, the family are receiving disability living allowance care component at the higher level, and invalid care allowance. I hope that he accepts that benefit money is going to that family.

Mr. Thomason

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would cost tens of millions of pounds to pay the mobility component to children under the age of five? Will he further confirm that it is the policy of his Department to restrict expenditure wherever possible and to curb social security spending? Does he find it surprising that, again and again, Labour proposes extra expenditure in this field?

Mr. Mitchell

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The cost of extending the mobility component to children under five years of age would be about £30 million. The Government have a proud record of spending on the long-term sick, which has increased by a factor of three since 1979, to £22 billion. We are now helping more than six times as many people as were helped by the previous Labour Government.