Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children

Michelle Welsh Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I will call Michelle Welsh to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of removing the qualifying period for Disability Living Allowance for children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. It is right and fitting that I start this debate where it all began for me, with dear Mabel—a brave, kind, clever, funny four-year-old girl who lives in my constituency—and her tenacious mum Rachael. When I was first elected to Parliament, I met with Rachael, my constituent, and she shared her experience with her daughter Mabel, who sadly had been diagnosed with cancer.

Aged four, Mabel was diagnosed with Wilms’, a form of kidney cancer. After a horrifying six months, including two major operations and a tough course of chemotherapy, the family received the news that Mabel was free of cancer. Now, aged six, Mabel attends her local school, where I was fortunate enough to meet her, and is enjoying her life as a young child should. I know that the House will join me in wishing Mabel well.

Following Mabel’s diagnosis, Rachael made an application for disability living allowance, which required completing a 40-page questionnaire that asks questions such as whether the four-year-old needs help monitoring their blood oxygen levels. Disability living allowance is supposed to support families of children with disabilities and serious conditions such as cancer. It can provide a lifeline of financial support at the time when it is most needed, yet the current system requires families to wait three months for the qualifying period. Let me be clear: the financial impact of cancer does not begin after three months. It is instant.

Rachael shared with me that Mabel being diagnosed with cancer was the toughest time of her family’s lives. Despite that, she felt that they were in a more fortunate position than many of the other families on the ward. Rachael’s employer gave her six months off work as sick leave and her partner was able to work flexibly so that they could both spend time with their daughter at hospital. That time allowed Mabel to have support and care from her loved ones, and it allowed support from their family. I cannot even begin to imagine the anguish that families face with such a diagnosis—all the more when it is their child. Unfortunately, not every employer is able or willing to offer that support. That disparity should leave us asking: if we cannot be there when a child is diagnosed with cancer, what are we doing?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. It is debates such as this that remind us of our job as MPs. Does she agree that when a family receive a devastating diagnosis, whether that is of a terminal illness, a severe disability or an aggressive childhood cancer, the financial shock and caring responsibilities are felt immediately? In the three-month qualifying period, families can sometimes accumulate up to £5,000 in additional debt during the most agonising months of their lives, while—I say this respectfully—the Government drag their heels. Will the hon. Lady join me in pressing the Minister, in her compassionate and understanding way, to get Government to recognise that a child’s suffering does not wait 90 days to become real, and to ensure that crucial financial support is delivered from the very point of diagnosis?

[Michelle Welsh]

I absolutely agree. Too often, the financial impacts of a cancer diagnosis are forgotten. People think about the hospital visits, the sickness and the endless tablets, but a disability or serious condition such as cancer has an impact on every single part of someone’s life. Following a diagnosis, families immediately have to deal with the financial impact. It is a sad fact of life that bills do not care whether a child has cancer; they will still be due.

But we can care. Cross-party, we can care. We can unite and do the right thing. Families with children with a disability or serious condition have to wait seven months on average before receiving a single disability living allowance payment. That is months and months of rent, mortgage payments, electricity bills and council tax, and it is weeks and weeks of food shopping. It is compounded by the fact that household income drops by an average of £6,000 per year. For one in three, that can reach over £10,000. Sadly, it gets even worse: the delay in receiving DLA means that a parent’s ability to claim any carer’s allowance as an additional or an alternative has a further impact on the financial strain. It is also important to note that parents in work are unable to apply for universal credit, and that that cuts out other potential streams of support.

All this leaves parents with an impossible choice, a cruel choice that no parent should have to make: do they leave their child alone in hospital to face this battle by themselves, or do they not go to work? Do they skip bills? Do they run the risk of losing their home? Do they not eat? Do they turn the heating off? This is the reality. These are decisions that families should never have to make, yet they happen daily for families up and down this country.

During my meeting with Rachael, she told me about a young boy of just six years old who was also on the ward. His parents were left with no option but to carry on working. As the nurses were unable to provide round-the-clock care, Rachael helped him to use the toilet, helped to dress him and helped him to eat. It is heartbreaking to think of the many children who have no one beside them—not just for the children, but for the mothers and fathers being left with no choice. I missed my son’s first day back at school today and have cried about it, but that is nothing in comparison with having to leave a child who is suffering from cancer in a hospital bed. Let me be clear: DLA is not designed to act as a source of income. It is there to help with the extra costs of looking after a child with a health condition.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her incredibly powerful speech. She is right that this is not a necessity; it can be addressed. Does she agree that the Department for Work and Pensions needs to ensure that parents get support from day one so that they can address the increased financial costs that they face from the beginning of a diagnosis, and the real need for parents to be present to support their child?

[Michelle Welsh]

I absolutely agree. Cancer is actually one of the clearest diagnoses that someone can get from day one.

Cancer does not wait, yet families have to. The three-month qualifying period does not reflect the realities that families face. In Mabel’s case, the family were informed that they would not qualify for any support, as Mabel’s condition had not lasted for more than six months. In other words, she had not had cancer for long enough. That is despite her having undergone multiple operations and chemotherapy; to this day, she must still attend regular hospital appointments. It is my understanding that the qualifying period is meant to establish that a health condition is long-standing in nature, but with a diagnosis of cancer surely support should be given from the outset.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does she agree that there is a strong case for greater flexibility in rapidly diagnosed cases where a clinician has already identified a severe, serious and long-lasting condition, and that in such cases a qualifying period can be unnecessary, bureaucratic and indeed insensitive?

[Michelle Welsh]

Absolutely. The bureaucratic system is failing families, but these issues could easily be resolved if medical evidence could be used instead of the qualifying period. I urge the Minister to look at ways in which medical evidence and research can be used in DLA to make the system better for those who rely on it. There are already provisions that allow the use of medical evidence to bypass the qualifying period, such as the special rules cases where someone is approaching the end of life. The qualifying period is outdated and does not reflect the complexities of lifelong conditions. I am aware that the Government do not know the cost of removing the qualifying period, but I do not think that any cost is worth more than parents’ ability to be there for their child when they have cancer.

As it stands, we cannot cure childhood cancer. We cannot spare families the fear, the sleepless nights or the heartbreak of watching a child undergo surgery and chemotherapy. But we can ensure that when the worst happens, the Government stand beside them rather than placing further barriers in their way. Families should not have to prove their desperation for three months before receiving support. They should not have to navigate mountains of paperwork while sitting beside a hospital bed. They should never be forced to choose between earning a wage and being there for their child.

Mabel’s story is one of hope. Today, she is back at school, enjoying the childhood that every parent wishes for their son or daughter. But her family’s experience has exposed a system that is failing too many in this country. The question before us is a simple one: when a child is diagnosed with cancer or another serious condition, do we respond with bureaucracy or with compassion? I believe we should choose compassion. I therefore urge the Minister to work with families, clinicians and charities to remove the three-month qualifying period and replace it with a system that recognises medical evidence at the outset. Let us ensure that no parent is forced to leave a child alone on a hospital ward because they cannot afford to be there. Let us build a system worthy of the families who rely on it—and let us act now, because cancer does not wait.

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

Michelle Welsh Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for securing this debate.

I believe that where someone is born should not determine where they end up, and I welcome the measures announced by the Chancellor today to lift children out of poverty. That is fundamental to my morals and values, and those of the party I represent, because young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are twice as likely as their better-off peers not to be in education, employment or training. On council estates such as those where I grew up in Nottinghamshire, people’s chances were and are still limited.

I was extremely disappointed when Dukeries sixth form in Ollerton announced it was closing its doors, as access to further education is lifechanging for young people in rural areas. The nearest further education option is now over 7 miles away, which is not accessible for many young people and their families. Opportunities for young people in rural and deprived areas are few and far between.

I believe we can do more to break the cycle. We have a responsibility to stand up for young people in this country, but we must also empower businesses to invest in them. That is already happening in small pockets, including at Murphy, an infrastructure and energy transition company in Ollerton, and Rolls-Royce, which has fantastic opportunities for local people, but those companies cannot do it alone. They need Government support to make sure it is financially possible to offer such incredible services.

The crisis in SEND is also affecting families in Sherwood Forest, and young people with SEND are over 80% more likely to be NEET. I want the life chances of children and young people growing up in Sherwood Forest to be as great as those living in more affluent areas. We must all strive to find better opportunities and better ways to educate and support our young people so that we can all categorically say that where someone is born will not determine their future.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Michelle Welsh Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. When a child is born the world changes, not just for the parents but for the child, whose entire development begins right there in those first precious moments. The period from conception to age two—what we call the first 1,001 days—is the most critical window for brain development and emotional security. That profound scientific truth forms the ultimate moral argument for generous, equitable maternity and paternity pay. This is not a conversation about employment benefits; it is a conversation about human development and our country’s future.

The foundation for a child’s future health, wellbeing and capacity to learn is laid down in those first 1,001 days, and the very first days and weeks are perhaps the most vital. Why? Because that is the time when the baby’s brain makes billions of connections, shaped by their environment. The primary input they need is secure attachment, which comes from a loving, available and responsive parent. Let me be clear: as many in this room will know, those first few days, weeks and months are hard. I am fed up with mothers being treated as second-class citizens.

For the mother, maternity pay is crucial for physical and mental recovery from childbirth, to allow for uninterrupted bonding and to establish feeding routines, which are the cornerstones of that secure attachment. It ensures that exhaustion and financial anxiety do not hijack this delicate foundational relationship. For the father or non-birthing parent, that early time is just as essential. Their presence facilitates critical family adjustment, supports the birthing parent’s recovery and enables their own essential bonding—a key factor in reducing post-natal depression for both parents.

When parental pay is too low, parents are forced back to work too early. They are forced to prioritise their pay over their child’s neurological and emotional development. Historically, our policies have had a clear gender bias. Maternity pay, perhaps somewhat improving, still often sees the mother bear the financial penalty of taking long leave. Paternity pay, however, is also often a token gesture—a week or two at statutory minimum—sending a damaging message that the role of the father or birthing partner is secondary. The moral failure has consequences; it perpetuates gender inequality, penalises the mother’s career, entrenches her as the default primary carer and contributes directly to the gender pay gap. It limits the father’s role—it effectively blocks fathers who wish to be highly involved from the start, hindering their bond with the child.

The moral solution is equal, well-paid, non-transferable parental leave for both parents. We must elevate the financial value of the mother’s or father’s presence from a mere detriment to an essential contribution, thereby normalising co-parenting and supporting the mother. Parental pay is not a cost to the economy; it is a strategic investment in our human capital. When we support parents during that first 1,001 days, we are investing in our public health. Secure attachment leads to improved mental health outcomes for both parents and children, reducing the long-term strain on healthcare and social services. A stronger workforce in which parents feel supported would mean that they return to work more focused, loyal and productive. Generous parental leave is a key tool for talent attraction and retention.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Second sitting)

Michelle Welsh Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Wood]

Q Following that, the document states that

“if Parliament is to be asked to enact statutory provisions relating to a code,”

which appears to be the case in this instance,

“a draft of the proposed code should if at all possible be made available so that the appropriateness of the statutory provisions can be properly considered.”

Obviously, that is part of the legislative process. Should we not have that information? Why should only the House of Lords be provided with that?

Andrew Western: I suspect that at that point you are asking a procedural question, so I am not best placed to answer it.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

Q My question is quite straightforward. How much will the Bill save the taxpayer in the welfare fraud space?

Andrew Western: In the DWP space, we estimate that the amount would be £1.5 billion over the forecast period. That roughly equates to around £950 million on the eligibility verification measure, with the overwhelming majority of the rest—in fact, almost all of it—coming from the debt recovery power. There are also potentially significant savings over time that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office may want to outline with regard to the PSFA powers. I realise that they are scalable; they start off small-scale. Minister Gould, would you like to come in on the potential?

Georgia Gould: They are more modest in the first instance. We are estimating just under £60 million-worth of savings. We are testing the new models. If the model is successful, there is potential to scale that up. We think that this is the first time we are introducing powers to take on fraud in the wider public sector outside tax and welfare. A huge amount of fraud has gone uninvestigated. We think the deterrent impact of this will be substantial.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

Q We heard earlier from Anna from the Money and Pensions Service, who believes that the relationship between the service and the DWP is good. She said that a link has been established with Jobcentre Plus advisers to make sure that people are referred for advice to do with debts if needed. How important is that kind of person-centred approach in the practical application of the Bill, particularly in the case of error and the preventive measures we have spoken about—the wraparound care so that people do not get into problems with error much further down the line?

Andrew Western: As I have highlighted in my questions to witnesses throughout the day, there is the potential, through the eligibility verification measure, for a number of overpayments to be detected earlier than they would have been otherwise, thereby avoiding the large numbers that we have seen people rack up in overpayments through, for instance, the carer’s allowance challenges that we have seen in recent years.

The breadth of the conversation we are looking to have with people who are in debt with the Department is significant. We heard about the MoneyHelper service, on which the Money and Pensions Service works with us. That is just one of a range of organisations and packages that we utilise to support people who are in debt. We know that, whatever the reason—whether it is fraud or error, but particularly, as you say, if it is error—it is an incredibly stressful time for people.

In debt recovery terms, the power that we are taking is intended to be a power of last resort. What we always want to do, having been through all the things that you would expect us to do—the vulnerability management framework that was referenced earlier and the assessment that we make of people’s ability to pay—is to agree an affordable repayment plan. By the time we reach the point where we are looking for a direct deduction order, we would have looked to engage somebody on multiple occasions, contacting them several times and trying to agree that plan. This is for people we have no other means of engaging. It is as much a lever to try to bring them to the table and have the sorts of conversations you referenced as anything else.

This is also about addressing the existing fundamental unfairness. We can directly deduct from somebody in receipt of benefits, by deducting from that benefit entitlement, and we can do the same for someone in pay-as-you-earn employment, but we do not have that opportunity for people in receipt of income through other means—most obviously, but not exclusively, self-employed people. There is a fundamental point about addressing that inequity in the system. Having made those financial assessments, we know that these are people who can afford to pay. We have tried to reach out with the wraparound support that you suggested, and ultimately, they continue to refuse to engage.