Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lilian Greenwood

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

It starts with the issue of need. The point at which the child became eligible for disability living allowance marks the start of the qualifying period, even if that precedes the point at which parents make a claim. Understandably, when parents are in very difficult circumstances, their first thought is probably not about applying for disability living allowance. For children who are severely disabled at birth, the qualifying period can start at birth.

The date of claim is usually the date the request for a claim pack is received. Provided that the customer returns the claim form within six weeks, the date of claim will be treated as the date that the claim form was requested. The Secretary of State also has the discretion to extend that period beyond six weeks if the delay is considered reasonable. In the sort of circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest has described, we can understand how those issues can arise.

If a child sadly has an end-of-life diagnosis, special rules are rightly in place. Those claims are always fast-tracked and the three-month qualifying period does not apply. The highest rate of the DLA care component will be paid from the date of the claim. My officials are currently exploring options to enhance bereavement support for parents through the social security system, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders as that work develops.

Given that this debate stems from concerns about how quickly families get the support they need, it is worth highlighting that we have recently made significant improvements to waiting times for new child DLA claims. People are not waiting nearly as long as they did for their claim to be processed. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the need to address long waits.

[Rachael Maskell]

In the light of the fact that we are moving into a new era of a can-do Government, will the Minister look, together with clinicians, at the opportunity and benefit of delivering DLA from day one, and then bring the evidence back to the House?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will perhaps come later in my speech to what the Government are planning to do.

I am pleased to tell colleagues that between October 2024 and March 2025, the Department recruited and redeployed in excess of 100 case managers to improve clearance times for child DLA new claims. Between 1 August 2025 and 31 March this year, the Department cleared around 185,900 child DLA new claims, of which 68.3% were cleared within 45 working days. In that time, the percentage of claims cleared within these planned timescales rose from 4.7% to 90.7%. I hope that colleagues will recognise that that is a significant and necessary improvement.

The social security system exists to provide opportunity and security. It is there to help people to navigate the difficult circumstances that any of us can find ourselves in. There can, of course, be few circumstances more exceptionally difficult than those faced by seriously ill children and their parents. Along with the emotional strain, parents can understandably experience a significant impact upon work and household income, as well as facing extra costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest very ably set out. It is understandable that many parents in this situation are likely to need additional support through the social security system.

It is worth reiterating that beyond the support that DLA provides in and of itself, it can also passport to a range of additional support. That includes premiums in income-related benefits, carer’s allowance, the Motability scheme and exemption from the benefit cap. That is providing comprehensive help for families. For those who qualify, financial support is available through universal credit, including for those who are in work but on lower incomes. If needed, that support can be available on day one through an advance. Alongside the universal credit standard allowance, additional amounts such as child element, disabled child addition, carer element or housing costs are added as appropriate. Although universal credit is means tested and therefore not available to households that are better off financially, it is there as a safety net should those financial circumstances change.

The social security system will always be a cornerstone of our support for unpaid carers and parents of disabled children, but it is not the only way we can help. Rightly, this is something that we have been thinking about across Government. Indeed, the Government have recognised precisely the issues that have been raised by both my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). As I am sure they are aware, only yesterday the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade closed its “Make Work Pay” consultation on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children. That included seeking views on a possible new statutory entitlement to leave and pay for parents of seriously ill children, which is often referred to as Hugh’s law. That is in recognition of the campaigning undertaken by the family of Hugh Menai-Davis, who very sadly died aged six from cancer in 2021 but left this important legacy. I know that my colleagues will look carefully at the submissions to that consultation and will respond to it in the coming months, and I am sure that my hon. Friends present will look to colleagues in the Department and the work that they do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest rightly highlighted the importance of parents being able to support their children at these incredibly distressing times. In April last year, the Government introduced a new element of up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and pay for parents of babies in neonatal care to ensure that they have appropriate support during that time. The national cancer plan for England was published in February and was warmly received, not least for its introduction of a children and young people’s travel fund, backed by £10 million, and its recognition of the specialist approach that is needed for cancer in children and young people. Of course, our goal across Government remains to relentlessly work towards improving outcomes and experiences for children and young people with serious illnesses and supporting their families. I give that commitment to my colleagues today.

Caring for a child who is seriously ill must be one of the most worrying and stressful situations that a parent can experience, which is why I am so glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss this issue today. Although there are no current plans to remove the three-month qualifying period from disability living allowance for children, my Department is already doing a significant amount of work and offering significant support. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to search for the right levers across Government to further strengthen support for parents in these terrible circumstances, and that we will always approach these issues with compassion. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an important and sensitive subject and all Members who have contributed.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Member raises an important point. We recognise that the increased costs for bus operators, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, can have an impact on services. My officials are in contact with operators to understand better the impact of increased fuel costs as a result of the crisis in the middle east. I am sure that the Minister responsible for roads and buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be considering that issue further and will be happy to hear from her.

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

In York, we are ambitious to see modal shifts that get people out of their cars and on to buses, but we have an affordability problem. The mayor has a very generous transport budget, but only 6% can be spent on revenue. Will the Minister look at the ability to transfer capital funding into revenue, so that we can really boost our buses?

Pavement Parking

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lilian Greenwood

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that I am sure we will consider in our response. As I said, I will make an announcement very soon. I am also pleased to share that I have commissioned new research to update and strengthen our evidence base on the extent and impact of pavement parking. To be clear, that research is not a prerequisite for the consultation response—it will not delay progress—but it is part of our broader commitment to evidence-based policy and future evaluation to better understand the problem and ensure that the solutions we implement are working.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Lilian Greenwood]

I apologise, but I will not take any more interventions, because we are so short of time.

The research will begin imminently and will involve a representative sample of local traffic authorities. It will seek to include both a physical measure of the extent of pavement parking and questionnaires to gather qualitative insights into its impact. That dual approach will allow us to understand not only where and how pavement parking occurs but how it affects people’s lives, and particularly the lives of vulnerable road users. It will also allow us to evaluate the impact of the pavement parking policies that we intend to implement.

I had a very positive meeting co-ordinated by Guide Dogs, and I will continue to engage with stakeholders across the transport, accessibility and local government sectors, whose insights are invaluable. I am also mindful of the need to balance competing priorities, such as the availability of parking, the needs of delivery drivers and the importance of maintaining access for emergency services.

However, let me be absolutely clear: the status quo is not acceptable. Pavement parking is a blight on our towns, cities and villages. It undermines inclusivity and equitable access. It sends a message, however unintentionally, that some people’s mobility matters less than others’. That is not a message that any of us should be comfortable with. We must recognise that pavement parking is not just a transport issue but a social justice issue. I am determined to ensure that the steps we take are meaningful and effective. That means considering lived experiences, closing evidence gaps and adopting policy that reflects the realities of modern Britain.

Britain has changed significantly since the consultation in 2020. Technological developments such as new mobility solutions—the dockless e-scooters referenced earlier in the debate, e-bikes and even delivery robots—have changed the landscape. Our devolution agenda is putting power and decision making closer to those affected, where it should be. Our streets and our local authorities are evolving, and so must our policies.

I thank all those who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue—Members of Parliament, local councillors, advocacy groups and members of the public—and assure them that their voices have been heard and will continue to shape the work ahead. Together, we can and will build streets that are safer, more accessible and more welcoming for everyone.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of pavement parking.

Inclusive Transport Strategy

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lilian Greenwood

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

This debate is about the 13.9 million people in the UK who want to benefit from barrier-free travel, whether for work or leisure, whether to advance their opportunities or lifestyle, and to do so with choice and dignity, and without additional cost. No one chooses to be born with or to develop an impairment, and yet we know that disabled people are seriously economically and socially disadvantaged, frequently facing barriers throughout their lives, and facing discrimination even now in 2018—23 years after the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Inclusivity across our transport system can, should and must break this cycle and enable disabled passengers to access the things that the rest of us can enjoy. Labour fully comprehends this, because it is written in our DNA that when you create barriers, whether economically, socially or physically, you not only discriminate but limit the opportunities of others. We know how transport provides social connectivity to people who are isolated, can facilitate access to work or leisure, and can enhance independence and opportunity. To get this wrong is to limit the lives and hope of others. To get this wrong means that the state has disabled people by allowing barriers to continue.

Progress and spend over the past eight years has been too slow and too little. The inefficiencies within the system have yet again meant that disabled people were pushed to the back of the queue—and, I have to say, without enough realisation from Government or remorse from the industry.

Tragically, Governments and society have for too long built those barriers to disabled people, to exclude them and to remove the freedoms that so many of us take for granted. Today, I am sure we will hear many powerful examples of physical barriers across different modes of transport—planes, trains, buses and taxis—and for those wanting the opportunity to actively travel by cycling, walking or use of a mobility vehicle. We will hear about the infrastructure limitations and barriers that people face, and the choices and opportunities that they limit or deny people altogether.

I recall a woman in my constituency who is doubly incontinent, due to radiotherapy treatment for the disease she had—she did not choose to be so. She was denied universal credit owing to the complete failure of work capability assessments, which has left her in poverty, making it unaffordable for her to travel. Not having a toilet on a train, at a station or on a coach means that she cannot travel to see her mother. That is her goal. We must and should enable her to reach it.

I use that example to highlight the range of considerations that must be taken into account when we create an inclusive transport network. Disabled people are priced off our railways because they are far more economically disadvantaged than non-disabled people. Disabled people have to find an additional £570 a month in costs. Poverty is a major reason why people cannot travel, and because people cannot travel—for example, for work—they are economically disadvantaged. If Labour is about anything, it is about breaking this cycle, which we know has got far worse since this Government came to power. Wages have stagnated to below 2010 levels, and the most in need are denied the very social security to support their access requirements, keeping people in poverty or pushing them further into poverty.

Labour will, as is our mission, end this shameful and disgraceful approach to disabled people. In the sixth richest country in the world, we will not tolerate marginalising the most vulnerable people in our society and robbing them of the most basic rights that anyone should be able to have. Transport provides such an opportunity to turn people’s fortunes around. Whether someone faces a physical or sensory impairment, a mental health or neurodiversity challenge or a combination of those, whether they are injured, a parent with young children and buggies to navigate, old or frail, Labour will remove the barriers that stop them achieving their goals.

The Government’s inclusive transport strategy makes a good start, but much is missing, and I wait to hear how it will be fully funded and scheduled for implementation. Maybe Monday will be its judge, when the Chancellor gives his Budget statement. I know that the Minister has prioritised this strategy, but sadly her boss, the Secretary of State for Transport, has not shown such commitment.

More than £50 million of the Access for All funding planned for the current control period has been deferred, with half of all projects being postponed. Control period 5 funding has been slashed from £135 million, including a £32 million roll-over, to £87.1 million in 2012-13 prices, with the remainder of the original fund value now planned to be spent between 2020 and 2024. Labour is committed to restoring the £50 million that the Government have slashed from that budget.

Network Rail is inviting nominations for eligible stations, following the Government’s commitment of up to £300 million for Access for All in control period 6, but it is also looking for cash-strapped local authorities to contribute to bids and work in partnership—money that they do not have. Commitment is demonstrated by money. That is where the Government have been left wanting.

The Government’s inclusive transport strategy sets out five strands of work: raising awareness of passengers’ rights, staff training, improving information, improving infrastructure and using technology. Those are all welcome and all plausible, and long overdue. Addressing rights and responsibilities is good. Every penny wisely spent on infrastructure forms a crucial part of removing barriers for people who want equality, but sadly the strategy is not complete, and I therefore have to say that disappointment was felt on the Labour Benches. I know from talking to the amazing charities working on access issues across the transport sector that they share that disappointment.

I turn now to those who work across the network—something omitted from the Government’s strategy. Staff training, which we know can make a real difference, is rightly in the strategy, but who is working in the sector? If the transport sector does not make a radical change to who it employs, transport will fail to understand what is wrong. Of the 13.9 million disabled people, just 3.4 million, or 24%, work—what a wasted opportunity.

Every time I ask this question, I think of a constituent of mine who is autistic. He absolutely loves trains and wants to work on the railway. He has done courses and training under Government schemes, but at 30 he has only had three months of work sticking labels on jam pots. We are impoverished because his ambition has been denied. I set a challenge to the transport sector and the Minister today. Having tried to draw out statistics to no avail on how many disabled people work across the sector, which speaks volumes, my challenge is this: what are you doing to radically change the diversity of the workforce? No excuses and no prejudices—what are you doing?

If the workforce is inclusive, the industry and Government will not only grasp what they have to do to change, but economically, people who have been disabled will be able to get out of their homes and travel, and economically, the sector will benefit. If we have to enable staff, we have to enable everyone. Labour is committed to taking us on that journey, and we believe that the unions will be the facilitators of change. This is in Labour’s DNA. It is in our name. We are about transforming the world of work.

At this point, I want to recognise the incredible work that the Transport Salaried Staffs Association has done on neurodiversity and the transport sector. It stands out in the industry and has shown real leadership in recognising opportunity. I also have to extol the commitment and endurance of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers for its persistence in making the case that a second safety-critical person—a guard—must be on a train. It is right. If transport is to be inclusive, physical and structural changes have to occur, but we also need people to be there, providing the vital public service that enables, not disables, people.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is dealing with issues around the presence of staff. Does she agree that the presence of a member of staff on trains and at the station is not just important for disabled people—it may be vital for them—but is good for everyone, because it means that everyone who encounters a difficulty has someone they can go to for help and advice?

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know how vital our public servants working across the rail industry and the transport network are, at vital interchanges and stations, providing not only signage and support for individuals but the holistic customer service that the public rightly expect.

Cracked pavements are a major transportation barrier for people who trip over the cracks. People have lost their lives as a result of this. If we are going to talk about active travel, which we must, we have to ensure that councils such as my own—which has shamefully not addressed this—are equipped to address this issue. Parking on pavements is a cause of this and must be addressed. I was delighted when the Minister said that she was committed to addressing this, to help visually and physically disabled people avoid serious risk.

We need to build a cycle industry for everyone. EMPowered Cycles, which I went out with a few weeks ago on a ride, is inspirational in the way that it adapts bikes to enable anyone who wants to cycle to do so. Labour wants every child to have the chance to ride and to access cycling—and, for that matter, we will extend that enjoyment to all, taking away the multiple barriers faced by disabled people who want to cycle. Making cycling accessible for them will make it accessible for all.

The Bus Services Act 2017 rightly demanded that audio-visual equipment be installed across the network—thanks to Labour’s amendment. However, two years on, we are still waiting for the Government to lay the regulations. When will those regulations be laid? Will Brexit get in the way yet again, or will we see them laid? The bus companies say that they are not able to install the equipment because they do not know the scope of the requirements on them. I urge the Government to move on that issue.

To access a bus, however, people need a bus. The cuts to bus routes, with 199 routes cut or reduced last year alone, have cut the opportunities for disabled people at a time when 60% of disabled people live in homes without a car. That is why Labour is committed to reconnect people and communities in rural and urban areas through our bus plan. As for the fear this Government have sowed throughout the community transport sector—I thank all those involved in the sector for their service—they have not even had the decency to respond to the consultation from May, which is six months ago, leaving community transport in paralysis. Labour would take away that fear and support this vital lifeline to so many.

In the light of the independent report on taxi and private hire that was published in September, “Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing: recommendations for a safer and more robust system”, Labour welcomes the recommendations and has committed to reform the legislation guaranteeing national standards on safety and accessibility.

As for rail, we could dedicate a whole debate to station access. Stations absent of rumble strips on their platform edges and those with poor signage are failing the test. My trip to Biggleswade station highlighted how making such adjustments would mean that not only disabled people, but elderly people and mums and dads with pushchairs could use the train. Just 20% of stations are currently step-free. May I congratulate Liverpool’s metro Mayor, Steve Rotheram, and Councillor Liam Robinson, with their publicly owned trains on their publicly run network, on procuring an entire fleet of new trains that are step-free and accessible? It just goes to show what a publicly run service can achieve and why Labour will prioritise this issue—oh, and they have ensured that there will be guards on the trains.

I have to raise Govia Thameslink Railway’s disgraceful pronouncement earlier this year about dwell times at stations. That was another of its failings, and another reason that the Secretary of State should bring that route back under public ownership. It instructed staff:

“DO NOT attempt to place PRM”—

a person of reduced mobility—

“on train if there is a possibility of delaying the service”,

and that someone having a seizure should be moved

“from the train as quickly as possible”.

This is completely unacceptable. It boasted that such

“processes will help us deliver a 21st century railway”.

No they will not, and to discriminate so overtly shows just how unfit such franchise holders are.

Labour further understands that we need a real shift in engineering. I say to disabled people, “Become engineers”, and I say to the Government, “Make this happen”. When our engineers, designers and transport leaders have lived experience, then we can engineer in access for all. Others have to change, too. At a recent presentation, the Office of Rail and Road told us how it was content that one in five people were failed by Passenger Assist. That failure told us why we are not content with that organisation. Leadership has to be about ambition, and I was very surprised that the Minister said that her strategy would be delivered by 2030, which coincides with a date set by the UN, given how fast she could drive forward the strategy.

Leadership is about ambition, and that is why Labour believes that the public transport system can and should be transformed. With my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) at the helm—a man burning with ambition to create an economically, socially and physically inclusive railway—that will change lives, and that is what Labour Members will achieve when we come into government.

School Funding

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Lilian Greenwood

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this timely debate.

This is not a boast I want to make, but when I came into this place York was the seventh worst funded authority, and today it is the very worst funded authority. We have exchanged places in the league tables. That is why I am speaking in this debate. Some 18 out of 23 primary schools and two thirds of secondary schools in my constituency have had their funding cut. Like most MPs, I meet with my schools on a regular basis. The crisis in funding has come to the fore. I want the Minister to take away the point that when schools are struggling, the outcomes of those schools are affected.

York has one of the biggest attainment gaps in the country, particularly around early years, and we have seen severe cuts to our primary schools. We are therefore seeing a significant minority underachieving by 10%. The Minister needs to focus on those figures, which correlate with funding.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to what is happening in primary and secondary schools, but does she share my concern that sixth forms have been hardest hit? I was shocked by the Institute for Fiscal Studies submission to the Education Committee on school and college funding, which found that per-pupil funding in post-16 education will be the same in real terms in 2019-20 as it was 30 years ago. Does that not show that the Government are failing to address the needs of young people in the future?

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I meet with colleges in my constituency, which are absolutely on their knees with regard to funding. We know that this is an issue right across the education system. It has a real impact on outcomes, which is what I want to focus on.

While our schools have excellent outcomes, in the areas in my constituency where the cuts have been the greatest in real terms, the attainment is the worst. We can easily see the correlation between money and outcomes. If we make those cuts, we must expect those children to be short-changed, perhaps for the rest of their lives.

We are also seeing a change in class sizes. York has the second biggest increase in the teacher-classroom ratio in its primary schools and the fourth biggest fall in staffing numbers in primary schools, with 20 teachers leaving between 2014 and 2017—that has an impact. We have seen the biggest increase in class sizes in secondary schools across the country—the relevant figure is 2.9, with the next biggest being 1.8. In secondary schools, York has the joint biggest teacher-classroom ratio. Pupil numbers are increasing. I know at least one school in my constituency that is really struggling and does not know how it will accommodate its children next year.

We have also experienced a real turnover of teaching staff, as hon. Members have mentioned. Experienced teachers are leaving and being replaced. In one school around 60 teachers have moved and newly qualified teachers have been brought in. That has an impact on the experience of staff and therefore on the teaching of students. We are also seeing the impact on vital support staff. When the pay increase was announced, schools had to find the resource to pay their support staff, which resulted in many having to leave. We must focus on them as well.

The excellent head teacher of Millthorpe School in my constituency, Trevor Burton, had to write to parents to inform them of the reality and what they can expect. The school is unfunded by £169,000, for four years of 1% pay increases, £56,000 for increased employer pension contributions, £78,000 for national insurance, and £21,000 for the apprenticeship levy. The school’s expenditure has increased by £324,000. The school had an 8% real-terms cut, but it received increased funding of only 3.6%, so it has had a 4.4% cut. Of course, that has had a real impact on children through increasing class sizes, cutting events, doing without teacher posts, stopping all year 10 and 11 vocational courses—as we just heard, that has a real impact on children—and not replacing staff when they leave. On top of that, the school, like many others, has had maintenance issues. It has had to spend £900,000 on double glazing in classrooms, to keep them warm and dry, and to replace school roofs in the dining hall, sports hall, gym, language lab and one of the classrooms.

Tang Hall Primary School also faces the pressure of maintaining its building—a matter I have raised since being elected. The school, which has had one of the largest cuts in the constituency, was top of the Building Schools for the Future list to have a new school built. However, that programme was cut, and the school is still struggling and desperately needs a new building. The school is so cold, because it is such an old building, that they have had to change the school uniform so that the children can wear hoodies to school. It is a disgrace that in 2018, after eight years, they are still waiting for their new school. Children cannot study when they are cold. This has an impact on children throughout their time at the school. The head teacher has pleaded for a new school.

Westfield Primary Community School, in perhaps the most deprived area of my constituency, has had the largest cut in my constituency. How can that be the case when children and families desperately need the support? The school does extraordinary work in the face of such cuts. That needs to be looked at, because we are failing some of the most needy children in our communities.

My final point is about budgets and where we need to go.