The dispute centres on a Policy Exchange report proposing tighter eligibility rules for children with mental health conditions, learning difficulties and neurodevelopmental conditions. Two members of the Timms Review steering group have taken opposing positions, although the review itself focuses on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) rather than child DLA.
Proposed Child DLA Cuts Could Save £11.9 Billion Over Four Years
Jean-André Prager, a member of the Timms Review steering group and former adviser to three Conservative prime ministers, co-authored the Policy Exchange research with Keir Haldane in October 2026.
According to Disability News Service, the report proposes restricting child DLA eligibility for three fast-growing categories of conditions, potentially reducing expenditure by £11.9 billion over four years.
The research states that the number of children receiving DLA in England and Wales increased from 314,000 in 2010 to 915,000 in 2026.
Policy Exchange modelled changes that would limit acceptance levels to 50%, 40% or 30% of existing levels for the selected categories, alongside returning average awards to pre-pandemic levels.
Under its most restrictive scenario, the research estimates gross savings of £4.5 billion in 2030/31. Of that amount, £1.5 billion would be redirected towards services, including Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, family hubs and parental support programmes. The remaining £3 billion would contribute towards reducing government expenditure.
The proposals have attracted criticism because child DLA is awarded according to individual care and mobility needs rather than diagnosis alone. The benefit provides non-means-tested financial assistance to families caring for disabled children.
Disability Campaigners Challenge Proposals As DWP Clarifies Its Position
Phil Stevens, chief executive of Disability Action Haringey (DAH) and another member of the Timms Review steering group, co-authored a response challenging the Policy Exchange findings.
According to DAH’s October 2026 report, the proposed eligibility reductions are policy assumptions rather than evidence that existing awards have been incorrectly granted.
The organisation argues that removing financial assistance would not eliminate children’s additional care requirements, transport costs or other disability-related needs.
It also questions whether reductions in benefit expenditure would translate into equivalent savings across public services. Families, schools, healthcare providers and local authorities could instead face additional financial pressures.
DAH cites research from Contact’s Counting the Costs 2024 survey, involving 4,262 UK families with disabled children. Among respondents, 62% of parent carers had reduced their working hours or stopped working, while families reported average additional costs of £322 each month.
The disagreement has drawn attention to the Timms Review, which is examining PIP under the leadership of Sir Stephen Timms. The DWP has not endorsed the Policy Exchange recommendations or the DAH rebuttal.
In comments reported by Disability News Service, a DWP spokesperson said the review involved 15 steering group members drawing on different evidence and expertise. The department also acknowledged increasing demand for child DLA and confirmed that additional case managers had been trained to handle applications.
For now, the competing reports represent proposals and objections rather than announced changes to child DLA eligibility. The DWP’s response addressed the review process and claims administration, without announcing the restrictions proposed by Policy Exchange.
