đź’” Seriously Ill Children: Financial Support for Parents

Westminster Hall

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

Chris Hinchliff passionately advocated for Hugh’s law, a proposed policy to provide immediate financial support to parents of seriously ill children, highlighting the emotional and financial burdens faced by families like his constituents Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis. The current benefits system, including universal credit and disability living allowance, was criticized for its delays and bureaucratic hurdles, which exacerbate families’ stress during critical times. Minister Sir Stephen Timms acknowledged the challenges but noted that existing support through universal credit and other benefits is available, though not as immediate or non-means-tested as Hugh’s law proposes. The debate underscored the urgent need for more compassionate and practical financial assistance for families facing the unimaginable hardship of a child’s serious illness.

Summary

  • Debate Overview: The session focused on financial support for parents caring for seriously ill children, prompted by an e-petition and the tragic story of Hugh Menai-Davis, who passed away in 2021.

  • Chris Hinchliff’s Motion: Chris Hinchliff, MP for North East Hertfordshire, moved a motion to consider better financial support systems for parents. He praised Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis for their advocacy and their charity, It’s Never You.

  • Current Challenges: Hinchliff highlighted the lack of immediate financial support for parents outside the maternity and neonatal care periods. He pointed out that parents often face significant financial and emotional burdens, including long trips for treatment and insufficient benefits.

  • Hugh’s Law Proposal: Hinchliff proposed Hugh’s law, suggesting a ÂŁ750 monthly grant for up to three months, non-means-tested, activated from diagnosis day. This would be for parents of children with life-threatening or chronic illnesses requiring hospital care, aimed at easing financial stress and bureaucratic hurdles.

  • Supporting Evidence and International Examples: Hinchliff referenced studies showing the emotional and financial toll on families, and cited examples from Sweden, France, and Canada where similar support systems exist.

  • Minister’s Response: Sir Stephen Timms, Minister for Social Security and Disability, acknowledged the challenges and commended Hinchliff’s and the Menai-Davis family’s advocacy. He detailed existing support through universal credit, disability living allowance (DLA), and personal independence payments (PIP).

  • Current Support Systems: Timms explained that universal credit can provide day-one support through an advance, and that DLA and PIP are available based on care needs. He also mentioned the health and social care department’s review of the healthcare travel costs scheme.

  • Future Considerations: The Minister noted ongoing efforts to improve support, including the relaunched children and young people cancer taskforce and potential changes to the DLA run-on period after a child’s passing.

  • Conclusion: While the government appreciated the proposal of Hugh’s law, there were no immediate plans to implement the suggested day one grant, but the debate highlighted the urgency and ongoing focus on improving support for affected families.

Divisiveness

The session shows minimal disagreement among the participants. Most speakers, including the mover of the motion, Chris Hinchliff, and other MPs, are aligned in supporting the need for better financial support for parents caring for seriously ill children. The Minister, Sir Stephen Timms, acknowledges the issue and outlines existing support measures without directly opposing the proposed Hugh’s law. However, he does not commit to adopting the specific proposal of a day one, non-means-tested grant as suggested by the campaign.

Examples of the lack of disagreement include: - Chris Hinchliff’s opening speech and subsequent interventions from other MPs, such as Jim Shannon and Alison Bennett, all focus on the challenges faced by families and the necessity for additional support, showing consensus on the issue. - Jim Shannon’s intervention, while not directly addressing the Hugh’s law proposal, emphasizes the government’s responsibility to help families, which aligns with the overall sentiment of the debate. - Dr Lauren Sullivan and Chris Bloore’s contributions further support the need for immediate financial assistance, echoing the sentiment of the Hugh’s law campaign. - The Minister’s response, while not endorsing Hugh’s law, does not challenge the need for support but rather explains existing mechanisms and ongoing efforts, such as the children and young people cancer taskforce and the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023.

The only hint of disagreement could be interpreted from the Minister’s statement that there are no current plans to introduce a day one, non-means-tested grant as proposed by Hugh’s law. However, this is framed as an absence of plans rather than a direct rejection or opposition to the idea, and the Minister expresses appreciation for the debate and the campaign’s efforts. Thus, overall, the session is characterized by a shared understanding and supportive dialogue rather than conflict or disagreement.