Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, my noble friend will continue. At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. In contrast, disability living allowance has always meant a recognition that because of impairment and disabling barriers, someone incurs extra costs and therefore needs extra help if they are to experience a level playing field in terms of choices and the opportunities they can aspire to. I believe that using the term ““personal independence payment”” will be confusing because of its similarity to ““social care personal budgets””. It is inaccurate as the entitlement is supposed to address in a small way disabled people’s extra costs of living with impairment and disabling barriers. It is misleading because the entitlement is not about independence or doing things for yourself. The term ““personal independence payment”” will therefore create significant misunderstanding not only among assessors and disabled people alike, but also among the general public. I am not alone in my scepticism. I decided to check out my misgivings with the experts—disabled people. First, I consulted those with a long history of campaigning for the right to independent living, people who designed and developed direct payments and independent living schemes. They shared my fears, reminding me that it has taken 30 years for disabled people to formulate their ideas about what conditions allow for independent living, those that enable disabled people to have choice and control in their lives. What is more, they agreed that disability living allowance does exactly what it says on the tin. It is a building block that seeks to address some of the financial costs of living with a disability in today’s society. I then consulted more widely through various internet websites like ““The Broken of Britain””, with the membership of the National Centre for Independent Living and with disabled people involved in the Government’s Equality 2025. They all agreed that the term ““disability living allowance”” is a far more accurate description of what the benefit is for. One woman from The Broken of Britain sent me an e-mail explaining that she was awarded DLA three years ago and had never been part of a disability group before, but thought she would apply for the allowance because disability was in the title. She was worried that other people like her who did not really have contact with disability organisations are those who might miss out on vital assistance. A name is very important. Disability living allowance implies help for the disabled, while personal independence payment does not mention disability. It could be for single mums or anything like that. If it is aimed at the disabled, the wording will probably mean that it is payable to those who can achieve some sort of personal independence. ““What if you think that you cannot be independent?””, asked the woman. During my consultations, it was also suggested that changing the name slightly to ““disability living costs allowance”” would even more accurately reflect what this entitlement was for. The Government have stated that the new benefit is designed to help meet disabled people’s costs of living and the proposed amendment helps to deliver that aim. A key reason given for reforming DLA is, quoting from the Government’s consultation document, that many people, "““do not fully understand what the benefit is for””." A crucial area of misunderstanding is the assumption held by many disabled people and by the public that, quoting again from the Government’s consultation document: "““DLA is an income replacement benefit for people who are unable to work due to disability””." I agree entirely with the Minister for Disabled People in another place when she says: "““It is time that we had a disability benefit which is easier for individuals to understand””." Yet the new term is likely to create even more confusion. It removes the association with disability and creates the idea that the payment is to enable people to do things for themselves rather than to help with the extra costs of support and daily living. The term therefore does not achieve what the Government are setting out to do. In contrast, the proposed term ““disability living costs allowance”” does precisely that. It makes clear that this is a benefit aimed at disabled people to help with the extra costs that they have in their daily lives so that they can aspire to choices and opportunities on a level playing field with non-disabled people. I think we are all in agreement that it is time that DLA was reviewed and reformed. Some 16 national organisations led by the Disability Alliance advocated DLA reform in 2009, but feel that their ideas for changes have been ignored in what has emerged so far from the DWP. Renaming this benefit as the Government propose only hinders the reform process further, it certainly does not help. It is true that disabled people’s needs and aspirations have changed since this allowance was first conceived, but in the spirit of babies and bathwater, it is important to look at why this allowance has become one of the most important features of disabled people’s emancipation and empowerment. At this point, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed. When thinking about the amendment and this part of the Welfare Reform Bill dedicated to DLA, I called up an old friend, Sir Bert Massie, who was then deputy chief executive of RADAR. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, who sadly is not with us today but who has enriched our discussions through these Committee sittings with his very long experience and knowledge of social security benefits, will definitely remember Sir Bert. I believe that they both spent many long hours over many strong whiskies negotiating and pioneering much of the disability income architecture, including DLA. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and his Government agree with Sir Bert, who reminded me that: "““Before DLA there was the Mobility Allowance and the Attendance Allowance. The first was designed to assist with Mobility Costs. The second, Attendance Allowance, was originally introduced to assist with the extra disability related costs that disabled people have””," not just their care. "““I think it was in 1992 that they became DLA, which lifted thousands of disabled people out of disability related income poverty””." It was a very important reminder from Bert about how DLA helped to pay the extra costs experienced by disabled people to allow them to participate in their communities and to work where social and economic barriers excluded them. The barriers still exist. Discrimination legislation has not wiped them away. It will take years before the transport infrastructure allows full access. This leaves many disabled people dependent on DLA mobility support. At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. There are some costs that, no matter how accessible the environment and how progressive society's attitudes, remain very high. I will give the example of a young man in Kingston with a progressive muscle-wasting impairment. He was recently asked to carry out a detailed disability-related costs assessment as part of his local authority's charging policy. The extra costs borne by this man came to a staggering £467.55 per week. The figure included long-term capital costs for his adapted car and building works not covered by his disabled facilities grant. Seeing is believing: I have a copy here for the Minister. At this point, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed. There—it is yours. At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. The Minister will see that there are no luxuries contained therein—just basic costs incurred because of his impairment that non-disabled people never have to consider. Another reason to call the benefit ““disability living costs allowance”” rather than ““personal independence payment”” is to prevent the confusion with personal budgets. The personalisation agenda in social care is about enabling people to have control over the support that they need through personal budgets and direct payments. Most developments in supporting disabled people to achieve independent living are derived from the social care agenda of the past 30 years. The legislative framework for the funding and delivery of these services is the remit of the Department of Health and is administered by social services departments. Therefore, adopting the personal independence payment is bound to cause confusion between the respective roles and responsibilities of our national social security system and our localised system of care and support. The primary task of social security benefits is to ensure an adequate standard of living. DLA helps achieve this by recognising and mitigating the poverty that can arise from the extra costs of daily living faced by disabled people. In contrast, local authorities are engaged in providing practical assistance to disabled people assessed as requiring it against the criteria described in social care: law and guidance, which does not include the risk of poverty as a trigger for intervention. At this point, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed. The term ““personal independence payments”” is— I am sorry—inaccurate and confusing, and does not reflect the purpose behind government proposals. I would like greater clarity from the Minister about the prime objective of personal independence payments. If PIP is to offset the significant extra costs of disability, enabling a person to live rather than simply survive, it would be far better to use phraseology that makes this clear and also provides a bridge from its predecessor. I beg to move.