Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. The proposal to amend Clause 75 by changing the name ““personal independence payment”” to ““disability living costs allowance”” is intended to clarify the purpose of the payment. However, it does not reflect the way in which understanding of that issue has been developed. ““Personal independence payment”” has come to suggest that the disabled person is or will become independent as a consequence of the payment. That will not happen. What will happen is that the person will be able to finance the inevitable additional costs that are consequential on their disability or disabilities and the various barriers which hinder full participation. Independence is about not being reliant on others. The reality for those with disabilities is that they will always need assistance for a range of activities. The cost of that assistance is an additional resource which the disable person needs. The DLA provides for those costs, and under these arrangements the payment of these additional costs will be enabled, not independence itself. We are acutely aware of the extent to which people entitled to benefits are unable to claim because of lack of knowledge and understanding of their rights. That is a proven fact, despite the coverage to the contrary. It is most important that the name of this benefit does not have the capacity to add further confusion for the beneficiary. It has been recognised by government that people do not fully understand what DLA is for. It has also been recognised that disability benefit entitlement should be easier for people to understand. I therefore believe that the term ““personal independence payment”” is not adequate or appropriate. The aim of the DLA was always to enable a disabled person to experience as full a life as possible and to provide for the additional costs. That approach recognised the reality that independence as others experience it is never going to be a reality for a person with a range of disabilities unless additional funding is made available to enable the access to education, to social and political life, to employment or, indeed, to membership of this House if that is what the person aspires to. I travel regularly by plane, train, underground, bus and all forms of transport which are profoundly difficult and sometimes inaccessible for those with disabilities. Access to transport continues to be at a very low level, and therefore the use of taxis or cars involving significant additional costs is the only option available in many circumstances. Access to some buildings is still impossible for people with mobility problems. I share an office with someone who has a disability and so I am aware of the endless conversations that ensue on an invitation. Those questions include, ““Can I get access to the building? Can I get into the event? How will I get up the steps?””. Other problems arise for those who suffer from deafness and learning disabilities in terms of access to the content of material. That has to be provided for and it costs money. Surely we should recognise this and make quite clear what the allowance is intended to enable: simply, the payment of additional costs.