My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. In fact, I am quite overwhelmed—I did not expect such enthusiasm for this first amendment, although it is a very important one. I have to say again that this is not about a name, it is about intent. I believed, and I stand by it, the noble Lord, Lord Newton—who is now in this Room—when he said back in 1990 that the DLA was better assistance with the extra cost of being disabled. The DLA helps deliver that cost. I think it applied then and I am sorry it applies now. There is intent and it is important to get this name right.
I am so pleased that so many noble Lords have given their personal experiences and examples of the use of the DLA and that other noble Lords have talked about their experience of understanding the needs of other disabled people who may not be in this Room, such as people with hidden impairments and mental health conditions. Yes, we must reform the DLA so it meets the extra costs of all disabled people in this country not just those with physical impairments.
I do not know what focus groups the Minister was at when the name was discussed but it certainly was not with the disabled people that I have been talking to over the last couple of months. I do not want to boast, but I know rather a lot of disabled people. I have been working alongside disabled people for 30 years and I am tapped in to some of the biggest organisations for disabled people in this country which have a long history and authority in this area. So I trump the noble Lord when it comes to knowing what disabled people think about this amendment and its intent.
I am of course pleased that we might think of looking at the name again and I am thrilled that the Minister will be going back to the Minister for Disabled People in another place to discuss this. But I have to say that I rather like the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, of the ““personal disability costs payment””. I am not crazy about the word ““allowance”” either, so I am happy to discard it and go with what disabled people feel comfortable with. Let us remember that it is what disabled people are most comfortable with that is most important. They have suffered from the most awful six months of media vitriol on disability allowance, and I know that for most of the people who use it, it is not about them. I feel really depressed when I open the Daily Mail in my mother’s house—I want to make that point—and I have to say that I feel a bit got at. But if I feel a bit depressed, think of what it is doing to hundreds of other disabled people.
I am glad that we have kicked off with a debate about the name because it has got all of us in the Room really focused on the issue, but having heard the debate, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 86ZZZG withdrawn.
Amendment 86ZZZH not moved.
Clause 75 agreed.
Clause 76 : Daily living component
Amendment 86ZZZJ
Clause 76 : Daily living component
Amendment 86ZZZJ
Moved by
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 November 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
732 c175-6GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:50:48 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_784994
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_784994
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_784994