Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I tabled this amendment truly in the spirit of modernisation. The Minister and the Government have called for modernising this benefit and I am at one with that. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the assessment process used to determine eligibility for PIP will be based on the social model of disability. I was inspired to table this amendment by the document, The Future of PIP: A Social Model Based Approach. It was conducted by Scope and has sign up from practically all the major disability organisations that you can think of. I have therefore proposed inserting the words, "““and the social, practical and environmental barriers they face as a disabled person living with that condition””," after, "““the person’s physical or mental condition’," thereby changing the assessment originally proposed from purely a medical analysis of the barriers faced by the disabled person to a social model approach. This does not mean that the person’s medical condition will not be considered—quite the opposite. The social model of disability is about recognising the, "““physical, sensory, intellectual, or psychological variations, which may cause individual functional limitation or impairments, but accepts they do not necessarily lead to disability, if society makes environmental, economic and attitudinal adjustments, which take account of and include people regardless of their individual differences (impairments)””." That is a quote from Professor Colin Barnes who has written some of the greatest books on the social model of disability. This amendment therefore takes a modern approach to the assessment process required if a disabled person wishes to become eligible for PIP, or I hope DLCA or PIPO. I feel that the Government will want to welcome this amendment. The Minister will know that they have a robust commitment to the social model of disability, by endorsing and adopting the 2005 life chances strategy when taking office. That strategy is entirely informed by the social model approach and the Government have said repeatedly that they want to help disabled people to overcome the barriers that they face to leading full and independent lives. They want to ensure that that support is focused on those with the greatest barriers and to more accurately assess who would benefit most from additional support, which is warmly welcomed. Yet despite these bold commitments, so far civil servants have largely designed a medical model test with a tweak of social model now and then that will not deliver these admirable aims. I have a sneaking feeling that the Minister will assure me and other Members of the Committee that the new draft assessment process has now been redesigned to take more account of the environmental and social barriers that get in the way of disabled people’s inclusion in society. This is very good news and I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have at last begun the work co-productively with a small number of disabled people, and in particular members of their own advisory group on disability—Equality 2025—to redesign parts of the assessment process. However, I have very briefly read the new draft. I feel that it is only just a start and that in order to ensure the social model approach to assessment is maintained by those eventual assessors, who are unlikely to be steeped in the social model of disability, the Government really need to nail their colours to the mast. Where better than in the Bill? At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. They also need to reassure disabled people that they understand the nature of the barriers they face and that the new system will be based on this. This amendment does just that. I will give some background. Throughout this year as plans for the introduction of PIP have developed, disability organisations such as Scope, the National Centre for Independent Living and even the Government’s own advisory group, Equality 2025, expressed their concern to the Government on numerous occasions that the assessment they proposed until very recently did not show them the full picture of the barriers disabled people face in their everyday lives. I believe that the Government are now listening, but I and others are not convinced that the assessment process will alter as radically as it needs to in order to satisfy their pledge to target the benefit better. Unless the assessment is clearly based on a social model approach the system will not be able to accurately identify which people really need to receive support from PIP. Disabled people know that many of the barriers they face do not directly arise from their own bodies, their conditions and impairments but from social, environmental and practical barriers such as inaccessible transport, unsuitable housing or living in social isolation with nobody to support them. I know that the Government agree with this analysis and are equally keen to address such barriers, yet a failure to incorporate this approach properly into the Bill threatens to create a missed opportunity to deliver the Government’s aims. Scope has been the lead charity working on this issue with a range of organisations including disability organisations for and of disabled people, public services, academic institutions and think tanks to outline a blueprint for an alternative assessment process for PIP; namely, an assessment process that would ensure that the social model of disability is firmly at the heart of PIP/DLCA and the assessment for it, which I believe would deliver the Government’s aim of targeting the benefit effectively. In October, Scope published its report entitled The Future of PIP: A Social Model Based Approach outlining this alternative assessment. The report received great support and has been endorsed by more than 20 organisations, including Citizens Advice, Disability Alliance, RADAR, NCIL, Mencap, Mind, National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers, Guide Dogs, National Deaf Children’s Society, Voluntary Organisations Disability Group and the Papworth Trust. The report strongly recommends the trial of an approach that: takes greater account of the social, practical and environmental barriers that an individual faces as part of their everyday life—and the costs that come with these—as well as how they manage their condition or impairment on a daily basis; is co-produced with the claimant, rather than being done ““to”” them, and which tries to avoid many of the same shortcomings evident in the work capability assessment; and is better designed to help disabled people overcome the barriers they face, by ensuring that those facing significant external barriers that could be reduced or removed with targeted intervention from services such as occupational therapy are passported onto the relevant services. This would be of benefit to everyone who undergoes an assessment for PIP, regardless of whether they are then assessed as being entitled to the benefit. This is not to say that disabled people do not experience barriers that result directly from their impairment or condition—they do, and it is, of course, essential that these are considered. However, Scope and other organisations say the plans do not go far enough and that they consider only half the picture. If you want to really support disabled people to overcome the barriers they face to leading the lives that they value, you have to acknowledge and address where those barriers come from. Some will be caused directly by impairment or condition, but others will be societal, practical and environmental. We need to consider these too, much more than in the latest draft criteria. Otherwise, someone with a relatively low impact of impairment, but facing very high barriers and additional costs because they are disabled, will miss out on the vital support they need. The new system would therefore not deliver the Government’s intentions. At this point, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed. If the Government are truly serious about embedding the social model of disability within PIP they must take on board Scope’s recommendations. They must redesign the assessment process with disabled people coproductively so that it accurately identifies those who face the greatest barriers. This way we will have an assessment process that is fit for purpose in the 21st century but which delivers the aims the Minister has been rightfully suggesting it should. I beg to move.