Welfare Reform Bill

I thank the Minister for his comments. I particularly thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment and teased out some parts of it. The social model sounds so easy but once you start looking into it, it becomes more complex. If the Minister is so confident about this new middle ground called the bio-social-medical model, which I have not heard many disabled people writing songs about recently, why is it not coming up in the guidance or in the Bill? If he is so confident that the social model will be incorporated in the new assessment, why not put it in the Bill alongside the condition? Then the middle ground would be there. It informs and gives intent clearly to all those who are assessing from that legislation. I wish I had the Minister’s faith that society and the assessors will assess from a social model perspective as well as a medical one. I do not have that faith. Most people when they meet me do not ask, ““What can I do to make it easy for you to come around to my house for a gin tonight?””. They ask me what is wrong with me. I get that nearly every week. Everyone wants to know my medical condition before they invite me to their house. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, clearly talked about that ““light bulb moment”” when everything became clear. I believe that by putting a social model definition in the Bill, it will help others to have that light bulb moment. I do not accept that a more social model approach or a social model-informed approach will lead to less objectivity. The points-based descriptor approach such as the work capability assessment, which it should be noted has been continually subjected to widespread criticism and a high level of appeals overturned in favour of the claimant, has sparked off the need for a four-year review. Professor Harrington says that we must take a more holistic, social model approach to assessment. Using a points-based, tick-boxed descriptors approach will not capture enough information about the barriers and costs faced by disabled people on a daily basis. The Government also seem to have concerns about inconsistency as an excuse to standardise disabled people’s experiences. That is precisely what we are not doing here. My alternative approach recognises the diversity of difficulties faced by disabled people. Difficulties arise from a plethora of barriers, which is why you can have two disabled people with the same condition or impairment but who face different social, practical and environmental barriers as a result of disability. Earlier today, I heard about the disability-related cost assessment of a man called Ali Kashmiri. His costs and needs are entirely different from mine, although we have exactly the same impairment and need for a wheelchair, which again shows a need for a social model approach. I believe that the Government are working hard to make the assessment process more evenly constructed between a medical and a social model approach. However, there is work to be done and I look forward to discussing further with the Minister the new assessment criteria and to hearing the responses of other disabled people to the criteria. When we look at that, perhaps we will come back to this matter. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 86ZZZL withdrawn. Amendments 86ZZZM and 86ZZZN not moved. Clause 76 agreed. Clause 77 : Mobility component Clause 77 : Mobility component Amendments 87ZZZP and 87ZZZQ not moved. Clause 77 agreed. Clause 78 : Ability to carry out daily living activities or mobility activities Clause 78 : Ability to carry out daily living activities or mobility activities Amendments 86ZZZR to 86ZZZU not moved. Amendment 86ZZZUA Moved by