麻豆官网首页入口

Agree 100% with all you say Goldfish.

This was my own take on the issue when we here at Ouch were asked for our thoughts about disability benefits by Anne McGuire (Minister for the Disabled)way back in March.

"Please let me respond in the form of an open letter for your current boss Tony Blair, (given it would appear he sees himself as the only 鈥済overnment鈥� at least for now).

Dear Tony,

鈥楾he Battle for Hearts and Minds 鈥� Gaining Social Justice and Inclusion鈥�

The world is not and sadly never will be entirely fair or equal but true 鈥淪ocial Justice鈥� should, and must be, achievable in any civilised society.

If you are listening Mr Blair, that is a legacy worth having, demonising those unable to obtain or simply incapable of work through illness and disability is not.

What you, and government as a whole, seem to have forgotten is that the value of an individual is not diminished by an inability to obtain, let alone be capable of, paid employment. Each and every one of us contributes something to the whole regardless of our situation in that regard.

The problem then is how we achieve acceptance, rather than merely lip service, to the notion that we should be seen as equal members of society, each contributing according to their ability and each supported according to their needs.

What is needed, and I would argue Equality 2025 must be about, is not just establishing equality of opportunity in work and other aspects of society but, perhaps more importantly, ensuring an acceptable degree of actual minimum outcome as a result of that equality of opportunity sufficient to ensure true social inclusion for all.

Equality of minimum outcome is therefore how I would define 鈥淪ocial Justice鈥� as it is the only definition that includes the need for full 鈥淚nclusion鈥� as the ultimate goal of that 鈥淛ustice鈥�.

Yes it is true that removing obstacles to work is the best chance for all disadvantaged groups, but especially the disabled, to escape from poverty.

Gaining decently paid, meaningful employment provides not just the financial resources necessary for social inclusion, but also helps individuals gain self respect and promotes the acceptance of their worth by society as a whole.

Removing disincentives to work is thus clearly part of the solution, but only a part. Other less obvious obstacles need to be overcome first.

Not least of these is the need for such solutions to be applied in a way that doesn鈥檛 serve to discriminate against those still unable to obtain, or are simply incapable of, such gainful employment.

The social inclusion of those able to gain paid employment can not and must not be at the cost of the social exclusion of those that can鈥檛.

The reality of Britain in the 21st century is that entrenched attitudes to the disabled will not disappear overnight. It will take years and maybe decades even to get those that can work into work.

It therefore is imperative that any welfare reform recognises this and that the disabled in or out of work are provided with the minimum funds required to allow a reasonable degree of social inclusion.

I believe this minimum level of support for all working age adults with disability whether working or not should be at least equal to that provided under the Pension Credit arrangements for those over 60 as in many ways our financial and physical situation is often on a par with non-disabled pensioners.

Working Tax Credit already achieves this for those fortunate enough to be both able to work and also to have overcome the hurdles in finding and maintaining meaningful paid employment, but what of those for whom these two vital criteria do not apply?

Interestingly, even before the detail of the Welfare Reform Bill became public last year, I had proposed the following solutions as part of my contribution to the then DRC 鈥淒ebate鈥� forum:

1. For those considered able to work, but as yet unable to overcome the barriers that already exist because of their disability, maybe what is needed is a special 鈥楧isabled but looking for work鈥� premium which reflects the desire to work but recognises it may take time to remove the barriers preventing that desire being fulfilled.

2. For those with no realistic prospect of ever being able to work, even if all the barriers could be removed maybe what is needed is a special category of disability that encompasses this added difficulty and adds a 鈥楧isabled and unable to work鈥� premium.

The reality is disability covers a broad spectrum of ability and there will always be individuals at every point on the scale from able to fully unable to gain paid employment due to that disability and so focusing just on getting people off incapacity benefit and back to work will never be a cure all.

3. Maybe what is needed instead is a new way of looking at individuals that recognises the disabled are, more often than not, simply doing the best they can, so perhaps a 鈥楧isabled and doing the best I can鈥� premium could also be introduced.

Welfare reform should also recognise the many other forms of direct contribution the disabled make to society as a whole particularly when they are parents. This includes the love they give their children but also the voluntary work they often do for others.

For all groups though, the key welfare reform needed is a work and benefits system that truly allows the disabled and their children to fully participate as equal members of society with nobody left behind simply because of being unable to obtain paid employment particularly when this is due to disability.

The simple fact the current Welfare Reform Bill has the need to 鈥減rotect鈥� the benefit levels of those currently in receipt of Incapacity Benefit clearly indicates that neither the 鈥渃onditional鈥� work related activity supplement or the 鈥渟upport鈥� element of the new ESA will make it equivalent to, let alone higher than, current levels of Incapacity Benefit.

Even this would still be nowhere close to the Pension Credit Guarantee figure I proposed earlier should be the absolute minimum considered as appropriate for working age individuals with what the DRC would call 鈥淪evere workplace disadvantage鈥�.

Sadly we already know, from your earlier refusal to answer my earlier simple questions about reforms, that you are not prepared to even guarantee the net effect of the reforms we will not be that individuals actually go backwards.

Given this, I suspect I may be whistling in the wind to suggest we need more rather than less, but I do so nonetheless.

In this post 鈥淔reud Review鈥� world of workfare, if not actual workhouses (at least yet), I now feel the need to play the part of 鈥淥liver鈥� and hold out our collective bowl and ask yet another simple question:

鈥淧lease Sir, can we have some more?

By that I mean can we have at least parity of income with those on Pension Credit.

Oh, and by the way, can we have an answer to that question now and not have to wait all the way to 2025 to get one.

Regards and best wishes for your upcoming retirement I trust you will survive OK on your meagre pension a tad better than most of us do on ours.

Peter Farrington aka 鈥淪ociable鈥�

Sadly as yet I have received no reply to this letter, but one has been promised to be provided during the summer by the outgoing Minister, Jim Murphy, via the DWP Welfare Reform Weblog pages back in April so time will tell if that is honoured or not.

Thanks for your comment, Peter.

I suppose that ultimately, the welfare state is always going to approach those who asking for help from a position of mistrust; we are guilty of trying to exploit the system until we can prove ourselves innocent. However, in many ways I feel the proposed reforms are merely an attempt to identify the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor and to create scapegoats for tax policy; these people could work, because we say so, but instead they choose benefit.

Whereas ultimately, none of us are in the positions we are in because of any kind of moral dimension; fraudsters aside, our levels of capacity and the social obstacles to employment we face are the luck of the draw. If we have proven ourselves incapacitated, then we are all entitled. Deserving ought not to come into it really.

Hmm. Hope that makes sense. I've come to the end of my day.