Valuing the disabled

This wasn't the entry I was thinking about making at the time but one that seems to have arisen in the last 36 or so hours.
Background is a Minister, Lord Freud, was overheard in a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference talking around the Minimum Wage and Disabled people and he was reported a suggesting it would be in order to pay less than it, a figure of Two Pounds was suggested on the basis that their work didn't justify the actual minimum wage as a means of increasing the number of disabled people in Employment.
Presently in the UK, as I know from personal experience, employers often receive financial help to employ suitable disabled employees and some assistance with any adaptations the person may need to do the job but the person is paid the going rate for their work even if it is the case they may have a co-worker provide some assistance too. 
What was suggested was they need not and that government would be prepared to pay employers to employ them on Two Pounds per hour basis.
This lead to a very heated debate in the House of Commons where the Prime Minister and "Disability" minister disassociated themselves from it saying nobody in Government agrees with this idea.
The first comment I would make is while Lord Freud isn't a Member of Parliament, he nonetheless  is a Minister and is therefore a member of Government by virtue of holding office and having power.  To suggest otherwise is deliberately ambiguous.
The second point is, It drives a coach and horses through the whole notion of the value of work, the presumption of labour having a minimum level of reward that dignifies it and furthermore it poses the question how you would assess when a person is so disabled that they should be expect to work for less than his or her colleagues for the most menial of tasks.
Most of us hold that everyone doing the same job should be expected to receive the same pay and a number might well think employers might well substitute disabled employees for cost savings.
The real issue is the nature of what some people by virtue of disability can achieve is limited by the absolute ability to perform one or more tasks or if indeed they can  then the amount of work they can usefully provide.
To put it plainly if they can work at all, it may not be economic to either the employer, the individual and may well cost the state a lot more  to support in the attempt than the value of anything they may well produce.
People often talk about integration - the mixing of disabled and non-disabled - in society but the preoccupation with employment in policy areas as the sole means of meeting the aim is flawed.
What some disabled people need is an outlet for their abilities that provides stimulation, the chance meet new people, make friends and learn new skills that can be shown to the wider community such as a well run day centre and maybe a break for their carers.
Providing this isn't writing disabled people abilities off, ghettoizing them or just enabling a dependency culture at all. It's about meeting disabled peoples own individual needs as they are and as I'm only too aware from person experience being honest, about your very real limits.

Segregated education

I'm not feeling that brilliant today to be honest but I felt like talking just a little around education policy today.
Education in the UK is something of a hodge podge between ownership (private, independent and local authority), structures (age ranges, selective or comprehensive admissions), specialisms (arts, IT, sport etc) and so on thanks to considerable parental choice and alternating national and local government ideologies support by pet theories.
One point of considerable and sometimes very bitter controversy is about how children with disabilities should be taught and with many things often their are agendas.
For a long period, certainly going back to the Victorian era in so much that education in general was considered back then if a child didn't fit in well with the school system then it either wasn't educated and maybe placed in some institution or send to a  'special school' such as schools for the blind to learn Braille and a skill.
Since 1945 a system of special schools was established in many authorities to cater for the needs of different groups of disabled people such as those with physical disabilities (70's no longer approved term Physically handicapped), what was then classed as Educational Subnormal (aka a 70's term 'mentally handicapped') and a loose category for what is termed emotional and behavioural needs that from the outset didn't exactly co-relate to prevailing definitions used by medical authorities and other arms of government.
In the 1970's increasingly the model of separate provision was questioned as for the most part the need for special schools for physical disabilities often had more to do   inaccessible buildings,  deliberate exclusion from any kind of pe never mind not in many instances being prepared and entered for regular national examinations in everyday school subjects.
Because you maybe lost a limbs function doesn't mean you lost your brain!
Equally it could be argued that differences in intelligence span are part of the human condition and that comprehensive intakes were supposed to take account of.
Not unsurprisingly the combination of opponents to special provision and those who often saw the budgets including the transportation budgets as money that could be better spent meant many schools were either shut down or had their categories for admission altered.
One area of considerable discussion is around the handling of children who exhibit behavioural and emotional difficulties as increasingly reports came out suggesting that the trend toward integration with such children in mainstream schools was causing difficulties when it came to holding efficient classes with incidents breaking out and high levels of support by classroom assistants for such children.
Recently the National Autistic Society has got involved in projects to establish 'free schools' specifically for those with Autism and Aspberger's syndrome one of which will be a few miles away from me in currently redundant 1970's Elementary school building where unlike schools in the 60's thru late 1980's children will follow a standard school curriculum but with a lot of work around understanding and relating to everyday social skills and structures.
It may be step away from total integration but if it helps to realize the gifts those with Autism/Aspberger's have and better enable them to use them in the so-called 'normal' world to everyone's advantage then maybe taking a step back from a theory can be step forward.

No room at the inn

Just a bit tired after battling with snow this morning but I thought I'd write this up as shot as I'm feeling right now while the idea is still fresh.
How much space do you think you might need to live in in 2013? Well I think we'd agree you need a place to prepare food in, a separate space for living and maybe studying in  and a bedroom perhaps.
Now ideally if you were to work from home you might have a requirement for dedicated work space.
Note so far in we've not mentioned children, carers or if you're like me with a physical disability our specific needs.
Why I am talking about this today is because the UK government, specifically the Department of Work and Pensions has brought in a measure of how much space people of working age who need help to pay rent for properties owned by Social Housing Providers alone should be allowed. Part of the reason given is they believe too many people are in property that is 'too big' while others who may need it are left waiting.
Astonishingly, the one portion of the population who are more likely to living in accommodation bigger than their needs - single elderly people remaining in property allocated when they themselves had children who have left - are excluded presumably not to lose the older vote.
The chief problem with the policy is that in Great Britain, very few Social Housing projects did build property of two bedroom or smaller as the focus was the 'nuclear family' of 2 adults and 2.4 children and most private property isn't either. The main provider of the small amount of smaller properties are Private Landlords who do (and are) charging significantly more per room which is subject to a financial cap for people who need help to pay for it.
The way this new policy is supposed to work is if you have more space you're said to require then you pay something like 14% per room extra unless you move, which will come from your regular income such as your wages if you're working or welfare benefits if you're not.
The reason you had help to pay the rent was precisely because you didn't have enough to pay for a place to live and you're expected to make it up when you find out there's nowhere smaller available!
Note this is also effects those in work too - so much for the supporting workers not shirkers mantra  the Tories had been peddling for the last 6 months - and although extra space had been belated recognized for families with disabled children and serving soldiers, no consideration is given to either separated people unable to afford to move out of a home so former partners are expect to share a single bedroom, those with sleep disorders are expected to sleep with those who don't (a recipe for a bad nights sleep and much edginess) and the needs of disabled adults with mobility problems and specialized equipment such as scooters, reclining beds, lifts etc.
Also ignored are the needs of children from split families who stay over a few days per week as part of continuing parental rights access programs.
It may not be good if one partner is living a life in a different gender and the other has issues with it (You're not dressing like that in MY bedroom).
The real solution would be to build more social housing for rent including smaller properties that would help the construction industry out rather than supporting private housing building and threatening to offer state backed mortgage guarantees to support private home ownership but then you know the Tories would only look after their interests didn't you?
Maybe they'll bring in a window tax to go with the bedroom one.

Like we care!

Ever heard of the expression the left hand doesn't know what the right's doing?
Well I think it sure applies with the British Treasuries department recent announcements about the program run by Customs and Revenues section to help those usually in work deal with the gap between their pay and what their needs are such as childcare for those with children.
It's set to be formally announced in the Budget that the number of hours a person needs to work to claim Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit is to rise from 16 or more hours per week to 24 or more probably with an eye to reducing the total amount paid out year on year.
The problem with this is obvious, namely that at at time of economic hardship many of those currently working 16 hours cannot realistically demand extra hours from their employer AND because of this will be at least 150 pounds a week worse off as the claims are rejected.
This is at a time of rapidly increasing fuel and food prices where many are struggling.
Not surprisingly it has been criticized by the Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice and many others working with the most vulnerable sections of the community.
The answer if money had to be saved, might of been to have looked at the maximum income levels before a claim not be accepted.
So much for the declared aim of Government being "Making work pay".

RIP Remploy- Does this make sense?

Yesterday it was announced up to two-thirds of the sheltered workplaces operated by Remploy -a non for profit organization in the UK - the result of a change in Government policy regarding money used for helping disabled people of working age.
The Minister said by using this money instead to help secure employment by the majority of disabled people this was a better use of taxpayers money.
It is true that a majority of disabled people are out of work often through employer prejudice, limited opportunities as well as being virtually impossible to place in gainful employment.
What this new policy does effect however are that portion who do not have relatively minor physical disabilities alone but those who may also have emotional, sight, behavioural and others where it may not just a question of getting them in the building but of requiring considerable long term support and not just work related support. It may mean helping them to find groups to socialize with or organizing collective activities where they will be amongst friends and understood.
All to often the emotional impact of being disabled being both unable to do things and misunderstood by others is underestimated.
There was and I believe still is a fashionable view held that "All disabled people want to be out in the community" and not to have special facilities calling them 'patronizing' and while I'm pro-independence, it is a sad fact that some simply could not exist in mainstream employment isolated from like minded people.
I think it is also worth saying government policy hasn't just been with this kind of provision as for as long as I can recall personally, money had been available for transport to work for those unable to drive through their disability to a job and say unable to use public transportation, providing extra equipment to help a person in post and so on.
It's also been the case for at least 15 years of my knowledge this has been cut back just as the cry from the political right about "workshy disabled people" has been mounting.
I suspect it's to paper over these cracks the grant to Remploy is to be cut leading to these closures that will undeniably hit those least about to find alternative work.

Save Model Sanctuary

Recently Jade Parfitt, pictured called for the Model Sanctuary a respite centre set up in 2008 to provide advice and access to nutritionists and psychologists during the London Fashion week to be saved following a unaffordable hike in their rent costs.

During this week many teen models mainly aged 16 through 18 years work and the centre provides support as many are away from home for the first time without their parents, often work long hours 18-19 hours isn't uncommon and can come under considerable pressure to stay thin (sometimes borderline anorexic). The centre also provides massages that help ease the stress or even provide a space to get some undisturbed peace and maybe a cat nap.

The call is the industry itself to stump up a contribution to keep it open and I hope they are successful.

Panic stations!

So far this week all I've been hearing is a sense of moral panic following last weeks disturbances, riots or whatever phrase you may care to deploy to describe what happened in England.

As I said last week here and in a few other places I have no intentions of getting into any kind of a political debate over this in part cos I know just how much exposure to our political points of view can cause irreparable damage to our friendships as well as being seriously hacked off about the rhetoric and posturing of all the major politicians over here over it.

Greed and a sense of 'got to have it all' have been raised by many commentators political, social and religious to explain in part the actions we saw.

Greed is by now means new in our society and it's history goes well back to the Bible.

It is used as a motivator for consumerism by commerce as we're encouraged to think the regular 1.6 four door automobile isn't good enough for us, we can do better and anyway don't we deserve this even if we don't really need it and sometimes there may be an opportunity cost to others, such as putting that second car on the road cos our garage isn't big enough?

Greed is not uncommon when quite literally our neighbours submit building plans that use part of OUR gardens for their OWN gain and lets not forget those politicians who took our money as tax payer for expenses that they had not in fact incurred.

It seems to me those out were little different morally in that regard.

That takes to the idea of looting and stealing as somehow shocking acts committed by the urban youth.

Let me make it clear I disagree theft and theft with any kind of menace actual or implied but in a society where others are seen to get away with it, the moral bar is lowered and in a year that has seen many powerful people caught out defrauding us and getting lenient sentences is it that surprising that such crimes do occur in the heat of disturbances?

And are these exactly new as I can't help but wonder if we hadn't had this in previous centuries and hadn't that led to the Riot Act?

While disagreeing the actions, I'm not so strongly persuaded all this can be blamed on mid twentieth century social values such as Liberalism or the Welfare State rather the disconnect between action and consequence which outside of last weeks actions has resulted in other issues across society. And often politicians fail to acknowledge themselves the connection between the actions and the consequences as much as they are entitled to make their arguments to favour of a policy. None of us can afford to just disregard each other as immaterial in the bigger plan.

The reaction to the Prison Minister's comments trying to categorize rape offences into minor and major is testimony to that.

I suppose my final musing form a moral stand point is one of disbelief that Politicians of all parties were trying to say how they had brought about decisive action who themselves were on vacation seemingly regarding the disturbances across the Capital, London, as being not sufficient reason to return while they were being dealt with by Police forces on the ground.

The perimeters are set by Parliament through with the Police fighting away through the often contradictory guidance and recommendations of previous inquiries into similar situations to keep the peace without direct political interference.If the politicians want to make life easier for policing these things, perhaps they'd care to reform the guidance using parliamentary time instead?

Equal value?

When I actually woke up this morning I did have a completely different idea as to what this post was going to be about than the one I had been thinking about while at work for the last few days.
I suppose if there has been a recurring theme to my entries this your it's been for the most part one of hard topic entries, sometimes a bit controversial as life in Great Britain in 2011 is shaping up to be inspiration for going on the offensive with words.
Yesterday Tory MP, Philip Davies said something that shocked a good many people including many in his political party when he called for the Disabled particularly the Learning Disabled to be allowed to work for less than the national minimum wage if they wished to further the opportunities for them to gain a foothold in the world of employment. He went on to say "Those most disadvantaged by the national minimum wage are the most vulnerable in society".
Immediately there was an uproar namely around the idea that people who do equal work should be allowed to work for less because they need a job as the notion of worth being expressed in wages is a longstanding one familiar to any seeing the battles for equal pay for both men and women since the 1970's.
What I find so hard to really understand around this proposition is if we accept the notion of the disabled especially the Learning Disabled as being more vulnerable for developmental reasons to exploitation and abuse even, then allowing them to be offered to work for less does put them at risk. How likely is it someone with such as disability would question it and seek out support to be paid the same as others doing this work? It is quite possible they may be worse of financially for taking up a job offer with such low pay than if they had been on welfare.
Don't get me wrong preparation for work schemes like cafes where they may work as trainees are fine because they are learning but once a person has a skill then surely we all should be paid the least amount our society feels is appropriate for our labour.