What is disability?

 We are all sympathetic to the disabled. All of us. right across the political spectrum. And we are all agreed that those who are disabled deserve financial assistance from the state. 

But where we are not agreed is as to what degree of "disability" deserves that support. That is the underlying point regarding the dispute over the welfare reforms. 

If you are not working by reason of ill health you are entitled to additional Employment and Support Allowance over and above that payable to those who are simply not working. And that's probably agreed across the political spectrum as well. 

But then, if you are in that former group, should you be entitled to additional public money by virtue of being "disabled"? And, if so, why? 

Well. if you have a genuine physical disability. you should be left alone with your current entitlement. If you can't walk beyond your front door then you should certainly be entitled to a mobility vehicle. And if your mobility is less, but still limited. you should be entitled to cash to compensate you for the need to be more reliant on taxis than those able to stride to the bus stop. These are the essential conditions for higher or lower awards of the mobility component of PIP (Personal Independence Payments). And quite right too. And you can see why the money is needed.

But the Kendall reforms recognise this, for the mobility element of what is proposed to change is not proposed to change at all. 

All of the proposed changes relate to the second element of PIP, the daily living component. And that is where the problem lies. For, bluntly, far too many people are getting this for unclear reasons. 

Let's start by disposing with the enhanced level of an award here. That involves those chronically ill, in many cases approaching the end of life. And there is no reason they, or at least their carers, should not be entitled to additional support as well.  

Let us instead look at the basic award of care component PIP.  An additional £72.65 a week. Currently, once you have it, essentially for the rest of your life. And, assuming you are not working, paid on top of your Universal Credit with the disability premium to that benefit already attached. So not just that additional £72.65 but an additional £72,65 on top of the £42.50  disability premium you are already receiving and on top of your basic ESA of £90.50, so a total of £205.60 per week. Hardly a king's ransom but when you look at the take home pay of someone earning the minimum wage for a 35 hour week of £339.70 with almost inevitable travel to work costs involved in that work, then .....this is an absurd disincentive to work.  

Nonetheless, who, entitled only as a starting point to £135 a week payment from the state, would not want an additional £72.65? Not me, indeed not anybody. And which General Medical Practitioner would want to challenge the potential claimant's assertion that they are suffering from. self, or at least internet, diagnosed chronic "anxiety and depression", and thus the practitioner be inclined to waste time challenging that diagnosis in the knowledge that the time expended might detract from that involved in dealing with the, potentially genuinely ill, next patient waiting to see them? No. not me either. 

So my solution? Just get rid of the lower rate care component of PIP, at least for those with no other income than that from the state. Or at least, if those entitled under current rules want to claim it, make a successful claim involve forfeiture of their additional disability claim on their ESA. It is, after all, two bites at the same cherry, 

The bottom line is this. There is no thing as public money, There is only taxpayers money. And taxpayers understand who it is they are reasonably expected to support, And to whom. equally importantly. they have no such obligation. Certainly not towards those who have simply opted out from being taxpayers themselves,