In Favour of Ambition in the Recession

As unemployment reaches its highest since 1995, Liz Sayce, RADAR's Chief Executive, argues that only an ambitious response to the challenges of the recession will stop disability equality from being another casualty.

There are those who argue that the big ambitions of the disability sector will have to be put on the back burner till after the recession. Ambitions, that is, like more people living with ill-health, injury or disability in employment, more in senior jobs with (heaven forbid) decent pay, more services that give us real control over our lives. After all, the argument goes, how can we support welfare reform policies that guide people vigorously towards non-existent jobs? And how can we expect transformation of social care and support services when we have no way as a country of affording support for the growing numbers of us living into our 80s, 90s and beyond? I disagree. I think we should keep ambition strong and keep pushing for equality and control over our lives.

Why?

Firstly because as we come out of the recession the UK will face intense and increasing economic competition from countries like China and India. The key to reasonable chances for our citizens is to be ready for the jobs of the future. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills reckons that one in 2 people will need to move up one skill/qualification level to achieve that. Of all the people with no qualifications whatever in this country, one third are disabled people. So we have to start now – raising our demands that disabled people can access jobs that offer skills and career opportunities needed in the future economy. This is in the interests of individuals and also in the interests of companies – they will be looking for all the talent they can find and, if it’s disabled talent, it would be seriously foolish (economically, quite apart from ethically) not to tap into it.

The very last thing we should do now is allow another generation to go on to long term benefits – like the millions that did so following the recessions of the 1980s and early 1990s. This is the time to argue to close the disability pay gap, to enable more disabled people to get skills ranging from apprenticeships to university degrees. It is definitely not the time to be arguing to ‘go slow’ on expectations of employment. (This does not mean there aren’t problems with the way Welfare Reform is being planned and implemented – but that is a separate issue).

So far the figures from Job Centre Plus suggest people living with IID are not leaving the workforce through redundancy any faster than other groups – which is encouraging. But we need to watch whether those who do lose their jobs are staying out of work longer. That would be a danger sign of a new lost generation of people living long-term without employment, a role in life or a decent income.

Secondly, there are some current opportunities worth seizing. The Speakers’ Conference in the House of Commons is a rarely convened committee, famous for finally getting cross-party support for votes for women in 1917. It has just issued an interim report on enabling more women, disabled people and people from bme communities to enter Parliament. The report argues that the public has lost trust in Parliament and that if the political parties send back ‘more of the same’ at the forthcoming general election public trust will stay at rock bottom. Therefore, it argues, political parties should take strong action to ensure the next Parliament is much more diverse. So – this is a good time for budding MPs living with ill-health, injury or disability to consider taking the next step in your political career. There are even rumours that the requirement that MPs stand down if they are sectioned under the Mental Health Act might be lifted. (After all, if an MP goes into hospital for heart surgery, politics goes on with cover arrangements or none and the MP returns once better. The same could apply).

If politics is not your ambition, bear in mind that Government has just set a new target for public appointments: 14% of people taking up these appointments should be disabled people by 2011. If met, this could create a critical mass of disabled people able to influence the cultures of public services and the priorities of major organisations from Primary Care Trusts to national organisations focused on education, sport and more.

There seems to be, if not a wind of change blowing through the corridors of power, at least the beginning of a breeze. We should ride on it.

And finally there is the question of the future support services we need. There are, it is true, big risks that the level of national debt will mean significant service cuts; and that Government (of whatever colour) will use the language of independent living, choice and control to hand back all control to individuals and families as they reduce services to the bone. I think our response should be to propose to local and national commissioners of these services – and to local and national Government - the service models that represent the very best use of public money. For example, evidence shows that flexible support to get and keep open employment or education is a better use of public money than sheltered day centres or workshops. Simplified assessment – starting with self assessment (as in the planned Right to Control) – is a better use of money than multiple professional assessments. There are many threats to services right now – but there are also opportunities to propose cost-effective models that work best from the point of view of the people who know best, those requiring support.

I have been accused, if that is the right term, of being a ‘glass half full’ sort of person – and there are undoubtedly huge threats ahead. However, retreating into low expectations is not the approach that will win through in the longer term. We who are part of organisations led by disabled people should lead the debate on how we seize those opportunities that do exist – and how we prepare now so disabled people are positioned well for the upturn when it comes. This will not be easy, as our organisations are rocked by tough financial times. But a vision of what is possible for disabled people longer term, given the new context, is vital to get us through. RADAR is doing its bit to help that happen. We are running a leadership and empowerment programme, supporting around 100 people this year to develop their leadership journeys, as well as supporting local groups to engage successfully with local planning and development. Last year we supported 40 disabled leaders, half from black and minority ethnic communities; many have gone on to lead significant developments, from being a local Mayor to setting up the first BSL signed Islamic service in the London Mosque.

We are also exploring what enables disabled people to progress in our employment careers. We have influenced national policy, from recent amendments to make the Right to Control genuinely based on disabled people’s rights, expertise and self assessment; to increasing the budget and flexibility of Access to Work and improving the Equality Bill (for instance, Government is now likely to prohibit pre-job offer health questions – which could significantly reduce discrimination faced by people with conditions like HIV or mental health problems). Together, with many allies, we are creating a critical mass of people living with IID in different parts of society, who are changing national and local policy, taking the lead and making things happen differently. The more people who are part of a network to make that happen, the more will be achieved.

RADAR 2009 MP Dialogue Scheme

David Stocks, who participated in the 2009 RADAR MP Dialogue Scheme, sponsored by Royal Mail Group, explains to an audience of Members of Parliament and fellow participants what that participation has meant to him.



As part of his speech David said:

“My whole experience of the MP Dialogue scheme has been very rewarding; far from the din of political jargon and indecipherable policies I had expected. I am no longer scared of the political process and feel I can confidently speak to my local MP whenever I feel the need. I also feel more able to influence politics and help those with disabilities to engage on equal terms with the rest of society. I know through taking part in the process I have at least made a small difference and I hope to encourage others to do so.”

This has all been possible thanks to the generous assistance of Royal Mail Group, who sponsored the MP Dialogue Scheme, and the heartfelt thanks of RADAR and all the participants go out to them.

The Liberal Democrats and Disability

With the electoral arithmetic the way it is, the Liberal Democrats are well-placed to be influential power-brokers following the next general election. In an article for RADAR, John Barrett MP, Shadow Work and Pensions Minister and Shadow Minister for Disabled People for the Liberal Democrats outlines his party’s priorities for delivering disability equality:

Barack Obama reminded us recently that, within one lifetime, we have moved on from people being refused service because of the colour of their skin, to a time when the USA has its first African American President. Why then has it taken so long here in the United Kingdom for those who have disabilities to feel they are an equal part of our society?

We have now seen many changes, which mean that inequality is not acceptable in issues of race, religion and gender, yet for many of the estimated 10 million disabled people in the UK too many aspects of equality have not yet been delivered here at home.

With one in five non-disabled people in work it is shocking that over half of disabled people are still seeing their talents wasted by society’s failure to recognise their potential. The Welfare Reform Bill ought to be a chance for us to re-evaluate the way we look at the relationship between work and disability. However, it seems that bold words from the Government on disability are taking a back seat as Labour and the Conservatives battle one another over who can be toughest on so-called benefit cheats.

As we face a recession and with unemployment nudging the 2 million mark, it will take changes in policy to ensure that disabled people are not pushed even further from the workplace. By adopting a ‘payment by results’ approach to welfare to work there is a risk that providers will simply focus their efforts on helping those already closest to the labour market. Unless we offer real incentives for welfare to work providers to help those with disabilities, yet more talented people will be left languishing on benefits.

In reality, there is an untapped wealth of talent and a willing workforce waiting to be used amongst many disabled people currently out of work. Studies have repeatedly shown that a higher percentage of unemployed disabled people want to work and countless employers, who have used the talent available, can testify that many can also bring additional benefits to the workplace.

We should be focusing on removing the barriers preventing disabled people getting into work rather than fine-tuning the penalties that face those without a job. While entering the workplace would be the ideal for some, for many this is not an option and the benefits available will be a key component of weekly life.

Last month (FEB) at Westminster we passed the most recent changes to up-rate pensions and benefits. While this was welcome as it delivered £6.2billion to pensioners and many others receiving benefits, it again raised the issue which is at the heart of the problem for those who are entitled to help and support – the complexity of the system.

At the eleventh hour on the eve of the debate Ministers were forced to issue hastily prepared statements admitting that because of the complicated nature of the system, they had just discovered that thousands of Invalidity claimants had received incorrect payments. If the Government cannot get to grips with its own system, what hope have those who depend on Government support.

In my own constituency I have produced a special needs information pack to help parents of young children with disabilities navigate the myriad of benefits and services available to them and who to go to for help and advice. Simplifying the system and removing much of the degrading means-testing should be an urgent priority.

Removing people from poverty should be a key measure of the success of any Government and while people are surviving on state support the numbers living in poverty will increase unless there is increased understanding of the costs associated with living with a disability or with a disabled family member. It ought to be a national scandal that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty and yet progress has been disappointingly slow.

Uprating benefits by the retail price index only makes matters worse if the weekly costs have gone up at twice that rate. Few people receiving DLA would say that their costs have only increased about 5% this year. With utility bills higher than average for those households in receipt of DLA, massive fuel bills have grown in the last year by 27% in some cases. An urgent review of the method of up-rating benefits received by disabled people is long overdue. This change will be more important in the year ahead as with falling prices it is possible that the retail price index will not increase at all and benefit levels will be cut in real terms.

The Independent Living Agenda and the all-party support it enjoys is welcome. However, as ever the devil is in the detail and it is vital that giving ownership of budgets to individuals is not accompanied by a cut in the level of help available.

Two changes that I have raised with the Government, would make an immediate improvement for many disabled people - now. While we have just experienced the coldest February for 20 years, immediate action should be taken to deliver the winter fuel allowance for those who claim the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance. Not only do those homes with a disabled family member have higher heating costs, in many cases they have a lower than average income. This change would reduce the number of people forced to choose between heating and eating each winter. The second would be to ensure that those who are registered blind received the higher rate mobility component of DLA. The Liberal Democrats are supporting amendments in Parliament to deliver this change. I am surprised that when the Government can find £37 billion to bail out the banks, relatively small amounts to help disabled people are still not found.

Looking forward to the next election it will come as no surprise that I would take issue with RADAR’s prediction that it will be a two horse race. There is every possibility that no one party will have a clear majority after the next election and that the views of every party matter. The Liberal Democrats have a long tradition of fighting hard to deliver on issues of equality. We believe that disabled people are only asking for what is fair – they should be offered nothing less.

Less than Helpful: Action for Children Adverts and Autism

Imagine safely completing a long winter drive, only to skid on black ice and crash as you approach your own driveway. Just as you’re starting to relax and believe that you’re through the worst of it, along comes something unexpected which drags you back to the same problems you thought you’d overcome.

It felt a bit like that watching the Action for Children advert, featuring “Dan” describing his experiences of living with autism. The advert can be viewed here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_K5lSSTG-90, but was summed up well by the London Autistic Rights Movement:

“The advert in question depicts a young autistic person called 'Dan' talking about his experiences of living with autism and how Action for Children helped him with behavioural problems, and in particular his tendency to lash out at others who were insulting him and "pressing his buttons".”

“The narration is accompanied by a cartoon in which 'Dan' is portrayed as being trapped inside a rampaging monster until he is taken under Action for Children's wing, whereupon the real Dan emerges as a vulnerable young man and the monster vanishes. The impression given by the advert is that his autistic behaviour is his own fault and has to be defeated.”

“This distressing advert is causing worldwide uproar amongst the autism community since it implies that autistic children are "monstrous" and blames the autistic child for lashing out at what appears to be bullying, rather than blaming the behaviour of the bullies themselves.”

The impression the advert gives is that once “Dan” had been segregated into a special school, he stopped unfairly lashing out at people, and everyone got on with their lives.

No doubt Action for Children does some very laudable work, but what on earth happened here? Was the bloke who went on the Disability Awareness Course out of the office that day, or did the Marketing Department just see the Hovis adverts and decide to take disability rights back half a century or so? An advert like this might not have raised too many eyebrows 20 or 30 years ago, but then neither would Robertsons Golliwogs, and we all know what happens to people who mention them nowadays.

I am sure Action for Children have only the best of intentions, but the road to hell is paved with those, especially for disabled people who have been fighting for decades to overcome these sorts of portrayals, which have an unfortunate tendency to mark them out as basket cases in need of charity and therapy. Playing the pity card with a bit of disability retro chic may help the bottom line, but it does nothing whatsoever for people fighting for their human rights to inclusion and social justice, and will ultimately damage the very people the adverts claim to help. These adverts have now ceased, and I wish Action for Children all the best for the future, but when it comes to the portrayal of disability in advertising I hope an important little lesson has been learned.

Prenatal Autism Screening: What IS the ethical debate?

The prospect of a prenatal test for autism has recently been much discussed in the media. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, a leading expert on autism, has called for a debate about the ethics of prenatal screening for autism, and what the consequences for society might be.

The Professor is right: it is essential to debate the ethical consequences of developing a prenatal test for autism before we actually develop one. Not because the outcome of such a debate would in any way, shape or form prevent scientists from developing and using a test (let’s not be silly) but forewarned is forearmed, as the proponents of ever-more prenatal testing tell us; if a prenatal test for autism is scientifically possible it will be developed and used so we may as well get on with the arguments.

But am I the only one who feels distinctly uncomfortable with the way that this debate about the ethics of prenatal autism screening (by definition screening out, unless an in utero cure/treatment for autism is developed, which is a long way off and which, especially for people with autism, leads to a whole new set of ethical questions) is being played out in the public arena?

The question in the papers and on TV and Radio has been, more or less: what would happen if, in screening out autism, we screened out the genes for mathematical ability and abstract thinking that are so often associated with it? The test, we are told, would be unable to distinguish between high-functioning autism/Asperger syndrome and more profound varieties. Are we, as a society, prepared to accept the loss of potentially high-functioning people, including scientists and inventors, as the price to pay for screening out autism, and what are the consequences for the gene pool? “Imagine a world with no Einstein, Newton or Bill Gates” has become the buzz phrase. Here is one example: The Times, 12/01/2009, “If we screen out autism we run the risk of losing genius too.”

Whoa, easy there cowboy! That is not the ethical argument – that is a 100%, cold-blooded, profit-and-loss argument. It highlights a potential consequence, but ethics feature nowhere in it UNLESS, and here is the crucial and dangerous bit, you accept as a given the eugenicists’ guiding and fundamental principle that terminating useful people is ethically different from terminating those considered less valuable. Usually the argument for prenatal screening followed by termination is individual quality of life; not in this case. As Professor Baron-Cohen told The Guardian:

"If there was a prenatal test for autism, would this be desirable? What would we lose if children with autistic spectrum disorder were eliminated from the population? We should start debating this. There is a test for Down's syndrome and that is legal and parents exercise their right to choose termination, but autism is often linked with talent. It is a different kind of condition."

So it is ethically fine to terminate people with Down’s syndrome, because they have no talent, but if we terminate people with autism we might lose useful people?

To be fair to Professor Baron-Cohen, he is intentionally highlighting exactly the point I am attempting to raise – that to accept that someone’s possession of a certain talent has a bearing on the ethics of terminating them is to buy into the logic of eugenics – and I do not believe he meant to imply that there is no ethical dilemma around termination for Down’s syndrome.

But that particular quote highlights the danger that those of us opposed to screening out disabled people face. It is tempting in the extreme for us to use this argument to highlight the dangers of embryo screening – that humanity could suffer by screening out useful traits with the bad; throwing the genetic baby out with the bath water, to coin a phrase. But it is a convenient and seductive honey-trap that distracts attention from the real ethical question in prenatal screening, namely is it ethical to use a subjective and speculative medical-model assessment of the value and quality of someone's life as grounds for abortion?

If we go along with the argument that the ethical dilemma in prenatal autism screening is the possible termination of socially valuable people along with the others, then the result will be that the eugenicists have won by default, because in doing so we will begin to acknowledge that some disabled people are more valuable than others.

So by all means point out what society potentially has to lose by screening out people with disabilities, but don’t let people get away with claiming that this is the ethical dilemma in prenatal screening. If this becomes the public focus of the debate then any discussion of the actual ethics of terminating disabled people will have been smothered and suppressed, to the great benefit of those who advocate automatic termination on the grounds of disability.

A little Einstein or Newton or Bill Gates has no more right to be born, to be happy, and to be valued as a human being than a little person with more profound autism or Down’s syndrome or any other disability. In their essential humanity they are one and the same, and if we ever lose sight of that then those who seek to divide the human species into the useful and the useless, those who have a right to exist and those who don’t, will have won an easy victory.

The Perils of Overcomplicating - the Government and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

I was playing snooker recently. I had various options for my next shot, none of which was particularly appealing. I could take the long red, but could easily miss, which would leave my opponent with a possible red from which he could get on to a colour. There was a short pot at a tricky angle. This was also missable, it would open up the pack, there was no guarantee I’d be on a colour, and I could leave my opponent on. He could then get onto a colour and the reds would be available.

I stood pondering while my opponent checked his watch, visited the lavatory, and bought a pint. I was thinking multiple shots ahead, running through a bewildering array of scenarios and what-ifs: I had overcomplicated the problem to the point where I was frozen by indecision. I had lost sight of the long-term game plan (winning), and was so overwhelmed by details and fears that I had failed to spot an easy safety shot: simple, effective, in line with the game plan.

To anyone who has followed the Government’s progress on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, this scenario will be depressingly familiar. The British Government, which already has some of the world’s most comprehensive disability equality legislation, has missed its own deadline to ratify this Convention, much to the chagrin of the disability movement. It has proposed more reservations and declarations than the other 43 countries who have already ratified combined, on defence, on immigration, on education, largely to counter the fears of its own civil servants as to the effects of the legislation. Amidst these worries about miscellaneous legal and bureaucratic complications it has lost sight of the bigger picture, and now seems like a rabbit frozen in headlights.

The Ministry of Defence wants reservations, even though the idea that equality legislation meant immediately forming the 1st Battalion, the Power Chair Regiment was debunked years ago. The Department for Children, Schools and Families wants reservations on education, to preserve Special Schools, despite already being committed to inclusive education. Granted the immediate abolition of Special Schools would be a disaster and parents should be allowed a say in how their children are educated (education is more important than ideology; if 60 years of disastrous political meddling with education has taught us anything it should be that). But the Convention does not suggest immediate abolition. The Convention sets a goal, inclusive education, which we all agree is a valid goal, and allows time to make that happen properly, without rushing things; Progressive Realization are the key words here. The Home Office wants reservations on Immigration for public health reasons, even though it’s doubtful whether anyone at the Home Office was even born the last time someone was refused entry to the UK on the grounds of disability.

Rather than excessively worrying about the details of implementation, the Government would do well to remember what the UN Convention symbolises, and what it is meant to achieve in the long run. Britain’s dithering on this matter sends worrying messages to other countries and to disabled people, who will be wondering why we find it so difficult to ratify a Convention which states what successive Governments are supposed to already believe; that disabled people are full and equal citizens with equal rights to inclusion and self-determination. It’s really not that complicated.

If David Cameron is called to the Palace...

I don’t think it constitutes a breach of RADAR’s strict rules of impartiality to state that Britain may well have a new Government in office within the next 18 months or so, quite possibly less. For the first time since 1992 we face the prospect of a genuine two-horse race at a General Election. That being so the wishes of the substantial electorate affected by disability, and the policies, plans and beliefs of the Conservative Party take on an increasing level of importance.

The Obama/Biden Presidential campaign has been cited as an example of thorough preparation for taking office - disability campaigners on this side of the pond have greeted with enthusiasm the level of forethought that has gone into Barack Obama’s impressively comprehensive disability platform.

Mark Harper MP, Shadow Minister for Disabled People, will be preparing the Conservative disability platform ahead of an election.

Left: Mark Harper MP (back left) with Conservative Party Leader David Cameron (front right), your very own RADAR blogmaster (front left), my friend Mattie (front centre), and Mattie's mum (back right)

RADAR asked Mark this question: “Are you as well-prepared to hit the ground running if you are called upon to form a Government?” Here is his response:

Mark Harper writes:

A future Conservative Government will be ready to ‘hit the ground running’ should we be fortunate enough to win the next election. I very much welcome the opportunity to outline how the Conservative Party views the challenge of breaking down the barriers that disabled people face, and our policies which will make a real practical and positive difference to improve the lives of over 10 million disabled people in the UK.

Being prepared and ready to take office from day one is vitally important, and is a lesson we have learnt from the failings of this Labour Government. In 1997, Labour came to power ‘policy light’. Little consideration had been made of how their good intentions were going to be converted into solid policies which would benefit disabled people. A future Conservative Government will not repeat this mistake.

Welfare reform

After 11 years of Labour Government it is disappointing that more progress hasn’t been made in helping disabled people get off benefits and into work, and reducing poverty. There is a broad consensus that work is the best way out of poverty, but still only half of disabled people are in employment compared to four out of five of non-disabled people in the population as a whole. The consequence of this is that disabled people are twice as likely as their non-disabled colleagues to live in relative poverty.

There are over 2.6 million people currently claiming Incapacity Benefit, a number which has broadly stayed the same over the last 11 years in spite of a benign economic environment. The number of people claiming for more than five years is higher than it was 10 years ago, and continues to rise. Around half a million people – almost one in five of IB claimants – are under 35. We cannot, and Conservatives will not, allow this potential to be lost.

The message is clear: if we are to reduce poverty among disabled people, we must improve their opportunities to work, as well as give them the right help and support to get into work. Therefore, one of the key priorities of a future Conservative Government will be radically reforming the welfare state and unlocking the talents of disabled people.

One of the reasons why many disabled people may have found it difficult to get into work is due to the high numbers of migrants entering into employment in Britain. Government figures have shown that, since 2006, the number of British people in work has fallen by 317,000 and the number of migrants finding employment rose by 865,000. Our proposals for caps on the numbers of economic migrants moving into the UK will unlock many more opportunities for disabled people to move into work.

In addition we will do a better job of explaining to employers the strong business case as to why it is beneficial for them to take on and retain disabled people. It is important that the Government should lead by example. In the Department for Work and Pensions only 4% of the civil servants are declared disabled. I want a Conservative Government to do better, and make the Department an exemplar employer for the rest of Government, and the wider business world.

Incentivising employers and supplying the opportunities for disabled people to work is only one side of the story. It is crucial that we make the changes to our welfare system so that disabled people get the proper help and support to find and stay in work.

The Government have finally accepted our proposals for using the expertise of the private and voluntary sectors to effectively help disabled people into work. Unfortunately they have not matched our commitment to fund this properly by changing the Treasury accounting rules which currently block the reinvestment of the savings from benefit payments back into the welfare to work programmes. Our commitment to change these rules means that a future Conservative Government has every chance of success in helping to move large numbers of disabled people into work.

Benefit simplification

At present, the benefit system is hugely complicated, overly bureaucratic and confusing for disabled people who use it, and discourages people from claiming. It also has perverse incentives which discourage disabled people from moving into work. We want to simplify the system.

We want to make it more straightforward for disabled people to claim and improve the take up of benefits so that disabled people get what they are entitled to. We will do this by cutting unneccesasary bureaucracy and form-filling, and ensure that benefits act to encourage and help people to move into work, not to keep them out of the job market.

Independent Living agenda

A future Conservative Government will move faster than the present Government in removing some of the obstacles which prevent disabled people from living independently. One of the central problems that disabled people face is in finding the right care services which best serve their needs.

At the moment disabled people have to fit their lives around those supporting them, rather than being in control themselves. They are prevented from living their lives as they would wish by the current framework which expects disabled people to neatly fit into the one-size-fits-all services that are often provided for them by the State. This limits their opportunities, dents their confidence and stifles aspiration.

Individual Budgets and Direct Payments can give disabled people the freedom to take charge of their own lives and design their own services around their own needs. They enable disabled people to control their own care budgets so they can use the money, for instance, to buy the latest technology which will best suit their needs as soon as it reaches the market instead of waiting a long time for equipment which then doesn’t do the job.

The Government is dragging its feet in making Individual Budgets available to all eligible disabled people in the country. The evaluation report for the Individual Budgets pilot programme finally arrived 6 months late, and currently only an estimated 6,000 people are in receipt of Individual Budgets out of the 1.7 million people who are eligible.[1] We want to speed up the national roll out of Individual Budgets so that disabled people don’t have to wait to take control of their own lives.

Of course though, we are under no illusions that our ambitions will be easy to achieve. In the context of an increasingly gloomy economic situation, this challenge is going to be all the greater, but our purpose is clear. The Conservative Party is determined and ready take up the reins of Government and make a positive difference to the lives of millions of disabled people.

[1] Guardian, 2nd July 2008, Alison Benjamin article.