• Deborah Coddington on the Invalid’s Benefit: a critique

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

In the first version of this post I said that Coddington had made an error. Lindsay Mitchell pointed out that it was I who had made an error and not Coddington: the substantive difference was one word, but it was an error none the less. I would like to thank Mitchell for pointing out this error and apologise to Coddington.

In her latest column Deborah Coddington said in regard to the Invalid’s Benefit:

We need to get judgemental. Forty years ago, anyone applying for a benefit had to be “of good moral character and sober habits”. Another rule, since abolished, stated that “incapacity for work was not self-induced or in any way brought about with a view to qualifying for an invalid’s benefit.”

What Coddington does not say is that a similar but significantly more relaxed version of the rule is in force today. S40(5) of the Social Security Act says:

A person must not be granted an invalid’s benefit if the chief executive is satisfied that the person’s restricted capacity for work, or total blindness, was self-inflicted and brought about by the person with a view to qualifying for a benefit.

Coddington also criticises the woman who is receiving the invalid’s benefit and had to be restrained by four policeman. I do not wish to defend this particular woman, for I do not know her, but it is speciousness to say that someone should not be on the invalids benefit because they have to be restrained by four policemen. Many disabilities are invisible, and some disabilities such as psychotic illness and intellectual disability make people stronger, whilst also raising their pain threshold and thereby making restraint more difficult.

Coddington’s reference to the woman’s “gut hanging out over her jeans” is completely irrelevant and is a somewhat dirty tactic. Plenty of people who aren’t on the invalid’s benefit have their gut hanging over their jeans.

I am in broad agreement with Coddington when she says that many people who are on the invalid’s benefit should not be (I am paraphrasing), and I believe that the state has no business being involved in welfare.

What do you think about Coddington’s column?

~~~~~~~~~~