Surely one of the most outrageous interventions ever sees some fuckwit arsehole Conservative named Edward Leigh spouting the following offensive crap.
My hon. Friend is making an important contribution and it is important that we have this debate, but let me ask him a question as a critical friend. Let us forget the fact that there is a minimum wage at the moment. Why should a disabled person work for less than £5.93 an hour? It is not a lot of money, is it?
First, no, £5.93 per hour is not a lot of money—so why the bloody hell does your government tax those earning that small amount of cash?
Second, someone has to create that job for that person—disabled or otherwise. And that "employer" (as we call them, Edward), actually has to pay 13.8% on top of the £5.93, bringing the rate of pay up to £6.75 (plus, of course, sundry other costs—most of which carry other large taxes).
Third, who the hell are you to decide what wage someone is willing to work for? If a disabled person wishes to work for less than the minimum wage (because the alternative is no work at all) then why the fuck should you be able to intervene in a mutually-agreed, private contract?
And, fourth, the real point is that a great many disabled people—and, indeed, a great many non-disabled people—do not work because of that minimum wage, and they never will.
Because their labour is worth less than £6.75 per hour: and these people will never, ever get a job (not, I'll grant you, that someone of your background will appreciate). And, as Jackart so rightly points out (in a detailed post on this subject), that means that they will never get the training or the experience that might lead to them ever earning more than a pittance.
So, with all due respect**, Edward (and with reference to your attitude on gays), why don't you take your "question as a critical friend" and shove it up your arse?
* It's national. That makes it completely fucking stupid before we even consider its other iniquities.
** Inevitably, none.