Benefits system should protect, not punish, vulnerable people
Frances Ryan underestimates the effect of repeated attacks on benefits claimants and the damage that the potential changes being floated would unleash (As Labour touts more brutal cuts to benefits, how is this different from life under the Tories?, 5 February). As a mental health clinician, I cannot emphasise enough how many relapses have been triggered by the relentless media drumbeat about 'cracking down' on benefits. This is not just political rhetoric; it lodges in the psyche, feeding precarity and self-doubt.
When the government frames itself as the defender of the public purse at the expense of 'fraudulent' claimants, it makes nearly all claimants feel like frauds. To combine this with the terrifying reality of what these speculative reforms could mean – sanctions for those too unwell to comply with back-to-work schemes, and the appalling prospect of removing or gutting the limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA) group that overwhelmingly consists of people at substantial risk of mental collapse – is unconscionable.
There are countless reforms that could be pursued without targeting society's most vulnerable, starting with reducing the Department for Work and Pensions' appalling record of underpayments and wrongful accusations that push claimants into crisis. A system built on trust rather than suspicion would not only cost less but would also reaffirm Labour's founding values. It's not too late for it to prove that it still stands for dignity, not destitution – by protecting, not punishing, those who need support the most.Dr Jay WattsLondon
Thank you, Frances Ryan, for highlighting a phrase beloved of our government that deeply troubles me: 'working people'. Even worse, 'working families'. If you are unable to work by virtue of age, ill health or disability, and have the temerity to be single, you are not a priority. You will also be expected to bear the brunt of the nightmare fiscal inheritance from the last government while wealthy individuals and multinationals remain untroubled by suggestions of tax increases. Many who voted Labour will not do so again, myself included, because we are sickened by the expansion of gross inequality between the poorest and most vulnerable and the super-rich.Stephanie O'BrienLondon
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
39 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Welfare reforms strike ‘right balance' after U-turn, says Starmer
Speaking for the first time after Downing Street agreed a series of concessions on its welfare policy, the Prime Minister said the climbdown followed a 'constructive discussion' with Labour rebels. He told broadcasters on Friday: 'The most important thing is that we can make the reform we need. 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right. 'For me, getting that package adjusted in that way is the right thing to do, it means it's the right balance, it's common sense that we can now get on with it.' Earlier, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the party was in 'a good place' on welfare reform, after offering concessions to rebels late on Thursday. Some 126 Labour MPs had signed an amendment that would halt the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on Tuesday. Leading rebels now believe the concessions on offer, which include protecting personal independence payments (Pip) for all existing claimants, will be enough to win over a majority. However, the fallout threatens to cause lasting damage, as harder line rebels remain opposed to the legislation and some backbenchers have called for a reset of relations between Number 10 and the parliamentary party. But the reversal means Chancellor Rachel Reeves now faces a scramble to fill a potential hole in her budget this autumn, with the cuts now likely to save much less than the £4.8 billion the Government had expected. Economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation have both suggested the changes could reduce that figure by up to £3 billion. But Downing Street has so far declined to set out its own figures for how much it now expects to save, or to say how the shortfall will be covered beyond insisting there would be no 'permanent' increase in borrowing and refusing to rule out tax rises. Facing questions about the climbdown on Friday, Ms Kendall denied suggestions she had found it 'difficult' to water down reforms she had so strenuously defended and said the concessions left the Bill in 'the right place'. 'We have listened to people, we have engaged with them,' she said. 'I think we're in a good place now, alongside the huge investments we are putting in to create the jobs that people need in every part of the country… but also to make sure there's employment support for those who can work and protections for those who can't.' The Government has also left the door open to further reform down the line, with Ms Kendall saying there need to be 'changes in the future' to ensure 'people who can work do'. The Government's original package had restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, as well as cutting the health-related element of universal credit. Existing recipients were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition. Now, the changes to Pip will be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only while all existing recipients of the health element of universal credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The concessions on Pip alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment. The changes represent a major climbdown for the Prime Minister, just days after he insisted to reporters he would 'press on' with the cuts, arguing there was a 'moral case' for them. Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, hailed the concessions as 'a good deal' involving 'massive changes' to protect vulnerable people and involve disabled people in the design of future reforms. She said: 'It's encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed.' But not all the rebels have been satisfied with the changes, with several suggesting they would create a 'two-tier system' and raising questions about who would be classified as a new claimant after November 2026. One told the PA news agency that discontent and low morale among the backbenches would 'continue to fester' without a 'wider reset' of relations between Number 10 and the Parliamentary Labour Party. Another accused decision-makers in Government of operating as an 'exclusive club' and showing 'disregard' for both its MPs and experts outside Westminster, while some claimed Dame Meg had failed to include other backbenchers in her negotiations. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the U-turn, saying the Government's failure to make 'minor savings' on welfare showed they were unable to deal with major issues. Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman Steve Darling said his party would continue opposing the Bill, saying the proposed cuts would still 'cause immense damage to some of the most vulnerable'. There was mixed reaction among charities to the prospect of concessions. Learning disability charity Mencap said the news would be a 'huge relief to thousands of people living in fear of what the future holds'. But the MS Society urged rebels to hold firm and block the Bill, insisting any Government offer to water down the reforms would amount to 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster'.
The Herald Scotland
43 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Welfare reforms strike ‘right balance' after U-turn, says Starmer
He told broadcasters on Friday: 'The most important thing is that we can make the reform we need. 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right. 'For me, getting that package adjusted in that way is the right thing to do, it means it's the right balance, it's common sense that we can now get on with it.' Earlier, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the party was in 'a good place' on welfare reform, after offering concessions to rebels late on Thursday. Some 126 Labour MPs had signed an amendment that would halt the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on Tuesday. Leading rebels now believe the concessions on offer, which include protecting personal independence payments (Pip) for all existing claimants, will be enough to win over a majority. However, the fallout threatens to cause lasting damage, as harder line rebels remain opposed to the legislation and some backbenchers have called for a reset of relations between Number 10 and the parliamentary party. But the reversal means Chancellor Rachel Reeves now faces a scramble to fill a potential hole in her budget this autumn, with the cuts now likely to save much less than the £4.8 billion the Government had expected. Economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation have both suggested the changes could reduce that figure by up to £3 billion. But Downing Street has so far declined to set out its own figures for how much it now expects to save, or to say how the shortfall will be covered beyond insisting there would be no 'permanent' increase in borrowing and refusing to rule out tax rises. Facing questions about the climbdown on Friday, Ms Kendall denied suggestions she had found it 'difficult' to water down reforms she had so strenuously defended and said the concessions left the Bill in 'the right place'. 'We have listened to people, we have engaged with them,' she said. 'I think we're in a good place now, alongside the huge investments we are putting in to create the jobs that people need in every part of the country… but also to make sure there's employment support for those who can work and protections for those who can't.' The Government has also left the door open to further reform down the line, with Ms Kendall saying there need to be 'changes in the future' to ensure 'people who can work do'. The Government's original package had restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, as well as cutting the health-related element of universal credit. Existing recipients were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition. Now, the changes to Pip will be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only while all existing recipients of the health element of universal credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The concessions on Pip alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment. The changes represent a major climbdown for the Prime Minister, just days after he insisted to reporters he would 'press on' with the cuts, arguing there was a 'moral case' for them. Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, hailed the concessions as 'a good deal' involving 'massive changes' to protect vulnerable people and involve disabled people in the design of future reforms. She said: 'It's encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed.' But not all the rebels have been satisfied with the changes, with several suggesting they would create a 'two-tier system' and raising questions about who would be classified as a new claimant after November 2026. One told the PA news agency that discontent and low morale among the backbenches would 'continue to fester' without a 'wider reset' of relations between Number 10 and the Parliamentary Labour Party. Another accused decision-makers in Government of operating as an 'exclusive club' and showing 'disregard' for both its MPs and experts outside Westminster, while some claimed Dame Meg had failed to include other backbenchers in her negotiations. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the U-turn, saying the Government's failure to make 'minor savings' on welfare showed they were unable to deal with major issues. Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman Steve Darling said his party would continue opposing the Bill, saying the proposed cuts would still 'cause immense damage to some of the most vulnerable'. There was mixed reaction among charities to the prospect of concessions. Learning disability charity Mencap said the news would be a 'huge relief to thousands of people living in fear of what the future holds'. But the MS Society urged rebels to hold firm and block the Bill, insisting any Government offer to water down the reforms would amount to 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster'.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Stirling MP explains support for "compassionate" assisted dying plans
Chris Kane MP used his free vote on the legislation to express his support for proposals to regulate assisted dying for terminally ill patients. Stirling's MP has explained the reasoning behind his backing for a historic assisted dying bill which narrowly secured support in the House of Commons last week. The Terminally Ill Adults Bill, proposed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, gives terminally ill adults in England and Wales the chance to have the right to end their own lives if certain criteria are met. The passage of the legislation at Westminster - which gained support by a margin of just 23 votes - follows a similar vote at Holyrood where the Scottish Parliament also gave its backing for proposals which would legislate for assisted dying in Scotland. In the Commons vote last week, an emotionally charged debate saw MPs recount personal stories of seeing friends and relatives die as well as sharing both positives and concerns related to the legislation. Stirling and Strathallan MP Chris Kane was one of those asked to vote on the bill - and he was one of 314 to support its passage. Speaking to the Observer, Mr Kane said his vote would give people the opportunity to 'end their suffering on their own terms' and said the current arrangements had the impact of prolonging someone's suffering in a way deemed 'deeply unjust'. He said: 'My decision to support the bill was shaped by careful thought and compassion, taken with full awareness of the moral and ethical complexities involved. 'I understand that some will be disappointed, and I want to acknowledge the sincerity and strength of feeling among those who oppose it. I respect those views, just as I hope my own are respected in return. 'In the United Kingdom today, individuals with mental capacity can legally refuse life-sustaining treatment, even if that decision leads to their death. 'Yet they cannot seek medical assistance to take an approved substance that would allow them to end their suffering on their own terms. For me, that is a contradiction that cannot be ignored. 'The current system can prolong suffering in ways that feel deeply unjust. 'This bill seeks to change that by offering terminally ill people the ability to make a considered and safeguarded choice at the end of life. 'I believe it is time to offer a compassionate, safe and clearly regulated choice for those nearing the end of their lives who want to take it.' Mr Kane was also quick to praise the general level of debate from politicians on both sides of the argument - with members given the opportunity to exercise a rare 'free vote', away from party lines. He added: 'In recent weeks and months, we have seen Parliament at its best: informed, considered and passionate, with respect shown across the House for those on all sides of the debate. 'I have spent a great deal of time reflecting on the Assisted Dying Bill, reading thoughtful emails from constituents, reviewing detailed briefings from organisations both for and against, and hosting constituency roundtables to listen to personal stories and different perspectives. 'I have followed the bill closely throughout its parliamentary journey and believe that it has evolved into a more balanced and carefully constructed piece of legislation than it was at the start.' The Westminster legislation will now head to the House of Lords for scrutiny and further votes before it has the chance of becoming law south of the border.
