Dear Lord Freud
I write to you with regards to your
recent comments on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, specifically the
proposed cuts to payments to those in the ESA WRAG category.
You are quoted as saying that the
reform is needed as only 1% of people in that category moved off the
benefit each month. You also said,
“As a government, we want to ensure
that we spend money responsibly in a way that improves individuals
life chances and helps them achieve their ambitions, rather than
paying for a lifetime wasted on benefits, “
I find this statement somewhat at odds
with your support to the welfare cut.
It is well documented and observed that
those people looking for work under WRAG are often still in poor
health, following long periods of illness or injury. Additionally
some of them may have been out of work for some time or may not be
able to return to their previous profession.
Responsible spending and support for
people in this group would be the provission of support to allow them
to re-enter employment in a suitable manner. People with chronic
illness and disability may not be able to work full time or in a
usual Monday to Friday routine. However, part time and flexible work
is often lower paid and would not guarantee enough salary to cover
bills. There is currently a gap in government support that means that
people who are physically unable to work full time, can not afford to
work full time. Additional support for people in this situation would
help people into jobs and and aid stimulation of the economy.
Additionally, some people may not be
able to work regular working hours, needing neither work from home
options or freelance arrangements. Freelance work is often the only
work people with chronic illness are able to undertake, however this
is not a guaranteed wage and may not equal a full time wage. There is
currently little support for people who work on contract or freelance
and that help that is available is restricted and difficult to apply
for. Providing additional support for people in this situation would
help people find their own work and aid stimulation of the economy.
Many people who had to leave work due
to health issues find that their health limitations restrict them
from going back in to the same type of work, for example physically
taxing jobs; jobs requiring a degree of mobility; high intensity jobs
and so on. Furthermore, as employees are generally in favour of
recent experience those who have been out of work for some time are
at a disadvantage. Currently there is very little provision for
retraining, higher education, skill development or apprenticeships,
all of which would help to bridge that gap. Most of the available
services only relate to basic skills and “CV writing” which are
of little actual benefit in the job market and for the majority of
people on ESA. Providing additional funding for training and
education would give people a better chance at finding a job.
Providing additional support for people in this situation would
increase employability and stimulate the economy.
Another challenge faced is that many
people who have reached the point of being deemed fit to work have
done so through implementing various regimen to support their health
and recovery. This can include long term regular physiotherapy not
available through the limited NHS provisions; regular massage therapy
for pain management; the use of specialist facilities like
hydrotherapy pools; the use of specialist equipment like TENS
machines or mobility aids; even the use of a cleaning or meal service
so that they can focus on work. All of these things cost money which
a cut in payments would heavily restrict. Without those services
people may not be able to afford to stay “work fit”. They also
need to be confident that any new job will pay enough to cover these
services and that it fits around the schedule needed to maintain
their health (for example the local hydrotherapy pool is only open
during common working hours). Support should be maintained and
improved so that people in this situation can be confident they are
fit for work and are employable and can thus contribute to the
economy.
A reduction in benefits is not offering
support to people on ESA, but is in fact taking support away.
It is a fallacy to believe that people
who are placed in to the WRAG category are 100% fit and able to find
employment the very next day. The Work Related Activity Group
explicitly states that people in this category are working toward
being fit and healthy for work. Finding a job, for anybody, takes
time and a particular set of circumstances. The additional
difficulties faced by those who are disabled, chronically ill or who
have been out of work for some time makes this task even more
difficult. A reduced income adds to these difficulties rather than
takes them away. A reduction in support will not fix barrier to
employment, make freelance, contract or part time work suddenly cost
effective. It will into make jobs with flexible working more abundant
nor will it refresh and renew people's skills or make the right job
matches suddenly appear.
Taking any old job due to desperation
or poverty regardless of their skills or health status is simply not
sustainable and does not benefit the workforce in any meaningful long
term, or even mid-term, manner. If a person takes on an unsuitable
job due to desperation they are likely to find themselves unable to
work in the future as their health deteriorates once more. This may
cut the number on benefits temporarily but it is not actually a
solution to unemployment, or job shortages.
Responsible spending of money to
improve a persons life and chances of employability should involve
actual spending. It should also recognise that a persons inability to
work full time or return to their area of training makes them
invaluable to the workforce, economy and our country. A thriving
economy recognises the differing capabilities of its population and
works with that to maximise people's potential. A thriving economy
recognises that one size does not fit all when it comes to
employment.
One final and crucial point. I want to
address the final part of your statement:
“ rather than paying for a lifetime
wasted on benefits, “.
This implies that you believe that a
life not in work is a life wasted. Do you truly believe, can you
stand proud in front of a nation of people and honestly and without
shame or doubt say that a person who is not working is a waste of a
person?
A person who can not work and who most
live on the goodness of the state should never be considered a waste.
They provide love, friendship and care to their friends and family.
They engage in media and entertainment sharing ideas, opinions and
preferences which help to shape everything from TV listings to
politics. They may volunteer on a casual basis, providing support and
help to those organisations that could not exist without them. They
may have hobbies, that fit around their disabilities that contribute
to the art and culture of this country. A person who does not work is
not without value. A persons employment status is only one of the
many and varied ways we can judge our own self worth and value to
others and to society.
A life is not wasted on benefits, it is
lived as best as it can be, just like any other individual who may be
employed or not. That they may be limited due to their health and
disability does not mean that they are limited in value. To state
otherwise is a callous dismissal of a vast part of the population.
I, and many other like me, would very
much like to know why your statement is so at odds with your support
of a cut to benefits. I would very much like to know why you support
a policy that keeps people from working rather than helping people
back in to work. I want to know that you, and our government values
its citizens, all of of it's citizens, regardless of their ability to
work and that you will not punish those you deem as a waste.
You do have a responsibility to improve
the benefits and welfare system in this country, but that
responsibility is not to government accountants and bean counters but
to the citizens themselves who need the support of their government
in order to live a healthy and valued life.
Your Sincerely
Sophie Tynan
No comments:
Post a Comment