Welfare Reform should mean Support with Dignity

I truly welcome the fact that the Kirk has been invited to respond to the consultation on 21st Century Welfare issued by the Coalition Government. With a church in every community, the Kirk has been at the centre of community involvement, getting the views of people living in poverty throughout Scotland. Through the work of Scotland’s Poverty Truth Commission, we have had direct access to hear and learn from those that are struggling with poverty. This has informed our views on the need to get the involvement of those struggling with the issues on a daily basis, on any kind of measures directed towards helping them out of poverty. ‘Nothing about Us without Us is for Us.’

The Coalition Government proposes to simplify the benefits system. Aye to that. It also proposes to encourage people to move from the benefits system into paid employment. The welfare system is in place to help those in need. It is a resource that we all contribute into in order to provide help and support to the most vulnerable amongst us. Much has been said about the culture of dependence and the lifestyle choices of welfare recipients. In our experience, nearly all people that are able to work, want to and do so if work is available. There are many ways to contribute into society apart from paid employment. No one can dispute the valuable contribution done by thousands of people caring for children, or tending for a disabled relative; these unpaid contributions, amount to significant savings to the public purse.

Support with dignity is the key.

The Mysteries of the Proposed Budget

I have followed with great interest recent statements from the Coalition Government concerning the proposed revised budget and there are things that remain persistently unclear.


It seems to be received wisdom that everyone must share the collective burden of the budget deficit. Who is precisely “everyone”? Does this mean children, sick people, the elderly, the homeless, those with mental disabilities? I think that it is a fascicle position to assign collective responsibility when it is clear that not everyone can share the burden. Where is our sense of justice if we demand of the most vulnerable within us to carry a disproportionately large share of the collective debt?

The other thing that remains mysterious is the issue of jobs. The public sector is being downsized and people are being made redundant. This appears to be done for ideological reasons as well as under the assumption that efficiency savings can be reaped. Some services will no longer be provided by the public sector on the expectation that the private sector will leap at the opportunity of developing services to fill in the gaps. Will the services provided by private companies be cheaper? Will they offer the same value for money than the publicly provided counterparts? How will they be paid? More importantly, how many jobs does the Coalition Government expect the private sector to furnish per region within the UK?

Amidst all of this uncertainty, I am certain of one thing; jobless people do not pay taxes, they consume them through social benefits. I am not questioning the need for dealing with the deficit; I am however, deeply uncomfortable that pressure from the financial sector should dictate the speed and the depth of the cuts.

Regressive or progressive emergency budget?

We heard yesterday discussions about whether the emergency budget is either progressive or regressive. Fancy wording for fundamental questions? It might be better to simply ask whether the budget is equitable and protects the most vulnerable in our society ?

The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), not a “radical” organisation, considers that the poorest families amongst us will be proportionately bearing the brunt of the cuts. It is tragic that in spite of previous efforts by a number of organisations to eradicate child poverty by 2020 it is now apparent that this goal will not be met. A quarter of the children in Scotland live in persistent poverty and most of them are part of single parent households. According to the IFS, this is one of the groups that will be the hardest hit. Only those able to bear a load should help carry the burden. The challenges are understood; but why does it have to be those least able to withstand the brunt that carry the biggest share of the load? In other words Mr. Cameron and Mr Osbourne, why does it have to be our children?