I cannot support welfare reform on the backs of the most vulnerable

Alamy

I withheld full judgment following Liz Kendall’s statement on the government’s Pathways to Work Green Paper to wait for the impact assessment, but inside I knew it did not sit right with me. 

That feeling inside was borne from bitter personal experience of suffering ill health at work, which eventually led to me falling into the welfare system back in 2017. I wanted to remain in employment, and I jumped through all the hoops my employer held up. I had recommendations from occupational health for reasonable adjustments in my role, but employers do not have to accept these suggestions if they feel they “do not meet the needs of the business”. 

I did not get into politics to make people worse off

I asked the Secretary of State what support would be given to employers to help keep employees in work, and was told the support will be included as part of the reforms. This is not my experience, nor is it that of many people who would love to be in secure, good work. 

The green paper sets out some fantastic plans to get people back into work and to streamline welfare. My fear is that the measures and systems required to make this a reality simply are not in place. The positive aspects are further undermined by the proposal to cut support to some of our most vulnerable people, by changing the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) criteria and removing Universal Credit (UC) health element for under 22s. 

At the Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves presented an academic budget, packed with figures and percentages that would bamboozle the average citizen, never mind parliamentarians.

Once I had unpicked it, I realised that not only were the government ploughing ahead with the ill-thought-out welfare reforms but making further cuts by halting the UC health element with immediate effect.

I’ve heard from hundreds of constituents worried sick about what the reforms could mean for them. People who are currently in employment thanks to PIP support but would not qualify under the new criteria and therefore fall out of work. People who will never be able to work due to disability, concerned about losing vital benefits. These proposals have bred fear among people who already fight tooth and nail for every bit of support they get.

I did not get into politics to make people worse off. I came here to improve lives and ensure people do not have the same experience as me. I accept that the cost of welfare is unsustainable and there are too many people not currently in employment, but we cannot fix these things by taking money out the pockets of disabled people. That’s why I cannot vote for these proposals in this form.

The Labour Party was founded in the trade union movement, co-operatives and socialism to represent the working class, and provide services and support to the wider population. We must remember our foundations when forming policies. There are other ways to raise funds that would not take support away from vulnerable people that I hope the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions will consider. 

There has been much talk of wealth taxes in various forms, increasing capital gains tax, tackling offshore tax evasion in British tax havens, windfall tax, making corporate giants pay their fair share and more – all valid ideas that need to be explored. The proposals in the green paper in principle are generally good, but we only have one opportunity to get this right. 

Cutting welfare payments before having the support systems in place for everyone concerned is not the way forward. As the Chancellor said, “the world is changing” – so let’s change the approach and not target those most in need. 

Cat Eccles, Labour MP for Stourbridge

Related

Inside The Controversial Decision To Rid The UK Of Its Plutonium Stores

By Tali Fraser

11 Apr