AT a time when we have become numbed to the reckless spending of this Conservative Government, it is nonetheless shocking to note that £121.5 million was squandered last year contesting benefit awards to people in Britain ("UK Government admits it spent £121.5m on benefit appeals", The Herald, April 19). Some of the most vulnerable people in society are routinely denied welfare benefits due to deliberately long-winded and confusing systems and paperwork provided by the Department of Work and Pensions. The appeals system is intimidating and threatening, with the claimant made to feel more like an offender than someone worthy of understanding and support from a Government department. Without support from charities like Citizen's Advice many would not have the forbearance to attend their own appeal.
The 19th century concept of "deserving poor" has returned with a vengeance under Theresa May's heartless administration which would rather see this money wasted than awarded to those they deem "undeserving". Dickens would have termed them Gradgrindian in that their philosophy will endeavour to stop those who depend on benefits, either as their sole source of income or to top up their low wages, from feasting on " turtle soup and venison."
In Dickens's novel Hard Times, Mr Gradgrind maintained that facts alone were needed in life. By our Minister for Work and Pensions' recent own admission, it is a fact that the mismanagement of benefits such as Universal Credit has seen a significant spiralling in the use of food banks. It is also a fact that our welfare system is not fit for purpose, and though some of the powers and responsibilities have been devolved to the Scottish Government, it will take a great deal of time and expenditure to rectify this.
Attempts to apply a business model to social security ignores the human element. Bureaucratic indifference to people's lives fosters a society lacking in empathy and compassion. Mrs May and her Government would do well to remember that, in a true welfare state, redistribution of wealth and protection from cradle to grave are to be cherished and celebrated.
Owen Kelly,
8 Dunvegan Drive, Stirling.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here