Letter: Welfare reform

Tony Benn
Tuesday 13 January 1998 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Letter: Welfare reform

Sir: A new "affluence test", under which women at work might lose their maternity pay unless they could prove that they need it, would introduce an extraordinary and dangerous new principle into public policy ("Blair takes on mission to explain welfare reform", 12 January).

Ministers have obviously been frightened by the determined opposition they faced on lone-parent benefits and rightly fear that if disablement benefits were to be cut that opposition would be much stronger.

But to target better-paid working mothers would be absolutely contrary to the proudly proclaimed adherence to family values and the need to persuade highly qualified women to go back to work.

Moreover, if this is done should not everybody have to pass a similar "affluence test" before they can call upon the police if they are burgled, or use the NHS, the schools system or any service provided by local authorities?

The only explanation for what is being proposed now is that the Treasury, recognising the urgent need for more resources, has come forward with this idea, instead of reducing wasteful military expenditure or facing the inevitability of higher levels of income tax on those who can afford to pay it - options which have been so foolishly ruled out, but to which the Government will have to return.

TONY BENN

London W11

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in