Having read and appreciated Frances Ryan’s view (Jeremy Hunt says focus on the ‘economically inactive’. I say he is scapegoating the sick, 7 February), I believe that there is another angle from which to view this debate. I have a formal NHS diagnosis of autism (and PTSD) and I have now failed to keep 48 jobs. Jeremy Hunt has, apparently, yet to consider that at least some of the “economically inactive” may actually have been repeatedly and very firmly rejected by employers. I have been removed from all manner of jobs in a wide variety of careers.
From personal experience, a large part of the problem actually lies with employers. Employers complete tick-box disability accreditations, which satisfy the government targets, but leave them completely and utterly unable to cope when they are actually faced with an autistic individual. To reiterate bluntly, I don’t leave employment by choice – employers make very sure that I leave them.
Some disabilities do seem to be viewed as a lifestyle choice. Yet why would I choose to live such a financially limited lifestyle, when I am, on paper, so well qualified to work? To enable me to remain in work, the solution lies with actually offering the right support and – of equal importance – a genuine understanding and acceptance of my condition.
Susan Chipping
Catterick Garrison, North Yorkshire
• Thank you for Frances Ryan’s article, which brilliantly exposed the warped thinking behind the government’s approach to getting people back into work.
I fear that disabled people may also face further problems. Several years ago, I was informed that the Department for Work and Pensions fully accepted my health problems, but that I could see a work coach, without prejudice, if I wished to do so. I took this opportunity, hoping that they might be able to help me find some part-time work.
The woman assumed immediately that I was illiterate and had a low IQ, and offered me literacy classes. When I told her I had a degree and PhD as well as professional qualifications and years of work experience, she was completely nonplussed and then further admitted that she could do nothing about part-time work. Given my contact with the DWP since then, I doubt that things have changed.
Name and address supplied
• I surprisingly agree with Jeremy Hunt that the economically inactive are the problem. When the share of GDP that is captured by the economically inactive in the form of rents, interest and dividends is increasing, and the share of GDP that goes to the economically active in the form of wages is declining, there is an unsustainable imbalance. Margaret Thatcher said we cannot all live on welfare – well, we cannot live on rent either. It would be prudent to shift some of the tax burden away from work and on to assets. Let’s cut taxes on earned income by raising taxes on unearned income: linking council tax to land values would be a start.
Gregory Thompson
London
• Frances Ryan refers to the Department for Work and Pensions’ estimate that 4% of social security benefit expenditure is due to fraud or claimant error. The definition of “fraud” in the DWP’s methodology is both broad and subjective and covers many people for whom evidence of criminality is extremely weak – certainly nothing like sufficient to warrant prosecution.
A minor but interesting aspect is that a person who had agreed to pay an administrative penalty to avoid prosecution would certainly be classified as “fraudulent” by the DWP. One gathers that the tax authorities take a more forgiving approach.
Rory O’Kelly
London
