Guy Brandon Posted: 25 January 2012
Keywords: Government & Foreign Affairs,
Having been criticised for failing to offer any answers for the country's economic problems, Church leaders have in recent days come to the fore. On Monday a group of bishops tabled an amendment in the House of Lords that called for child benefit to be excluded from the proposed £26,000 cap on benefits, provoking strong reactions from those within and outside the Church.
The bishops' intention was to protect children, particularly in larger families where the cap will make more of a difference to the amount of money received. Right Rev John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, said, 'Christianity, along with other faiths and beliefs, requires us to think most of those that have no voice of their own. Children are one of the most evident examples of that.'
There is apparently a biblical principle here, but has it been correctly applied?
Today, former Archbishop Lord Carey heavily criticised the five bishops who led the opposition to the cap. Writing in the Daily Mail, he agreed with the need to protect children but looked at the other side of the coin: the vast majority of people whose families would suffer as a result of having to pay higher taxes to fund the benefits. He praised Iain Duncan Smith for trying to fix a benefits system responsible for 'fuelling vices and impoverishing us all'.
The debate comes against the backdrop of UK national debt reaching £1 trillion - £16,000 for every person in the country - and the news that the economy shrank by 0.2 percent in the final quarter of 2011. Nick Clegg remarked that 'the vast majority of people think it is fair to say that you can't receive more in benefits than if you were to earn £35,000 before tax.' What does 'fairness' entail in these circumstances?
The last week has seen an apparent change in the public profile and political engagement of church leaders in the political process, as bishops seek to apply Christian morality to lawmaking. The problem is that, as the BBC notes, there are two visions of morality here. 'The minister, Lord Freud, argued for a cap not to save money but to turn around lives because it was not moral, he argued, to consign children to a life in which work was not the norm - or to give more in benefits to families than the average family could earn in work. His opponents, led by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, argued that it was immoral to punish families simply because they had more children. Losing a job was bad enough but then losing your home was unacceptable.'
With both sides of the argument claiming biblical support, which version of morality has a greater claim to biblical principles?
1. I believe it is right that nobody who chooses to live on benefits should receive more than those on the average wage – see 1 Thessalonians 5.17
2. However I believe we have to be careful about defining the average wage. Most commentators are suggesting that the highest benefit payments are paid in London – where wages are higher in any event. Further would not average wage earners also have access to child benefit and maybe child tax credits! So the benefits cap could rise!
3. If, as some commentators suggest, the biggest issue concerns housing benefit then another potential issue is whether benefit payments are simply lining the pockets of rich landlords – surely government also has a moral obligation to ensure that housing is available at reasonable cost – maybe a cap would help to drive down property rental values.
4. I suggest that we need to distinguish between new claimants and existing ones. It could be argued that the policy should apply to new claimants fairly quickly – but that existing claimants whose lifestyle has to some extent been validated by existing policies, should be given time and help to adapt.
5. The Bible values relationships, especially family ones. So, we need to consider the potential destinations of those excluded from high cost areas. How can we help them to move to areas where they can find family support? The issue is likely to demand individual consideration demanding some flexibility in national rules. More grace, less law.
6. Moral choices are rarely between two simple options. I suggest that it is unlikely that national rules will offer equitable solutions to each and every situation. Maybe part of the problem is that we have developed a rule based system operated impersonally by bureaucrats whereas the Biblical answer would be for local communities to engage with the needy on a personal basis.
Derrick Hill 25 January 2012
Derek - your comments are very interesting but I would disagree with "who chooses to live on benefits" in 1.
I'm not sure of anyone who "chooses" to live on benefits. This is especially true at the moment when many people can find themselves unemployed whilst still desperately wanting to work.
Tom 25 January 2012
One point on the question (and sorry if this seems off topic):
we are being asked to decide if middle class earners or the poor should take the hit for deficit reduction (i.e. 'ordinary' tax payers vs benefit claimants).
Isn't there a responsibility of the wealthy to help pay off the deficit? If they have benefited the most from the system then it seems to make sense that they should also pay when the system is in trouble.
Tom 25 January 2012
I challenge the idea that nobody "chooses" to live on benefits - my experience is that for some life on benefits has become so comfortable - and the route out of benefits so difficult - that it has become their life choice.
I am much more inclined to support benefits for those who cannot work - either permanently or "temporarily but still actively seeking work" than I am for those who have chosen not to work and have stopped seeking a way out.
Derrick Hill 26 January 2012