Government cuts
Symon Hill reports on a Meeting for Sufferings discussion
The government’s cuts agenda has come under attack from British Quakers, who have formally declared their opposition to the scale of the cuts and their impact on the poorest people in society. Friends have resolved to campaign against changes to disability benefits, to call for a greater contribution from the wealthy and to suggest the alternative of cutting expenditure on war. The policy was adopted on Saturday by Meeting for Sufferings (MfS), the national committee of Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM), the formal organisation of Quakers in England, Scotland and Wales.
Equality
‘We wish to affirm our testimony to equality,’ states the minute of the Meeting. It continues: ‘We know that the government intends to make cuts, but they should not be at the expense of those who are unable to work.’
The cuts had already been criticised by Meeting for Friends in Wales and several Area Meetings, but this is the first time that Quakers have officially taken this stance at a national level. The decision follows similar statements from several Christian denominations.
MfS gave BYM staff the authority to lobby for changes to the Welfare Reform Bill. The lobbying is expected to begin immediately.
The minute commits Friends to working alongside other faith groups in challenging the cuts. It states: ‘We encourage all Friends to lobby their MPs and to ask for the wiser use of public money.’
Discussion and debate
MfS’s discussion began with a presentation from Catherine West, leader of Islington Council and a member of Muswell Hill Meeting. She spoke of the Islington Fairness Commission, which monitored the impact of cuts. The council had discovered that its cleaning company was not paying the recognised living wage and had brought the cleaners in-house. Despite increasing wages, the council had saved money, owing to the hefty profit previously taken by the company.
Michael Bartlet, BYM’s parliamentary liaison secretary, appealed to Friends to back campaigns against cuts and affirm the link between equality and sustainability. He insisted: ‘the Quaker business method need not be a barrier to acting quickly and effectively in a fast-moving political environment.’
Several Friends commented on the impact of particular cuts, including those to housing benefit and legal aid. There was a particular focus on disability, with one disabled Friend saying she was ‘frightened and angry’ about cuts.
Another said she was ‘extremely heartened’ to see Quakers opposing cuts to disability benefits, but she asked them to be careful when describing disabled people as vulnerable. ‘We make people vulnerable by what we’re doing to them,’ she said, ‘They’re not inherently vulnerable.’
A few Friends were more hesitant. One said that Quakers should ‘give credit where its due and acknowledge the positive aspects of the government’s programme.’ He gave the example of the ‘pupil premium’ for schools with poorer students.
Several Friends spoke of their belief in reducing the deficit, while others said that it was tactically important to present the government with alternatives and to point out that some cuts would cost the country more in the long term.
There was no mention of nonviolent direct action, although a number of individual Friends are involved in such action through UK Uncut and other groups. The Friend understands that at least two Quakers were among the group arrested for a peaceful occupation of Fortnum & Mason in March.
Local Meetings
One member of MfS noted that, while BYM pays the living wage to all employees, there are Area and Local Meetings that do not. As a result, MfS broke new ground by recognising this for the first time. The minute stated: ‘Our Local Meetings could consider offering a living wage instead of a minimum wage.’
There will be more coverage of MfS in next weeks issue.
