Letter: Wrong on benefit

Take Mr Brodie's statement: "Surely they (those not in work] are being paid by the state, but are providing no service in return."

I take exception to such an ill-considered, sweeping remark and offer my own case as an example.

I worked at the same job for ten years after leaving school. I was then seriously injured in a road traffic collision.

After a year absent from work recovering, I returned for 12 years but, eventually, aspects of my initial injury affected me so badly that I had to leave work for good.

During my first, healthy, ten years and my later, injured but slowly recovering, 12 years, I paid my taxes and national insurance contributions (to "the state") in order that I may benefit (from "the state") in case I should ever be unfit to earn for myself.

The state has rewarded me with incapacity benefits (not such a large amount and certainly nowhere near what a Queen's Counsel would consider to be a living wage).

I wonder if Mr Brodie has ever been in that sort of situation (I don't really).

Barry Lees

Denholm Street

Greenock

On behalf of the Church of Scotland, Rev Ian Galloway's response to the proposal that some jobseekers will be required to do some work in order to maintain their benefit (Comment, 8 November) seemed to reflect the left-wing default position of the Kirk more than Christian teaching.

There are three relevant Biblical themes: the personal responsibility to work to provide for oneself and one's family, the condemnation of fraudulent practices, and the instruction to provide willingly for those unable to provide for themselves.

Rev Galloway seems only concerned with the last of these. Conservative minister Iain Duncan Smith seeks to develop a system that addresses them all.

Richard Lucas

Broomyknowe

Edinburgh