Letter: Capital projects must not be paid for by cutting benefits

IT WAS a relief to read your front-page editorial ('Time is up for John Major and his beliefs', 18 October) arguing that the Government should rethink its entire philosophy and return to the principles outlined by Beveridge.

Like Beveridge, who stressed the importance of full employment, you emphasise destroying 'the giant of unemployment', arguing for capital projects (such as house and railway construction) which would create jobs. But unlike Beveridge, whose report also provides the basis of a compensatory system of benefits to support those unable to work, you pay little attention to social policy and what should happen to such people.

There will always be those unable to do paid work because of illness or disability or old age, or because they are carers or because there are not enough jobs in the areas in which they live.

If the Treasury could be persuaded to follow your approach and increase public expenditure, it is quite possible that money would be put exclusively into capital projects while other public expenditure (health, social security benefits) would be squeezed further. The public sector and social security benefits have been cut in the past 13 years of Tory rule, and further cuts (for example, in invalidity benefit and possibly unemployment and child benefit) are threatened.

Such cuts would further exacerbate the divisions between rich and poor, which have increased so much and make a mockery of that other key concept of post- war thinking, citizenship, which John Major's Government has already diminished and debased.

Dr Veronica Beechy

London N5