Alok Sharma defending universal credit despite clear evidence that it doesn’t work is beyond farcical

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Apparently the employment minister’s visited a job centre, so he must be right (Getty)

It’s comforting to see at last that the benefit system is fit for purpose. Alok Sharma spoke yesterday of the very positive feedback he received at job centres he visited up and down the country. He is, after all, a “so-called expert” or he wouldn’t hold the position he does.

We must also assume from his comments that the National Audit Office is full of a bunch of no-hopers who have no idea what they are on about when they say this policy amounts to a failure of massive proportions.

These people, Sharma and a host of other ministers, toe the party line because they haven’t got the balls to stand up and be counted and admit they were wrong. The next time he visits a job centre we can only hope it’s for the right reason: to fill in his universal credit booklet.

David Higgins
Somerset

Alok Sharma’s response to the Audit Office’s report was just so typical of the “nothing can be wrong because my party is in power” attitude of so many politicians. What chance do we as ordinary citizens stand to improve our lot when those in power don’t see the need so to do, and live in this fantasy world that the rest of us can’t get to?

I regret that Sharma is the worst sort of politician – one that will ensure we, as a nation, do not improve, simply because he lacks the courage and the decency to admit that he might be wrong.

Steve Mumby
Bournemouth

Surely we should be able to bend the rules to stop a child suffering

I wonder how the jobsworths at the Home Office and Border Agency can sleep at night knowing that their “rules are rules” arguments to deny Billy Caldwell the cannabis oil that has been shown to radically relieve the distressing effects of his epilepsy have resulted in his having to be treated in hospital.

I also wonder if one of their loved ones had a similar condition would they adopt the same legalistic stance they take in Caldwell’s case. I cannot help but be reminded of lines from Leon Rosselson’s song “Palaces of Gold” – “Buttons would be pressed, /Rules would be broken, /Strings would be pulled /And magic words spoken. /Invisible fingers would mould /Palaces of gold.”

Patrick Cleary
Devon

Christopher Chope has failed his female constituents

Sir Christopher Chope MP’s extraordinary decision to block the bill making “upskirting” a criminal offence was insensitive, foolish and politically inept.

With a shout of that one word – “object” – he almost certainly outraged millions of women who rightly regard this voyeurism as depraved and utterly demeaning. What makes it even more bizarre is that it appears he only had the vaguest idea what the bill was about, if he gave it any thought at all.

To this archetypal bureaucrat it was entirely a procedural matter. Its subject seemed irrelevant to him. Well it was scarcely irrelevant to the victims, and he was quickly made aware of it by the blast of fury in which “shame on you” was the dominant outcry.

It will take a while before he will be forgiven. But for that intervention, in a half-empty House of Commons, this bill which the government supported would have ultimately passed into law. This was not just an ordinary run-of-the-mill private member’s bill. It deals with an ugly social problem that requires urgent parliamentary action. You did yourself and your party no favours, Sir Christopher. This wasn’t the ideal the time for a Tory MP to, unwittingly, infuriate women whose votes are crucial to a faltering government.

Donald Zec
Address supplied

Thank you, Tom Peck, for your column on Chope, Davies, et al. It was good to read such excellent criticism of their behaviour as MPs.

In the light of Chope’s behaviour, in particular, I am left with two questions. Why did his party think him worthy of a knighthood, and why do his constituents think he is worthy of his seat in parliament as their representative, given his voting behaviour?

I would also worry for the legal profession should he choose to return to being a barrister with such an egotistical view of the world. He, no doubt, would enjoy prosecuting a case. But would you want him representing you?

I hope his wife or daughter are never upskirted – but maybe they could have a quiet word in his ear.

Gillian Munrow
Amersham

Philip Davies must rethink his stance on mental health unit regulations

Dear Philip Davies,

Instead of “another day, another dollar”, perhaps a suitable expression for you would be “another Friday, another filibuster”.

As someone who has suffered from depression myself, words cannot describe my frustration at your decision to block a new law to control the use of force in mental health units. Can I ask whether you bothered to talk to a single mental health patient or their families to seek their views before you spent three hours talking the bill out?

This bill has been supported in petitions by 65,000 people as well as several dozen mental health charities and campaigners. Perhaps you could try extending your “will of the people” mantra to non-Brexit related bills rather than treating this as some kind of sport to start your weekend with.

Chris Key
Address supplied

Is “Spotted Richard” really a priority right now?

That a number of MPs can spend their time feeling the need to rename a pudding in their dining facilities, which everyone else in the country will continue to call “spotted dick”, is a sad indictment of their understanding of the relative importance of issues needing their time and attention in parliament. Perhaps their respective constituency parties should consider alternative representatives at the next election?

J Longstaff
East Sussex