Over many years I have been lucky to work alongside
the Centre for Social Justice, the think tank set up by Iain Duncan Smith, to
find solutions to the deep seat social problems in our country.
Observing their work, one thing became quickly evident;
our current welfare system is bust. As Mr Duncan Smith remarked, the safety net
as envisaged by the architects of the system now traps millions of people in
poverty, unable to get on and move up because of a punitive system that all too
often rewards indolence and discriminates against those on low wages.
But it is not just on the complicated issue of
welfare payments and withdrawal rates that our system fails the most
vulnerable. Just look at those who are addicted to drugs. In this country we
have over 300,000 people addicted to class A drugs, many who are now trapped on
methadone, a state sponsored replacement.
And when you drill into these shocking figures you
find many examples of addicts who have been on methadone for years, some for
decades, as the inconvenient truth is that is that it is easier and cheaper to
keep them trapped in a cycle of needing their daily fix, then to embark on
a programme of abstinence based treatment. Don’t get me wrong, methadone can play a
part in stabilising chaotic drugs users, but it can’t be seen as an alternative
to full recovery.
And the treatment of addicts is not the only area of
our complicated welfare system that is in urgent need of reform.
The Government's failure to reduce taxes on those on
middle and lower incomes, mean that increasing large numbers of working
households are only able to make ends meet, thanks to dozens of different
payments, tax credits being an obvious case.
Is it any wonder the OECD identify UK has having
amongst the highest family tax rates in the western world.
The simple fact is that the welfare system is so
broken, that plans to tinker with a small section of this bloated monster,
however welcome, is simply inadequate and is likely to create all sorts of
unintended consequences that could take months, or years to work their way
through the system.
Removing housing benefits from the under 25s could
also be addressed in other ways, for example introducing a qualification period
to qualify for state help, unless you are disabled or homeless.
Those who have not paid into the state system, or
deemed to have paid into the system, would not be entitled to certain
benefits, that might include housing.
This would also help to stop 'welfare tourism', the
phenomenon that has seen people move to the UK in search of better benefits,
despite the fact they have no connection to this country and have no intention of
working.
I know there will be those who say this does not
happen, who might even say that this is an outrageous statement, but it does
not make it less true and I am aware of literary dozen of cases that fit this
pattern.
But before offering solutions to particular
problems, we need to engage in an honest debate about the nature and purpose of
the welfare system, as have lost sight of its original purposes. The nebulous
nature of the current system would be completely unrecognisable to those great
social reformers of the 19th or 20th centuries, people like Octavia Hill, George
Peabody, or William Wilberforce. Even those like William Beveridge
who came much much later and were responsible for the development of the
welfare state, would find it difficult to reconcile their idea with today’s
system.
And if we do not have a renewed sense of what the
welfare system is actually for then we are likely to simply repeat the mistakes
of the past 30 years.
The second problem I see with the recent debate is
that focusing on one small element of the welfare system, really is like
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The PM hopes that cutting payments
to the under 25s along with some further reforms will save up to 10 billion a
year, or roughly five percent of the welfare bill.
Reform on a piecemeal basis could add to an already
overcomplicated and expensive system.
Thirdly, the politician who most understands the
welfare system, Mr Duncan Smith, has been leading this debate for so long that
the surprising intervention by the PM, looks more like a political stunt than a
deeply held view on the issue. For those who say this is not the case, there
are a couple of questions that Mr Cameron has failed to answer. Why make this
intervention now? Many people believe that this is this really a Cameroon faint
to the right to appease the restless back benches who are angry over Lords
Reform, a bungled budget, proposals to redefine marriage, falling poll ratings
etc.
And so, while I applaud Mr Cameron's fine sentiments,
I am deeply sceptical that the system or indeed the tinkering on the edges as
he has talked about will either happen, or indeed will make a blind bit of
difference.
