The clients of the state

The Conservatives recently released calculations they have made from National Satistics and from answers to questions posed in Parliament, especially by Chris Grayling, shadow Work and Pensions Secretary.

It seems that there are 70,000 families in Britain who are in receipt of benefits above £25,000 a year. Further, that there are 20,000 in receipt of more than £30,000.

This is at a time when the average full-time wage is just over £20,000, and the average annual household income is about £28,000. These are averages, which means that there are many below or even well below those figures for working full-time. (It may be, of course, that families on benefit have more children than the average "2.2" families, and the childrens' needs are reflected in the benefits payments.)

The welfare state is not providing the "safety net" for those temporarily in need and perhaps for those chronic health conditions. It is now supplying a permanent life style for many who would by health be capable of working.

What is worrying is that many recipients become welfare dependent, trapped as clients of the state. The loss of dignity and self-worth is barely compensated for by the benefits. Worse, about 2.2 million children are in families dependent on benefits, with all that that implies, and we now have second or even third generations of some families dependent on benefit.

Another aspect of concern is that the incidence of benefit dependency is not evenly spread. There are estates where the percentage surviving on benefit could be well above 50% - these disaggregated data were not available. What is clear is that there are certainly large regional variations. So, for instance, of those 60 areas where those jobless in number exceed those working, 25 are in the North West of England, 8 are in Wales and and the North East of England, 5 in Yorkshire and 5 in The Midlands.

Rochdale in Lancashire has 76% of working age population on benefits. This is the highest concentration, but other parts of northern industrial towns are not far behind.

There is an enormous problem here.
There is a considerable waste of human resources, which could benefit Society.
There is a tendency for benefit dependency to be long term, as the recipients become deemed as unemployable.
There is a tendency for dependence to be perpetuated between the generations.
Those of working age and on benefit must doubt their own worth and lack self pride.


What can be done?
(In the budget benefits for lone parents and workless families were boosted. At the same time the 10% tax band was abolished and thus impoverished those on low incomes. Both of these would act to increase dependency.)

The Government and the Conservatives both conclude that a large number of those on benefit are capable of working and need to be helped (back) into work.

The Government has proposed "fit notes" and regular medicals. The Conservatives have proposed in addition that fit recipients should do community work, both for their own self esteem and as a step back into paid work. (The community will also gain, of course.)

The problem is bound up with the problems of dysfunctional families, behavioural problems and educational failure. Somehow the State must grapple with all the problems simultaneously. Passing laws and setting targets will not do on their own. It requires policy changes in many areas of Government and some sort of revolution in how these social problems are treated. Ian Duncan Smith has suggested approaches to be adopted. Have the present Government, or a future Government, the vision and the courage to implement them?