Welfare reform - Let’s plan for savings honestly

It seems inevitable that taxes will rise and welfare benefits will be cut if we are to meet our bailout obligations in the timeframe agreed by the Government and our paymasters.

It might be comforting to pretend otherwise but, as the Mary Chapin Carpenter song says, the stars might lie but the numbers never do.

Recognising that probability, the publication of details from an ESRI working document, since withdrawn, on how thousands of families might be better off if they relied on welfare rather than continue in work is as good a moment as any to open a debate about our welfare system’s obligations, objectives, and impact. The idea of the balance between personal responsibility and entitlement must also be discussed in light of the paper, which is being revised by lead author Richard Tol.

Inevitably, extremists will advance equally daft suggestions. Some will want welfare cut to the bone in a way that could only be seen as a cruel punishment for not having a job. Just as bizarrely, others will want the State to pay for a Communion day knees-up or Sky Sports so a family’s self-esteem can be maintained.

As in all these matters, the truth is somewhere in the middle and the ESRI work in progress suggests that we need to work on finding a way to that equitable but, just as importantly, sustainable point.

Some realities need to be re-stated: Living on welfare is not a viable lifestyle choice and the majority of the 430,000 out of work would prefer to support themselves and their families without the State’s support.

Describing those without work as scroungers is not only wrong and offensive but makes the possibility of confronting the system’s embedded insanities remote. There is, however, a need to consider measures that make it more difficult for welfare recipients to turn down work. This would have minimal impact on genuine individuals but would build confidence in a discredited system. Equally, some of the apocryphal stories detailing criminal abuse are rooted in fact. It would be easy to dismiss the suggestion that some happily married couples have “officially” separated but continue to live together so a separated wife’s allowance might be collected, but it would be naïve.

On the other side of the coin, the treatment of people who were once self-employed, and possibly employed others, is deeply unfair. If their business closes their employees can rely on welfare support but they, the ones who generated the jobs and economic activity, are cast adrift without benefits.

Almost certainly, some of those who shout loudest for a welfare crackdown are the first to turn to the black economy when the car needs to be serviced or the house painted, so this issue is mired in hypocrisy and, unfortunately, dishonesty on both sides of the debate.

As in so many other areas we all pay the price for this cultural trait. We also pay for long-fingering essential reform and tolerating ineffective, tortoise-paced leadership. As long as we do, our welfare system will be more expensive and less effective than most of us would wish.