Many scroungers have no shame over leeching off the public purse, arguing that it is the duty of "those who can earn" to look after people like them. Our twisted benefits system pun­ishes the diligent and rewards the lazy and the feckless. They don't pay rent, council tax or contribute in any way to the local economy.  

Their immorality is a betrayal of the values of the welfare state's architect,William Beveridge. A liberal by instinct, Beveridge had been appalled by the poverty across Britain during the economic depression of the Thirties. His plan was based on the requirement that claimants should have contributed to society through work. He abhorred the idea of dishing out benefits reg­ardless of an individual's record. He said "no one should believe that income for idleness, however caused, can come from a bottomless purse".

Yet what we have today is precisely "a something for nothing" system. Beveridge would be appalled that those who receive the most from the State, such as the 300,000 drug addicts on incapacity benefits,those who have contributed least to society.   

There is a far simpler way to help jobseekers overcome their specific problems and that is just to cut off their benefits. We do not need to employ armies of counsellors and consultants to encourage people to take on jobs. All we need to do is remove the option of a life on incapacity benefits or teenage mums getting free party houses and rewards for immoral lifestyles. 

Far from being inhumane Emma, such a step would mark a return to the principles of living a decent life and restoring justice and fairness to the system.