Adam Smith Institute

At the beginning of the week the Family, Drug and Alcohol Court opened. It is a £1.3 million pilot scheme being run jointly by three London Boroughs, Westminster, Camden and Islington (part-funded by both the Ministry of Justice and Department for Children, School and Families) that has been set up to attempt to ensure that children remain with their parents despite any addictions the parent might have.

Yet to accomplish anything judicially it has, however, allowed another true cost of the welfare state to be exposed. There are obvious costs to the taxpayer, such as the set up costs shared unevenly between central and local government, but this court has revealed some unwelcome negative externalities created by the welfare state.

Specialist court judge Nick Crichton said, "We are routinely taking into care the fourth, fifth or sixth child from the same birth family" (this in relation to the removal of 14 children into care from one mother). It is not hard to see the perverse logic that the welfare state has created in the minds of these drug users. Despite the drug use, they have recognized a secure income stream that can feed their habit: children. The blame for this culture lies squarely at the doors of government (both shades) for the implementation of child benefit to its current high levels.

The welfare state as the abuser is no surprise. It has distorted incentives since its inception and will continue to do so via its warped perception of 'caring'. The socialist state has turned children into nothing more than inanimate objects, their value being no more than a hit to a drug addict.

If only the politicians were forced to live with the unintended consequences of their actions, they might rethink some of their most damaging policies.

David Cameron has been getting some flak for suggesting that those who are on benefits and who refuse to take jobs or training when offered might lose some of their benefits. That, disaster, there might be time limits on how long they can continue to claim even. What puzzles me is not the idea, but the flak, the horror that the idea has engendered in some quarters.

For what he's actually done is exactly what everyone claims they want to happen, he's embraced bipartisanship. A few years back (in 2000 to be precise) Richard Layard and others presented a report* with a foreword by Tony Blair, who fully endorsed it. Here's one of their two crucial recommendations:

It should not be possible for a person to continue in unemployment year after year, living on benefit. Instead there should be a system of mutual obligation. The state should have the duty to secure offers of work or training for everybody within one year of becoming unemployed. And in return the individual should have the obligation to take advantage of these offers.

So, that's sorted then, this isn't some nasty right wing idea to bash the proles, it's the considered opinion of one who is both a Labour Peer and one of the leading labour market economists in the country.

Oh, and the second major recommendation?

The other key requirement is greater flexibility of wages, especially as between regions. (...) So there have to be mechanisms which allow wages to grow less fast in the high unemployment regions. In most cases the mechanism will involve a greater decentralisation of wage-setting.

* To be boringly accurate, they were talking about the EU as a whole but there's nothing in their analysis which excludes the same conclusions from being applied to the UK. 

Earlier in the year a prominent leftie journalist told me that something like this would happen. I'm afraid I rather choked on my pint and jeered at him at the time, for I didn't believe that something quite so simple and obvious would ever gain traction in Governmental circles.

Elderly people are to be given money to pay for their own care in a move being hailed as one of the most radical welfare reforms in a generation. They will have the right to decide how and where they spend the cash, instead of social workers dictating what help they need to live in their own homes. Personal budgets will also be set up for younger disabled people frustrated by their lack of choice.

Now I know, there are those who think there shouldn't be any form of Welfare State at all but let's look at political reality here shall we? Clearly, people shopping for the help that they need (yes! we've introduced markets to the monolith!) are going to get more of what they want than if they are the passive recipients of whatever the bureaucracy would like to offer them.

'When I was able to control their budget, I shopped around for their care, and interviewed different carers until I found the right person. Her carer now comes at 9am on the dot, but is also happy to take her to the GP, take them shopping and do other jobs that the previous person wasn't allowed to do.'

Now that we've got our foot in that door, when do we start seeing the same happening with the NHS, with education...