DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Welfare is a safety net - not a lifestyle

The inevitable backlash against Sir Keir Starmers welfare reform plans has begun.

The shroud-waving Left says they risk consigning the disabled to poverty. Labour backbenchers and some in his Cabinet threaten to rebel over what they see as penalising societys most vulnerable. As former Brownite minister Ed Balls put it, cutting welfare is not a Labour thing.

The Government is already making concessions, with Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall set to backtrack on proposals to freeze disability payments.

However, arguments about the appropriate level of disability or other sickness benefits are something of a diversion. The real question is who should be allowed to claim them and under what criteria?

Some 2.8 million people (more than the combined population of Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool) are currently categorised as long-term sick, 535,000 more than in 2019.

The number of under-25s in this burgeoning community has risen 40 per cent since the pandemic, with most citing mental health issues.

Is it really possible in this era of remote working and smart technology that so many people are incapable of doing any paid work? Or could it be that some see living on benefits as a lifestyle option?

A survey in todays Mail shows that a quarter of young people in work are considering giving up their jobs for a life on welfare, typically for mental health reasons.

Lacking a career, a purpose, a direction and the dignity of self-reliance is likely to cause them far more psychological damage than the routine and financial independence that work provides (file photo)

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall (pictured) is set to backtrack on proposals to freeze disability payments

But lacking a career, a purpose, a direction and the dignity of self-reliance is likely to cause them far more psychological damage than the routine and financial independence that work provides.

Ms Kendall is right to say that anyone who can work, should work. They owe it to society and to themselves. And she is right to make it harder for people to languish on benefits by choice. Welfare is meant to be a safety net, not an alternative way of living.

She and Sir Keir must stand firm against the naysayers and bleeding hearts. These reforms are not cruel, they are kind.

Covid questions

At the height of the pandemic, more than 1,000 people were dying every day. Lockdown was wrecking the economy and most of Britain was effectively under house arrest.

It was natural, therefore, that the public were anxious to know how it began, not least so steps could be taken to prevent a similar catastrophe happening again.

Yet the Governments then chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, stands accused of ignoring compelling evidence from ex-MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove that Covid-19 was engineered in a Chinese laboratory – preferring the Chinese states claim that it was transferred to humans via animals sold at a wet market in Wuhan.

Sir Patrick Vallance giving evidence to the Covid inquiry. The former chief scientific adviser stands accused of ignoring compelling evidence from ex-MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove that Covid-19 was engineered in a Chinese laboratory

Sir Patrick has given no explanation for his lack of curiosity, though it has been suggested that he and many other scientists did not want to offend the Chinese for fear of jeopardising research funding.

Whether this is true or not, he is now a government minister and accountable to the public. It is incumbent on him to explain why he rejected the lab leak theory so dismissively, despite a request from then prime minister Boris Johnson to investigate more fully.

Trust in politicians and in scientists was severely damaged by the pandemic, during which people were deprived of their liberty on limited and often spurious information. If Sir Patrick doesnt speak out to justify his actions, trust will be further corroded, and suspicions of a cover-up will only grow.