There's abusing the system and there's using the system as it's intended.
Estimates put abuse (fraud, payment through mistakes) at 2%. Yes that's a lot of money, but that's not going to turn the country's fortunes around if it were eliminated. Realistically there is likely to be a minimum realistic level of fraud which balances the cost of catching offenders against the cost of the offence, and the side effects in excluding those who are actually valid claimants.
Those using the system as it's intended (that is being genuinely out of work, unwell or whatever) are a bit trickier. There are bits of Scotland that have terrifying problems. I live in Glasgow and the east end has areas where there are three generations of families who've never worked.
That's obviously a major problem but there are a few things it's worth thinking about:
1) Long term unemployed - that is longer than 12 months - is less than 30% of the overall unemployment figures. That's obviously pretty high (though not surprising, it's harder to get a job when you've been out of work for a while so it's self reenforcing) but many of those will be people who genuinely want a job. The people I mention who've never worked and will never work are a tiny fraction of that.
2) Contrary to popular belief, these people are not living any kind of luxurious existence. People point to satellite TV without realising that most of those decoder cards are pirated and designer clothes without understanding that for the most part they're fake.
3) How you deal with it is complex - pulling benefits from these people is more likely to drive them to crime than to work.
4) How do you make sure you get people who are genuinely on the take without removing the safety net from those who need and want it?
So I'd argue (a) it's a smaller problem than many suggest and that (b) the solutions are a little more complex than the swift kick up the arse that some feel will sort things out.
Estimates put abuse (fraud, payment through mistakes) at 2%. Yes that's a lot of money, but that's not going to turn the country's fortunes around if it were eliminated. Realistically there is likely to be a minimum realistic level of fraud which balances the cost of catching offenders against the cost of the offence, and the side effects in excluding those who are actually valid claimants.
Those using the system as it's intended (that is being genuinely out of work, unwell or whatever) are a bit trickier. There are bits of Scotland that have terrifying problems. I live in Glasgow and the east end has areas where there are three generations of families who've never worked.
That's obviously a major problem but there are a few things it's worth thinking about:
1) Long term unemployed - that is longer than 12 months - is less than 30% of the overall unemployment figures. That's obviously pretty high (though not surprising, it's harder to get a job when you've been out of work for a while so it's self reenforcing) but many of those will be people who genuinely want a job. The people I mention who've never worked and will never work are a tiny fraction of that.
2) Contrary to popular belief, these people are not living any kind of luxurious existence. People point to satellite TV without realising that most of those decoder cards are pirated and designer clothes without understanding that for the most part they're fake.
3) How you deal with it is complex - pulling benefits from these people is more likely to drive them to crime than to work.
4) How do you make sure you get people who are genuinely on the take without removing the safety net from those who need and want it?
So I'd argue (a) it's a smaller problem than many suggest and that (b) the solutions are a little more complex than the swift kick up the arse that some feel will sort things out.