"Hey, mister, wanna buy a prepaid benefits card?"

The announcement at the Conservative Party Conference by Iain Duncan Smith that he is planning to initiate a pilot scheme whereby prepaid cards are given to benefit claimants instead of money is one of those slightly uncomfortable proposals that make me think, "On one hand...".

The idea that the prepaid cards could only be used for a restricted range of purchases is superficially appealing, especially if you are the sort of person who believes that people should be appropriately grateful for what they receive. Such a person, and there are many of them out there, would claim that the purpose of welfare benefits is to pay for "essentials", whatever that might mean. They might go on to mutter their discontent over those whose benefit payments appear to be converted into profit for the pub trade.

And there is a legitimate, if difficult, debate to be had here - what do we believe a benefits system is for? What level of provision are we trying to achieve, and do the recipients of that provision have some obligations in return?

So, when Iain Duncan-Smith says;

I have long believed that where parents have fallen into a damaging spiral – drug or alcohol addiction, even problem debt, or more – we need to find ways to safeguard them – and more importantly, their families, their children, ensuring their basic needs are met.

he sounds reasonable, indeed caring. The catch is that his aim is to reduce the social security bill, and he gives the impression that he doesn't care much about the impact of his decisions. Indeed, he often finds ways of taking quite good ideas and finding ways of making them punitive.

This is not necessarily one of those good ideas though, and other, more knowledgeable people than I have pointed out issues relating to technology and cost and inconvenience to retailers and their customers, not to mention the likely impact on market stalls or rural claimants. And, of course, that is before you turn to the moral and ethical implications of deciding what is appropriate to people for them.

 

As Liberal Democrats, we need to be extremely cautious about this. Finding new ways of targetting financial support more efficiently and preventing the emergence of perverse disincentives to seek paid work are inevitable if we are to get the best use out of government spending, yet stigmatising the poor and the vulnerable any more than their status already does runs contrary to our belief that preserving the dignity of human beings is part of ensuring that they are not enslaved by conformity or poverty.

 

Trusting the majority of people to act responsibly is surely the right thing to do, and restricting their freedom through state action is hardly encouraging anything other than increasingly resigned dependence on others to run their lives.

 

And, on the whole, when the technological and moral complexities of any course of Government action suggest that something is both difficult to deliver and unlikely to have much, if any, positive impact, my feeling is that it isn't worth doing at all.

 

Unless, of course, your aim is to make a gesture. You wouldn't do that, would you Mr Duncan-Smith?...