I agree that Britain's welfare system needs modernising.

It should support people who genuinely cannot work, help those who are temporarily struggling and encourage those capable of working to find employment. What I question is whether Reform UK's latest proposal would achieve any of that.

Reform has proposed that people who have been claiming benefits for more than a year, but are considered capable of working, should complete 20 hours of community work every week. This might include cleaning streets, maintaining parks, carrying out minor repairs or helping in libraries and community centres. Those who refuse could lose their benefits.

The simple appeal of the proposal

On the surface, it sounds reasonable. Many people will hear it and think, “If taxpayers are supporting someone, that person should give something back.” It is a simple message, and I suspect Reform knows it will be popular with a particular section of the public.

However, I think Reform is playing to the crowd—and, as so often happens, much of the crowd is reacting without thinking the proposal through.

Where are the decent jobs?

The policy begins with the assumption that good jobs are readily available and that large numbers of unemployed people are simply refusing to take them. But where are all these jobs?

Before an MP accuses unemployed people of refusing decent employment, perhaps that MP should publish a list of the good jobs available in their own constituency. The list should show the employer, wage, guaranteed hours, required qualifications, shift patterns and whether public transport is available at the necessary times.

It is easy to say that thousands of vacancies are advertised online. It is much harder to demonstrate that secure, properly paid and suitable jobs are available locally.

A zero-hours contract offering an unpredictable number of shifts is not the same as a secure job. Neither is a position that requires qualifications the applicant does not possess, involves travelling somewhere inaccessible by public transport or offers hours that are impossible for someone with childcare or caring responsibilities.

We also need to understand why some people feel they are no better off in employment. Once travel, work clothing, meals and childcare are paid for—and benefits begin to reduce—the financial improvement can sometimes be surprisingly small. If the employment is insecure, a person may be exchanging a small but predictable income for complete uncertainty.

That does not necessarily mean the person is lazy. It may mean the system is badly designed.

Community service or unpaid employment?

There is another obvious contradiction in Reform's proposal. Councils would be expected to find claimants 20 hours of useful work every week. They would have to organise the placements, provide supervision, supply equipment, arrange insurance, monitor attendance and report back to the benefits authorities.

If councils can identify 20 hours of necessary work for each of these people, why can that work not become a properly paid job?

Cleaning streets, maintaining parks, repairing public spaces and staffing libraries are not invented activities designed merely to occupy somebody's time. They are genuine jobs that have traditionally been performed by paid council employees.

Under Reform's proposal, a claimant could find themselves working beside a full-time employee doing similar duties. The employee would receive a proper wage, holiday entitlement, pension contributions, sick pay and employment protection. The claimant would receive benefits and face losing their income if they refused to attend.

That could create resentment on both sides. It could also discourage councils from recruiting paid employees because compulsory benefit labour would be available instead. We could end up removing the very entry-level jobs that unemployed people need.

The volunteering contradiction

An unemployed person receiving Universal Credit may volunteer for as many hours as they wish, provided they continue to meet the conditions of their claim. However, voluntary work can normally count towards only half of their agreed work-search and work-preparation time. Someone volunteering for 20 hours may still be required to spend additional hours looking for paid employment.

The current system therefore does not limit how many hours a claimant may volunteer, but it normally limits how much of that volunteering can count towards their agreed work-search obligations. Reform, meanwhile, proposes compelling the same person to undertake 20 hours of community work after a year. If community work is so valuable, why not encourage and support genuine volunteering from the beginning?

Training as a serious alternative

I believe there is a much better alternative.

The government should begin by identifying the skills Britain genuinely needs, both nationally and within individual communities. It should then provide proper, accredited training connected to real employment opportunities.

If we need more care workers, construction workers, electricians, engineers, drivers or people with particular technical skills, we should train people for those occupations. That training should also be available to people already working part-time but relying on Universal Credit to top up wages because they cannot obtain sufficient hours or better-paid employment.

After a reasonable period of unemployment, a person capable of working could be expected to participate in suitable training. However, it must not consist of meaningless courses designed only to move people around the system. The training should lead to a recognised qualification, useful work experience and a realistic opportunity to obtain paid employment.

The person's health, abilities, existing experience, caring responsibilities and local job market would all need to be considered. Travel, equipment and childcare costs should be covered. Employers benefiting from the scheme should also be expected to offer genuine interviews and vacancies rather than simply receiving a succession of free workers.

Responsibility must still matter

There should still be responsibilities. If someone is capable of working and repeatedly refuses reasonable training or a genuinely suitable job without good reason, it is fair for the benefits system to respond. But sanctions should follow proper assessment and a fair opportunity to appeal. They should not be imposed simply because someone cannot accept a job that would leave their family financially insecure.

The purpose of welfare reform should not be to punish people or provide councils with cheap labour. It should be to reduce long-term dependence by giving people the skills and opportunities needed to support themselves.

Solving the problem—not pleasing the crowd

Reform's message is simple:

“We will make unemployed people work.”

A more intelligent government would ask:

“What skills does this country need, and how can we help—and, where reasonable, require—people to acquire them?”

One approach may produce approving headlines and applause from the crowd. The other could produce a better-trained workforce, higher earnings, increased tax revenue and fewer people needing benefits.

That is the difference between playing to the crowd and seriously attempting to solve the problem.