The government is right to pursue those who

Tackling abuses of the welfare system is a necessary (and probably vote-winning policy) and there is no doubt that the government considers the welfare reforms introduced by the Work and Pensions Secretary, James Purnell, to be an important piece of legislation. The bill aims to challenge a culture of social security that keeps 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit and 2.1 million lone parents on income support.

At the heart of the Purnell reforms is the intention to create a "something for something" ethic that obliges those on long-term benefits to attend Jobcentre Plus interviews. Other proposals are equally far-reaching and bold. Those on incapacity benefit will, from 2009, be asked to undergo medical assessments to determine whether there is any kind of work that they might be capable of doing. Seeking work could also become a condition of receiving housing benefit.

The most controversial proposals are those that relate to single parents, usually mothers, with children. With immediate effect under the new act, benefit-claiming single parents with children over the age of 12 will be moved from income support to Jobseeker's Allowance. From 2010 the rule will apply when the child turns seven.

"There is nothing left-wing about people being trapped on benefits, having miserable lives where their universe consists of a trip from the bedroom to the living room," Mr Purnell told the NS in September. It is hard to disagree with that, or with the motives behind the new legislation.

The right to state benefits is not absolute. It has to be matched with a responsibility to seek employment, education or training where possible. Except in rare cases, where physical or mental disability renders an individual incapable of working, people are far better off working than living off benefits. And it is better, too, for society. There is a growing consensus that incentives to work ("conditionality", in the argot) need to be built in to the welfare system. This applies equally to the large numbers of people stuck on incapacity benefit and to the long-term unemployed who are physically and mentally able to work.

But policies devised in a period of boom look far less benign when implemented during a recession. The "firm but fair" talk does not match the new economic reality.

Much depends on the nature of the "conditionality". It is obviously preferable for incentives to be persuasive rather than coercive. It would be preferable if men and women on benefits recognised that they and their children would be better off if they were in work rather than on benefits. At present, however, many are not convinced by the argument. It is true that there are approximately 500,000 vacancies around the country (though that figure may fall sharply in 2009 as the recession deepens). On the face of it, unemployment could be slashed if those seeking work could be matched with opportunities, but frequently they cannot.

The most egregious mismatch of skills, opportunity and geography is for single parents. They invariably require flexibility from employers (the current mood is against that), but often they lack skills, having been off the job market for so long. And the mother of young children is seldom in a position to hop on her bike to go where the work is.

We agree with Mr Purnell that public money should not be wasted on people who are "playing the system". Sadly, in Britain today, too many grow up with the expectation that the system is there to be played, that the state should provide even if they are not prepared to contribute in return.

But more could be done to make this latest package more acceptable. Single parents are far more likely to be enthusiastic about seeking employment or training if the government could give solid assurances that childcare would be fully in place while parents worked, trained or sought work. The conditionality the government seeks to introduce is, perhaps, out of place for young mothers seeking to do the best for their children. When the government itself is blaming international markets for the economic downturn, it is not reasonable to punish those unable to find work.

If the new rules are misapplied, the impact of conditionality on child poverty targets could be severe indeed. Cutting off a single parent's benefit may show the government's determination to get lone parents back to work. In practice, it punishes both parent and, ultimately, the vulnerable child.