THE political agenda of late has been dominated by changes to the benefit system. Some have sought to link worklessness as a lifestyle choice with the tragic deaths of the six children of Mick and Mairead Philpott in Derby. I think it is critical that not too many lessons are drawn directly from the appalling crimes of the Philpotts.

Nevertheless, with one third of British taxpayers’ money going to fund benefits and the figure still rising, it is utterly bogus to contend that this is an area of government spending that does not need reform.

Every political party concedes that change is needed if our welfare system, of which we are rightly proud, is to be put on a sustainable footing, so that it can continue to provide a safety net for society’s most vulnerable.

I believe it is disingenuous to portray this government’s attempts to simplify the system in order to ensure its long-term survival, as motivated by a desire to ‘attack’ the most vulnerable.

Fundamentally, it comes down to what you believe the welfare system is for – to help citizens through situations of crisis or unwittingly encourage long-term dependency on the state.

A decent and compassionate society can and must be there for those in acute need but we have to face the fact that we can’t afford to bear the financial or social consequences of the spiralling numbers of entire families who expect to remain on benefits for life - regardless of their ability to work.

The current broken system would penalise 1.1 million people if they went to work, costing them between 70 per cent and 100 per cent of their benefits were they to work as little as ten hours a week on the minimum wage. How does that not encourage dependency and stifle initiative?

A fairer balance needs to be struck and I think it is more honest to tackle the big issues head on than to bury your head in the sand, bemoaning change without proposing any realistically achievable solution.

Meanwhile, the political noise around the reduction of the top rate of tax is being widely presented as a matter of principle. I see it more as a matter of practicality.

The 50 per cent rate actually caused a drop in the amount of tax collected from the super-rich, as more people chose to relocate their assets overseas – not to mention discouraging investment in the UK economy.

Meanwhile, parliamentary recess continues and, as well as constituency surgeries and catching Salisbury Rugby Club’s last home game of the season, I found time to spend a few days in Kabul on behalf of the British Council.