No one can argue that welfare needs to be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice but are Kemi Badenoch’s plans to ban claimants buying booze, cigarettes and gambling workable? - Jayne Dowle

When a 20-year-old double amputee finds his universal credit payments slashed because he’s found the motivation to attend a college course, you know that the benefits system is broken.

Archie Barton, who also suffers from partial blindness and lifelong epilepsy, had been receiving £900 a month in support for his care.

It was stopped by a universal credit assessor in September last year because this brave lad began attending a ‘social skills for the disabled’ course at college in Plymouth.

Judging that this young man, disabled since contracting meningitis and septicaemia as a child, was now in education - the course runs for a year and prepares disabled people for independent living - the DWP came down hard.

His parents have fought a bureaucratic nightmare and gone into debt to make up the shortfall. And still, you’ll walk down any high street this week and see countless apparently hale and hearty individuals shopping on the proceeds of their universal credit and other benefits, seemingly without a care in the world.

It is this scenario that Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, in a highly-controversial move, plans to tackle, by cracking down on universal credit if her party comes to power.

Introduced in 2013, by David Cameron’s Coalition government, universal credit is a monthly, means-tested payment designed to help with living and housing costs for those on a low income, out of work or unable to work.

For a single person over the age of 25, it’s worth £424.90 per month, and there are additional payments for those with disabilities, children and providing care to another person. A housing element may also apply, depending on the situation.

For those who are employed, universal credit reduces gradually by 55p for every £1 earned. Some people qualify for a ‘work allowance’, which lets them earn a set amount before deductions begin.

Whilst the cost of living continues to rise and wages fail to keep pace, it is true that many of the 8.4 million universal credit claimants who are working - around 3.1 million, according to government figures - have come to rely on this benefit to make ends meet.

But there are others who have no intention of looking for a job, and may well be claiming other benefits too, such as the non-means tested Pip (personal independence payment) so they can live as comfortably as possible. More than half (51 per cent) of universal credit claimants come under the 'no work requirements' category.

Seriously sick or disabled individuals would still be protected, but Badenoch has in her sights anyone deemed fit to work. And crucially, she plans to re-introduce the contributory principle, with claimants who have previously worked and paid National Insurance contributions into the system receiving more benefits than those who have never lifted a hand.

In this, she has looked at countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, where unemployment payments rely on sufficient contributions having been made.

Under Badenoch’s reform, people fit to work would receive six months of universal credit on the full rate to support them to look for a job.

After that period, every two years of previous employment would entitle them to a full year on universal credit. But those who had never worked would instead receive a subsistence allowance worth 70 per cent of the full benefit.

And this is where the controversy really comes in. This group would receive their payments on a ‘back to work’ card blocking spending on things such as alcohol, cigarettes or gambling.

Is this a pragmatic political idea to tackle the benefits bill - universal credit alone costs more than £80bn a year, a mind-boggling figure - or a worrying spread of state control into private lives? Can a government really get away with controlling what long-term benefit claimants spend their cash on? They tried it in Australia, apparently, but it faltered because of the stigma and lack of job-seeking success.

These are all legitimate questions. And then there is the big one - how much this new regime would cost to set up and operate effectively?

By laying down the gauntlet in no uncertain terms, the Conservative leader is taking a brave step - opening up much-needed debate about the inequities of the welfare system.

Badenoch is succinct: “Welfare must be a safety net for those who genuinely need it, not a lifestyle choice for those who can’t be bothered.” Whatever anyone says, no-one can argue with that.