It has become over-reliant on welfare, with mass worklessness accepted as a fact of life and around five million people now on out-of-work benefits.

"There is a high degree of persistence among claimants of many low-income and out-of-work benefits", it says.

This statement completely ignores the fact that DLA is not, and has never been, a low-income or out-of-work benefit.

Which bit of "DLA is not an out-of-work benefit" do you find difficult to understand?

If you mean "Disability Living Allowance" it's not an out-of-work benefit.

But the claimant count - a separate measure showing how many people are claiming out-of-work benefits - actually fell last month.

Five million Britons of working age currently receive out-of-work benefits from the taxpayer.

Many tens of thousands more criminals are also claiming other out-of-work benefits such as disability allowances.

Sue has been denied DLA which is not an out-of-work benefit.

I would also like to point out in this debate that we are talking about a minimum income - in other words, out-of-work benefits and not wages.