Britain has developed a curious contradiction in the way it values essential work. We routinely express admiration for soldiers, nurses, care workers and other public servants whose labour sustains the functioning of society, yet the material rewards attached to many of these professions frequently bear little relationship to their social importance. At the same time, the state commits substantial resources to supporting people outside employment.

This raises a fundamental question about the architecture of welfare and public policy: should a proportion of welfare expenditure be reconceived not merely as a mechanism for supporting people outside employment, but as an investment in making socially indispensable work more economically attractive?

The objective should be to construct a sufficiently compelling economic and social proposition that moving from welfare into essential employment becomes an attractive choice rather than merely an obligation.

This would require us to think more imaginatively about the concept of a “core service profession”. Certain occupations possess an importance that extends beyond their immediate economic function. A nurse does not merely provide a service to an individual patient; the profession is integral to the resilience of the entire health system.

These occupations could therefore be recognised as a distinct category of employment: professions in which the state and society have a strategic interest in recruitment, retention and long-term participation. Recognition, however, should amount to more than ceremonial appreciation.

The state could construct a comprehensive package of fiscal and social advantages for designated core-service occupations. These might include substantial income-tax relief, preferential access to affordable housing, heavily discounted public transport, enhanced pension contributions, subsidised childcare, training opportunities and other employment-related benefits.

Consider the difference this could make to an individual’s decision-making. A prospective nurse, care worker or soldier should not assess the attractiveness of the profession solely by comparing headline salaries. Their effective remuneration could incorporate a broader package of advantages: lower taxation, reduced housing costs, cheaper transportation, enhanced pension provision and access to subsidised services.

A hypothetical “National Service Employment Allowance” could, for example, provide enhanced tax relief to those employed in designated occupations. Housing priority could assist workers who are required to live close to hospitals, care facilities or military establishments, particularly in areas where housing costs have become prohibitive. Significant transport concessions could reduce the cost of commuting. Taken together, these measures could substantially increase the real disposable income associated with essential employment without requiring the state to increase basic salaries by an equivalent amount.

Such an approach could also alter the terms of the welfare debate.

The conventional question is often framed as: how much can government reduce the welfare bill? A more constructive question would be: how can public expenditure be configured so that employment becomes sufficiently rewarding to draw more people towards productive and socially necessary work?

For an individual receiving benefits, the prospect of accepting a demanding job can be economically unattractive if the transition produces only a modest increase in disposable income while simultaneously introducing commuting costs, childcare expenses, housing pressures and the loss of existing support. Change those incentives, and behaviour can change with them.

If employment in a core-service profession offered higher effective disposable income, access to housing, subsidised transport, professional development and a credible career progression pathway, the proposition would become fundamentally different. Employment would cease to be merely the alternative to welfare. It would become an opportunity for economic advancement, security and social recognition.

There is another dimension that is equally important: status. Britain has often undervalued occupations whose social utility is enormous, but whose economic status is comparatively modest. Care work illustrates this particularly clearly. Caring for elderly, disabled and vulnerable people is among the most consequential forms of work performed in a modern society, yet those undertaking it have historically struggled to receive commensurate financial and cultural recognition.

That is not simply a labour-market problem. It is a question of what society chooses to esteem.

Government has the capacity to influence those social signals. The creation of a formally recognised category of core-service employment would communicate that certain forms of work carry an importance beyond their immediate salary. It would establish a hierarchy of social contribution in which serving the community, protecting the nation and caring for its most vulnerable citizens are explicitly valued.

The economic case may ultimately be as compelling as the social one. Successfully moving people from welfare into productive employment could simultaneously reduce welfare expenditure, increase tax receipts, alleviate labour shortages and strengthen essential public services. Rather than viewing welfare and employment as opposing categories of government expenditure, policymakers could begin to see them as interconnected components of a broader labour-market strategy.

The fundamental objective should not be to stigmatise those who require welfare support. Nor should it be to create a punitive distinction between the employed and unemployed. It should be to ensure that employment, particularly employment in areas of profound national importance, represents a genuinely attractive economic proposition.
The objective would not simply be a smaller welfare. It would be something considerably more ambitious: a labour market in which the nation actively rewards service, essential occupations regain their prestige, critical vacancies are filled, and those who keep society functioning know that their contribution is recognised not merely with words, but with tangible economic security.

* Edward Marsh is a veteran and has worked in defence and national security for 20 years, a member of the business network and is on the Party’s approved parliamentary candidate list.