More scaremongering in the press that has become accepted as true🙄.
As a principle though, it's tricky. As a student in the 80s I did summer work in a careers office. There was high unemployment and a lot of young people were put on YTS schemes, which were supposed to train them for the jobs that didn't exist. Some were much more valuable than others, as they were known to give actual training, as opposed to sweeping floors etc. We had young people referred by the probation system (I think - they had criminal records or were deemed to be otherwise at risk of criminality) and they were given priority on these schemes. It's hard to argue that young people who had had a poor start shouldn't be given a leg up, and if this resulted in lower crime rates, keeping them off drugs and so on, who could complain? But the 'decent' kids who hadn't done well at school but had stayed out of trouble were always at the back of the queue, and it struck me as unfair. They were up against it too, and getting a head start with a job at that stage could make a difference to the rest of their lives.
This is the same sort of thing. Those who stay on the straight and narrow and try to live a responsible life are always left to their own devices, whilst those who don't are given handouts and help, yet what do we do? Let people starve if they have no money? Go back to notions of 'deserving and 'undeserving'? There is no easy answer.