For many years I have been studying the Welfare State and its effects on British life.

One of the most dramatic of those, I have found, is that the Welfare State, despite its good intentions, has damaged marriage.

In a book I wrote on the subject in 2004, I argued it was the marriages of the poor or working class that had been affected above all.

But I always felt that my argument was like a jigsaw puzzle with certain pieces missing.

Now, new figures obtained from the Office for National Statistics have finally put those pieces into place. They leave virtually no doubt that the Welfare State has decimated marriage among the working classes and those in receipt of state benefits.

New figures leave virtually no doubt that the Welfare State has decimated marriage among the working classes and those in receipt of state benefits (file image)

The rate of marriage among the lowest of seven categories of workers — those who do ‘routine occupations’, including unskilled builders, cleaners and waiters — has plummeted.

And, as separate research for the Marriage Foundation revealed yesterday, the effects on children are calamitous, for just one in five pairs of unwed parents will stay together.

We don’t have a statistical breakdown of the marriage rate over a long period but, for the whole adult population, in the 1900s and right up to 1950 it was more than 90 per cent.

Since the working class formed the majority of the population at that time, we can be confident that the rate among them, too, was above nine in ten.

So there was no class divide in marriage then. More or less everyone did it. More or less every child had the benefit of being brought up by a father and mother.

And now? Now there is a marked contrast in marriage rates between the rich and poor.

The top category of workers are those doing ‘higher managerial’ jobs such as company directors, military officers and university lecturers. The rate of marriage among them is 48 per cent higher than among the lowest class of workers.

The bare figures from the Office for National Statistics — obtained for a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary — show a rate of 65 per cent for the highest category of worker, and 44 per cent for the lowest.

Misguided

Even this difference is likely to be understated. There does not appear to be a separate category for those living on benefits — and it is overwhelmingly probable that the marriage rate among them is significantly lower still.

For many girls the decision was logical. If you had a baby without getting married, the State would give you things

When I first wrote about this, a former teacher from Cheshire contacted me and gave me a grim picture of how it works. He said he first became aware of what was happening when teaching in Wythenshawe in the early Eighties. For girls ‘in the middle and lower streams of a large comprehensive’, getting pregnant was the first simple step in solving all their perceived problems, he claimed.

First, ‘it gave you a perfect excuse for doing no school work’. Next, and crucially, ‘the council would give you a flat of your own — infinitely preferable to the “prison” of the rundown council house your extended family occupied’. And third, ‘it would automatically guarantee the respect of your peers’. ‘Older sisters and friends were role models’ showing the road to go.

This is clearly not true in every case. But for many of these girls the decision was logical. If you had a baby without getting married, the State, in its utterly misguided compassion, would give you things: an income to pay your bills, a flat of your own.

The Welfare State effectively offered to be your husband and provider. Never mind the child who would not have a father.

This is a big contrast with the incentives for women in the top social class. They usually have too much in the way of assets or income to be allowed to claim welfare benefits of any kind except child benefit.

They have no temptation whatsoever to marry the Welfare State. Instead, they have the incentive that has existed throughout history to marry the father of their children.

That way, he can support them financially during the time after birth when most women would like to spend some months at least, and ideally a few years, nurturing their child.

Of course, it is a horrible thought to some people that anyone should be influenced by money in their relationships. But that is to underestimate the seriousness of the financial penalty that has existed for relatively poor people who might otherwise get married.

In 2001, I calculated that in certain circumstances, a couple with a child who lived together instead of apart would be £65.82 a week worse off, thanks to the iniquities of the benefits system. It may not sound much but it was 28 per cent of their cash income.

It was almost as if the State was forbidding marriage. And despite David Cameron’s claim to support marriage and promise tax reliefs for married people, things have barely changed.

Damage

It is odd how people who readily agree that tax on cigarettes or alcohol or petrol will reduce the use of them object strongly to financial rewards or incentives being applied to marriage. But the figures now prove they can influence social behaviour.

For girls ‘in the middle and lower streams of a large comprehensive’, getting pregnant was the first simple step in solving all their perceived problems, a teacher claimed

One of the results of the State’s discouragement of marriage — the Marriage Foundation survey predicted that just 48 per cent of 20-year-olds today will ever marry — has been to damage children, which, in itself, has huge financial implications for the country.

Little wonder retired High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge, who founded the Marriage Foundation, called for the promotion of marriage by ‘all who are in a position to make a difference’.

Crucially, academic research has overwhelmingly established that children brought up by both of their biological parents tend to do better in every way than those who aren’t.

Of course, there are many lone parents who do a wonderful job. I have lone-parent friends whom I admire enormously and whose children are doing very well indeed. But, on average, the children of lone parents tend to do less well at school. They are more likely to become delinquent and more likely to be unhappy at the age of 40.

Meanwhile, lone mothers are less happy and less safe than their married counterparts.

And even the men do not do well out of the deal. They surely have less sense of self-worth and feel less connected to society if they have no involvement with their family.

There is also another less well-known factor. In all the talk about inequality, this is the one point on which the Left and the politically correct are mightily silent: one of the most important reasons for current rates of in-equality in our society is the high incidence of unmarried mothers.

Despite their initial advantage, these women tend to be poorer than average. The income and housing that the State provides might be attractive to a 16-year-old from a poor background — but their value does not grow in real terms.

There will be small increases to account for inflation, but never the prospect of a real boost in income through having a job.

And if lone mothers are eventually pressed into work and they have not established a career, it is very difficult to start one at 28 or 32. So they earn less than they might have done.

If they had married, their husband’s career might well have progressed, too, so that as a couple they could have moved up the income scale.

In other words, unmarried parenting, which the Welfare State has encouraged among the poor, has ironically extended and deepened poverty.

That is why Michael Bloom-berg, when he was New York’s mayor, had adverts put up in bus shelters and so forth stating: ‘If you finish high school, get a job, and get married before having children, you have a 98 per cent chance of not being in poverty.’

Robbed

The truth is that our dysfunctional Welfare State is betraying those it’s meant to help. It has taken those at the bottom of society and discouraged them from getting married.

It has thus robbed them of one of the great sources of satisfaction and happiness in life.

It has robbed their children of a stable family existence and increased their chances of having problems for the rest of their lives.

It has taken from men the meaning and satisfaction of raising a family. And it has left the women with a higher chance of remaining poor for the rest of their lives.

I would be tempted to call this a crime against the poor. But our idea of crime is that there should be intent on the part of the criminal to cause harm. The tragedy of this case is that there was no intent. All this has been the unintended consequence of generally well-meaning policies.

Now the insidious mess of these good intentions has been all but proved, we have a duty to roll back the perverse incentives that have led to this social tragedy.