Do you think the country would be richer in the long-run if the Job Centre spent a little money giving loans to send people on training or overcome financial barriers to work?

I'm seeing a lot of claims in the news about benefits spending being too high and being unsustainable. Surely if the government gave people grants or loans (similar to student loans) to remove barriers to employment, they'd claim less benefits in the long-run. Take Dave, he rents alone and while flip-flopping between insecure minimum wage jobs and benefits, he can't afford driving lessons to get a licence so is locked out of many jobs and apprenticeships (which often need a licence, but not a car). Even if he's only on benefits for a total of 8 months across 5 years, that's around £5600 (700*8) of benefits. It would cost much less than that to speak to him and find out what barriers to work he has and if it's his lack of licence, finance that for him, either as a grant (which is what benefits effectively are) or if you think that's too generous (which I'm aware many would) do it with the agreement of paying it back once his annual earnings go over a certain amount. Plus this way he ends up paying more tax, due to higher and more stable earnings - overall, over his working life the country is financially much better off. Furthermore, you get the residual benefits to society - he's happier, less prone to mental health issues caused by financial stress or shame, can afford to socialise more, spend more, take his niece out and other little things that have a positive knock-on effect. As a bonus to society, perhaps he puts some of his spare money into further training or into trying a small business - maybe not, but at least it becomes an option. Or maybe he's an excellent and innovative employee, once he gets a hurdle removed. I don't think it's correct to assume people on benefits are stupid, lazy or have nothing to offer by removing some easy-to-remove barriers. If you look at the cost of sending willing people on education courses for hard skills, it's much lower than the cost of them being on long-term or repeated benefits. Here I'm only talking about a lack of hard skills and not things like mental health or soft skills, which are harder to quantify the cost of improving. Surely it's a win both from a humanitarian standpoint and an economic one. Seems obvious, to anyone who's personally known people in these situations (which may not apply to those making the decisions). You've got to spend money to make money.