Welfare Reform Bill

We have already spent many hours on this Bill and are only now coming to one of the most controversial parts, the clause relating to treatment of benefit claimants whose drug habit is considered to make them unemployable. I shall not mention alcohol addiction at this stage; we can leave that for another day. I think it makes good sense to have almost all the amendments to the clause grouped and to have a clause stand part debate, so that we can debate this as a whole at this point. We welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to our deliberations. I shall start by speaking generally and then turn to the first amendment in this group. We on these Benches support the voluntary approach to those on benefits whose drug habit keeps them away from the labour market, as do many of the groups that advise us and are working in the field. In other words, we believe that drug users should be strongly encouraged, rather than coerced, to undergo treatment. The reason is simply that coercion does not work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said. If a person in that position knows that they are going to be coerced into treatment, the likelihood is that they will disappear from the radar and will quite possibly end up in the criminal justice system or living on the streets in an effort to feed their habit, a point strongly made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Nor do we believe that there should be compulsory drug testing in the context of the benefit system, which cannot distinguish between recreational use and addictive use, and is a snapshot only. Nor do we believe that there should be extensive information-sharing between Jobcentre Plus and third parties such as the police. Many powerful voices have been raised against this part, including those of DrugScope, Release and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One that has probably not been heard loudly enough—this is the third time that I shall cite it today—is that of the Government’s advisers, the Social Security Advisory Committee. They state: ""We find the proposals in relation to those citizens who suffer from addiction to crack cocaine and opiates to be unconvincing, simplistic, and to present a number of issues that demand much more thought before they are taken further … It is our understanding that all the evidence points to drug rehabilitation programmes being most effective when the client actively wishes to engage in treatment. Taken together, coercion and the removing of income have the potential to make a bad situation worse. Even briefly removing some of the income of a family struggling to cope with the consequences of drug use is likely to force the family into deeper poverty and place children at greater risk"." During the evidence-taking session in another place, my honourable friend Paul Rowen MP asked the then Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, Tony McNulty, whether there had been any evaluation of existing voluntary schemes for drug users before the decision was made to move to compulsion. The answer was that the Government were very aware of the success of the voluntary processes in place and want to move in that direction. Why are they not putting more resources into the voluntary processes? The rest of his answer is less than clear, but I think that he was trying to say that having a sanction available might encourage more drug users to undertake treatment—presumably voluntary at this stage. My honourable friend then asked how many extra resources would be available for the increased number wanting treatment. There was no direct answer to that, but we learn in the Peers’ information pack that this whole part of the Bill is to be piloted. We also learned how dire the situation is for drug treatment in Scotland, with a year-long waiting list, and that the situation in Wales is not good either. Perhaps the Minister will address that issue in his reply. Many questions need to be asked about this whole policy if it is to go ahead. When my honourable friend Paul Rowen MP asked Sharon White, director of Welfare to Work, whether the DWP had done an audit of the skills of staff at Jobcentre Plus to deal with the whole drugs issue and whether additional training was needed, she said that personal advisers were already pretty good at recognising the signs of those who were drug users. That sounded vague. If there is a suspicion that drug use is the main barrier to work, she said that the adviser would refer that person to a specialised medical officer. She indicated that there would be additional training for Jobcentre Plus staff, but only in the pilot areas, although how long that training would be for was not addressed. Sharon White’s replies were less than convincing to the next question, which was about whether compulsory drug treatment, as well as the sharing of information, was consistent with a person’s right to refuse treatment under the NHS Constitution. She said that the DWP was "looking at" what could be mandated in terms of all possible health interventions in the Bill. There we have it—there is no clarity at all about whether drug treatment can be mandated in the Bill. That brings me to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this section of the Bill, which unequivocally supports the position that I outlined at the beginning—that treatment recommended for drug users should be voluntary, that there should be no compulsory drug testing, and no information-sharing with third parties. Finally, I turn to the first amendment in the group. "Propensity to misuse" seems a curious phrase to have enshrined in law. It lacks a precise meaning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, and is amenable to wide interpretation. It could be taken to apply to someone who might cross the border occasionally between using heroin or crack cocaine in a recreational sense, perhaps taking the odd day or two off work, and somebody who is a regular user of those two dangerous drugs but manages to stay in work. Or does it mean someone who might become addicted and therefore incapable of work if they carry on using a drug on a regular basis? If the words are not clear, they should be left out of the Bill. We support the amendment and all the others in the group.