Welfare Reform Bill

My noble friend Lord Dubs has asked me to talk to the stand part debate because he cannot be here this afternoon. It was tabled at the suggestion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which he is of course a member. The usual reason for tabling a stand part debate in Committee is to be able to cover the topic in general. In fact, those who spoke to the amendments did just that for all the amendments in the group. Everything that I am going to say has probably already been said. When we get to Schedule 3 stand part, practically everything will have been discussed, so that will take very little time at all. My interest in this part of the Bill comes from my experience of 25 years as a general practitioner in an inner-city practice. Our list included an above-average proportion of problem drug users who we treated in collaboration with the University College Hospital drug clinic. I grew to know and understand a little of the subculture of the drug-abusing community. One relevant feature is that deception is developed to a fine art; users are very parsimonious with the truth. Another feature is that they are deeply suspicious of authority. They tend not to trust establishment institutions and work much better with an informal approach. I am also a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Misuse and a member of the group on harm reduction, in which drug treatment issues are frequently discussed. I welcome the benign intention of this legislation to assist drug users on welfare benefits to free themselves from their habit and to return to employment. However, for a number of reasons, some of which have already been put forward by other noble Lords who have spoken, I doubt whether the Bill will have that effect, certainly in its present form. In fact, it is quite likely to be counterproductive. By imposing a requirement to answer questions, the legislation will be seen as authoritative, authoritarian and coercive. As possession and use of controlled drugs is unlawful, users will be required to admit to being offenders. I know that the Bill states that information obtained by the Department for Work and Pensions during an interview cannot be used as evidence in any prosecution, but that is not likely to convince users. We have discussed the ambiguous word "propensity" but, to me, it suggests that, even among non-users, past drug use is also being inquired into. This may mean that, in order to avoid being questioned, users are likely to forego benefits—which they need and to which they are entitled—rather than admit to drug use or past drug use, or else they will lie about their drug use. This has also been covered in outline but it is important to recognise that the average problem drug user—probably the majority—often has a chaotic lifestyle, with serious social and housing problems, poor nutrition and general health, and may be involved in acquisitive crime to sustain his habit. If they receive reduced welfare benefits, all these problems will be exacerbated. Crime, in particular, will obviously increase as they seek to maintain their income. Another deterrent to users revealing their drug history is the provision in Schedule 3 for regulations authorising the supply of information held by the probation service, police or other such person as may be prescribed. It is an astonishingly wide provision. As has been mentioned, several other amendments address this issue, which we will come to. These provisions would seem to allow information to be shared with or obtained from any person, body or agency, including social and health workers, with whom clients share confidential information. This is of particular concern to a sizeable number of HIV-positive drug users, who have a vital need to keep in touch with treatment services. They justifiably fear that if their drug or HIV status is revealed they will suffer discrimination in employment and the social stigma that is, sadly, still widely prevalent. The fear is that they will drop out of treatment, which will of course have serious public health implications. The list of organisations that share some or all of these criticisms of the Bill is long and tedious. Some have already been mentioned, including the main drug addiction NGOs, DrugScope and Release, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing, the BMS, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the National AIDS Trust and Liberty, among others. My noble friend has doubtless seen their extensive briefing on this clause and schedule, in which their critique is more fully developed than I can manage here without taking far too much time. I hope that my noble friend can address their concerns. I suggest that he should agree to amend this clause to remove its coercive nature, while retaining its intention to offer drug users who are on jobseeker’s allowance or ESA confidential and voluntary—I repeat, confidential and voluntary—treatment and rehabilitation programmes. These should include social support and help with housing. This is likely to be much more effective with this difficult group of people than the authoritarian approach of the Bill. I hope that I will later have an opportunity to quote from a statement on the Bill from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I feel that this whole clause, which enables Schedule 3 to take effect, should be taken back and completely redrafted in the way that I have said, to take out the coercive nature and bring forward a way of approaching these people that is more likely to be effective.