Welfare Reform Bill

This has been an extensive debate and clearly a very informed one. I recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed around the Committee today by people who have a detailed knowledge and understanding of the issues that we are seeking to address here. I start with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who said that we share the same objectives. That is probably the same for every person who has spoken this afternoon. I will try to deal with each question that was posed to me in some detail. If noble Lords will permit me, I will speak at some length because it is important, particularly given the tenor of the debate, that I put as much on the record as I possibly can and deal with each point raised. Before assessing individual amendments I would like to explain the intention behind Clause 9, to reassure noble Lords who wish to oppose its inclusion in the Bill. Clause 9 facilitates the introduction of Schedule 3, which amends the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Welfare Reform Act 2007. New provisions, which apply to people who are dependent on drugs or have a propensity to misuse them—I will come back that issue, which several noble Lords probed—are inserted into both. The provisions may also be extended to alcohol, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to. The provisions apply to claimants of employment and support allowance—ESA—or jobseeker’s allowance whose drug problem is affecting their ability to find work. The new provisions are broadly the same for both benefits. For JSA, they only apply to claimants who are required to meet the job-seeking conditions. For ESA, they only apply to those who are capable of undertaking work-related activity. Long-term drug use has a devastating impact on individuals, families and wider society. There are around 400,000 problem drug users in Great Britain, defined as those who are dependent on, or have a propensity to misuse, heroin or crack cocaine. Around 350,000 are on benefit. Many more are in prison because drug use has led them into criminal activity. The crime and health costs of drug use are a huge burden to society: around £18 billion a year for class A drugs alone. We know that many problem drug users on benefit are not in treatment. They should not continue to get benefits without being expected to tackle their problems; the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, touched on this issue of rights and responsibilities. Clause 9 and Schedule 3 therefore introduce a new programme of integrated and personalised support which will initially be directed at heroin and crack users. It will aim to help them overcome their problems and get them ready for work. I thank noble Lords for tabling this large group of amendments. Two of them aim to reduce the scope of the provisions. The remainder deal with the requirements that can be placed on certain claimants under Clause 9 and Schedule 3. Working through them each in turn, Amendments 95 and 96 amend Clause 9 so that the provisions only apply to claimants who have a drug dependency, and not to those who have a "propensity to misuse" drugs. It might be helpful if I give some explanation of what we understand by the term "propensity to misuse". It is not a clinical diagnostic term. It refers to a person who, although they may not be physically or psychologically dependent on a certain drug, would be showing evidence of a repeated tendency to use it. So we are not talking about a suspicion of drug use, or people who have experimented once or twice. It would be usage that appeared excessive, impaired the person’s functioning and limited their involvement in a range of activities, perhaps including work. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that we should not exclude this group from the new programme of integrated support that Clause 9 and Schedule 3 would introduce. Other legislation, which also aims to get drug users into treatment and support, covers both those who are drug dependent and those who have a propensity to misuse. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a court to impose a drug rehabilitation requirement where an offender is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, drugs. Similarly, the Drugs Act 2005 provides that when a person tests positive for heroin or crack on arrest, or when charged with an offence, they can be required to attend a drugs assessment to determine whether they are drug dependent or have a propensity to misuse. Again, this applies in relation to drug dependency and propensity to misuse. Where it is established that benefit claimants have a propensity to misuse drugs, Schedule 3 will only apply where that propensity is a factor affecting their prospects of getting or holding down a job. Amendment 97 would amend the provisions that deal with the requirement for a JSA claimant to answer questions about drug use. It is intended to extend powers so that regulations could impose certain requirements on these interviews. The powers in Schedule 3 are already broad enough to enable regulations to include the types of requirements sought by this amendment, and consideration will be given to safeguards that should be included to ensure that interviews are conducted fairly and appropriately. We are aware that stakeholders are concerned whether Jobcentre Plus staff will ask these questions in a way that is sensitive and supportive, and whether claimants will feel able to discuss such matters in the surroundings of a jobcentre. Stakeholders are also concerned that failure to answer these questions without good cause might lead to a benefit sanction. I reassure noble Lords that the questions will be fair and that staff will be trained to handle interviews with drug users in a sensitive and supportive manner. We want to encourage claimants to disclose their drug problem so that we can provide them with the support and help that they need. The role of the personal adviser will be to ask questions about drug use so that they can judge whether there are reasonable grounds—the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned this—for suspecting that a person is a problem drug user. Where there are such grounds, the claimant will be required to attend a substance-related assessment, but advisers will make no medical judgments; clearly such issues need to be left to drug treatment professionals. The areas covered by the questions will be set out in regulations. The department has already provided noble Lords with the memorandum on extended delegated powers, which sets out what these questions might be. We should recognise that Jobcentre Plus staff discuss daily with claimants sensitive issues such as finances, housing and medical matters, and although the provisions in the Bill will be new to them, dealing with drug users is not. Many claimants who are drug users struggle to meet the conditions for claiming JSA, such as signing on and searching for jobs. They face sanctions if they do not meet these requirements, and many of them quite voluntarily divulge that they have a drug problem. I also reassure noble Lords that personal advisers will receive training—a constant theme of our deliberations—to raise awareness of drug misuse and how it affects people. This will be delivered in conjunction with the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and local drug action teams. Jobcentre advisers are already building up greater experience of drug issues. Since 27 April, they have been asking claimants about problem drug use with a view to referring them, on a voluntary basis, to a discussion with a local drug treatment provider. They are being supported in this by local drugs co-ordinators who are based in each district. This experience will be invaluable for the pilots set out in the Bill. I stress that we are talking here about piloting these proposals and assessing them afterwards. Sunset provisions are, in effect, in place. We can learn how we can encourage claimants to divulge drug problems, and how we can reassure them that it is safe to disclose drug problems to benefits staff. Amendments 98 and 107 seek to remove the powers to impose a requirement for certain JSA and ESA claimants to undergo drug tests. Where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a claimant may be dependent on or have a propensity to misuse drugs, and that this is affecting their chances of getting and holding down a job, they may be required to attend a substance-related assessment. As has been noted, this assessment will be undertaken by an approved person, who will be a drug treatment professional. It will consider whether a claimant is dependent on or has a propensity to misuse drugs, and if so whether they require and may be susceptible to treatment. If the assessment identifies a claimant as such a drug user, they will be referred to the new drug and employment support programme: hence the assessment is the gateway to accessing specialised support. It is therefore important that people who need support are identified and attend. A person who fails without good cause to attend a substance-related assessment may be required to undergo one or more drug tests. We consider this approach to be justified. A claimant can be referred for an assessment only where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are a problem drug user.