Welfare Reform Bill

The noble Lord raises an interesting point on which I do not have detailed notes. We will certainly have a look at it. There are provisions in later clauses to do with advance payments of benefit to get out of the cycle where people have to rely on crisis loans until the benefit comes into payment. However, we will take that away and have a look at it. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was probing what "propensity" means and the process of trying to identify whether someone was a problem drug user. A drug test will be required only if a person has failed to attend a substance-related assessment. To be referred for an assessment, the personal adviser must already have had reasonable ground to suspect that they are dependent on drugs, or that they have a propensity to misuse them. The noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Thomas, referred to the position in Scotland and Wales. The provisions in Paragraph 9 in Schedule 3 extend to England, Scotland and Wales and will deliver a commitment made in the Government’s 2008 Drugs Strategy for England. As with social security matters, however, there is, of course, a reserve to this Parliament and the legislation extends to the whole of Great Britain. Health matters are devolved to Scotland and Wales and criminal justice matters are devolved to Scotland. We clearly need some joint working on that, and officials are working with both the Welsh and Scottish Governments’ officials to establish how the new regime might be piloted in Wales and Scotland, taking into account the availability of drug treatment and other factors. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—I think I have covered this point already—asked what types of treatment claimants are being mandated into. I emphasise that claimants are not being mandated into treatment. They may be required to agree to and follow a rehabilitation plan, which may include a requirement that the claimant must attend an institutional treatment centre as a resident or non-resident for treatment by or under the direction of a professional, but they are not being mandated into treatment. That deals also with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. Returning to the evidence around coercion, which the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, pressed me on, the evidence from the USA to which I referred has shown that making benefit receipt conditional on treatment appears to increase treatment participation rates. There is a study entitled "Termination of Supplemental Security Income Benefits for Drug Addiction and Alcoholism" by JA Swartz, A Lurigio and J Baumohl which I am happy to let the noble Baroness and any other noble Lords have if they are interested in a more detailed reference.