Welfare Reform Bill

That is what I meant. I will speak to Amendments 99, 103, 104, 109 and 110. Schedule 3 provides for information to be provided by the police, probation service or others. These are all of concern, but I am particularly concerned about the involvement of a doctor. These persons would be required to give information to JSA and ESA officers. These clauses also provide for information obtained by these officers to be passed on to others. These clauses appear to have been written in a vacuum. Again, they take absolutely no account of the fact that drug use is a criminal offence. The aim of the personal advisers must surely be to develop a rapport and degree of trust with claimants. If claimants find that information has been obtained from the police or their doctor, or that information is passed on, the claimant will inevitably be afraid, will lose any element of trust in those involved, and will simply discontinue their claim. If the aim is indeed to frighten claimants off the benefit count, Clause 9 will achieve that result rather well. However, I know that the Minister will want to consider the implications of that: more crime, more destitution and higher prison and other criminal justice costs. I do not believe that the Minister wants to go down that route. We can also consider Clause 9 from a human rights perspective. The proposals are, I understand, a clear breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and a potential breach of the data protection laws. To argue that the information is being obtained to prevent fraud, and for the prevention and detection of crime, is wrong in law. A fishing exercise is not a targeted approach to preventing or detecting crime. The Bill makes clear that failure to disclose drug use will be met with benefit sanctions. There is no recognition that the DWP would be seeking evidence of a criminal activity—the use of a drug. You cannot expect claimants to confess a crime to government officials. As we know, other forms of addiction, such as to nicotine and alcohol, are not criminalised. I would not have a problem with the DWP asking questions and seeking corroboration about cigarette use, for example. At least such an information exchange would not raise the serious issues raised by Clause 9. Until the Home Office catches up with the DWP in regarding drug use as a medical problem, the DWP cannot have information exchange with other agencies at the heart of its benefit sanctions policy. The BMA is concerned that doctors could be required to supply information to the Secretary of State or a person providing services to the Secretary of State. It points out that there is no clarity over whether the information expected from a doctor, as the prescribed person, would be confined to previous episodes of care that are directly relevant to the claimant’s drug or alcohol misuse and treatment. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify for us the terms under which doctors would be required to disclose potentially highly sensitive health data. Under existing law covering the provision of health data, they are supplied to the medical officer of the DWP or an officer acting directly on a doctor’s behalf. The doctor supplying the data therefore knows that they will be held under the protection that the GMC requires, as there is another doctor whose professional reputation and, indeed, registration demand such protection. The BMA shares my concern about the provision for the onward disclosure of this information. It notes that the proposal seems to authorise the unrestricted further or onward disclosure of highly sensitive and personal information supplied for the purpose of confirming an individual’s misuse of drugs or alcohol. There is no clarity over whether the onward disclosure of information is confined to those directly involved in the claimant’s treatment. Indeed, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) seem to contradict the Government’s stated policy objective of helping claimants on drugs or alcohol back into the workforce. Our amendments in this group provide minimum safeguards to prevent the worst consequences of the information exchange provisions of paragraph 9 of Schedule 3. Amendment 99 ensures that for JSA claimants no information would be disclosed to third parties without the claimant’s consent or in any circumstances where it may be detrimental to the person’s interest. Amendment 103, with respect to JSA claimants, and Amendment 109, with respect to ESA claimants, ensure that information supplied under the regulations by the claimant or others could be used only for the purposes of determining the claim. That is the amendment that I would really like to see adopted. It would be proper and appropriate and not a breach of the Human Rights Act and all the rest of it. Amendment 104, with respect to JSA claimants, and Amendment 110, with respect to ESA claimants, delete the offending sub-paragraphs and thus prevent information obtained by the DWP being used by others—the police or the Home Office, for example—to amend or supplement their information. The approach to the whole business of information is most concerning. These amendments also prevent such information being used by others outside the DWP for any purpose. In fact, if the other amendments were passed, these sub-paragraphs would become redundant and would need to be deleted. Others will press for Clause 9 not to stand part of the Bill, and I would consider doing that if the Government are not willing to revisit this clause and change much of it to turn it from a very dangerous piece of legislation into something that could be productive and helpful. That is the route that I would prefer. I would welcome it if the Minister would think about how this could be made to work, taking account of the serious points made by all Members of the Committee.